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

July 2009

St. Thomas Aquinas Does Not Have To Be Followed In All Things

July 21, 2009

You are so wrong. First, we don’t believe that St. Thomas was a heretic. We believe he was wrong. Many saints and doctors have been wrong, as our material proves. If you knew anything about Catholicism, you would know that. For you to say that we believe he was a heretic and is burning in Hell is a lie and a mortal sin.

Second, you are refuted by St. Thomas himself. Allow me to explain. You argue that the Church teaches that St. Thomas must be followed, and that St. Thomas teaches baptism of desire. Therefore, according to your argument, baptism of desire must be accepted. But you are quite wrong. St. Thomas teaches that he should NOT be followed if he contradicts something that the Church itself has taught.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10, A. 12: “The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of Catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever.”

So, let’s apply your argument logically: we must follow St. Thomas, but St. Thomas says that we must not follow any doctor if he advances something which contradicts the authority of the Church. Therefore, by following St. Thomas, we find that we are not required to accept every opinion he held or everything he taught. This should be obvious, but this quote is important in proving the point and refuting heretics such as yourself. Since he contradicts statements of greater weight from the papal magisterium on the absolute necessity of water baptism, we are not required to follow St. Thomas in his flawed opinion concerning “baptism of desire.” Likewise, we are not required to follow his other opinions that might have contradicted teachings of greater weight. For example, St. Thomas also contradicted the Immaculate Conception, as we see here:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2: “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 3. “Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the day of her conception.”

According to your heretical argument, these statements must be consistent with Catholic teaching. According to you, they are not only true but should be believed and taught to all! The truth, however, is that they were false during his time, and they are heretical now. They contradict the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This is further proof that your argument is utterly false and that you corrupt Catholic principles.

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”

Pius XII And Heresy - Was He A Heretic?

July 21, 2009

His entire line of argumentation is a straw man – that is, attributing to another a position he doesn’t actually hold. We don’t believe that someone who is a heretic in his fallible capacity remains the pope. We don’t say that. Since they cannot refute the position, they must use straw-man argumentation. No heretic can remain the pope, even if he only teaches the heresy in his fallible capacity. (A true pope could never teach heresy in an infallible capacity, of course.)

The point is that there isn’t sufficient evidence to definitely conclude that Pius XII was a heretic, rather than someone who was a terribly weak pope who made doctrinal errors. That’s because the errors which Pius XII taught were not specific propositions which have been explicitly condemned by the Magisterium by name. Rather, they are proven to be false and incompatible with Catholic teaching by the positive dogmatic statements on related subjects. As a result, these errors become heresies once one puts together (or can be shown to be directly obstinate against) all of the positive dogmatic evidence which contradicts them. That doesn’t mean that someone doesn’t sin for promoting them and neglecting to more carefully consult Catholic teaching. It is simply to point out that there is a difference, from the standpoint of manifest heresy, between the promotion of such an error and the promotion of something that has been explicitly and notoriously condemned by name in a dogmatic decree (e.g., Justification by faith alone).

In fact, notice that in the following decree of the Council of Constance, there is a distinction between propositions that are offensive to Catholic teaching, etc. and those which are notoriously heretical. They are “notoriously heretical” because they have previously been condemned by the Magisterium by name, in a manner which should be obvious to all. This proves that notoriety is not simply reserved for how one promotes a falsehood, but also THE SPECIFIC FALSEHOOD ITSELF (i.e., how clearly and obviously has it been condemned by the Church). This coincides precisely with what we’ve said about certain undeclared heretical priests. We’ve pointed out (correctly) that how notorious they are is not only dependent upon how they promote something, but also dependent upon the content of the falsehood they embrace.

