Letter Exchange/Debate on John Paul II’s heresies with President of “Catholics United for the Faith”

1/20/05 – My first letter to Leon Suprenant, President of “Catholics United for the Faith” (CUFF), after he visited our website and said that it promotes schism

2/3/05 – Mr. Suprenant’s Response to Bro. Peter Dimond’s Letter

2/15/05 – Bro. Peter Dimond’s Response to Mr. Suprenant

First Letter to Leon Suprenant, President of “Catholics United for the Faith” (CUFF), after he visited our website and said that it promotes schism

Mr. Suprenant had written one of our readers and told him that our website was promoting schism (because we don’t accept the Vatican II religion).  He informed this person that he (Mr. Suprenant) was open to addressing his concerns about the continuity of the post-Vatican II religion with traditional Catholic teaching.  So, I wrote him the following letter.

THREE POINTS OF DISCUSSION REGARDING JOHN PAUL II’S APOSTASY

January 20, 2005

Dear Mr. Leon Suprenant:

An acquaintance of ours (…) has informed us that you visited our website (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com) and stated that it is schismatic.  You mentioned that you would be “willing to address any specific questions or criticisms” that he might have “concerning the legitimacy and continuity of the post-Vatican II” religion and the Novus Ordo, if he is interested in such an exchange. 

I am writing because I am interested in such an exchange.  If you don’t mind, I will begin by asking you about three points of John Paul II’s teaching.

1.  Do you reject as heretical John Paul II’s repeated teaching that Catholics should not proselytize the Schismatic Eastern “Orthodox.”

Antipope John Paul II, Ecclesia in Europa, Post-Synodal Apost. Exhortation, June 28, 2003: “At the same time I wish to assure once more the pastors and our brothers and sisters of the Orthodox Churches that the new evangelization is in no way to be confused with proselytism, without prejudice to the duty of respect for truth, for freedom and for the dignity of every person.” (L’Osservatore Romano, July 2, 2003, p. V).

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Jan. 25, 1993: “Doubtless, more than ever the Catholic Church’s apostolic activity in those lands must have ‘an ecumenical dimension’ capable of promoting, in every way, dialogue among believers in the light of the principles enunciated by the Second Vatican Council.  ‘The way to achieve Christian unity, in fact,’ says the Pontifical Commission for Russia, ‘is not proselytism but fraternal dialogue among the disciples of Christ, a dialogue nourished by prayer and developed in charity, in order to reestablish a communion between the Byzantine Church and the Church of Rome which existed in the first millennium.”

This position was also officially taught in the Balamand Statement of 1993, which was approved by John Paul II.  John Paul II has also asserted that he does not want to proselytize the Eastern Schismatics in numerous Joint Declarations with them.  Since this is a fact, Mr. Suprenant, do you therefore admit that John Paul II is a heretic who rejects the dogma (defined by Vatican I) that Eastern Schismatics must be converted and accept the Papacy for true Faith and salvation?

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra:
"We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation."

2.  John Paul II teaches that the Old Covenant is valid. 

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Jews in West Germany, Nov. 17. 1980: “The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time within our Church…”

This is a denial of the dogma, defined by the Council of Florence, that the Old Covenant has ceased.  Do you agree that John Paul II’s teaching that the Old Covenant is still valid is heresy and apostasy?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.  Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation.  All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

3.  John Paul II has approved of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, which is blatantly heretical.

1) Joint Declaration With Lutherans on Justification: “# 5.  THE PRESENT JOINT DECLARATION… does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and SHOWS THAT THE REMAINING DIFFERENCES ARE NO LONGER THE OCCASION FOR DOCTRINAL CONDEMNATIONS.”

This means that the remaining differences between Lutherans and Catholics on Justification – for example, the fact that Lutherans don’t accept the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification as dogmatic – are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.  This is blatantly HERETICAL.  The very fact that the Lutherans don’t accept the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification as dogmatic is an occasion for their doctrinal condemnation.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 16, ex cathedra:
"After this Catholic doctrine of justification [defined by Trent] - which, unless he faithfully and firmly accepts, no one can be justified - it seemed good to the holy Synod to add these canons, so that all may know, not only what they must hold and follow, but also what they ought to shun and avoid."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, On Justification, Introduction, ex cathedra:"...the holy ecumenical and general synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit... purpose to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and salutary doctrine of justification… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree."

(2) Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century [i.e., the Council of Trent], in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent."

This means that none of the teaching of the Lutherans in the JD is condemned by the Council of Trent!  But in the JD (Joint Declaration), besides the other heresies taught by the Lutherans, the Lutheran churches teach the heresy of Justification by “faith alone,” which was condemned approximately 13 times by the Council of Trent. 

So, do you admit that John Paul II’s approval of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification makes him a heretic?

