Click here to see our new website: www.vaticancatholic.com

 

E-Exchanges Archive 2

 

*This section of our website will contain some less formal – and short – e-mail exchanges that we’ve had which we feel may be of value to our readers.  This is the Archive for old E-Exchanges.  For current ones, go here: E-Exchanges  We will include those portions of the exchanges we deem relevant and valuable.  We often add bolding and underlining which are not necessarily that of the other party.  The statements from MHFM are in red and begin at the far left of the page.  The statements from the other side are indented.*

 

New V-2 Debate

 

MHFM: This is a debate on the issue of whether Vatican II (and the Vatican II sect) teaches the heresy that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion.  William, with whom we had a more formal debate, came back to debate on this topic.  

 

Debate: does Vatican II teach that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion? [39 min. audio]

 

This will be found permanently in the Telephone Conversations section of our Traditional Catholic Audio Programs.  For a file relating to some of the quotes mentioned in this debate, see: The Vatican II sect vs. the Catholic Church on non-Catholics receiving Holy Communion [PDF].

 

Listened

 

I wanted to tell you that I had my friend's mother listen to a little bit of some of your audio programs that I had on my iPod. She really liked what she heard. She said that they were very well done… She asked me to give her a copy of them so her and her husband could get a chance to hear the rest of them( they are both a little computer shy). I have discussed a few of the issues with the V2 church with them, but we really don't get that much time together. They have admitted they have had their own problems with the V2 Church. Hopefully once they hear what you have to say they will be fully convinced and leave the New Mass.

 

MHFM: Thanks, hopefully they will come around. 

 

Bad Confessions

 

MHFM,
 
Hello, I have two questions.  First is about St. Teresa of Avila when she said that bad confessions damn the majority of Christians.  Aside from making sure that one does not hide any sin out of pride, is there anything else one should do to ensure avoiding a bad confession? Second, I saw your headline about BeXVI changing the stations of the cross.  Are the stations of the cross that have been used previously traditional, and if not then what are the traditional stations of the cross? I would appreciate your help.
 
Kenneth

 

MHFM: We think that people can make bad confessions by attempting to justify their sins while confessing them.  In other words, they might give so many reasons or explanations, etc. that they basically excuse themselves for the sins they have committed, and in so doing can make a bad confession.

 

Benedict XVI is eliminating certain Stations of the Cross for World Youth Day, so as not to offend members of false religions.  You can find the Stations of the Cross in a traditional missal. 

 

Returned

 

Thank you for the critical information and good counsel that has helped me return to Catholicism.

 

Gloria Howard

California

 

College Blasphemy

 

Greetings, Brothers. 

 

Just couldn't resist a comment.  In your telephone debate with the NO apologist in Chicago (whose ignorance was astounding!), I, too wondered about his continual use of the term "the Deity".  However, after reading the e-mail about this abominable woman at a "Catholic" college allowing only gender-neutral terms for God, I understand why!   Of course, the most important prayer which Jesus himself taught us called the "Our Father" (do you suppose they've ever heard of it?) must be a horror to them. These people get wackier by the minute. 

 

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all you do to spread the truth.

 

Sincerely in Christ Jesus,

Margaret Moore

 

What Heresy?

 

Really?  What heresy do I adhere to?

 

MHFM: The dogma you deny is that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church. 

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“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…”

 

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:

For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

 

We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church by heresy, schism or apostasy.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):

“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one.  For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

 

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:

“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”[1][v]

 

Thus, it’s not merely the opinion of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would cease to be pope; it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching.  A truth inextricably bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact.  It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be the pope.  A heretic cannot be the pope, since one who is outside cannot head that of which he is not even a member.

 

“Catholic College”

 

Subject: An excerpt from a “Catholic college”

 

In a syllabus for Moral Theology, a nota bene appears from the ex O.P. nun who was hired as chair of theology:

A "requirement" for my class is that you will NOT refer to God as "FATHER" (Emphasis mine). The following gender 'neutral' references for God, i.e., Creator, the Loving One, etc. are acceptable. Your semester and final grades will reflect your adherence to this requirement."  Needless to say, that ex-blasphemer would have had seen me jumping out of a window after hearing that trash.

The blasphemy continues:

"Mother God, overshadows Daughter Mary."  A student in this moral theology class questioned this ex-nun by asking two questions:  The first: "What does moral theology" have to do with the incarnation? The second: "In stating that God is female and therefore "overshadowed" Daughter Mary, you are making the blasphemous assertion that Jesus Christ was born of a lesbian union!" From what I gathered, the walls of the classroom practically disintegrated.  Kudos to the student.

Again, God is so good to us for giving the truth of the Catholic Faith, and then we have these nitwit ex-nuns… While it is true that God being eternal is beyond the confines of time, space and gender,it was JESUS who REVEALED God to us as FATHER- therefore, the matter has been settled.

MOTHER GOD?? May God have mercy on those who dare even think this, much less profess it.

[Name Withheld]

 

Affected

 

DEAR BROTHER

 

I AM SO DEEPLY AFFECTED BY THE THINGS I AM READING IN YOUR BOOK.  I THINK HAVING A PRIEST TO CONFESS TO WOULD FREE ME UP INSIDE FROM A LOT OF THE BURDEN OF YEARS OF MIS-INFORMATION THAT I HAVE BEEN ABIDING BY.  I SEE IT AS A CLEANSING STEP.  BUT, TO REJECT THE MASS ALTOGETHER KNOWING THAT I AM DISABLED AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TRAVEL TO A CHURCH TOO FAR AWAY I AM WORRIED.  WHAT WOULD I DO WITHOUT MASS?... 

 

PLEASE REPLY AND THANK YOU..........THERESA

 

MHFM: We’re glad to hear about your interest, but you must realize that the New Mass is not a Mass.  Why is this so hard for some people to understand or accept?  It’s not valid.  You’re not going to a Mass if you go there.  God doesn’t want you to go there.  It’s nothing more than a Protestant service: The Invalid New Mass.

 

False Traditionalist Cowards

 

MHFM: A false traditionalist named Michael Hamilton wrote to us criticizing our views on sedevacantism.  We asked him if he would be willing to have a recorded conversation, in which we could respond directly to his points and ask him our own.  He has refused.  This is not a surprise.  All of these heretics are the same.  They like to hide behind their computers and send out their arrogant and false arguments.  But they refuse to get into a conversation where their points could be directly addressed and refuted, where they can’t run and hide from the facts.  They are pathetic, and they are not of the truth.

 

V-2 Schism

Did you read in the subscriber comments for the article Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics posted in "News and Commentary:"

My Greek Orthodox friend, who accepts the authority of the pope but not the filioque, will soon be formally welcomed into the Catholic Church -by the nuncio, no less- WITHOUT CEASING TO BE ORTHODOX!! This is a VERY new thing! It shows just how little separates Catholics from Orthodox and how the Catholic Church is willing to accomodate. My friend's been receiving communion in the Catholic Church -with permission- for years.

MHFM: That certainly shows how people are imbibing the heresies of the new religion and losing their souls as a result.

Cheat

 

To The Brothers Dimond:
 
While I wholeheartedly agree with 99.9 % of what's on your website, I must disagree with your views on cheating as a mortal sin for the following reasons:
 
First: As you are well aware, mortal sin must have three SIMULTANEOUS properties: grave matter, sufficient reflection and complete consent. I hardly think that
one who cheats at a game of monopoly can justifiably before God be damned for all eternity. To me, that's plain meaness and if one is sorry for such an act, it's NOT going to affect someone's salvation. While the act of cheating is indeed wrong, it cannot be compared to one who plagarizes a dissertation or paper as part of a graduation requirement and then ends up with a degree with work that was not his own, because all three elements of mortal sin were concurrent when the  act occurred.
 
Secondly: If the game of monopoly was a game in which money was being exchanged, that is gambling and this can quickly become a mortal sin if one
were to squander his wages on such a game when the revenue is needed to support himself and/or family.
 
Lastly, I don't think that any traditional Catholic would condone cheating, and as you cite, "if we were only honest in our daily lives." Yet, if we really examine our consciences, are any of us really that honest- be it with God, our neighbor or ourselves? I certainly cannot say that by any means, because in the course of a day, there are times that I stumble and fall. If we were, there would be no need for confession, correct?
 

MHFM: In response to your points: First, cheating at a serious game does constitute grave matter, as we’ve explained.  To respond by saying that it would seem “mean” for God to damn someone over that, well, then you need to read some of the Old Testament.  You need to see how God looks at disobedience to Him and a failure to live up to His truth. 

 

Second, the question of whether money was exchanged is irrelevant to the point.  We were talking about a normal game of monopoly. 

 

Third, people who would cheat at a serious game of monopoly have some significant spiritual problems.  They choose the fleeting pleasure of victory in the game over honesty; they choose to deceive their fellow men and operate dishonestly to win a game.  It’s very bad.  You seem to be justifying such mortally sinful cheating by saying “everybody stumbles and falls.”  No, people shouldn’t cheat; people shouldn’t commit mortal sin.  That’s not to say, of course, that if a person does commit a mortal sin that he cannot be forgiven.  But cheating, dishonesty and mortal sin are not things to be swept away as: “everybody stumbles and falls.”

 

Heresy

 

The Only Heresy I see is you and your website

 

[fraterjohn]

 

MHFM: That means that you don’t think that this is heresy:

 

Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”

 

So that shows us what kind of person you are; you totally reject the truth of God.  So when a person like you says that the only heresy he sees is us and our website, well that speaks in our favor.

 

Supporting Heretics

 

Dear Brothers,

A lady at my work had her van repossessed and was given 2 weeks to get the money or lose the van.  She was talking about how she was going to be $200 short, so I loaned her the money so she will have her own ride to work.  This is her family's only vehicle so I felt like it was good idea to loan her the money.  Since this was a loan, would this count for supporting heretics.  Technically I'm still a N.O., so I suppose it doesn't matter as much.  Sedevacantism sounds convincing, but I am still on the fence about it.

Sincerely,

Jude Miller

 

MHFM: No, we don’t think so.  It’s possible that such an act of generosity might make her more receptive to the information you would give her about the traditional Catholic faith.  But if she shows herself to not be receptive – or to be friendly, but not intent on doing anything about the information – then you shouldn’t help her at all in the future.  We think you should recommend the website to her or give her a DVD.

 

Also, you need to become convinced of the sedevacantist position.  Heretics cannot be Catholics, and the Vatican II antipopes are heretics.

 

Debates

 

Brothers,

 

I listened to your e-exchange debates this morning as well as the latest section of the Papacy program.  Of course, I will need to listen to the papacy segment again to really take it all in.  It's fascinating to me.  The debates, on the other hand…  that first guy: the 'apologist.'…  I must say I agree with one of your readers that said only an evil spirit could argue in such a twisted way.  And he wouldn't even properly let you speak. His 'arguments' were sheer lunacy.  The second guy, the baptism,heresy,schism guy. . . I just don't know what to say.  One minute he seemed to genuinely want to learn from you, then the next minute he's saying you haven't proven the point because he himself disagrees with certain teachings of the Church which you quoted for him.  A bit of bad will there, me thinks.  Either way, I always learn alot by listening to you instruct and refute.  I love learning the history of the Church and the truths of our Faith.

 

S…

 

Reader on Cheating

 

Dear MHFM,

 

This is dedicated to the person on the e-exchange's who claimed that cheating at a serious game of Monopoly (or any other competition for that matter?) does not constitute a grave matter.

 

I am now going to quote something I read recently from the the book, The Secret of Confession by Fr. Paul O'Sullivan (Tan Pub., 1992 edition; orig. published in 1936; pages 65-66) I think you will find it relevant:

 

   "Yet, dear Madam, the sin of the Angels was a thought of revolt, and as a result a third part of those glorious spirits lost their thrones in Heaven. It was the eating of a little fruit by our First Mother , Eve, that proved the undoing of the human race. Was it not an act of disobedience that deprived Saul of his throne, and was it not a sinful glance that led holy David to the commision of a heinous crime? An act of vanity too, lost him 70,000 of his subjects. Did not the venerable Eleazar sacrifice his life rather than eat swine's flesh? And what about the death of Oza and Ahio for daring to touch the Ark?

 

   "Dear Madam, you fail to see that it is not the trifling act which is wrong, but the principle involved: the malice of the offense against an infinite God, to whom we owe our love, our gratitude and our allegiance. Surely, if God died on account of sin, sin must be dreadful. If sin is punished by Hell-fire, sin must be enourmous. When you make light of sin, you judge not Catholics, but God Himself." (emphasis my own)

 

Overwhelmed

 

I was, since yesterday, reading and listening to some of the information i came across the internet particularly in your website, mostholyfamilymonastery.com, regarding this issues about Vactican II.  the truth is i am overwhelmed about the information i have been reading and listening to that, until now, i never thought that our Catholic Church is greatly divided between bishops/priests that supported the Vatican II teachings and to those who did not. for a while now, this created a sad note in my heart for i did believe we are one united church under the Catholic Church, the one true Apostolic Church founded by our savior, Jesus Christ. i never had any idea that their is a wide schism going on underneath the Catholic Church and i believe many catholics in my parish doesn't even know about the existence of this division" (my lack of better word to describe it).


i am troubled about these things which i've read and listened to...i will pray for enlightenment and please pray for me that i will be enlightened about the real issues and to the Truth  thank you and peace be to all of you!

 

MHFM: Well, there isn’t a schism going on in the Catholic Church.  It’s that the Vatican II “Church” is not the Catholic Church, and that those who incorporate themselves into this new, false, phony, counterfeit “Church” by embracing its heresies have left the Catholic Church.  You must recognize that the New Mass is invalid (The Invalid New Mass), and that you must therefore get out of your parish.

 

Baptism

 

Dear Brothers, I have recently come across your web site and am trying to take it all in. I have felt like a lot of the holiness has been removed from the mass ever since vatican II. When I took classes to have my children baptised 20 some years ago I was told then that it was not really necessary, that God would take care of them. I have many questions for you but right now if you could answer one for me. What about the good people that died before the coming of Jesus who were not baptized. Where are they? I think of what Jesus told the man being crucified beside him, who asked Jesus to remember him when he entered his kindom and Jesus said this day you will be with me in my kindom.   Thank you    

 

Pat

 

MHFM: We get this question a lot.  It’s addressed in our book.  The law of baptism became obligatory on all after the Resurrection.  The requirements to be saved under the Old Law, or to get to the Limbo of the Fathers, were not the same as the requirements to be saved under the New Law.  The Good Thief was saved, or made it to the Limbo of the Fathers, under the Old Law.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

 

Medjugorje

 

Greetings again!
 
I keep reading interesting things from your website. I didn't see anything on Medjugorje so I would be interested in knowing what you think of it. Maybe you can do an article telling people your thought on Medjugorje. I'm Croatian but I don't know much about Medjugorje…

 

MHFM: Medjugorje is proven to be false because it has blatant heresies in its messages.  Here are some quick facts: The False Apparitions at Medjugorje [PDF].

 

Limbo

 

Dear Brothers,

 

A Novus Ordo friend is now perplexed about its recent demolition of the existence of Limbo,  and has asked me, a Traditional Roman Catholic,"How can they keep changing so much of what we formerly believed?"  I want to answer correctly since her doubt must be a gift from God, but can only find original references to the existence of Purgatory.  Can you help me in directing her to a specific encyclical or biblical reference?  It could be crucial in getting her to understand the deform of the Reformation revisited by imposters within the Church! 

 

                       Wishing you God's continual blessings,

                                          Cecilia Buse 

 

MHFM: Yes, all the references are found in sections 10 and 11 of our book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].  There one will find numerous dogmatic statements which teach that all infants who die without Baptism are not saved.  One will find the infallible statements which declare that all who die in original sin only (i.e. unbaptized infants) or in mortal sin go to Hell, and that infants who die without Baptism go to a part of Hell where there is no fire.  This place is known as “the Limbo of the Children.”

 

Website

 

I really enjoy your website and I think it should be ranked number ONE in the whole world.  Truly God is watching you guys on this great mission to save souls especially in the darkess times in Church History.  God bless you and I will keep you in my prayers.  Good day.

Bernardo
Oregon

 

Comment

 

I just listened to your recent telephone debate with the Vatican II apologist.  What I found interesting, and perhaps revealing, was his repeated use of the phrase "that would be between him and the deity."  He used this response at least twice, I think actually three times, when you asked him if a particular hypothetical person (a non-baptized infant, a Rabbi, etc) could be saved.  That choice of a word to describe God (as opposed to say "Jesus" who is our judge) struck me as more appropriate for a Mason, or a Unitarian, than for a Christian.  Of course if you really dissect the Vatican II belief system there really isn't much difference.  

 

William T. Mulligan, Jr.

 

Europe

 

I'm live in France and more and more people begins to awake now.  It would be nice to have your videos translated in french and also in spanish, italian and german.
I think many poeple in Europe wants to know the truth now, but they need news and documents like those...

 

Regards,

Yann de Grendel

 

Bad Companies

 

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

 

Thank you for all the info on the website. It has been a great resource for me over the years. I want to ask you a question.......

With the incredible number of corporations that either directly or indirectly support causes which are anathema to our Catholic faith, is it necessary, or better yet even possible, for me to insulate myself against companies that support homosexual causes, abortion, perversion, sinful behavior etc. etc?......

 

It seems the list continues to grow every year, and I would be changing companies constantly. Also, I really don't believe that the companies that claim not to support these causes don't support them. I think they just insulate themselves by funneling money through different channels, all the while getting money to these causes........

 

I'm just a little man out here in this cesspool of a society trying to practice my traditional Catholic faith, stay in a state of grace and save my soul. I try to lead an extremely simple Catholic life ........Am I in a state of sin because the cereal I ate for breakfast was manufactured by a company who makes donations to homosexual causes, or the insurance I have on my 17 year old car is from a company who donated to planned parenthood?...............Why do I have the feeling, the next choices I would make would also support something just as reprehensible to me..........

 

God Bless you both and the zeal you have to help people come to the Catholic faith and save their souls...........

 

Ray............

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  Since almost every company with which one would do business is involved with or supportive of something bad, we don’t know how one would avoid it.  So we don’t believe there is any sin in the things you mentioned.  To buy a product from a company which supports bad things is not to compromise the faith.   We would say that if it’s easy to avoid – if there’s known and easy-to-use better alternative – then one should obviously take that option in purchasing things, but one could spend his life trying to avoid getting things from companies implicated in bad causes.  When it comes to investing, however, we would say that you should try to avoid companies supportive of notoriously evil causes. 

 

One should focus his or her efforts on what really matters and makes a difference: adhering to, living, promoting and spreading the true Catholic faith and not compromising with heresy. 

 

More on Cheating

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter,

 

How could you say that cheating at Monopoly is a mortal sin! A mortal sin requires 3 important parts: Serious matter, sufficent reflection and full consent of the will. If any 3 are lacking there is no mortal sin. Cheating at Monopoly while not a nice thing, does not constitute serious matter. It's a shame that you tend to offer your opinions and then post them.( your opinions are not always accurate, whose opinions are?)…

 

                                                                           In true charity,

                                                                           Janet P.

 

MHFM: Cheating during a serious and competitive game of monopoly between adults who expect it to be played fairly is a serious matter.  To deliberately and clearly cheat in such an atmosphere is a grave thing.  To say that it's definitely not is absurd.  Of course, our answer presupposes that it’s a friendly but serious game between adults.   Obviously we’re not talking about a father who is playing monopoly with his 6-year old daughter who barely understands how to play the game, and slips some extra properties to end the game before her bedtime; nor are we talking about a game where no one is taking it seriously and the rules are being violated in a flagrant way and no one cares.

                          

It’s quite unsettling that you seem to think it’s not that big a deal to cheat at a game.  What kind of traditional Catholic would do that?  That’s very bad.  Perhaps if people gave more value to being honest in day to day dealings, they would be more receptive to Catholic truth.  We think that’s why so many reject or compromise the truths of faith: they are not of the truth and this is displayed in other aspects of their lives.

 

Also, you don't seem to understand that with many questions of moral theology, there is no infallible definition to consult.  Catholic principles, Catholic sense and opinions are what are advanced.  Certain things are clearly mortal sins, while others might be borderline.  On those matters, there could be a legitimate difference of opinion.

 

Cheating

 

Cheating is a mortal sin.  But I do not know if I did commit one.  I cheated at Monopoly over at my friends house and won.  But does it matter as it was just a board game?  As hard as it is to find a validly ordained priest ordained before 1968, I am not sure.

 

MHFM: We think that such cheating – if it was definitely cheating – is a mortal sin, even if it involves a game of monopoly.

 

 Comment

 

Thank you for posting that debate.  The "apologist" has no clue of the truth and suffers from the same fog as most V2 sect members.  None of them want to accept dogma "as it is written."

 

With that said, I must let you know that Fr. Pfieffer at the SSPX Chapel in Syracuse suffers from the same fog.  I recently confronted him on a tale of two priests in the society, one refers to the V2 Church a s "the true Church" while another preaches the V2 sect is "false, bastard, and invalid."  I asked him how can the society allow such a contradiction.  Fr. Pfieffer's response was "its not a contradiction based on the circumstances and that it is necessary to separate the V2 leadership from the faith."

 

Just complete ridiculousness.  He cannot and will not accept the obvious.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Yours in Christ,

Bill Boyd

NY

 

New Info

 

MHFM: We just came across a new piece of information which is relevant to further refuting radical schismatic views today, according to which there is nowhere to go to receive sacraments at all.  Certainly the options are limited today, and in many cases there is nowhere to go.  We hope to post and discuss this point soon, when we get a chance.

 

Back

 

Thank you so much for welcoming me back-I know I have alot to do but with your support and help (if you want to), I know I can accomplish this.  I don't get to my email every day, but I will follow your advice and make this a priorty when I go online.  One question (for now)-if I cannot go to the new mass, what do I do about Church?  I live in a very small town (Oscoda Mi), and I don't think there is a Traditional Church around me.  Again-thank you again,

 

Margaret

 

MHFM: You can contact us about where to go.  In the meantime you should just stay home and pray the Rosary.  There is no obligation to attend Mass if the Church doesn't provide you with a fully Catholic one in your area.  This is explained in this file: Where to go to Mass or confession today?

 

More Feedback

 

After listening to 28 minutes of your most recent conversion caller, I am now fit for a padded room, a nice fuscia straite jacket and a nice long rest.

 

I truly appreciate the virtue of patience a lot more after listening to your conversation with an an a-typical V2 person.

 

As for me, I think I'll go hide and bury my treasure, just like Jesus said. And I promise, I won't debate whether Jesus made a dogma or not.

 

Sincerely,

 

Howard S.

Arkansas

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  Since a person like that is of such bad will, the value in debating and discussing the issues with him is to be able to demonstrate to others the true position. 

 

-----

Dear MHFM

 

I just got done listening to your debate with Mr. Golle and I must tell you THANKS.  I am more sure in my Faith because of your clear defense against Mr. Golle and his constant rambling.

 

His idea that you are wrong because the Church is in a situation that he can not explain is simply illogical.

 

His constant refusal to answer your questions because he is not "clear of the intent" of the heretical quote made by his false popes or bishops is so revealing of the bad will he posesses.

 

 Thank you again for all you do and may Our Lord continue to bless you.

 

 Robert Blascyk

 

MHFM: This person is referring to the more formal: Debate on Sedevacantism: Are the post-Vatican II claimants to the Papacy true popes?

 

----------

Pertaining to the debate with the novus ordinarian..... OH, he's not catholic! and a liar! and a heretic! and a complete apostate!...

 

stu, montana

 

More Reader Comments

 

It was sad to listen to that V2 apologist from Chicago. It was pitiful how little he knew of Catholic teaching. It was so obvious that he was clueless.

Patrick Walsh J+M+J

--- 

I just finished listening to your debate with the so-called apologist from Chicago. He obviously doesn't understand real Catholic teaching, but that is to be expected by a modernist in the Novus Ordo. It was aggravating listening to him speak, because he just didn't have a clue and was trying desperately to debate matters he just doesn't have any knowledge of. It must be very trying on your part to speak with people who are so ignorant of true Catholic teaching. My nine year old son knows and understands more about the Catholic faith than he does. Oh well, it just goes to show that some men are just not of good will and refuse to seek and accept the truth.

 

MU

 

MHFM: Yes, of course the real problem is not primarily the fact that he was unaware of a fact or facts he should probably know.  It’s that 1) he had a chance to look at the truth, 2) rejected it, 3) convinced himself that he understood such matters and 4) refused to listen when someone was offering to share what the Church actually teaches with him.  With all of that considered, his ignorance of the basic facts he was arguing about is intolerable, in addition to his utter rejection of clear Catholic dogmas.

 

Comments

 

Dear brothers in Christ,

I've just listened the telephone conversation you had with V2 apologist.  All I can say about the apologist's position on Catholic Church teaching is that he was making a mockery on Jesus words:"But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil."  (Matthew 5,37). Indeed, a modernists's view (i.e. the devil's view) that every notion and the meaning of every word in the gospel and Church's teaching is fuzzy has just one purpose--to destroy the Tradition and the gospel.  Of course, that view is autodestructive too, but that IS the devil's aim—to lead his adherents to total destruction…

 

Let our Mother protect you. Please remember me in your prayers.

Vladimir

------

The gist of this Vatican II "apologist's" argument seems to be that If someone doesn't know about Christ and the true church, , then how can they be responsible for what they don't knowNevertheless  the Catholic church has dogmatically defined that outside of the Catholic church there is no salvation. 

 

God does not condemn the innocent to hell.   The fact is, they don't know because they don't want to know.  "Seek and ye shall find...."  They've stopped seeking and therefore they are not innocent. 

 

I think that poor man tied himself into a knot and was left without words.  Only an evil spirit could argue in such a twisted manner and believe he was being logical.  It's frustrating to argue with these people, but there's always hope that a spark of truth might enter their minds and change their thinking…

 

PM

 

New Debate

 

MHFM: The guy who wrote in below defending Vatican II, who called us “loons,” agreed to debate/discuss these issues on a recorded phone call.  He turns out to be an apologist for the Archdiocese of Chicago (that’s what he claims).  This audio is revealing.  It covers Vatican II and whether it teaches heresy, the salvation dogma and salvation issues, what is dogma and more…

 

Debate with Vatican II apologist [47 min. audio – May 21, 2008]

 

This will be found permanently in the Telephone Conversations section of our Traditional Catholic Audio Programs.

 

Loon

 

I think you folks are a bunch of loons.  The Council of Vatican II was rightly called by The Bishop of Rome.  You don't like it's contents so you choose to distort it.  I think you need to wise up and stop being as little bishops unto yourselves turning people away and causing confusion.  To me you are no better than the person Christ spoke of in Scripture where He said  most succinctly, "It is far better for that person to have a mill tied around their necks and be thrown into the sea than to have them deceive even just one of My Little ones".  Hey, that wasn't me and The Catholic Church didn't start in 1960. 

 

MHFM: Any honest person who knows the Catholic faith and reads this file can see that it’s you who are the bad willed loon: The Heresies in Vatican II [PDF File].  Vatican II was called by a manifest heretic who, according to Catholic teaching, could not have been a valid pope.  No, the Catholic Church didn’t start in 1960.  The Vatican II sect promulgated its many heresies against the Catholic faith in 1965.  You are no better than the person Christ spoke of in Scripture when he said, most succinctly, “He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God” (John 8:47).  When you go to bed at night, think about the fact that you have defended Vatican II’s heresy that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion.  We recognize that you heretics care almost nothing about the issues of faith, but some of you get sentimental and defensive at the thought that non-Catholics may receive it.  Yet, you remain oblivious to the fact that your sect officially teaches that it’s okay and therefore rejects Catholic teaching.

 

Meditation

 

Would it be possible for you to recommend some books for personal Catholic daily Meditation?  Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider my e-mail.  A reply would be most welcomed.

 

I remain,

Jane

 

MHFM: We recommend lives of the saints and other books of that nature.  We offer some of these at our ONLINE STORE.  Preparation for Death, True Devotion to Mary and The Secret of the Rosary are among the most important.

 

Woman who converted

 

Blessings to all  brothers & sisters in Christ;

 

As I read through the e-exchanges posted on the MHFM website, it is apparent that the truth is being presented to many.  Many website visitors voice heartfelt gratitude that they have finally found a source of the truth about Catholic dogma, as it has been, unchanged, from Christ, through the apostles, and remaining unchanged today.  I share this deep gratitude, and I owe my "discovery" of the true Christian (Catholic) faith to Brothers Michael and Peter.  Their patient guidance, willingness to speak truths that are painful to hear, and humble reassertion of truth in the face of spiritual, verbal, and physical realm attacks is utterly unique in my experience. 

 

I came to find the true faith after a lifetime of spiritual confusion.  Three years ago, my desire to know the truth intensified to the point that I spent much of my spare time, and neglected other concerns, to study the scriptures and the various sects which claimed to hold the truth.  During that time, I essentially learned what was contained in the scriptures, and repeatedly could not resolve scriptures with the teachings of the various "Christian" religions.  Simultaneously, I was becoming increasingly aware of the deteriorating condition of the world, and Satan's many ways of corrupting society (political, social, cultural, and supernatural/spiritual). 

