Is Mel Gibson a Sedevacantist and did The Passion contradict the Bible?

To your first question, I believe Mel would claim to be a Sedevacantist, although he is not very outspoken about this. In his interview with ABC he gave the line about how the traditional Mass has “never been abrogated.” This is an argument that non-sedevacantists who accept Paul VI as the Pope make. Regarding the charge that The Passion contradicts scripture, no, I don’t believe The Passion contradicts scripture, except for one glaring change that I noticed that Mel Gibson made to the words of Our Lord. This change was made by Mel to appease the Christ-denying Jews. In the part of the movie where Jesus stands before Pilate (the part that corresponds to John 18:36 ff.), Mel Gibson has Jim Caviezal say:

“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants should certainly strive that I should not be delivered into the hand of this people.”

“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants should certainly strive that I should not be delivered into the hand of THE JEWS.”

Wasn’t “for all” used in an Aramaic Mass?

Some have claimed – most notably Michael Malone, now deceased – that the Traditional Maronite Rite used "all" in its Consecration; but this is not true. After issue #1 of our magazine came out Michael Malone wrote us a letter attempting to refute our article on the New Mass by bringing forward this “proof” that the Maronite Rite used all in the Consecration. But Malone was completely wrong; for it was only a modern mistranslation of the Aramaic word in the Maronite Rite which used "all." The word all is not found in the Traditional Maronite formula of Consecration.   The original Aramaic word is "sagueeia." Sagueeia has been mistranslated in certain English Maronite Liturgies as “all.” It means many, not all. But Michael Malone, who was a heretic who was desperate to defend the New Mass and Vatican II, spread this untruth and deceived a great many. No traditional liturgy ever approved by the Church has used “all” in the Consecration, nor could it, as our recent article on the New Mass showed. This is because a Sacrament must signify the grace it effects and vice versa. “All” does not signify the grace proper to the Eucharist – the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ – because not all are members of the Mystical Body.

Is the CMRI an okay place to attend Mass?

We believe that you could attend the Mass of certain priests of the CMRI (who are not notorious about their heresy); but you cannot give them any money because they deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as explained in the section about them our website and in our book. They even believe with Bishop Robert Mckenna that Jews who reject Christ can receive baptism of desire. This is why Fr. Puskorius (editor of their magazine) didn’t respond to our public letter asking him about that issue. Also, we do not believe that anyone should attend the Mass of Bishop Pivarunas, since Pivarunas is a notorious heretic who has repeatedly made his heresy known in a very public fashion.

Letter Exchange/Debate on John Paul II’s heresies with President of “Catholics United for the Faith”

1/20/05 – My first letter to Leon Suprenant, President of “Catholics United for the Faith” (CUFF), after he visited our website and said that it promotes schism

2/3/05 – Mr. Suprenant’s Response to Bro. Peter Dimond’s Letter

2/15/05 – Bro. Peter Dimond’s Response to Mr. Suprenant

First Letter to Leon Suprenant, President of “Catholics United for the Faith” (CUFF), after he visited our website and said that it promotes schism

Mr. Suprenant had written one of our readers and told him that our website was promoting schism (because we don’t accept the Vatican II religion).  He informed this person that he (Mr. Suprenant) was open to addressing his concerns about the continuity of the post-Vatican II religion with traditional Catholic teaching.  So, I wrote him the following letter.

THREE POINTS OF DISCUSSION REGARDING JOHN PAUL II’S APOSTASY

January 20, 2005

Dear Mr. Leon Suprenant:

An acquaintance of ours (…) has informed us that you visited our website (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com) and stated that it is schismatic.  You mentioned that you would be “willing to address any specific questions or criticisms” that he might have “concerning the legitimacy and continuity of the post-Vatican II” religion and the Novus Ordo, if he is interested in such an exchange. 

I am writing because I am interested in such an exchange.  If you don’t mind, I will begin by asking you about three points of John Paul II’s teaching.

1.  Do you reject as heretical John Paul II’s repeated teaching that Catholics should not proselytize the Schismatic Eastern “Orthodox.”

Antipope John Paul II, Ecclesia in Europa, Post-Synodal Apost. Exhortation, June 28, 2003: “At the same time I wish to assure once more the pastors and our brothers and sisters of the Orthodox Churches that the new evangelization is in no way to be confused with proselytism, without prejudice to the duty of respect for truth, for freedom and for the dignity of every person.” (L’Osservatore Romano, July 2, 2003, p. V).

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Jan. 25, 1993: “Doubtless, more than ever the Catholic Church’s apostolic activity in those lands must have ‘an ecumenical dimension’ capable of promoting, in every way, dialogue among believers in the light of the principles enunciated by the Second Vatican Council.  ‘The way to achieve Christian unity, in fact,’ says the Pontifical Commission for Russia, ‘is not proselytism but fraternal dialogue among the disciples of Christ, a dialogue nourished by prayer and developed in charity, in order to reestablish a communion between the Byzantine Church and the Church of Rome which existed in the first millennium.”

This position was also officially taught in the Balamand Statement of 1993, which was approved by John Paul II.  John Paul II has also asserted that he does not want to proselytize the Eastern Schismatics in numerous Joint Declarations with them.  Since this is a fact, Mr. Suprenant, do you therefore admit that John Paul II is a heretic who rejects the dogma (defined by Vatican I) that Eastern Schismatics must be converted and accept the Papacy for true Faith and salvation?

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra:
"We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation."

2.  John Paul II teaches that the Old Covenant is valid. 

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Jews in West Germany, Nov. 17. 1980: “The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time within our Church…”

This is a denial of the dogma, defined by the Council of Florence, that the Old Covenant has ceased.  Do you agree that John Paul II’s teaching that the Old Covenant is still valid is heresy and apostasy?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.  Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation.  All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

3.  John Paul II has approved of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, which is blatantly heretical.

1) Joint Declaration With Lutherans on Justification: “# 5.  THE PRESENT JOINT DECLARATION… does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and SHOWS THAT THE REMAINING DIFFERENCES ARE NO LONGER THE OCCASION FOR DOCTRINAL CONDEMNATIONS.”

This means that the remaining differences between Lutherans and Catholics on Justification – for example, the fact that Lutherans don’t accept the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification as dogmatic – are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.  This is blatantly HERETICAL.  The very fact that the Lutherans don’t accept the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification as dogmatic is an occasion for their doctrinal condemnation.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 16, ex cathedra:
"After this Catholic doctrine of justification [defined by Trent] - which, unless he faithfully and firmly accepts, no one can be justified - it seemed good to the holy Synod to add these canons, so that all may know, not only what they must hold and follow, but also what they ought to shun and avoid."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, On Justification, Introduction, ex cathedra:"...the holy ecumenical and general synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit... purpose to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and salutary doctrine of justification… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree."

(2) Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century [i.e., the Council of Trent], in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent."

This means that none of the teaching of the Lutherans in the JD is condemned by the Council of Trent!  But in the JD (Joint Declaration), besides the other heresies taught by the Lutherans, the Lutheran churches teach the heresy of Justification by “faith alone,” which was condemned approximately 13 times by the Council of Trent. 

So, do you admit that John Paul II’s approval of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification makes him a heretic?

Sincerely,
Bro. Peter Dimond,

Mr. Suprenant’s Response to Bro. Peter’s Letter

2-3-05

Dear Br. Peter,

Peace of Christ!

Thank you for your email, in which you raise some serious concerns about certain teachings of Pope John Paul II. I try to keep correspondence such as this private, but I will send a copy of this email to your acquaintance [x], who put you in touch with me, and with whom I have been corresponding sporadically the past couple years.

Before I start, I'd like to make two preliminary observations. First, while it may seem to be a fine point, I did not state that your website is schismatic. I did say that your website, which Mr. [x] considers authoritative, "promotes schism and sedevacantism." From the perspective of someone who believes John Paul II is the real Pope, this assertion is not controversial. After all, even in your email you repeatedly refer to him as an "anti-pope," "heretic," "apostate," "schismatic," etc.

