Can I pray the Rosary while driving? Can I listen to the radio?

Thank you for your e-mail.  We believe that one can and should pray the Rosary while one drives, even if the recollection during prayer is not perfect.  The prayer can still be powerful and efficacious; and, as you say, you spend a lot of time in your car and don’t want to waste it.

Regarding listening to the radio, obviously no one should be listening to the mainstream music offered on popular radio stations, since it’s basically all of the devil, and a powerful medium for distracting and influencing people in ways they cannot see.  The popular and mainstream music of our day blocks graces out of the soul, and keeps people mired in worldly and sensual thinking.  This is true even with songs whose lyrics seem innocuous.  For those who may not be convinced of the evil influence of the mainstream modern music (Rock, Rap, “Alternative”, etc., etc.) – including of groups whose songs seem harmless – please obtain a copy of the video that we sell (a four-hour exposé of Rock and popular music) called “Rock and Roll Sorcerers of the New Age Revolution.”  It was done by a Protestant heretic, but he did an incredible job showing how basically all of this popular music comes from the devil and people possessed by the devil.  In fact, anyone who has a teenage child who doesn’t believe in the devil needs to show the child this video; for it’s probably the single best tape of which we’re aware to prove that the devil exists and how the devil works. 

The fact is that those who listen to and tune in to the mainstream music are tuning in to the devil’s message.  Thus, parents shouldn’t allow their kids to listen to such music; if they do their children will never advance in virtue and almost certainly be damned.  In fact, the failure to extricate their children from the mainstream evil culture (e.g. by allowing them to listen to such music) is one reason why many “traditionalist” children unfortunately don’t have much interest in the Faith.  We believe that parents who do allow their children to listen to the mainstream music are sinning.  For those who have become accustomed to listening to such music, the break from it will be painful at first; but the question is which path do they want to take: the broad road to hell or the straight and narrow road to heaven?

A Warning about Certain Heretical “Traditionalist” Priests and Chapels

As Catholics know, the New Mass is not an option for a true Catholic, since it is neither a valid nor a licit rite of the Catholic Church.  The only option for a Catholic for Mass and the Sacraments is the Traditional Latin Mass or Traditional Eastern Rite Liturgies (Uniate, not Orthodox, of course).  The problem, however, is that almost all of the priests celebrating these traditional and valid Masses hold to one or more heresies.  Almost all of them either 1) accept Benedict XVI as the Pope and his Bishops as the true hierarchy, or 2) deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation in its true meaning – that is, that all who die as non-Catholics are lost.  Many of them hold to other heresies as well.  That being the case, a Catholic cannot aid the propagation of heresy by financially supporting any of these priests, which includes almost all the priests celebrating these Traditional Masses. So the question is: can one attend the Masses of those priests celebrating valid traditional Masses who may hold to a heretical belief, as long as one doesn’t support the priest?  Our position is that if the priest does not notoriously impose the heresy upon those at his church, then a person can arguably go to his Mass just to receive the sacraments but without supporting him in any way.  (But there is no obligation to attend such a Mass, and each case must be evaluated individually).  However, if the priest notoriously imposes his false beliefs upon those at the church – or even privately tells you or someone else that he doesn’t regard as a Catholic one who believes as you do – then a Catholic must not attend such a Mass under any circumstances, because to do so would be to tacitly agree with the priest’s false belief.  It is also our position that if a priest is in favor of false ecumenism (i.e., the apostate movement to pray with false religions) – or believes that we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics – that one should not attend his Mass at all, besides not supporting him in any way.  (The list that follows is a list of priests whose Masses or sacraments a Catholic should have nothing to do with, besides not supporting them, since these priests have notoriously imposed their heresy upon those at their churches.  This list is by no means exhaustive, but just a beginning.) Dolan (Bishop) and Cekada (Fr. Anthony):

Bishop Dolan and Fr. Anthony Cekada are heretics who believe that souls can be saved in false religions and they publicly denounce “Feeneyites” (i.e., those who believe that only baptized Catholics can be saved) as guilty of mortal sin.  Since they notoriously impose their heresy, a Catholic should avoid these heretics’ Masses and not receive any sacraments from them.