 

Though I often went to the internet to research various religious issues, I really only stumbled on MHFM's website.  I was riveted to my computer screen until the wee hours of the morning, only to dose for a while, and go back and read more.  With a combination of elation and horror, I realized that the truth had laid buried in the dogma of the Catholic Church, all along.  (Elation, because I had finally confirmed the truth, and the promises of Christ; horror, because I was suddenly painfully aware of how much my life had offended God).  My joy, however was greatly increased when I was finally able to speak with one of the brothers by phone. 

 

Because of the condition of the world, I have, of necessity, become skilled in sensing persons' motives and degree of honesty.  Over the course of our conversation, I realized that the brother to whom I was speaking was free of guile, ruthlessly committed to the truth, completely loyal to Christ's church, while having perfect charity toward God (first) and me, in my awkward childlike need for the milk of the Word.

 

This has been the single most important information of my life, and indeed, my salvation.  It was without hesitation that I donated to MHFM, according to my means.  I continue to do so, as it is our sacred responsibility to support the Church, in its undefiled, undiluted form.  I know of no other organization that is presenting the whole truth, which is the only truth (since a half truth is a lie).

 

More recently, I have become increasingly aware of how effective MHFM's website has been in "finding" others out there, who are fertile ground, ready to receive the seed of the gospel, in its whole, undefiled purity… But, in this Great Apostasy, many seeds of the Word must fall on rocky, infertile, dry soil, for each seed that takes root on fertile, well-watered soil.  MHFM is successful in finding, and skilled in nuturing, those good-willed recipients of the Word.

 

…That's wonderful news, but there are also other, maliciously heretical websites out there, designed to confuse the people, and destroy souls.  Satan is the deceiver and the author of confusion.  This lamp, which is Most Holy Family Monastery's website, must not be allowed to be hidden or obscured by those who would create confusion and uncertainty. 

 

We are clearly in the midst of the Great Apostasy.  A succession of antipopes has been seated in Rome.  The battle lines are drawn.  Billions of people are oblivious to Satan's increasingly successful plans to destroy God's creation… 

  

Gratefully, In Jesus Christ,

 

Linda Low

 

V-2 Seminaries, EWTN

 

The more I read your website- the more I'm CONVINCED that this Vatican II garbage is just that...GARBAGE!  The Vatican II Sect claims to be oh so in tune with the Lord, yet, when I visited a friend of mine at the local seminary- I was encouraged to attend a concert by a band named "VATICAN JUSTICE" and what I saw absolutely horrified me. Seminarians dropping the proverbial "F-Bomb", engaging in what is no more than "dirty dancing" and the list goes on. Add to that, the Vice-Rector of the place has a J.C.L., yet they have a radical O.P., nun as the Canon Law Professor PLUS a 'FORMATION" advisor! Needless to say, I got out of there rather quickly. My attachment to the Vatican II Sect was left at the door after that disgraceful spectacle.

You might also be interested to know that having gone through the EWTN Archive, Father Benedict Groeschel (ANOTHER MANIFEST HERETIC OF THE WORST BREED)
was interviewed about the vocation crisis which has been brought about by idiots like him who are "clinical psychologists!" His comment was, "Don't come to us just to try us out- come to us because Christ is calling you!"  What Father Psycho-Babble has said has alienated NUMEROUS GOOD POTENTIAL VOCATIONS. Perhaps he forgot simple logic??? If one believes Christ is calling and you're rejected by a HERETIC before you can even test the call, how can you know?

There is FAR TOO MUCH WRONG with this Vatican II nonsense- it's been going on since I was in 7th Grade. As I've mentioned before, I know the theology from A-Z. The question now becomes, what are the options, AND is there a bishop who would ordain me? There are souls to be saved- and I'm ready for battle!

I look forward to your reply.
-[Name removed]

 

Resources

 

All of your resources have provided me with the invaluable assistance in my regular evangelical work among the disbelieving and the deceived.

 

Mark Stabinski,

New Jersey

 

Mother of God

 

I'm going to order your dvd's and delve deeper into this issue with them, thanks for your response. 
 
Now I'm not much of a theologian but I do have another question for you maybe you can answer.  Is it correct to say that Mary is the Mother of God, or should it be said that Mary is the Mother of God the Son, because she didn't actually Mother the Father or the Holy Ghost?  Thanks for your help on these issues.
 
Brandon

 

MHFM: It is absolutely correct to say that Mary is Mother of God.  Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God; and Mary is His Mother.

 

Council of Ephesus, Can. 1, 431: “If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the Mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh), let him be anathema.” 

 

The key to understanding the accuracy of the title “Mother of God” is recognizing that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one divine person who had two births.  He was begotten before time of the Father, and born in time and in His humanity of the Virgin Mary.  Of course it’s true (and should be understood) that Mary did not give birth to the divine nature of the Son of God (which is uncreated and from the Father from all eternity), but to His human nature. 

 

Dogmatic Athanasian Creed: “The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.  The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.  As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.  So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.   And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty…. We believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God is God and man.  He is begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and he is man born of the substance of his mother in time: perfect God, perfect man…”

 

Since Jesus Christ is one divine person (contrary to what the heretic Nestorius taught), she truly and absolutely is the Mother of God. 

 

Nestorius said that Mary should be called “Christ-bearer,” not God-bearer or Mother of God, because he heretically divided the one Christ into two persons and said that Mary gave birth to the human person.  But the truth is that Jesus Christ is one divine person with two natures, and Mary is truly His Mother for having given birth to Him in regard to His humanity.

 

Council of Chalcedon, Definition of Faith, 41: “Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation…”

 

Council of Ephesus, Can. 2: “If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father was united to a body by hypostasis and that one is Christ with his own body, the same one evidently both God and man, let him be anathema.”

 

Council of Ephesus, Can. 5: “If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as “the Word became flesh,” and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.”

 

Creation Video, Protestant writes

 

…I am a Christian, and also an engineer; and loved your Creation video.  What is interesting is that I was once a geotechnical engineer and often had to work with geologists that used the theories of stratification.  Also watched some of the video with respect to rock music, abortion, and the Masons; also good stuff; some that I was aware, some of it new revelation, especially the ties with he Mofia.  Also read some of the Vatican II article and when you look at the pictures and the methods of worship; I concur that something definitely looks wrong!

 

I also do like that you do take a stand on many issues with respect to the Catholic Church and the Protestant movement; but just as even Paul was often in error, (he even admitted it) so was Peter; so was Mary; and all of mankind. All of them needed Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord. Jesus himself rebuked even his mother Mary in the Book of John when he said it was not his time to show himself to the world. Despite this knowledge, he still honored his mother and thus, the miracle of Water to wine occurred.  These are some of the issues I have that I struggle with in the Catholic Church…

 

The video goes on and discusses that a infallible Pope is needed to make decisions when there is controversy; in this I question the circular reasoning that was conveyed when it said of the problems in the Protestant movement and that they supposedly listen to the holy spirit and yet constantly argue over doctrine.  Isn't it true that the Catholic church is in the same dilemma? …

 

John 21:15-17 

 15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
      "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
      Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
      He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
      Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

 17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
      Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

    Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

 

This is another popular scripture that leads us into the Pope being infallible.  I look at it and the first thing I notice is that Peter was hurt; and he was hurt because Jesus asked the question 3 times reminding him that he denied Jesus 3 times. This in some ways shows how, despite Peter being imperfect; the Lord had destiny and purpose for him; but once again; only if Peter chose to walk into the revelation and say yes.  If he had said no; just as Ester; God would have found someone else to fulfill his will.  In reading the scripture; I sense the acknowledgement that Jesus is truly the son of God, perfect in every way; and by faith alone in Christ alone; am I saved…

 

I have been a Presbyterian, saved as a Baptist, baptized in the Gulf of Mexico, married as a Methodist; been a member of the Lutheran Church; have attended many Catholic services; and am currently a non-denominational… I have come to the conclusion that no one sees perfectly, no one knows all; and that only by the acknowledgment of our sins and the blood of Jesus Christ are we saved.   Yes, baptism of water is important, but the Lord also says that we shall be baptized with fire also.  I still bank on John 3:16 myself. 

  

Cameron A Moline, P.E.

 

MHFM: We’re glad that you contacted us.  You need to look at this section of our website: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" * Audio Programs.  In it you will find audio programs which prove, from the Bible, that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope and that Justification by faith alone is rejected by the Bible.  The verse you quote from John 21 clearly proves Catholic dogma on the Papacy.  Jesus entrusts all of His sheep to Peter.  What does that mean?  It obviously means that Jesus put him in charge of His whole flock.  It’s really simple, if you look at it honestly. 

 

As far as water baptism goes, the Bible could hardly be more clear that it’s necessary for salvation (John 3:5; Mk. 16:16; 1 Peter 3:20-21; etc.).  The “Refuting Protestantism” section of our website addresses some of the other things you bring up, such as the infallibility of the pope.  Papal Infallibility is found in Luke 22:31-32, which mentions Peter’s unfailing faith.  The audios explain under what conditions a true pope is infallible.  Christ founded one Church, the Catholic Church.  It’s the only historical, logical and Biblical one.  You cannot be saved if you remain outside of it, for the version of “Christianity” you are following is a man-made separation from the one Church Christ established.

 

Baptism of Desire

 

Dear Dimond Brothers,

     I have listened to some of your radio programs and read some of your stuff.  I like a lot of it, its good to listen to something that has to do with Catholic stuff once in while instead of the normal crap that is on the radio or TV. 

     Now I have one question for you regarding your position on Baptism.  In the Gospel when Christ was being Crucified he told the thief who was also about to die 'Today shall you be with Me in Paradise' to the robber.  Now what I think happened was that the robber was not baptized by water but he had received grace from God.  I would like to know what you think of this.  Also another point I would like to point out is that Saint Thomas wrote about other forms of Baptism, like Baptism of Desire, of Blood so on, and so forth.  And I heard on one of your programs you guys stated that you can't read what a Saint says and rely on it.  Well in my understanding that in order for someone to be Canonized the Church conducts a huge investigation of their lives and all their works.  Specifically anything they wrote is examined for any bit of heresy or false doctrine.  This indicates to me that Saint Thomas' writings on Baptism of Desire were not contrary to the teachings of the Church.  One final point I would like to make on this issue.  You also cite that a manifest heretic is "ipso facto" excommunicated from the Church.  So if believing Baptism of Desire is a heretical, how can Saint Thomas and all the many other Saints that wrote about Baptism of Desire be in Heaven?

     I am not asking these questions to be quarrelsome but I just want to know how you reconcile these things with your position of no Baptism but the Baptism of Water.  I thank you guys for your radio program and for the work you are doing in exposing the false Vatican II church and I wish you the best.  God Bless.

Brandon Martinez

 

MHFM: All of those things you asked about were addressed in our book.  Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].  There is a section on each point; the issues involved are discussed in detail.  First, the Good Thief was saved under the Old Dispensation, before the law of baptism became obligatory on all.  Second, saints can be wrong and have made many mistakes.  That’s why a few E-Exchanges back we cited St. Thomas himself on how one must follow the teaching/Tradition of the Church over the opinion of any doctor whatsoever, if the two authorities should ever be in disagreement.

 

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.”

 

Saints are human beings and can make mistakes, even on matters pertaining to truths of faith.  This is especially true when we’re talking about finer points or points where there has been some disagreement or reason for confusion.  A heretic is someone who is obstinate against a teaching of the Church. 

 

You also mention that the Church made an investigation into the writing of St. Thomas.  Yes, the same goes for the writing of St. Gregory Nazianzen, Doctor of the Church.  He rejected baptism of desire and, guess what, the Roman Breviary even says that there is nothing in his writing that can be called into question! 

 

St. Gregory Nazianzen, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked.  This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them.  Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire.  Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it

     “If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism.  But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter?  I cannot see it.  If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory.  You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory.  Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1012.)

 

Here is what the liturgy has to say about the teaching of the great St. Gregory Nazianzen, who clearly rejected baptism of desire.   A reading for the feast of St. Gregory Nazianzen (May 9) in the Roman Breviary states:

 

The Roman Breviary, May 9: “He [St. Gregory] wrote much, both in prose and verse, of an admirable piety and eloquence.  In the opinion of learned and holy men, there is nothing to be found in his writings which is not conformable to true piety and Catholic faith, or which anyone could reasonably call in question.”

 

Most importantly, the dogmatic teaching of the Church agrees with St. Gregory’s position on this point; it doesn’t agree with the position of St. Thomas.  The dogmatic teaching of the Church doesn’t leave room for any salvation without water baptism.  That’s why we reject “baptism of desire,” and why everyone else should as well.

 

Baptizing while rejecting Original Sin

 

[NOTE: THIS E-EXCHANGE IS ALSO RELEVANT FOR THOSE WHO SAY THAT BAPTISMS IN THE NOVUS ORDO RITE OR BY NOVUS ORDO “PRIESTS” CANNOT BE VALID IF THE PRIESTS DENY ORIGINAL SIN OR USE THE NEW MUTILATED RITE OF BAPTISM WHICH PRESUPPOSES ITS DENIAL.  THERE ARE SOME OUT THERE AMONG THE “TRADITIONALISTS” WHO PROMOTE THIS IDEA.]

 

Brothers,

 

You are truly doing an important work in these times. You seem to be making one mistake though, and that is assuming that protestant baptisms are probably valid and therefore infants baptized by such are somehow in the Catholic Church as a result... While the Church has declared that heretics can baptize validly, the key to understanding this is to realize just what "kind" of heretics the church was refering to when she made that caveot so long ago. Historically speaking, at the time, the "heretics" in question were not protestants who DENIED the effect and meaning of the sacrament of baptism. No, the heretics in question at the time BELIEVED as the Church believed REGARDING the sacrament of Baptism. So, the orthodox, for example, while heretics, believe in the effect of removal of original sin and hence INTEND to do what the church intends to do (namely remove original sin and infuse with santifying grace). A protestant on the other hand is a different sort of heretic. A protestant does not believe that baptism actually removes sin and infuses sanctifying grace. When a prot baptises he intends only to perform an outward ritual to SYMBOLIZE faith in Christ. I don't believe there is a single prot sect that holds baptism to be regenerative. There is NO WAY most prots intend to do what the catholic church does in confering this sacrament. Actually their intentions run contrary by their explicit heresy concerning what the sacrament IS and DOES. A prot would have to believe he is removing original sin when performing the baptism or it lacks INTENTION. Perhaps some out there do,,, you never know, but as a rule,,,, we should not consider their baptisms as valid and lead others to think that. You can only say that the "intention" is "assumed" in the form IF there is no explicit public denial contrary that would indicate the person does not intend to do what the church does. Protestants by the very definition, absolutely make it clear in all their confessions and doctrine that they DENY any removal of original sin by pouring water and saying the words. I hope you agree with me on this. It needs to be made clear because most if not all protestants are not validly baptized due to their contrary intentions when performing it. If you don't believe me on this, just ask any protestant if he INTENDS TO: a.) Remove Original Sin b.) Infuse sanctifying grace c.) Incorporate into the mystical body of Christ when he baptises...So, while heretics CAN validly baptise, we have to be careful that the heretic's heresy doesn't impart a contrary intention to doing what the church does when baptizing.

Keep up the great work!

 

Joe S.

 

MHFM: No, you are not correct.  The intention required in conferring the Sacrament of Baptism is extremely minimal.  It’s simply to pour the water and say the correct words and not to interiorly fail to intend to perform the outward action.  Therefore, even false ideas about original sin do not vitiate the intention to do what the Church does.  This was confirmed by Pope St. Pius V, as shown in the quote below.  So you are not at all correct in stating that the Church has not confirmed the validity of baptisms performed by Protestants or by those who hold heretical beliefs on original sin:

 

According to Calvin baptism had not the power of taking away original sin, and the French preachers, in consequence, made it clear that in baptizing they had no intention of doing what the Roman Church understood by baptism.  The Council [of Trent] had declared that the baptism of heretics was only valid if they intended to do what was intended by the Church of Christ, and the French Catholics therefore felt serious doubts as to the validity of Calvinist baptisms.  The Congregation of the Council decided in favor of their validity, on the ground that, in spite of their errors as to the effects of baptism and the true Church of Christ, the preachers steadily maintained their intention of administering true Christian baptism, and of doing what the Christian Church had always done in conferring it.  This decision was confirmed by [Pope St.] Pius V.” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 17, p. 205) 

 

Note: WE DO BELIEVE THAT CONDITIONAL BAPTISM SHOULD BE DONE IN MOST CASES WHERE THE BAPTISM WAS PERFORMED EITHER IN A PROTESTANT SETTING OR A NOVUS ORDO ONE.  THIS IS BECAUSE UNLESS ONE IS SURE THAT IT WAS DONE WITH THE CORRECT MATTER AND FORM, ETC., IT SHOULD BE DONE CONDITIONALLY JUST IN CASE.  ANYONE CAN DO IT.  THE FORM OF CONDITIONAL BAPTISM IS HERE: File

 

But this has been posted to correct an error which has been spread, that heretics who deny original sin cannot validly baptize because they “don’t intend to do what the Church does.”

 

Not with Him

 

Good day,

Very recently I discovered your website.  For me it is filled with many eye opening articles.  I have begun to study them and am left with questions as a result.  For instance the topic of salvation outside of the Catholic Church where below I have copied and pasted a piece of the article.  The use of Luke 11:23 for me brought to mind Luke 9:50- Jesus said to him, "Don't stop him! Whoever isn't against you is for you." The two verses seem to contradict each other.  If you could please reply to increase my understanding in this matter I would greatly appreciate it.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…” (Denz. 1000)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:  “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.  They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.  Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

Sincerely,

Lee Alexander

 

MHFM: Actually, when you look at the two statements they mean exactly same thing. 

 

WHOEVER ISN’T WITH HIM IS AGAINST HIM

THEREFORE,

WHOEVER IS NOT AGAINST HIM (OR THEM) MUST BE WITH HIM (OR THEM)

 

If everyone who is not with Christ is against Him (Luke 11:23), then it follows that whoever isn’t against Him and His followers would be for them (Luke 9:50).  But the liberals don’t like to think of it that way.  They like to give the passage a heretical connotation, as if Jesus is saying that different religions or versions of Jesus’ Church are okay as long as they respect Jesus and His followers.  In fact, one of us was conversing with a member of the Novus Ordo who quoted the words of Luke 9:50.  We responded by quoting the words found in Luke 11:23.  She didn’t think that our citation was correct.  She failed to see that the two statements mean the same thing, and that she had a predisposition to interpret Luke 9:50 in a liberal sense, which is not in any way demanded by the text.  

 

The person who is mentioned in Luke 9:50 was a person who was applying the teaching of Jesus, but wasn’t going around with the twelve at the time.

 

Mt. Sinai

 

Hello,

I was viewing your Creation and Miracles video online and at the very beginning you present Mount Sinai as the location of the covenant site between God and Moses. However, you also state in the same slide that Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia. Mount Sinai is located as part of Sinai Peninsula which is actually part of Egypt. Thought I should bring this error to your attention.

--Jeremy

 

MHFM: No, it’s not an error.  We and many others believe that the real Mt. Sinai is not in the Sinai Peninsula, but in Saudi Arabia.  This very interesting DVD, which we sell, covers the issue of the real location of Mt. Sinai and the actual spot where Moses and the Israelites crossed the Red Sea.

 

The Exodus Revealed DVD

 

How can we know?

 

Hello,

I have several questions regarding your web site. For instance, if Pope Benedict 16 is not the legitimate Pope, who is?, and where is this person? Are you people at the monastery considered to be R. Catholics? How can one know whether or not you people are simply anti-Catholics seeking to bring down the church?

Thanks for taking the time to read this E-Mail, and I hope you find the time to answer my questions.

Frank Connelly

 

MHFM: There is no pope, just as there was no pope every time the true pope died.  Yes, we are Roman Catholics.  You can know that what we’re saying is correct because we’re backing it up with the teachings of the Catholic Church, the infallible teachings of the popes.  That’s how you know that what we’re saying is true.  That’s how you judge everything, by the standard of the Magisterium.

 

No Cardinals?

 

Dear Brothers,

I was reading an online discussion of Sedevacantism in which a Vatican II sect member asked this question to a Sedevacantist: "what does it mean for the concept of the Apostolic Succession once all your validly elected Cardinals die out and those remaining have all been appointed by an Antipope? As far as I can see then it would ultimately lead to a break in the succession and with that, the end of the Catholic Church."

Could you provide an explanation to this statement?

Thanks,
Dylan.

 

MHFM: First we would point out that “Apostolic Succession” refers to bishops, not cardinals.  Second, cardinals didn’t elect the pope until the 11th century.  It was the clergy of Rome.  So it’s possible that in the future a true pope could be elected by the clergy of Rome.  Third, an argument only has validity if a person makes it specific and backs it up with a specific teaching of the Church.  Thus, the Vatican II sect member would have to cite a dogmatic statement which declares that “x” number of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction must be around for the Church to exist, and then show that the sedevacantist position contradicts that statement.  The Vatican II sect member cannot do that, of course, because no such Church teaching exists, and there is no proof that our present situation contradicts that specific number of required bishops.  So his argument fails on all fronts.  There is nothing whatsoever contrary to the indefectibility of the Church in what sedevacantists recognize. 

 

Here are some additional thoughts on the matter: Must the Catholic Remnant Have Governing Bishops?

 

Zambia

 

Dear Brothers,
 
I do not know any priest here in Zambia who was ordained in the Catholic traditional rite.  Most of those who where have since died or are retired. I do not even know, have never heard of any parish where the Latin Mass is offered.
 
Apart from under the Orthodox Church, I do not know any Priest ordained under the eastern rite.
 
I have read a few of the documents on your site and will be reading more though I rarely have access to the Internet.
 
Tell me, With these difficulties how do I deal the case of converting to the true Catholic faith under the traditional rite? Where would I go for Mass since there is no parish that I know of that is offering the Latin Mass in Zambia?...
  
In the Cross of Jesus,
Joseph Simushi.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  This file will give you the steps to convert.

 

The Steps to convert to the traditional Catholic faith and for those leaving the New Mass - Baptism and Conditional Baptism - the Council of Trent's Profession of Faith for Converts

 

As far as attending Mass goes, it looks like you will probably just have to stay home on Sundays.  There is no obligation to attend Mass if you don’t have an acceptable option in your area, as explained in: Where to go to Mass or confession today?  If you can find one of those retired priests you mentioned, you could go to confession to him.  Just make sure that he was ordained before 1968 and says: “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

 

Disturbed

 

I have listened to some of your audios and read your website and feel most disturbed especially about fatima and Sr Lucy.


Geraldine Dobson

 

MHFM: People should be relieved to know what’s going on.  We hope that you do recognize what’s happening.

 

Wants to convert

 

Subject: I am interesting in converting to the Roman Catholic faith

 

Hi

My name is Sarah and I live In Tennessee and have attended mostly Baptist churches. I want to be a member of the Lord's one true church but I need to convert and I'm confused about where worship. Could you possibly help me to find a good church in the Knoxville Tennessee area for myself and my family. If you could take the time to do this for me since I am a little ignorant of what to look for and basically the entire Catholic faith I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks
Sarah

 

Baptized children debate

 

MHFM: The following two audio files concern a recent telephone conversation/debate one of us had with a person who has to be considered a radical “traditionalist” schismatic.  (This person and his family had converted from the Novus Ordo through our website.)  The two parts together are over 1 hr. and 30 minutes in length.  This person holds the sedevacantist position and the necessity of water baptism, but he has fallen into certain schismatic positions.  This conversation/debate concerns the theological question of when the baptized infants of heretics/schismatics (the infants are made Catholics at baptism) become schismatics and/or heretics themselves.  The issue of the infallibility of canonizations also comes up in this conversation.

 

Baptism, Heresy, Schism - Tel conversation- Part 1 [1 hr.4 min. audio]

 

Baptism, Heresy, Schism - Tel conversation- Part 2 [27 min. audio]

[Note: this conversation concerns a finer point, which might not be relevant for those new to this information.  It is posted primarily to refute the schismatic errors which have been embraced by a small number of radical “traditionalists.”]

 

Many are falling into disastrous errors and schismatic positions as a result of a failure to understand and accept the Church’s teaching on what constitutes heresy, schism, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, etc.  This conversation/debate concerns, for example, the baptized children of Protestant heretics or the baptized children of Eastern “Orthodox” schismatics.  It also concerns the baptized children of those who profess to be Catholics, but aren’t.  Examples of this would include false traditionalist heretics/schismatics who obstinately agree with the heresies of the Society of St. Pius X and other false traditionalists who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  Their children, who are baptized as infants, are Catholics.  So at what point do the children of these heretics become schismatics and/or heretics? 

 

We point out that any person baptized as an infant would cease to be part of the Church when the baptized person obstinately rejects a Catholic teaching (heresy) or obstinately separates from the Catholic hierarchy or the true pope (schism) or true Catholics.  This radical schismatic and others like him say that our position is actually heretical.  They say that these people become schismatics as soon as they hit the age of reason and/or go to a building which would be deemed out of communion with the Church. (These schismatics don’t like to make it clear whether they hold that these baptized infants become schismatics and/or heretics at the age of reason or whether it’s when they go to a building out of communion with the Church.  This is because their position is false and contradictory, as the conversation shows.) 

 

The tone of this conversation is at times intense and heated.  This is because this person was not simply inquiring about our position or trying to learn more about the topic.  He had already concluded that our position is heretical, after having had certain information available to him.  This conversation is another example of how people are dishonest at heart and are liars.  After contradicting himself repeatedly in this conversation, as well as changing his position and even admitting our position numerous times, this person remained obstinate in his schismatic position.  This also shows how, not just liberal heresies, but also radical schismatic positions are ensnaring souls, separating them from the Church and leading them to Hell.

 

The reason that this issue becomes very relevant is because these schismatics believe that every church building where the leading pastor is out of communion with the Catholic Church is a non-Catholic church building.  They further argue that, since it’s a non-Catholic church building, every person above reason at that church building becomes a schismatic at the age of reason.  So they hold, for example, that every person above reason who goes to the SSPX churches is a schismatic.  They would also have to apply this to every church building which recognized the post-Vatican II antipopes as true popes.  Some of them stay faithful to their schismatic position in this regard.  They conclude that Fr. Feeney (who died in 1978), Padre Pio (who died in 1968), etc. were all schismatics and/or heretics, as well as every person who thought that Paul VI was the pope – essentially every person who professed to be Catholic since 1965.  Others abandon their schismatic position when the issue of the post-Vatican II buildings come up, thus demonstrating their hypocrisy.  The point is that none of these schismatics understand the issue, and they are all schismatic for calling our correct position heretical. 

 

One of the main errors of these schismatics is their argument that one doesn’t have to be obstinate to be a schismatic.   That is wrong, as we see here.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 39, A. 2: “Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.  Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the ChurchWherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”

 

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.  In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denz. 570b)

 

Another one of their primary errors is their argument that since people become heretics by denying the Trinity, even if they don’t know the Catholic Church condemns their heresy, that proves that heretics don’t need to be obstinate.  They fail to understand that false opinions on the Trinity and the Incarnation, which destroy essential faith in them, always entail heresy.  However, false opinions on other matters do not necessarily entail heresy unless obstinacy is present.  This is pointed out in the conversation.  This quote of St. Thomas is very interesting because it expresses exactly the position we hold and what was told to this schismatic in the conversation.  It refutes the position of the schismatics.  

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I, Q. 32, A. 4: “Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately.  A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false.  Concerning [these other] such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy is shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy.  For this reason many things are now considered heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest.  So we must decide that anyone may entertain contrary opinions about the notions, if he does not mean to uphold anything at variance with faith.  If, however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the notions, knowing or thinking that consequences against the faith would follow, he would lapse into heresy.”

 

This is a file which contains some quotes which are relevant to the teaching of the Church on these matters:

 

Quotes on Schism, Baptism, Heresy, Subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the Trinity and Incarnation

 

Doctors

 

MHFM: This is an interesting quote with regard to the authority of the Church – and the authority of the custom/tradition of the Church – over that of Doctors of the Church and theologians.

 

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.”

 

This would be relevant to the issue of the tradition of the Church which forbids prayer or sacrifice for catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907): “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism.  There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhereThe practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD):  Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265.)

 

Non-Catholic College

 

Is it a sin to attend a non-catholic college.

Amanda Valles

 

MHFM: No, it’s not.  They’re basically all non-Catholic anyway.  However, we would say that one should try to avoid living on campus or with a pagan roommate, if that’s at all possible.  Yes, one should avoid that like the plague.  Living in a dorm with young college-age pagans (for whom the commission of mortal sin is basically a way of life is) would be, for almost everyone, a very bad spiritual situation.  Even the spiritual life of a staunch traditional Catholic might suffer greatly in that situation.  But, to simply answer the question, “is it a sin to attend a non-Catholic college,” the answer is no. 

