An interesting exchange with a false traditionalist regarding John Kerry, Antipope John Paul II and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation

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

Recently, I read an article by a “traditional Catholic” named Gary Morella, called John Kerry is not a Catholic – period.  Intrigued by the title, and wanting to share with the man what his conclusion about Kerry logically forces him to conclude about John Paul II and his Bishops, I wrote to him as follows:

“Dear Gary:

“In your article you state unambiguously that John Kerry is not a Catholic [John Kerry is not a Catholic – period], which is quite true and with which we fully agree. But what gives you the authority to make such a statement?  You would obviously say his open denial of Catholic teaching requires a Catholic to consider him a non-Catholic.  Okay, therefore you must agree that John Paul II and his Bishops who reject the Council of Trent (Joint Declaration with Lutherans on Justification) reject Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the Council of Florence (by teaching that the Old Covenant is still valid), and reject Vatican I (by teaching that we should not convert Eastern Schismatics), to just name a few, must also be considered non-Catholics who are outside the Church. 

“Would you agree with this?  One must admit that John Paul II and his Bishops are not Catholics who are outside the Church, and if one refuses to admit this he must also consider John Kerry a Catholic. 

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.”

Mr. Morella responded as follows.  I will stop the quotation from him and interject my comments where appropriate:

“God is the final judge on the Pope.  He's more qualified than you or me. In the case of Kerry, we're talking about a man who blatantly promotes what the Church traditionally, via de Fide teachings rooted in Sacred Scripture and the Church's great tradition, as held by the early fathers and the current Pope, considers intrinsic moral evils.”

When were talking about John Paul II and his Bishops, we’re also talking men who blatantly promote what the Church traditionally condemned.

“We're talking infallible pronouncements here on morals, which Kerry is in clear violation of, and proud of it. I don't see the Pope or Cardinal Ratzinger as being in agreement with Kerry, but rather reinforcing traditional Church teaching on these matters.  Moreover, their writings are consistently antithetical to Kerry on these moral issues for which there is no debate.” 

Notice two more illogical diversions.  First, he says we’re talking about infallible pronouncements on morals which Kerry is in clear violation of.  Okay, so what do you call what John Paul II and his Bishops deny?  With John Paul II and his Bishops, we’re talking about infallible pronouncements on Faith from the Council of Trent, the Council of Florence, and Vatican I – the most authoritative dogmatic statements in Church history. 

Second, notice how Mr. Morella diverts again by arguing that John Paul II doesn’t agree with Kerry on abortion.  Did we say that he did?  We said that John Paul II denies many other things, which are dogmas just as much as the unlawfulness of abortion.  Abortion isn’t the only issue over which one can cease to be Catholic, contrary to popular belief.  So, again, his statement is diversionary, and has nothing to do with the issue.  But in seeing this, dear reader, one should clearly see how those who try to escape the conclusion that John Paul II is not the Pope are not being honest; they are being deliberately inconsistent.  This should be clear to those who see this kind of dishonest diversion.

“I have yet to see where the current Pope has made it de Fide in regard to any of the questions that you bring up, which are, admittedly, of real concern.   For example, where is it de Fide that the Old Covenant is still valid? Where is it de Fide that the teachings of Trent, Florence, and Vatican I have been invalidated?  The fact that some clergy hold to such an error does not make it official Church teaching, thank God.  Similarly, where is it de Fide, that the Church is out of the conversion business? Has Matthew's Gospel been rewritten?”

Here we see the most common escape attempt of the defenders of Antipope John Paul II.  We’ve seen this tactic employed time and time again.  When you pin them down that those who reject defined dogma cannot be considered Catholics (as they admit with John Kerry), they quickly switch the topic and begin arguing about infallibility and whether the heretic has imposed his heresy infallibly as a de fideteaching.  Remember this tactic, because it is used all the time.  When they are pinned down on the heresy issue, they then conflate [fuse together] the heresy issue and the infallibility issue.  No longer does one have to be a heretic, but he must be a heretic “infallibly”! But has John Kerry ever infallibly imposed his heretical support for abortion as a de fide teaching upon you, Mr. Morella?  No, of course not.  So, then, you admit that this fact has nothing to do with the issue.  So, then, why do you mock God, and argue insincerely, by implying that John Paul II and his Bishops must impose the heresy as a de fide teaching for them to be considered heretics, when you know that this is not required to consider one a heretic (as in the case with the apostate Kerry)?  Again, we see the inexcusable inconsistency (i.e., dishonesty) employed by the defenders of Antipope John Paul II; for they know that Papal Infallibility has nothing to do with the specific issue we are discussing.  (It should be noted, however, that we have proven elsewhere that Antipope John Paul II has imposed many of his false doctrines upon those under him, but this is not the issue under discussion here with Mr. Morella.)