Council of Constance, Sess. 15, July 6, 1415, Sentence against John Huss: “This most holy Synod of Constance therefore declares and defines that the articles listed below, which have been found on examination, by many masters in sacred scripture, to be contained in his books and pamphlets written in his own hand, and which the same John Huss at a public hearing, before the fathers and prelates of this sacred council, has confessed to be contained in his books and pamphlets, are not Catholic and should not be taught to be such but rather many of them are erroneous, others scandalous, others offensive to the ears of the devout, many of them are rash and seditious, and some of them are notoriously heretical and have long ago been rejected and condemned by holy fathers and by general councils, and it strictly forbids them to be preached, taught or in any way approved.”


Hello Dimond Brothers,

I just had some questions regarding the recent post you made about "Pius XII and heresy": You say that "there isn’t sufficient evidence to definitely conclude that Pius XII was a heretic" when you yourself say in your book (Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation) the following:

"Pius XII was by no means a staunch traditionalist. His reforms, omissions and failures paved the way for Vatican II. Just a few things that Pius XII did are:

- He promoted Annibale Bugnini, the author of the New Mass, and began the liturgical reform with his allowance of reforms in the Holy Week Rites. A good number of liturgical scholars think that the reforms of Holy Week were terrible. One example is the allowance of distribution of Holy Communion on Good Friday. The decree of the Holy Office under Pope Pius X On Frequent Communion cites Pope Innocent XI who condemned such a practice.

- He promoted men like Giovanni Montini (later Paul VI) and Angelo Roncalli (later John XXIII), without which promotions these men could never have had the influence or caused the immeasurable destruction that they did. - He said that theistic evolution could be taught in Catholic schools (Humani Generis, 1950), which is nothing short of ludicrous – and arguably heretical.

- He taught that birth control could be used by couples by means of the rhythm method (or Natural Family Planning), which is a frustration and a subordination of the primary purpose of the marriage act – conception.

- He allowed the persecution and subsequent excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney, whether through willful complicity or neglect, for doing what every Catholic priest should do: preach the Gospel, defend the faith and adhere to defined dogma

Now, if all of these things that you listed are not "sufficient evidence to conclude that Pius XII was a heretic", a man that you claim "paved the way for Vatican II", then what is? I even heard from someone that he was a Mason, along with Benedict XV (15) and Pius XI (haven't confirmed it yet). He also said in a speech that adults can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. Now to the real problems:

- It is a solemnly defined dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, without exceptions, (Council of Trent, Florence, etc.) as you very well know - Pius XII said that adults can be saved without it - Heresy.

- You hold that NFP is infallibly condemned in Pius XI's infallible Encyclical Casti Connubbi - Pius XII explicitly taught NFP - Heresy. - He said that theistic evolution could be taught in Catholic schools, and also was on both sides regarding evolution - something you yourself say is heretical. Now, you then say "the errors which Pius XII taught were not specific propositions which have been explicitly condemned by the Magisterium by name. Rather, they are proven to be false and incompatible with Catholic teaching by the positive dogmatic statements on related subjects."

This is clearly false, and a specious lie. As mentioned above: - That the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation without exceptions, and that the ones who die without it can go to Heaven, the former has been dogmatically defined many times, and the latter has been dogmatically condemned by name as well - Pius XII taught that adults can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, which is heretical.

- You say that NFP was infallibly condemned in name by Pope Pius XI - Pius XII taught it, which is heretical. And you can't argue that Pius XII was "unfamiliar" or "unaware" of all these teachings, that's absurd, because Pius XII was a cleric: "If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine…His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (McDevitt, 48.)

And, seriously, are you really going to argue that, that adults can't be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, "evolution", and NFP, have not been notoriously condemned??? I'm afraid you're again (you have done this before) guilty of raising the bar as to what constitues a heresy, what is heretical and when does a Pope lose his office, you do this when you don't want to accept the outcome. You gotta be honest here, something you yourself recommend. There was also another point I wanted to make: Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic for "supposedly" having held/supported the monophysite heresy; I have read that they weren't even sure if he was a heretic 100% or not (St. Francis de Sales certainly wasn't sure), or if he even held the heresy.

Now, if they condemned him for apparently having been a heretic, what would they say about Pius XII, who taught explicit and open heresy (among all the other things he did/didn't do)???