Sincerely,
Bro. Peter Dimond,

Mr. Suprenant’s Response to Bro. Peter’s Letter

2-3-05

Dear Br. Peter,

Peace of Christ!

Thank you for your email, in which you raise some serious concerns about certain teachings of Pope John Paul II. I try to keep correspondence such as this private, but I will send a copy of this email to your acquaintance [x], who put you in touch with me, and with whom I have been corresponding sporadically the past couple years.

Before I start, I'd like to make two preliminary observations. First, while it may seem to be a fine point, I did not state that your website is schismatic. I did say that your website, which Mr. [x] considers authoritative, "promotes schism and sedevacantism." From the perspective of someone who believes John Paul II is the real Pope, this assertion is not controversial. After all, even in your email you repeatedly refer to him as an "anti-pope," "heretic," "apostate," "schismatic," etc.

Further, I think it's fair to ask whether you are in communion with the bishop of the diocese where your "monastery" is located. Who is your bishop? Who has given legitimate Catholic Church approval for your monastic community?

Second, it's clear that your rejection of Pope John Paul II is prior to the specific issues raised in your email. I'm happy to provide some response to your questions, but my preference would be to go to the source. I assume that you believe at some specific, clearly definable moment in time Pope John Paul II (or, more likely, one of his predecessors) went into schism and became an anti-pope. When do you believe this occurred?

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you to establish this fact. If it weren't, then every Pope since St. Peter would have the ongoing burden of justifying his legitimacy against any and all criticisms, in essence having to constantly prove a negative.

You believe Pope John Paul II to be an imposter, so you view his statements with a presumption of discontinuity with Tradition. I recognize him as the Vicar of Christ and the lawful successor of St. Peter, so I view his statements with a presumption of continuity, thereby coming to quite different conclusions. Therefore, for this dialogue to go anywhere, it's necessary to go back to the source of your rejection of Pope John Paul II.

While deferring ultimately to the Holy See as the proper interpreter of its own statements, let me address briefly the three questions you raised.

Re: whether Catholics should "proselytize" the Eastern Orthodox Churches

I don't think you know the meaning of "proselytism" as the Church understands it. It means "gaining converts by unworthy means, of forcing or coercing consciences" (e.g., "bread Christians"-winning them over with political and economic bribery and offices, etc.). To engage in dialogue with our separated Christians and to have theological exchanges with them is simply to encourage them toward full reconciliation with the Holy See. Vatican II left no doubt that the whole purpose of ecumenism is to prepare separated Christians for full communion in faith, worship, and government (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3). Lumen Gentium affirms that the Catholic Church professes to be the "one and only Church of Jesus Christ" and seeks her separated baptized brethren to share that unity which she can never lose.

Vatican II emphatically reaffirmed the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I on papal supremacy and papal infallibility.

The Pope did not approve the Balamand Statement in toto. In fact, on June 11, 1997, a joint letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Eastern Churches, and the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity repudiated the sentiment of some Melkite Catholic Bishops in the Middle East who held that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were already one Church. They dismissed an ecclesiology that would downplay the need for full communion with the Holy See.

Re: status of "Old Covenant"

The Old Alliance has not been totally revoked. Its Mosaic ritual and ceremonial precepts have, but not the Alliance as such made with the Jews manifesting the will of God offering to the Jews and indeed to all men of all times the Promise and Gift of entering into communion with Him. That aspect of the Old Testament is eternal. The multiple alliances noted between God and Israel recounted in the books of the Old Testament were at the service of the unique Alliance that remains to spur conversion to Christ.

See Chapter 11 of St. Paul's Letter to the Romans: "Has God rejected His people? By no means! . . . A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved . . . As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

Re: Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification

One must fairly assess Pope John Paul II's approval of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD), which the Church signed with certain Lutheran groups in October 1999. First, the aim of the whole JD process from the Catholic perspective was to bring about the restoration of Lutherans to full communion with the Church. Second, a common misreading of the process has been that the Church agrees completely with the Lutheran statements in the JD. While the Church noted in the Official Common Statement (OCS) published with the JD that it confirmed the JD "in its entirety," both the OCS and the JD made clear that such confirmation included the acknowledgement of ongoing and significant doctrinal disagreements. Further, one must read the OCS and the co-published "Catholic Annex" to get an adequate understanding of the Church's position on the JD (Please let me know if you need a copy of either of these documents.)

Without full, unequivocal agreement on the doctrinal issue of justification, some have wondered why Church condemnations (anathemas) on this matter don't apply anymore to the Lutheran position as expressed in the JD. Two observations should be made here. First, an anathema is, strictly speaking, a penalty whereby the Church totally separates a Catholic believer from the Church. Because contemporary Lutherans were not baptized in the Catholic Church, nor subsequently have been received into the Catholic Church, mere ecclesiastical laws don't apply to them (canon 11 of current Code; canon 12 of 1917 Code).