 

We would add, however, that if the college has a deep religious affiliation (e.g. some Protestant or Bible college), which would require some sort of acceptance of that sect, then obviously that would be a sin.  But if it’s just a matter of taking secular classes, which don’t involve any acceptance of their beliefs, then it wouldn’t be a sin.

 

Lapsed

 

I have been a lapsed Catholic for years and wish to return to my faith.

In search of support to do so, I came across your website and to say the least, I am truly shocked and dismayed.  I left the Church years ago for many reasons-I am not proud of most, but I felt inside a great hypocrisy in the Church that was part of my turning away.

Now, I am confronted with your website and in great need of true spiritual counseling to help me in my quest.

Would I be able to count on you to help me?  I am truly sorry about my transgressions and want very much to return to the Faith but where else do I have to go but to people you say are not truly part of the Church?

Please, help me.

Thank you and God Bless,


Margaret

 

MHFM: It’s good to hear that you wish to return to the Catholic Faith.  What needs to be emphasized, however, is that there isn’t hypocrisy in the Catholic Church.  Rather, the Vatican II Church is a counterfeit Church; it’s not the Catholic Church.  Our website explains what one needs to do to become a traditional Catholic.  There are also many materials to listen to (Archived Radio Programs, Traditional Catholic Audio Programs) which can assist you with many of the questions you have.  We hope you take a careful look at the website.  We would also strongly recommend our DVD special from our store, as well as the important spiritual books we offer.  We hope that you recognize what’s gone on with the Vatican II sect, and that you must not go to the New Mass, etc.

 

Justification Audio

 

Dear Brother,


I have been listening to your talk on the above subject.  Apart from your interpretation of various passages which is a matter of honest debate, it is obvious that you are a very bigoted person. This attitude does nothing to bring about the Kingdom of God… What a pity this is when the world is looking for a clear message to help solve so many personal and social problems.

Yours sincerely

Rex Cousins

 

MHFM: If you can listen to the facts and passages which are quoted in that audio, and not see that the Bible rejects Justification by faith alone, then you have a problem with bad will.

 

Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon

 

MHFM: This is a new audio on the Papacy.

 

Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon  - The Early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter's authority - Section E of Part 2 [22 min. audio]

 

This section covers the evidence for the primacy of the Roman Pontiff at the second, third and fourth ecumenical councils (Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon).  It also covers St. Jerome.  This evidence from the councils is especially important because the Eastern “Orthodox” and many Protestants accept the first seven ecumenical councils.  This section also responds to objections from certain canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon.  These objections are frequently raised by critics of Catholic teaching.  The section ends with more evidence from the early Church historians Socrates and Sozomen. 

 

While this information from the early Church, which demonstrates that the full primacy of the Roman Pontiff was recognized, isn’t necessarily as “exciting” for some as the Biblical proof that St. Peter was the first pope, it is nevertheless important.  This information from the early Church demonstrates to the Eastern “Orthodox,” and to many Protestants who look to these centuries, that what Jesus founded in St. Peter continued in the Roman Pontiffs and was recognized that way from the earliest centuries.

 

This is found permanently in our: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" * Audio Programs.

 

Potential Convert Call

 

MHFM: This is a telephone conversation we recently had with a potential convert.  We post this for those who might find it interesting or are looking for more information.

 

Potential convert calls [9 min. audio]

 

Perhaps Catholic readers can also say a few prayers that this potential convert follows through and converts.  We have created a section in our Traditional Catholic Audio Programs for these less important audio files, which are posted for those who are looking for more information or for more to listen to on these topics.

 

Jurisdiction

 

MHFM: Here’s a quote which is interesting to consider.  It concerns the fact that Pope Leo X prohibited the printing of books without special approval:

 

Therefore the pope [Leo X] forbids, with the approval of the [Fifth Lateran] Council, under pain of excommunication and of heavy fines, the printing of any book without the approbation of the Bishop and the Inquisitor, and in Rome of the Cardinal Vicar and the Mastery of the Palace.” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 8, p. 398)

 

This law of Pope Leo X is obviously disciplinary in character.  In our day, it is no longer in force.  This is the kind of law which can be overturned or can pass out of force.  However, it serves as another example of the drastic errors and contradictions into which people fall when they fail to distinguish between dogmatic teachings and disciplinary pronouncements – i.e, when the treat the latter like the former.  Such errors are especially prevalent with those “traditionalists” who hold that no one today has jurisdiction.  Their false position is refuted in this article:

 

Facts which Demolish the "No independent priest today has Jurisdiction" Position - Did St. Vincent Ferrer have jurisdiction? If you hold the position that "no independent priest today has jurisdiction," then your answer must be no. [pdf]

 

These people are prone to lifting ecclesiastical laws from past popes and councils – laws which were in force for a specific period in the past – and rigidly applying them to our present situation.  In so doing, they demonstrate their complete failure to understand Catholic principles.  As a result, they wind up coming to utterly false conclusions, such as the false idea that no priest today has jurisdiction or the false idea that every priest must be specifically sent by an ordinary.  It’s also very common for these individuals to fall into schism.  Yet they remain oblivious to the fact that ecclesiastical laws, such as the one quoted above, condemn them.  If they want to be dogmatic with ecclesiastical laws, then they are excommunicated by the above law for publishing their schismatic and false writings on Jurisdiction and other matters.

 

West Africa

 

Hello, Bros Dimond!!!!!

 

I read with amazement some information on your website. I was seriously shocked to see so much evidence gathered against a church in which I was baptised and in which I spent the thirty years of my life so far. It's really terrible but fortunately true. I now feel as if I just woke up from a long nightmare. The first time I came across your website was by "sheer luck" if I can speak so.  When I came acroos it, my first action was to close the window. But I told to myself: "I know that something was wrong about John Paul II but what exactly I can't specify. So I will read about John Paul II's heresies and get some information". So I opened your website again, clicked on the link to the article and started reading. Then I read many other articles. What I read shed a new light on my understanding of the PostVatican II Church.

 

Today all I learnt from your website seriously shook me… The popes from JohnXXIII are fake popes of a fake Church. The New Mass is not  Catholic Worship. I radically stopped going to Novus Ordo Masses.  The problem is that here in Burkina Faso (West Africa) and particularly in the "diocese" where I am there are no traditional priests ordained according to the Traditional Rite as far as I know. Even The bishops are Novus Ordo Bishops. I just stay at home. NO Mass and NO Confession. That is very dangerous for me. In my present state, I need some guidance as far as prayers and SPIRITUAL COMMUNION(I saw it mentioned in one of your articles, but I don't really understand how it is performed) are concerned.

 

I am thinking of ordering your  6DVD Special at the end of this month.. .Thanks very much and keep on fighting so that the true Catholic Faith shall ENDURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yours,

 

Michael ZOUBA, BURKINA FASO

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  Since you have no other option, we would recommend looking for an old Novus Ordo priest, who was ordained before 1968.  He could hear your confession, but you couldn’t go to his invalid Mass, of course.  As long as he says “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” that would be valid.  Also, this file sets forth certain guidelines on the issue: Where to go to Mass or confession today?.  Again, it’s great to hear about your interest.  Keep praying and fighting for the faith.

 

Priests marry?

 

Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry?

 

MHFM: In the Eastern Rite the discipline has been and is that married men are allowed to be ordained as priests.  This is not so in the Roman Rite, and it shouldn’t be.  This is because the Bible clearly teaches (1 Cor. 7) that the virginal state is superior to the marital state: Refuting the Protestant rejection of the Catholic and Biblical teaching on celibacy.

 

Meaningful Art

 

MHFM: This is an interesting quote about the tapestries in the Sistine Chapel.  This meaningful display of art provides a powerful panorama of salvation history:

 

“Where the galleries ended the tapestries began, two on each side of the space allotted to the laity and three on each side of the sanctuary.  On the left, or Gospel side of the wall the Call of St. Peter hung below the Destruction of Core and his Company; under the Giving of the Law on Sinai, the Healing of the Lame Man; under the Passage of the Red Sea, the Death of Ananias; under the Infancy of Moses, the Stoning of Stephen; under the Circumcision of Moses, the Miraculous Draught of Fishes.  On the right, or Epistle side, under the Baptism of Christ was hung the Conversion of the Apostle St. Paul; under the Purification Offerings of the Lepers, the Blinding of Elymas; under the Call of the first Disciples, the Sacrifice at Lystra; under the Sermon on the Mount, the Deliverance of St. Paul from Prison; under the Committal of the Keys, the Preaching of St. Paul at Athens.  This arrangement clearly shows the skill and care with which the choice of subjects for the tapestries had been made.  They cover the walls of the Chapel as far as the galleries…” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 8, p. 304.)

 

SSPX priest writes in

 

Reverend Dimond,

I have great respect for you huge work about the doctrine of the Church refuting the errors of Vaticanum II. 

 

Saint Augustine and Churchfathers give us the right attitude in such
matters :
- in fide unitas
- in dubio libertas
- in omnibus caritas

1) - in dubio libertas : I am not sedevacantist, and you aren't, isn't it? and this is a matter of opinion. The matter of sedevacantisme is a dubium, because nobody of us has the charism of infallibility. So I accept wholly you are a (even a fervent) catholic.

2) - in fide unitas : But your letter "A Short Refutation of the Theory of Baptism of Desire" is in contradiction with the Tradition:

a) with the condemnation by Pope Pius XII of "feeneyism", by his letter to the Bisschop of Boston (DS 3866-3873) See also DS 3879, DS 3871,

b) The council of Trent about this matter (DS 3869; 1524, 1543) See also  DS 1532 (justification)

You wrote (I found it on internet: Pope St Leo .."THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM.  THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE  FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."

We can try to understand the doctrine of Trente by this consideration: In the baptism of desire there a grace and there is no grace without the blood of Our Lord of course, all graces come from Him. This link between the grace and this baptism must be therefore spiritual, moral, e.g. through the desire which includes an (at least implicit) act of charity towards God, and love always unites according to St Thomas Aquinas. Certainly the highest love : the love of a martyr. So there is the baptism of blood. The church is celebrating therefore the Holy Innocent Children, killed for Jezus by Herodes.

Conclusion:

the practice and doctrine of the Church tells and shows us that "water" must be understood not literally as physical water, but rather as "washing".

3 traditional kinds of baptism WASH away the sins:

1) the water of the sacramental baptism washes through its link with
the Blood of Jesus and the spirit of S.,
2) the spiritual washing the desire of "the baptism of desire" washes sins away through
its link with the Blood of Jesus and the spirit of S.,
3) and the spiritual washing by the blood of the martyrs washes sins away through its link with
the Blood of Jesus and the spirit of S.

Let us stay with God trough His Holy Divine Tradition

God bless

In unione orationis Jesu Mariaeque,
E. Jacqmin +, sacerdos FSSPX                         

 

MHFM: We’re glad that you contacted us.  Allow us to address the points you raise in your e-mail.

 

1)  The sedevacantist position is not a doubtful matter.  There is no doubt that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.  That’s a dogma.  There is also no doubt that the Vatican II “popes” are heretics.  Therefore, it’s certain that the Vatican II “popes” cannot sit in the Chair of Peter.  To affirm otherwise is to profess a unity of faith with heretics who embrace false religions, teach salvation outside the Church and hold other heresies.  That is contrary to the faith.

 

There is also no doubt that the Vatican II “popes” have used their supreme “authority” to bind their subjects (e.g. you) to Vatican II.  We prove that here: Was Vatican II infallible?.  The file proves that if they are true popes, Vatican II must be considered a true ecumenical council.  In other words, if they are true popes the Catholic Church has officially taught the doctrines of faith or morals set forth by Vatican II.  The idea that the Catholic Church could teach what Vatican II teaches is heretical.  It is certain, therefore, that the men who imposed it are not true popes. 

 

Yes, we are aware that the SSPX has attempted to explain these facts away.  But their responses don’t add up.  Our material has refuted all of those escape tactics.  There is no way around the fact that the Vatican II “popes” are clearly non-Catholic heretics, and that they approved Vatican II in a solemn and binding fashion.   Therefore, the position you currently hold is not consistent with Catholic teaching, and it must be rejected.  The fact that the SSPX’s position is false is further demonstrated by the major inconsistency in the position of the SSPX vis-ŕ-vis the Vatican II “Church,” its leaders and their official actions.  Since the SSPX obstinately operates outside and against the hierarchy it deems legitimate, its position has to be qualified as schismatic.  Please look at this file: The File on the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X [PDF file]. 

 

2)  Allow us to address the points you raised about baptism of desire.   All of those points are addressed at length, not in our newsletter, but in our book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].  We really hope that you will take the time to look at it.  You make reference to the act against Fr. Feeney, which was sent to the Bishop of Boston, dated Aug. 8, 1949.  It’s called Suprema haec sacra or Protocol 122/49.  Our book shows that this letter was not infallible.  Even someone such as Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, who defended baptism of desire and concepts which lead to the idea of salvation for nonbelievers, admitted as much.

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra… is an authoritative, though obviously not infallible, document.  That is to say, the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document.”

 

In addition to not being an infallible document, Suprema haec sacra is actually a heretical one.  It teaches that people who are not members of the Church, who are invincibly ignorant of the faith, and who don’t belong to the Body of the Church can be saved. 

 

“Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggini, Suprema haec sacra, “Protocol 122/49,” Aug. 8, 1949: “Towards the end of the same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church (qui ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagnem non pertinent), he mentions those who are ‘ordered to the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention,’ and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which, ‘they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,’ since ‘they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.’” (quoted and translated by Fenton, p. 102).”

 

In the process of giving its false analysis of Mystici Corporis, Suprema haec sacra teaches that people who “do not belong” to the Body of the Church can be saved.  That is heresy. 

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:  “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards.  No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

 

What’s interesting is that even someone such as Msgr. Fenton admitted that one cannot say that the Soul of the Church is more extensive than the Body.  Hence, to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Body is to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Church.  Therefore, by its statement above, Suprema haec sacra taught the heresy that it is not necessary to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved, the very thing denounced by Pius XII.

 

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.”

 

This is extremely significant, for it proves that the teaching of Suprema haec sacra – and therefore the teaching of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who defended it – is heretical.  They both deny the necessity of “belonging” to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

 

3) You make reference to Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent on Justification.  There is an entire section on this issue in our book.  We hope you look at it.  It points out that the passage says that Justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it.  It’s just as if we said: this wedding cannot take place without a bride or a groom.  It doesn’t mean that Justification can happen with one or the other.  The section in the book on this passage also shows that “aut” (or) is used in a similar way in other Church documents. 

 

Moreover, that very sentence from the Council of Trent on Justification, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, which you reference, also says that John 3:5 is to be understood “as it is written.”  That contradicts baptism of desire, for baptism of desire necessarily means that there are exceptions to being born again of water and the Spirit.  But the passage of Trent teaches that there are no exceptions; John 3:5 is to be understood “as it is written.”  So, contrary to what some think, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent on Justification does not teach baptism of desire.

 

4) Next, you say that our rejection of baptism of desire contradicts Tradition.  That’s simply not true.  As our book shows, the ancient Tradition of the Church is that no man is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, including unbaptized catechumens.  The book covers this in detail.  It demonstrates that St. Augustine was the only person who taught baptism of desire in the early Church.  St. Augustine also rejected the idea; he found himself on both sides of the issue, while the super-majority of the fathers opposed the concept.  Here’s just one quote to illustrate the point that baptism of desire was not the belief of the early Church:

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) had the following to say about the actual Tradition of the Church in this regard: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism.  There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhereThe practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD):  Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265.)

 

It is thus a myth – and one of the biggest myths out there among “traditionalists” – that baptism of desire was a majority view among the early Church fathers.  That falsehood has been promoted by authors from the SSPX, such as Fr. Laisney.  Fr. Laisney even asserts that baptism of desire is the “unanimous” teaching of the fathers.  That’s an outrageous lie, as our book proves.  The view of the fathers is that no man can be saved without baptism, including unbaptized catechumens.  

 

5)  You make reference to our citation of Leo the Great’s dogmatic letter to Flavian. 

 

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood.  And the three are one.  (1 Jn. 5:4-8)  IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM.  THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE.  NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.

 

You then argue that the water of baptism can be spiritually linked to Justification.  But that would mean that the water referred to here can be spiritual water, which would reduce the meaning of this dogmatic statement to nothing.  The water of baptism is not spiritual water; it must be actual water.  If not, then the reference to the “water of baptism” is simply mythical, not dogmatic and actual.

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra:  If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

 

The water of baptism must be real water, as we see here.   And that real water of baptism is inseparable from the Blood of Redemption and the Spirit of Sanctification (Justification), as Leo the Great infallibly teaches.  The passage is dogmatically teaching us the real meaning of 1 Jn. 5:-8.  That meaning is that there must be three witnesses present for Justification to occur: the water of baptism, the Blood of Redemption and the Spirit of Sanctification.  But the very notion of baptism of desire is that Justification comes without the water of baptism.  That contradicts the infallible teaching of Pope Leo the Great in his dogmatic letter to Flavian.

 

Further, everyone admits that “baptism of desire” is not a sacrament.  But the Magisterium infallibly teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  Therefore, no man can be saved by a “baptism of desire.”

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

 

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

 

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:  “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

 

Also, the SSPX doesn’t just believe in baptism of desire.  It holds that souls can be saved in false religions.  That is blatantly heretical.  It rejects the dogmatic teaching of Pope Eugene IV, which is cited above.

 

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”

 

We are very glad that you contacted us.  We hope you can see why no true Catholic can remain part of the SSPX or hold the false positions described above.

 

Trent?

 

[We post this as an example of how the defenders of the Vatican II sect are in a state of blindness.  This person is a defender of the Vatican II sect.  He says our material is not Catholic.  You can tell that, by this question, he actually wonders how anyone who opposes the Vatican II sect could accept the Council of Trent.  He is thus totally oblivious to the fact that it’s his antipopes who deny Trent and the other councils.]

 

Do you accept the teachings of the Council of Trent?

 

R

 

MHFM: Of course we do.  It’s the Vatican II sect and its antipopes, such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, who reject it.

 

The Vatican II sect's Protestant Revolution: the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification [PDF File]

 

Baptism of Desire

 

Bros. Michael and Peter;
  
My sincere thanks to William T. Mulligan, Jr. for pointing out that the baptism of desire fiascoe is the 'mother of all heresies.'  You took the words right out of my mouth.  I have done my best to acquire the oldest publications of the Cathechism, and, as far as I can tell, the BOD heresy has been infecting the minds of fellow Catholics since at least the 1930s.  I am sure that MHFM can attest to earlier renditions, as far back as the late 1800s. 
 
Conveniently, baptism of desire has blossomed into the universal message of false ecumenism from Benedict XVI and friends of the Vatican II circus.  This heresy, in fact, has become the religion of our friends, neighbors, and relatives as everyone preaches, 'don't worry about it, we're ALL going to heaven!!'
 
If it wasn't enough that the true church of Jesus Christ has been in eclipse by the Novus Ordo, we now stand in the face of a full blown division between true Catholicism and the so called 'traditional catholics.'  …[they] have been hoodwinked into somehow believing that although the Vatican II church and its affiliates are 'bad,' the new 'sacraments' that have emerged from it are somehow valid.  ARE YOU KIDDING ME??  What other reason would the Masons have to push for the changes to the sacraments other than to invalidate them?  Before my own eyes I have watched good Catholics (who were once informed properly on the present state of the church) evolve into what I think is the craftiest trick Satan has pulled yet:  Superficial orthodoxy!...

 
I find even more disheartening the fact that the 'superficially orthodox priests' oftentimes lead (what seems to be) a more morally upright way of life than those of the validly ordained priests.  Just more proof that there is very little left of true Catholicism amongst our fellow men.
 
As a good friend of mine put it to me recently, 'there is a special place reserved in Hell for those who lead good Catholics down the wrong path.'
 
May the Lord Jesus help us.
 
Michael Gregory
Washington

 

Baptism of Desire- Canon Law

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery,

 

My name is Rachelle Wickstrom and a few weeks ago I wrote you an e-mail about confession and I just wanted to thank you so much for taking the time to write back and for your kindness in your reply to me.

 

In your e-mail to me, you mentioned sedevacantism, baptism of desire, no salvation outside of the Church, etc., and to be honest with you, I am still reading about these things to get a better understanding.  I had always thought that Christ promised to be with the Church and that the "gates of hell" would not prevail against it and that though the Pope may be an immoral man, the Holy Spirit would not allow him to officially teach heresy, but when one sees the Pope kissing the Koran...to truly be honest, although I do not fully embrace the idea of sedevacantism yet, that does not mean I will not.  I have only just begun to explore all the information on your website.  Four or five years ago I was definitely a Novus Ordo Catholic and did not know it…

 

You mentioned going to an Eastern rite priest for confession, but I am a Latin rite Catholic.  Is this not forbidden by Canon Law?

 

Also, with baptism of desire, if a person who sincerely seeks God but does not know the Gospel, such as a person in Africa or the Middle East, can Jesus himself not pardon their ignorance?  It is not their fault where they are born.  Is this what is meant by "baptism of desire"?

 

I am sure I can find a lot of answers to these questions on your website (and believe me, I am really starting to look!) so I do not want to trouble you with a lot of questions.  I really, really just wanted to thank you with all my heart for taking the time to respond to my e-mail about confession.  I thank you for your advice about praying the Rosary and am trying to make the recitation of all three decades a daily practice.  Once again, thank you so very much.  With the Church in the state that it is today, it is hard to know who to trust anymore because all the false shepherds.   

 

Thank you, and may God bless you all and your work.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rachelle Wickstrom

 

MHFM: Rachelle, there is nothing contrary to the promises of Christ in the notion that an antipope is reigning in Rome.  It has happened before.  In our current situation, there is no law which forbids a Latin Rite Catholic from approaching an Eastern Rite priest.  But first you must be convinced on all the issues.  A heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be a valid pope: The Catholic Teaching that a heretic cannot be a valid pope [PDF file].  “Baptism of desire” can today mean a million different things to a million different people.  That’s precisely because it’s a false and man-made idea which has never been taught by the Catholic Church.  A person who sincerely seeks God will be brought into the one true faith of Christ and will get baptism.  It’s necessary to know Jesus Christ and to be baptized to be saved.  John 10:14: “I am the good shepherd, and I know mine, and mine know me.”

 

If you don’t hold that baptism and the Catholic faith are absolutely necessary for salvation, then you don’t yet accept the dogmatic teaching of the Church; you don’t yet hold the true faith of Christ.  The following quotes, which are found (with references) in our book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, are relevant to your questions about people who are unbaptized or ignorant of Christ.  The Church’s teaching is that if they die without the knowledge of Christ and without baptism they were not of good will and cannot be saved.

---

Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., a famous 16th century Dominican theologian, summed up the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this topic very well.  Here is how he put it:

 

When we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith.  For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief.  As St. Thomas says, however, if they do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.”

 

St. Augustine (+426): “Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverancenone of these are separated from that lump which is known to be damned, as all are going… into condemnation.”

 

Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei, May 29, 1537: “The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and teach all nations.' He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith…By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters… that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.”

 

Mass questions

I have ordered your information on Vatican II. I am 30 years old and have never known any other church other than V2. My parents would rather die than ever admit that pope john paul is an anti-pope. My parents also taught me to  blindly follow priests as if they are infallible.

First, I want to thank you for your insightful and accurate information on the catholic church. It is the type of information that takes a while to digest since it is so contrary to the catholicism that I grew up with.

I live in CT and have searched for a Latin mass near us. There is no mass for at least 150 miles. We do not have the means to move and I am feeling quite depressed about church. My husband and I try to attend church despite the lack of decent homilies, music and reverence. However, the possibility that the V2 mass is not valid makes me very upset. It's quacky but I always thought it was valid. If the words of consecration have been changed from the original pre-vatican II, does that mean that the eucharist is NOT the body and blood of Jesus? Have I never actually received the body and blood of Jesus in a V2 church? Can Jesus still be present in His church despite the fact that his people are betraying Him?

I often go to church to pray or make a holy hour and this question just does not leave me. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you and God bless,
Marcelle

 

MHFM: It does mean that the Eucharist is not present at the New Mass.  If you have only received the host at the New Mass, then that means that you have never received the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  Jesus will not become present at a service where the form or essential rite of the Church is lacking.  It’s imperative for you to get out of there, and to fully embrace the traditional Catholic faith.

 

SSPX still not happy

 

MHFM: We found this article to be interesting: Lefebvrists still not happy

 

Think about how ridiculous this is: the SSPX is still not willing to forge an agreement with the “pope” and hierarchy it claims to recognize!  This is a joke.  Their position is schismatic.  If the differences between the SSPX and Benedict XVI are not matters of faith and salvation, then they have no right to be independent from them over these differences. 

 

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, (A.D. 110): “He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure.  In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clean conscience.”

 

If the differences between the SSPX and the V-2 hierarchy are matters of faith and salvation, as their independent stance would indicate, then Benedict XVI and his “hierarchy” have no authority in the Catholic Church.  This is what sedevacantists correctly recognize.  Yet decade after decade passes and the SSPX maintains its contradictory and schismatic stance.  It’s beyond ridiculous at this point.  These criticisms don’t just apply to the SSPX.  They apply to many other independent “traditionalist” priests and groups which operate outside of the V-2 diocese, but obstinately recognize Antipope Benedict XVI and his hierarchy as valid.  The heretic Fr. Gavin Bitzer comes to mind; in the future we’ll probably have more on this despicable heretic. 

 

Some of these independent priests, who recognize Antipope Benedict XVI but remain completely separate from him and his bishops, even kick sedevacantists out of their chapels.  In doing so they just draw further damnation down on their heads.  Some of these “traditionalist” schismatics accept the Vatican II “Church’s” new fasting laws, but reject its “canonizations.”  They like the former, but not the latter.  For more on this obstinately schismatic nonsense, which offends God, insults the Church and rejects the faith, consult this file: The File on the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X [PDF file].

 

B.O.D.

 

I absolutely loved the Duff family letter,  truly a "happy ending" story.  I pray for the same outcome in my own family.  Perhaps you can add the conversion of my wife and children to your prayers as well.

 

However one comment Mrs. Duff made regarding the baptism of desire heresy especially struck home with me. "We believed in salvation outside the church, baptism of desire, (actually we didn't even necessarily believe you needed the desire for baptism to get to heaven) and multiple other heresies".   For this is precisely what is taught, or should I say how Baptism of Desire was defined in the Novus Ordo schools I attended.  You see it is not about desiring "baptism", the sacrament, per-se' because you have knowledge and understanding of it.  What it really means is that one "would have" desired it, had he only known about it, prospectively.  In this way even the pygmy in the forest or the cannibal is saved, as long as he is a "good person", and follows the dictates of his conscience.  This is what baptism of desire really means, or comes to be understood to be, by the rank and file new churchers, and why it is indeed the central, I think mother of all heresies.  For if one believes in it, one essentially believes in nothing, or at least believes that beliefs are unimportant.  

 

William T. Mulligan, Jr.

 

Audio

 

Dear MHFM

 

Excellent audio on that demonic possession. Much valuable information. I learned a great deal about faith and the source of haunting...   

 

It seems it hates St. Michael and holy pictures.  The V2 church in Vatican II asks for less statues in the churches.  An article in Catholic Digest says something like, "I don't need Sacramentals to identify myself as Catholic," but they're coming back.  People scarf these things up.  People who have never seen a sacramental are very interested.  Most take them when they're offered….

 

And, again, it is so terribly obvious that these antipopes and their church are working for Satan.  The Vatican exorcist Gabrielle Amorth says the new rite is practically useless. Even he doesn't recognize the devil in his own false church.   Benedict XVI incorrectly baptizes and you know he knows better.  How many souls are left unbaptized?  Horrible.  Everything they've changed is so obviously designed to make it comfortable for the devil. 

 

I'm still e-mail- debating my sister.  As long as she asks questions, I'll answer.  She tells me she believes that everyone who loves God will go to heaven and that not everybody has to be Catholic.  Over and over again I quote ex cathedra declarations and saints and the fact that you do not love God when you reject his truth, etc.,   but she continues to ask me, Where is your church and who is your pope?  She is, indeed, possessed because she is, literally, blind to the truth…

 

Excellent tape. More information on how to identify how Satan works.  I used to tell these apparition chasers who claimed apparitions of their own that they should ignore them, but the things made them feel so holy that they couldn't let go.  The demon works on each soul in a different way.  We should all be on the look out for him.  He's got something for all of us.  Those he's already got, he doesn't bother much. 

 

PM    sorrie about the venting, but that's a very informative tape.

 

Tolerate?

