Recent Featured Videos and ArticlesEastern “Orthodoxy” RefutedHow To Avoid SinThe Antichrist Identified!What Fake Christians Get Wrong About EphesiansWhy So Many Can't Believe“Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World ExistsAmazing Evidence For GodNews Links
Vatican II “Catholic” Church ExposedSteps To ConvertOutside The Church There Is No SalvationE-ExchangesThe Holy RosaryPadre PioTraditional Catholic Issues And GroupsHelp Save Souls: Donate

December 2005

Comment on the Why John Paul II Cannot be the Pope video

December 20, 2005

We’re glad you watched the video.  Yes, the facts in that tape are such that if a person of good will watches carefully through the entire video he will be convinced that John Paul II was not the Pope.  And knowing the truth on this matter should not render a person diffident or discouraged, but happy to be enlightened of the truth on the matter.  Knowing what’s really happening is comforting and liberating (despite, of course, the sadness and desolation that sometimes accompanies a deep consideration of the current state of spiritual affairs).  This knowledge should make one feel zealous to go forward and share the truth with others, and fight for the true Catholic Faith in this time of almost universal apostasy. A person’s reaction after seeing the truth that John Paul II was not the Pope (as well as Paul VI, Benedict XVI, etc.) should not be: “Oh, no, John Paul II was not the Pope!”  Rather, it should be: “Thank God this non-Catholic heretic was not the Pope!  And thank God Vatican II was not a Council of the Catholic Church!”

What about this Message from Bayside?

December 18, 2005

Michelle, the Bayside Messages are false, and not from God, but from the devil.  We will soon be posting a more complete exposé which proves this.

The False Apparitions at Bayside, NY

Francisco’s vision of a demon

December 15, 2005

Our readers may find it interesting to know that Francisco had a vision of a demon on top of a rock – one separate from the July 13, 1917 vision.  Here is Lucy’s account:

 “One day we were looking for a place called the Pedreira, and as the sheep passed by, we climbed from one rock to another, trying to make our voice echo from the bottom of these great ravines.  Francisco, as usual, retired to the hollow of a rock.  After a long pause, we heard him crying, calling on Our Lady and invoking her

     “We were very disturbed, thinking something had happened to him.  We began to look for him, saying: ‘Where are you?’  ‘Here!  Here!’  But it still took us a little while to reach where he was.  We found him, finally, trembling with fear, still on his knees, very much shaken and incapable of getting up.  ‘What’s the matter with you?  What happened?’  In a voice half suffocated with fear, he told us: ‘One of those great big beasts from hell was just here, breathing fire.’” (quoted in The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 2, pp. 41-42)

What’s with this “sedevacantist” group in Puerto Rico?

December 12, 2005

During the “reign” of Antipope John Paul II, there were many false apparitions in various parts of the world.  One of the common characteristics of these false messages was not only that John Paul II was supposedly great and “Mary’s Pope,” but also that the one after him would be the Antipope.  These false messages prophesied that John Paul II would be the last true Pope.  This group in Puerto Rico is simply holding on to - and applying – these false messages from the devil.  That is why this group thinks that John Paul II was great and a valid Pope, but rejects Benedict XVI as an Antipope – something completely illogical and totally ridiculous, since John Paul II held the same heresies as Benedict XVI.  These false apparitions also told people that the New Mass is valid, while deploring the many abuses there.  (The devil knew that that was just the kind of thing that would trip up certain conservatives.)  That is why this phony group still goes to the New Mass, but opposes the abuses.  The devil was able to keep countless people going to the New Mass with similar messages in the false Bayside apparitions.  To put it simply: this group in Puerto Rico is used by the devil to discredit the sedevacantist movement.  God has abandoned these people to spiritual blindness because they receive not the love of the truth (the traditional teachings of the Church) and follow apparitions instead (2 Thess. 2).  During the reign of Antipope John Paul II, this group would have been one of the biggest defenders of Antipope John Paul II and vigorously opposed to true sedevacantist arguments.  To include them with sedevacantists is a travesty of justice.  But these are the deceptions that God allows people to follow because they don’t love the truth.