However, Lutherans and all other people are morally obligated to seek and embrace the full truth. Anathemas would still apply to a Catholic who accepted the JD without the doctrinal clarifications of the Annex. The Annex guides Catholic believers to a proper Catholic understanding of those issues in the JD on which Catholics and Lutherans have not achieved full, unequivocal agreement.

Second, regarding the Lutheran teaching on justification as expressed in the JD, the Church does not condemn the teaching because the Lutheran World Federation accepted the co-publication of the clarifying Annex with the JD and the OCS. Lutherans still do not fully accept Catholic teaching on the doctrine of justification as discussed in the JD and the Annex. Yet, because of their explicit openness to the Catholic position and because they did not formally and categorically deny the Catholic teaching on justification (e.g., by rejecting the co-publication of the Annex), the Church does not formally condemn this Lutheran group's teaching on the matter. At the same time, the Church clearly recognizes that there are still issues to resolve before the Lutherans can be restored to full communion.

Mr. [x] also raised the question of Cardinal Ottaviani's intervention. This point is addressed in detail in chapter 14 of The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, by Kenneth Whitehead and James Likoudis. This book is out of print (we're in the process of publishing a new second edition), but I've enclosed a copy of the chapter from the first edition with Mr. [x] hard copy.

In short, it ought to be noted that Cardinal Ottaviani did not write the so-called "Ottaviani Intervention," which was really the work of M.L. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., then a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. Fr. des Lauriers would later become a schismatic bishop who was illicitly ordained by Vietnemese Archbishop Thuc, who himself was excommunicated until he eventually repented and was reconciled with the Church.

Upon Cardinal Ottaviani's death in 1979, Pope John Paul II celebrated a Requiem Mass for the Cardinal's "exemplary fidelity" to the Holy See. His spirit was one "which is expressed in special attachment to Peter and to the faith of Peter and, again, in keen sensitiveness to what the Church of Peter is and does and must do."

If, as some "traditionalists" have claimed, Cardinal Ottaviani's statements (noted and quoted in PCM) expressing his acceptance of the reformed Rite of Mass were forgeries, why didn't this heroic Cardinal, noted for his fidelity to Church teaching and his holy life, publicly repudiate the lies that had been publicly broadcast in his name?

When it is a question of following the observations on the Mass of a group of theologians, or accepting the judgment of the Supreme Pastor of the Church, there can be no contest. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, the judgment of the Pope is decisive and must be followed, not that of dissenting theologians, no matter how eminent or learned.

I've tried to be as responsive as I could be to the various questions and accusations raised by you and Mr. [x]. I conclude with a simple, but earnest and sincere, plea that you reexamine your opposition to the Pope. Surely we can discuss various points of doctrine, but in the end, if we obstinately close our ears to the Vicar of Christ on earth, we're headed toward ruin.

Sincerely in Christ,

Leon J. Suprenant, Jr.

Bro. Peter’s Response to Mr. Suprenant’s Letter

2/15/05

Dear Mr. Suprenant:

I’m sorry that I could not get back to you sooner, but I’ve been involved with some different things.  In the course of this letter I will address your comments by setting them off with >>> marks, and I will add my own comments below.  

In your letter, you asked whether our Monastery is in communion with the Bishop of Buffalo.  The answer to your question is no Catholic Bishop exists in the diocese of Buffalo.  The Novus Ordo Bishop posing as the Catholic Bishop denies the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, among various other dogmas.  He is not a Catholic Bishop, no more than were the Arian Bishops posing as Catholic Bishops in the 4th century.  But whether or not you think our Monastery is legitimate is really irrelevant to this discussion.  Our discussion concerns the post-Vatican II religion vs. the Catholic religion.  You say that there is no discontinuity.  So please allow me to address your responses to the three points that I raised about John Paul II’s apostasy.

1.  Regarding John Paul II’s Repeated Teaching that we should not Proselytize the Schismatics

You write: >>>>While deferring ultimately to the Holy See as the proper interpreter of its own statements, let me address briefly the three questions you raised.

Re: whether Catholics should "proselytize" the Eastern Orthodox Churches

“I don't think you know the meaning of "proselytism" as the Church understands it. It means "gaining converts by unworthy means, of forcing or coercing consciences" (e.g., "bread Christians"-winning them over with political and economic bribery and offices, etc.). To engage in dialogue with our separated Christians and to have theological exchanges with them is simply to encourage them toward full reconciliation with the Holy See. Vatican II left no doubt that the whole purpose of ecumenism is to prepare separated Christians for full communion in faith, worship, and government (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3). Lumen Gentium affirms that the Catholic Church professes to be the "one and only Church of Jesus Christ" and seeks her separated baptized brethren to share that unity which she can never lose.>>>>

Mr. Suprenant, a proselyte is “convert from one opinion, creed, or party, to another.” (The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, p. 678)  To proselytize is to make converts.  That is the meaning of the word.  Thus, when John Paul II repeatedly agrees that he has no desire to proselytize the “Orthodox” Schismatics  – and that unity with them is not achieved by proselytism – it clearly means that he has no desire to convert them.  To deny this is to change the meaning of the word to your own convenience and to attempt to defend the indefensible. This is further proven by the fact that John Paul II never says himself that unity with the Schismatics can only come if they accept the dogma of the Papacy and convert to the Catholic Faith.