 “Frankly, I don't see how any Pope could do such a thing, given that the New Testament supercedes the Old, and the observation that the last paragraph of the Gospel of Matthew has not been changed in regard to Christ admonishing His disciples to convert the world to Catholicism. De Fide teachings are those which have been believed by the Universal Church over a long period of time, not changeable in the course of a Pontificate.  The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were not held as something that just occurred to Catholicism, but rather which always existed calling for formal Catholic recognition in the form of de Fide teachings. There is a huge difference between impeccability and infallibility, as I'm sure you're aware of.  None of us including the Pope and his bishops are exempt from the former.  The Church certainly is from the latter on de Fide dogmatic teachings on faith and morals, given the protection of the Holy Ghost that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

“And to date, de Fide wise, the traditional deposit of faith has not been OFFICIALLY changed. If any pope ever did that, i.e., formally told the world that what was traditionally held by Catholics as infallible teaching on faith and morals, i.e., what the universal Church has always believed on faith and morals, is no longer the case, then the world would have to know that such a man is not a valid pope. I have seen many problematic pronouncements coming from curia officials.  I have seen many things done by the current Pope, which are disturbing in the extreme.  But I have not seen a formal attempt to undo what has been traditionally taught by the Church as infallible on faith and morals in the way of erroneously saying that such is now de Fide teaching. What I do see are the erroneous opinions of very fallible men, which need to be recognized as such…”

Again, we see him going on and on, for numerous paragraphs, about the infallibility issue, which has nothing to do with the specific issue we were discussing: that those who reject Catholic dogma must be considered heretics, regardless of whether they impose their heretical views upon others.  But many of the people who read this type of diversionary nonsense in popular “traditionalist” publications just eat it up, because they have itching ears for heresy, and are not truth seekers – as a truth seeker would quickly see that Mr. Morella is going on and on about something that has nothing to do with the issue, and that he is being totally inconsistent. 

“I believe that what has gone on at the Assisi, some of the papal masses, the kissing of the Koran, is scandalous.  I do not believe that such things are Catholic.  And when the Pope does such things I do not believe that he is doing what Catholics should be doing. By his example, counter to what he says, the world sees a Church syncretistically indifferently reduced to being just another religion  instead of THE religion absolutely necessary for salvation.  Btw, I'm in complete agreement with Archbishop Marcel Levebvre's statements on this, which are unmistakably clear in regard to what is the traditional teaching of Outside the Church there is no salvation.  Archbishop Lefebvre, you recall, and the entirety of the Society of Saint Pius X, are not sede vacantists.  I refer to Archbishop Lefebvre's  Letter to Confused Catholics pp73-75. 

“Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Pages 73-74: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved?  No, it would be a second error to think that…”

“Lefebvre goes on to talk about the difficulties of these people in receiving the baptism of desire.  I will leave that to you to read. That said.  John Paul II is STILL the Pope, deserving of our prayers.  And he, and anyone else, in the See of Peter will REMAIN pope until that de Fide line is crossed. 

“Sincerely, Gary Morella

“P.S. btw, even Fr. Malachi Martin, for all of his criticism of the Pope, was not a sede vacantist, per my last telecon with him in his apartment in New York.    He prayed for the Pope.  I am not a sede vacantist either.  I also pray for the Pope, following Fr. Martin's advice in accord with what my Catholic faith has always taught me.”

Mr. Morella happens to mention that he agrees with the teaching of Bishop Lefebvre on salvation (he must have seen this issue addressed on our website, since I didn’t bring it up).  He says he agrees with Bishop Lefebvre, that souls can be saved in false religions, and he concludes by asserting that John Paul II is the Pope, and that Malachi Martin was not a sedevacantist – as if that proved something.  I responded to Mr. Morella as follows, again setting forth the facts which he ignored and denied, giving him another chance to be honest, consistent and to accept the truth. (I mentioned his defense of Lefebvre’s heresy only because he brought it up and I felt that it had to be addressed, even though I didn’t want to get into a discussion about the salvation issue, which might allow him to divert from the facts regarding Kerry and Antipope John Paul II).