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I live in Kissimmee, FL and have just returned from my vacation in NY.  I spent one and a half weeks there.  The last two days of my vacation I spent with a friend who lives in Staten Island.  She was born and raised Catholic although she was never religious.  She has now converted to Buddism.  In her home she chants Buddist prayers and burns some funny incense simultaneously in front of some sort of scroll with oriental writings.  While she was doing this I closed the door to the bedroom I was staying in and said my Rosary with the intention of chasing the demons present there and for the conversion of this lost soul.  Additionally, she has some odd-ball ideas such as belief in UFO's, etc.  A typical new-ager.  She invited me to the temple and of course I turned her down.  She knows I'm a strict Catholic and disapprove of her religion.  She's one of those people who no matter what you tell them they just can't see the light.  Satan has her in his grip.  I invited her to stay in my home the next time she visits Florida for she has some relatives here.  But now I am concerned because it has occurred to me that if she stays in my home she will probably chant her pagan prayers in my home.  I wonder if I should tolerate this in my home which is very Catholic because my understanding is that they invoke demons even though they may not realize it and afterwards I may need to have my home blessed to chase the demons away.  Can you please comment?  Thank you.

 

AP,

Kissimmee, FL

 

MHFM: No, you should not tolerate that in your home.  You should not have that in your home.  The following quote is relevant to your question.  It comes from our book, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, in the section on Vatican II.  While this quote pertains to Islam (a different false religion), it demonstrates the point:

 

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e., the followers of Islam, also called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.  These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty.  We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands.  We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and allThey are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

 

V-2 Seminaries

 

I just came upon your website and I agree wholeheartedly. I've done all the academic work to be ordained, and yet, the gay subculture went against me. They were subsequently ordained and have been arrested for sexual abuse. HUMMMM... I WONDER WHY?????...

 

In Christ Jesus,

-Derek Abrajano

 

MHFM: We post this as another example of what goes on in the seminaries of the Vatican II sect, as we covered in this file: The Seminaries of the Vatican II sect are unspeakable cesspools of homosexuality and heresy [PDF File].

 

Method

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery,
            

…It wasn't until about a month ago that God placed in my mind a great way to spread you material.  Upon entering the library that I frequent quite regularly, there is a "Give Away" Shelf. Which is comprised of book and videos that are donated to the library that were later deemed not library quality material. I also began to noticed that the shelf empties it self quite quickly as most people seem to brows through it as soon as they walk in to library.   I'm sure you know were this is going. Well I decied to start placing some of your DVDs and then some book on the shelfs. They FLEW OFF almost immedietly. And they still continue to. DVDs of course faster than the books, however the longest I've seen a copy of "The truth about what really happend to the Catholic Church after Vatican II" was two days. DVDs, the longest I've even seen them stay there was maybe 3 days…  I write to you regarding this because I wish for you to share this with others so that this method can be applied in order to spread your material faster and more efficiently…

In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
                                                                              

Charlie
   

Islam

 

Dear Brothers

 

My name Is Robert, and I'm really grateful for your web site. I've watched all the videos about the antipopes, I'm catholic and I can't believe what there teaching. I've Just been having a conversation with a Muslim and he told me that the trinity is a lie, jesus was not crucified,  his resurrection is also a lie and st paul was a liar. It's on a web site called Answering Christianity, I thought the Catholic church came before the false Religion of Islam.

 

thank you for your time

God bless.

 

MHFM: Islam began in the 7th century with the false prophet Muhammad.  It rejects the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ.  This is a quick way to prove that it’s a false religion: Quickly Proving that Islam is a False Religion.

 

Testimonial

           

Brothers,

 

Hi! I just wanted to take a minute… and let you know the impact Most Holy Family Monastery has had on our life. I am 26 years old. My family and I were novus ordo "catholics" . We attended Franciscan University of Steubenville and thought that we were adhering to all the teachings of the church. The only problem was that we didn't know what those teachings really were. We believed in salvation outside the church, baptism of desire, (actually we didn't even necessarily believe you needed the desire for baptism to get to heaven) and multiple other heresies. We thought JPII was such a nice little old man who was surely a saint in heaven, when we knew absolutely nothing of what he really did and taught. Well, the bottom line is that we were on our way to eternal hell and we didn't even know it! We were living a lukewarm faith, with absolutely no knowledge of church history or teaching. Then a family member alerted us to the changes that had taken place in the church. When surfing the web to research the matter I came upon The Principle Heresies of Vatican II link that led me to your site. THANK GOD! It has changed our life (and hopefully our eternity) forever. The information provided took us out of our spiritual fog and brought us to the light of the true Catholic faith where finally everything makes sense! We have a zeal for the faith we never had before and we are finally beginning to learn how to really love God. We have never been happier. THANK YOU!

 

I also wanted to take a minute to tell you about my husband. When my entire family (siblings ,their spouses, and parents) were converting to the true faith my husband resisted. He did not want to hear any of it. He spent his time either avoiding the issues or trying desperately to prove that you were wrong. When I would ask him to read your material he would call it garbage. He was determined to prove that the novus ordo was right and there must be an explanation for the changes. This continued for a couple of months. In that time I would pray an extra 15 decade rosary almost every day to Our Blessed Mother that she would help him to see the truth and convert. Well in her compassion she answered those prayers. My husband has completely changed! He goes on to your site several times every day, he reads your books, watches your dvds, etc. He got so tired of trying to find answers where there weren't any (the novus ordo religion).He is now the spiritual leader of our family and our children that I always hoped he would be. Thanks to the mercy of God, the grace of our Blessed Mother and all of your hard work that brings the truth of the Catholic Church to those seeking it. We can not thank you enough. You have helped to save our family from eternal damnation. We pray that God will continue to bless all of you at Most Holy Family Monastery!

                

Sincerely,

The Duffy Family

 

New Audio

 

MHFM: This is a new audio which analyzes a story of demonic possession.  We believe that many people will find this very interesting.  We found the case (which is a true story) to have many extremely interesting facets, from which we believe that many lessons can be learned.

 

A case of demonic possession [new 44 min. audio].

 

This will be found permanently in this file: Traditional Catholic Audio Programs.

 

Pathetic

 

Dear friends.

 
You know the Bible. It doesn't say that we have to worship the pope. Even to your account, Peter was the first pope, when the man came to worship him, he humbly said he is a man. All men sinned and we only rely on the blood of Christ for salvation. We shouldn't worship Mary, but take her as an example of a blessed woman. After Christ was born, Mary had a normal marital life with Joseph. What is so difficult to understand? Read the Bible, believe more the Word than the pope, who is a sinner just like you, if not more.

In love, fabio ferreira

 

MHFM: Your e-mail can only be described as pathetic.  Of course we don’t worship the pope or Mary.  The Catholic Church has never taught that. But Jesus made St. Peter the head of His Church.  Why can’t you get that through your head: The Bible teaches that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope [51 min. audio].

 

It’s sad to say, but with ridiculous arguments like that one can see why Protestants are left in spiritual blindness and cut off from the one Church of Christ.

 

Strange

 

It is strange that I came across your website when I did, it was quite accidental…. I clicked on a link to what Catholics say about this subject, and it brought me to your website, otherwise I would never have know there was a difference in the Mass.  Was this a sign for me to get right with the Church and God?  In the last couple of years I have become very close to Jesus and I feel that I have a good personal relationship with him although I hadn't been to Church in years.  I have had some very strange and frightening occurrences in my home lately, and have felt threatened by something I feel is evil.  These events is what sent me to the Christian book store where I purchased my new bible, and to the internet where I found you.  This is all very confusing for me.  I don't know what to believe anymore.  If I take the information that is on your website and a copy of the letter you wrote to me, to my Priest, will he be able to clarify these things for me, or is he not really ordained because of the Vatican ll Council not being truly Catholic? 

 

Thank You,

 

Terese

 

MHFM: Yes, God wanted you to come across the information because you must believe and practice the traditional Catholic faith to be saved.  You have to get out of the New Mass and reject the false Vatican II sect.  Discussing these matters with your priest would not be a good idea.  He will just try to convince you to remain with the New Church.  You need to look at this information more carefully and act upon it.

 

Appalled?

 

To whom it may concern:


I came across your website purely by accident.  I was appalled at the negativity throughout all of your articles.  What order is your monastery following?  I would like more information so that I can understand what basis you have for publishing such bizarre statements about the Holy Fathers, present and recently deceased.  I consider myself to be a good Catholic and as a good Catholic, I would like to analyze this more closely.  I have e-mailed my ministry partner so she too can take a look at these documents.  We will pray that this information is not
displeasing to God.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Mary Teresa

 

MHFM: We hear from people all the time who consider themselves Catholics and knowledgeable Catholics.  The truth, however, is that most of them don’t understand the Catholic faith or fidelity to the Papacy.  If you think that the information on our website is not true or consistent with the Catholic faith, then you are very mistaken.  You need to look at the facts more carefully, and understand that fidelity to the Papal office is fidelity to the dogmatic teaching of the popes.

 

E-Mail

 

Dear Brothers, I have to commend you on your email commentaries. They are so refreshingly honest and forthright. They are inspiring and of course informative at the same time. Keep up the great work you are doing. God bless.

 

Barbara

 

Not in Bible

 

Dear Michael and Peter,

 

I appreciate your strong commitment to God's Word and for taking a strong stand against all apostates that plague the church in these last days (even some high profile figures). I find many of your articles quite interesting in this and other respects. May the Lord bless your efforts and use them to help many Christians get out of Error and stand for the Truth ! So, keep up the good work !

 

Nevertheless I have come across some of your statements  which made me rise my eyebrows, and I think the best way to figure that out is to talk them over with you.

 

For instance I found this book on your website  "Outside the Catholic Church there is Absolutely no Salvation". The problem is, this expression may sound great, but unfortunately it doesn't appear anywhere in the whole Bible, and even the expression "Catholic church" doesn't appear in the Bible either.

 

The apostle Jude in his letter says : I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

So, according to God's Word, the true faith has been delivered unto us once for all. This means that we have in the Holy Bible all what's needed for our Salvation and for living a life of faith pleasing to God… Further, the absence of a Catholic church in the NT is confirmed by God's way of Salvation, which is as simple as this : "Whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13, which is also explained in other terms: if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" Romans 10:9… 

 

Praise God, we have a great Lord and Savior !

John

 

MHFM: The word Trinity is not the Bible.  That doesn’t mean the truth is not taught there.  The Bible teaches that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ and His one Church, which is founded upon Peter.  That one Christian Church, outside of which you cannot be saved, is the Catholic Church.  Wake up; start to be logical and of good will and you will see that Catholicism alone is true Christianity.  You need to look at this file: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" * Audio Programs. Down the road we will be adding a specific audio against the false idea of “Scripture alone.”  See 2 Thess. 2:14-15 for the proof that Scripture itself teaches that you must heed Tradition in addition to Scripture.  Jesus says you must hear the Church (Mt. 18:17), which is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).  Also, you don't even have a Bible without the Catholic Church.

 

Quote

 

MHFM: This is a new quote we recently came across.  We found it to be somewhat interesting:

 

“When asked by the emperor to approve the consecration of Peter the Fuller, [Pope] Symmachus [498-514] answered that a penitent’s stool, not a bishop’s throne, was the place for that heretic.” (Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 212.)

 

Dread?

 

"Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence."  -St. Gregory, as quoted on the MHFM website.

 

When I read that quote for the first time, my heart practically jumped out of my chest in fear and trepidation over my coming judgement and very potential damnation. Dear brothers, such a quote hardly gives me comfort, but rather instill such a fear as to want to continue sticking my head in the sand and mak ebelieving that all is okay, much like my prior life in the N.O. How can I overcome this fear and follow a life of contrition? I'm so afraid that I continue doing the very things I know will damn me. Please help...

 

MHFM: It’s not that attaining salvation is exceedingly difficult: “For my yoke is sweet and my burden light” (Mt. 11:30).  It’s simply that people must show interest, they must believe and adhere to the full truth without compromise, and they must avoid mortal sin.  (We assume that you have made a good and complete confession to a validly ordained priest.) Have a true devotion to the Blessed Virgin to overcome the fear you have.  Obtain the book True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin by St. Louis De Montfort and make the consecration explained in it.  A soul that is in a good state before God has a deep interest in God, His faith and the things of God.  That is not to say that just because one has interest in Catholic matters that one is of God.  But if there is little interest in studying the faith or in doing spiritual reading or in trying to spread it to others or in spiritual things, etc. then you’re probably dealing with a dead soul. 

 

Who is the Pope?


Hello...I heard about you on we the people radio.  I am Catholic.  Since you are teaching that our past recent popes are not the true popes, who is the real pope then?  Where is he?  The early Christian writings say to look to Rome for the true vine.  Do you have information that you could send to me about the real pope?  Thanks so much and you are in my prayers, in Jesus,

 

Sandra

 

MHFM: There is no pope at this time.  The Chair of St. Peter is vacant, just like it is every time a pope dies.  Yes, we must look to the Papacy; we must look to the popes for the teaching we must follow to be true Christians.  And it is those very teachings which show us that the Vatican II sect and its “popes” are not Catholic but false and invalid:  The Catholic Teaching that a heretic cannot be a valid pope [PDF file].

 

Faith Alone

 

Dear Brothers

 

I Have been listening to a Christian Apologist on the web and He was giving a talk On Catholicism and He said that he was a catholic for many years but has now left the faith because he said that what the catholic church teachers is false and all you have to do Is have faith in Jesus Alone to be saved.

 

God Bless

 

Robert.

 

MHFM: He should listen to this: Justification by Faith Alone refuted and the Catholic teaching on Justification proved by the Protestant Bible [1 hr. 30 min. audio].

 

Great Western Schism

 

MHFM: We post this link below to remind people of the facts which are covered in this important article.  This article on the Great Western Schism can also be found in our book The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.  In one sense, the crisis which we’re dealing with now – with the post-Vatican II Counter Church – is unprecedented and unique, due to its scope, duration and some of its particulars.  But in another sense, it is not unique, as this article demonstrates.  It’s important for Catholics to be acquainted with some of these facts, that there were antipopes in Rome, that there was an antipope accepted by all of the cardinals, etc.:

 

The Great Western Schism (1378-1417) and what it teaches us about the post-Vatican II apostasy - Massive confusion, multiple antipopes, antipopes in Rome, an antipope recognized by all the cardinals; The Great Western Schism proves that a line of antipopes at the heart of the post-Vatican II crisis is absolutely possible-

 

More on K.C. performance

 

Dear Bros Michael and Peter Dimond,

 

Sorry, Lyndon Olson, but I too watched both those performances on U-tube and I have to say that Kelly Clarkson's dress in her rendition of Ave Maria in front of the so called papal audience including antipope Benedict XVI was even more immodest than at the Youth Rally…

   

David Shone

New Zealand

 

L.A. Novus Ordo

 

Thought you might find it interesting

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten19apr19,0,527001.column

 

The article says there is 288 parishes within the Los Angeles archdiocese"Penal Code 288" - in the State of California is the beginning of sex crimes against children.

 

-A.J.

 

Telephone Conversation

 

MHFM: This is an audio of a telephone conversation one of us recently had with a very nice woman who is on the fence about leaving the New Mass.  We will be posting these conversations from time to time.  (We always get permission from the other party before recording such a conversation.)  The quality of the audio is not great, but we post it because it might be of interest or of some benefit to those who are looking for more information or informal discussions of these topics.  This conversation is somewhat atypical from those we normally have in so far as this woman remains unconvinced of the necessity to get out of the New Mass.  Most of those with whom we speak at length come to full agreement on all the issues.  But we feel that this conversation does capture how some people are laboring in a spiritual fog, which causes them to be unable to grasp the main points and act upon them, even when they admit points which should lead them to no other conclusion:

 

Nice woman who is not yet convinced [30 min. audio]

 

K. Clarkson

 

Dear Brother(s) Dimond:

Thank you for your website!  You provide a wealth of very interesting information, much of which is persuasive and enlightening, and all of which is thought-provoking.  I must admit that much of it is inspiring a plethora of questions from me, but I'll try to cover more of your available material before I risk inundating you with them, as many of them may be addressed in existing website material I haven't yet studied.  Having said that, I was motivated to send you a question about the latest entry on your "News and Commentary" page.  You refer to a performance for Benedict XVI by pop singer Kelly Clarkson as persuasive evidence that he is heading a "new phony religion", and you offer a link to illustrate your point, expressing your regrets for exposing your website visitors to "inappropriate dress and music".  However, the link that pops up appears to be that of Kelly Clarkson in an unrelated performance, while that new page in turn offers a separate link to a video of a modestly-dressed Kelly Clarkson singing "Ave Maria" for Benedict XVI.

I'm not sure what point you're making with this.  Are you claiming that the secular video on your link is from the performance attended by Benedict XVI?  Are you admitting that this isn't from the same performance, but suggesting that this particular performance is so offensive that Benedict XVI is proving his heresy by having any association at all with the same performer, even in a different setting that isn't, in itself, offensive?  Are you saying that, even in the "Ave Maria" performance, there was something so inappropriate about the attire and the music that it proves your point about Benedict XVI being an Anti-Pope?

At the risk of appearing to defend Benedict XVI, I'll note that he probably doesn't spend a lot of time checking YouTube videos to make sure that a singer scheduled to perform for him hasn't ever done a secular performance that might not be well-suited for a Papal audience; it's entirely possible that he wasn't familiar with Kelly Clarkson at all before this meeting.   And, while I'm not suggesting that we "grade on a curve" and lower our respect for God's standards in the process, it's worth noting that Kelly Clarkson, even at her most questionable, is probably less morally offensive than most secular artists.  Where should the line be drawn when it comes to what kind of association a true Christian leader should have with someone with whom we can find some faults?  Granted, you don't regard Benedict XVI as a true Christian leader to begin with, but, since you offered this link to embellish your point, it's only fair to ask the question as a matter of general principle.

You seem to have such a huge volume of evidence to support your positions in general, and you seem to be so sincerely convinced of the validity of all your views, that I trust you not to feel the need to intentionally exaggerate or distort a point in order to make your case for anything.  Given this fact, I'm a little puzzled about this latest website entry.   If you would clarify your position for me, I would appreciate it.

As I noted at the outset, I have far more substantive questions about your views on spiritual matters, and I don't want to make an excessive sticking point about your Kelly Clarkson comments, but, since you chose to highlight the point yourself on your News and Commentary page, I hope I'm not seen as belaboring a minor matter by raising my questions about this.  I welcome any comments you may have in reply.

Thanks again for all of your efforts.  I'll keep digging into your existing material on the website, and try to keep up with new entries as they come along.  God bless all of you at the Monastery.


                                           Lyndon Olson
                                           Arizona

 

MHFM: It’s obvious that you failed to notice that the performance to which we linked was a performance sponsored by Antipope Benedict XVI.  You can see his anti-papal seal in the video.  It was for his World Youth Day Rally.  Even though he wasn’t there on stage, it was specifically for him and for his visit; it was done under his auspices and specifically for the “Catholic” audience which showed up for him.  So it was brought to people for the antipope and by the antipope.  If one cannot see that such a thing strikingly captures that the Vatican II religion is simply the “Church of man,” then one really isn’t seeing things very clearly.  It captures that Antipope Benedict XVI and the New Church deliver a new and nothing false gospel of the world.  This new Church and new gospel of man accept people in their worldly mortal sins, and they don’t give them the true message of the Catholic faith and salvation.  The very fact that the “pope” has such a performer at his event demonstrates that the New Church accepts the evil of the world and is therefore an enemy of God (James 4:4). 

 

“Fr.” Richard McBrien

 

Father Richard McBrien of Notre Dame was on T.V. praising this Pope.  Back in the 80's Father McBrien was one of the biggest heretics in the Church. Conservative catholics used to point out his errors all the time.  If this isn't an example of how phony this Pope is then I don't know what is!

 

Ed of St. Lou.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail..  Yes, for those who know about McBrien, that is definitely interesting.  For those who don’t know, McBrien is so liberal and such a horrible heretic that even some of the defenders of the Vatican II sect criticize him.  (We would also mention that people should try to call this guy Benedict XVI or Antipope Benedict XVI, not “Pope.”)

 

Insight, questions

 

I am a practicing Catholic and have held the institution of the Catholic Church in suspicion for most of my post-Vatican II life.  Your website certainly gives me some insight as to what I may have been witnessing. 

 

My question to you is simple: A pre-Vatican II premise, based on the Biblical text, is, to paraphrase, "What is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven and what is loose on Earth is loose in Heaven".  To me, this means that the authority of the Church, directed by the Holy Spirit, can facilitate change, including liberalism and possibly Freemasonry.  Humbly I keep thinking to myself, if the Church has been infiltrated by devils, could this not be God's Will and part of His plan?  Meaning, in my theologically weak thought pattern, that maybe this event is God's precursor to the Second Coming.  Or, even more reasonably, as in periods past, bad Popes and schismatic heresy have created a crisis from which true, spiritual Catholicism can emerge.  No one looks back on Church history and says the Church followers/believers were bad. . . criticism and judgment has always been directed toward the hierarchy or Pope(s) who, through their own free will choose evil.

 

Note:  I am not suggesting God's Will is to Will something evil. . . but rather it is from our sin that salvation is possible.  As an example, it was evil men (and the devil) who put Jesus to death on the Cross; therefore, from our sins (and that of Adam and Eve) God died as the ultimate sacrifice of Himself as the Pascal Lamb to God.  Ultimately, through His death and resurrection he opened the Gates of Heaven and gave us the hope of salvation.   

 

The second part of this question is, for me, what can I do about it?   Do I leave the mainstream Catholic Church and find myself unchurched?  What if I am wrong in this analysis and I, unwittingly, left the one true Church and thus, salvation?  There are no traditional Catholic groups or churches on Maryland's Eastern Shore or in Washington, DC or Baltimore (that I know of).  Finally, by staying true to the mainstream Catholic Church, even if evidence points to it's corruption and decay, will God condemn me for being deceived by some of it's Priests, Bishops and Popes?   After all, there are some holy and believing people who love God with their whole heart and follow the Sacraments faithfully. . . are they condemned for eternity for this?  Clearly the general congregration sees form and intent from the outward sign of the particular Sacrament. . . changed it may be, but some believers still see it as instituted by Christ to give Grace.

 

My guess is that you will say that if I know that evil has infiltrated the Church and sit back and do nothing, that is a tacit endorsement of the violation.  Well, what I am to do, Lord?  All I can think to do is defend the Faith, stay close to the Sacraments, say the Rosary, teach my family the Catholic tradition and, yes, ask for God's forgiveness.    Maybe, I can be watchful for whatever He has planned for us.

 

So, that is my question to you.

 

God Bless you,

 

Garrett M.,

Grasonville, Maryland

 

MHFM: No, God watches over His Church.  His Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).  Thus, the power of the keys involves a protection from binding error.  That which is bound in Heaven cannot be false.  So if whatever a true pope binds on Earth is bound in Heaven then whatever a pope binds on Earth must be true.  When you’re convinced of the fullness of the Catholic faith, follow the steps to convert which are posted on our website and contact us. We can help you with where to receive sacraments.  Right now you have a problem with papal infallibility and with faith in the dogmas, however. 

 

To your other question, the mainstream “Church” is not the real Catholic Church, but the prophesied Counter Church of the last days.  The true Church exists with the remnant of traditional Catholics.  That’s what you have to join by believing everything the Church has taught and by converting to the faith.  In the meantime you should begin to pray the Rosary each day.  You ask about whether you will be condemned for being deceived by supposed bishops and priests.  You will be condemned if you don’t have the true faith of God, the Catholic Faith, which right now you still doubt.  You will also be condemned if you don’t die in the state of grace and out of mortal sin.

 

Antipope

 

Dear Brothers,

i have just found your site and i am frankly amazed at the amount of good work you do!  While in America, i attended a SSPX chapel in Miami, but i now live and work in Europe, currently in Spain and would like to know if there are any sedevacantist priests here that you know of?  Thanks to your website, i have changed my opinion on the SSPX and will no longer support them!

i humbly offer to suggest that you should classify the current popes as Pseudo-popes or Quasi-popes,  since the term Anti-pope implies 2 opposing popes and may be shocking to some Catholics.

Whereas, Pseudo implies false and Quasi implies almost or semi… please continue your good work!

Herman Mullis
Malaga, Spain

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  There were definitely antipopes whose reigns continued during periods when there was no true pope.  They continued to be antipopes, even though there was no true pope for a certain period of time.  That demonstrates that there doesn’t have to be a pope reigning for an “antipope” to exist.  Certainly the term arose to describe an uncanonically elected “pope” whose reign opposed the true pope.  But that’s simply because we’ve never had a situation like this, during which the antipope has gained control of Rome and the Church’s physical structures during an extended interregnum. 

 

Without question the term “antipope” applies to these false popes because they are invalid and they oppose the papacy.  They oppose the true Church, the true dogmas, and all the true popes.  Moreover, it’s likely that the first one, Antipope John XXIII, began his reign during an uncanonical election in the 1958 conclave, which set aside the election of the true pope.  Nevertheless, we definitely believe that “antipope” is the most effective, accurate and concise way of describing what you’re dealing with in the false “pope” who leads the Vatican II sect.

 

Burial concerns

 

MHFM: We are frequently contacted by people who are very concerned with the question of who will be able to take care of their Catholic funeral and burial.  This concern arises obviously because there are almost zero truly Catholic priests today.  But the insistence with which some people pursue this issue, often to the detriment of much more important things, is problematic.

 

Just today we were contacted by a person, who is coming out of the Novus Ordo, who was extremely concerned about a proper funeral.  He was also expressing this concern for another.  It’s almost as if they were more concerned about having someone to properly bury them and take care of their Catholic funeral than they were about the necessity to break from the Novus Ordo!  With some people it’s almost as if they won’t stand against the Counter Church or some other heretical priest if it means that they won’t have a Catholic funeral.  We’ve seen this kind of attitude very frequently, and we must say that it’s quite frustrating.  It reveals a spiritual blindness, for they are truly missing what’s important! 

 

Matthew 8:21-22- “And another of his disciples said to him: Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said to him: Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.

 

If you don’t die with the fullness of the Catholic faith and in the state of grace, then it’s not going to matter one bit whether you have the most complete Catholic funeral of all time!  You will die and go to Hell.  And if you die with the fullness of the Catholic faith and in the state of grace, you will be dead and belong to God and there is nothing anyone on Earth can do to you to take you from God – even if they dig your body up and throw it to the dogs.  Therefore, focus on being a true Catholic and dying in the state of grace.  Let the spiritually dead, who blindly run down the path to Hell, worry endlessly about what’s going to happen to their rotting corpses when they’re gone.  Yes, you should make sure that you are buried, not cremated.  But other than that, don’t worry about it.  Focus on following Jesus, practicing the Catholic faith and spreading it to others, and everything else will fall into place. 

 

Sadness

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I found your website from a link on Rush Limbaugh's website, and have spent the last 2 hours reading and reading. I ordered some of your books also this morning.

 

Please know that all of you will be remembered in my daily prayers, and I humbly beg you to please remember me in your prayers also.

 

As I am prayerfully considering everything on your website, and it is quite a body of work, I have this deep feeling of sadness for our church and its members who really do not have any knowledge of the truth.  I deeply love my Catholic Faith...it IS my rock and my salvation.  I have always considered myself a very orthodox conservative Catholic, to the best of my knowledge, and so reading through your website, the articles and several of the videos was a bittersweet experience. I could not find one thing that I read so far, that I could say was doubtful to me or not truth. So I continue to read and pray.

 

As I grew up near Pittsburgh and St. Vincent's, and also attended Franciscan University of Steubenvlle, I know from some personal experiences how the Charismatic Movement there made me feel as I have always been a Traditional Catholic. I do not wish to speak badly about either of the two places, because there is also so much good that comes from them both, like yourselves.

 

My concern Brothers, is where can I find a "true" traditional Mass, can I continue to attend my home Parrish, receiving the Sacraments authentically? May I send you Mass Stipends?  I also want to thank you for having on your updates, the ad from American Life League, as I have actively fought the abortion cause since 1973. I sent the ad to every Catholic and Pro Life person that I know. Thanks!

 

My Prayer is that all of you are kept in the most tender of places, within The Hearts of Jesus & Mary!

 

PAX CHRISTI

 

Antonia B.

Hope Mills, NC

 

MHFM: We’re glad you found the site.  In one sense, there is definitely sadness which is experienced by those who are coming to the full realization of what’s happening.  But the overriding sense should be joy and hope for having discovered the real Catholic faith.  It should be indescribably relieving to know that this farce (i.e. the Vatican II sect) is not the Catholic Church.  It should be tremendously enthusing for people to know exactly what’s happening, to know exactly what to do to be saved and help others be saved.

 

Regarding Steubenville, they do some good things.  However, they are very far from real Catholicism.  They don’t believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  They thus lack a real faith in Christ, His necessity, and the power and truth of dogmas.  Many of them are also papolaters: they essentially idolize the man they think is the pope.  They thus demonstrate a completely false understanding of the papal office, as well as Catholic history.  The Charismatic movement is not of God, as we show here: EWTN and the Charismatic Movement [PDF File].  You must be completely convinced on all the issues before you would receive the traditional sacraments.  One must be committed to never attending the New Mass, completely rejecting the Vatican II sect, holding Outside the Church There is No Salvation, etc., as we explain in our file: Where to go to Mass or confession today?.  When you are, please let us know.