All the priests of the SSPV believe that souls can be saved in false religions and they publicly denounce “Feeneyites” (i.e., those who believe the dogma that only baptized Catholics can be saved).  Since they notoriously impose their heresy, a Catholic should avoid these heretics’ Masses and not receive any sacraments from them.

In the Fall of 2004, from the pulpit of the SSPX Chapel in Pittsburgh, PA, Fr. Gardner announced that: “If you are a sedevacantist [i.e., if you don’t accept John Paul II as Pope], just leave, you are not welcome here.  If anyone here is a Feeneyite [i.e., believes that only baptized Catholics can be saved], you are not welcome here.”  Since Fr. Gardner is a notorious heretic, who has imposed his heretical and schismatical views upon those who attend his Mass, Catholics should avoid this pestilential heretic and not receive any sacraments from him or attend his Mass.

Thank you for your response.  I had already gone (to Father Lovett's Mass) before hearing from you, but pretty much figured out he DOES have some wacky ideas.  I questioned him for nearly two hours.  Just a heads up for anyone interested in going to his Mass.  Here is a summary -

1)  He claims Christ has revealed that there is only to be a "general confession" and not auricular, although he "allows" auricular should the penitent desire to go.

2)  The "faithful" should give themselves their own penance as they see fit.

3)  The Mass is now to be brought into the home and NOT a church or chapel.

4)  When questioning him on how the best way to rear our children to help them decide a religious vocation (what I was getting at was where would they go for religious training) his answer was that "he trains priests" and as far as women go, women will be able to "do the Mass in their homes as it was meant to be."  I was outraged and asked him to clarify and he was VERY vague about it, but gave the example that if the Mass was to be held in the home and the woman is a widow, then she should have the means to perform the Mass herself.  He even suggested that St. Therese of the Little Flower was often quite distraught because she, too, wanted to be able to perform the Mass and could not.

5) My husband asked him repeatedly the name of his "organization" as he claims they ARE the TRUE Catholic Church Remnant, he just referred us "to the book" (This is my Beloved Son, hear Him)

6)  He believes the Chair of St. Peter is empty by MORTAL man, but claims Christ, Himself is now Pope until Peter II takes the chair.

7)  He believes that after John XXIII a "Pope Clement XV" took the chair and died in the 80's.

That's about it.  We left, never to return.  He said I was a "mixed up girl".  ;)

+JMJ+ Kelly

Bishop McKenna and Fr. Lemay believe that souls can be saved in false religions, and they refuse the sacraments to anyone who believes that only baptized Catholics can be saved.  Since they are notorious heretics who impose their heretical views upon those at their Masses, Catholics should avoid these pestilential heretics’ Masses and not receive any sacraments from them.

Fr. Neville is a sedevacantist priest who denies the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  After a person gave him a copy of our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, on Sunday, Nov. 14, 2004, Fr. Neville announced from the pulpit that: “If anyone does not believe in baptism of desire or believes that only those water baptized can be saved, do not come to Communion, as I will refuse you.”  Since Fr. Neville is a notorious heretic, who imposes his heretical and Christ-mocking position (see John 3:5) upon those who attend his church, Catholics should avoid this pestilential heretic and not receive any sacraments from him or attend his Mass.

Fr. Ockerse of the SSPX refers to sedevacantists as “cockroaches” and “stupid.”  He refers to what sedevacantists say as "stupidness" and to them as "spewing forth vomit.”  He also believs that souls can be saved in false religions, which is the official position of the SSPX.  Since Fr. Ockerse of the SSPX denounces the sedevacantists, a Catholic should avoid this heretic’s Mass and not receive any sacraments from him.  We have been informed that Fr. Ockerse’s position is shared by Fr. Angele and Fr. De Vriendt of the SSPX in Calgary.  Thus, they should be avoided as well.