The way I see it, the same reasons why you would consider John XXIII as an antipope, you would also consider Pius XII, and perhaps Benedict XV (15) as well. But with all that said, I myself haven't decided to believe if Pius XII or Benedict XV (15) really were antipopes, but the evidence sure seems to suggest they were. How do you reply?


There are numerous errors in your very dishonest, illogical and inaccurate e-mail. Since people such as yourself have already been refuted in audios, etc., I’m not going to spend a lot of time with you. I will quickly refute your main errors, however. To your first lie:

>>>>"[quoting us] the errors which Pius XII taught were not specific propositions which have been explicitly condemned by the Magisterium by name. Rather, they are proven to be false and incompatible with Catholic teaching by the positive dogmatic statements on related subjects." [You write] This is clearly false, and a specious lie. >>>

No, it's not a lie. You are the heretical and contradictory liar, as I will show.  We are talking here about the idea of explicit baptism of desire. The theory of explicit baptism of desire is a horrible error. We have pointed this out more than anyone. This horrible error becomes a heresy once one sees all of the positive dogmatic evidence which contradicts it. However, this idea (i.e., explicit baptism of desire) hasn’t been condemned by name. Someone could be confused about the issue or hold it in good faith until all of the dogmatic evidence is pointed out to him and the objections raised in its favor are refuted. To obstinately express belief in it after that time is to demonstrate bad will and to depart from the faith. Therefore, explicit baptism of desire is proven to be incompatible with Catholic teaching by the positive evidence.  For you to say that it has been explicitly condemned by name is dishonest. So, what we’ve already written refutes you.

Moreover, you condemn yourself in your own e-mail.  That’s because if you really believe what you write, you would have to say that Pius XII was definitely a heretic and therefore an antipope.  Instead, you say that you don't know if he was a heretic:

You write<<<<But with all that said, I myself haven't decided to believe if Pius XII or Benedict XV (15) really were antipopes>>>

You are condemned by your own words. Your whole e-mail purports to show that he was a heretic. You thus prove yourself to be a contradictory liar. You aren’t even convinced that he was a heretic! That means that you don't really believe what you write.  Get out of here, you phony. Don’t act like you believe something that you don’t. Moreover, if anyone who affirms explicit baptism of desire even once is ipso facto to be considered a heretic, then that means you would have to say that St. Alphonsus and St. Robert were heretics. There is no way around that argument. They believed in explicit baptism of desire. They were dead wrong, of course; and to obstinately hold their erroneous position in the face of all the dogmatic evidence does show bad will. However, it is not ipso facto a proof of manifest heresy. If you don't admit that they and everyone who expresses belief in it even once is to be considered a heretic, then you condemn yourself again.  If you do, then you further prove yourself to be a non-Catholic; for in that case you must condemn the Catholic Church itself for canonizing those you deem to have been manifest heretics. By the way, have some courage and put your real full name.

To your next lie, you write:

>>>You say that NFP was infallibly condemned in name by Pope Pius XI - Pius XII taught it, which is heretical.>>>

We don’t say that Pius XI infallibly condemned it “in name.” He did not. We say that it’s proven to be incompatible with the infallible Catholic teaching on the primary purpose of the marriage act. Thus, you dishonestly misrepresent what we say. Please quote the passage where NFP is explicitly condemned by name. You cannot do so because it doesn’t exist. Rather, it’s proven to be wrong by the positive evidence, just as we said.

Regarding Pius XII and theistic evolution, we agree that it’s horrible, awful, atrocious. There are only two things which we believe save him from manifest heresy on this point (though not from mortal sin and grave error). Those are 1) the fact that it hasn’t been explicitly condemned in any dogmatic decree. It’s definitely false and certainly runs counter to the obvious teaching of Scripture and the whole history of Catholic thought. However, it is not proven to be heretical by virtue of a specific condemnation by a dogmatic decree. That holds significance for point #2.