“Gary,

“You are confusing apples with oranges.  Infallibility has nothing to do with this issue!  Whether John Paul II has imposed his denial of dogma upon you as a de fide teaching has nothing to do with this issue.  Has John Kerry ever imposed his abortion views upon you as a de fide teaching?  No, of course not.  According to your argument, you would therefore have to acknowledge him as a Catholic.  But you would say he obstinately denies the dogma condemning abortion.  Ok, John Paul II obstinately denies the Council of Trent; he agrees that faith alone is not a heresy and the Council of Trent doesn’t condemn Lutherans anymore (JD on the Doctrine of Justification with the Lutherans).  You cannot have it both ways: you cannot judge that John Kerry is not a Catholic but that John Paul II is! – they both deny dogma! 

“What you are really saying is that the only heresy that makes one a non-Catholic is to be pro-abortion, while one can deny the Council of Trent, Vatican I, the Council of Florence, accept all religions as true and still be a Catholic.  But that is heretical.  So, do you agree that you must consider John Paul II as a non-Catholic by the same criteria that you consider John Kerry a non-Catholic (i.e., they both obstinately reject Catholic dogma, articles of divine and Catholic Faith)?  If you deny this then you are admitting that Catholics can regard John Kerry as a Catholic.

“By the way, your statement that you agree with Bishop Lefebvre on salvation is heretical.  The Church condemns the idea that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith.  What you are holding is a denial of Catholic dogma.

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.”

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com”

Mr. Morella responded as follows:

“Sir,

“It is you who is confused! I am not confusing anything.  I know my faith.  You, on the other hand, know appear to know nothing other than that YOU alone are the final arbiter of what is Catholic, which I will have none of.  This correspondence with you is ended. I pray for your soul.  You don't have a clue, sir, what it means to be Catholic.  You ought to get down on your knees and pray to God that you're allowed to meet the good Archbishop whom you call a heretic in Heaven.  We do not know for certain that he's there.  But what my Faith has traditionally taught me after studying carefully Archbishop Lefebvre's writings is that he is one of the best defenders of the Faith in difficult times that I've ever seen on the order of a Saint Athanasius.  Accordingly, there is a high probability that he is in Heaven, contrary to your blanket assertion that he's a heretic.  Who do you think you are, making such a charge.  Who made you the infallible Catholic guide? 

“Baptism of desire has ALWAYS been a part of Catholic teaching…  Was the Good Thief, a traditionally recognized saint, a baptized Catholic?  No.  Is he in Heaven?  Yes, by Christ's own words on the cross.  Accordingly, by his actions, he was every bit a part of the Church that Christ founded upon the Rock that is Peter.  Of course, we ONLY have Christ's witness to that effect!  I dare say that was enough for Pope Eugene, who would not have intended the eisegesis (sic) of his statement per your unique interpretation, which makes Christ a liar!  Do you dismiss all those who weren't Catholic in the Old Testament who did the work of God as being heretics? Do Abraham and Moses fall into that category?  They were individuals Who did not convert to the Faith, right, because there was no Faith at that time.  Yet in their hearts they were just as much a part of what is now the Catholic Church due to their basically doing what is Catholic.  The One God that they believed in is still the Triune God of eternity, of Which the Second Person eternally existed.   Jesus Christ in that context created the World, i.e., as Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, which is a reference in New Testament Jude.   Jesus Christ in that context had a lot to say about the evil that is sodomy per Genesis 19, which is the response to those who say, Jesus said nothing in Sacred Scripture about such abominable filth…

“I made it very clear to you that there are things which the current pope has done which I do not consider Catholic.  He also done (sic) things which are very Catholic, which Kerry does not even consider.  You cannot compare the two given that observation, as you would erroneously have those, who have the audacity to disagree with you, do.  The Holy Office of the Pope deserves more than such a trite comparison. 

“I have better things to do than to get into debates when there is nothing to debate.  You didn't even read carefully what I said, in regard to your comment about "what I'm really saying."  No way did I say that abortion was the only issue.  To imply that I did is erroneous on your part. 

Sincerely, Gary L. Morella”

First of all, I didn’t say that Lefebvre was a heretic.  I said that his statement was heretical. (Despite the many good things Lefebvre did, he was a heretic, sadly, because he believed that souls could be saved in any religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc., but the point is that I didn’t say that he was a “heretic” in my e-mail.)  So, Mr. Morella first misrepresented what I said.  He then says that I ought to pray that I meet Lefebvre in heaven, just before he admits that he’s not sure that Lefebvre’s even there.  This is a clear contradiction, spilling from a mind and a soul rampant with heresy and emotion, and not intent on adhering to God’s truth.  He was so emotionally upset that I labeled Lefebvre’s blasphemous and heretical statement (that souls can be saved in false religions) heretical, that he misrepresented what I said, and then contradicted himself.  (The sad fact is that it’s not about the truth and obedience to God with most of these people, it’s about emotion, human attachments and what makes them feel good.) 