 

Rat

 

Brothers:  You might want to go to ewtn.com and click on their webpage about Ratzinger's visit to America - click on the shorter interview with Bush and go to the end - Raymond Arroyo asks him what he sees when he looks into the Pope's eyes and Bush quickly answers, "God."

 

Also, did you notice the change from the satanic broken cross to an ecumenical/protestant cross?

 

FYI

 

Debbie

Oklahoma

 

Embraces sedevacantist point of view

 

Dear sir(s),

 

I find your website to be a wealth of information with great references. Sadly, I get the feeling that we've all been de facto ex communicated through no fault of our own. I agree with you about the heresy of Vatican II, and I ask myself how God could have let this happen? I thought I was coming back to the Church last November after 35 years of being an unobservant sinner, but I had to walk out of a Mass last Sunday(Easter) because I couldn't stomach the irreverence going on. My friend, who prompted me back to the Church, thinks I'm teetering on heresy over my feelings about V-2. His only response seems to be that Jesus promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. I've come to embrace the sedevacantist point of view. I wish I was 20 years younger. I'd love to be a seminarian at Bishop Sanborn's Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Florida.

Thank you for your website, and God bless you,

 

Ed Comerford

 

MHFM: Thanks for the interest.  You need to stop going to the New Mass.  We would encourage you to continue to look at the information.  God allowed this to happen because people don't care very much.  The gates of Hell have not prevailed; the Church has simply been reduced to a remnant in the Great Apostasy.  Also, Bishop Sanborn holds heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  He holds it so aggressively, in fact, that one couldn't even attend his Mass: Sanborn, Bishop – believes that pagans and idolaters can be saved.

 

Real pope contra Luther

 

MHFM: Considering the fact that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have spoken of Martin Luther in positive terms, we found the quote below to be interesting.  It shows how a true pope, Pope Leo X, was consumed with reading works which refute the arch-heretic Martin Luther.  How different is the real Catholic Church from the phony Vatican II sect and its antipopes?  The latter have not only praised Luther but taught their sect to exhibit a general acceptance of the heretic’s heretical legacy and the sects which came from him:

 

At that time the Lutheran affair occupied the mind of the Pope [Leo X] almost to the exclusion of anything else.  The Venetian Ambassador testifies that Leo spent many hours in reading a work against Luther, probably written by the Dominican, Ambrogio Catarino.” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 8, p. 24.)

 

B.O.D., extraordinary?

 

Hello MHFM,

How would you answer to a question when a priest or anyone who say that Baptism of Water IS the ordinary way, but BOD/BOB may also take effect?  I've the book, but maybe I might of missed this, that is if its in the book.  I would love to read whatever feedback you have.  Thank you and God bless you.

Bernard T.

 

MHFM: We would answer by pointing out that the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is infallible, and that teaching declares that no one can be saved without water baptism.  If there were exceptions to the (infallible) declaration that no one can be saved without it, then the declaration would be false, which is impossible.  So it comes down to what the Church has declared on the issue.  If the Church has infallibly taught that baptism of desire can substitute for water baptism, then they would be correct; if the infallible definitions have not taught it and have not left room for it, they are wrong.  The latter is the truth. 

 

Moreover, if exceptions could be admitted in regard to what the Church has infallibly taught on the necessity of baptism, as they argue, then exceptions could be admitted on the related dogma: the necessity of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.  In that case, one could legitimately hold that certain Jews or Muslims can be saved by an extraordinary means.  That is clearly heretical.  But that’s actually what those priests who are arguing for “extraordinary” means on baptism hold.

 

It really comes down to whether one really believes that the dogmatic definitions are infallible.  We do; they don’t.  We really believe that God watches over those dogmatic definitions, to protect their declarations from any error.  We hold, as the Church teaches, that they possess a divine protection that is not necessarily given to the teaching of theologians and other fallible texts.  On the other hand, the faithless priests with whom you’re conversing look at the dogmatic definitions in the same way that they consider fallible texts.  Therein lies their problem – a problem one which springs from a nonexistent supernatural faith in Christ and His divine institution (the Church and the Papacy).

 

Caged Cars?

 

Hi Brothers,

 

Tonight I saw something very interesting.  I saw a train of what looked like caged cars.  No joke.  I was coming out of H & R Block (I totally spaced off my taxes until that last minute!), it was just past dusk, and as I was turning the key in the lock I glanced at the passing train and gasped at the sight.  I stared and stared to make sure I was seeing things correctly.  I was.  It was caged car after caged car.  And they were all empty.  Maybe this means nothing and my imagination is running wild, but you know what my first thought was.  Yup.  They're gettin' ready…

 

Last Will

 

Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-12691?l=english
 
This link is of Anti-pope JPII last will and testament. It's kind of creepy. It's the devil speaking. He doesn't mention Mary's name once....and never Jesus's name. It has a couple different entries, I think the last one was 2000. He also praises Anti-Paul VI and asks for all of his journals to be burned.....(gee - I wonder why). Thought I'd pass it along!
 
God Bless, and may the Most Blessed Immaculate Heart of Mary be with you always!
 
MaryAnne

 

Spit

 

Dear whoever,
 
I happen to read your website www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com. I must agree that it is very fictionally interesting with facts you provide. What I want to say is that I would like to spit you in your face if you stand in front of me.
 
Thank you,
Brian

 

MHFM: There is certainly a lot of spit and other foul things in Hell, which is where you’re headed.

 

Stumbled

 

Dear Sirs,

I stumbled upon your website, and have found the information it contains to be greatly disturbing. It answers many of the questions, I have had over the terrible decline of our church and culture. I look forward to ordering your books and videos and learning more… Keep up the good work. Now where do I go to attend mass. There are two churches in Montreal which offer the traditional Latin mass. One is associated with SSPX, the other is a regular Catholic church (Ste Irénée). Keep up the good work.

Luigi Sain

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  We would direct you to this file: Where to go to Mass or confession today?.

 

Do I sin?

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery:


Please tell me what to do. I have a ticket to attend the Yankee Stadium Mass of Benedict XVI on Saturday. Do I sin if I attend? Next, in July, my brother is scheduled to get married in a Catholic Church that celebrates the Novus Ordo. All of the nearby churches do the same. What can we do? My brother has to get married because the priest told him he cannot give the Holy Communion until after marriage. Pleae I beg you, guide us properly and quickly. Also, what church here in Bronx or Manhattan that offers the real authentic Catholic Mass that I could attend? Thanks and GOD bless us for opening our eyes,

 

Juanita of
Bronx,NY

 

MHFM: Yes, you would sin if you attend.  Regarding the marriage, you cannot go.  As far as you receiving sacraments, when you’re convinced on everything let us know and we can help you.  But there is a section on our website called “Where to Go to Mass” which gives certain guidelines on that issue.

 

Time to fight

 

Brothers,

 

The N.O priest whom I work for, but do not attend "mass" with, has tried to commit my terminally-ill mother to the flames of hell by "converting" her on her deathbed and giving her the "host," which was completely unknown and unauthorized by me.

 

I was fit to be tied when he said this last night.  Therefore, I have instructed my N.O. following wife, that:

 

This priest would be barred from access to my mom for the duration of her remaining days

That this priest would no longer be welcome in our home

That our daughter would no longer be allowed to attend the N.O. "mass"

 

The result is now I am packing up my belongings, separating from my wife according to the gospel and Canon Law, until such time as she comes to her senses.

 

In the mean time, I will explore the legal options in to bring suit against my wife for the endangerment of my daughter's immortal, eternal soul. I have also instructed my daughter to receive a "blessing" only until I can sort this matter out.

 

I am willing to expend the few resources I have to publically expose the horrors of the N.O. "church."  There is no turning back, otherwise, like Jesus said, "one who looks back is not fit for the kingdom of heaven."  Right now, brothers, I need the intercession of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Most Holy Trinity, the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the Most Holy Family, Saint Michael the Archangel, all of the other Angels, all of the Saints, your prayers and the prayers of all who thirst for truth.   

 

Shocked in Nicaragua

 

Hi, my name is Paul, and i live here in Nicaragua (central america) and am 18 years old and I am and always have been and will be a Catholic, my family is Catholic and I myself resolved to discover the Truth and find out what it is we are destined for and well all that led to me to study more deeply my Catholic Faith and to my conversion.  What i wanted to say is that i am very shocked about all that you say in your site about the last five Popes, antipopes as you say they are and well all the things about the Vatican Council II and the New Mass, because well like i said i've always been a Catholic and gone to Church and believed in al, but now i'm not so certain about anything after i read all the things you say here, so i wanted to know if you yourselves were Catholics and turned away after the II Vatican Council or what, and well explain/tell me if this really is what is happening right now and if it is true, because now i don't know what to do or to believe. Please respond as soon as possible,

 

Paul.

 

MHFM: Yes, Paul, it’s really happening.  This is what’s going on; what’s covered on our website is what the Catholic Church teaches.  The Vatican II “Church” is not Catholic and this entire situation has been predicted.  We hope you continue to look at the information.  If you do sincerely, and pray the Rosary well each day, you should see that this is the truth.  These introductory audio programs, which cover what has happened, might help you as well:

 

The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II Audio Program, Part 1, Part 2

 

Prots and Birth Control

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter:

 

I was astonished by the boldness of the person who wrote in accusing you of being nuts for repeating the truth about birth control. I guess it reflects the sad state of morality in general outside of the Catholic Church. What is really outrageous is how he accuses you of being a fundamentalist when, in fact, he is using a literal interpretation of sacred scripture in order to justify his sinful lifestyle. This is the height of hypocrisy!  The more I read comments like his, the more I am convinced of the danger of those who don’t accept the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church and Her true understanding of sacred scripture. Once saved always saved??? Where in the world did he come up with that idea? It must be from that same wacky fundamentalist who founded his false church who had frequent anal battles with the devil. Seriously, is he nuts???

 

-John

 

MHFM: Yes, and that brings up another point.  We were thinking about a different way of illustrating, to supposed Catholics who have trouble believing it, that Protestants are not true Christians and are not on the path to salvation.  Since the man who e-mailed seems to be a Protestant who defends birth control, the following point applies to him. 

 

Some people, especially among the Novus Ordo, have a hard time believing that Protestants are not saved.  There is another another interesting way of proving that they aren’t saved.  This is done by citing the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church against contraception/birth control.  Pope Pius XI infallibly taught that any use of matrimony in which the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is a MORTAL SIN.

 

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

 

That means that it’s INFALLIBLE THAT ANYONE WHO DOES THIS COMMITS MORTAL SIN.  Since most conservative members of the Novus Ordo claim to be faithful to Catholic teaching against contraception, they would have to admit that this teaching proves that most of their “separated brethren” [Protestants] are in mortal sin and on the road to Hell for using contraception.  (Obviously this teaching, by itself, would not prove that all Protestants are on the road to Hell because not all Protestants use contraception.  But it’s safe to say that most modern adult Protestants do use it.)  But the Novus Ordo heretics would surely compromise this teaching, if asked about it.  For example, the people at EWTN certainly don’t hold that the vast bulk of married Protestants are in mortal sin.  Thus, they would wind up arguing that one could use contraception without being branded with the guilt of grave sin.  And that contradicts the infallible teaching of Casti Connubii, as we saw above.  This just shows us, from another angle, how these people cannot even be faithful to Catholic dogma against contraception when they reject the Catholic dogma on the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation. 

 

More on SSPX

 

Greetings Brothers,

 

Thank you for the response to my last question. Unfortunately, it raises a couple others: First, if the sspx believes in the new rite of Episcopal Consecration, did Archbishop Lefeve use it? If not, has the sspx used it since the passing of the Archbishop? Third, how can they not see the hypocrisy of their own ways? Isn't mixing the good with the doubtful (priests ordained under doubtful and valid rites) just as intellectually dishonest as mixing together consecrated hosts with unconsecrated hosts in "indult masses"? It makes so much more clear the admonishments in your site from the Saints and Fathers of the Church that we need to be on guard in these last days.

Thank you and pray for me, as I do for you and the Church,

 

Michael

                                                                                                                           

MHFM: They certainly don’t use it now.  We have no knowledge that Lefebvre ever used the New Rite.  Yes, their positions are hypocritical and contradictory.  They cannot see it because they don’t really believe that the Church is supernatural.  They lack the foundational belief that Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith are truly necessary for salvation.  They believe that people can be saved without the Catholic faith and in false religions.  It’s sad to say, but their rejection of that dogma on salvation destroys their faith.  That’s why they can believe that heretics are still part of the Church.  It’s why they can believe all these contradictions about the Church. 

 

We’ve pointed out that the foundation of the true faith is believing that Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith are really necessary, and believing that heresy really is evil and expels people from the Church.  If one doesn’t believe that, then he has no real faith.

 

Defending V-2

 

hello,


you say that the council of Florence God (by inspiration to the council)
said that all who are not catholic are rejected by the church. This is not the same issue as that touched by another
council when it said  that they may not be rejected by God. rejected by church is not necessarily rejected by God.

I must say that they were careful to say rejected by the church, rightly careful !

I am writing this just in case you are of good faith and did not notice the difference.

regards.

 

MHFM: For sake of clarity, allow us to translate (if you will) this e-mail: this person is referring to our article on Vatican II:  The Heresies in Vatican II [PDF File].  The first heresy covered in that article is what we consider to be the most specific heresy in all of Vatican II.  The heresy is that Vatican II teaches the opposite of the Council of Florence on Jews.  This e-mailer tries to defend Vatican II’s heresy by saying that the Council of Florence teaches that the Church rejects Jews, while Vatican II says that Jews are not rejected by God.  This person thus attempts to insert a dichotomy between those rejected by the Church and those rejected by God.  In our original article on “the most specific heresy in Vatican II,” we addressed and refuted this objection:

 

Some totally desperate defender of the Vatican II religion may attempt to answer by stating: “Vatican II only said that they are not rejected by God; the Council of Florence defined that the Church rejects them.”

 

This, of course, is a ridiculous attempt to defend the indefensible.  This response denies that dogmas (such as Florence’s dogmatic definition) constitute the truth of God. 

 

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:

The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned

 

Since the dogmatic definitions of the Church are infallible, it necessarily follows that whoever the Church infallibly rejects God also rejects.  Hence, the above objection is false and denies the true nature of dogmas.  It contradicts the fact that dogmas set forth the truth of God and are infallibly binding in Heaven.  Thus, there is no way around this heresy in Vatican II. 

 

Info Astounding

 

Hello
 
I have a young daughter and am very concerned about how to raise her spiritually.  I am a Roman Catholic living in England but I have very much lost faith in the direction the Church is going.  Recently I came across 2 of your DVDs - the Amazing Heresies of Paul VI and the Amazing Heresies of Benedict XVI.  I found the information astounding.  I have visited your website in search of the truth about the disgraceful state of the Church.  Unfortunately I am not in a position to make use of your free downloads.  I would very much like as much information as possible in every format (DVD, Audio and Book form).  As a hard-working father with a wife and child to support, I am financially holding my head above water - but only just.
 
Please would you be able to help me?
 
All best wishes,
Russell

 

MHFM: Russell, we’re glad to hear about your interest.  We hope you continue to investigate the information and come to the realization that you cannot attend the New (English) Mass, if you are.  As you continue to look at the material, you will see that you need to come to a firm belief in all the traditional dogmas of the Faith, and reject the Vatican II sect which poses as Catholic but isn’t.  We offer our own DVDs for essentially nothing: you can get a whole package of critical DVDs and books for only $10.00 (no shipping in U.S. but shipping to foreign countries).  That’s what we’d encourage you to get, as well as to pray the Rosary each day and have your daughter do so as well.  You should instruct her in the traditional catechism, and people should do spiritual reading. 

 

SSPX and New Rite

 

Brothers,

 

I still had trouble linking to the section of your website titled "steps to convert". The link still comes up "convert", but changing it to "Convert", allowed me to access the materials. I also have a question: if the sspx veiws the novus ordo rite of consecration as invalid, how can they recognize Ratzinger as pope if that was the rite he was consecrated under?  Bless you and your work,

 

Michael

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  The link is working, so it seems to be a problem with your connection there.  The Society of St. Pius X defends the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.  The point you raise is important, however; for if they did hold it to be invalid then they would logically have to hold Ratzinger to be a false pope.  And that just speaks again to their contradictory positions.  For they have conditionally reordained certain men who were ordained in the New Rite of Ordination, but they have discouraged others who were ordained in the New Rite of Ordination from being conditionally reordained.  They thus seem to question, on some level, the trustworthiness of the New Rite of Ordination, but they vigorously defend the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.  It seems that they vigorously defend the latter because it would logically require them to reject Ratzinger as an antipope.  For all of their false positions, see: The File on the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X [PDF file].

 

Justification Audio

 

… And I listened to your (Justification by faith alone refuted...)audio, and it was very good and alot of good scriptures(I wrote them all down on paper for further study)and I won't be going back to being Protestant because of this( and I'll propably stop listening and paying attention to anything Protestant altogether because if they can overlook,skip,ignore and miss all these references in scripture of something this important and all those other scriptures they are twisting around, it really makes me question if they can really be trusted with anything! especially the scriptures)…

 

Natalie

 

Masonic and False V-2 Church

 

Dear MHFM

 

I just read a news item about Charlton Heston's funeral.  It mentioned that a memorial service for him  was held in an Episcopal church that had a crescent shaped seating area or something of that nature. 

 

St. Therese's Church in New Cumberland, PA and many others, of course:  St. Mary's in Pensacola, FL, is another, are churches in the round where pews are situated on a hill of pews (you could  easily roll down them to receive "communion")   in a half circle with the Masonic throne, two chairs and a table. 

 

St. Therese's in  New Cumberland was built by pastor, Msgr. Roy C. Keffer who was a marvelous speaker and taught my eighth grade CCD class.  In 1968, when my third child, Roy III,  was born n),  I called my mother who told me that Msgr. Keffer had told her in the confessional that it would be all right for me to use contraceptives.  I think I yelled at her.  It's so obvious.  You just don't say no to God, particularly in his intended creations.  I tried to explain this to her but she wouldn't budge. I love my mother and she taught me many good things about my faith, but I honor no one who suggests I disobey God.  But it seems that mom and the rest of my family did.  After all, Msgr.. Keffer was much more knowledgeable than I am and, besides, he's a priest.   

 

Mom would also tell us she believed abortion was between a woman and her doctor.  These are the things you learn in the confessional from Vatican II priests.  I have a long list of heresies I' was taught just in the confessional.  St. Therese's was completed in the early 70's and I would not be surprised if the holy pre-Vatican II ordained  Msgr. Keffer was a Freemason. 

 

    I am shocked at the responses I've received from family members I was raised with.  I'm the oldest of five children of great parents who came from two good and large Catholic families.  I will never understand what happened to these people or why.  It's as if I never new them till these questions arose.  It's as if an evil spirit has overtaken their minds.  Mom used to tell me, "If you can't feel love for God then at least fear him and obey him. She loved Our Lady.  She taught us our prayers and virtues.  Then Vatican II happened and the people I knew in this church seemed to become different people. You can't be a true Catholic and stay in the V2 church.  Eventually it will peel off of you like so much rotten wood.  Others seem to absorb it.  Yes, I know.  Bad will. 

 

Vatican II and its clergy have done a great deal of harm, probably more than we will ever even begin to know.  It's horrifying to think how many souls have been lost.  Hell is ETERNAL.  How serious is that?  How frightening. How terribly sad. How insane not to accept the truth.   

 

Contra Immodest Art

 

MHFM: This is somewhat interesting:

 

     “According to the statement of Vasari, hitherto accepted by all students, the austere [Pope] Paul IV was the first who gave orders that the offensive nudities in the Last Judgment [painted by Michelangelo] should be painted over.  Evidence for this, however, has not yet been adduced.  As a matter of fact, a very considerable space of time elapsed before the stage of painting-over was reached.  It was not until the reign of Pius IV that the demands of the strict reform party were put into execution. 

     “On the 6th of September, 1561, Scipione Saurolo transmitted to Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, a memorial intended for the Pope, inveighing against the Last Judgment [painting].  The fresco, so ran this document, must be an object of holy hatred, since it offends the Divine Majesty, for the nudities in it so predominate that even many admirers deplore this feature.  Where on earth, asks Saurolo, in color or in stone, has anyone seen such representations of the Lord God?...

     “There is no doubt that representations of this kind influenced the strong regulations which the Council of Trent, in the twenty-fifth and final session of the 3rd of December 1563, passed concerning pictures unfitted for exhibition in churches.  The work of Michael Angelo was now spared only a little time longer from the brush of the improver.  The master, who died on the 18th of February 1564, was probably not aware of the decision of the Congregation of the Council on January the 21st, that the objectionable naked figures in the pictures of the Sixtine [Sistine] Chapel should be painted over, and in other churches unseemly or evidently false representations destroyed.” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 12, pp. 617-618.)

 

Tattoos

 

Dear Brother Michael or Peter:

As far as you know, does the Church have any official teaching on tattoos?  I've been thinking about getting one for a long time now but what's been keeping me is I'm unsure if it is morally unacceptable.  I would get one of an image of Our Lord or Lady but someone told me it might be considered "defiling our bodies".  Any advice you have I appreciate.

Yours in Christ,
Randy

 

MHFM:  Thanks for the question.  You definitely should not get a tattoo.  The Bible is pretty clear on the matter:

 

Leviticus 19:28- “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh, for the dead, neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord.”

 

Living Authority

 

Could you help me with this nagging question - I look at the history of the Catholic Church and I see the central glue to be the papacy - the LIVING teaching authority.  This same authority has been challenged and ignored throughout history - esp. the Reformation - so when I look at the sayings/actions of the Conciliar "popes" I have to question them - not judge or depose but simply state that they are making pronouncements or are acting counter to past popes, councils, etc.  HOWEVER, I can't get past the nagging feeling and thought that I am being disobedient just like the Protestants when I fail to obey the Pope and to make a judgement of his actions/writings.
 
ALSO, what about the LIVING teaching authority of the POPE?  I know we have bishops, priests and laity who are following the true faith - but why would God allow His Church to not have a visible head/vicar for longer than the usual time between popes - a few days, months or years vs. 40+ years?  We have no living teaching authority in the person of the Vicar of Christ - so are we not just like the Greek Orthodox Church with patriarchs/bishops and priests but no Vicar/Pope?
 
Debbie
Oklahoma

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  However, we don’t see how you can really be convinced that heresy separates one from the Church when you express such doubts.  The post-Vatican II “popes” are clearly heretics; there is no doubt about that.  So if you are totally convinced that a heretic is outside the Church and loses his office, then you would have to be convinced that these post-Vatican II “popes” are outside the Church and have lost their offices/never had them.  But you are obviously not yet convinced.  Therefore, either you are not convinced that they are heretics or you are not convinced that the Church is a supernatural institution which doesn’t admit of heretics. 

 

Regarding Protestants and Protestantism, the Vatican II antipopes have agreed with the Protestants on Justification [PDF File], and have praised the worst Protestant heretics of all time.  So you should feel totally anti-Protestant by rejecting and denouncing them.  Here’s a short section from our book The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II:

 

John Paul II praised Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Hus

 

John Paul II also praised the greatest enemies that the Catholic Church has ever known, including the Protestant revolutionaries Luther and Calvin.  In Oct. 1983, John Paul II, speaking of Martin Luther, stated: “Our world even today experiences his great impact on history.”[2]  And on June 14, 1984, John Paul II praised Calvin as one who was trying to “make the Church more faithful to the will of the Lord.”[3]  To patronize, support and defend heretics is to be a heretic.  To praise the worst heretics in Church history, such as Luther and Calvin, is beyond heresy.

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical, May 8, 1844:

“But later even more care was required when the Lutherans and Calvinists dared to oppose the changeless doctrine of the faith with an almost incredible variety of errors.  They left no means untried to deceive the faithful with perverse explanations of the sacred books...”[4]

 

John Paul II also praised the notorious heretics Zwingli and Hus.  He even went so far as to say that John Hus, who was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Constance, was a man of “infallible personal integrity”![5]]

 

Regarding a living teaching authority, look at it this way:  If the Vatican II “popes” hold that authority, then you must accept Vatican II, as we prove here:

 

Was Vatican II infallible?

(This article is for those who already recognize that there were heresies and false doctrines in Vatican II, but hold that the Vatican II “popes” who promulgated them still hold true authority in the Catholic Church.)

 

Obviously, therefore, they cannot represent the living teaching authority.  The truth is that the office of the Papacy was set up to provide a living authority who could rule and govern the flock after Christ left the Earth.  However, that office can be vacant, as it has been.  Even during a vacancy of the papal chair the past authoritative teachings of the popes provide us with the rule we are to follow.  So then it gets back to the question of “how long” can the office be vacant.  And there is no teaching of the Church which contradicts an extended interregnum.  Frankly, we don’t see why one would be so troubled by this question to the point that it would cause him or her to consider the apostate Vatican II antipopes to be true popes.

 

Birth Control

 

Are you nuts????  Birth control is a mortal sin and you will go straight to hell for using it???  Where in the world do you come up with that idea.  The Bible states that all sins are equal accept for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  You better be careful is easy to lie, a little white lie is just as big as a straight untruth and I am sure you are guilty of it.  What was the purpose of Jesus’ death on the cross, either he forgave our sins or he didn’t there is no middle ground.  The more I read your web-site the more I see that you are no different than these wacky back-woods fundamentalists.

 

Ian

 

MHFM: Where did we get that idea?  Let’s see: the Bible, the early Church, the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium… you need to wake up and read this article: Why Natural Family Planning is Sinful Birth Control [PDF File].

 

Abomination at V-2 Mission Center

 

I was visiting the Scarborough Missions here in Toronto last week. I've been looking for a spiritual director and I thought that someone there might point me in the right direction.

What immediately caught my eye in the reception area was a stack of flyers on a table amongst the Catholic pamphlets, etc. A Buddhist monk was coming to the Missions to teach Buddhist meditation techniques. All were invited and encouraged to come. Hmmm.

I introduced myself to the receptionist and told her that I'd like to see a priest. She located a priest on the phone, and said he would arrive shortly. She then took me on a tour of the artifacts that were on display in the hallway that led to a chapel. Apparently, they were brought back by missionary priests from all parts the world.  The one that caught my attention was a wood carving that came from Africa. It made me physically ill to my stomach. "This one is my favorite" she said enthusiastically. "It was carved from part of a tree trunk. We found it hidden in a dark corner somewhere... the older priests weren't very fond of it. Now that they are gone, the younger priests didn't have any problem with putting on display. Isn't it beautiful?"

The carving was of an African hut with a family inside. Rising out of the top of the hut was the head and shoulders of a naked female. Crawling up the the front of her was a naked child, his butt protruding out. Below this abomination was an eagle, his wings forming the walls of the hut. Serpents were discreetly carved in relief on his wings.

"What is this?" I asked.  "Oh, that's the Trinity!" she exclaimed. "The Africans believe that God is a female. The eagle is the Holy Spirit." I finally met the priest, had a brief conversation and politely excused myself. Once I arrived home, I spend an hour or two in prayer cleansing myself spiritually. Prayers to St. Michael, the Rosary, Litany of the Blessed Virgin, Holy water.

I truly believe that, aside from being an abomination to God, this carving was cursed. I felt the effects the next day. I felt off balance all day.  Stray cats showed up in our front yard meowing loudly while I was doing evening prayers with my children. Three black dogs were prowling around the back yard which is fenced in. I live in a suburban neighborhood and nothing like this has ever happened. I immediately blessed the house and reconsecrated the house and family to the Blessed Mother.

I have looked over the Scarborough Missions website, much of which has been dedicated to Interfaith Dialog which is a large part of their Mission. I emailed a brief question to the head of the Interfaith Dialog department. I received a lengthy response to which I am about to respond…


J.K.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  We hope you continue to look at the information.  Obviously one shouldn’t be searching for a spiritual director among Vatican II or Novus Ordo priests.

 

John Paul II

 

Good day Brothers!!!


I've watch and read the videos and information about your site on how to defend the Catholic Church i'm really happy that you were there who is really dedicated and ready to defend the real Catholic Church.I was really scared and amazed of what i have saw about the popes, the New Mass, the Vatican 2 and the false apparation in DIvine Mercy and etc.  I've open your site accidentally and I really like what i saw and i want to spread it. I'm from Philippines, and i e-mail you bec. i was confuse about what really happen to the Catholic faith. Me and my family were devoted Catholics. And i want to clarify some questions in my mind: 1. How could be Pope John Paul 2 be antichrist if he always tell the people to pray the Rosary and he also added the Light Mystery? 2.If the New Mass were invalid, then what should i'm going to do and who could help us?... I have so many questions still, Bros. but my letter was too long maybe till next letter.  I hope you can give me the ans. i needed and More Power to all of you and May Our Lord Jesus Christ Bless you.

Joy
Phillipines

 

MHFM: John Paul II was definitely a heretic and antichrist because he taught heresy, apostasy and even preached what the Bible describes as the doctrine of antichrist.  We prove that in the files in this section: John Paul II (manifest heretic who claimed to be pope 1978-2005).