Canonists and theologians teach that external heresy consists not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis 1:746.)

I do not deny, of course, that John Paul II also rejects proselytism by forcible tactics; of course he rejects that as well.  But it is neither accurate nor honest to say that his many denunciations of proselytizing the Schismatics only refer to forcible proselytism, when he doesn’t say that anywhere in the context of the many things we quote to prove the point. 

To further prove the point, I will show you from other words of John Paul II that it is his teaching that Catholics shouldn’t convert the Eastern Schismatics.  In his encyclical (Slavorum Apostoli – The Apostles of the Slavs) on Sts. Cyril and Methodius (#27), John Paul II indicated that Eastern Schismatics should not be converted to the Catholic Church by teaching that unity with the Schismatics ‘is neither absorption nor fusion,’ which means not by conversion.   Mr. Suprenant, this phrase from this very encyclical – “neither absorption nor fusion” in Slavorum Apostoli #27 – was directly referenced by the Balamand Statement as the justification for its teaching that we should not convert the Eastern Schismatics.

Balamand Statement, #’s 14-15, 1993: “According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, 27).15. While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.”

This quote is very important and, quite frankly, it totally refutes what you have said.  Here we see what the Balamand Statement, which was approved by John Paul II, clearly teaches regarding the conversion of the Orthodox: “there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.”  This is a direct denial of Vatican I and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation; but how do they attempt to justify it?  They “justify” it by using John Paul II’s own teaching in Slavorum Apostoli, 27, and the very phrase he uses to teach the same thing: namely, that unity with these schismatics is “neither absorption nor fusion,” which means not by conversion.  (By the way, it is a fact that John Paul II approved of the Balamand Statement, but you make the curious claim that John Paul II didn’t approve the Balamand Statement in toto.  Can you please document where John Paul II has said that he doesn’t approve of the above teaching of the Balamand Statement?  If not, then why did you make that claim?)

But, Mr. Suprenant, in addition to the above there is more to prove the point. On October 12, 2002, John Paul II and the Schismatic Patriarch of Romania jointly denounced trying to convert each other by using the same phrase again: “Our aim and our ardent desire is full communion, which is not absorption…”(L’ Osservatore Romano,Oct. 16, 2002, p. 5.)  In his address on the same day, John Paul II also told the schismatic Patriarch: “The goal is… to reach a unity which implies neither absorption nor fusion…”(L’ Osservatore Romano,Oct. 16, 2002, p. 4.)  And to really drive the point home, in the same address to the Schismatic Patriarch of Romania, John Paul II made this incredible statement:

“For her part, the Catholic Church recognizes the mission which the Orthodox Churches are called to carry out in the countries where they have been rooted for centuries.  She desires nothing else than to help this mission…”(L’ Osservatore Romano,Oct. 16, 2002, p. 4.)

This means that he has no desire to convert the Schismatics to the Catholic Faith, but only to help their “mission.”  And this clear teaching of the Vatican II sect is why “Cardinal” Kasper, who was appointed by John Paul II to a position to enunciate his views on this very topic, stated clearly:

Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity: “… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001)

And this teaching is why hordes of Novus Ordo Bishops throughout the world have enunciated the same thing, which they have ultimately received from John Paul II:

“There is no proselytism as a directive on the part of the Holy See, nor is there any intention to convert Russia to Roman Catholicism.” --Igor Kovalevsky, Secretary General of the Novus Ordo "Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops" of Russia, (Itar-Tass News Agency, May 7, 2004)

It couldn’t be more clear, Mr. Suprenant; yet there is more.  John Paul II, following the lead of the apostate Paul VI, has repeatedly declared that the Eastern Schismatics are no longer anathematized or excommunicated.

Antipope John Paul II, Message to Schismatic Patriarch Dimitrios of Istanbul, Nov. 30, 1985:“To His Holiness Dimitrios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patnareb... We see there a happy coincidence for celebrating together the Feast of the Apostle Saint Andrew on this twentieth anniversary of the lifting of the anathemas.”

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 17), May 25, 1995: “At the conclusion of the Council, Pope Paul VI sealed the Council’s commitment to ecumenism, renewing the dialogue of charity with the Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and joining the Patriarch in the concrete and profoundly significant gesture which ‘condemned to oblivion’ and ‘removed from the memory and from the midst of the Church’ the excommunications of the past.”