Fr. Ontonello celebrates a Traditional Latin Mass in Santa Clara, California.  He throws out of his chapel people who even criticize the apostate John Paul II, let alone those who don’t believe that John Paul II is the Pope because he is a clear-cut apostate.   Since Ontonello is a notorious heretic who imposes his heresy, Catholics should avoid this heretic’s Mass and not receive any sacraments from him.

Dear Brothers,

Recently, three friends of mine, two Protestant and one Novus Ordo, have converted to the true Catholic Faith, accepting all the dogmas.  We have attempted to seek sacraments at the local SSPX mass which is offered in Nashville and Memphis, TN.  Fr. Gregory Post is who normally says mass there.  After giving some of your monastery's articles to the chapel owner/groundskeep a few weeks ago, my friends and I were instructed after the Easter Vigil Mass last night that no one may speak of any sedevacantist ideas on the chapel grounds.  Fr. Post then proceeded to go on a tirade and irrationally attack the sedevacantist position in public before several chapel attendees in the parking lot.  When defense was given, citing various magisterial sources, including pointing out that the SSPX position denies the "magisterium" of the "pope" they claim to follow, Fr. Post threatened to have me arrested if I ever showed up on the property again!  This was his response to my simple question in front of the crowd in the parking lot as to why he rejects Vatican II when Paul VI said it was dogmatic.

I wanted to let you know so that you could add him to your list of false traditional priests that publicly seek to impose heresy.  At the same time, however, my friends that are new converts were able, I hope, to see the irrational, and heretical nature of the SSPX position.

Sincerely, J. D.

MHFM: Thank you, since Fr. Post is an imposing heretic he should be completely avoided.

Formerly of the SSPX, we’ve been informed that this “traditionalist” priest has spoken about the need to "obey the hierarchy" and gave a sermon on "ugly traditionalists" who think they're better than other Catholics (Novus Ordo followers).  Since he is imposing his heresy, no Catholic should attend his Mass.

Fr. Ronald Ringrose is a complete heretic who publicly denounces “Feeneyites” (i.e., those who believe the dogma that only baptized Catholics can be saved).  Thus, he mocks Church dogma.  Since Fr. Ringrose notoriously imposes his heresy upon those at his chapel, a Catholic should avoid this pestilential heretic’s Mass and not receive any sacraments from him.  Fr. Ringrose also publicly denounces sedevacantism.

Bishop Sanborn believes that souls can be saved in false religions, and he kicks out of his church anyone who doesn’t believe in “baptism of desire.”  Bishop Sanborn believes that non-Catholics, including Jews and pagans, can be saved by “invincible ignorance” and baptism of desire.  Since Sanborn is a notorious heretic who imposes his heresy upon those at his Mass, Catholics should avoid this pestilential heretic’s Mass and not receive any sacraments from him.

Fr. Ward of the SSPX tells sedevacantists that they are not welcome at his chapel.  Since Fr. Ward is a notorious heretic who imposes his heresy, Catholics should avoid this pestilential heretic and not receive any sacraments from him or attend his Mass.

Gruner’s statement in 2005 about the death of John Paul II

We just stumbled upon the statement of “Fr.” Nicholas Gruner’s “Fatima Center” following the death of John Paul II in 2005.  In summary of John Paul II’s life – remember, John Paul II was the biggest and most radical proponent of false ecumenism and false/demonic religions from allegedly inside the “Catholic Church” that the world has ever seen – the statement: 1) offers prayers for the repose of this manifest heretic’s soul; 2) praises him for his visits to Fatima; 3) praises him for his “beatification” of Jacinta and Francisco; 4) praises him for his stand against Communism, his defense of the aged and unborn, and his consecration of the world; and 5) “notes reluctantly” that John Paul II didn’t fulfill the command of Our Lady completely and precisely.  The statement offers no criticism whatsoever of John Paul II’s heretical teachings, his numerous scandalous and notorious acts of false ecumenism, such as Assisi, kissing the Koran, etc., etc., etc.  It doesn’t even offer a pathetically weak statement, such as: “though the Fatima Center did not agree with John Paul II’s promotion of ecumenism, such as the Assisi event, which contradicts Tradition.”  No… nothing at all!  Does anyone fail to see how evil this is?  Does anyone fail to see that this man is a total Christ-denier?  We bring this up to show our readers again how evil Nicholas Gruner is, for we were just recently contacted by another person who was resisting sedevacantism because he was “following Gruner’s line.”  It’s not an understatement to say that he is totally evil.  He has sold his soul out, and sold Christ out.  He’s an apostate.

