Check out our online store. Prices include shipping on all US orders. Watch Free Catholic DVDs Online and Important Videos Refuting Protestantism from the Bible and Eastern Schismatic Our Lady of Fatima and the Message of Fatima: the sign, the miracle, the consecration of Russia, the imposter Sr. Lucy. Theology, Doctrine, Dogma, Magisterium Our Spanish website. Home Page
New Recent Featured Videos And Articles The Heresies of Anti-Pope Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, etc.  Antipopes of the Vatican II Counter Church The Bible proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church. News
The Crusades, Inquisition and Catholic Church History Traditional Catholic Issues and Groups Spiritual Issues, UFOs, Padre Pio, Holy Rosary, etc. Is the World about to End? The Apocalypse Explained? Watch Video for Free
Rejecting the Lust and Impurity of Hell Video Series Outside the Church There is No Salvation and without the Catholic Faith and refuting baptism of desire Introduction and about our website: Contact information Watch our DVD: The Third Secret of Fatima, the Impostor Sr. Lucia, and the End of the World.
This is the most complete and devastating expose of the heresies in Vatican II that has been done. The Catholic Church is the true Church, but the post Vatican II Church is not the real Catholic Church. Many Other Topics St. Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes and Antipopes
E-Exchanges on the Catholic Church and other issues What Francis Really Believes Help Save Souls: Donate. Donations to Most Holy Family Monastery are tax-deductible. Our YouTube Channel



By Bro. Peter Dimond

Print this page

This file will serve as sort of a sub-section to our E-Exchanges (E-Exchanges is our main file of e-discussion).  This sub-section will primarily be dedicated to more specific or involved issues and refutations that are relevant to only smaller numbers of people in traditionalism.  It will expanded as time goes along.  When this file is updated, we will post a note in E-Exchanges.


New Debate- Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics


MHFM: This is a debate between Bro. Peter Dimond and a person we would describe as a radical schismatic.  He professes to be a traditional Catholic, but condemns our position on receiving sacraments from certain undeclared heretics.  We describe those like him as the “radical schismatics” because they obstinately misunderstand Catholic teaching on these matters, and unjustly condemn true Catholics in areas relating to receiving sacraments in this time of apostasy.  This debate deals with those issues.  In refuting this individual, he is not the only one being refuted.  It refutes all of the radical schismatics because they all hold similar views and make the very same arguments.


Windows Media Audio - Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics - Debate


MP3 - Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics - Debate


YouTube Video - Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics - Debate


"Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics" Debate - The Important Quotes [new article]




MHFM: This is a new series of audios refuting the schismatic “No Jurisdiction Position.”  This position is held by some in the traditional movement.  It has recently been adopted by Gerry Matatics (a person some of our readers are familiar with).  These audios completely refute this schismatic error.  The last audio below covers Gerry’s rejection of the salvation dogma.


Jurisdiction - Quick Intro [9 min. audio]


This is a quick introduction to the controversy and the importance of Jurisdiction.


Jurisdiction Part 2 - facing up to the facts of the GWS  [18 min. audio]


This part begins to get into the facts of the Great Western Schism.  It shows how these facts completely refute the advocates of the “No Jurisdiction Position.”  They have no response to these points.  This section addresses and refutes Gerry Matatics on “extraordinary mission” and more.  


Jurisdiction Part 3 - More devastating facts [40 min. audio]


This section further pins down and refutes the advocates of the “No Jurisdiction Position” on the point of the Great Western Schism.   This part shows how Gerry Matatics cannot address the facts, so instead he dishonestly shuffles them to the side.  This section also addresses many other points, including epikeia, the external and internal forum, and a book called Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209.


This book, which Gerry Matatics wrongly says “devastates” the other side, actually devastates his position and that of other advocates of the “No Jurisdiction Position.”  This audio covers, with supporting citations from the book, the extent of supplied jurisdiction, doubt of fact, doubt of law, colored title, putative title and more.  It explains what these mean and why they are significant to this issue.  The facts in this section serve to further completely refute the schismatic “No Jurisdiction Position.”


Jurisdiction Part 4 - More points and La Salette [20 min. audio]


Note: This part 4 contains some important information.  It will not be as interesting for our general readers as part 5 or some other sections.  The information in this part is for those who have a deeper interest in these topics.  This part also covers a controversy that some of our readers have asked about: did the Holy Office, before Vatican II, condemn commenting on the Message of La Salette?  Hear our response to this issue.  This section also contains some more important points from Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209.  It covers intrinsic cessation of the law.  It also covers the dilemma of canonists in determining the precise extent of common error, etc. and how their comments serve to further obliterate the schismatic “No Jurisdiction Position.”


Jurisdiction Part 5 - Bishops and focusing in on their outrageous hypocrisy [30 min. audio]


This section refutes the advocates of the “No Jurisdiction Position” on consecrating bishops without a papal mandate.  It covers what Pius XII said about that matter.  It refutes Gerry Matatics’ outrageous attempt to justify his clear violation of the normal canons against preaching, etc. without permission.  It focuses in on their hypocrisy, the laws they violate, and how they condemn themselves out of their own mouths.  It also covers lessons from Our Lord and the Machabees which further refute the “No Jurisdiction” schismatics.


Gerry Matatics' heresies against the salvation dogma  [40 min. audio]


This audio proves that Gerry Matatics rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  He rejects it by accepting as Catholics those who reject it.  It proves that he is actually a Christ-denier, by recognizing as Catholics those who believe that Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation.  It also proves that he denies the dogma by considering Suprema haec sacra to not be heretical, and by failing to accept the absolute necessity of water baptism.  It also proves how he dishonestly tries to deny that he denies the dogma, but is refuted by his own words.  Hear the very clips which prove the point.  It also examines his position on Geocentrism.  This audio shows how his position on Geocentrism undermines and refutes his criticism of our position on the status of the absolute necessity of water baptism.  It also refutes his claim that St. Thomas Aquinas did not deny the Immaculate Conception (before it was defined).


JURISDICTION: Facts which Demolish the "No independent priest today has Jurisdiction" Position - Did St. Vincent Ferrer have jurisdiction? If you hold the position that "no independent priest today has jurisdiction," then your answer must be no. [PDF]

This article refutes the false position that no independent priest today has jurisdiction.  The “no independent priest today has jurisdiction” position is more widespread than one might think.  We have received many questions about this issue.  Therefore, we strongly recommend that those who are interested in or concerned about this topic print this article out and read it. 


P.S. These audios became necessary not only to further refute these schismatic and heretical errors, but because Gerry is attacking the true position and true Catholics.  He has also not responded to our debate challenges on the salvation issue and the Jurisdiction issue.  The former was offered well over a year ago, and the latter in early July of this year.




MHFM: We’ve received one too many e-mails from certain radical “traditionalist” schismatics, who spread their falsehoods and perversions of Catholic teaching in small groups.  So, we’ve decided to completely and thoroughly refute and expose them once and for all.  Here’s the series you need to hear if you’ve been exposed to them or to any of their arguments.  This series refutes all of their main arguments, including their many false accusations against us.  This series focuses on three “traditionalist” schismatics in particular: R.I., Dave L., and Frank.  However, the detailed points and issues that are covered apply to a vast array of similar schismatics and their false arguments.  These audios are listed in reverse order because our general readers will probably find Part 4 to be the most interesting.


Part 4 - Exposing the demonic and shocking statements of the schismatic RI – the source for many strains of "traditionalist" schism [16 min. audio]


This section exposes the shocking statements of R.I.  Listen to the audio clips, including: his threats to kill those who don’t agree with him; how he would have someone blow a cat’s brains out as part of her penance; how he would torture St. Thomas Aquinas if he could; how he claims to be a prophet, but admittedly falsely identified the other “witness,” and more.  Most importantly, however, this section explains how this false prophet and non-Catholic schismatic was the source for much of the radical traditionalist schism that floats around now, in various forms.  He was the source of the schism even among those who don’t fully agree with him on all points, but apply portions of his demonic thought.  This is especially true concerning the rejection of canonizations, abjurations, etc. 


His heretical teaching was also the reason that a member of our community left our community a few years ago.  A few days before he left, this member of our community read this guy’s writing on Mass attendance and suddenly came to the conclusion that he was a “heretic,” and that had been committing many mortal sins against “the faith” each week.  He abruptly left.  (We will tell the true story of that in another audio coming up.  It will refute the totally false and very injurious lies that people are spreading, as if we have done something wrong when we have not.)  This former member of our community was a total supporter for over two years, but then it was as if he was called by the demonic teaching of this false prophet and he suddenly changed his entire theological viewpoint. 