Should Females Wear Pants?

December 9, 2005

Our position is that females should not wear pants.  In our opinion, the only exceptions for this would be women who are, for instance, working by themselves and doing some unusual form of work that a dress makes extremely cumbersome.  Or, for example, another young woman asked us if she could play a recreational game of volleyball with her friends wearing a pair of long, baggy pants that basically look like a dress and are very modest.  She explained that she really couldn’t play the game wearing a dress.  We don’t see a problem with wearing such a pair of pants for the game.  And in areas where there is massive poverty and the children truly cannot afford a dress, obviously exceptions would be permitted.  But we do believe that women who wear pants and obstinately refuse to wear dresses simply because they don’t want to are putting their souls in jeopardy.  Padre Pio certainly thought so; he wouldn’t even hear the Confessions of women who didn’t wear long dresses, and he allegedly refused absolution to a woman who didn’t wear, but sold, female pants.  But many women, especially young women today, don’t know that Traditional Catholic women don’t wear pants.  It is our duty to inform them charitably.

Some comments on Msgr. Fenton’s book, The Catholic Church and Salvation

December 7, 2005

As noted in some of our recent e-exchanges, some of our readers were interested in comments on Msgr. Fenton’s 1958 book The Catholic Church and Salvation.  One baptism of desire defender who wrote to us called it a “masterful” treatment of the dogma.  Well, we just got our hands on a copy of this book.  I’ve only had a chance to read a few pages so far, but here is what Fenton (in truth, a pernicious heretic who corrupted and denied the dogma) says in the introduction to his book:

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. x (intro): “Any person who is at all familiar with what the great mass of religious and theological writings of our times have had to say about this dogma is quite well aware of the fact that, in an overwhelming majority of cases, these writings have been mainly, almost exclusively, concerned with proving and explaining how this dogma does not mean that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved.  This, of course, is perfectly true.  The ecclesiastical magisterium, in teaching and guarding this dogma, insists that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and at the same time likewise insists that people who die without ever becoming members of the Catholic Church can obtain the Beatific vision.”

“Masterful”?  Yes, masterfully illogical, heretical and diabolical.  Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton “insists that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and at the same time likewise insists that people who die without ever becoming members of the Catholic Church can obtain the Beatific vision.”  Could anything be more contradictory?  This is simply a lie of the devil.  Fr. Fenton rejected the dogma, and reduced it to a meaningless formula. 

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

If, as the illogical heretic Fr. Fenton asserts, the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church doesn’t mean that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved, then it has no meaning at all.  And getting most “Catholics” to believe exactly what Fenton does – that the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation means nothing at all – is exactly how the Great Apostasy occurred, and that is exactly what most so-called “Catholics” (who are actually heretics) believe today, including many “traditionalists.”  It was precisely heretics such as Fr. Fenton, who became common and almost universal just before Vatican II – asserting that there is no salvation outside the Church while insisting that “people who die without ever becoming members of the Catholic Church can obtain the Beatific vision” – who were the root cause of the Great Apostasy.

An update on Msgr. Fenton’s book, The Catholic Church and Salvation

MHFM: After our post about Msgr. Fenton’s book, The Catholic Church and Salvation, some people wrote to us coming to the defense of this “stalwart” priest.  (I had not realized that Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton was such a “sacred cow” to the false traditionalists and sedevacantists who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.)  I have now read Fenton’s entire book.  Fr. Fenton’s book is a heretical mass of contradictions, which reduces the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation to a meaningless formula.  I hope to write a full review of The Catholic Church and Salvation at some point soon.

