Asking for clarification on Canonization article

March 31, 2004

Cathy, perhaps the reason that you are confused is because you reference two different sentences from my article which are taken out of context and you don’t quote the sentences in totality.  The first sentence from my article which you reference is bolded below in its complete context.  It simply says that a true Pope cannot err on a matter of Faith proclaimed to the entire Church (such as Canonization).  

One of the ways by which Fr. Moderator was able to mislead his readers on this issue was to pervert the nature of the question.  In attempting to articulate his heretical argument that Canonizations are not infallible, the reader will notice that Fr. Moderator speaks about how St. Thomas and St. Robert supposedly said that a Pope can err in a decision based upon human testimony.  That may be true, but that is irrelevant.  The issue is not whether or not a valid Pope can make a mistake on a decision purely based on human testimony; no one disputes this.  The issue is whether a Pope can err on a matter of Faith proclaimed to the whole Church and declared in virtue of his apostolic authority.  And the answer to this, as St. Thomas, St. Robert and the rest agree, and as I have shown, is a resounding no.  And this is why Fr. Moderator could not even bring forward one direct quote from any Saint stating that Canonizations are not infallible; but he effectively and slyly misled his readership by switching the nature of the question and misrepresenting the authorities he claimed to reference.  

The point is simply that IF JOHN PAUL II IS THE TRUE POPE, THEN HIS CANONIZATIONS ARE INFALLIBLE, BECAUSE ALL CANONIZATIONS BY TRUE POPES ARE INFALLIBLE.  But the SSPX, Fr. Moderator, etc. reject his “Canonizations.”  In doing so they reject Papal Infallibility.  The only Catholic position is to recognize that John Paul II is not the true Pope (but an Antipope) who possesses no authority to Canonize BECAUSE HE IS NOT THE POPE.

I bring up this issue because it is likely that Antipope John Paul II will soon “Canonize” the apostate Mother Theresa, who exemplified some of the worst religious indifferentism of any of the members of the Vatican II sect. So, what will the “traditionalists” under Antipope John Paul II do then?  Will they actuallyaccept her as a “Saint”?  If they are willing to believe that Mother Theresa is a Saint, who promoted and participated in Satanic false religions, then they might as well admit that they think that the Church of Christ = the Church of Antichrist, since they would be honoring as a glorified Saint one who exemplified and believed the doctrine of Antichrist to the fullest.  Truly, they might as well accept the Dalai Lama as a Saint or the founder of the Church of Satan. Or perhaps when Mother Theresa is “Canonized” by Antipope John Paul II the false traditionalists will adopt the same heresy as the SSPX, rightly condemned by the Saints and Doctors as “sin” and “heresy,” which simply rejects the infallibility of “Canonizations”?  Or perhaps they will wake up and realize that Rome has lost the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist (Our Lady of La Salette) and break communion with Antipope John Paul II and his counterfeit Vatican II sect and realize that he has no authority to Canonize because he is not the Pope?

I hope that makes it clear.

What Mass does MHFM accept?

March 26, 2004

We accept the Mass of Pope St. Pius V; we don’t approve of the invalid Novus Ordo, of course, and we don’t approve of the use of the 1962 Missal, the Mass of John XXIII – which is the same as the Mass of St. Pius V but with St. Joseph’s name illegally added to the Canon (as well as some other minor changes). We acknowledge that the 1962 Missal is valid, since the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon has no bearing on validity, only legality. We also believe that in this time of crisis one can attend a Mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest who uses the 1962 Missal, as long as the person does not agree with or support the priest. Here is an interesting quote relating to this issue:

“In order to further the liturgical reform that Hebblethwaite [John XXIII’s biographer] claimed John ‘favored,’ the Pope ‘added to the Roman Canon the name of St. Joseph – beati Joseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi – a pious ruse to show that the text was not immutable [unchangeable],’ according to Hebblethwaite.” (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 177)

In other words, according to John XXIII’s biographer, the whole reason for John XXIII to add St. Joseph’s name to the Canon was to show the Canon was not unchangeable and to pave the way for what later came with Antipope Paul VI – the New Mass.

Council of Florence on Circumcision; and Man becoming God?

March 21, 2004

Paul, the statement from the Council of Florence (Denz. 712) condemns all who “observe circumcision,” whether or not they place hope in it for salvation.  Those who get the foreskin of their children cut solely for health reasons are not “observing circumcision” (the ritual of the Old Law), but are simply having a medical procedure performed for health reasons.  Therefore, the phrase “observe circumcision” presupposes that one is doing it to fulfill the Old Law.  If one is not doing it to fulfill the Old Law then he is not actually “observing circumcision.”

Regarding your second question, I’m familiar with the quotes that people bring forward.  In fact, I recently read a large book (over 300 pages) by a man who purports to be a “traditional Catholic” and the whole point of the book was to prove that all the baptized are Jesus.  But it is heresy to say that any man becomes God.  Otherwise there would be more than one God.  Some of the fathers of the Church said this about baptized Catholics when speaking in exaggerated and wrong terms about the truth that a justified man partakes of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4); but they never should have said that man becomes God.  They simply should have repeated what 2 Peter 1:4 says: that a justified man partakes of the divine nature.

Pope John XXII condemned the following proposition, among similar other ones: “A good man is the only begotten Son of God.” - Condemned (Denz. 520).

Pope Pius XII condemned the same thing.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 78), June 29, 1943: "But let this be a general and unshaken truth, if they do not wish to wander from sound doctrine and the correct teaching of the Church: namely, every kind of mystic union, by which the faithful in Christ in any way pass beyond the order of created things and wrongly enter among the divine, so that even a single attribute of the eternal Godhead can be predicated of these as their own, is to be entirely rejected."

Writers, such as Solange Hertz, do Catholics a disservice by repeating such exaggerated and non-literal statements from the fathers, who didn’t really believe that baptized Catholics become God, but spoke in exaggerated and spiritual terms about 2 Peter 1:4.  If they really believed that a justified Catholic becomes God they would have believed that there is more than one God (and couldn’t have said the Nicene Creed honestly).  Further, it must be remembered that the fathers of the Church didn’t write in English.  I know that at least some of the quotations that are given from the fathers allegedly asserting that “God became man so that man might become God” actually say in the original “God became man so that man might receive the divinity” (i.e., so that he might partake in the divine nature).

It should also be noted that Antipope John Paul II says that every man is Jesus Christ, not just the baptized; the fathers who spoke in exaggerated and wrong terms about justified persons were only talking about the baptized Catholics.  The fact is that Antipope John Paul II’s words prove that he truly and without a doubt preaches that every man is Jesus Christ; the fathers of the Church didn’t hold this, otherwise they would have been apostates, and if they ever said that a justified Catholic man becomes God they were simply dead wrong in speaking in such a way.