Part 3 - Refutation of the Argument that Canonizations are not infallible by virtue of the teaching of Vatican I [20 min. audio]


How can canonizations be infallible if divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?  This section answers that question and refutes the heretical position of these schismatics.  It also refutes another objection that they launch concerning Pope Pius XII.


Part 2 - In depth refutation of their false arguments regarding the Council of Basel and the salvation dogma [50 min. audio]


This section covers a number of detailed objections, including: the Council of Basel’s decree (was it dogmatic?); Quam Singulari; when does the baptized child of a Protestant become a schismatic or a heretic; a supposed “stumper” question concerning Martin Luther; their lies about our view of the salvation dogma; and a lot more.


Part 1- Introduction and quick background on these radical schismatics [9 min audio.]

A quick background on the schismatic Dave L and more.





1917 Pio Benedictine Code of Canon Law Canon 1366 (2)  Professors shall treat studies in rational theology and philosophy and the instruction of students in these disciplines according to the system, teaching, and principles of the Angelic Doctor (St. Thomas Aquinas) and hold to them religiously.    




According to you St. Thomas is burning in hell. Clearly one would be in Grave error in two ways by obedience and condeming a Saint to hell,  to deny these facts one would be lying to yourself and to God. 


          In Charity.... jmak


MHFM: You are so wrong.  First, we don’t believe that St. Thomas was a heretic.  We believe he was wrong.  Many saints and doctors have been wrong, as our material proves.  If you knew anything about Catholicism, you would know that.  For you to say that we believe he was a heretic and is burning in Hell is a lie and a mortal sin.


Second, you are refuted by St. Thomas himself.  Allow me to explain.  You argue that the Church teaches that St. Thomas must be followed, and that St. Thomas teaches baptism of desire.  Therefore, according to your argument, baptism of desire must be accepted.  But you are quite wrong.  St. Thomas teaches that he should NOT be followed if he contradicts something that the Church itself has taught.


St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10, A. 12: “The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of Catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church.  Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever.”


So, let’s apply your argument logically: we must follow St. Thomas, but St. Thomas says that we must not follow any doctor if he advances something which contradicts the authority of the Church.  Therefore, by following St. Thomas, we find that we are not required to accept every opinion he held or everything he taught.  This should be obvious, but this quote is important in proving the point and refuting heretics such as yourself.  Since he contradicts statements of greater weight from the papal magisterium on the absolute necessity of water baptism, we are not required to follow St. Thomas in his flawed opinion concerning “baptism of desire.”  Likewise, we are not required to follow his other opinions that might have contradicted teachings of greater weight.  For example, St. Thomas also contradicted the Immaculate Conception, as we see here:


St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2: “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place.”


St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 3.  “Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated.  Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the day of her conception.”


According to your heretical argument, these statements must be consistent with Catholic teaching.  According to you, they are not only true but should be believed and taught to all!  The truth, however, is that they were false during his time, and they are heretical now.  They contradict the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  This is further proof that your argument is utterly false and that you corrupt Catholic principles. 


Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”


Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”


New Article


This is a new article:


William Albrecht, a proven liar and fraud - and some thoughts on the New Mass Debate [article]


This article is worth printing out and reading.  It exposes the absolutely shocking and appalling dishonesty of my last debate opponent, and pins down his fabrication of a quote from St. Jerome and more.  It also covers certain key points and quotes on the New Mass issue.




Hello Dimond Brothers,

I just had some questions regarding the recent post you made about "Pius XII and heresy": You say that "there isn’t sufficient evidence to definitely conclude that Pius XII was a heretic" when you yourself say in your book (Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation) the following:

"Pius XII was by no means a staunch traditionalist. His reforms, omissions and failures paved the way for Vatican II. Just a few things that Pius XII did are:

- He promoted Annibale Bugnini, the author of the New Mass, and began the liturgical reform with his allowance of reforms in the Holy Week Rites. A good number of liturgical scholars think that the reforms of Holy Week were terrible. One example is the allowance of distribution of Holy Communion on Good Friday. The decree of the Holy Office under Pope Pius X On Frequent Communion cites Pope Innocent XI who condemned such a practice.

- He promoted men like Giovanni Montini (later Paul VI) and Angelo Roncalli (later John XXIII), without which promotions these men could never have had the influence or caused the immeasurable destruction that they did. - He said that theistic evolution could be taught in Catholic schools (Humani Generis, 1950), which is nothing short of ludicrous – and arguably heretical.

- He taught that birth control could be used by couples by means of the rhythm method (or Natural Family Planning), which is a frustration and a subordination of the primary purpose of the marriage act – conception.

- He allowed the persecution and subsequent excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney, whether through willful complicity or neglect, for doing what every Catholic priest should do: preach the Gospel, defend the faith and adhere to defined dogma

Now, if all of these things that you listed are not "sufficient evidence to conclude that Pius XII was a heretic", a man that you claim "paved the way for Vatican II", then what is? I even heard from someone that he was a Mason, along with Benedict XV (15) and Pius XI (haven't confirmed it yet).  He also said in a speech that adults can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.  Now to the real problems:

- It is a solemnly defined dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, without exceptions, (Council of Trent, Florence, etc.) as you very well know - Pius XII said that adults can be saved without it - Heresy.

- You hold that NFP is infallibly condemned in Pius XI's infallible Encyclical Casti Connubbi - Pius XII explicitly taught NFP - Heresy. - He said that theistic evolution could be taught in Catholic schools, and also was on both sides regarding evolution - something you yourself say is heretical.  Now, you then say "the errors which Pius XII taught were not specific propositions which have been explicitly condemned by the Magisterium by name. Rather, they are proven to be false and incompatible with Catholic teaching by the positive dogmatic statements on related subjects."

This is clearly false, and a specious lie.  As mentioned above: - That the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation without exceptions, and that the ones who die without it can go to Heaven, the former has been dogmatically defined many times, and the latter has been dogmatically condemned by name as well - Pius XII taught that adults can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, which is heretical.

- You say that NFP was infallibly condemned in name by Pope Pius XI - Pius XII taught it, which is heretical.  And you can't argue that Pius XII was "unfamiliar" or "unaware" of all these teachings, that's absurd, because Pius XII was a cleric: "If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine…His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (McDevitt, 48.)

And, seriously, are you really going to argue that, that adults can't be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, "evolution", and NFP, have not been notoriously condemned???  I'm afraid you're again (you have done this before) guilty of raising the bar as to what constitues a heresy, what is heretical and when does a Pope lose his office, you do this when you don't want to accept the outcome. You gotta be honest here, something you yourself recommend.  There was also another point I wanted to make: Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic for "supposedly" having held/supported the monophysite heresy; I have read that they weren't even sure if he was a heretic 100% or not (St. Francis de Sales certainly wasn't sure), or if he even held the heresy.

Now, if they condemned him for apparently having been a heretic, what would they say about Pius XII, who taught explicit and open heresy (among all the other things he did/didn't do)???

The way I see it, the same reasons why you would consider John XXIII as an antipope, you would also consider Pius XII, and perhaps Benedict XV (15) as well.  But with all that said, I myself haven't decided to believe if Pius XII or Benedict XV (15) really were antipopes, but the evidence sure seems to suggest they were.  How do you reply?


MHFM: There are numerous errors in your very dishonest, illogical and inaccurate e-mail.  Since people such as yourself have already been refuted in audios, etc., I’m not going to spend a lot of time with you.  I will quickly refute your main errors, however.  To your first lie:


>>>>"[quoting us] the errors which Pius XII taught were not specific propositions which have been explicitly condemned by the Magisterium by name. Rather, they are proven to be false and incompatible with Catholic teaching by the positive dogmatic statements on related subjects." [You write] This is clearly false, and a specious lie. >>>


No, it's not a lie.  You are the heretical and contradictory liar, as I will show.  We are talking here about the idea of explicit baptism of desire.  The theory of explicit baptism of desire is a horrible error.  We have pointed this out more than anyone.  This horrible error becomes a heresy once one sees all of the positive dogmatic evidence which contradicts it.  However, this idea (i.e., explicit baptism of desire) hasn’t been condemned by name.  Someone could be confused about the issue or hold it in good faith until all of the dogmatic evidence is pointed out to him and the objections raised in its favor are refuted.  To obstinately express belief in it after that time is to demonstrate bad will and to depart from the faith.  Therefore, explicit baptism of desire is proven to be incompatible with Catholic teaching by the positive evidence.  For you to say that it has been explicitly condemned by name is dishonest.  So, what we’ve already written refutes you. 