You can read it here:

Another question about salvation: more dishonesty from the SSPX

December 5, 2005

Thank you for your question.  I also read the newsletter.  First of all, I must mention again that the SSPX – as usual! – misquotes the Council of Trent.  Fr. Fullerton quotes the Council of Trent as saying that one cannot be justified “except through” water baptism or the desire for it.  This is a lie.  This is from the horrible mistranslation found in Denzinger.  Being dishonest heretics, the SSPX, the CMRI and many other groups consistently misquote it as well and don’t care to correct it.  Well, they won’t get away with this obstinate misrepresentation of a Council before the Judgment Seat of God. The Council says that one cannot be justified without (sine) water baptism or the desire for it, just as if I said one cannot take a shower without water or the desire to take one (i.e., you need both) or a priest cannot effect a sacrament without matter or form.  The passage doesn’t say that one cannot be justified “except through” water baptism or the desire for it.  If the Council of Trent had said that justification cannot take place “except through” water baptism or the desire for it – or that justification can take place by water or desire – then BOD advocates would be right, since (in that case) it would be a positive statement indicating that one can happen by this or that.  But it doesn’t say that.  It says that justification cannot happen without…  For them to consistently misquote this passage is mortally sinful and shows that they are completely dishonest. And that is why the passage goes on to immediately declare, in the words which immediate follow, “as it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” – thus confirming that there are no exceptions to anyone being saved without water baptism, and that John 3:5 is to be understood by all exactly “as it is written” – totally contrary to the concept of baptism of desire, which affirms that John 3:5 is not to be understood as it is written!

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
The dishonesty of the SSPX in consistently misquoting this passage reminds me of Fr. Laisney of the SSPX, who uttered one of the most egregious lies ever by a traditionalist.  In his book, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, Fr. Laisney says that the Council of Florence “mentions” baptism of desire!
Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 47: “Moreover, the very Council of Florence, in the very same decree for the Jacobites (part of the bull Cantate Domino) mentions baptism of desire.”
This is a complete lie sold in almost every SSPX bookstore.  But how many people care?  How many people continue to throw their support to this heretical and utterly dishonest group?  The denial of this dogma is rooted in deception.  It is rooted in misquotes; distortion; the elevation of non-infallible sources to infallible status; etc.  This is how the devil has been able to deny the necessity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith, which is now thoroughly imbibed by almost every so-called “Catholic.”  This is how the devil, in a grand scheme, was able to bring about the great apostasy by denying that most crucial dogma of Faith.  Regarding your question about the Pius XII quote in the newsletter, it is not a quote from Pius XII.  The quote to which you refer is not from Mystici Corporis, but from Protocol 122/49 (more deception).  It is important for the readers to know what Protocol 122/49 is.  There is also a section on it in the book, which we strongly encourage our readers to look at.  The letter is also called Suprema haec SacraThis fallible and non-binding letter was written on Aug. 8, 1949 by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani (a member of the Holy Office) to the heretical Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing.  Cushing, a B’nai Brith Man of the Year (who also called Outside the Church There is No Salvation “nonsense”) was very upset that Fr. Leonard Feeney was preaching that you must die a Catholic to be saved.  So Cushing wrote to the Holy Office which, by that time, was infected by modernist heretics who believed in salvation outside the Church.  Marchetti-Selvaggiani – one of those modernist heretics – wrote back, stating that one could be saved without being a member of the Church and if one is in invincible ignorance of the Faith.  In his letter, Marchetti-Selvaggiani tries to justify his heresy by referencing Pope Pius XII and Pope Pius IX and the Council of Trent, but none of those teachings say what he said (more distortion, deception, etc.) Immediately after the publication this letter, The Worcester Telegram ran a typical headline:
VATICAN RULES AGAINST HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False
This letter assumed the status before the world of the official teaching of the Catholic Church, when it certainly was not.  The whole world therefore concluded that it is not necessary to be a Catholic.  If you want to know why basically no one who claims to be Catholic believes that the Church is necessary any more, you can thank this heretical letter, and its denunciation of Fr. Feeney.  This heretical, non-binding letter is adhered to by most of the “traditional” groups, including the SSPX, SSPV and the CMRI.  The letter was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis) but in The Pilot, the news organ for the Archdiocese of Boston.  It is not a binding or infallible teaching of the Church.  Here is just one passage from it:
Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing...      “The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation.  Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.”
In these lines we detect a denial of the dogma as it was defined, and a departure from the understanding of the dogma that Holy Mother Church has once declared.  Compare the following dogmatic definition of Pope Eugene IV with these paragraphs from Protocol 122/49, especially the underlined portions.