Further, I think it's fair to ask whether you are in communion with the bishop of the diocese where your "monastery" is located. Who is your bishop? Who has given legitimate Catholic Church approval for your monastic community?

Second, it's clear that your rejection of Pope John Paul II is prior to the specific issues raised in your email. I'm happy to provide some response to your questions, but my preference would be to go to the source. I assume that you believe at some specific, clearly definable moment in time Pope John Paul II (or, more likely, one of his predecessors) went into schism and became an anti-pope. When do you believe this occurred?

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you to establish this fact. If it weren't, then every Pope since St. Peter would have the ongoing burden of justifying his legitimacy against any and all criticisms, in essence having to constantly prove a negative.

You believe Pope John Paul II to be an imposter, so you view his statements with a presumption of discontinuity with Tradition. I recognize him as the Vicar of Christ and the lawful successor of St. Peter, so I view his statements with a presumption of continuity, thereby coming to quite different conclusions. Therefore, for this dialogue to go anywhere, it's necessary to go back to the source of your rejection of Pope John Paul II.

While deferring ultimately to the Holy See as the proper interpreter of its own statements, let me address briefly the three questions you raised.

Re: whether Catholics should "proselytize" the Eastern Orthodox Churches

I don't think you know the meaning of "proselytism" as the Church understands it. It means "gaining converts by unworthy means, of forcing or coercing consciences" (e.g., "bread Christians"-winning them over with political and economic bribery and offices, etc.). To engage in dialogue with our separated Christians and to have theological exchanges with them is simply to encourage them toward full reconciliation with the Holy See. Vatican II left no doubt that the whole purpose of ecumenism is to prepare separated Christians for full communion in faith, worship, and government (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3). Lumen Gentium affirms that the Catholic Church professes to be the "one and only Church of Jesus Christ" and seeks her separated baptized brethren to share that unity which she can never lose.

Vatican II emphatically reaffirmed the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I on papal supremacy and papal infallibility.

The Pope did not approve the Balamand Statement in toto. In fact, on June 11, 1997, a joint letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Eastern Churches, and the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity repudiated the sentiment of some Melkite Catholic Bishops in the Middle East who held that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were already one Church. They dismissed an ecclesiology that would downplay the need for full communion with the Holy See.

Re: status of "Old Covenant"

The Old Alliance has not been totally revoked. Its Mosaic ritual and ceremonial precepts have, but not the Alliance as such made with the Jews manifesting the will of God offering to the Jews and indeed to all men of all times the Promise and Gift of entering into communion with Him. That aspect of the Old Testament is eternal. The multiple alliances noted between God and Israel recounted in the books of the Old Testament were at the service of the unique Alliance that remains to spur conversion to Christ.

See Chapter 11 of St. Paul's Letter to the Romans: "Has God rejected His people? By no means! . . . A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved . . . As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

Re: Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification

One must fairly assess Pope John Paul II's approval of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD), which the Church signed with certain Lutheran groups in October 1999. First, the aim of the whole JD process from the Catholic perspective was to bring about the restoration of Lutherans to full communion with the Church. Second, a common misreading of the process has been that the Church agrees completely with the Lutheran statements in the JD. While the Church noted in the Official Common Statement (OCS) published with the JD that it confirmed the JD "in its entirety," both the OCS and the JD made clear that such confirmation included the acknowledgement of ongoing and significant doctrinal disagreements. Further, one must read the OCS and the co-published "Catholic Annex" to get an adequate understanding of the Church's position on the JD (Please let me know if you need a copy of either of these documents.)

Without full, unequivocal agreement on the doctrinal issue of justification, some have wondered why Church condemnations (anathemas) on this matter don't apply anymore to the Lutheran position as expressed in the JD. Two observations should be made here. First, an anathema is, strictly speaking, a penalty whereby the Church totally separates a Catholic believer from the Church. Because contemporary Lutherans were not baptized in the Catholic Church, nor subsequently have been received into the Catholic Church, mere ecclesiastical laws don't apply to them (canon 11 of current Code; canon 12 of 1917 Code).

However, Lutherans and all other people are morally obligated to seek and embrace the full truth. Anathemas would still apply to a Catholic who accepted the JD without the doctrinal clarifications of the Annex. The Annex guides Catholic believers to a proper Catholic understanding of those issues in the JD on which Catholics and Lutherans have not achieved full, unequivocal agreement.

Second, regarding the Lutheran teaching on justification as expressed in the JD, the Church does not condemn the teaching because the Lutheran World Federation accepted the co-publication of the clarifying Annex with the JD and the OCS. Lutherans still do not fully accept Catholic teaching on the doctrine of justification as discussed in the JD and the Annex. Yet, because of their explicit openness to the Catholic position and because they did not formally and categorically deny the Catholic teaching on justification (e.g., by rejecting the co-publication of the Annex), the Church does not formally condemn this Lutheran group's teaching on the matter. At the same time, the Church clearly recognizes that there are still issues to resolve before the Lutherans can be restored to full communion.

Mr. [x] also raised the question of Cardinal Ottaviani's intervention. This point is addressed in detail in chapter 14 of The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, by Kenneth Whitehead and James Likoudis. This book is out of print (we're in the process of publishing a new second edition), but I've enclosed a copy of the chapter from the first edition with Mr. [x] hard copy.

In short, it ought to be noted that Cardinal Ottaviani did not write the so-called "Ottaviani Intervention," which was really the work of M.L. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., then a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. Fr. des Lauriers would later become a schismatic bishop who was illicitly ordained by Vietnemese Archbishop Thuc, who himself was excommunicated until he eventually repented and was reconciled with the Church.

Upon Cardinal Ottaviani's death in 1979, Pope John Paul II celebrated a Requiem Mass for the Cardinal's "exemplary fidelity" to the Holy See. His spirit was one "which is expressed in special attachment to Peter and to the faith of Peter and, again, in keen sensitiveness to what the Church of Peter is and does and must do."

If, as some "traditionalists" have claimed, Cardinal Ottaviani's statements (noted and quoted in PCM) expressing his acceptance of the reformed Rite of Mass were forgeries, why didn't this heroic Cardinal, noted for his fidelity to Church teaching and his holy life, publicly repudiate the lies that had been publicly broadcast in his name?

When it is a question of following the observations on the Mass of a group of theologians, or accepting the judgment of the Supreme Pastor of the Church, there can be no contest. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, the judgment of the Pope is decisive and must be followed, not that of dissenting theologians, no matter how eminent or learned.

I've tried to be as responsive as I could be to the various questions and accusations raised by you and Mr. [x]. I conclude with a simple, but earnest and sincere, plea that you reexamine your opposition to the Pope. Surely we can discuss various points of doctrine, but in the end, if we obstinately close our ears to the Vicar of Christ on earth, we're headed toward ruin.

Sincerely in Christ,

Leon J. Suprenant, Jr.

Bro. Peter’s Response to Mr. Suprenant’s Letter

2/15/05

Dear Mr. Suprenant:

I’m sorry that I could not get back to you sooner, but I’ve been involved with some different things.  In the course of this letter I will address your comments by setting them off with >>> marks, and I will add my own comments below.  

In your letter, you asked whether our Monastery is in communion with the Bishop of Buffalo.  The answer to your question is no Catholic Bishop exists in the diocese of Buffalo.  The Novus Ordo Bishop posing as the Catholic Bishop denies the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, among various other dogmas.  He is not a Catholic Bishop, no more than were the Arian Bishops posing as Catholic Bishops in the 4th century.  But whether or not you think our Monastery is legitimate is really irrelevant to this discussion.  Our discussion concerns the post-Vatican II religion vs. the Catholic religion.  You say that there is no discontinuity.  So please allow me to address your responses to the three points that I raised about John Paul II’s apostasy.