Moreover, you condemn yourself in your own e-mail.  That’s because if you really believe what you write, you would have to say that Pius XII was definitely a heretic and therefore an antipope.  Instead, you say that you don't know if he was a heretic:


You write<<<<But with all that said, I myself haven't decided to believe if Pius XII or Benedict XV (15) really were antipopes>>>


You are condemned by your own words.  Your whole e-mail purports to show that he was a heretic.  You thus prove yourself to be a contradictory liar.  You aren’t even convinced that he was a heretic!  That means that you don't really believe what you write.  Get out of here, you phony.  Don’t act like you believe something that you don’t.  Moreover, if anyone who affirms explicit baptism of desire even once is ipso facto to be considered a heretic, then that means you would have to say that St. Alphonsus and St. Robert were heretics.  There is no way around that argument.  They believed in explicit baptism of desire.  They were dead wrong, of course; and to obstinately hold their erroneous position in the face of all the dogmatic evidence does show bad will.  However, it is not ipso facto a proof of manifest heresy.  If you don't admit that they and everyone who expresses belief in it even once is to be considered a heretic, then you condemn yourself again.  If you do, then you further prove yourself to be a non-Catholic; for in that case you must condemn the Catholic Church itself for canonizing those you deem to have been manifest heretics.  By the way, have some courage and put your real full name. 


To your next lie, you write:


>>>You say that NFP was infallibly condemned in name by Pope Pius XI - Pius XII taught it, which is heretical.>>>


We don’t say that Pius XI infallibly condemned it “in name.”  He did not.  We say that it’s proven to be incompatible with the infallible Catholic teaching on the primary purpose of the marriage act.  Thus, you dishonestly misrepresent what we say.  Please quote the passage where NFP is explicitly condemned by name.  You cannot do so because it doesn’t exist.  Rather, it’s proven to be wrong by the positive evidence, just as we said.


Regarding Pius XII and theistic evolution, we agree that it’s horrible, awful, atrocious.  There are only two things which we believe save him from manifest heresy on this point (though not from mortal sin and grave error).  Those are 1) the fact that it hasn’t been explicitly condemned in any dogmatic decree.  It’s definitely false and certainly runs counter to the obvious teaching of Scripture and the whole history of Catholic thought.  However, it is not proven to be heretical by virtue of a specific condemnation by a dogmatic decree.  That holds significance for point #2. 


2) The fact that Pius XII didn’t say that he believed in it.  He said that it may be taught.  Thus, one could arguably justify him from manifest heresy (though not from mortal sin and scandal) by arguing that, even though he personally didn’t believe in it, he labored under the false impression that he couldn’t forbid people to teach it if it hasn’t been condemned in a dogmatic decree.  That’s the only thing that we believe saves him from manifest heresy on this point.  In fact, if you read what he said about it, you can see in that very context that he forbids people from teaching only those things which he believes to have been clearly condemned by the teaching of dogmatic councils or by a specific statement of the papal magisterium. 


To your next statement, which truly expresses your schismatic mentality, you write:


>>>I even heard from someone that he was a Mason, along with Benedict XV (15) and Pius XI (haven't confirmed it yet).>>>


We’ve heard many unflattering things about Pope Pius XII.  But hearing things, and having clear proof for them, are two different things.  Hearing things about someone doesn’t allow us to conclude that a true pope is an antipope.  The fact that you argue that it does reveals that you have a schismatic – not a Catholic – way of operating.  You also ask: what would he have to do?  I could give many examples.  If he clearly taught (more than once, so that we know it wasn’t an editorial error) that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions, he would have to be considered a manifest heretic.  But not only is that not the case, his official teaching in Mystici Corporis contradicts that heresy.  It also contradicts any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism.  One can effectively use it to disprove the baptism of desire crowd of apostates.


Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:   “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”


Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”


Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same.  Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”


With regard to Pius XII paving the way for Vatican II, that also doesn’t prove that he was without question a heretic.  In his fallible capacity, a bad pope can attempt to hurt the Church.  He can do this by omissions, bad reforms, and weak statements which don’t rise to the level of manifest heresy.  That’s precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine speaks of a true pope who tries to destroy the Church.  We quote this passage not because in itself it proves the true position; but rather because it lends further support to the correct Catholic understanding of this issue, which I have been articulating.  Bellarmine is talking about a bad pope.  He says that you may resist such a pope.  In other words, there could be a true pope who tries to destroy the Church.  He could do this in ways that don’t rise to the level of clear-cut manifest heresy.


St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church.  I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will.  It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”


But when speaking of a clear-cut manifest heretic, St. Robert clearly says that such a one ceases to be the pope. 


St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, chapter 30: A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.  This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”


As an aside, countless false traditionalists cite the former passage but dishonestly do not cite the latter.


To your final error, you don’t understand the Honorius case.  The councils which condemned him (e.g., Constantinople III) didn’t express any uncertainty.  They didn’t condemn him because they believed he was “apparently” a heretic.  Rather, they condemned him as an outright heretic because they believed he was an outright heretic.  The confusion arose after the council – not within the actual statement of the council.  In confirming the Third Council of Constantinople, Pope St. Leo II made a statement which some interpreted to mean that the condemnation of Honorius should only be accepted in the sense that he enabled heresy to flourish.  However, that’s speculative.  That’s why St. Francis De Sales was unsure whether Honorius was a heretic.  The uncertainty concerning Honorius wasn’t expressed in the text of the council itself.


In conclusion, we have repeatedly discussed why a traditional Catholic must be aware of the fact that Pius XII was not a strong pope.  He was probably about as close to heresy as a pope could be without being a clear-cut manifest heretic.  One of the reasons that many “traditionalists” are deceived is that they think they can just follow everything that emanated, even in a fallible capacity, during the reign of Pope Pius XII.  We believe that a future true pope would probably (and should) condemn him for his omissions, weak statements and reforms.  However, as it stands and for the reasons expressed in this and the previous response, a Catholic does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that he was definitely a manifest heretic and therefore an antipope.




Subject: Was Pius XII a heretic?  Please help!


[I have been arguing with someone] Before I held your position, that he was a Pope, but now I am unsure and do not know what to say, this is what he wrote to me,

"No, a pope cannot teach heresy in his fallible documents! Why would you believe that unless you follow the Dimonds? So according to your position, as long as the pope does not intend to bind the faithful to his teachings, he can be a heretic!  Why was John XXIII an antipope then? Answer me that one right now."

"I have another question for you, in addition to the John XXIII question.   If a pope does not lose office for teaching heresy in his fallible capacity, then do you not give lip service only to the dogma that heretics are outside the Church? Or do you assert that a heretic who is outside the Church can still be pope, so long as he doesn't try to bind all the faithful and invoke infallibility for his heresy? Finally, if what you say is true, then how many heresies can a pope teach in his fallible capacity? Can he teach one and still be pope? Seven? Seventy times seven?

"You and they both believe that a pope can teach heresy in his fallible capacity, essentially equating the dogma of infallibility with protecting a pope from uttering heresy while binding the whole Church.  It is so much more than that.  It means that whatever they utter ex cathedra is completely true, yet you and the Dimonds only give lip service to this reality, as most people do.  And as a result of this you believe that a pope can utter heresy in his fallible capacity, and that he would still be pope."

What are one to say to such questions. It just seems to be that Pius XII was a heretic, does it not? Please, if you could shed light on this for me would be much appreciated!
Thanks and God bless.

V. Veikko


MHFM: His entire line of argumentation is a straw man – that is, attributing to another a position he doesn’t actually hold.  We don’t believe that someone who is a heretic in his fallible capacity remains the pope.  We don’t say that.  Since they cannot refute the position, they must use straw-man argumentation.  No heretic can remain the pope, even if he only teaches the heresy in his fallible capacity.  (A true pope could never teach heresy in an infallible capacity, of course.) 


The point is that there isn’t sufficient evidence to definitely conclude that Pius XII was a heretic, rather than someone who was a terribly weak pope who made doctrinal errors.  That’s because the errors which Pius XII taught were not specific propositions which have been explicitly condemned by the Magisterium by name.  Rather, they are proven to be false and incompatible with Catholic teaching by the positive dogmatic statements on related subjects.  As a result, these errors become heresies once one puts together (or can be shown to be directly obstinate against) all of the positive dogmatic evidence which contradicts them.  That doesn’t mean that someone doesn’t sin for promoting them and neglecting to more carefully consult Catholic teaching.  It is simply to point out that there is a difference, from the standpoint of manifest heresy, between the promotion of such an error and the promotion of something that has been explicitly and notoriously condemned by name in a dogmatic decree (e.g., Justification by faith alone). 