 

Also, contrary to what some think, John Paul II basically never told people to pray the Rosary.  The deception and exaggeration with regard to John Paul II and devotion to Our Lady was promoted by the Devil to make people believe that he was “Mary’s pope.”  Of course, no one who taught the heresies he did could have been devoted to the Blessed Virgin.  So even if he had promoted the Rosary a lot while teaching his many heresies, that wouldn’t have made him a Catholic or a good person.  He still would have been evil.  But the fact of the matter is that he basically never promoted the Rosary.  You need to get out of the New Mass; it’s definitely invalid.  You cannot go to it.  If it is all one has then one must stay home on Sundays.

 

Vatican II is serious

 

Hello,

 

I'm a catholic who has been sporadically involved with SSPX over the past three years, so I have been some what aware of Vatican II for a while (I've also been becoming aware of the New World Order over the past couple years and have done quite a bit of research on it). But I had not really realized how serious Vatican II was until I happened upon your video online… 

 

Rob Hull

 

Don’t care enough

 

Dear MHFM

 

 The following statement is from a close relative of mine.  I took it directly out of her e-mail. 

 

 I tried to tell her some things about false apparitions, false church, etc..  She said it depends on who said it.  I told her Jesus said it and I used his words from scripture.

    This relative did State paperwork for some 30 years and has recently retired.  She's not stupid by any means, but I could tell a child the very same things and they would understand.  A retarded young man who could hardly speak understood what I meant and was visibly shocked when his V2 pastor mentioned belief in a false apparition I told him about, yet this is the most typical kind of poor excuse I receive from members of the V2 church:

 

“I just don't understand most of what is being said in these writings. Same with the bible I can't interpret most of it so I rely on the [Vatican II] priest's homily every Sunday. I just know what is in the Apostle's creed and the precepts of the church. I try to follow the commandments and go to Mass every day to give me strength to keep my faith. I'd rather not be confused by a lot of stuff I don't understand.”

 

    I'm reminded here of the Bible story about the invited guests who made excuses not to come to the wedding feast, so the bridegroom? went out and brought in the street people in their stead.  Nobody wants to listen to me, so I'm distributing Miraculous medals in different places during my morning walk.  There are many places to place them:  On the basketball court in the park, next to morning papers, to children waiting at school bus stops. I found some tiny plastic bags at a craft store that holds a leaflet explaining the medal and the medal.  I bought 1,000 rather large aluminum medals for $50. 

 

The V2 false Catholics are self-satisfied with their phony popes and phony spirituality, but the children I've seen at those bus stops are literally starving.  They have no purpose in life; they are bored and upset and stressed out because they have no God.  Maybe, like the story on the tape you sell, she will bring one or two of them to her and to knowledge about what their Creator expects from us.  

 

PM

 

MHFM: Yes, many lose their salvation simply because they don’t care enough; they don’t have enough interest.

 

B.O.D., trad priest on pagans

 

Hello, and Good Afternoon, I have a few questions.  If you would please do your best to explain, thank you.

1) What can I do or can say to a mormon about the Catholic Faith and show him that mormonism is wrong?

2) In the matter of baptism, I talked with a friend of my father and he was a seminarian for 3 years. I also talked with a CMRI priest and they hold the same conclusions.  I asked some questions if they believe that a pagan can be saved, they said yes through invincible ignorance, and other questions as well.  They also mentioned about that Baptism of Water is the ordinary way but Baptism of Desire/Blood can be accepted as well.  What do you have to say to this and if you have said where can I find it?

3) I have talked with a priest from Mexico, he said that I am prideful and almost talked to me like i have no authority to be telling him what the Magisterium has declared.  How do I talk with a priest without disrespecting them?  Because my parents get mad at me for saying that a priest is heretic by saying that he is teaching that Baptism of Desire/blood is a dogma, etc.  How do I tell my parents that, I do not intend to be disrespectful but to show what you guys have shown me?  They say that I am too young, and their right I'm only sixteen, and say that the priest have lived more than me and expirienced more than me…

Thank You and may God bless you for your work.

B.T. from OR

 

MHFM: 1) We would point out to the Mormon that Joseph Smith (the founder) received a “revelation” to reinstitute polygamy.  This contradicts the teaching of Jesus Christ (Mt. 19:4-9).  Thus, Mormons follow the false prophet Joseph Smith and deny the teaching of Christ.  They need to heed Galatians 1:8-9.  It teaches us to reject anyone who would preach a new gospel, which is exactly what Joseph Smith did.  It should also be pointed out that Mormons believe that the Church of Christ was founded by Jesus and then defected shortly after, only to be reconstituted in the latter days.  That contradicts the promises of Christ to His Church (Mt. 16:18-20; Mt. 28:20): that the Church is indefectible and that He would always be with it.  There are other things that could be mentioned about wacky Mormon beliefs, but they can be found without too much trouble by those who want more information. 

                                                        

2) It’s interesting that the CMRI priest confirmed that he indeed holds the heresy that pagans can be saved.  So all of those people out there, who contact us and tell us that these priests don’t believe in salvation outside the Church, even though we have documented it, need to make a note of what the priest told you above.  The priest thus denies the dogmatic teaching of Pope Eugene IV, which is quoted in our material.  He is in heresy.  You can find what the Catholic Church teaches about Baptism and salvation in this book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file]. It covers the entire issue and refutes all the objections pertaining to “baptism of desire,” “invincible ignorance,” etc.  You can order a copy here.

 

3) You can talk respectfully to a priest or anyone else by simply presenting the facts.  It’s about the truth of the dogma, not what a priest thinks.  Further, respect must be given first and foremost to God and the truth.

 

Very Interesting New Quote

 

MHFM: Below is a very interesting quote which we recently came across in study.  This quote is particularly interesting because it condemns not just going into a synagogue, but lighting lamps for Jewish feasts (e.g. celebrating Hanukkah)!  If you will recall, in the E-Exchange below we debated with the “Catholic” Jew who was arguing that there is nothing wrong with celebrating Hanukkah.  (Hanukkah is the Jewish festival of lights, for the rededication of the Temple, during which lamps are lit!)  This “Catholic” Jew decided not to order from us because he saw that we condemned V-2 Bishop Jerome Listecki as an apostate for celebrating Hanukkah.  We came across this quote after we responded to the “Catholic” Jew below.  Obviously it serves is another striking vindication of the truth.

 

The Apostolic Canons, Canon LXXI: “If any Christian brings oil into a temple of the heathen or into a synagogue of the Jews at their feast, or lights lamps, let him be excommunicated.”

 

These canons are a collection of canons from the early Church.  They purport to be from the apostles.  However, the common opinion is that they are more likely from the fourth century.  They are not dogmatic.  They have not been promulgated by the Magisterium of the Church.  They are simply ancient and well known texts which do give us insights about what those in the early Church believed.  We can see what they would have thought of those who go into a synagogue or celebrate Hanukkah!  This canon becomes relevant again when we consider this picture:

Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse, WI celebrating Hanukkah in a Jewish Synagogue: article

 

Non-Catholic Wedding?

 

Bro. Diamond,

 

I really need an answer fast. I have begun talking to one of my son's and his soon to be wife about the true Catholic Faith. I thought I had read where you had advised some one on how to be married if there is no church. My first question is/ they are planning to be married by the justice of the peace and would like to all the family to join them going out to dinner afterwards. I explained to them that is not a marriage in God blessing. And that I don't agree with it. Can we still go out to eat with them? I am trying in love show them the right way to God. Second question/ Did you say that someone could be married with God's blessing if having accepted the true Catholic faith, with a few witnesses? Not having to be with a priest(who would be N.O. Priest) and not in a church(N.O church).? The only Latin Mass we have here is the N.O. Priest doing it in a church used for N.O. masses.    

 

Sincerely, Debra A

 

MHFM: No, you definitely cannot go to the ceremony or the dinner afterwards.  You will show them love the right way by explaining to them that you cannot witness or celebrate their marriage when they are not true Catholics. It is possible for two people who are true Catholics to get married without a priest.  This is because a priest is simply the official witness in the Sacrament of Matrimony.  The sacrament is exchanged between the two people getting married.  This is a short article which pertains to your question about going to the weddings of those who are not of the true faith: Can one passively attend non-Catholic funerals, weddings?  No. 

 

Interest in Fiji Islands

 

Dear Brothers Dimond
 
Thank you for all the articles that you sent my brother in a little carton that contained books, dvds, written articles on the true teachings of our holy catholic faith.  
 

I believe with my whole heart that Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation and thank you for helping me see.
 
We are a group of four families in the whole of the Fiji Islands who are 'traditional' and were once with the SSPX… We are still searching and praying for the true faith and have finally come across your writings which, after reading through, we are convinced is the true catholic faith at last... I look forward to hearing from you.  May the Lord continue to bless you, your brother and all who support and work with you in spreading these divine truths throughout the world in these darkened times.
 
Louisa Nansen  

 

Converting

 

I was raised a Catholic, but became a Protestant. Your web-site is very informative, and I think I will go back to the Catholic church (pre- Vatican II). Can you tell me where in Los Angeles to go?

 

Thank you,

 

Caroline

 

MHFM: We are really glad to hear about your interest.  We can help you with where to go, but first you have to indicate that you are fully convinced of the (traditional) Catholic faith.  That involves believing in all the dogmas of the Church, including the papacy, papal infallibility, etc.  It also involves being fully convinced that Protestantism and other non-Catholic religions are false, and that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  We would also recommend that you pray the Rosary each day.  We have a section on our website about how to do that.  Also, if you haven't heard the talks in this section: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" * Audio Programs, then we would recommend it.   

 

There are basic steps to convert, which are found in a section on our website.  We will copy them into this e-mail for your convenience.  Once you're fully convinced of these points, and reject the Vatican II sect and the New Mass, then we can help you with specific information about where to receive sacraments in your area.  If you haven’t already, we would also strongly recommend that you obtain our DVD special offer which includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books (including our 610-page book with 200 color photographs), an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.). Again, it’s great to hear about your interest and God wants you to follow through with coming back to the Catholic faith.

 

March Web Stats

 

MHFM: Below are the web stats for just over one month (34 days).  We received almost six million hits and over 200,000 unique visitors.

Prominent “Catholic” Forum

 

I wrote the other day to tell you that I had been solicited to send money to this group.  I started responding to a debate on Religious Liberty.  I got in trouble pretty fast.  Below is my "warning" and response. 

----

 

We do not allow members… to denigrate other races/religions/belief systems.  I suggest you review the forum rules before you post.

 

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

 

This action is visible only to Mods, Admins and you. Regular forum members will not see it.

 

Sincerely,
[A forum moderator]

---- 

I only pointed out that the Jews reject Christ.  If you don't believe me, then ask one.  However if pointing this out is a violation of your rules, then Saint Augustine would have not been welcome on your sight either. Amazing.  You know I got onto this blog out of curiosity because you guys sent me a solicitation asking for money so that you could "carry on the fight".  Well, we'll never win against the wicked secular world if we don't understand the enemy.

 

Bill

 

MHFM: Wow, that’s from a mainstream and popular forum of the Vatican II sect.  It’s from an organization which purports to defend the Catholic Faith.  They ban people for denigrating false religions.  That’s outrageously heretical and quite revealing.  It just shows us again why that organization is horribly heretical.  It defends the Vatican II sect, the invalid New Mass, and rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. 

 

This quote below is relevant to consider in regard to the e-mail you received:

 

Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede (#15), Dec. 8, 1892: “Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups.  Know them by their fruits and avoid them.  Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions...”

 

Interest in Thailand

 

Dear Brother in Christ,

 

Greetings from Thailand.I stumbled on your web site some two weeks ago and have downloaded a few of your DVDs, weldone for the work you are doing.
Please, I love the music played after the discuss on creation, unfortunately there isn't a list for sacred music. Could you send me a copy(some sared music of
the catholic church) please. 


Your in Christ.
Moses Zaruwa

Chiang Mai University
Thailand.

 

Likes EENS book

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I have read your awesome book on “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus” [Outside the Church There is No Salvation]….  Thank you so much for your tremendous effort on this work.

 

God bless and Mary keep you in your holy works.

 

Respectfully,

John

 

New Audio on Papacy – Section D of Part 2

 

Nicea, Sardica, Athanasius, Damasus, Emperors - The Early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter's authority - Section D of Part 2 [new 15 min. audio]

 

This section finishes up the evidence for the primacy of the Roman Pontiff in the third century and moves into the fourth.  It covers the case of Paul of Samosata; the Councils of Nicea and Sardica; Athanasius and Julius; the Emperors Gratian and Theodosius; and Pope Damasus. 

 

This is found permanently in our: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" page.

 

“Gay” not natural

 

Dear Brother,

 

…You seem to be doing good work. Probably you catch a lot of flack but your work seems credible to me.

 

Our son Charley announced to me that he is "gay". This is very painful for me and more so because my wife Joanie believes his condition is "innate".  Their is a group called courage which was started by cardinal cook. It is for same gender attracted people who nevertheless want to live chastely in accord with Catholic teaching. It would seem that courage is hamstrung though since it is still part of the Vatican II sect. Our son will not talk with me about his condition and now he will not even speak to me since I forbid him to bring his "partner" to our place. It is very painful, especially since the rest of the family probably thinks I am an ogre. They are mostly believing the born that way and can't change lie. I have turned the situation over to Mary and I pray a lot. I will make the effort to meditate upon the holy Rosary more often. Please pray for us. I will place you on our prayer list.

                                         

C.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  Any group which attempts to rehabilitate homosexuals, which doesn’t point out that the entire homosexual orientation is a result of sin and is not natural, is false.  The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a result of idolatry.  Other important points in that regard are covered in this file, which is from our book The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.

 

The Idolatry of the Vatican II sect is connected with its rampant homosexuality [PDF File]

 

Exorcism?

 

Hello , How are you doing ?

 

My name is John and I have a question, It was stated that anyone who makes a deal or a pact with the devil must receive an exorcism I heard this from a former Jesuit priest. Is this true  and if so how does one go about and receive one.

 

thanks again , John

 

MHFM: It wouldn't necessarily require an exorcism.  If a person renounced the Devil and the pact, converted to the traditional faith, believed in everything the Church teaches, made a good and complete confession to a valid priest, prayed the Rosary every day and lived the life of grace, then he wouldn't necessarily need an exorcism.  One would receive an exorcism by finding a validly ordained priest who would be an option for performing it, but that is much more difficult today. 

 

FSSP

 

Hey.   Unless I just missed it somewhere on your WEB site, I do not see where you condemn the FSSP. I don't see it mentioned
on the list of "Traditional Catholic" priests to avoid.  Are they valid?  Is it ok to attend one of their Masses?

Appreciate all your hard work.   Makes me just want to go hole up somewhere and do nothing but pray for reparation and salvation of souls.

I really hate the thought of not being able to attend daily Mass as me and my sisters were doing.  We're in a quandry because there are NO Traditional Masses here or anywhere within a 4 hour drive.  But, we are trusting in God and Mary and asking them to provide a way for us.  Meanwhile, we will assist Mass by watching a CD of the Low Mass.  I have ordered several of your books and will be doing a lot of reading.  Ya know, besides what you say, the books of prophecy by various authors really slaps ya in the face and when you look at them and you - it's scary.  We are definitely in a whirlwind right now and every minute counts. 

Thank you for your hard work.  Would appreciate a response about the FSSP - God Bless and Keep you.   

 

 Kathy Gibson

 

MHFM: The Fraternity of St. Peter is heretical because it accepts Vatican II.  Regarding validity, almost all of the priests of the FSSP were ordained by bishops who were consecrated in Paul VI’s New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.  As covered in this short section on that issue, the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration cannot be considered valid. 

 

The New Rite of Consecration of Bishops [PDF file]

 

One must not attend the Masses of invalid priests, of course.  That applies to almost every Fraternity of St. Peter priest.  It’s not a sin to stay home on Sunday when there is not an acceptable option.

 

Reader on Article and Talmud

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter:

 

I recently read an article posted on your News and Commentary section entitled, “Vatican II sect’s ‘Bishops’ and ‘Cardinals’ wear Yarmulkes”.  One of the most outrageous pictures in this article shows “Cardinal” Walter Kasper and Rabbi Zevulun Charlop holding up the Talmud, Judaism’s “holiest” book.  Although you cover this subject in one of your radio programs (Jan. 27, 2007), I thought I would provide some additional facts about the Talmud and what it actually says about Jesus Christ and His followers.

 

Below are some quotes from the book, “The Talmud: Judaism’s holiest book unmasked” (1892 Imprimatur) by Rev. Pranaitis.  He states:

 

“What Christians have thought of the Talmud is amply proved by the many edicts and decrees issued about it, by which the supreme rulers in Church and State proscribed it many times and condemned this sacred Secondary Law Code of the Jews to the flames.

 

In 553 the Emperor Justinian forbade the spread of the Talmudic books throughout the Roman Empire.  In the 13th century Popes Gregory IX and Innocent IV condemned the books of the Talmud as containing every kind of vileness and blasphemy against Christian truth, and ordered them to be burned because they spread many horrible heresies.

 

Later, they were condemned by many other Roman Pontiffs - Julius III, Paul IV, Pius IV, Pius V, Gregory XIII, Clement VIII, Alexander VII, Benedict XIV, and by others who issued new editions of the Index of Forbidden Books according to the orders of the Fathers of the Council of Trent, and even in our own time.”

 

Concerning what the Talmud teaches about Jesus Christ, the author states:

 

“The Talmud teaches that Jesus Christ was illegitimate and was conceived during menstruation; that he had the soul of Esau; that he was a fool, a conjurer, a seducer; that he was crucified, buried in hell and set up as an idol ever since by his followers.”

 

Concerning what the Talmud teaches about Christians, the author states:

 

“…We saw what the Jews think of the Founder of the Christian religion, and how much they despise his name. This being so, it would not be expected that they would have any better opinion about those who follow Jesus the Nazarene. In fact, nothing more abominable can be imagined than what they have to say about Christians. They say that they are idolaters, the worst kind of people, much worse than the Turks, murderers, fornicators, impure animals, like dirt, unworthy to be called men, beasts in human form, worthy of the name of beasts, cows, asses, pigs, dogs, worse than dogs; that they propagate after the manner of beasts, that they have diabolic origin, that their souls come from the devil and return to the devil in hell after death; and that even the body of a dead Christian is nothing different from that of an animal.”

 

Concerning the precepts of the Talmud as regards to Christians, he states:

 

“From what has been shown thus far, it is clear that, according to the teaching of the Talmud, Christians are idolaters and hateful to Jews.  As a consequence, every Jew who wishes to please God has a duty to observe all the precepts which were given to the Fathers of their race when they lived in the Holy Land concerning the idolatrous gentiles, both those who lived amongst them and those in nearby countries.  A Jew is therefore required to 1: to avoid Christians; 2: to do all he can to exterminate them.”

 

Concerning the last point, the author states:

 

“The followers of "that man," whose name is taken by the Jews to mean "May his name and memory be blotted out," are not otherwise to be regarded than as people whom it would be good to get rid of.  They are called Romans and tyrants who hold captive the children of Israel, and by their destruction the Jews would be freed from this Fourth Captivity.  Every Jew is therefore bound to do all he can to destroy that impious kingdom of the Edomites (Rome) which rules the whole world.  Since, however, it is not always and everywhere possible to effect this extermination of Christians, the Talmud orders that they should be attacked at least indirectly, namely: by injuring them in every possible way, and by thus lessening their power, help towa rds their ultimate destruction.  Wherever it is possible a Jew should kill Christians, and do so without mercy.”

 

Considering these facts, I am not sure how anyone can claim to be a Jew and a member of the Catholic Church (let alone claim to be a member of the Catholic hierarchy and attend Jewish instruction in the Talmud).  As to your recent email exchange with that somewhat arrogant and self-styled “Hebrew Catholic”, I thought your response was accurate and to the point.  However, I would like to point out how absurd his position is considering Judaism’s “holiest” book, which is clearly hateful toward Jesus Christ and His followers.

 

-John.

 

St. Augustine on a Mystery of Iniquity

 

MHFM: Here’s an interesting passage from St. Augustine’s Confessions.  It concerns a mystery of iniquity: people often commit sins simply for the sake of doing that which is forbidden:

 

St. Augustine, Confessions, Book 2, Chap. 4: “For I pilfered that of which I had already sufficient, and much better.  Nor did I desire to enjoy what I pilfered, but the theft and sin itself.  There was a pear-tree close to our vineyard, heavily laden with fruit, which was tempting neither for its color nor its flavor.  To shake and rob this some of us wanton young fellows went, late one night… and carried away great loads, not to eat ourselves, but to fling to the very swine, having only eaten some of them; and to do this pleased us all the more because it was not permitted.  Behold my heart, O my God; behold my heart, which Thou hadst pity upon when in the bottomless pit.  Behold, now, let my heart tell Thee what it was seeking there, that I should be gratuitously wanton, having no inducement to evil but the evil itself.  It was foul, and I loved it.  I loved to perish.  I loved my own error – not that for which I erred, but the error itself.  Base soul, falling from Thy firmament to utter destruction – not seeking aught through the shame but the shame itself.”

 

Exchange on Ordination

 

Hello Brothers Michael and Peter,

 

Thank you so much for mailing me the rosary, brown scapular, Bible and Penny Catechism. I find them all a wonderful blessing.

 

Now concerning the matter of a valid confession… I am presently engaged in an interesting e-mail thread with Fr. Ned Shlesinger of the Diocese of Raleigh. I have included the thread below. But the most telling line of the thread is where Fr. Ned says: "...but [I] still don't see how the altering or[sic] the rite or the lack of  mention (e.g. of confession / sacrifice) used in the rite of ordination have nullified the powers inherent in the sacrament of Holy Orders."

 

I'd love to see you challenge this gentleman on the question of what DOES bestow powers upon the sacrament of Holy Orders?

 

With sincere thanks,

 

Rob

 

Dear Rob,

 

Thank you again for your e-mail.  How can I respond to your doubts about the ability of an ordained priest after Second Vatican Council to absolve sin since the words used in the ordination rite have changed?

 

1.  Once again, I understand that the powers to absolve sin lie in the nature of the sacrament of ordination and not in the words pronounced at the time of ordination.  I understand St. Thomas Aquinas' notion of sacrament as needing form (words) and matter (the laying on of hands), but still don't see how the altering or the rite or the lack of  mention (e.g. of confession / sacrifice) used in the rite of ordination have nullified the powers inherent in the sacrament of Holy Orders.  It may be interesting to see what words were used prior to the Council of Trent and even back to Apostolic times.

 

2.  If my rememberance of history is correct, I understand that ordination in the Anglican Church is invalid since the Queen Elizabeth I authorized the use of the Book of Common Prayer which was illicit, contrary to the unity of the Church, and which was influenced by the theology of the protestant reformation (especially concerning sacraments) that was permeating the Church of England in that period.

 

3.  I have a concern regarding your e-mails which is related to your doubt (or lack of trust) in the Heirarchy (Magisterium) of the Catholic Church to establish rites while not changing truth.  The rites of the Church have changed over the centuries as we continue to understand through the help of the Holy Spirit greater insight into the truths in the Deposit of Faith…

 

I pray that you have a Blessed Easter.

 

In Christ,

 

Fr. Ned

 

MHFM: As pointed out in our article below on ordination, Pope Leo XIII declared that the removal of references to the sacrificing priesthood in the Anglican Rite was the major reason it was invalid.  The same can be said for the New Rite of Ordination.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite.  That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”

 

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood] of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium [priesthood] is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the Episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the Episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it; and this the more so because among the first duties of the Episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.”

 

Why the New Rite of Ordination is Invalid [PDF File]

(This article explains why the New Rite of Ordination – which was instituted by Paul VI on June 18, 1968 after Vatican II – is not valid.)

 

 

More on last e-mail

 

Dear Brothers,

THANK YOU, THANK YOU , THANK YOU!!   I sent the letter below (With a copy of your letter Exchange with the Jewish fellow) to a bunch of my friends.  It is so refreshing to finally see someone take on these haughty ones and set the record straight.  It seems like we are being inundated by Jewish thought more and more each day.....by Evangelicals and Jews
themselves, as they are so prominent in the popular media.   Of course, I don't appreciate Mel's fall into the bottle, but I can certainly appreciate what drove him there.  They think they can even Dictate what the Church teaches about them on Good Friday and in general !  Yes, I know....we need to pray for them, which I will do.

Thanks again,

Carol Delger

 

“Catholic” Jew writes in

 

Hi There,

I was just about to order some things from your apostolate until I saw that you think a Bishop celebrating Hannukah is an apostate.  This comment concerned me because of course, the fact that Jesus, the Jew, celebrated Hannukah would therefore make Him an apostate as well. 

Furthermore, Jewish Catholics like myself still celebrate Hannukah because a) it is in the Bible b) Jesus celebrated it c) it is both a salvation history celebration and a vital cultural celebration that reminds our culture of God's salvation from the pagan persecution of the sinful Greek culture and d) Jews still have the liberty to witness to their culture via keeping covenant laws should we wish (consider St Paul's circumcision of St Timothy even after the Jerusalem Council declared infallibly that certain aspects of the law were not binding on Gentiles- See Acts 15 cf.  Acts 16:1-3).  Jews are still Jews, even when they become Catholics.  This is Biblical.

So, if a Bishop wants to imitate Jesus and the Apostles by keeping the Feast of Dedication I say more power to him- he's reaching more Jews than a thousand blood-splattered movies by the drunken Mel Gibson.  As a Jew, I'm happy to see it and maybe other Jews will become Hebrew Catholics because of the witness that says we don't have to abandon our common culture with Jesus and the Apostles to be Catholics, but rather that we are welcomed as other cultures are and that the Catholic Church is the true Hebraic Church.

I know American ministries like yourself with siege mentality don't like to be "corrected"(especially by a Jew) and rarely take advice, but you really need to get your stuff together on this if you want your message to be heard on the things you've got right.

Have a Blessed Day.

Troy (Levi) Harris

 

MHFM: In charity we must tell you that you have adopted a very false version of the Catholic faith. 

 

Galatians 3:28- "There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

You don't seem familiar with the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.  The Church teaches infallibly that the Old Law has been done away with and can no longer be observed without mortal sin and the loss of salvation.  Contrary to this, you state: “ Jewish Catholics like myself still celebrate Hannukah because a) it is in the Bible b) Jesus celebrated it c) it is both a salvation history celebration and a vital cultural celebration that reminds our culture of God's salvation from the pagan persecution of the sinful Greek culture and d) Jews still have the liberty to witness to their culture via keeping covenant laws should we wish…” Allow us to quote for you the dogmatic teaching of the Church which you are contradicting.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began…  All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

 

Pope Benedict XIV reiterated this dogma in his encyclical Ex Quo Primum.

 

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61), March 1, 1756:“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 Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#’s 29-30), June 29, 1943: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished… on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [Eph. 2:15]… establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.  To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that 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, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death…”

 

Your examples of what Jesus and St. Paul did do not constitute a valid argument.  Prior to His death and resurrection, Jesus fulfilled the Old Law in order to show that He was a faithful adherent of the Old Testament religion.  He was the true Messiah of the Old Testament religion, the one to whom it pointed.  So, prior to His death and resurrection, He demonstrated that He was subject to that which was still in force.  But, as the decrees above show, it's mortally sinful to observe the Old Law now. 

 

Regarding Hanukkah, even though it is not strictly part of the Mosaic law, it is affiliated with it.  It is a ceremony for the rededication of the Jewish Temple.  It is thus wrapped up with the worship and religion which was conducted at the Jewish Temple, which is now obsolete.  So those who celebrate it are professing, by such an action, that Jewish worship at a Hebrew Temple or synagogues is acceptable.  To celebrate Hanukkah is to deny, by deed, that Jesus Christ has come and that the Jewish Temple has been replaced with the Church.  So for you to observe Hanukkah and other Old Testament practices (which are affiliated with the Old Law or the observance of Judaism) is a mortal sin and a denial of the Catholic faith. 

 

Regarding St. Paul having circumcised Timothy, that was in the apostolic period, in which the observance of the Old Law was dead but not yet deadly (more on this from St. Thomas below).  The observance of the Old Law became deadly (mortally sinful) after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., which is considered to have marked "the promulgation of the Gospel." In the following citation from St. Thomas, we see that there are three different periods pertaining to the Old Law.  St. Thomas points out that to practice it now (i.e. since the promulgation of the Gospel) is mortally sinful, and that Paul circumcised Timothy in the period when observing it was not yet deadly. 

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103, A. 4 Reply to Obj. 1: “… Augustine (Epist. lxxxii) more fittingly distinguished three periods of time. One was the time that preceded the Passion of Christ, during which the legal ceremonies were neither deadly nor dead: another period was after the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies are both dead and deadly. The third is a middle period, viz. from the Passion of Christ until the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies were dead indeed, because they had neither effect nor binding force; but were not deadly, because it was lawful for the Jewish converts to Christianity to observe them, provided they did not put their trust in them so as to hold them to be necessary unto salvation, as though faith in Christ could not justify without the legal observances. On the other hand, there was no reason why those who were converted from heathendom to Christianity should observe them. Hence Paul circumcised Timothy, who was born of a Jewish mother; but was unwilling to circumcise Titus, who was of heathen nationality.”