1.  Regarding John Paul II’s Repeated Teaching that we should not Proselytize the Schismatics

You write: >>>>While deferring ultimately to the Holy See as the proper interpreter of its own statements, let me address briefly the three questions you raised.

Re: whether Catholics should "proselytize" the Eastern Orthodox Churches

“I don't think you know the meaning of "proselytism" as the Church understands it. It means "gaining converts by unworthy means, of forcing or coercing consciences" (e.g., "bread Christians"-winning them over with political and economic bribery and offices, etc.). To engage in dialogue with our separated Christians and to have theological exchanges with them is simply to encourage them toward full reconciliation with the Holy See. Vatican II left no doubt that the whole purpose of ecumenism is to prepare separated Christians for full communion in faith, worship, and government (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3). Lumen Gentium affirms that the Catholic Church professes to be the "one and only Church of Jesus Christ" and seeks her separated baptized brethren to share that unity which she can never lose.>>>>

Mr. Suprenant, a proselyte is “convert from one opinion, creed, or party, to another.” (The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, p. 678)  To proselytize is to make converts.  That is the meaning of the word.  Thus, when John Paul II repeatedly agrees that he has no desire to proselytize the “Orthodox” Schismatics  – and that unity with them is not achieved by proselytism – it clearly means that he has no desire to convert them.  To deny this is to change the meaning of the word to your own convenience and to attempt to defend the indefensible. This is further proven by the fact that John Paul II never says himself that unity with the Schismatics can only come if they accept the dogma of the Papacy and convert to the Catholic Faith.

Canonists and theologians teach that external heresy consists not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis 1:746.)

I do not deny, of course, that John Paul II also rejects proselytism by forcible tactics; of course he rejects that as well.  But it is neither accurate nor honest to say that his many denunciations of proselytizing the Schismatics only refer to forcible proselytism, when he doesn’t say that anywhere in the context of the many things we quote to prove the point. 

To further prove the point, I will show you from other words of John Paul II that it is his teaching that Catholics shouldn’t convert the Eastern Schismatics.  In his encyclical (Slavorum Apostoli – The Apostles of the Slavs) on Sts. Cyril and Methodius (#27), John Paul II indicated that Eastern Schismatics should not be converted to the Catholic Church by teaching that unity with the Schismatics ‘is neither absorption nor fusion,’ which means not by conversion.   Mr. Suprenant, this phrase from this very encyclical – “neither absorption nor fusion” in Slavorum Apostoli #27 – was directly referenced by the Balamand Statement as the justification for its teaching that we should not convert the Eastern Schismatics.

Balamand Statement, #’s 14-15, 1993: “According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, 27).15. While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.”

This quote is very important and, quite frankly, it totally refutes what you have said.  Here we see what the Balamand Statement, which was approved by John Paul II, clearly teaches regarding the conversion of the Orthodox: “there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.”  This is a direct denial of Vatican I and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation; but how do they attempt to justify it?  They “justify” it by using John Paul II’s own teaching in Slavorum Apostoli, 27, and the very phrase he uses to teach the same thing: namely, that unity with these schismatics is “neither absorption nor fusion,” which means not by conversion.  (By the way, it is a fact that John Paul II approved of the Balamand Statement, but you make the curious claim that John Paul II didn’t approve the Balamand Statement in toto.  Can you please document where John Paul II has said that he doesn’t approve of the above teaching of the Balamand Statement?  If not, then why did you make that claim?)

But, Mr. Suprenant, in addition to the above there is more to prove the point. On October 12, 2002, John Paul II and the Schismatic Patriarch of Romania jointly denounced trying to convert each other by using the same phrase again: “Our aim and our ardent desire is full communion, which is not absorption…”(L’ Osservatore Romano,Oct. 16, 2002, p. 5.)  In his address on the same day, John Paul II also told the schismatic Patriarch: “The goal is… to reach a unity which implies neither absorption nor fusion…”(L’ Osservatore Romano,Oct. 16, 2002, p. 4.)  And to really drive the point home, in the same address to the Schismatic Patriarch of Romania, John Paul II made this incredible statement:

“For her part, the Catholic Church recognizes the mission which the Orthodox Churches are called to carry out in the countries where they have been rooted for centuries.  She desires nothing else than to help this mission…”(L’ Osservatore Romano,Oct. 16, 2002, p. 4.)

This means that he has no desire to convert the Schismatics to the Catholic Faith, but only to help their “mission.”  And this clear teaching of the Vatican II sect is why “Cardinal” Kasper, who was appointed by John Paul II to a position to enunciate his views on this very topic, stated clearly:

Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity: “… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001)

And this teaching is why hordes of Novus Ordo Bishops throughout the world have enunciated the same thing, which they have ultimately received from John Paul II:

“There is no proselytism as a directive on the part of the Holy See, nor is there any intention to convert Russia to Roman Catholicism.” --Igor Kovalevsky, Secretary General of the Novus Ordo "Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops" of Russia, (Itar-Tass News Agency, May 7, 2004)

It couldn’t be more clear, Mr. Suprenant; yet there is more.  John Paul II, following the lead of the apostate Paul VI, has repeatedly declared that the Eastern Schismatics are no longer anathematized or excommunicated.

Antipope John Paul II, Message to Schismatic Patriarch Dimitrios of Istanbul, Nov. 30, 1985:“To His Holiness Dimitrios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patnareb... We see there a happy coincidence for celebrating together the Feast of the Apostle Saint Andrew on this twentieth anniversary of the lifting of the anathemas.”

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 17), May 25, 1995: “At the conclusion of the Council, Pope Paul VI sealed the Council’s commitment to ecumenism, renewing the dialogue of charity with the Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and joining the Patriarch in the concrete and profoundly significant gesture which ‘condemned to oblivion’ and ‘removed from the memory and from the midst of the Church’ the excommunications of the past.”

Antipope John Paul II, Orientale Lumen (# 18), May 2, 1995: “All this praiseworthy work was to converge in the reflections of the Second Vatican Council and to be symbolized in the abrogation of the reciprocal excommunications of 1054 by Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I.”

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Teoctist, October 12, 2002: “At the conclusion of the work of the Council, by a highly significant gesture that took place at the same time in Rome and in Constantinople, the reciprocal condemnations of 1054 were cancelled from the memory of the Church.” (L’ Osservatore Romano,Oct. 16, 2002, p. 3.)

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 42), May 25, 1995: “The ‘universal brotherhood’ of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction.  Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out…”

These statements are patently false and constitute a denial of Vatican I, which anathematized anyone who does not accept the Papacy or Papal Infallibility, such as the Orthodox.  So, contrary to Vatican I, John Paul II repeatedly declares that the Schismatics are no longer anathematized or excommunicated even though they persist in rejecting Vatican I.  This proves again that John Paul II does not consider the Schismatics to be under anathema or excommunication for denying the Papacy, and that he holds that they do not need to be converted.  It couldn’t be more clear, Mr. Suprenant, that John Paul II is a heretic and a schismatic who denies Vatican I, as any honest person will admit.   This is further proven by a myriad of John Paul II’s actions, including: giving $100,000.00 to the Schismatic Patriarch Teoctist; constantly declaring that the “Orthodox Churches” are “venerable” and lavishing other praises on these schismatic bodies and their leaders without ever mentioning that they are heretics and schismatics who need to be converted; acknowledging schismatic Patriarchs as the holders of “Sees”; giving them relics, etc., etc., etc.  All of these actions, as theologians teach, also demonstrate his heresy – which is so clearly and repeatedly stipulated in his words above.