In fact, notice that in the following decree of the Council of Constance, there is a distinction between propositions that are offensive to Catholic teaching, etc. and those which are notoriously heretical.  They are “notoriously heretical” because they have previously been condemned by the Magisterium by name, in a manner which should be obvious to all.  This proves that notoriety is not simply reserved for how one promotes a falsehood, but also THE SPECIFIC FALSEHOOD ITSELF (i.e., how clearly and obviously has it been condemned by the Church).  This coincides precisely with what we’ve said about certain undeclared heretical priests.  We’ve pointed out (correctly) that how notorious they are is not only dependent upon how they promote something, but also dependent upon the content of the falsehood they embrace. 


Council of Constance, Sess. 15, July 6, 1415, Sentence against John Huss: “This most holy Synod of Constance therefore declares and defines that the articles listed below, which have been found on examination, by many masters in sacred scripture, to be contained in his books and pamphlets written in his own hand, and which the same John Huss at a public hearing, before the fathers and prelates of this sacred council, has confessed to be contained in his books and pamphlets, are not Catholic and should not be taught to be such but rather many of them are erroneous, others scandalous, others offensive to the ears of the devout, many of them are rash and seditious, and some of them are notoriously heretical and have long ago been rejected and condemned by holy fathers and by general councils, and it strictly forbids them to be preached, taught or in any way approved.”


Many of these issues are covered in this file: New sub-section on finer points, quotes, arguments, objections and issues relevant to certain "traditionalists".  Scroll down to the second set of audios which completely refute the radical schismatics.


Works of the Law, and Romans 4


Dear Brother Dimond:


I introduced my biblically astute Protestant friend to your lesson on Justification.  On your major point on Romans 3:28 on the law being a reference to the problem in Galatians, he noted that you have to take every verse in its context, as you, yourself said.  He noted that you did not address Rm. 4:1-6 which is the context.  Abraham was not dealing with the Jewish law problem in his time.  I was without response.  If you have any material on this please send it to me… If not could you suggest an answer I could give him with special emphasis on verses 4 and 5?


Yours in Christ,

David Tully


MHFM: First, we would have to object to a description of a Protestant as biblically astute.  Many Protestants have a knowledge of certain verses, the biblical languages, biblical history, etc; but they remain in the dark concerning the most important and the most obvious teachings of the Bible.  That is, they are oblivious to the teaching of the Bible on salvation, Christ’s Church, etc.  Since they remain oblivious to things that are so obviously taught in the Bible – things which constitute its core message, such as that works and deeds are a part of determining whether man has salvation – they really don’t understand the Bible at all.


Second, his assertion that the context was not taken into consideration when discussing Romans 3:28 is completely untrue.  It’s typical of some Protestants who will sadly never be convinced, no matter how much evidence you give them.  Romans 3 begins with a discussion about circumcision: a work of the Old Law.  This point was specifically made in our book, The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church.  Hence, we can clearly see that the context is the works of the Old Law. 


Romans 3:1- “What advantage then hath the Jew?  Or what profit is there of circumcision?”


For the rest of the chapter St. Paul speaks in that context.  Before I get to your question about Romans 4, I will say that it’s not only Romans 3:1 and Galatians 2 which corroborate our point about St. Paul’s meaning of “the works of the law.”  It’s also demonstrated by Galatians 5 and Philippians 3.


Galatians 5:3-6- “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.  For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.  For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”


We can see that when referring to “the law,” he’s talking about the Old Law, not all human deeds.


Philippians 3:5-9- “[I] Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.  But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.  Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:”


Now, your friend brings up Abraham.  He asks why St. Paul would mention Abraham if he was speaking of the Old Law.  By asking this question, your friend leads us directly to another devastating refutation of his position. 


(All of this is covered, by the way, in this article: Justification by Faith Alone and Eternal Security completely refuted by the Bible.  Please go to the end and look at the section called: THE CASE OF ABRAHAM REFUTES PROTESTANT THEOLOGY – IT PROVES THAT JUSTIFICATION IS NOT A ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME ACT, BUT SOMETHING INCREASED AND MAINTAINED THROUGH OBEDIENCE… This section on Abraham was not in our book.  That’s because it’s a more involved point and people really shouldn’t need it after all of the other evidence.)


St. Paul brings up Abraham in Romans 4, right after talking about how people are justified by faith apart from the works of the law (i.e., apart from the Old Law).  He does this precisely to prove to these people that justification is not inextricably bound up with the Old Law, with circumcision, etc.  St. Paul gives the example of how Abraham was justified by his faith in Genesis 15:6, which was before Abraham was circumcised in Genesis 17:


Romans 4:9-10- “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also?  For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness [Gen. 15:6]. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.”


His point, therefore, is that if God can justify Abraham by faith before circumcision (as this example shows), then he can justify you, if you submit to the faith of Jesus and cast aside circumcision and the works of the (Old) Law.  That’s the precise point he is making.  That must be understood when one reads this chapter.  His point is not that if you submit to Jesus and His faith, none of your human actions, deeds or sins will have anything to do with your justification!  That is a gross perversion of his true meaning.


Thus, when Paul says the following in Romans 4:1-4…


Romans 4:1-4- “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.  For what saith the scripture?  Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.  Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”


he is clearly speaking in the context of contrasting the Old Testament system of works with the power that God has to justify those who accept His faith outside of that system of Old Testament works.  That is the precise subject and the context.  He is not teaching that justification by faith in Christ is apart from all human actions and deeds.


But in James 2, the subject and the context are different.  James 2 is concerned with teaching Christians that their faith in Christ is not enough.  It’s about the Christian life and life in general, not about teaching people that the Old Testament system is not obligatory.  One could truly say that in James 2 the subject is the same as the issue we’re talking about: the Protestant idea that man is justified by his faith in Jesus alone.  And that idea is denounced as completely false.  And that’s why in this chapter we read that Abraham was justified by works.


James 2:21-24- “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar [Genesis 22:10]?  Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?  And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.  Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”


So we can see how the Protestants have totally misunderstood these passages of Scripture.  In doing so, they have constructed a false religion and a false Gospel which completely contradict the whole message of Scripture.  There is much more on Abraham in that section of the file I referenced.  It covers how Abraham was justified more than once, which also refutes Protestant theology.


More on Antichrist, quotes


This is a follow-up to our previous post in E-Exchanges, in which we explained why we think that we have been living through the reign of the Antichrist.  Paul VI’s abolition of the Sacrifice, for which he substituted the abominable New Mass (which we believe to be the abomination of desolation), combined with John Paul II’s jaw-dropping and specific preaching of the doctrine of Antichrist, all lend credence to our position on this issue.  In our view, we are clearly living through the fulfillment of what Our Lady of La Salette prophesied – “Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist” – not leading up to it as if it hasn’t occurred.


However, we’ve pointed out that this is our opinion and that Catholics could of course disagree.  Nevertheless, some people are so adamant about their opinion on this issue – and so vigorously opposed to our view – that they not only wrongly claim that our view is demonstrably wrong; but they maintain that an error on this matter (if we made such an error) would somehow undermine our credibility.  These bad-willed individuals are obviously ignorant of the following facts. 




The great St. Athanasius stated that the Emperor Constantius (who has now been dead for over 1600 years) was the “abomination of desolation.”  The abomination of desolation is one of the primary signs of the end times.  The “abomination of desolation” is mentioned both by the prophet Daniel and by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:15).  It will appear on Earth at the time of the Antichrist.


St. Athanasius said Emperor Constantius was the abomination of desolation: “From the security of his desert he [St. Athanasius] wrote about [Emperor] Constantius: ‘who that beheld him as chorus leader of his pretended bishops, and presiding in ecclesiastical causes, would not justly exclaim that this was the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel?’” (Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 94.)




In a brief of January 9, 1543, Pope Paul III (who presided over certain sessions of the Council of Trent) declared that King Henry VIII (who has now been dead for almost 500 years) was the “the Son of Perdition” mentioned in 2 Thess. 2:4.


“[Pope] Paul III had already, on the 9th of January 1543, addressed a brief to James V. by which he granted him a tax on the incomes of the Scottish Church for furtherance of the war against Henry, the ‘Son of Perdition.’” (Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 12, p. 472.)