Antipope John Paul II, Orientale Lumen (# 18), May 2, 1995: “All this praiseworthy work was to converge in the reflections of the Second Vatican Council and to be symbolized in the abrogation of the reciprocal excommunications of 1054 by Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I.”

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Teoctist, October 12, 2002: “At the conclusion of the work of the Council, by a highly significant gesture that took place at the same time in Rome and in Constantinople, the reciprocal condemnations of 1054 were cancelled from the memory of the Church.” (L’ Osservatore Romano,Oct. 16, 2002, p. 3.)

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 42), May 25, 1995: “The ‘universal brotherhood’ of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction.  Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out…”

These statements are patently false and constitute a denial of Vatican I, which anathematized anyone who does not accept the Papacy or Papal Infallibility, such as the Orthodox.  So, contrary to Vatican I, John Paul II repeatedly declares that the Schismatics are no longer anathematized or excommunicated even though they persist in rejecting Vatican I.  This proves again that John Paul II does not consider the Schismatics to be under anathema or excommunication for denying the Papacy, and that he holds that they do not need to be converted.  It couldn’t be more clear, Mr. Suprenant, that John Paul II is a heretic and a schismatic who denies Vatican I, as any honest person will admit.   This is further proven by a myriad of John Paul II’s actions, including: giving $100,000.00 to the Schismatic Patriarch Teoctist; constantly declaring that the “Orthodox Churches” are “venerable” and lavishing other praises on these schismatic bodies and their leaders without ever mentioning that they are heretics and schismatics who need to be converted; acknowledging schismatic Patriarchs as the holders of “Sees”; giving them relics, etc., etc., etc.  All of these actions, as theologians teach, also demonstrate his heresy – which is so clearly and repeatedly stipulated in his words above.

2.  Regarding John Paul II’s Teaching that the Old Covenant has never been revoked

>>>>Re: status of "Old Covenant"

>>>The Old Alliance has not been totally revoked. Its Mosaic ritual and ceremonial precepts have, but not the Alliance as such made with the Jews manifesting the will of God offering to the Jews and indeed to all men of all times the Promise and Gift of entering into communion with Him. That aspect of the Old Testament is eternal. The multiple alliances noted between God and Israel recounted in the books of the Old Testament were at the service of the unique Alliance that remains to spur conversion to Christ.

See Chapter 11 of St. Paul's Letter to the Romans: "Has God rejected His people? By no means! . . . A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved . . . As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.">>>>

Mr. Suprenant, the Old Alliance as such has been totally revoked.  That is why Jews cannot observe it without the loss of salvation (de fide).  The fact that the Old Alliance as such has been revoked is why Jews must accept Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith for salvation, and that if they continue to observe the Old Alliance there will be for them nothing but damnation.  Do you acknowledge that Jews who reject Christ and observe the Old Law will not be saved?  If so, then how can you say that the Old Alliance as such has not been revoked?  What could you possibly mean by such a statement?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.  Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation.  All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."

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.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61): “The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 59), March 1, 1756: “However they are not attempting to observe the precepts of the old Law which as everybody knows have been revoked by the coming of Christ.”

Pope Pius XII (1943): “… the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished… Jesus made void the Law with its decrees… To such an extent, then… was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church… that, as our Lord expired, the mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.  On the Cross then the Old Law died…” (Mystici Corporis #’s 29-30)

3.  Re: Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification

You write: >>>>One must fairly assess Pope John Paul II's approval of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD), which the Church signed with certain Lutheran groups in October 1999. First, the aim of the whole JD process from the Catholic perspective was to bring about the restoration of Lutherans to full communion with the Church. Second, a common misreading of the process has been that the Church agrees completely with the Lutheran statements in the JD. While the Church noted in the Official Common Statement (OCS) published with the JD that it confirmed the JD "in its entirety," both the OCS and the JD made clear that such confirmation included the acknowledgement of ongoing and significant doctrinal disagreements. Further, one must read the OCS and the co-published "Catholic Annex" to get an adequate understanding of the Church's position on the JD (Please let me know if you need a copy of either of these documents.)>>>>

Since you brought these two documents up, I will let you know that prior to composing my article on the “22 Heresies in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification” I read all three documents (the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans; the Official Common Statement; and the Annex to the Official Common Statement) at least three times, if I recall correctly.  I also read the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification (which I had read numerous times before) ten times in a row so that the teaching of the Church would be fresh in my mind and the heresies in the Joint Declaration easy to discern.  So, I am very familiar with all three documents pertaining to this Joint Declaration with the Lutherans. 