2.  Regarding John Paul II’s Teaching that the Old Covenant has never been revoked

>>>>Re: status of "Old Covenant"

>>>The Old Alliance has not been totally revoked. Its Mosaic ritual and ceremonial precepts have, but not the Alliance as such made with the Jews manifesting the will of God offering to the Jews and indeed to all men of all times the Promise and Gift of entering into communion with Him. That aspect of the Old Testament is eternal. The multiple alliances noted between God and Israel recounted in the books of the Old Testament were at the service of the unique Alliance that remains to spur conversion to Christ.

See Chapter 11 of St. Paul's Letter to the Romans: "Has God rejected His people? By no means! . . . A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved . . . As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.">>>>

Mr. Suprenant, the Old Alliance as such has been totally revoked.  That is why Jews cannot observe it without the loss of salvation (de fide).  The fact that the Old Alliance as such has been revoked is why Jews must accept Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith for salvation, and that if they continue to observe the Old Alliance there will be for them nothing but damnation.  Do you acknowledge that Jews who reject Christ and observe the Old Law will not be saved?  If so, then how can you say that the Old Alliance as such has not been revoked?  What could you possibly mean by such a statement?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.  Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation.  All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61): “The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 59), March 1, 1756: “However they are not attempting to observe the precepts of the old Law which as everybody knows have been revoked by the coming of Christ.”

Pope Pius XII (1943): “… the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished… Jesus made void the Law with its decrees… To such an extent, then… was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church… that, as our Lord expired, the mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.  On the Cross then the Old Law died…” (Mystici Corporis #’s 29-30)

3.  Re: Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification

You write: >>>>One must fairly assess Pope John Paul II's approval of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD), which the Church signed with certain Lutheran groups in October 1999. First, the aim of the whole JD process from the Catholic perspective was to bring about the restoration of Lutherans to full communion with the Church. Second, a common misreading of the process has been that the Church agrees completely with the Lutheran statements in the JD. While the Church noted in the Official Common Statement (OCS) published with the JD that it confirmed the JD "in its entirety," both the OCS and the JD made clear that such confirmation included the acknowledgement of ongoing and significant doctrinal disagreements. Further, one must read the OCS and the co-published "Catholic Annex" to get an adequate understanding of the Church's position on the JD (Please let me know if you need a copy of either of these documents.)>>>>

Since you brought these two documents up, I will let you know that prior to composing my article on the “22 Heresies in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification” I read all three documents (the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans; the Official Common Statement; and the Annex to the Official Common Statement) at least three times, if I recall correctly.  I also read the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification (which I had read numerous times before) ten times in a row so that the teaching of the Church would be fresh in my mind and the heresies in the Joint Declaration easy to discern.  So, I am very familiar with all three documents pertaining to this Joint Declaration with the Lutherans. 

But it seems that each time I bring up the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification with a Novus Ordo/Vatican II defender, he makes reference to the two other documents that accompanied the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, namely, the Official Common Statement and the Annex to the Official Common Statement.  It seems that the Novus Ordo/Vatican II defender thinks or hopes that the person with whom he is conversing is ignorant of these two accompanying documents – so that he can pass off the false impression that these two documents mitigate or explain away the heresies in the Joint Declaration and that the other person, being unfamiliar with them, will have no response.  But since I am very familiar with both documents, I can tell you that they do not mitigate or clarify the heresies in the Joint Declaration at all; in fact, the Annex to the Official Common Statement is arguably even more heretical than the JD itself (if that’s possible) because it affirms, on the “Catholic” side, that Justification comes by faith alone!

Annex to the Official Common Statement, made by “Catholic” side and Lutheran side: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works" (Annex, # 2, C).

So, here we have the “Catholic” and the Lutheran side – in the Annex, the document that people love to appeal to – declaring the very heresy condemned solemnly by the Council of Trent in 13 different ways!  Do you admit that this is outright heresy?  If not, then I must tell you that you are no different from a Protestant.

You write: >>>>Without full, unequivocal agreement on the doctrinal issue of justification, some have wondered why Church condemnations (anathemas) on this matter don't apply anymore to the Lutheran position as expressed in the JD. Two observations should be made here. First, an anathema is, strictly speaking, a penalty whereby the Church totally separates a Catholic believer from the Church. Because contemporary Lutherans were not baptized in the Catholic Church, nor subsequently have been received into the Catholic Church, mere ecclesiastical laws don't apply to them (canon 11 of current Code; canon 12 of 1917 Code).>>>>

First, anathemas attached to dogmatic canons on Faith are not merely ecclesiastical laws.  They are expressions of the divine law condemning those who reject the true Faith.  They cannot be set aside because they express an unchanging and dogmatic obligation to accept every article of the Catholic Faith under pain of heresy and damnation. 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by that very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching?  For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others.  Faith, as the Church teaches, is that supernatural virtue by which… we believe what He has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of human reason [author: that is, not because it seems correct to us], but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Please notice this important teaching.  The Church could never overturn anathemas attached to dogmatic canons because it can never endorse the rejection of Faith and God which occurs with “anyone” (see above) – that includes all Lutherans – who rejects “any” teaching of the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
"The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages."

Pope Pius IX’s teaching clearly proves this as well.

Syllabus of Errors, #70: “The canons of the Council of Trent which impose the censure of anathema on those who have the boldness to deny to the Church the power of introducing diriment impediments, are either not dogmatic, or are to be understood in accordance with this borrowed power.” – Condemned by Pope Pius IX, Denz. 1770

This condemned proposition deals with the anathemas of Trent regarding Holy Matrimony.  It shows that the canons of Trent which impose anathema on those who have the boldness to deny its teaching on Justification are likewise dogmatic and cannot be overturned.

"...the holy ecumenical and general synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit... cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and apostolic legates a latere, presiding therein in the name of our Most Holy Father and Lord in Christ, Paul, the third Pope by the providence of God, for the praise and glory of Almighty God, for the tranquility of the Church and the salvation of souls, purpose to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and salutary doctrine of justification, which the "son of justice" (Mal. 4:2), Christ Jesus, "the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12:2) taught, the apostles transmitted and the Catholic Church, under the instigation of the Holy Spirit, has always retained, strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree." (Council of Trent, Session 6, On Justification)

The Joint Declaration teaches contrary to the Council of Trent on Justification by saying that Lutherans – and the teachings of Lutherans expressed in the JD – are not anathematized any longer.  Nothing could be more heretical.

Second, even without considering the facts above, your argument that the anathemas of Trent on Justification can be overturned – and cease to apply to Lutherans – because contemporary Lutherans were never part of the Church, and hence not subject to Her ecclesiastical laws, is also untenable.  This is because the Lutheran heretics involved in this agreement were not stipulated to be only Lutherans who were never part of the Catholic Church.  The agreement clearly includes all types of Lutherans who are part of the body involved in the agreement, including former Catholics and those baptized as infants who left the Church and may have become Lutherans.  Thus, even from that standpoint, the argument doesn’t hold up.

You write:>>>>However, Lutherans and all other people are morally obligated to seek and embrace the full truth. Anathemas would still apply to a Catholic who accepted the JD without the doctrinal clarifications of the Annex. The Annex guides Catholic believers to a proper Catholic understanding of those issues in the JD on which Catholics and Lutherans have not achieved full, unequivocal agreement.>>>>

Mr. Suprenant, here you state that the Annex guides Catholics.  The Annex clearly teaches Justification by faith alone.  You are therefore endorsing the solemnly condemned heresy of Justification by faith alone.  You are endorsing the pillar of Protestantism and the rejection of the Council of Trent. 

Annex to the Official Common Statement, made by “Catholic” side and Lutheran side: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works" (Annex, # 2, C).