As the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Antichrist” points out, St. Bernard (who died in 1153) believed that the Antichrist would be an antipope.  During St. Bernard’s time an antipope named Anacletus II managed to displace the true pope, Innocent II.  Anacletus reigned in Rome from 1130 to 1138.  St. Bernard thought that Antipope Anacletus II, the man he was opposing at the time, was in fact the Antichrist and the Beast of the Apocalypse.


“His [St. Bernard’s] language was vehement, not to say violent: Anacletus is Antichrist; he is the Beast of prophecy…” (James Cotter Morison, The Life and Times of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, pp. 164-165)


“… a passage from St. Bernard, as if in reprobation of the Papacy, to the effect that ‘that beast of the Apocalypse, to whom is given a mouth speaking blasphemies, occupies the Chair of Peter, as a lion ready for the prey?’ whereas it turns out that St. Bernard is not speaking of the Pope, but of the Antipope…” (The British Critic and Quarterly Theological Review, by James Shergold Boone & John Henry Newman, London, 1840, p. 400).




It’s well-known that St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419) proclaimed himself to be the Angel of Apocalypse 14:6-7.  The bull issued by Pope Pius II for the canonization of St. Vincent Ferrer specifically states that St. Vincent was indeed the Angel of the Apocalypse:


“In the countries of the West the number of Jews and infidels increased, who by their wealth and their culture of letters exercised a fatal influence.  The Last Day, the terrible Day of Judgment, was almost forgotten, but Divine Providence was pleased to restore and beautify His Church by illustrious men.  At a favorable moment He sent into the world, for the salvation of the faithful, Vincent of Valencia, of the Order of Friars Preachers, a skillful professor of sacred theology… Like a vigorous athlete, he rushed to combat the errors of the Jews, the Saracens and other infidels: he was the Angel of the Apocalypse, flying through the heavens to announce the day of the Last Judgment, to evangelize the inhabitants of the earth, to sow the seeds of salvation among all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues, and to point out the way to eternal life.” (Fr. Andrew Pradel, St. Vincent Ferrer: The Angel of the Judgment, p. 51.)


St. Vincent Ferrer has now been dead for almost 600 years.  In our article on Jurisdiction, we explain why St. Vincent’s proclamation about himself was actually true.  His statement was true, even though many people who lack true wisdom and understanding have concluded that he must have been wrong because he died so long ago. 


Here’s the point: with these facts in mind, we can see quite clearly why those bad-willed individuals who not only think that our opinion about the Antichrist is demonstrably false (which is not true), but additionally that an erroneous position on this matter (if we had one) would somehow impugn our credibility, are totally wrong and ignorant of this matter.  Their position would require them to conclude that the aforementioned figures, including St. Athanasius, St. Bernard and others, were lacking in credibility and/or false prophets.


Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) on Rome as Babylon


MHFM: In our article, we bring forward the evidence that the Whore of Babylon or Great Harlot prophesied in the Apocalypse is the Vatican II Counter Church. 


Is the Vatican II sect the Whore of Babylon prophesied in the Apocalypse?


The Catholic Church is NOT the Whore of Babylon.  Rather, the counterfeit Church of the Vatican II sect, which poses as the Catholic Church in the last days but is not, is the prophesied Whore of Babylon.  Some apologists of the Vatican II Church have argued that Rome is not Babylon, but that “Babylon” (the city of seven hills) in the Apocalypse refers to Jerusalem.  The following quote from Pope Benedict XIV confirms that they are incorrect.  Rome is Babylon.  Rome was sanctified by becoming the center of the true Church, but in the last days Rome (not the Catholic Church) will fall away from the Catholic faith and give way to a Counter Church which will persecute the saints.  All of that is explained in the article; but here’s the quote: 


Pope Benedict XIV, Address, May 5, 1749, speaking of a pilgrimage to Rome and the splendor of Christian Rome: “What could give a Christian greater joy than to see the glory of the cross of Christ shining with a more brilliant splendor than anywhere else on earth, and to testify with his own eyes to the glorious victory won by our Faith over the world?  We see here how the greatest worldly power bows down in awe before religion and how what was once the earthly Babylon has been transformed into a new, heavenly city that instead of threatening to destroy whole peoples and subjugate nations with the force of arms and the tumult of war, sets before our eyes a heavenly doctrine and a spotless morality for the enlightenment and salvation of the nations.  Here we see the former rule of superstitions buried in oblivion, while the pure worship of the true God and the majesty of divine service cast their radiant light in all directions; we see the sanctuaries of false gods razed to the ground, while the temples of God are hallowed by holy veneration; we can see here with our own eyes how the godless pastimes of the theatre and the insane spectacles of the circus have vanished from the memory of man and how instead of them the resting-places of the martyrs are thronged with visitors; how the monuments of tyrants lie prostrate in the dust, while the burial places of the Apostles, built by the hands of emperors, rear themselves aloft; how the precious works intended for the honoring of Roman pride are used for the embellishment of churches; how the memorials erected in thanksgiving to heathen deities for the subjugation of provinces, now, purged of their godless superstition, bear on their summits, with more right as the emblem of greater blessing, the victorious symbol of the unconquerable cross.  Lastly, the sight of countless bands of the faithful who during the jubilee year pour into the Eternal City from all points of the compass will fill your hearts with joy, for each of you will find his own Faith shared by the members of many different nations, speaking different languages.  With all of these you will be joined in brotherly love in the Lord, under the protection of our common Mother, the Church, and you will feel with joy how the dew of heavenly grace will be rained down on you more lavishly.” (Lugwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 35, pp. 328-329.)


Pope Benedict XIV clearly identifies Rome as the earthly Babylon, which has been sanctified by the presence of the true Church.  And the Bible tells us that in the last days Babylon, which this pope identifies as Rome, will become the seat of an Antichrist spiritual deception against the true Church.   That’s why the Whore of Babylon only arises in the Apocalypse; for during the rest of Church history Rome is the center of Christ’s Church, the seat of the true popes.


In this quote, we also see references to the saints and martyrs, and to the fact that the Church is our Mother.  The Apocalypse makes it very clear that the Whore of Babylon is prominently involved with offenses against the blood of the saints and martyrs.  It also says that the Whore is the “mother of the fornications.”  The point is that the Whore is specifically and clearly contrasted with Catholic Rome.  That becomes quite clear when one compares and contrasts a quote like this about Rome to the biblical descriptions of the Whore of Babylon.   All of this further points us to the conclusion that the Whore of Babylon is indeed a Counter Church in Rome itself in the last days. 


So, the defenders of the Vatican II sect, who think they are supporting the Catholic Church when they defend the apostate Vatican II Church, are quite deceived.  And contrary to what the Protestants say, the Bible’s focus on Rome’s apostasy and spiritual deception in the last days only serves to further confirm that the Catholic Church is the true Church.  For God is concerned with what’s happening to Rome and to His true faithful in the last days.  The Devil’s assault is on the place which normally is the seat of the true Church (Rome).


Hutton Gibson Exchange


MHFM: The following exchange concerned a reader’s false and bad willed criticism of something that was written in our article on Hutton Gibson:


Here’s the paragraph to which he refers:


MHFM: “The following could take place at Hutton Gibson’s Judgment: [Jesus Christ]: You know, Hutton, that I stated again and again in the Gospel that he who does not believe in Me is condemned, and that Jews that don’t believe in Me will be condemned.  And you know that the Council of Florence defined without exception that all who die as Jews are not saved.  And yet you not only rejected this dogma and contradicted it, but you attacked those who professed it as heretics, and you dishonestly called this truth, given by Me and defined by the Council of Florence, Fr. Feeney’s innovation.  You know that this is a lie, Hutton, for which there is no excuse. [Hutton Gibson would say]: Yes, it is true, Lord… I cannot deny it because it is true.  [Jesus Christ]:  You are condemned by your own words… Begone to the outer darkness, your sentence is Hell for all eternity.”




Dear Brothers Dimond,


I was wondering about your analysis of the heretic Hutton Gibson and how you went about explaining his heresy.  When you take the point of view of Jesus Christ (God) and pronounce the sentence against Hutton how is this not the sin of blasphemy against the Second Commandment?


Peace in Christ


Rob Glynn


MHFM: Because it's a very reasonable description of what could happen, and it has been done many times by Catholics writing on spiritual matters.  I guess you would consider The Imitation of Christ blasphemy, for it uses that description throughout the book.


[NEXT RESPONSE FROM ROB – notice that we were willing to let this go at this point, but Rob comes back with more and stronger accusations.  For this reason, he had to be more specifically rebuked and refuted.]