2) The fact that Pius XII didn’t say that he believed in it. He said that it may be taught. Thus, one could arguably justify him from manifest heresy (though not from mortal sin and scandal) by arguing that, even though he personally didn’t believe in it, he labored under the false impression that he couldn’t forbid people to teach it if it hasn’t been condemned in a dogmatic decree. That’s the only thing that we believe saves him from manifest heresy on this point. In fact, if you read what he said about it, you can see in that very context that he forbids people from teaching only those things which he believes to have been clearly condemned by the teaching of dogmatic councils or by a specific statement of the papal magisterium.

To your next statement, which truly expresses your schismatic mentality, you write:

>>>I even heard from someone that he was a Mason, along with Benedict XV (15) and Pius XI (haven't confirmed it yet).>>>

We’ve heard many unflattering things about Pope Pius XII. But hearing things, and having clear proof for them, are two different things. Hearing things about someone doesn’t allow us to conclude that a true pope is an antipope. The fact that you argue that it does reveals that you have a schismatic – not a Catholic – way of operating. You also ask: what would he have to do? I could give many examples. If he clearly taught (more than once, so that we know it wasn’t an editorial error) that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions, he would have to be considered a manifest heretic. But not only is that not the case, his official teaching in Mystici Corporis contradicts that heresy. It also contradicts any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism. One can effectively use it to disprove the baptism of desire crowd of apostates.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:   “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”

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.”

With regard to Pius XII paving the way for Vatican II, that also doesn’t prove that he was without question a heretic. In his fallible capacity, a bad pope can attempt to hurt the Church. He can do this by omissions, bad reforms, and weak statements which don’t rise to the level of manifest heresy. That’s precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine speaks of a true pope who tries to destroy the Church. We quote this passage not because in itself it proves the true position; but rather because it lends further support to the correct Catholic understanding of this issue, which I have been articulating. Bellarmine is talking about a bad pope. He says that you may resist such a pope. In other words, there could be a true pope who tries to destroy the Church. He could do this in ways that don’t rise to the level of clear-cut manifest heresy.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

But when speaking of a clear-cut manifest heretic, St. Robert clearly says that such a one ceases to be the pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, chapter 30: “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.”

As an aside, countless false traditionalists cite the former passage but dishonestly do not cite the latter.

To your final error, you don’t understand the Honorius case. The councils which condemned him (e.g., Constantinople III) didn’t express any uncertainty. They didn’t condemn him because they believed he was “apparently” a heretic. Rather, they condemned him as an outright heretic because they believed he was an outright heretic. The confusion arose after the council – not within the actual statement of the council. In confirming the Third Council of Constantinople, Pope St. Leo II made a statement which some interpreted to mean that the condemnation of Honorius should only be accepted in the sense that he enabled heresy to flourish. However, that’s speculative. That’s why St. Francis De Sales was unsure whether Honorius was a heretic. The uncertainty concerning Honorius wasn’t expressed in the text of the council itself.

In conclusion, we have repeatedly discussed why a traditional Catholic must be aware of the fact that Pius XII was not a strong pope. He was probably about as close to heresy as a pope could be without being a clear-cut manifest heretic. One of the reasons that many “traditionalists” are deceived is that they think they can just follow everything that emanated, even in a fallible capacity, during the reign of Pope Pius XII. We believe that a future true pope would probably (and should) condemn him for his omissions, weak statements and reforms. However, as it stands and for the reasons expressed in this and the previous response, a Catholic does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that he was definitely a manifest heretic and therefore an antipope.

Works of the Law, and Romans 4

July 21, 2009

First, we would have to object to a description of a Protestant as biblically astute. Many Protestants have a knowledge of certain verses, the biblical languages, biblical history, etc; but they remain in the dark concerning the most important and the most obvious teachings of the Bible. That is, they are oblivious to the teaching of the Bible on salvation, Christ’s Church, etc. Since they remain oblivious to things that are so obviously taught in the Bible – things which constitute its core message, such as that works and deeds are a part of determining whether man has salvation – they really don’t understand the Bible at all.