But it seems that each time I bring up the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification with a Novus Ordo/Vatican II defender, he makes reference to the two other documents that accompanied the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, namely, the Official Common Statement and the Annex to the Official Common Statement.  It seems that the Novus Ordo/Vatican II defender thinks or hopes that the person with whom he is conversing is ignorant of these two accompanying documents – so that he can pass off the false impression that these two documents mitigate or explain away the heresies in the Joint Declaration and that the other person, being unfamiliar with them, will have no response.  But since I am very familiar with both documents, I can tell you that they do not mitigate or clarify the heresies in the Joint Declaration at all; in fact, the Annex to the Official Common Statement is arguably even more heretical than the JD itself (if that’s possible) because it affirms, on the “Catholic” side, that Justification comes by faith alone!

Annex to the Official Common Statement, made by “Catholic” side and Lutheran side: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works" (Annex, # 2, C).

So, here we have the “Catholic” and the Lutheran side – in the Annex, the document that people love to appeal to – declaring the very heresy condemned solemnly by the Council of Trent in 13 different ways!  Do you admit that this is outright heresy?  If not, then I must tell you that you are no different from a Protestant.

You write: >>>>Without full, unequivocal agreement on the doctrinal issue of justification, some have wondered why Church condemnations (anathemas) on this matter don't apply anymore to the Lutheran position as expressed in the JD. Two observations should be made here. First, an anathema is, strictly speaking, a penalty whereby the Church totally separates a Catholic believer from the Church. Because contemporary Lutherans were not baptized in the Catholic Church, nor subsequently have been received into the Catholic Church, mere ecclesiastical laws don't apply to them (canon 11 of current Code; canon 12 of 1917 Code).>>>>

First, anathemas attached to dogmatic canons on Faith are not merely ecclesiastical laws.  They are expressions of the divine law condemning those who reject the true Faith.  They cannot be set aside because they express an unchanging and dogmatic obligation to accept every article of the Catholic Faith under pain of heresy and damnation. 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by that very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching?  For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others.  Faith, as the Church teaches, is that supernatural virtue by which… we believe what He has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of human reason [author: that is, not because it seems correct to us], but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Please notice this important teaching.  The Church could never overturn anathemas attached to dogmatic canons because it can never endorse the rejection of Faith and God which occurs with “anyone” (see above) – that includes all Lutherans – who rejects “any” teaching of the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
"The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages."

Pope Pius IX’s teaching clearly proves this as well.

Syllabus of Errors, #70: “The canons of the Council of Trent which impose the censure of anathema on those who have the boldness to deny to the Church the power of introducing diriment impediments, are either not dogmatic, or are to be understood in accordance with this borrowed power.” – Condemned by Pope Pius IX, Denz. 1770

This condemned proposition deals with the anathemas of Trent regarding Holy Matrimony.  It shows that the canons of Trent which impose anathema on those who have the boldness to deny its teaching on Justification are likewise dogmatic and cannot be overturned.

"...the holy ecumenical and general synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit... cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and apostolic legates a latere, presiding therein in the name of our Most Holy Father and Lord in Christ, Paul, the third Pope by the providence of God, for the praise and glory of Almighty God, for the tranquility of the Church and the salvation of souls, purpose to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and salutary doctrine of justification, which the "son of justice" (Mal. 4:2), Christ Jesus, "the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12:2) taught, the apostles transmitted and the Catholic Church, under the instigation of the Holy Spirit, has always retained, strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree." (Council of Trent, Session 6, On Justification)

The Joint Declaration teaches contrary to the Council of Trent on Justification by saying that Lutherans – and the teachings of Lutherans expressed in the JD – are not anathematized any longer.  Nothing could be more heretical.

Second, even without considering the facts above, your argument that the anathemas of Trent on Justification can be overturned – and cease to apply to Lutherans – because contemporary Lutherans were never part of the Church, and hence not subject to Her ecclesiastical laws, is also untenable.  This is because the Lutheran heretics involved in this agreement were not stipulated to be only Lutherans who were never part of the Catholic Church.  The agreement clearly includes all types of Lutherans who are part of the body involved in the agreement, including former Catholics and those baptized as infants who left the Church and may have become Lutherans.  Thus, even from that standpoint, the argument doesn’t hold up.

You write:>>>>However, Lutherans and all other people are morally obligated to seek and embrace the full truth. Anathemas would still apply to a Catholic who accepted the JD without the doctrinal clarifications of the Annex. The Annex guides Catholic believers to a proper Catholic understanding of those issues in the JD on which Catholics and Lutherans have not achieved full, unequivocal agreement.>>>>

Mr. Suprenant, here you state that the Annex guides Catholics.  The Annex clearly teaches Justification by faith alone.  You are therefore endorsing the solemnly condemned heresy of Justification by faith alone.  You are endorsing the pillar of Protestantism and the rejection of the Council of Trent. 

Annex to the Official Common Statement, made by “Catholic” side and Lutheran side: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works" (Annex, # 2, C).