There are not any examples of this in The Imitation of Christ that is why you can't give any.  I have the book.  And "ironically" when I just opened the book I opened directly to the Rash Judgement section, God is probably trying to tell you something.  Also, this book deals with humility spiritually and otherwise which is very good advice.




MHFM: … You are completely wrong.  It clearly speaks from the standpoint of God.  You have uttered a lie.  Moreover, Hutton Gibson (if he doesn't have a major conversion) is going to go to Hell for his heresy.  You are just a liberal and obviously of bad will.  Do you believe that he is on the road to Hell?  If not, you are a heretic, in addition to a liberal of bad will. 




Don't keep "cutting off" the original emails.  Are you trying to hid something?  You can hide nothing from whom will judge you and me.  By the way who am I communicating with at MHFM?  Bro Peter, Michael, ect the sister?


1.  You don't know what you are talking about.


You can't provide an example in The Imitation of Christ where it references a specific person (like you do with Hutton and then take the POV of Jesus Christ at his judgement).  Stop being pharisaical , you know what is being discussed here.


2.  It is self evident that Hutton Gibson is outside the Church, I'm surprised you would have to ask that based on my original email.


3.  You comment below is another rash judgement.  This is a sin against the commandment "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."


"Your criticism is absurd, and it must stem from the fact that you scoff at the notion that a dogma denier such as Gibson is certainly on the road to Hell.  If that's the case, which it seems to be, then you are not a Catholic."


 Your spiritual pride and rage is amazing.  I suggest you take your own advice and remember that most adult Catholics go to Hell. 




MHFM: “Cutting off e-mails…” I don’t know what you are talking about.


Rob, you are definitely on the road to Hell.  Your false criticism is a mortal sin.  You obviously do not really believe that Gibson is on the road to Hell; for if you do, then what is your problem with what's written?  For, in that case, you must admit that what is written might be said to Him.  And if it might be said to Him, then of course it's true to say that this is what God might say to Him.   Do you now see how stupid your criticism is?  Probably not because you are a liar.


To further illustrate your bad will, you admit that it's okay to speak from the standpoint of God, but not concerning what He could say at the Judgment.  Tell me, please, where does the Church teach that?  Nowhere.  Where does the Church teach that you may speak from God's standpoint in spiritual writing, but not from His standpoint at the Judgment?  Provide proof, or retract your mortally sinful accusation.


You detect righteous indignation in my e-mails because I can very clearly see your bad will and dishonesty.  I see your bad will in action.  Your argument is pathetic and very dishonest. 


To definitively refute your false criticism, here are three examples.  Two of these examples specifically concern the Judgment.


St. Alphonsus, Prep. For Death, Abridged Version, p. 120: “‘Go, Jesus Christ will say: never shall you again behold my face.’” 


These words are not recorded of Jesus in the Bible, but St. Alphonsus uses them while speaking from the standpoint of Jesus at the Judgment.  This has to be blasphemy, according to your nonsensical argument.  Here we see another example of St. Alphonsus speaking from the standpoint of God at someone’s judgment:


St. Alphonsus, Prep. For Death, Abridged Version, p. 39: “The unhappy wretches will have recourse to God in death, and God will say to them, ‘Now do you come to Me? Call upon your creatures to help you, since they have been your gods.’  Thus will the Lord say, because they will have recourse to Him, but without a sincere intention of being converted.”


St. Alphonsus doesn’t know for sure that the Lord will pronounce these very words to these individuals or to any individuals.  This is not recorded in Scripture.  However, because it could apply to them, he legitimately uses this description. 


Here’s another quote from the Imitation of Christ, in which the author speaks from the standpoint of God.  This doesn’t directly deal with the Judgment (though the other two quotes above do), but one can see the point.


Imitation of Christ, Book III, Chap. 9: “But he that would glory in anything besides me, or delight in any good as his own (not referred to Me), shall not be established in true joy, nor enlarged in his heart, but in many kinds shall meet with perplexities and anguish.”


These words are attributed to Jesus in the Imitation of Christ in order to deliver a spiritual message.  In fact, these three quotes (and there are others) directly say that this is what the Lord says or will say.  Our quote below doesn’t even do that.  It says: “the following could take place” – not “will,” as St. Alphonsus says. 


Thus, it’s quite dishonest for you to wrongly say that my statement is blasphemous, but that St. Alphonsus’ statement (which goes further) is acceptable.  Do you now see that you are wrong?  It’s certain that Gibson will be damned if he continues on the present path.  The following paragraph (which is found in the aforementioned article) is a very reasonable description of what might be said:


The following could take place at Hutton Gibson’s Judgment: [Jesus Christ]: You know, Hutton, that I stated again and again in the Gospel that he who does not believe in Me is condemned, and that Jews that don’t believe in Me will be condemned.  And you know that the Council of Florence defined without exception that all who die as Jews are not saved.  And yet you not only rejected this dogma and contradicted it, but you attacked those who professed it as heretics, and you dishonestly called this truth, given by Me and defined by the Council of Florence, Fr. Feeney’s innovation.  You know that this is a lie, Hutton, for which there is no excuse. [Hutton Gibson would say]: Yes, it is true, Lord… I cannot deny it because it is true.  [Jesus Christ]:  You are condemned by your own words… Begone to the outer darkness, your sentence is Hell for all eternity.


As the above facts prove, your criticism is totally wrong.  My indignation is focused at your bad will and your petty and false accusations.  We shouldn’t even have to deal with this kind of nonsense, but because the level of bad will and pride is so great, people like you throw out this kind of nonsense.


Failure, B.O.D. Objection


Failure to respond to this e-mail will imply an inability to sufficiently defend your position on these issues. 
Dear Dimond Brothers,
By claiming that all who acknowledged Paul VI as the pope were heretics, you condemn Padre Pio.  Not only did Padre Pio accept Paul VI; he wrote a private letter to him applauding the latter's defense of human life.  Moreover, since you do not believe that John XXIII was ever a valid pope, you cannot say that Paul VI was ever a valid pope either.  So, for Padre Pio to accept Paul VI as the pope at any time would have placed him outside the Church.        
You also must necessarily, though indirectly, claim that Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, along with many of the other theologians and Doctors of the Church, were outside the Church for holding that the Baptisms of Desire and of Blood were legitimate substitutes for Water in invincible cases or in cases of martyrdom.  Moreover, you cannot compare Thomas Aquinas' denial of, or rather ignorance of, the Immaculate Conception, with his acceptance of accidental substitutes for Water Baptism, on account of the fact that the Immaculate Conception was not declared a dogma until the 19th century, while the dogma of the necessity of Water Baptism, even as you claim, has always been held by the Church (seeing as it is related in Scripture itself).
In Christ,


MHFM: Basically everything you have written in your short e-mail is wrong.  We do not say that everyone who believes that the Vatican II antipopes are true popes is ipso facto a heretic.  We say that after a person becomes familiar with the heresies of the V-2 antipopes and doesn’t denounce them – and after one becomes familiar with the teaching on loss of papal office and continues to insist that they are popes – they become heretics.  In addition, one who imbibes the Vatican II theology of ecumenism would become a heretic, even before he or she has seen any teaching on loss of office, etc.  That’s because an acceptance of false religions is directly incompatible with true faith in Christ.


So, your first accusation is totally wrong and constitutes a misrepresentation of our position.  It’s certainly the case that not everyone who considers the V-2 antipopes to be popes is ipso facto a heretic.  That’s because it’s the duty of a Catholic to accept the man who purports to be the Bishop of Rome as the pope, until there is clear evidence of an invalid election or manifest heresy.  Some radical schismatics have adopted the theologically absurd position that it’s impossible to be in the Church while recognizing an antipope (even if one hasn’t seen the heresies or the evidence to conclude otherwise), and this leads them into a whole range of ridiculous and outrageously schismatic errors.


Regarding the objection concerning St. Thomas, these are old and tired arguments that we have already refuted many times.  If people spent the time reading our book on salvation, they would see that there is an entire section dedicated to this very objection. Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and refuting baptism of desire - book, audio program, articles.  It’s found in Section 17, “Other Objections.”  To disprove that very objection, we give an analogous example from Pope John IV and Honorius.  Moreover, it’s addressed in our debates on baptism of desire:


File of Recent Audio Debates on "Baptism of Desire"


It’s addressed in this second one and in the fourth one.