Second, his assertion that the context was not taken into consideration when discussing Romans 3:28 is completely untrue. It’s typical of some Protestants who will sadly never be convinced, no matter how much evidence you give them. Romans 3 begins with a discussion about circumcision: a work of the Old Law. This point was specifically made in our book, The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church. Hence, we can clearly see that the context is the works of the Old Law.

Romans 3:1- “What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision?”

For the rest of the chapter St. Paul speaks in that context. Before I get to your question about Romans 4, I will say that it’s not only Romans 3:1 and Galatians 2 which corroborate our point about St. Paul’s meaning of “the works of the law.” It’s also demonstrated by Galatians 5 and Philippians 3.

Galatians 5:3-6- “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

We can see that when referring to “the law,” he’s talking about the Old Law, not all human deeds.

Philippians 3:5-9- “[I] Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:”

Now, your friend brings up Abraham. He asks why St. Paul would mention Abraham if he was speaking of the Old Law. By asking this question, your friend leads us directly to another devastating refutation of his position.

(All of this is covered, by the way, in this article: Justification by Faith Alone and Eternal Security completely refuted by the Bible. Please go to the end and look at the section called: THE CASE OF ABRAHAM REFUTES PROTESTANT THEOLOGY – IT PROVES THAT JUSTIFICATION IS NOT A ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME ACT, BUT SOMETHING INCREASED AND MAINTAINED THROUGH OBEDIENCE… This section on Abraham was not in our book. That’s because it’s a more involved point and people really shouldn’t need it after all of the other evidence.)

St. Paul brings up Abraham in Romans 4, right after talking about how people are justified by faith apart from the works of the law (i.e., apart from the Old Law). He does this precisely to prove to these people that justification is not inextricably bound up with the Old Law, with circumcision, etc. St. Paul gives the example of how Abraham was justified by his faith in Genesis 15:6, which was before Abraham was circumcised in Genesis 17:

Romans 4:9-10- “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness [Gen. 15:6]. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.”

His point, therefore, is that if God can justify Abraham by faith before circumcision (as this example shows), then he can justify you, if you submit to the faith of Jesus and cast aside circumcision and the works of the (Old) Law. That’s the precise point he is making. That must be understood when one reads this chapter. His point is not that if you submit to Jesus and His faith, none of your human actions, deeds or sins will have anything to do with your justification! That is a gross perversion of his true meaning.

Thus, when Paul says the following in Romans 4:1-4…

Romans 4:1-4- “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”

he is clearly speaking in the context of contrasting the Old Testament system of works with the power that God has to justify those who accept His faith outside of that system of Old Testament works. That is the precise subject and the context. He is not teaching that justification by faith in Christ is apart from all human actions and deeds.

But in James 2, the subject and the context are different. James 2 is concerned with teaching Christians that their faith in Christ is not enough. It’s about the Christian life and life in general, not about teaching people that the Old Testament system is not obligatory. One could truly say that in James 2 the subject is the same as the issue we’re talking about: the Protestant idea that man is justified by his faith in Jesus alone. And that idea is denounced as completely false. And that’s why in this chapter we read that Abraham was justified by works.

James 2:21-24- “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar [Genesis 22:10]? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

So we can see how the Protestants have totally misunderstood these passages of Scripture. In doing so, they have constructed a false religion and a false Gospel which completely contradict the whole message of Scripture. There is much more on Abraham in that section of the file I referenced. It covers how Abraham was justified more than once, which also refutes Protestant theology.

“By claiming that all who acknowledged Paul VI as the pope were heretics, you condemn Padre Pio” – WRONG!

July 21, 2009

Basically everything you have written in your short e-mail is wrong. We do not say that everyone who believes that the Vatican II antipopes are true popes is ipso facto a heretic. We say that after a person becomes familiar with the heresies of the V-2 antipopes and doesn’t denounce them – and after one becomes familiar with the teaching on loss of papal office and continues to insist that they are popes – they become heretics. In addition, one who imbibes the Vatican II theology of ecumenism would become a heretic, even before he or she has seen any teaching on loss of office, etc. That’s because an acceptance of false religions is directly incompatible with true faith in Christ.