You write: >>>Second, regarding the Lutheran teaching on justification as expressed in the JD, the Church does not condemn the teaching because the Lutheran World Federation accepted the co-publication of the clarifying Annex with the JD and the OCS.  Yet, because of their explicit openness to the Catholic position and because they did not formally and categorically deny the Catholic teaching on justification (e.g., by rejecting the co-publication of the Annex), the Church does not formally condemn this Lutheran group's teaching on the matter.>>>>

Mr. Suprenant, what you endorse here is blatant heresy against the Council of Trent.  You state that the Church does not condemn the teaching expressed by the Lutherans in the JD.  Mr. Suprenant, the teaching expressed by the Lutherans in the JD was solemnly condemned by Trent.  Before I show that, I must note again that you are appealing again to the Annex which teaches the solemnly condemned heresy of Justification by faith alone.  You are thus endorsing Justification by faith alone again.  

The Lutheran teaching referred to in the JD – which the JD declares is not condemned by Trent – includes Justification by faith alone and other blatant Lutheran heresies which were, in fact, solemnly condemned by Trent.  Please see the following:

Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century [i.e., the Council of Trent], in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent."

Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "26. According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide)." --- HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT!

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 10, ex cathedra :
"'You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone' (Jas. 2:24)."

JD With Lutherans: "21. According to the Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action." –HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT!

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Can. 4:
"If anyone shall say that man's free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema."

JD With Lutherans: "23. …Lutherans... intend rather to express that justification remains free from human cooperation and is not dependent upon the life-renewing effects of grace in human beings." – HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT!

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Can. 1:
"If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema."

JD With Lutherans: "29. Lutherans understand this condition of the Christian as a being 'at the same time righteous and sinner'. Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament and grants the righteousness of Christ which they appropriate in faith. In Christ, they are made just before God. Looking at themselves through the law, however, they recognize that they remain totally sinners." – HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT!

This heresy is also called “simul justus et peccator” (at the same time just and sinner) and was one of Martin Luther’s favorites.  It was vigorously condemned by Trent in the following two passages.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 5:
"If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 5:
"For in those who are born again [Justified], God hates nothing, because 'there is no condemnation, to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death' (Rom. 6:4), who do not 'walk according to the flesh' (Rom. 8:1), but putting off 'the old man' and putting on the 'new, who is created according to God' (Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:9), are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved sons of God, 'heirs indeed of God, but co-heirs with Christ' (Rom. 8:17), so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven."

JD With Lutherans: "29... Lutherans say that justified persons are also sinners and that their opposition to God is truly sin, they do not deny that, despite this sin, they are not separated from God and that this is a 'ruled' sin." – HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 15:
"... the doctrine of divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelievers, but also the faithful who are fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners (1 Cor. 6:9), and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the assistance of divine grace they can refrain and for which they are separated from the grace of God."

All of these blatant Lutheran heresies were solemnly condemned by the Catholic Church.  But, according to the JD, they are no longer condemned by Trent.  That is formal heresy and an utter rejection of the Council of Trent. 

>>>>I've tried to be as responsive as I could be to the various questions and accusations raised by you and Mr. [x]. I conclude with a simple, but earnest and sincere, plea that you reexamine your opposition to the Pope. Surely we can discuss various points of doctrine, but in the end, if we obstinately close our ears to the Vicar of Christ on earth, we're headed toward ruin.>>>

Mr. Suprenant, if you are honest, you will see that John Paul II’s teaching is blatantly heretical in many areas.  You will also admit that he is not remotely Catholic for endorsing false religions.  In my first letter I deliberately brought forward only three of John Paul II’s heresies, so that it would not be too long.  I could have brought up many others, such as the fact that John Paul II repeatedly teaches that all men are saved and in the state of grace, which is apostasy.

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978: “Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of Grace.”

I also did not bring up the fact that John Paul II teaches that non-Christian (false) religions are a product of the Holy Spirit, which is utter blasphemy and apostasy.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 6): “Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions – a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body…”

Here Antipope John Paul II says that the firm belief of the followers of non-Christian religions proceeds from the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.  Since we know from Sacred Scripture and Catholic teaching that Satan is the author of all non-Christian religions, what is being stated here by Antipope John Paul II is that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is actually the spirit of lies – Satan.  This is an unbelievable blasphemy against God and total apostasy.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 29), Dec. 7, 1990: “The Church’s relationship with other religions is dictated by a twofold respect: ‘Respect for man in his quest for answers to the deepest questions of his life, and respect for the action of the Spirit in man.’”

Here Antipope John Paul II says that respect for non-Christian religions is dictated by respect for the action of the Spirit in man.  This clearly means that the Spirit is responsible for these non-Christian religions, which again means that the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the spirit of lies - Satan.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 56): “Other religions constitute a positive challenge for the Church: they stimulate her both to discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ’s presence and of the working of the Spirit.”