Debate on baptism of desire with sedevacantist Ken [1 hr. 46 min. audio – Jan. 2009]


Furthermore, that particular false objection (which you raise concerning doctors of the Church, etc.) is best addressed, and frankly demolished, in our article on Geocentrism and “Baptism of Desire.”  In this article, we show that a doctor of the Church and popes have considered something heretical which in fact later popes did not even consider necessarily wrong.  If that’s the case, then a doctor of the Church (e.g., St. Thomas, etc.) can be unaware of (or confused about) a Church teaching or a dogmatic definition which disproves a certain position.


Examining the Theological Status of Geocentrism and Heliocentrism and the Devastating Problems this creates for Baptism of Desire Arguments [PDF] *very important article which demolishes popular baptism of desire arguments, contains a new quote from a pope on geocentrism and much more


This article clearly shows that doctors of the Church and popes can make mistakes on matters that are dogmatic (or which they think are dogmatic) without being heretics.  To quote one paragraph from the article: “… if heliocentrism has not been infallibly condemned by the Holy See, then numerous popes (e.g., Paul V and Urban VIII) and a Doctor of the Church (St. Robert Bellarmine) acted like it had been and thus were unaware of the true theological status of this issue. If they could have been completely wrong about the true theological status of this controversial point [one about which accusations of heresy were being launched], then certainly St. Alphonsus and others could have been as well concerning the dogmatic status of the absolute necessity of water baptism. Thus, either way our point is proven.”


To put it another way, baptism of desire is a theological error which becomes a heresy when it is carefully matched up with the dogmatic definitions on salvation.  This is analogous to the minutiae (finer points) of the Incarnation, etc., such as the dogma that Christ has two wills.  This false idea is, strictly speaking, a heresy; but it would only be only an error for some until they see the specific Church teaching against the false position.


In conclusion, your objection demonstrates a superficial knowledge of Church history and the teaching of the Magisterium, as if a doctor of the Church is always perfectly aware of the theological status of every Catholic truth.  It’s an objection that sounds good, but crumbles when more facts are brought forward.  Your false objection is regurgitated by countless bad willed false traditionalists who consider themselves knowledgeable and Catholic (but actually aren’t), including priests, bloggers and forum hosters who love “baptism of desire.”  They are completely wrong and their position is refuted by the aforementioned facts.  It’s distressing that these people won’t more carefully look at the information; for just a few days ago one radical schismatic wrote to us demanding an answer to this very objection.  We pointed out to him that we’ve already addressed the issue, and he (in his pride and bad will) refused to believe it.  He was convinced it was such an original objection that we could not have addressed and refuted it before.


[P.S. Your other false statements about Padre Pio were addressed in our audio: Answering Objections Against Padre Pio (new 42 min. audio discussion)]


Pope Benedict XV on the Redemption


Some people are also claiming that this is proof of manifest heresy from Pope Benedict XV.  What’s your response?


Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, #1, 1914: "For the whole of mankind was freed from the slavery of sin by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ as their ransom, and there is no one who is excluded from the benefit of this Redemption ..."


Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 3, 1547, ex cathedra: "But though He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but only those whom the merit of His passion is imparted."


MHFM: No, the radical schismatics are wrong again.  First, we must again make it clear that we are talking about Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), not Antipope Benedict XVI.


In the quote above, Pope Benedict XV definitely committed an error of articulation about the Redemption; for not all receive the benefits or merits of Christ’s death (as Trent defines).  However, Pope Benedict XV’s statement is not teaching universal salvation; it’s not remotely comparable to John Paul II’s clear utterances of universal salvation; and it’s definitely not proof of manifest heresy.  It’s simply an error which, if expressed obstinately and in direct defiance of the precise words of Trent, would be heresy.  However, as it stands and considered in context, it’s simply an error of articulation and a demonstration of a less-than-perfect familiarity with the precise language of the Council of Trent.


Let’s begin by refuting the idea that Pope Benedict XV is teaching universal salvation in the citation above.  If we look at the whole encyclical, we see that Pope Benedict XV makes it quite clear that he’s not teaching universal salvation; for in the very same document (and thus in the same extended context) he repeats the Athanasian Creed: that no man is saved without the Catholic faith.


Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum #24, Nov. 1, 1914: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”


In the very same encyclical, he clearly teaches that no one is saved without the Catholic faith.  In John Paul II’s many utterances of universal salvation (or anywhere else for that matter), he never once said the equivalent.


So what is Pope Benedict XV saying when he declares that “the whole of mankind was freed from the slavery of sin by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ as their ransom”?  The answer is that he is speaking of the propitiatory nature of the Redemption.  It’s a dogma that Jesus Christ’s Redemption destroyed or atoned or satisfied or made up for man’s sins – the sins of every man of all time.


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, THROUGH HIS DEATH ALONE LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost with all succession…” (Denz. 711)


Jesus destroyed every man’s sins in terms of a propitiation or atonement, so that every sin that would be forgiven was already forgiven by Jesus Christ and what He did on the Cross. 


Errors of Cornelius Jansen # 4: “It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.” – Condemned as false and heretical by Pope Innocent X, Cum occasione, May 31, 1658


When a man believes, is baptized and justified, it’s the merit of Christ’s Passion that is imparted or applied to Him; for Christ made up for and destroyed the sins of every man on the Cross.


According to the radical schismatics, the Bible must have been teaching heresy when it taught:


1 Timothy 2:6- “ [Jesus Christ] Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.”


Moreover, St. John the Baptist and St. John the Apostle must have been teaching heresy (according to the aforementioned schismatics) when they declared:


John 1:29- “… Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.”


Christ takes away the sin of the world – the whole world.  He freed mankind from sin, but not all receive the benefits of that Redemption.  To put it another way, the fruits of the Redemption are not individually realized or actualized in all men.  Only those who are incorporated into Christ receive the merits of the Passion. 


Pope Benedict XV was simply stating the first part of the truth, that Christ’s Redemption applied to all and thus made up for (in the sense of propitiation) the sins of the whole world.  His statement that no one is excluded from the benefits of the Redemption is simply an erroneous and imperfect attempt at articulating the truth that no one was excluded from what Christ did in terms of a propitiation or atonement.  Jesus Christ’s Redemption applied to the whole world. 


Throughout history, the terminology that some Catholics (not the Church itself) have used in expressing the two aspects of the Redemption – 1, that Christ forgave all men’s sins in terms of propitiation; and 2, not all receive the application of this forgiveness – has often been confusing and contradictory.  For example, the regional council below (which was not infallible) equated being redeemed with being justified.  Hence, it taught that not all men were redeemed.


Council of Quiersy, 853, Chap. 4.- “Christ Jesus our Lord, as no man who is or has been or ever will be whose nature will not have been assumed in Him, so there is, has been, or will be no man, for whom He has not suffered- although not all will be saved by the mystery of His passion. But because all are not redeemed by the mystery of His passion, He does not regard the greatness and the fullness of the price, but He regards the part of the unfaithful ones and those not believing in faith those things which He has worked through love[ Gal. 5:6], because the drink of human safety, which has been prepared by our infirmity and by divine strength, has indeed in itself that it may be beneficial to all; but if it is not drunk, it does not heal. (Denz.  319)


This regional council correctly stated that there was no man for whom Christ did not suffer.  However, since it defined Redemption as actually receiving justification, it stated that not all men were redeemed.  The popes, on the other hand, didn’t define that being redeemed strictly meant receiving the merits of the Passion.  To them, the Redemption referred to the propitiation (the atonement or appeasement) that Christ made on the Cross for the sins of every man.  As a result, they taught that all men were redeemed because all men’s sins were included in the atonement of the Cross.  At the same time, they made it clear that not all receive the individual application of those merits which were won by Christ unless they cooperate with grace.  That distinction, that being redeemed doesn’t necessarily mean being justified, is why Pope Alexander VII refers to Christ as the Redeemer of the human race – i.e., of all men.


Pope Alexander VII, Sollicitudo omnium eccl., Dec.  8, 1661: “… Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of our human race…” (Denz. 1100)


So, in summary, Pope Benedict XV’s words (in #1 of Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum) are simply an inaccurate articulation of the truth about the Redemption.  They are not formally heretical.  He was attempting to express the truth, but did it inaccurately.  People don’t really expect the popes to have every line of Trent memorized, do they?  As we’ve shown many times, popes can say things that are erroneous when discussing theological matters without it constituting heresy. 


Some people argue that Pope Benedict XV’s words are equivalent to the following heresy of Antipope John Paul II.  They are quite wrong.  Let’s take a look.


John Paul II, Homily, June 6, 1985:  “The Eucharist is the sacrament of the covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the covenant which is eternal.  This is the covenant which embraces all.  This Blood reaches all and saves all.”