You write: >>>Second, regarding the Lutheran teaching on justification as expressed in the JD, the Church does not condemn the teaching because the Lutheran World Federation accepted the co-publication of the clarifying Annex with the JD and the OCS.  Yet, because of their explicit openness to the Catholic position and because they did not formally and categorically deny the Catholic teaching on justification (e.g., by rejecting the co-publication of the Annex), the Church does not formally condemn this Lutheran group's teaching on the matter.>>>>

Mr. Suprenant, what you endorse here is blatant heresy against the Council of Trent.  You state that the Church does not condemn the teaching expressed by the Lutherans in the JD.  Mr. Suprenant, the teaching expressed by the Lutherans in the JD was solemnly condemned by Trent.  Before I show that, I must note again that you are appealing again to the Annex which teaches the solemnly condemned heresy of Justification by faith alone.  You are thus endorsing Justification by faith alone again.  

The Lutheran teaching referred to in the JD – which the JD declares is not condemned by Trent – includes Justification by faith alone and other blatant Lutheran heresies which were, in fact, solemnly condemned by Trent.  Please see the following:

Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century [i.e., the Council of Trent], in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent."

Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "26. According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide)." --- HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT!

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 10, ex cathedra :
"'You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone' (Jas. 2:24)."

JD With Lutherans: "21. According to the Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action." –HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT!

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Can. 4:
"If anyone shall say that man's free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema."

JD With Lutherans: "23. …Lutherans... intend rather to express that justification remains free from human cooperation and is not dependent upon the life-renewing effects of grace in human beings." – HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT!

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Can. 1:
"If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema."

JD With Lutherans: "29. Lutherans understand this condition of the Christian as a being 'at the same time righteous and sinner'. Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament and grants the righteousness of Christ which they appropriate in faith. In Christ, they are made just before God. Looking at themselves through the law, however, they recognize that they remain totally sinners." – HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT!

This heresy is also called “simul justus et peccator” (at the same time just and sinner) and was one of Martin Luther’s favorites.  It was vigorously condemned by Trent in the following two passages.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 5:
"If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 5:
"For in those who are born again [Justified], God hates nothing, because 'there is no condemnation, to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death' (Rom. 6:4), who do not 'walk according to the flesh' (Rom. 8:1), but putting off 'the old man' and putting on the 'new, who is created according to God' (Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:9), are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved sons of God, 'heirs indeed of God, but co-heirs with Christ' (Rom. 8:17), so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven."

JD With Lutherans: "29... Lutherans say that justified persons are also sinners and that their opposition to God is truly sin, they do not deny that, despite this sin, they are not separated from God and that this is a 'ruled' sin." – HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 15:
"... the doctrine of divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelievers, but also the faithful who are fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners (1 Cor. 6:9), and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the assistance of divine grace they can refrain and for which they are separated from the grace of God."

All of these blatant Lutheran heresies were solemnly condemned by the Catholic Church.  But, according to the JD, they are no longer condemned by Trent.  That is formal heresy and an utter rejection of the Council of Trent. 

>>>>I've tried to be as responsive as I could be to the various questions and accusations raised by you and Mr. [x]. I conclude with a simple, but earnest and sincere, plea that you reexamine your opposition to the Pope. Surely we can discuss various points of doctrine, but in the end, if we obstinately close our ears to the Vicar of Christ on earth, we're headed toward ruin.>>>

Mr. Suprenant, if you are honest, you will see that John Paul II’s teaching is blatantly heretical in many areas.  You will also admit that he is not remotely Catholic for endorsing false religions.  In my first letter I deliberately brought forward only three of John Paul II’s heresies, so that it would not be too long.  I could have brought up many others, such as the fact that John Paul II repeatedly teaches that all men are saved and in the state of grace, which is apostasy.

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978: “Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a 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.”

I also did not bring up the fact that John Paul II teaches that non-Christian (false) religions are a product of the Holy Spirit, which is utter blasphemy and apostasy.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 6): “Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions – a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body…”

Here Antipope John Paul II says that the firm belief of the followers of non-Christian religions proceeds from the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.  Since we know from Sacred Scripture and Catholic teaching that Satan is the author of all non-Christian religions, what is being stated here by Antipope John Paul II is that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is actually the spirit of lies – Satan.  This is an unbelievable blasphemy against God and total apostasy.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 29), Dec. 7, 1990: “The Church’s relationship with other religions is dictated by a twofold respect: ‘Respect for man in his quest for answers to the deepest questions of his life, and respect for the action of the Spirit in man.’”

Here Antipope John Paul II says that respect for non-Christian religions is dictated by respect for the action of the Spirit in man.  This clearly means that the Spirit is responsible for these non-Christian religions, which again means that the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the spirit of lies - Satan.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 56): “Other religions constitute a positive challenge for the Church: they stimulate her both to discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ’s presence and of the working of the Spirit.”

This means that non-Christian religions are a work of the Spirit – the Holy Spirit – which again equates the Spirit of Truth with the spirit of lies: Satan.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians… Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy...  Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it...”

Pius XI teaches that those who hold that all religions are more or less good are apostates.  John Paul II holds that all religions are more or less good.  This fact is proven by the fact that he personally invited and arranged for an array of false religions to come Assisi I and Assisi II (and many other events) to worship false gods. John Paul II has also kissed the Koran and asked St. John the Baptist to protect the false and wicked religion of Islam. 

Antipope John Paul II, March 21, 2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan...” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)

This means that John Paul II believes that Islam is a good religion.  Do you admit that this is apostasy?  If not, Mr. Suprenant, then I must say, in charity and with no personal malice, that you are an apostate.  His statement is more heretical than if he were to say, “May St. John the Baptist protect abortion.” 

John Paul II has also taught that false religions are “great” hundreds of times, including all the false religions he invited to come to Assisi.  Do you admit that this is apostasy?

Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Address, Sept. 14, 1986: “… I invited… the other great religions of the world to ‘a special meeting of prayer for peace in the city of Assisi…’”(L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 22, 1986, p. 2.)

Antipope John Paul II, Address, Nov. 29, 2002: “… the great world religions, starting with Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism…”(L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 11, 2002, p. 6.)

There are other things that I could bring forward, such as the teaching of John Paul II and Vatican II that it is lawful for non-Catholics to come to Holy Communion – an idea condemned by the Catholic Church numerous times.

You write: >>>>Second, it's clear that your rejection of Pope John Paul II is prior to the specific issues raised in your email. I'm happy to provide some response to your questions, but my preference would be to go to the source. I assume that you believe at some specific, clearly definable moment in time Pope John Paul II (or, more likely, one of his predecessors) went into schism and became an anti-pope. When do you believe this occurred?>>>

We believe that John XXIII was an Antipope from the time of his dubious election in 1958.  We discuss his invalid election in the article below:

The Cardinal Siri Elections in Brief - relating to the Papal Conclaves and Invalid Elections of John XXIII [1958] and Paul VI [1963]

Besides not being elected, according to the evidence, John XXIII was also proven to be a non-Catholic heretic who denied the necessity of the Catholic Church.  Such a man cannot be a validly elected Pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine: “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.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

St. Antoninus: “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church.  A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.  A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.  He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.” (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

St. Alphonsus, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the Pontificate.” (Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232)

St. Francis De Sales, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…” (The Catholic Controversy, TAN Books, pp. 305-306)

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church: “This principle is most certain.  The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits.  The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

Paul VI was a complete apostate who was not remotely Catholic, as we will show in an upcoming article.  And John Paul I was also a heretic for embracing all of the heretical Vatican II documents.  So, it is demonstrable that all four of the “Vatican II Popes” were, in fact, non-Catholic Antipopes.  That is why they have imposed a new religion on the world, a new “Mass,” new sacramental rites, etc.  But I don’t want to deviate from the issue of John Paul II’s apostasy which is the most important issue in this regard.  So please address the facts regarding John Paul II – and hopefully – recognize the clear heresies in his teaching.