Gruner's statement in 2005 about the death of John Paul II – no criticism of his heretical teachings or actions whatsoever! – This is an abomination!!!

(found here: http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/pr040505.asp)

And this phony heretic cries in his talks as if he’s devoted to Our Lord and Our Lady; what a complete phony!

“Two Sister Lucys of Fatima” - We were the first organization to come out with the facts that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy.

We were definitely the first organization to come out with the facts that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy.  We had been referring to the false Sr. Lucy as an impostor for years on our website, and publicly stated that the Vatican’s Lucy is an impostor in issue #5 of our magazine, which was published years ago.  Our recent article was simply the detailed treatment containing all the facts and points about an issue we’d been saying things about for years.

While the website to which you refer says that they haven’t yet “read” our analysis – that’s an interesting way of putting it considering that one can get the gist of what was being said without “reading” the entire thing but by looking quickly at the pictures – they didn’t deny that they were familiar with the article or that their idea to publish their own article came after hearing about or browsing through our exposé.  It’s almost certain that they were familiar with our article because a website which links to their articles and our articles had a major link with pictures to our treatment of the issue.  They may have browsed it without “reading” the entire thing.  And once they saw that this idea was now circulating due to our having “broken the story,” they then had the courage to do their own article seeing that others were already beginning to accept the idea on a wide scale.  That’s a key point: many people who don’t love God first and don’t stand for the truth will come out with things – even things they may have privately known were true for some time – only once the idea has already gained some popular support thanks to the stand of others, so that they can latch on to the now-popular bandwagon.

For until very recently the website to which you refer was one of the promoters of the false idea that the phony Lucy was the true Lucy, consistently referring to her as Sr. Lucy without ever issuing a clarification.  What changed in the past few months that they suddenly “discovered” this possibility?  In our opinion, it was obviously the publication of our article and the popular support for the idea that resulted from it in traditionalist circles.  Nevertheless, it’s good that others are now exposing this.  More research from various parties will undoubtedly discover more angles from which to expose and reveal the fraud, as well as circulating this piece of truth to more people.

However, the point is that there are probably many, many false traditionalists who have privately speculated that the Vatican’s “Sr. Lucy” was a false Lucy – since her statements and positions so obviously cannot be reconciled with the true Lucy – but never had the courage to come out with their views or even suggest it because of the fear of other people: not receiving much or any support or being denounced by them.  That’s unfortunately the case with many: only until there appears to be enough support for an idea will they come out with it even if they know it’s true.  And that’s why we now see other websites coming out about the false Lucy after our article blazed the trail.

On a related matter, the website to which you refer almost certainly doubts that the Vatican II “Popes” are true Popes, but never says so publicly.  As quoted in one of our newsletters, a few years ago one of us had a conversation about sedevacantism with Atila Guimaraes (an editor of the site):

Bro. Peter Dimond: “I had a telephone conversation recently with Atila Sinke Guimaraes.  In our conversation, I was  surprised to learn that Mr. Guimaraes has doubts about Antipope John Paul II's validity as a Pope. He told me this himself. Surprised by this, I asked why he does not communicate these doubts in his writings, and he responded by saying that he does point this out in his writings! I quickly answered by saying, never - to my knowledge - have you explicitly stated that Antipope John Paul II is not or might not be a true Pope. He responded with the words: "You must take into account the psychology of the people." In Guimaraes' mind, providing some evidence of how Antipope John Paul II has contradicted past Magisterial teaching is showing the people that he is “doubtful” (whatever that means) without saying so explicitly. This may be why his books - such as Quo Vadis Petre? - so weakly denounce the blasphemies of Antipope John Paul II. It is clear that Mr. Guimaraes is doing nothing but bringing a watered-down message to his readers which he thinks will be more acceptable. This is heretical, dishonest and quite despicable.”