This statement, unlike Pope Benedict XV’s erroneous statement on the universality of the Redemption, is definitely a heretical utterance of universal salvation.  First, John Paul II specifically says that Christ’s Blood reaches and saves all.  Salvation is almost always associated with actually being saved or justified, not the potential of being saved or justified.  Furthermore, in the same context, John Paul II speaks of the New Covenant.  In this very context, he declares that all are part of this covenant.  He’s referring to the new (and everlasting) covenant, which Jesus mentioned when instituting the Eucharist in His blood (Mt. 26:28).  This covenant is the Church; it represents actual union with Christ.  This covenant does not embrace all, as dogmatic definitions on the very words of Christ’s blood (and the covenant it signifies) confirm. 


In addition, John Paul II consistently taught that all men are saved.  There are many examples of that in this file: The Heresies of John Paul II - a comprehensive presentation [PDF file].  Two such examples are given below.  So his statement above, that the Blood of Christ saves all, etc., is perfectly in line with his other teaching.  It doesn’t stand out in contrast – as is the case with Pope Benedict XV’s words – with some statement (in the very same document) that no man is saved without the Catholic faith.


John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978: “Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become man; and therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of Grace.”


John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979:

“We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery.”


John Paul II says that all men participate in “the divine life.”  The “divine life” refers to the state of grace.  That means that all men are justified.  In the second quote, John Paul II says that Christ is united to every man “forever.”  That clearly indicates that all are saved. 


So, in wrongly concluding that Pope Benedict XV was teaching universal salvation and heresy by his imperfect articulation of the universality of the Redemption – and that he was therefore an antipope – the radical schismatics have come up with another schismatic error which further confirms that they are truly outside the Church.


Answering Objections Against Padre Pio


MHFM: This is a new 42-minute audio discussion which answers objections against Padre Pio.  We discuss and respond to the claims that he endorsed the heresies of Vatican II, Humanae Vitae and salvation outside the Church.


Answering Objections Against Padre Pio [new 42 min. audio discussion]


Pope Benedict XV on the Unity of the Church


Hi, some people are saying that this quote of Pope Benedict XV is a heretical denial of the unity of the Church.  They say it’s the same as the Vatican II ecclesiology and that it proves that Pope Benedict XV was a heretic and therefore and antipope.  What’s your response?


Benedict XV, Pacem, Dei Munu Pulcherrimum, #21, May 23, 1920:  "We humbly implore the Holy Ghost the Paraclete that He may 'graciously grant to the Church the gifts of unity and peace' ..."


MHFM: First, we should make it clear that we’re talking here about Pope Benedict XV (who reigned from 1914-1922), not Antipope Benedict XVI. 


The quote above is not proof of manifest heresy for several reasons.  I will demonstrate this by a number of points.  The primary reason is that there are two ways of considering the unity of the Church.  This needs to be explained.  1) There is the external, core unity of the Church, by which all who have this unity of faith and sacraments are united in a single body.  This unity is indivisible and unbreakable.  It cannot be lacking.


However, there is also the internal unity or cohesion of the Church among the members who are within the core unity. 


Allow me to draw an analogy which hopefully helps illustrate the point.  After that, I will quote a father of the Church and a dogmatic council to confirm the point.


Imagine that a sphere represents the Church, and that all atoms within this sphere represent the Church members.  The outer surface of the sphere (the circular edge) represents the external core unity of faith and sacraments in the Catholic Church.  This is indivisible.  All who violate the Catholic unity of faith and government separate themselves and are expelled completely from the sphere.  They no longer reside within, but are now outside the sphere. 


However, among the atoms within the sphere (i.e., the Church members), they can be closer to or farther apart from the other atoms (the other members) depending upon how closely united they are in judgment, will and motive.  Hence, one could pray for unity or a greater unity among the atoms (or members) who are already within the core unity; so that they cease squabbling over unnecessary matters, so that they are more united in their spiritual pursuits, etc.  For that reason, it can be legitimate speak of a need for greater unity in the Church only if one is doing so in the context of those Church members who are already within and not divided in faith.  In fact, that’s exactly what we see in the case of St. Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1:10:


1 Corinthians 1:10- “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.


St. John Chrysostom explains that St. Paul was not talking about differences of faith that arose, but differences of judgment and sentiment:


St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on 1 Cor. 1:10- “There is also such a thing as harmony of opinions, where there is not yet harmony of sentiment; for instance, when having the same faith we are not joined together in love: for thus, in the opinions we are one, (for we think the same things,) but in sentiment not so.  And such was the case at that time; this person choosing one, and that, another.  For this reason he [St. Paul] saith that it is necessary to agree both in ‘mind’ and in ‘judgment.’  For it was not from any difference in faith that the schisms arose, but from the division of their judgment through human contentiousness.” (NPNF1, Vol. 12, p. 11.)


We see that the members within the unity could be lacking in a certain degree of unity among themselves, as St. Paul and St. John Chrysostom confirm.  This can arise from a difference in judgment and sentiment.  Now, if this difference in judgment and sentiment reaches a certain level, it can and does result in actual schism which separates one from the sphere (the Church); but there can be lesser divisions in judgment and sentiment that don’t separate one from the Church.  A case in point is the Great Western Schism and St. Vincent Ferrer.  People were divided in judgment and sentiment on the issue of who the lawful pastors were, but those who were not obstinate (e.g., St. Vincent) were still within the sphere (the Church).  A definitive proof for the point I’m making comes from the Fifth Lateran Council.


This council makes it clear that everyone who denies the faith is outside the Church, and that the Church is one in faith.  However, it also speaks of a need for unity in the Church in terms of a greater agreement among those who are within the essential unity.


Here are just two quotes from the Fifth Lateran Council which clearly teach and reaffirm the dogma that the Church is one, and that it is completely united in its essential core unity of faith and government. 


Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 1512-1517, on the abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction: “… the person who abandons the teaching of the Roman Pontiff cannot be within the Church…” (D.E.C., Vol. 1, p. 640.)


Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 1512-1517: “… the holy Church of God, which by divine providence we preside over and which is indeed one, preaches and worships one God and firmly and sincerely professes one faith.” (D.E.C., Vol. 1, p. 636.)


However, we see that the council also speaks of a need for unity among those within the core unity.


Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 1512-1517: “Recently, in order that the Church, our spouse, might be kept in a holy union and use might be made by Christ’s faithful of the sacred canons issued by the Roman Pontiffs and general councils…” (D.E.C., Vol. 1, p. 638.)


Here we see that it’s speaking of the internal unity of those who are already “Christ’s faithful.”  This quote is very similar to the one cited above from Pope Benedict XV.  Here’s another quote from the Fifth Lateran Council.


Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 1512-1517: “Fostering everywhere the peace and mutual love so much commended by our Redeemer, let them not rend the seamless robe of Christ and let them refrain from any scandalous detraction of bishops, prelates and other superiors and of their state of life.” (D.E.C., Vol. 1, p. 637.)


Once again we see the pope and the council clearly speaking of a need for unity in the Church in terms of a greater mutual love and peace among the members who already hold the core unity of faith. 


This should clearly show that Pope Benedict XV’s statement is not proof that he was a manifest heretic.  Those who are asserting this are completely wrong.  This is not to suggest that Benedict XV was necessarily a good or strong pope, or that he shouldn’t have been more precise or careful in his words.  It is simply to point out that his statement is not proof that he was a manifest heretic.  His statement is not comparable to the heretical teaching of Vatican II on the need for the “restoration of Church unity” because Vatican II clearly and explicitly says this with reference to people who are divided in essential faith and government (Protestants, etc.).  That is blatantly heretical.  Vatican II is not talking about the internal cohesion of those within the unity of faith, but rather that the core external unity of the Church is lacking because some people don’t accept the full Catholic faith or the Roman Pontiff.  That is totally different.


So, once again we see that the warped radical schismatics (who are wrong on the issue of receiving sacraments, etc.) have come up with another schismatic error to confirm that they are not Catholic but truly outside the Church.  This argument that we have just refuted was also promoted by the clueless schismatic named Frank, whom we’ve refuted over and over again.  They desire to throw the pre-Vatican II popes out of the Church because they think it helps them more consistently argue their false position on receiving sacraments.  For they are unable to refute our argument that if you may not go to a less obvious undeclared heretic who is offering a traditional form of liturgy today, then one could not have lawfully gone to similar heretics before Vatican II.  So if they argue that all the pre-Vatican II popes were antipopes, they think it makes it easier for them to defend their ridiculous position that there was basically nowhere to receive sacraments before Vatican II as well. 


So that’s all for this installment….