This means that non-Christian religions are a work of the Spirit – the Holy Spirit – which again equates the Spirit of Truth with the spirit of lies: Satan.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians… Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy...  Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it...”

Pius XI teaches that those who hold that all religions are more or less good are apostates.  John Paul II holds that all religions are more or less good.  This fact is proven by the fact that he personally invited and arranged for an array of false religions to come Assisi I and Assisi II (and many other events) to worship false gods. John Paul II has also kissed the Koran and asked St. John the Baptist to protect the false and wicked religion of Islam. 

Antipope John Paul II, March 21, 2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan...” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)

This means that John Paul II believes that Islam is a good religion.  Do you admit that this is apostasy?  If not, Mr. Suprenant, then I must say, in charity and with no personal malice, that you are an apostate.  His statement is more heretical than if he were to say, “May St. John the Baptist protect abortion.” 

John Paul II has also taught that false religions are “great” hundreds of times, including all the false religions he invited to come to Assisi.  Do you admit that this is apostasy?

Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Address, Sept. 14, 1986: “… I invited… the other great religions of the world to ‘a special meeting of prayer for peace in the city of Assisi…’”(L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 22, 1986, p. 2.)

Antipope John Paul II, Address, Nov. 29, 2002: “… the great world religions, starting with Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism…”(L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 11, 2002, p. 6.)

There are other things that I could bring forward, such as the teaching of John Paul II and Vatican II that it is lawful for non-Catholics to come to Holy Communion – an idea condemned by the Catholic Church numerous times.

You write: >>>>Second, it's clear that your rejection of Pope John Paul II is prior to the specific issues raised in your email. I'm happy to provide some response to your questions, but my preference would be to go to the source. I assume that you believe at some specific, clearly definable moment in time Pope John Paul II (or, more likely, one of his predecessors) went into schism and became an anti-pope. When do you believe this occurred?>>>

We believe that John XXIII was an Antipope from the time of his dubious election in 1958.  We discuss his invalid election in the article below:

The Cardinal Siri Elections in Brief - relating to the Papal Conclaves and Invalid Elections of John XXIII [1958] and Paul VI [1963]

Besides not being elected, according to the evidence, John XXIII was also proven to be a non-Catholic heretic who denied the necessity of the Catholic Church.  Such a man cannot be a validly elected Pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine: “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.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

St. Antoninus: “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church.  A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.  A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.  He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.” (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

St. Alphonsus, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the Pontificate.” (Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232)

St. Francis De Sales, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…” (The Catholic Controversy, TAN Books, pp. 305-306)

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church: “This principle is most certain.  The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits.  The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

Paul VI was a complete apostate who was not remotely Catholic, as we will show in an upcoming article.  And John Paul I was also a heretic for embracing all of the heretical Vatican II documents.  So, it is demonstrable that all four of the “Vatican II Popes” were, in fact, non-Catholic Antipopes.  That is why they have imposed a new religion on the world, a new “Mass,” new sacramental rites, etc.  But I don’t want to deviate from the issue of John Paul II’s apostasy which is the most important issue in this regard.  So please address the facts regarding John Paul II – and hopefully – recognize the clear heresies in his teaching.

You write:>>>It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you to establish this fact. If it weren't, then every Pope since St. Peter would have the ongoing burden of justifying his legitimacy against any and all criticisms, in essence having to constantly prove a negative.>>>

You are correct.  The burden of proof is on us to prove that John Paul II is an Antipope, and not a real Pope, and we have done so at length by proving without a doubt that he is not remotely Catholic – and therefore cannot be the Pope.  Further, Mr. Suprenant, the fact that the post-Vatican II religion has implemented and preached a new gospel, with totally new sacramental rites, and a totally new, Protestant “Mass,” etc. should alert Catholics to the fact that this strange break with Tradition may be coming from men who are imposters, just like the 40 plus Antipopes in history.  (Consider, for instance, Antipope Anacletus II who reigned 8 years and Rome with the support of almost the entire College of Cardinals.) The new gospel and the new, Protestantized Mass of the post-Vatican II religion – besides all of the other heresies which constitute a total break with Tradition – should alert Catholics that the post-Vatican II religion is the fulfillment of the prophecies of Our Lady and Sacred Scripture relating to the Great Apostasy and the takeover of the city of Rome by a counterfeit “Church” of apostasy which is not the Catholic Church.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 10), March 4, 1979: “IN REALITY, THE NAME FOR THAT DEEP AMAZEMENT AT MAN’S WORTH AND DIGNITY IS THE GOSPEL, THAT IS TO SAY: THE GOOD NEWS.  IT IS ALSO CALLED CHRISTIANITY.”

Here John Paul II preaches a new Gospel.  This new gospel is that Christianity is the amazement at man.

Galatians 1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.  As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

I pray that you will see the truth of the facts here, and we hope and pray for your conversion.

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.