You write:>>>It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you to establish this fact. If it weren't, then every Pope since St. Peter would have the ongoing burden of justifying his legitimacy against any and all criticisms, in essence having to constantly prove a negative.>>>

You are correct.  The burden of proof is on us to prove that John Paul II is an Antipope, and not a real Pope, and we have done so at length by proving without a doubt that he is not remotely Catholic – and therefore cannot be the Pope.  Further, Mr. Suprenant, the fact that the post-Vatican II religion has implemented and preached a new gospel, with totally new sacramental rites, and a totally new, Protestant “Mass,” etc. should alert Catholics to the fact that this strange break with Tradition may be coming from men who are imposters, just like the 40 plus Antipopes in history.  (Consider, for instance, Antipope Anacletus II who reigned 8 years and Rome with the support of almost the entire College of Cardinals.) The new gospel and the new, Protestantized Mass of the post-Vatican II religion – besides all of the other heresies which constitute a total break with Tradition – should alert Catholics that the post-Vatican II religion is the fulfillment of the prophecies of Our Lady and Sacred Scripture relating to the Great Apostasy and the takeover of the city of Rome by a counterfeit “Church” of apostasy which is not the Catholic Church.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 10), March 4, 1979: “IN REALITY, THE NAME FOR THAT DEEP AMAZEMENT AT MAN’S WORTH AND DIGNITY IS THE GOSPEL, THAT IS TO SAY: THE GOOD NEWS.  IT IS ALSO CALLED CHRISTIANITY.”

Here John Paul II preaches a new Gospel.  This new gospel is that Christianity is the amazement at man.

Galatians 1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.  As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

I pray that you will see the truth of the facts here, and we hope and pray for your conversion.

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

“The Second Vatican Council was a completely legitimate exercise of the Church's Magisterium“

You lack even the courage to put your name.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: Please--surely we can do better than that. I didn't know who to address my post to, so I settled for initials. My name is Jim Russell. Pleased to meet you, Brother Dimond. Now that we've established that I have courage, and cordiality, could you please address the question I asked in my initial post? If you prefer to avoid the question, then just tell me where you would like to begin.

Sincerely, Jim Russell

MHFM: Before I answer the question, please tell me if you regard John Kerry (the former presidential candidate who supports abortion) as a Catholic or a heretic?  He has not been excommunicated by your Bishops.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: Brother Dimond: I am assuming that your request means that, by answering your question, you will agree to answer mine. I accept.

Heresy is defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith." Are we on the same page with its definition? Assuming so, we must still ask the question, "who gets to decide--officially--what is heresy and what is not"?

But I will say that in my personal judgment, *which I submit to the authority of the Church's Magisterium*, Kerry's baptismal identity makes him Catholic in name, although his personally held beliefs are far from the authentic Catholic faith. Kerry's pro-abortion views, for example, are clearly anti-Catholic. The Magisterium has said so. Heresy, however, is an official term used in magisterial, authoritative declarations regarding the formal status of someone's relationship with the Church. *I* can't declare someone to be a "heretic" in any official sense at all. I don't think it makes sense for private individuals to label *other* private individuals as heretics when that is the prerogative of the Magisterium alone.

Kerry can and will be denied Communion in at least some dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church. The jurdicial penalty of excommunication would clarify his official status, but wouldn't necessarily make him a heretic, if, for example, he is officially declared instead to be an apostate or schismatic, etc. Heresy is a precise juridical term used officially in specific situations by those competent to officially declare what is heresy and what is not.

So, back to you and my question.

Jim Russell

JIM: Brother Dimond:

I'm beginning to think I've scared you off!  I'm assuming you're willing to continue discussion, correct?

Jim Russell

MHFM: No, that is quite far from the truth.   I'm involved with many things, many of which are of a more pressing priority than refuting a heretic who thinks that the apostate John Kerry is a Catholic.  After all, you did send your e-mail yesterday.  I was planning on responding to you when I had time, such as now.

First, I must say that you are quite deceived.  You really believe that you are a Catholic, and you are trying to tell me what is Catholic teaching, while at the same you hold that the apostate John Kerry is a Catholic and you don't believe the Vatican II Antipopes endorse false religions. This means that you believe that one can obstinately support abortion and hold the Catholic Faith.  Sorry to say, but this is heresy.  I must say that you understand nothing at all about the unity of Faith in the Church, heresy, Magisterial teaching or how the Church views heretics.  Have you even read Pope Pius XI's 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos?  If not, you better since this encyclical condemns as apostasy the very ecumenism that is exemplified by the Vatican II Antipopes.

How about Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum of 1896?  Have you read the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Pope Pius IX?  I think you  better educate yourself on what the Catholic Church traditionally teaches because you think that you are a defender of the Catholic Faith when you are actually acting as its enemy - by defending the Vatican II apostasy.   You asked three different questions: 1) produce a quotation from the Vatican II Antipopes which endorses false religions; 2) produce a heresy in Vatican II; and 3) produce Catholic teaching which says that an individual can determine that another individual is a heretic.  I will answer one question at a time, so that these e-mails don't get too long.  After I answer them I will ask you a few questions.

You write:

“For starters, can you show me *anywhere,* in the teachings of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, it is declared that an individual Catholic has the authority to declare another person to be a heretic? I look forward to your reply.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Here we see the teaching of the Catholic Church that individuals who recede from the teaching of the Magisterium must be considered outside the Church (e.g. heretics).  This is the teaching of all the ancient fathers, as Pope Leo XIII declares.  Below we also see St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, illustrating the same teaching that individuals can and must consider as heretics those who demonstrate a rejection of Catholic teaching.  He states that a Catholic condemns as heretics those who show themselves to be by their external works.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

And this is traditional teaching of course, since only a tiny fraction of all the heretics who exist have traditionally been declared to be heretics by name.  For instance, Hans Kung and Billy Graham have never been declared to be heretics, but Catholics are obligated to consider them as such, since they obstinately reject Catholic teaching.  But you don’t understand this, since you don’t, as of yet, have the Catholic Faith.  So, I have answered your question.

You also asked for me to produce a quotation from the Vatican II Antipopes which endorses false religions.  Well, here you go:

John Paul II, March 21, 2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan...” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)

This is total apostasy.  This is an endorsement of a false religion and a rejection of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.  I could quote many more, but this should suffice for this e-mail.  The Catholic Faith holds that Islam is an abomination which leads to damnation, as it rejects the True God and the Catholic Faith.  Antipope John Paul II asked for its protection.  He was an apostate who completely rejected the Catholic Faith.  That is why he also kissed the blasphemous Koran, etc., etc., etc., etc.

You write:

“There is no such thing as the "Vatican II religion." The teachings of the Second Vatican Council are the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. One who "protests" againsts these teachings would rightly be called "protestant," which is probably the best description of the views espoused by your web site.”

Sir, again you are completely deceived.  You call what is Catholic “Protestant,” while you are in communion with men who agree that Justification takes place by “faith alone” and that the Council of Trent no longer applies (Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, approved by John Paul II).  But since you say this, would you agree that Benedict XVI promotes Protestantism by encouraging the formation of Protestant and non-Catholic Monasteries such as the Monastery of Taize?

The famous ecumenical Monastery of Taize is located in the south of Burgundy, France.  The Taize community “is made up of over a hundred brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant backgrounds, from more than twenty-five nations.” [Taize]

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 304: “For more than a decade, Taize has been, without a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical inspiration, emanating from a local center inspired by a particular ‘charism’.  Similar communities of faith and of shared living should be formed elsewherein which the foregoing of a communal reception of the Eucharist would, without ceasing to be a hardship, become comprehensible and in which its necessity would be understood by a prayer community that cannot answer its own prayer but is, nevertheless, calmly certain it will be answered.”

He praises the non-Catholic Monastery of Taize; and he encourages similar communities to be formed, thus encouraging people to become non-Catholics.  Do you agree that this shows that Benedict XVI is a promoter of Protestantism?  If not, you show yourself to be an abominable hypocrite.