Further, notice his hypocrisy when he says “Who made you the infallible Catholic guide” – in disgust that I actually labeled Lefebvre’s statement heretical and that I just didn’t accept the idea that souls can be saved in false religions, while at the same time Mr. Morella doesn’t hesitate to state publicly that John Kerry is not a Catholic – period! So who made you, Mr. Morella, the infallible Catholic guide that judges that John Kerry is not a Catholic - period, you hypocrite?

Second, notice that Mr. Morella then says that “Baptism of desire has always been part of Catholic teaching.”  Dear reader, this man agrees with Bishop Lefebvre that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions (Buddhism, Animism, Islam, etc.).  This has nothing to do with catechumens who desire baptism or “baptism of desire.”  And yet he is dishonestly arguing that he believes in baptism of desire – as if he actually believed that one must desire baptism to be saved!  What abominable hypocrisy!  Baptism of desire to him and so many countless others = salvation for members of non-Catholic religions.  Baptism of desire has become a false Christ: if you don’t believe in Christ, no problem, you’ve got baptism of desire.  But the fact is that Mr. Morella’s dishonesty and heresy, invoking baptism of desire to justify his belief that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions (condemned by Eugene IV), would be the position held by most “traditional Catholics” today.  Those who obstinately believe this are an abomination in the sight of Our Lord, and before God’s Judgment Seat (unless they amend) they will have to confess that they didn’t believe in baptism of desire at all, but salvation outside the Church – and they will be cast into the eternal fire because they are no different from liars.

Third, notice that Mr. Morella cites the Good Thief and other Old Testament personages as “proof” for his heretical idea that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith.  This again is totally dishonest, for a Catholic knows that the requirements for salvation in the Old Testament were not the same as that of the New, with the coming of the Redeemer.  Mr. Morella might as well argue that one can observe the Old Law like the Jews.  For the prophets in the Old Testament observed the Old Law, and they are now in heaven, so are you saying that one cannot be saved while adhering to the Old Law, Mr. Morella?  But, of course, he would quickly respond, “well, that was the Old Covenant,” the Old Law is dead now; it cannot be observed any longer.  Exactly, so why are you arguing from the Old Covenant with regard to the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation?  He is condemned by his own mouth.  When one sees this kind of dishonesty, one begins to see why God condemns people to Hell for all eternity – their bad will is truly incorrigible and without excuse.  By the way, Mr. Morella is also wrong about the Good Thief, for the Good Thief did not go to heaven on the day of the Crucifixion, as explained in the section on The Good Thief in my book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.

Fourth, Mr. Morella then says that our “interpretation” of Eugene IV would make Christ a liar.  Well, you’ve said it Mr. Morella, you make Christ a liar – for the words of Eugene IV speak for themselves.

He then concludes by saying, “I made it very clear to you that there are things which the current pope has done which I do not consider Catholic.  He also done (sic) things which are very Catholic, which Kerry does not even consider.  You cannot compare the two given that observation…” 

Okay, John Kerry is not a Catholic – period, as Morella wrote in his article, but John Paul II and his Bishops, who have far more acts of heresy than Kerry, can be considered Catholic, because John Paul II “has done things which are very Catholic, which Kerry does not even consider.”  So, if John Kerry did some things which were Catholic, which John Paul II does not consider, he could be considered a Catholic too, right, even though he supports abortion?  This is what he would have to admit.  But he wouldn’t agree with this, even though it is perfectly logical and true, because he is not an honest person, just like all those who obstinately accept Antipope John Paul II as a Catholic. 

They cannot say that John Kerry is not a Catholic while they recognize William Keeler (who says that we shouldn’t convert Jews) as the Cardinal Archbishop of Baltimore. They cannot say that John Kerry is not Catholic while they recognize “Cardinal” Cassidy (who signed the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification) as a Catholic. They cannot say that John Kerry is not a Catholic while they recognize Antipope John Paul II as a Catholic. Those who obstinately deny this are forced into the most heretical and dishonest evasions, as was Mr. Morella.  Such people are in the same sect as John Kerry, no matter how much they try to deny it.  They are not Catholic – period.