 

The fact that the Old Law became deadly after the promulgation of the Gospel was infallibly taught by the Council of Florence, as we saw above.  This council also explained that there was a unique apostolic period, as we saw in St. Thomas.  This unique apostolic period also contained a prohibition against certain foods which were forbidden under the Old Law; but this prohibition is now obsolete.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1442, ex cathedra: “It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food.  But when the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no carnal Jew is to be met with, but all passing over to the Church, uniformly practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.”

 

“It 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 catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

 

So it’s beyond doubt that it’s mortally sinful and contrary to Catholic teaching to observe the Old Law or Jewish ceremonies such as Hanukkah.  We wonder if you also accept the Catholic dogma that all who die as Jews will go to Hell, which was defined infallibly in the above decree? 

 

In charity, we must also say that you need to get over the fact that you were Jewish.  It's not about your former Jewishness; it's about Jesus and His Church.  The attachment to "Jewishness," which is somewhat common among those who claim to have converted from Judaism, springs from pride and a self-belief in their elitism.  We hope you will consider these points. 

 

In addition, the following quote from St. Thomas also shows that to observe the Jewish practices now is to profess, by deed, that Christ has not yet been born:

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103, A. 4: I answer that, All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now, though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them was it said: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express the same by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she "conceived and bore." In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered.  Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching Augustine (Contra Faust. xix, 16), who says: "It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in which Christians share, are the actual representation."

 

Vatican II

 

I am e-mailing because a friend of mine came out of church and found one of your cd's placed on her windshield.  She was skeptical and asked me if I knew anything about mostholyfamilymonastery.com.  I looked up the website and am deeply disturbed by it.  I understand there are people who think the Church was lost after Vatican II, I just wish those people could see that it was lost because PEOPLE took liberties with the Mass and did not follow Vatican II but tried to make the Church their own.  I will explain what I know to my skeptical friend. 

 

Paula Foster

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  The problem was not because people took liberties with Vatican II.  Vatican II itself was the problem.  We hope you read this file, which documents the many heresies taught by Vatican II.  The article also covers how Vatican II laid the groundwork for the liturgical revolution.

 

The Heresies in Vatican II [PDF File]

 

The New Mass is not a real Mass, as our material proves.  You need to realize that the post-Vatican II “Church” is not the real Catholic Church.

 

JP2 Jewish?

 

Would Most Holy Family Monastery care to add this interpretation of John Paul II to your site. It suggests that he was the trained, committed and determined antagonist of true religion. But further, when the gruesome memorial to Archbishop Sapieha is connected to the persistent rumour that he was Wojtyla's actual father, the entire JP2 pontificate begins to emerge from media-amplified propaganda myth into most sobering reality.

 

Sincerely

Michael McDonnell

 

http://www.metronews.co.uk/news/s/600346_the_pope_was_jewish_says_historian

 

MHFM: Yes, we have linked to that article in the past.  When considering such a thing, one must combine it with Paul VI’s wearing of the breast-plate of a Jewish High Priest, as we cover here: The Heresies of Paul VI, the man who gave the world the New Mass and the Teachings of Vatican II [PDF file].  Then the full picture of the spiritual conspiracy at work with the Vatican II sect and its antipopes begins to become clear.

 

EENS and handicapped

 

Hello,

 

I have some of your DVD's and find them very thought provoking… Also, as to your "Outside the Church" book and theology, what about the handicapped?  Those with moderate to severe retardation, does the Church teach that they will go to heaven even though they cannot "choose" Christ?  I work with such people myself.  One more question.  How is it possible for infants not baptized to be barred from heaven for eternity?  What about the mercy of God on the most innocent.  Is not God the author of the sacraments and therefore greater than the sacraments and not bound by them? God is sovereign over all creation and for Him to cast babies into "limbo" goes against every attribute of the goodness of God.  The same seems true for aborted babies.  If the devil destroys babies would not the mercy of God save them?  It seems that way to me anyway.

 

Thanks for all you do.  I so much appreciate you valuable work.

 

Steve Adelman   

 

MHFM: If he can understand certain things (e.g. if he can will to be saved), he must 1) be baptized and 2) know and believe at least the essential truths of the Catholic faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation/Apostles’ Creed) to have the Catholic faith and be saved.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped.  Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.  But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

 

If he is so handicapped that he cannot even do that, then he would be equivalent to an infant below the age of reason.  In that case, he would simply have to be baptized to be Catholic and saved.  Regarding infants, we must humble ourselves and submit to the wisdom of the all-knowing God.  He knows all men from eternity.  He knows who is worthy and who isn’t.  He knows what these infants who died before baptism would have done if they had lived a full life.  Thus, His teaching that none of them are saved without Baptism is perfectly just.  We must accept it and believe it without hesitation.  As pointed out in section 2 of our book:

 

Those who refuse to believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation until they understand how there is justice in it are simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s revelation.  Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His teaching first and understand the truth in it (i.e., why it is true) second.  A Catholic does not withhold his belief in Christ’s revelation until he can understand it.  That is the mentality of a faithless heretic who possesses insufferable pride.  St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point. 

 

St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.  For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.”

 

Romans 11:33-34- “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!  How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!  For who hath known the mind of the Lord?  Or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him?”

 

Isaias 55:8-9- “For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.”

 

Not confusing

 

Hello. I have been confused about my Catholic Church/faith for many years, now. I grew up in the Catholic Church of the '50s, so I felt I had a fairly substantial Catholic background. In recent years, I have become disillusioned and thoroughly confused by what I see and hear. ....In any New Order Catholic Church I attended, I never saw (or thought I saw) the irreverence or disrespect I now know so many New Order churches have experienced. ...I understood the Catholics, who stayed away from the changes, to be the so-called break-away Catholics, while I was certain staying with the church I'd attended for all my life....and under the pope....was the TRUE Church. Now, I'm not so sure. ......In recent years, I've have become so confused I could cry....literally. ........I found EWTN, which I thought to be wonderful in showing the reverence that should come with Mass attendance. Then, I began hearing from Christ The King Abbey in Alabama, which has made me consider that they ("Traditionalists") have held together the True Church. Then, I got literature from The Fatima Crusade, which warns us against the New Order Church, EWTN and this wonderful Monastery (or so I thought) in Alabama. ....Now, I've come across your web-site and become even more confused. You truly need to be a Theologian to understand what's going on and who is right. I am not the smartest person in the world, but I am not stupid, either, and I don't understand half of what's being presented by many of  these different groups.....I've read through some of your writings, and have become yet more confused. ......The Alabama monastery has asked we pray for the pope, while they are not in communion with Rome at this time, and yet you warn this is a place to be avoided. Of all the places I've checked into, they seemed to be the ones I felt were holding to the True Faith. ....Many years ago, I went to a Charismatic Prayer Meeting at my church. I did not want to be a part of it. I was there to observe, only, and sat way in the back. There, I agree, that it was not a Catholic event. Beautiful prayers were recited, followed by swaying back and forth with hands held. People had phony-looking smiles on their faces and their eyes were glassed-over making them look like they were on drugs (to me!). I did not like the idea of spouting out unintelligible phrases, assuming they were "of God." ....I never went again! ........So, all these CATHOLIC teachers have done is to confuse someone (me!) who doesn't know where to turn for the Truth. Where is the True Church and why am I having such a hard time in finding her? .....My soul is at stake here. This is something I do not appreciate being made so very confusing by the very persons who should be making clearer the correct path to heaven. .....One of your articles sites the Priest-Abuse scandals of the New Church. I've seen story after story about the same abuse going way back to before the New Church came into being. Problems were there long before the New Church. Abuse was kept hidden and not spoken of. (NEVER criticize the Church. That, I learned from the nuns in grade school!)............Is there something you can recommend to help me with my struggle. Something I can read? A priest to talk with? Anything that will help me to recognize and FIND the TRUE Catholic Church? I feel more and more lost each day. .............I live in the Denver area of Lancaster Co., PA. Any guidance would be most gratefully appreciated.

 

Thank you.                  Susan McGuire

 

MHFM: We do appreciate the interest, but the facts on our website are not confusing.  They cut through the fog and give people the clear truth.  Once these facts are examined, there is nothing confusing about the situation.  What one should conclude about what has happened becomes very clear to those who savor the truth and are of good will.  At that point a person is relieved and refreshed to know the clear truth.  You have to be fully convinced on these critical points before we can help you with where you might potentially be able to receive the sacraments.

 

Godparent of Novus Ordo

 

Good Morning,

 

I was named the Godmother of my niece who is now about 17years old and lives in Poland.  She was baptized in the N.O ‘church’.  Assuming this baptism is valid, what duties/responsibilities do I have as a Godmother.  I’ve been living here for a while now and have minimal contact with her.  Her parents are currently separated and the father is living an immoral lifestyle here in the U.S. with another woman!  The mother lives in Poland with my Goddaughter and, at best, follows the N.O ‘church’.  What are my responsibilities as a Godmother in this situation?  First, do I have a responsibility to inform my Godchild about the faith?  Second, and/or about the immoral lifestyle of the parent, specifically her father?  Thirdly, has the Catholic Church made any pronouncements about the responsibilities of the Godparents?  For example, does the Church speak about under what circumstances these responsibilities apply (upon the death of the parent(s), or when the parent(s) neglects to raise the child in the faith)?

 

Please help, as I have nobody else who can.

 

Thank you so very much.

 

r…

 

MHFM:  Yes, you absolutely must inform her about the faith.  A Catholic needs to do that with anyone he or she knows well.  Yes, you should inform her that her father is living in a state of mortal sin.  Your responsibility as a godparent is essentially to look after the spiritual well-being of this person, but with a special solicitude.  It’s basically what you would do for anyone you know well, but to an extra degree.  You can only try to give her the information about the traditional Catholic faith and what she must do.  You need to tell her not to go to the New Mass, to pray the Rosary, believe in the traditional dogmas, etc.  If she’s not interested, then you have to move on.   

 

Out of Novus Ordo

 

I was raised in the perfect Vatican II church family. My family members taught ccd, hosted renew groups, are Eucharistic ministers and one member was ordained into the priesthood in 2003. THANK YOU for the info on your site, if not for the info many of us would still be members of that church.

 

Kate

 

Catholics?

 

Hello,

 

I a catholic from India, follower of Syro-Malabar Church ; one of Oriental Eastern Churches, under and obedience to Pope and Rome, happened to read from “An Introduction to False Ecumenism and some comments on Heretical Actions

 

My questions:

 

Are you Catholics under Pope ? If not then which Christian sect / Church ?

If yes how can you explain the above article’s contents?

Do you believe Popes mentioned: Paul VI, Benedict XVI are no true Popes ?

If  yes who is the ‘present’ true pope, if at all there is one?

Are you and your website are approved by Roman Catholic Church?

Admitting their views and so called Ecumenical teachings and programs are contradictory and anti- St. Thomas Aquinas, what should one do?

How to counter this problem of anomalies of Vat II, staying with which platform ?

These are some genuine questions from a Catholic faithful. We don’t believe in infallibility of Popes.

Pls reply in little detail, which may lead many to truth in my area.

 

Regards and prayers,

Sunny Alanoly

 

MHFM: We are Catholics.  We believe in all the dogmas of the Catholic Church, including papal infallibility.  If you don’t believe in papal infallibility, then you are not a true Catholic.  Vatican I defined papal infallibility as a dogma.  It flows logically from the supreme authority which Christ gave to St. Peter.  The roots of it can be seen in Mt. 16 and Lk. 22.  For if whatever a pope binds upon earth is bound in Heaven, as Mt. 16 says, then what the pope binds must be infallible; for Heaven doesn’t bind that which is false.  The unfailing faith that Christ promises St. Peter in Luke 22 also shows infallibility.  You should listen to the talks on the Papacy which are found in this file: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" * Audio Programs.  For if you don’t believe in papal infallibility then you are in heresy right now and need to convert.  You should also read this file and look at the other information on our site more carefully: 

 

The Glossary of Terms and Principles [PDF]

(This glossary contains important definitions of key terms and principles about the Catholic Faith, about the post-Vatican II “Church,” about how the Catholic Church views non-Catholic religions, etc. which people should see.)

 

In examining the information more carefully, you will find the answers to the questions you have.

 

OT saints?

 

Hi, I've been reading some of your info and playing some debates on the subject on your site. I sure it on the web site some where but there's a lot of info. What about the theif on the cross and Moses David and other who neither were baptised or with the excepting of the thief knew or accepted Christ? Thank you for you time.

In Christ
Tony Valente

 

MHFM: This is answered in our book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].  The answer is that the Good Thief, Moses, etc. cannot be used as examples against the necessity of Baptism, etc. because they died under the Old Law, not the New Law.  They died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

 

Effort

 

I viewed your site, although rather superficially, and it is obvious you consider yourselves to be the arbiters of truth.  From where do you decide what is truth and what is not?  You make some intertesting statements, many out of context, and then jump to conclusions that you have not defended but only state as truth.  Are you in communion with Rome?  Who is the Pope (the real Pope) as you would see it?  Do we not have one?  How did the Magiseium get it so wrong?  Is not the Magisterium in coordination with the Pope the authority of the Church?  How did you get this authority?  I am confused at your positions.  You seem to contradict yourselves by your very existance.

 

Bob Nolan

 

MHFM: You need to look at the site more carefully.  You are the one who is confused and contradictory.  The Magisterium didn't get it wrong.  The Vatican II sect rejects the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium.  You should read this file:

 

The Glossary of Terms and Principles [PDF]

 

But if the level of effort which you have thus far exerted in understanding the facts we’ve brought forward is typical of what you will put out, then we cannot help you.  People have to put out some effort or else they will remain in their ignorance and spiritual fog.

 

V-2 book

 

I have your recent book What Happened after Vatican II.  That is the best sledgehammer of a presentation that has been done.  I really like all of your other books as well.  They are outstanding.  Thanks for what you are doing.

 

Henry Benton,

NJ

 

Recent audio programs

 

I added your two most recent audio files to the rest of them on my myspace page and someone who listened to them left me a message that said they were awesome and very informative, so I thought I would pass that along to you.

 

Is…

 

Older priest writes in

 

Quite by accident I came across your website this morning… I am an 86 year old Jesuit priest, ordained in 1952, when Pius XII was pope. I later had the privilege of speaking with him personally and receiving his blessing. He is one my heroes. I am writing to you because I am puzzled. You evidently regard the vast majority of those who call themselves Catholics as involved in heresy and schism and not truly members of the Catholic Church. I am one of these. My puzzle concerns where you think we went wrong.

 

I was teaching in Rome as a young professor of theology when Pope Pius XII died. I was in St. Peter’s Square a few weeks later when the election of Angelo Roncalli was announced. He took the name of John XXIII. Do you regard this election as somehow invalid? Was the whole church deceived? Had the Holy Spirit failed to preserve her? What could we have done to discern that this man was actually not the pope? Did anyone at all contest the validity of his election at that time? Would not the promise of Christ that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” prevent such a tragic deception?

 

If then Pope John XXIII was truly pope, was his calling an ecumenical council an invalid act? I was in Rome when the council was called. I remember many saying that the council would not last long and would not accomplish much. But when the bishops of the world assembled as the Second Vatican Council, was it not truly an ecumenical council, guided and protected by Holy Spirit from leading the faithful into error? Was there any way of knowing that this was not the case? Did the Holy Spirit desert the Church after the death of Pius XII? I had returned to the United States to teach theology when the council actually met, but I followed the reports on its doings with great attention.

 

There, you have my puzzle. When would you say that the great majority of Catholics actually fell into heresy?  I was struck by the earnestness of what I read on your site, of your evident love of God and of the truth. I think of myself also as one who throughout a long life has tried to love God and to promote the truth. Where do you think that I have failed? How do you think I could have avoided this?

                                       

Sincerely in Our Lord.

[Name withheld]

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  You obviously have many questions.  We're really glad to hear about your interest.  The answers to your questions can be found in our material.  We hope that you continue to look at the information.  John XXIII’s “election” was invalid because he was a heretic.  There is also some evidence that he wasn’t elected first, but that another cardinal was.  As our material explains, the promise of Christ to the Church (that the gates of Hell cannot prevail) does not preclude 1) a massive apostasy, 2) antipopes in Rome, 3) a Counter Church arising in Rome which reduces the true Catholic Church to a remnant.  With the exception of #3, we've had this before at different periods of Church history (e.g., the Arian crisis, the Great Western Schism, etc.).  The promises of Christ to the Church simply ensure that the Catholic Church will always exist and that the Church itself and the Magisterium cannot err. 

 

What has occurred with the Vatican II “Church” has been perpetrated by men who are not true popes.  They do not wield the power of the Catholic Magisterium and so their false teachings do not taint it. Vatican II was called and confirmed by manifestly heretical non-Catholic antipopes.  It was not therefore a true ecumenical council.  It was a false council which taught many heresies. 

 

When should people have seen it, you ask.  When Vatican II promoted rapprochement with Protestants and other non-Catholics, they should have seen it.  Any Catholic who is concerned about the faith (and studies it as he should) knows that the Catholic Church rejects all who don’t agree with her teachings.  The only “coming together” which can happen is the conversion of the non-Catholics.  So any program of acceptance of non-Catholics as they are in their non-Catholic beliefs is a betrayal of the Catholic Faith.  For example, the anathemas of the Council of Trent (and other councils), which were launched against all who would contradict Catholic dogmas, are well-known.  So a program of union with, and acceptance of, non-Catholic sects/religions should have alerted any vigilant and educated Catholic that something heretical and revolutionary was afoot.

 

This entire situation has been predicted in Scripture and in Catholic prophecy, as our material explains.  To answer your other question: yes, the great majority of Catholics fell into heresy and lost the faith.  Sadly, these former Catholics are now pseudo-Catholics and on the road to damnation. 

 

When did people lose the faith?  This happened and continues to happen on an individual basis: when a person obstinately embraces one or more of the heresies of the new religion.  At that point a person ceases to be a Catholic and becomes a member of the Vatican II sect.  This certainly has happened and continues to happen to all who accept the Vatican II heresies of ecumenism and a general religious indifferentism.  For example, even if people believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, if they accept Protestant sects as okay (even though less true) they have embraced a heretical religion and lost the Catholic faith.  This attitude is probably held by almost all who attend the New Mass today.  (And this is just to examine the situation from the standpoint of heresy.  We must remember that mortal sin alone will send a person to Hell.  The Vatican II preachers generally don’t communicate even the moral truths of the Catholic faith and the spiritual life.  So even if an individual has not yet been excommunicated for heresy, if he has not been taught to pray, do spiritual reading, avoid the occasions of sin, etc., then he will not avoid mortal sin.  He would therefore be on the road to damnation, regardless of whether he rejects a dogma of the Church.

 

Since you asked, you have failed by giving in to the Vatican II heresies and the New Mass.  Ecumenism represents apostasy, as our material proves.  It represents a repudiation of the necessity of Jesus Christ and His one true faith.  It repudiates the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  The New Mass represents the acceptance of sacrilege and a liturgical revolution. 

 

But we’re really happy to hear about your interest.  God wanted you to see this material because he wants you to return to the traditional Catholic faith, the only true faith.  It’s a matter of your salvation to come a complete rejection of the New Mass, Vatican II and the false Vatican II Church.  It’s also necessary to hold the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation without any exceptions.  Coming to these positions is the most important thing in your life, for no one can be saved without holding the Catholic faith whole and undefiled (Athanasian Creed).  Again, we are truly glad to hear about your interest and you will be in our prayers.  We hope that you review the information. 

 

The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II Audio Program, Part 1, Part 2

Benedict XVI (The Heresies of Benedict XVI File)

John Paul II (manifest heretic who claimed to be pope 1978-2005)

Vatican II - false council

The Invalid New Mass

Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file]

 

There are many other important files.  These are just a few.

 

Thanks

 

Thank you for the order that I received today. It seems that I have my work cut out for me. The breadth of the gift you sent me today cannot be measured; the little bit of money is a poor compensation for the efforts you men have made on behalf of us trying to work out our salvation. I was wondering, perhaps, if you knew someone that is still selling the unabridged version of "Preparation For Death", I lent mine to a friend that was dying of cancer and never saw it again, the friend or the book. Thank you both for the time and encouragement that you have given me. One more favor I ask is that you can remember me in one of your prayers. Once again,

 

Thank you Matthew Rhodes

 

MHFM: We think Tan Books has it.

 

Easter

 

MHFM: What one should take from Easter is power.  The true Catholic faith has power because Jesus Christ has power over all things, including death.

 

Council of Toledo XI, 675: “… He accepted the true death of the body; also on the third day, restored by His own power, He arose from the grave.” (Denz. 286)

 

What must that have been like – only about 200 decades ago – when the apostles (true men who lived just as we are living now in the 21st century) saw Jesus after His Resurrection and were astonished?  They were regular men who had seen Him dead, and now they saw Him alive.  The unimaginable zeal with which this must have filled them can hardly be imagined.  For they had seen – and now knew – the key to all of human existence.  They were actual witnesses of it:

 

Luke 24:46-50- “And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, the third day: And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.  And you are witnesses of these things.  And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high.  And he led them out as far as Bethania: and lifting up his hands, he blessed them.”

 

One can only imagine how much they wanted to share it with everyone.

 

The Feast of the Resurrection reminds us that Jesus Christ is the Truth and that His true faith is reality.  The Resurrection shows us that the true faith has a real supernatural power which we can access at any time.  Jesus’s last days on earth and His Resurrection should truly give us a combination of hope, joy and zeal.  It should make us realize that nothing can stop the true faith.  The Feast of the Resurrection should make us excited to bring the Gospel (the fullness of the Catholic faith) to others. 

 

Interest in Lebanon

 

Hi there,

 

I’m Lebanese Christian Maronite (Catholics of Lebanon), and I’m finding very interesting all the things you are writing in your journal (website).  I agree with you on most of the things, especially when you mention that the power of the people deceiving us is so strong. This is true, because they seem like so much loving people... yes we are in very difficult times where evil is being camouflaged in good theories that people will unconsciously act upon without knowing that these things are bad. Brain washing, sweet-evil propaganda, tougher politics restricting human choice between good or evil, media promoting all kinds of devilish acts, computer banks controlling the world, an atheist new world order being implemented to everyone and everyone should accept it under the image of democracy, and also a swivelling world into chaos of unfinished wars and chaotic persecutions and politically-religious justified human genocides.........

 

It’s a narrow way to heaven.... and it’s a highway to hell... And it’s so difficult for believers of true faith in Jesus Christ to live it 100% because they are being persecuted by body & most specifically by soul... And the only solutions at the end of times, is the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary… let me know of all news and updates… Thanks and best regards,

 

Rock Sfeir

 

Interest in Nigeria

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

 

Compliment of the season! I am writing from Nigeria. I am a young Catholic Priest working in the eastern part of Nigeria. I came across your work and was highly edified. I am working in an area of primary evangelization where people are still trying to grasp the authentic meaning of their Catholic Faith.

 

My purpose of writing you is to know how I can send money to your community so that you can ship some books to me. Mean while I have seen the price of the book in your web site. And that book is: “The Truth about what really happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II”…

 

Sincerely yours in Jesus and Mary.

 

Rev. Fr. Johnbosco

 

Binding and Loosing

 

When Christ gave St Peter the keys of the kingdom he gave the power to bind or loosen
 
When a Pope makes a binding ruling (infallibility -on matters of faith or morals)  its been suggested to me that you are wrong as you suggest a later Pope is not free to change such a ruling and must be bound by it, in which case the power to Loosen has no meaning. Are you saying this? If so how do I answer this argument. If you are being misinterpreted can you clarify whether a later pope has power to change a ruling on matters of faith or morals?? 

 

b…

 

MHFM: No, Vatican I defined that dogma is unchangeable.  It also made specific mention that even a pope cannot give a new doctrine.  So it is heretical to say that a pope or anyone else can change a dogma:

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4, on the true progress of knowledge:
"For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted."

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chap. 4:
"For, the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4, Canon 3:
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

The idea that dogma can change was also condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi as the "evolution of dogma."

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominic Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the doctrine of the Modernists:
"To the laws of evolution everything is subject - dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself, and the penalty of disobedience is death. The enunciation of this principle will not astonish anybody who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects."

Transformation

 

I had an amazing transformation after hearing the information that Bro. Michael Dimond gave in an interview on the radio.  I contacted you and received your information.  I read your book on Vatican II [The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II].  That is a fantastic book.  Thank you.

 

Michael Cotton,

 

Laguna Woods, California

 

Confusion disappeared

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

 

I am so thankful that God led me to your website. I knew things were terribly wrong with the new mass, I used to think John Paul II was such a good pope but I had to ask God ‘Why doesn’t John Paul II fix this mess’ but things just seemed to get worse horrible music, altar girls, communion in hand etc. when I read your website I new I had found the truth and all my confusion disappeared. In addition, when I read about the imposter Sister Lucie I actually got chills but it made perfect sense. In just a few days the information on your website changed my entire perspective on life. Keep up the good work; I will keep you in my prayers.  Also could you explain Lenten practices prior to Vatican II?

 

Sincerely,

Maria

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  In the Traditional Catholic Calendar and Fast Days section of our website we have the traditional rules for Lent and the rest of the year.

 

USA?

 

Dear Brothers,

 

If we claim to be true authentic traditional Catholics, should we then shun being Americans? If you take the fact that this country was founded as a result of rebellion against the Catholic monarchies so as to usher in "personal freedoms and liberties" and at the same time was constructed by the anti-Christian freemasons, you can see why I ask this. I believe that the founders of this country knew they were establishing a new world order right from the get-go and today we see signs all around us that the new world order is alive and thriving and continues to escalate, especially when considering that this country is scheduled to soon merge with Canada and Mexico to become the North American Union.

 

As a traditional Catholic, I'm wondering if I should love and support the country I live in, or rather shun it. Yet there is no other place on earth that holds a true traditional Catholic monarchy is there? So if I'm to not support my country, the USA, and yet continue to live in the USA, then isn't that like "biting the hand that feeds me"? I really would appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

Thanks, and God Bless!

-Josh

 

MHFM: As bad as the spiritual situation in America is, the fact is that it provides a better situation than most countries do for traditional Catholics.  In America, one is (theoretically) able to promote the fullness of the Catholic faith without fear of fines or jail time.  This is not the case in many countries, where offending certain groups can land you in jail.  So this is not to praise America, but rather to acknowledge that it provides a better situation than most countries at this bleak stage of human history. 

 

Pope Leo XIII provided the Catholic outlook on this matter.  In the following encyclical he noted that America affords opportunities that aren’t available in some other countries.  He was quick to point out, however, that the separation of Church and State in America contradicts Catholic teaching:

 

Pope Leo XIII, Longinqua (#6), Jan. 6, 1895: “For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.”

 

New Audio on Papacy – Section C of Part 2

 

Hermas, Victor, Irenaeus and Cyprian - The Early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter's authority - Section C of Part 2 [new 15 min. audio]

 

This section covers the evidence for the Papacy from the second and third centuries.  It covers Hermas, Anicetus and Victor in the Easter Controversy, Irenaeus, Cyprian and the rebaptism controversy.  It shows how, at this early stage of the primitive Christian Church, the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome was recognized.  The primitive Christian Church recognized the unique authority and primacy of the Bishop of Rome because he held the universal jurisdiction which was given by Jesus Christ to St. Peter.

 

This is found permanently in our: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" page.

 

Struck

 

Dear Brothers,
  

We have been visiting your website almost daily since we found it, very well done and Thank You. I was baptized in the Catholic Church when I was less than a year old but that was it, I feel fortunate that I am able to learn the true teachings of the church now. When I read the material on your website I feel as though I am receiving food for my soul and the more I read the more content I feel knowing that I am learning the truth, I have to admit I was following all kinds of heretical teachings mainly because of my ignorance to the Catholic dogmas and my lack of proper understanding in various areas of the Bible. Again we thank you and commend you for your perseverance in spreading the truth.

 

Also I have to tell you how I was originally introduced to Catholicism, because I had no religious training growing up, it was through the apparitions at Bayside in New York. Years later after they ended we went searching one day to see if anything had ever come from them, that is when we found your website, and after having visited a few times and putting two and two together everything started to make sense, we have been struck with awe ever since. We always thought something was wrong with those messages but did not have the true knowledge of Catholicism to know they were false.

 

We also bought your dvd’s and some of your books, when I watched the part about Hell that was enough for me that section made me realize how complacent I had become and how I was following heretical teachings, I am ashamed but also thankful to God that we were lead to your website. Thank you, your work is highly appreciated, never stop.

 

Thank you,

 

Gail Bhimasani

 

Masonic Confirmation

 

I would like to ask a question..on something I saw at a Confirmation ceremony at my church recently.  The church was beautifully decorated all over with lots of banners listing the gifts of the Holy spirit.