Last point: there are many heresies in Vatican II.  I will just cite one: its teaching that non-Catholics may lawfully receive the Holy Eucharist.  This is a rejection of Catholic teaching, which has always forbidden non-Catholics from receiving Communion.  This prohibition of the Church is rooted in the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-Catholics sin when receiving Holy Communion since they are outside the Church.  It cannot be changed.  Vatican II contradicted it and taught heresy.

Vatican II, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27: “Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”

So, since you asked me three questions, I will ask you three: 1) have you read Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Mortalium Animos?  2) Do you admit that Benedict XVI promotes Protestantism by encouraging the formation of non-Catholic Monasteries?  3) Do you admit that Benedict XVI’s teaching that Catholics shouldn’t convert Protestants and schismatics is heresy (see below)?

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology(Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism.  The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.  On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.  On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the Church. While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the problem.  This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action.  That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it.  As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

I quoted the entire passage without a break so that people can see that this is not being taken out of context in any way.  Ratzinger specifically mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith (and accept Vatican I: “the full scope of the definition of 1870”).  He specifically rejects it as the way to unity.  This is totally heretical and it proves that he is a complete non-Catholic heretic.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928: “… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: … Pope John Paul the Great was holier than you or I will ever likely be.....The kissing of a book does not make or UN-make Popes. Surely you understand that; surely your faith in the promises of Christ and the Magisterium’s protection by the Holy Spirit runs deeper than that?

***** Sir, again you are completely deceived.   You call what is Catholic “Protestant” while you are in communion with men who agree that Justification takes place by “faith alone” and that the Council of Trent no longer applies (Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, approved by John Paul II).*******

Maybe you are completely deceived. Who gets to decide? But, just for fun, why not produce for me a *direct* quote from a universal teaching of the Church that claims the Catholic Church teaches “sola fide”—I want to see the exact words that back up your claim above. I *know* the Joint Declaration to which you refer does not state that....

Can you show me *anywhere* in Church teaching where it specifically says that an individual can or should dissent from the *Magisterium’s* authority and that an individual is free to apply doctrines regarding offenses against the faith to the Magisterium itself?...

Jim Russell

MHFM:  Oh really?  So you “know” that the Joint Declaration doesn’t teach Justification by faith alone.  Read it and weep.  (You also blaspheme Jesus Christ by asserting that Antipope John Paul II was “John Paul the Great” after you’ve seen his apostasy.)

Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works."

This is the annex to the official statement made by your Vatican II sect under John Paul II with the Lutheran sect.  Your sect is Protestant.

Antipope John Paul II, Jan. 19, 2004, At a Meeting with Lutherans From Finland: “… I wish to express my gratitude for the ecumenical progress made between Catholics and Lutherans in the five years since the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification… It is my hope that Lutherans and Catholics will increasingly practice a spirituality of communion, which draws on those elements of ecclesial life which they already share and which will strengthen their fellowship in prayer and in witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 28, 2004, p. 4.)

So, what you claimed to “know” was completely wrong.  Perhaps you should realize that you are also wrong in other areas relating to this matter.  Regarding your second question, it doesn’t make any sense.  You are asking me to produce a Magisterial teaching that allows Catholics to reject the Magisterium.  A Catholic can never reject the Magisterium.  The Magisterium is the infallible, unerring teaching authority of the Catholic Church.  All teachings of the Magisterium must be accepted, since they are infallible.

Pope Pius XI, “Divini Illius Magistri,” December 31, 1929:  “Upon this magisterium Christ the Lord conferred immunity from error, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all.” (Denz. 2204)

Your contradictory question reveals your lack of understanding of what the Magisterium is: it is the infallible teaching authority of Christ’s Church exercised by a true Pope when speaking from the Chair of Peter solemnly or reiterating in his ordinary and universal teaching that which has always been held from Scripture or Tradition.  The defined teachings of the Magisterium are an unchangeable body, the deposit of Faith, such as those promulgated at the Council of Nicaea, Florence, Trent, etc.  Neither the persons of Bishops nor the teaching of Bishops constitute the teaching of the Magisterium, unless they are reiterating what has already been taught by the Magisterium.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 1, 1311-1312: “We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Let those who devise such plans be aware that, according to the testimony of St. Leo, ‘the right to grant dispensation from the canons is given’ only to the Roman Pontiff.  He alone, and no private person, can decide anything ‘about the rules of the Church Fathers.’”

Pope Leo XIII, Officio sanctissimo #7, Dec. 22, 1887: “…the Roman Pontiff, whose sole right it is, by divine command and appointment to be the guardian of that doctrine, to hand it on and to judge truly concerning it.”

The fact that Bishops don’t represent or possess the infallible teaching of the Magisterium is proven by the fact that a General Council is worthless if not approved by the Pope.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless.”

So, your question, if it were posed in a way consistent with Catholic teaching, would be: Can you show me *anywhere* in Church teaching where it specifically says that an individual can reject as invalid, due to his manifest heresy, a man who is allegedly elected Pope by the College of Cardinals?  The answer is a resounding Yes.  There is an entire Papal Bull about it, called cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV. Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.  This Bull teaches that a heretic cannot be accepted as a valid Pope, even with the unanimous consent of the Cardinals.  This proves two points which directly refute you: 1) it proves that it is a real possibility for a heretic to be elected, otherwise Paul IV wouldn’t have issued the Bull.  2) It proves that individuals have the authority to recognize when such a claimant to the Papacy has defected into heresy, and therefore to reject him on that basis as invalid; otherwise the Bull, telling Catholics they can reject as invalid one who defects from the Faith, would be contrary to the Faith.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

 (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

This is also why St. Robert Bellarmine teaches Catholics that a validly elected Pope who is a manifest heretic must be rejected as not the Pope.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: *******Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works." This is the annex to the official statement made by your Vatican II sect under John Paul II with the Lutheran sect.  Your sect is Protestant.*****

Wrong. You quote the “annex” document without ever considering the declaration text itself, which says: “The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith (my emphasis) in Christ.” And: “Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, (my emphasis) we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

And:  “Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith.” And: “According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide).” It is clear from the Declaration itself that the teaching know as “sola fide” is a *Lutheran*--not Catholic teaching. What both sides *agree* upon is that justification occurs by GRACE ALONE, not faith alone.  So, by robbing the Annex statement of all context, you feel you can make the wild claim that Pope John Paul II’s “sect” somehow altered centuries of Catholic teaching and now teaches the Lutheran doctrine of “sola fide” to 1 billion Catholics who never quite seemed to learn the new teaching? Nor did the world media ever comment on this incredible story. Nope. Don’t think so…

Jim Russell

MHFM: First, I must say that you are just a liar.   I quoted the very declaration from the Annex to the Joint Declaration which teaches Justification by “faith alone” on the Lutheran and the “Catholic” side.  What part of this don’t you understand?

Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works."

If anyone wants to see how much of a lie your claim that the “Catholic” side didn’t agree to Justification by “faith alone” is, he or she can simply click here Official Common Statement and Annex and then scroll down about ½ page to the Annex, 2, C to see for himself or herself that your sect (which claims to be “Catholic”) officially declared Justification by “faith alone.”

WE CAN ALL READ.  IT BLATANTLY TAUGHT JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE.  You are just a complete liar, as we can all see.  But, as we will see shortly, we don’t even need this quote to prove the point.

Second, to say that I don’t consider the whole text of the Joint Declaration is funny.  I’ve pointed out in I don’t know how many articles and columns that, in addition to the fact that the Annex teaches Justification by faith alone, the Joint Declaration itself declares that none of the LUTHERAN TEACHING in the JD is condemned by the Council of Trent.  (for a short article on this issue, go here: Antipope John Paul II denies the Council of Trent again by commemorating the heretical JD with the Lutherans on Justification.)

Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century [i.e., the Council of Trent], in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent."

This means that none of the teaching of the Lutherans in the JD is condemned by the Council of Trent, including Justification by “faith alone.”

Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "26. According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide)."

DOES EVERYONE FOLLOW?  I WILL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, MR. RUSSELL: THE…TEACHING…OF…THE…LUTHERAN…CHURCHES….PRESENTED…IN…THIS…DECLARATION…DOES…NOT…FALL…UNDER…THE…CONDEMNATIONS…FROM…THE…COUNCIL…OF…TRENT.  But the heresy of Justification by “faith alone” was condemned by the Council of Trent approximately 13 times.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 10, ex cathedra : "'You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone' (Jas. 2:24)."

Thus, the statement in #41 of the JD means that the “Catholic” side agrees that all the dogmatic canons and decrees in Trent condemning faith alone are overturned, and that faith alone is no longer contrary to or condemned by Trent.  It is not possible for heresy to be any more formal than this.  So your sect holds that “faith alone,” the Lutheran heresy, is not condemned by Trent. THAT IS A FACT.  IF YOU DENY IT – AS YOU MOST PROBABLY WILL – YOU JUST MOCK GOD AND SHOW YOURSELF TO BE A COMPLETE LIAR AGAIN.

Third, you say that if this were true the media surely would have picked up on it.  The media did, of course.  When the Joint Declaration was published in 1999 there were hordes of articles and news reports declaring that “the Catholic Church” overturned its view on Justification.

It’s also interesting to note that when I quoted the clear heresy of “faith alone” in the Annex to the Joint Declaration, you then directed me to the Joint Declaration itself, as if it “saved” everything.  This is clearly false, as we can see.  But what’s interesting is that in e-mails to the heretics Leon Suprenant and James Likoudis – both complete heretics and obstinate defenders of the Vatican II apostasy like yourself – they did just the opposite (see Suprenant’s Response in E-Mail Discussions)!  When I quoted the heresies for them in the Joint Declaration itself, they both directed me to the Annex to clarify everything!  This just shows that their – and your – whole defense of the Vatican II apostasy is based on false and easily refuted lies.  It shows the bad will and dishonest tactics of heretics such as yourself.  This kind of false and dishonest tactic – which attempts to prey upon people’s ignorance with statements that are completely untrue, such as that the “Annex” clarifies everything – will work with someone who is not familiar with the documents concerned.  But it won’t work with someone who is very familiar with the documents and knows that all three involved in the Joint Declaration teach blatant heresy.

So, in conclusion, even if we prescind completely from the teaching of Justification by faith alone that your sect officially made in the “Annex,” the Joint Declaration itself clearly identifies the Lutheran heresy and specifically says that it is not condemned by Trent.  Nothing could be more heretical.  But you will probably deny this, even though it is undeniable, because you are a liar and of bad will.  Sadly, one must say that you are a prime example of a person of bad will and why God sends people to hell for all eternity.

JIM: …I believe your claim is that anyone guilty of heresy automatically loses ecclesial office, including and especially the Pope. A necessary consequence of this view, seems to me, is that this point of view therefore unravels the office of the Papacy from the very *beginning* with, you guessed it, Pope St. Peter himself.  Poor Pope Peter, the prince of the Twelve, he to whom Jesus gave the power of the Keys and called the Rock, was most definitely a heretic, according to the evidence we have. His astounding heresies number at least two, possibly three.

The two *obvious* examples of Pope Peter’s heresies are, first, his absolute and unequivocal denial of Jesus during Jesus’ arrest and trial. Second, Peter’s falling in with the “Judaizers” as described in Galatians. A possible third heresy, one which happens just after his being appointed the “Rock” by Jesus, is his denial of the fatal mission of Christ, a denial met with Jesus calling Peter “Satan.”  Now according to your view, such heresies would leave Peter devoid of his papacy. Therefore you must have an explanation as to why you *don’t* think Peter an antipope or a heretic. I’d like to hear it.

God bless, Jim Russell

MHFM:  So, the position that a heretic loses the Papacy automatically “unravels the office of the Papacy from the very beginning.”  You seem quite sure of yourself, just as you were quite sure about the Joint Declaration on Justification.  You were so sure of yourself that you wrote the following because we hadn’t yet responded to your objections concerning St. Peter:

Dear Brother Dimond:

…I didn't really think you could handle the question I posed about the "astounding heresies" of St. Peter himself; apparently you fear the truth, or at least the consequences of what you call the "truth." I will be searching for a reuptable Catholic publication that will be willing to publish an account of my experience of "dialoguing" with you, expecially the nature of the easy victory you've given me by ignoring my question about St. Peter, ironically your namesake, I presume.

I'm sorry if I've disturbed your peace by demonstrating how ludicrous your views really are by applying them to the first Pope, but consider it an opportunity for growth and conversion of heart. Right now your heart must be too hardened to reply to my questions about Peter, so I will have to be satisfied with the victory of the truth despite your silence. If you ever do decide to confront my question about Peter, please do let me know.

Until then, know that you will be in my prayers.

Jim Russell

You really walked into this one.  But that’s exactly what blinded heretics do.  If you knew the teaching of Vatican I thoroughly, you would know that Vatican I defined that ST. PETER DID NOT BECOME POPE UNTIL AFTER THE RESURRECTION:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 1, 1870: “And upon Simon Peter alone Jesus after His resurrection conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold, saying: ‘Feed my lambs,’ ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:15].”

In Matthew 16:18-20, Our Lord told St. Peter that He will build His Church upon him; but Our Lord did not confer the supreme jurisdiction upon St. Peter until after the Resurrection with the words of John 21:15: ‘Feed my lambs…”  With one quotation from Catholic dogma your heretical mouth is stopped.

Your only other objection in this regard would then be St. Paul’s rebuke of St. Peter in Galatians 2:11 for refusing to sit with the gentile converts who had not been circumcised.  This was an imprudent action, no doubt, which St. Peter corrected.  It was not heresy, but could have led to heresy if St. Peter had continued with it and expanded upon it.  The Haydock Commentary on this passage notes: “…the opinion of S. Augustine [on this passage] is commonly followed, that S. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence.”  All the Doctors of the Church are familiar with and/or have commented on this passage, including St. Robert Bellarmine, etc.  Yet, all of them who addressed the issue of a heretical “Pope” still agreed that a heretical “Pope” would cease to be Pope.  They saw nothing in Galatians 2:11 which contradicted that because there is nothing.  There are actions which clearly constitute heresy and apostasy, such as kissing the Koran (and thereby directly endorsing a false religion) or bowing one’s head with the Jews as they pray for the Coming of the Messiah (and thereby denying Christ) or conducting interfaith worship with pagans and idolaters – all committed by Antipope John Paul II.  But the action of St. Peter, while being imprudent and something that could lead to heresy if not changed, was not a clear-cut heretical or apostate action.

It’s sad to say, but it doesn’t matter what facts one brings forward, or what heresies one can quote from the Vatican II Antipopes to prove the point to you, you would reject it all because you are, at this time, dishonest to the core.  Your “Pope” rejects Jesus Christ:

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones, 1998, pp. 53-54: “I have ever more come to the realization that Judaism (which, strictly speaking, begins the end of the formation of the canon, that is, in the first century after Christ) and the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel’s Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazereth.  The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways.  For the most part, only after the Second World War did we begin to understand that the Jewish interpretation, too, in the time ‘after Christ’, of course possesses a theological mission of its own.”

How can baptism of desire and blood be traditions of man if the Baltimore Catechism teaches them?

The answer to your question is that the Baltimore Catechism is not infallible and had imbibed modernist heresy. That is why it not only teaches baptism of desire and blood, but that people can be saved in false religions. Do you accept that tradition of man?

How can a heretic provide valid sacraments and is it a mortal sin to support the SSPX?

1. How can a heretic provide valid sacraments?

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

2. If no one gives the SSPX a penny, they will have no means to deliver the sacraments to the faithful