So, your first accusation is totally wrong and constitutes a misrepresentation of our position. It’s certainly the case that not everyone who considers the V-2 antipopes to be popes is ipso facto a heretic. That’s because it’s the duty of a Catholic to accept the man who purports to be the Bishop of Rome as the pope, until there is clear evidence of an invalid election or manifest heresy. Some radical schismatics have adopted the theologically absurd position that it’s impossible to be in the Church while recognizing an antipope (even if one hasn’t seen the heresies or the evidence to conclude otherwise), and this leads them into a whole range of ridiculous and outrageously schismatic errors.

Regarding the objection concerning St. Thomas, these are old and tired arguments that we have already refuted many times. If people spent the time reading our book on salvation, they would see that there is an entire section dedicated to this very objection. Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and refuting baptism of desire – book, audio program, articles. It’s found in Section 17, “Other Objections.” To disprove that very objection, we give an analogous example from Pope John IV and Honorius. Moreover, it’s addressed in our debates on baptism of desire:

File of Recent Audio Debates on “Baptism of Desire”

It’s addressed in this second one and in the fourth one.

Debate on baptism of desire with sedevacantist Ken [1 hr. 46 min. audio – Jan. 2009]

Furthermore, that particular false objection (which you raise concerning doctors of the Church, etc.) is best addressed, and frankly demolished, in our article on Geocentrism and “Baptism of Desire.” In this article, we show that a doctor of the Church and popes have considered something heretical which in fact later popes did not even consider necessarily wrong. If that’s the case, then a doctor of the Church (e.g., St. Thomas, etc.) can be unaware of (or confused about) a Church teaching or a dogmatic definition which disproves a certain position.

Examining the Theological Status of Geocentrism and Heliocentrism and the Devastating Problems this creates for Baptism of Desire Arguments *very important article which demolishes popular baptism of desire arguments, contains a new quote from a pope on geocentrism and much more

This article clearly shows that doctors of the Church and popes can make mistakes on matters that are dogmatic (or which they think are dogmatic) without being heretics. To quote one paragraph from the article: “… if heliocentrism has not been infallibly condemned by the Holy See, then numerous popes (e.g., Paul V and Urban VIII) and a Doctor of the Church (St. Robert Bellarmine) acted like it had been and thus were unaware of the true theological status of this issue. If they could have been completely wrong about the true theological status of this controversial point [one about which accusations of heresy were being launched], then certainly St. Alphonsus and others could have been as well concerning the dogmatic status of the absolute necessity of water baptism. Thus, either way our point is proven.”

To put it another way, baptism of desire is a theological error which becomes a heresy when it is carefully matched up with the dogmatic definitions on salvation. This is analogous to the minutiae (finer points) of the Incarnation, etc., such as the dogma that Christ has two wills. This false idea is, strictly speaking, a heresy; but it would only be only an error for some until they see the specific Church teaching against the false position.

In conclusion, your objection demonstrates a superficial knowledge of Church history and the teaching of the Magisterium, as if a doctor of the Church is always perfectly aware of the theological status of every Catholic truth. It’s an objection that sounds good, but crumbles when more facts are brought forward. Your false objection is regurgitated by countless bad willed false traditionalists who consider themselves knowledgeable and Catholic (but actually aren’t), including priests, bloggers and forum hosters who love “baptism of desire.” They are completely wrong and their position is refuted by the aforementioned facts. It’s distressing that these people won’t more carefully look at the information; for just a few days ago one radical schismatic wrote to us demanding an answer to this very objection. We pointed out to him that we’ve already addressed the issue, and he (in his pride and bad will) refused to believe it. He was convinced it was such an original objection that we could not have addressed and refuted it before.

[P.S. Your other false statements about Padre Pio were addressed in our audio: Answering Objections Against Padre Pio (42 min. audio discussion)]