“If the Mass isn't valid, what am I supposed to do?”

Thanks for the e-mail.  The Third Commandment (Keep holy the Sabbath) is God’s law.  Attending Mass on Sunday and Holy Days is the Church’s law, which is only obligatory if the Church provides you with a true Mass and a truly Catholic priest within a reasonable distance.  There is no obligation to attend a false Mass; in fact, there is a positive obligation under pain of mortal sin to not attend the New Mass, since one cannot approach a doubtful or invalid sacrament. If you are committed to not attend the New Mass and you hold all the dogmas, there might be a place for you to attend the true Mass depending on where you live (please let us know), but if not you just stay home on Sunday and sanctify the day by praying your rosary.  Many of these questions are answered on the website, and I would strongly encourage you to get our DVD special since these issues are covered in great detail.

Responding to a Southern Baptist “pastor”

Mr. Williams, we don't have the time to answer you at length now; however, we will say that the Bible itself doesn't even teach that it is the only infallible source of truth. 

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."

About forcing people to convert

The Catholic Church teaches that all who die as non-Catholics will not be saved, but it also teaches that no one should be forced to embrace baptism, since belief is a free act of the will.

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (#36), Nov. 1, 1885: “And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’”

Did Padre Pio ever say the New Mass?

Thank you for your question. Padre Pio died on September 23, 1968. The New Mass wasn’t promulgated until April 3, 1969. Padre Pio didn’t celebrate the New Mass. Now it’s true that prior to the promulgation of the New Mass there were certain experimental changes occurring with the Mass in the 1960’s, but Padre Pio continued to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. Some people get slightly confused on this matter because near the end of his life, at some of his last Masses including his very last Mass, Padre Pio was carried (he could barely walk) out to say his traditional Mass at an altar that was facing the people. This Traditional Latin Mass facing the people is frequently shown on videos of him, since it was his last Mass and some other Masses near the end of his life. This causes people to mistakenly conclude that Padre Pio celebrated the New Mass, when he didn’t. Padre Pio was almost blind near the end of his life; he wasn’t in much of a position to protest them carrying him out to celebrate his Mass facing the people. Further, contrary to what some people who have more a spirit of idolatry than a spirit of faith think, Padre Pio didn’t know everything. He only knew what God revealed to him and wanted him to know. Thus, since he was living in the early stages of the post-Vatican II apostasy and enclosed in his monastery, he wasn’t aware of the full extent of what was occurring in Rome or what was about to occur with the liturgical revolution. In fact, if God had revealed to Padre Pio precisely what was occurring – namely, that Paul VI was an antipope who was attempting to destroy the Church, etc. – then there would have been no test for the world – a test which God has allowed to see if people will go along with the post-Vatican II apostasy.

Click here to get the book on Padre Pio: Order Here

What is the problem with the CMRI priests?

We know it can be somewhat overwhelming for people who are first discovering traditional Catholicism to then hear that the priests who introduced them to such truth – the traditional Mass, the rejection of Vatican II, etc. – are themselves denying aspects of the Faith.  It’s an unfortunate situation, but it’s true.  It’s part of the spiritual test that God has allowed this world to go through.  People must have a strong faith anchored to Him, the Church itself and her authoritative teachings, or else they will be swept away in desolation and confusion upon discovering that so many of those they thought were traditional are, in fact, heretical. The priests of the CMRI, like the priests of the SSPX and SSPV, certainly do some good.  They promote and offer the traditional Mass; they reject Vatican II and the major aspects of the new religion.  However, the sad fact is that their priests don’t have the Catholic Faith.  It’s simply a fact that they believe that non-Catholics – including Jews who reject Christ – can be saved by being “united” to the Church by “baptism of desire” without faith in Christ or baptism.  This has been confirmed in conversations with them – even their nuns hold the same! – and is clear from their articles (see below).  Thus, they reject what they know the Church and Sacred Scripture to have taught about the necessity of Christ and His Church for salvation.  The fact that they believe it’s possible for members of false religions to be saved, including Jews who reject Christ, means that they cannot hold for certain that any non-Catholic is excluded from salvation.  Consider the implications of this and how it would impact their everyday dealings with spiritual affairs.  Since they cannot say that any person who dies as a non-Catholic is definitely excluded from salvation, they believe it’s possible for a soul to be saved in any religion.  This destroys their entire faith in the necessity of Jesus Christ Himself and affects their entire outlook on the spiritual world.  It shows that they have no real faith in God’s revelation whatsoever.  Proof for this: In the Winter 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary (the CMRI’s publication), the CMRI ran an article called “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.”  In the Winter of 1996, The Reign of Mary (publication of the CMRI) featured another heretical article called “The Boston Snare,” by Bishop Robert McKenna.  Bishop McKenna believes that souls who die as non-Catholics can be saved; he also believes that it is not heretical to believe that Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace, as confirmed in an exchange of letters that we had with him in the Spring of 2004.  Ironically, Bishop McKenna’s thesis in the article is that this “heresy” of denying “baptism of desire” and “invincible ignorance” was the Devil’s snare which was sown in Boston, when the truth is actually just the opposite.  Let’s look at an excerpt from his article.

Bishop Robert McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The doctrine, then, of no salvation outside the Church is to be understood in the sense of knowingly outside the Church… But, they may object, if such be the sense of the dogma in question, why is the word ‘knowingly’ not part of the formula, ‘Outside the Church no salvation’?  For the simple reason that the addition is unnecessary.  How could anyone know of the dogma and not be knowingly outside the Church?  The ‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine intended for the instruction of Catholics, since it is but a logical consequence of the Church’s claim to be the true Church, but rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the benefit of those outside the one ark of salvation.”

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.”

“I want to tell you how much I use the dvd Journey into Hell”

Thanks, we feel that that DVD is one of our most important, if not the most important one we have.

1917 Code of Canon Law on adulterers

The 1917 Code of Canon Law has a very interesting canon on adulterers which people should be aware of:

Canon 1129- “1. Because of the adultery of a spouse, the other spouse, the bond remaining, has the right of dissolving, even in perpetuity, the communion of life, unless he consented to the crime, or gave cause for it, or otherwise expressly or tacitly condoned it, or indeed himself committed the same crime.
2. Tacit condonation is considered [to have occurred] if the innocent spouse, after being made certain of the crime of adultery, freely engages in marital affection with the other spouse; but it is presumed unless, within six months, he expels or abandons the adulterous spouse, or makes legitimate accusation against the other.”

In other words, a spouse who continues marital affections with a spouse whom he or she knows to be committing adultery thereby condones his or her adultery and is also guilty, even if that spouse did not commit adultery. This fact, which is probably very little known but which makes perfect sense, shows us, once again, how those who fail to oppose evil become guilty of it.