So, even though he thought that John Paul II might not be Pope (and probably thinks the same about Benedict XVI), he never comes out with it because of “the psychology of the people”!  That’s why their website has never denounced John Paul II or Benedict XVI as heretics, even though it’s constantly showing how they deny Catholic teaching!  In fact, their organization specifically denies that they are heretics at all!  But if a group such as The Remnant or Catholic Family News were to take the sedevacantist position, then you would probably see the website to which you refer (as well as many others like it) go sedevacantist at that point; for, in that case, there would then exist enough popular support for the position to take it publicly.  It’s sad, but that’s the way it is.  People such as that are very deceived: they think they will be rewarded for their efforts, publications, etc. which do contain some truth, but God knows that they are hiding other aspects of important truth or that they wouldn’t take the stands they’re even taking if others didn’t do so.  So, while they think they’re pleasing to God because of all the activity in which they are engaged allegedly for Him, they are actually rejected by Him and will receive no reward, for it’s not how much one does but the purity of intention with which one does it:

St. Alphonsus, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, p. 597: “In the estimation of men, the value of an act increases in proportion to the time spent in its performance; but before God the value of an act increases in proportion to the purity of intention with which it is performed.”

So, to summarize, it’s a good step that this website is now slightly exposing the false Sr. Lucy; but if they really stand for truth let’s see them be honest and denounce the Vatican II Antipopes for the manifest heretics they are.

Have the eastern rite ordinations/consecrations changed?

No, the Eastern Rites haven’t changed their liturgies or their rites of ordination.  If the priests were ordained in the Eastern Rites, then they are validly ordained. Related: Where To Receive Sacraments Regarding your first point about not being sure whether the sedevacantist position is correct, we really suggest you get a copy of our new DVD/video “The Amazing Heresies of Benedict XVI” so that you can see all the evidence proving without any doubt that Benedict XVI is a non-Catholic Antipope. [Update: New prices here: http://mhfm.store/11in1dvd.html]

Traditionalist-sedevacantist priest, Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, denies the salvation dogma

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 18, quoting from Fr. Tanquery with approval: “Necessity of means, however, is not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one.  In certain particular circumstances, for example, in the case of the invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership in the Church can be supplied by the desire for this membership.  It is not necessary that this be explicitly present; it can be included in a willingness and readiness to fulfill the will of God.  In this way those who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 124, 126: “The teaching that the dogma of the necessity of the Church for salvation admits of exceptions is, in the last analysis, a denial of the dogma as it has been stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’ Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.” (Denz. 430)

Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 17: “Are there any more ‘good faith’ pagans in existence?  Is it possible for the Communists of China or the faithful adherents of Buddhism and Mohammedism of the Near and Far East to either have never heard the Gospel, or else had the Gospel presented to them in an erroneous light?... Can the Chinese Communist, or the Indian Buddhist or the Pakistani Muslim be included in such a consideration [of invincible ignorance]?  Only God knows, and it is not up to me to decide for Him.  I write here merely to uphold the dogmatic principle of the possibility of such cases today, without admitting that all, or even a significant number of those who are in such circumstances will achieve salvation through justification.” (Catholic Research Institute, 2000)

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 for 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 produce 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.” (Denz. 714) Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

Question about dealing with heretics who defend John Paul II

Thank you for your question.  First of all, John Paul II wasn’t a Pope.  He was a non-Catholic Antipope; he shouldn’t be referred to as “Pope.” Second, to your question, we’re assuming that you’ve informed them that John Paul II endorsed false religions and held that we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics, etc., etc., which denies the Gospel and Catholic dogma.  Assuming that’s the case, the answer is: Since they won’t even look at the information you’ve tried to present, and won’t hear the things you’ve tried to share, no, there is nothing else you can do for them other than to pray for their conversion. They’re totally closed-minded and so bad willed that they won’t even let the truth in.  There’s no sense dealing with them or approaching them about it.  They should be avoided.  That’s why St. Paul says, with divine inspiration:

“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” (Titus 3:10-11)