 

On one of these banners...was a picture which decribed the words meanings... what bothered me was... under one of these words

was a picture of a pyramid with an open eye in the center.  I always thought that was a Mason sign or am I wrong.?  and what would it be doing in a catholic church ?  As I have seen some of your tapes I thought you'd be the one to ask.

                     

Thank you,

Mrs. d. Smith

 

MHFM: Yes, it sounds very much like the all-seeing eye used in Freemasonry.  That’s why you need to get out of the invalid New Mass.  The Novus Ordo “Confirmation” cannot be considered valid either, as our material shows.

 

Comment

 

Brian's letter which you published under the heading "Scales of Deception" is probably the most mind boggling critique of your work that I've ever seen.  What makes it so amazing to me is the fact that Brian seems to have some foundation in Catholic teaching beyond the superficial "kumbaya" Vatican II one, yet he derives such a ridiculous conclusion.  He actually tries to apply the very sound principle, given to us by the Lord himself, that "by their fruits you shall know them". 

 

But what "fruits" does Brian see?  I quote: "I would suggest the constant emphasis on the punishment of evil doers is a bad fruit."  Huh?  That doesn't even make sense.  What you choose to emphasize (and I don't agree that punishment is an "emphasis" of yours) is a feature or a characteristic of your work, not an effect of your work or a "fruit".  But of course we know that evil will be punished on the authority of Christ!  On the other hand, what are the "fruits" of Vatican II??  How about rampant homosexuality, legalized abortion (do you think that legalized abortion could ever fly in this country in a pre-Vatican II world?), probably a hundred fold increases in divorce, cheap and easy annulments, a total dearth of religious vocations, and every foul scandal imaginable. 

 

On second thought, and I'm just old enough to have a sense of this, let me restate:  These kind of things we've seen in the last couple of decades were not even "imaginable" in a pre-Vatican II world.  Rather than you guys being deceived by Satan as Brian suggests, I suggest to Brian that such obstinate blindness as he exhibits can only be supernatural in origin.      

 

Bill Mulligan

 

Scales of deception

 

To members of the Most Holy Family Monastery,

 

I have just finished reading your web site, which has left me truly saddened and very disturbed. It is obvious you are sincere and convinced you are doing the will of God. Your dedication and enthusiasm for what you perceive to be the truth is magnificent, but sadly, it is the will of the devil that is being carried out on this web site. The evil one has cleverly led everyone astray on here.  The devil is very cunning and is a past master of deception. Change is always unsettling and the changes brought about by Vatican II worried many people. Why were people worried? They lacked trust in God and the Church that had been established by Our Lord himself. Lucifer thrives on people's worries. He takes advantage of the concerns of people and uses them for his own evil purposes. The devil also takes advantage of spiritual pride.  And what are those evil purposes? The destruction of the True Church on this earth, the destruction of the Catholic Church. By allowing yourselves to be deceived into thinking that the present Pope and his predecessors were anti-popes, you are doing the devils work and furthering his ambitions of destroying the Church. This site is doing damage to the truth of God, because you are wrong. The present Pope and Pope John Paul II are not anti-popes, and to think they are, is terribly, terribly wrong.

 

A person's work can always be judged by their fruits. What are the fruits of this web site. I would suggest the constant emphasis on the punishment of evil doers is a bad fruit. There is an almost sadistic pleasure in the wording of what will happen to evil doers. This site gives the impression that it's members will not have to worry about the condemnation and punishment that awaits those "outside the Church". This judgmental and self-righteous stance of yours is in fact the same fruits that are produced by the Protestant doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone. Protestants who hold this misguided belief display self-righteousness and spiritual superiority just as you do. 

 

On this site there is little reference to the Love of God, which is another bad fruit. God does not go round looking for souls to cast into hell. God does not will anyone to hell. It is difficult see any love for humanity that God has for us on this site.  I ardently call on you here, on this site, to turn away from attacking God's True Church on earth and to return to the fold and pledge allegiance and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI. The Church has enough enemies on the outside, which is where you stand at this moment. I will pray that Christ will lift the scales of deception that the devil has placed on your minds and heart.

 

Yours in Christ,

 

Brian.

 

MHFM: What’s interesting about your e-mail is that it reveals how those who are trapped in a spiritual deception, as you are, have become blind to how they are wrong.  You really think you’re right, yet you couldn’t be more wrong.  If you can read the following files and still assert that Vatican II, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are not heretical but Catholic, then there’s really nothing we can do for you except hope and pray for your conversion.  For you are of despicable bad will and totally dishonest.

 

Benedict XVI (The Heresies of Benedict XVI File)

John Paul II (manifest heretic who claimed to be pope 1978-2005)

Vatican II - false council

 

It’s a fact that Benedict XVI and John Paul II are/were complete heretics.  Those files (from our book) prove beyond any doubt that they endorse false religions, sign agreements which deny the Papacy and the Council of Trent, teach that we shouldn’t convert Protestants, teach salvation outside the Church, etc.  In case you didn’t know, all of those things are heresies.  That means that they have taught a new and false religion.  You are following manifest heretics who preach a new and false gospel.  Wake up, for you are a blind heretic.  Wake up to the fact that there have been antipopes, that it has been predicted that there will be a Great Apostasy which will implant a Counter Church in Rome, which will reduce the still-existing true Church to a remnant.

 

Shocked

 

I came upon your web site… I was shocked that you do not believe the words of Jesus when he said  to Peter "You are the rock and upon this rock I will  build my church AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT"  Your website denies the above statement  and makes Jesus words mean nothing!  BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU DENY HIM OR HE WILL DENY YOU! You sound more like a Protestant website except with Latin and incense.

Fernando Gaviria

 

MHFM: We only have a whole talk on the Papacy and Mt. 16: The Bible teaches that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope [51 min. audio].  You should listen to it.  The indefectibility of the Church doesn’t mean what you think it does.  It doesn’t mean that there can never be an antipope in Rome posing as the pope; it has happened.  It doesn’t mean that the Church cannot be reduced to a remnant.  In fact, that’s what’s predicted to happen.  You need to read this file and learn something about Catholic principles: The Glossary of Terms and Principles [PDF].  And then you should look at this file and see how Benedict XVI denies the Papacy:  The Heresies of Benedict XVI [PDF file].  That’s precisely why he’s not the pope.  Benedict XVI and John Paul II have agreed with the Protestants on Justification:  The Vatican II sect's Protestant Revolution: the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification [PDF File].  Wake up!

 

Thoughts on Mass attendance

 

March 18, 2008 – Why the position that “all traditional Masses which recognize the antipope are absolutely off limits” renders the New Mass pointless or drastically less significant than Jesus indicates

 

MHFM: There are those out there who say that no priest at all who recognizes Antipope Benedict XVI as the pope can lawfully be approached for Communion or Mass.  In addition to all of the points we’ve made in our file about this issue, here’s a thought which we believe further shows that such a position doesn’t add up.  This is not a strict argument, but more something to consider: If it were mortally sinful or heretical for anyone to approach any priest who is praying in communion with a heretical antipope, why did the Devil push for the implementation of a New Mass at all? 

 

Jesus makes it clear that the “abomination of desolation” in the “holy place” (Mt. 24:15) is a major feature of the end times.  It’s a major part of the spiritual deception which leads many astray.  Many believe that this “abomination of desolation” is the New Mass.  But no one can deny that the New Mass/the Liturgical Revolution has been a major feature of the Devil’s plan – one of the biggest.  So why would the Devil have pushed for a New Mass at all, if all the people were going to be damned anyway at all the traditional Masses for praying in communion with an antipope?  If they were all falling – or would have fallen – into mortal sin, heresy, etc. for staying at a traditional Mass where the antipope is mentioned, then implementing the New Mass would only serve to alert more people to the heresies of Vatican II and the true character of the antipopes.  In that case, a New Mass wouldn’t benefit the Devil at all.  It would only make his heretical sect and heretical antipopes easier to identify as revolutionary.

 

The truth is that the Devil obviously pushed for the implementation of a new and invalid “Mass” because he recognized that it had real effects of depriving souls of salvation.  The Devil didn’t want the traditional Mass, even at the churches where the antipopes were accepted.  He didn’t want it even at the places where the antipope is accepted because he recognized that certain people, who hold the fullness of the faith and are uncompromising about it, could be, have been and still are (in certain cases) led to salvation by the true Eucharist and true Mass at certain places where the antipope is accepted (if they don’t accept his heresies or support them).  The Devil, through Antipope Benedict XVI, has only endeavored to return the traditional Mass in a limited away at this very late stage of the apostasy because he knows that almost all of the “priests” who would be using Antipope Benedict XVI’s allowance are invalid anyway and/or notoriously heretical.  But through the great bulk of the Great Apostasy, he made sure that the traditional Mass was almost nowhere to be found at even those places where his antipope was accepted.

 

Again, we emphasize that this is not to say that one can go to all traditional Masses where the priest accepts Benedict XVI.  Many of them should not be attended, as explained in our file.  It is merely to show how far removed from the world of true wisdom is the position that it’s a mortal sin to go to any traditional Mass where the priest recognizes Antipope Benedict XVI.  This has been added to this file: The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times.

 

Mt. 25, Fatima prayer

 

To Most Holy Family Monastery

I would like to hear your comment on Mt.cap.25 v.31-46.  Also about the Fatima prayer: "My Jesus foregive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have the most need of thy mercy." It is the the word ALL I think about.

Yours sincerely

Joergen Belling
Denmark

 

MHFM: Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that Matthew 25:41 (the very area you ask about) is quoted in this dogmatic definition.

 

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 [Matthew 25:41], unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

So any idea that Jesus is saying in that passage that those who are good to their neighbors can be saved without the Catholic faith would be a false and heretical interpretation.  We believe that what it means is that in most cases people are damned for things they do in their everyday dealings with other people.  They demonstrate a lack of charity, honesty and good will in natural dealings, etc.  That – in addition to sins of the flesh - is what keeps the bulk of mankind from getting interested in the Catholic faith or practicing it.

 

Concerning the Fatima prayer question, the correct version of the Fatima prayer is given by William Thomas Walsh in Our Lady of Fatima:

 

“O my Jesus, pardon us and save us from the fire of Hell; draw all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need.” 

 

Some people have a problem with the “all” part, as if it indicates something heretical.  We don’t.  St. Paul makes it clear that prayer can be made for “all” men in the very context in which he says that God wants “all” to be saved. 

 

1 Timothy 2:1-5- “I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity.  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

 

So there is nothing at all wrong with that Fatima prayer, contrary to what some have said.  This is true even though not all, but very few, are in fact saved (Mt. 7:13).

 

New entry in file on receiving sacraments from non-sedevacantists

 

MHFM: There is a new entry in the following section of our website. Note: this section of our website deals with finer points and issues which concern those who are more familiar with the traditional faith.  Those who are new to the traditional Catholic faith might not find delving into these questions beneficial at this time; for this file concerns the specific target audience who are concerned with this specific question. These individuals hold that there is nowhere to receive Communion or attend Mass today because essentially all the priests hold heretical positions.  This file is found permanently in the “Where to Attend Mass” section of our website.  It will be updated on occasion, when time permits and additional points come up.

 

The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times

*refuting schismatic views in this area

 

The new entry concerns another quote from St. Thomas Aquinas.  This quote further proves our position that it’s not always against the divine law to attend the Mass of, or receive sacraments from, a priest you recognize to be a heretic.  This quote further demonstrates that our position on Mass attendance is the Catholic one.  It refutes the claims of certain schismatics.

 

Protestants

 

I am a little confused.  You say on your website that there is only salvation through the Catholic church???  The bible states that you are saved “through faith in Jesus Christ” not faith in cathalosism or the Pope?  How can you even make that statement?  I can even understand the fundamentalist Protestant position that Catholics can’t be saved because they pray to saints and Mary and the issue of idolatry.  I do not really agree with this but that makes more sense than the idea that a protestant cannot be saved because they do not go to a catholic church.  Let me know you stance on this!!!!!!!!!

 

Ian

 

MHFM: Protestants cannot be saved.  They are not true bible-believing Christians, as we prove in this file: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" Audio Programs.  They reject the one Church which Christ established.  The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that all who die as heretics go to Hell.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

We hope you review the information in that file on Protestantism.  It always puzzles us why so many who claim to believe in Jesus aren’t immediately inclined to accept the Catholic faith, but fight it or are inclined to some other denomination.  Come on, besides all of the other biblical truths which Protestants reject (i.e. the Papacy, the Eucharist, etc.) – which are so clear in Scripture (Mt. 16, Jn. 6, etc.) – a person should immediately connect with the fact that the Catholic Church was the only original and visible Church from the time of Christ.  Protestantism didn’t come along until the 16th century.  That alone should cause a person to immediately see that the Catholic Church is the true one and that the other “Churches” are false.  If it doesn’t, then there is a problem with bad will.

 

Baptism again?

 

Greetings,

 

I have been brought up a Roman Catholic, however I have been concerned about the Vatican 2 and its teachings. after reading a lot of the topics on this site, I want to convert to the traditional Vatican 1. I read the section about baptism. I was already baptized in 1977 when I was born. This was after Vatican 2 was instated. I have mortal and venial sins on my soul and my question is if I am baptized again in the Catholic Traditional faith, will both my mortal and venial sins be absolved? If you could get back to me as soon as possible this would greatly be appreciated. The other question I have is that there are no Catholic churches around me that follow Vatican 1. I live in Westchester IL. If you know of any in the Chicago land area please let me know also. Thank you for your time.

 

Sincerely,

E.

 

MHFM:  Thanks for the e-mail.  Baptism does remit all venial and mortal sins, but you cannot be baptized again if you've been validly baptized.  When there is a doubt if one has been baptized, then a conditional baptism can be done.  The form of conditional baptism is on our website.  Since you have already been baptized, you would have to be forgiven in a confession.  You would need to make a general confession of all your mortal sins that have not been confessed to valid priests, once you are totally convinced of all points relating to the traditional Catholic faith. 

 

South Africa

 

Dear Brethren

 

Would you possibly know of a validly ordained priest in my area – Thohoyandou, Limpopo province, South Africa. I have not attended a new mass in 20 years, as those priests I am aware of, all celebrate Pope John Paul ii as a saint – I am constantly told to heed other religions as benevolent and to express tolerance and comradelyness  towards such. All these religious practises deny the first commandment.

 

Thank you kindly.

Charlene M.choate.

 

MHFM: We don’t have specific information on any in that area.  So we would recommend applying the guidelines we have in the “Where to Go to Mass” section of our website.  Perhaps you can find a priest who has been validly ordained in the Eastern Rite (Uniate not “Orthodox) who is not a notorious or imposing heretic.  If not, then you would just have to stay home.  But at least you could go to confession, if you could find an old priest who was ordained before 1968 (and thus in the traditional rite of ordination).  As long as he says “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” it would be valid.

 

Better not to

 

Hello,

 

I was hoping you could give me some advice.  I've been really upset about the Vatican I, Vatican II issue.  I was born in 1965 when Vatican II first came into play and was brought up that way.  Not knowing any differently, I went along with it.  For the past few years, however,  it's been haunting me that I'm going down the wrong road.  That I should practice my faith the way Vatican I did.  The church we attend is Vatican II, i.e., female alter girls, other people giving out Holy Communion, not kneeling when we receive Holy Communion, etc, etc.  I read somewhere on the internet that it is better NOT to attend these masses that are worshipping this way.  Is that true?  Sometimes I feel Something is better than Nothing, however, it  really bothers me to see what is going on and that I'm attending it.  Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you so much.

 

Karen  

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  The New Mass is invalid, as we prove here: The Liturgical Revolution: A New Mass  [PDF File].  That means that Jesus Christ is not present there.  The Catholic Church teaches that it’s a mortal sin to approach doubtful or invalid sacraments.  In addition, even if the New Mass were valid (which it isn’t), one still couldn’t go.  This is because it’s essentially a Protestant and sacrilegious service.  So it’s without question better not to attend it.  One must not attend it if one wants to be saved.  There is no obligation to attend Mass if the Church doesn’t provide you with an acceptable option in your area.  Once you’re convinced of all of these points, we can help you with options for places where you might be able to receive sacraments.

 

Some Recent Testimonials

 

Thank you for all your efforts.  We have learned much of great value.

 

Mr. and Mrs. Timura

Necedah, WI

----

Thanks for the insights, remarkable work.

 

Allen Metzger

-----

I can now say I’ve found what I’ve been looking for since the 1960’s.  Thank you for the endless hours spent trying to save one soul at a time.  God bless you.

 

Thomas Miles,

Pinehurst, NC

-----

Thank you very much for your website.  I finally found a website where I can learn about the New Mass and the traditional Mass.

 

J. Vergara,

Montrose, CA

 

Likes Justification audio

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery:

 

Thank you for the work you do in His name.  I received Brother Peter Dimond’s tape on Justification.  To say my family merely enjoyed his presentation would be an understatement.  I used the tape to augment our study of Catholic dogma for my family during Lent.  My son who is eighteen and has attended Catholic religious instructions at the local Catholic church that we formerly attended made the comment that he learned more about Catholic beliefs from this presentation than in his entire time in any Catholic instruction group.  I have passed on the tape to help enlighten others.  I first pray that I can reach more people with the truth… I have appreciated all of your presentations and found them enlightening.  God bless you and may the Lord Jesus continue to inspire your work.

 

Sincerely,

Mary Marceau-Hawthorne,

Macedon, NY

 

Today’s mail

 

MHFM: This is a picture of some of the outgoing orders that were shipped on Friday.  64 orders were shipped.

We post this picture to show that, despite the darkness of our world, there are many people who are still coming to, interested in and practicing the traditional Catholic faith.  New people are finding out about the traditional Catholic faith every day.

 

Baptism of Desire

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

your otherwise commendable website is seriously marred by your misunderstanding of baptism of desire.

Consider this: Is baptism of desire the same thing as desire of baptism?

I look forward to your reply.

 

MHFM: No, you don’t understand.  The Catholic Church teaches that there is only one baptism of water. 

 

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:  “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

 

The Catholic Church also teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  It teaches that the words of Christ in John 3:5 are to be understood literally, as they are written.  Baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. 

 

As far as providing you with a definition of the false theory of “baptism of desire”, that would depend of course on which baptism of desire advocate you ask.  That’s a good question for baptism of desire advocates:  Can you please tell me exactly what baptism of desire means (a definition), what its limits are, and in what text this definition for it is found?  If “baptism of desire” is a teaching of the Church which Catholics must believe, then surely providing a definition for what this binding “teaching” says shouldn’t be a problem.   

 

But since the so-called “baptism of desire” has never been taught or defined by the Magisterium, there is no definition of it.  If you ask 10 different people, you would get 10 (at least slightly) different responses.  9 out of 10, however, would give a definition which would allow for salvation of individuals who don’t even know of Jesus Christ or desire baptism. 

 

You need to read our book on this issue: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].  It answers all the objections, and it presents the facts which refute baptism of desire:

 

For instance: in Section 33 of the aforementioned book, we summarize the following arguments which baptism of desire advocates cannot refute.  These arguments disprove baptism of desire.  Keep in mind that the book answers and refutes every single major argument they bring up, while baptism of desire advocates don’t ever address these arguments from the infallible teaching of the Church.  They don’t address them because they cannot refute them:

 

The following twelve arguments from the infallible teaching of the Chair of St. Peter (besides others) have been presented in this document.  Every single one of the following points is a divinely revealed truth of Faith (a dogma), not a fallible opinion of some theologian.  These points refute the idea of baptism of desire.  The baptism of desire advocates do not and cannot answer these arguments from the infallible teaching of the Church:

 

1) The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (de fide, Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5). [Everyone admits that baptism of desire is not a sacrament.]

2) Unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot enter heaven (de fide, Florence, Exultate Deo).

3) The Church understands John 3:5 literally every time, as it is written (de fide, Trent Sess. 6, Chap. 4), and with no exceptions (de fide, Florence: Denz 696; and Trent: Denz. 791, 858, 861).

4) The Spirit of Sanctification, the Water of Baptism and the Blood of Redemption are inseparable (de fide, Pope St. Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon).

5) All Catholics must profess only one baptism of water (de fide, Clement V, Council of Vienne).

6) There is absolutely no salvation outside the one Church of the faithful (de fide, Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council), which only includes the water baptized.

7) Every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved (de fide, Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam), and it is impossible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide, Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2).

8) One must belong to the Body of the Church to be saved (de fide, Eugene IV and Pius XI), and only the water baptized belong to the Body of the Church.

9) Pope Benedict XII solemnly defined that all martyrs, virgins, confessors, faithful, etc. in Heaven have been baptized (Benedictus Deus, 1336, ex cathedra).

10) The Church is defined as a union of sacraments (de fide, Eugene IV, Cantate Domino; Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam), which means that only those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism can be inside the unity of the Church.

11) All true Justification meets up with the Sacraments (Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Foreword to the Decree on the Sacraments).

12) The Sacraments as such are necessary for salvation though all are not necessary for each individual (de fide, Profession of Faith at Trent and Vatican I; and the Profession of Faith for converts), which means that one must at least receive one sacrament (Baptism) to be saved, but one doesn’t need to receive them all.

 

There is no doubt what the true position is.  However, we say this for those out there who might be struggling with this issue.

 

In light of all this evidence, why would anyone fight for salvation without baptism?  Why would you fight for a “theory” which – at the very least, you must admit – cannot be proven from the infallible teaching of the Church?  Why would you fight for it when all of these things from the dogmatic teaching of the Church militate against the idea of anyone being saved without the Sacrament of Baptism?  Why would you fight for salvation outside of baptism, when there are so many facts (see above) which – at the very least in your mind – you cannot explain how they are compatible with a “baptism of desire”?  (Again, Baptism of desire means salvation outside the sacraments and we have all of these statements from the infallible teaching of the Church on the necessity of being within the sacraments). 

 

In light of all the evidence against baptism of desire from the infallible teaching of the Church, one can see why we say that to fight for it in the face of these facts is simply to demonstrate bad will.  That’s why we say that those who have seen all of this evidence and still say that there is baptism of desire (i.e. that there is salvation without baptism and thus without subjection to the Roman Pontiff, being incorporated into the “faithful,” etc.) are of bad will.  And in almost 100% of cases, they fight for it simply because they believe it applies to pagans, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc.

 

Also, there are many heretics out there who consistently misquote Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent.  They obstinately use the “except through” false translation instead of “without” (sine).  If they have been made aware of this point, as many of them have by our material, then they commit mortal sin every time they use this false translation.  They also ignore, of course, the fact that the same passage teaches that John 3:5 is to be understood “as it is written,” as our book explains.  This shows that our understanding of this passage is correct.

 

Not sins anymore

 

I just received a free copy of the March, 2008 Homiletic and Pastoral Review, one of the better V2 “Catholic” magazines I once subscribed to.  Unfortunately they also seem to have embraced the V2 theology where the idea of sin and its consequences has been virtually eliminated. The purpose of the Catholic church is salvation of the soul. The purpose of the V2 church is social justice and making better lives for ourselves. This can be done very well in any Protestant church. They are clearly two different churches and this is just one more bit of proof of that fact.

 

The article is titled: A Catholic physician talks to engaged couples by William G. White: “As a physician, I don‘t call them [use of various contraceptives to avoid children] sins; I call them unhealthful practices. I might even justifiably call them poisons. Whether or not they lead to hell in eternity, they can certainly lead to hell on earth. By driving a wedge between husband and wife…. “When he [God] says “Thou shalt not,” he is not trying to take all the fun out of life. He is trying to save us from actions that will harm us, that will distort our natures, that will inevitably make us profoundly unhappy.”

 

pm

 

MHFM: That’s very interesting.

 

Reader against Boxing

 

[To MHFM]

 

That was an excellent response to the gentleman who defended professional boxing.  I just thought I would add something in here.  I was in the Marines from 1996 to 2000.  One of the first things in our training is combat hitting skills (which is essentially boxing).  About a month after I finished Recruit Training on Parris Island, I heard of a recruit who was killed in combat hitting skills.  All the protective gear is used for that training event, namely, gloves, headgear, mouth guard (to keep teeth from being knocked out), groin guard (against low blows), etc.  Even with all of that, a recruit was still killed!  The Marine Corps cancelled combat hitting skills immediately afterward.  That should be a convincer that boxing is a potentially deadly sport.  Take care, and God bless.

 

In the Suffering Christ,

Michael McBee

 

Reader defends Boxing

 

I’m inclined to disagree with your take on boxing.  Catholics were never called to be pacifists, and the occasional necessity of a justifiable use of force has been acknowledged.  That being the case, it would also seem acceptable for men to be practiced in such skills, which might also include marksmanship, fencing, and wrestling.  Competition is a practical, sometimes the only way, of developing such skills.  Organized boxing is designed to minimize the threat of injury to the participants.  Participants must wear padded gloves, mouth pieces, are matched by weight, and a referee is charged with protecting anyone in serious trouble.  Although I understand this is off point, as a practical matter, I think there are actually more football related fatalities and serious injuries (although probably due to the vastly greater number of participants) than result from boxing.   A good boxer must have courage, discipline, and fortitude.  I therefore don’t see that it is intrinsically evil, though of course anything can be abused.  The goal after all is not to truly harm the opponent, though he maybe temporarily incapacitated (as in a way is a long distance runner at the end of say a marathon). Firearms are actually meant to kill people.  Does this make pistol shooting competitions (at targets of course) also wrong?   How about fencing?      

 

William

 

MHFM:  Having played all kinds of competitive sports, anyone who knows us knows that we’re all in favor of the toughness which sports can help provide.  In fact, one of the major problems today with almost all clerics is they lack the toughness to stand up to evildoers; to fight against heresy; to take on and attack and denounce (when necessary) those who would deny the faith; to completely disregard what people will say about them or do to them when they stand for the cause of God.  Since so many priests and alleged teachers of Catholicism today demonstrate such a cowardly attitude in standing up for the truth, one must say that perhaps if they had played sports they might be tougher in standing for the truth and more willing to offend and alienate people when it becomes necessary.  No, Catholics are not pacifists.  However, as much as one might like the aspects of courage and toughness that Boxing might demonstrate, it cannot be defended as an acceptable sport.  A “sport” where the basic concept is to beat the other person up is immoral. 

 

All three of the examples you provide miss the point.  You bring up “the occasional use of justifiable force.”  Obviously that has nothing to do with Pro Boxing.  Pro Boxing as a sport is not an “occasional use of justifiable force,” as in war or self-defense.  It’s engaging in combat – trying to harm another – for sport, gain and fame.  That’s immoral. 

 

The other example you bring up is practicing such skills for the occasional use of justifiable force.  This also has nothing to do with Pro Boxing.  Last time we checked there weren’t any pro boxers being shipped to a foreign country to use their right hooks to attack hostile enemies.  Pro Boxing as a sport has nothing to do with preparation for military conflict or practicing such skills for a justifiable use of force.  

 

If people in military training are sparring in a controlled environment, in actual preparation for war or hand to hand combat they might encounter in the next military conflict, that’s an entirely different matter from Pro Boxing as a sport.  That kind of sparring as training would be acceptable, since it would be in preparation for a presumably just cause.  Moreover, it would certainly be accompanied by all the precautions to make such necessary training as safe as possible.  But in Pro Boxing they don’t even have headgear.  Most importantly, as stated above, it’s simply trying to harm another for sport, gain or fame, which is immoral.

 

Your final example, which involves shooting pistols at competitions, also fails.  Shooting firearms into targets doesn’t injure anyone, nor is it intended to do so.  Thus, it’s not comparable to Pro Boxing at all.

 

Nearly convinced

 

Hi,

 

I wanted you to know I am nearly convinced and very sad about the whole new mass.  I have put the John Paul books in the garbage and also Sister Faustina's book.  Everything you said was right there in print.  I have ordered the DVD.  What about the body and blood of Christ?  Is'nt that what Jesus said we must do, recieve it, I mean. Thanks for answering my E-mail.

 

Betty

 

MHFM: We’re glad you’re nearly convinced and that you saw the facts about Sister Faustina’s book.  John Paul II’s books are worth about as much as garbage, except to expose his heresies.  Before finding a place to receive sacraments, if there is one for you, you have to be totally convinced on all the issues.  That includes being committed to never attend the New Mass again.

 

Pro Boxing

 

First Question  (Is Pro Boxing/MMA immoral) I would like to know if the Catholic Church considers pro boxing or Mixed Martial Arts immmoral (UFC/Pride/K-1). Would it constitute a mortal sin to participate in or watch pro boxing/MMA? If it is immoral why didn't the Pre Vatican 2 Church condemn pro boxing especially since many catholics have participated in it and watched it? If a Catholic made money off pro boxing/MMA from participating in it or promoting it would he be obliged to give the money
to charity?


                                                                   -Serge

 

MHFM: As opposed to other acceptable sports (e.g. Football, Basketball, Baseball), we believe that Pro Boxing is not an acceptable sport.  Pro Boxing is immoral because the goal of the sport is to harm and/or incapacitate the opponent.  In Boxing a person is awarded victory if he knocks his opponent unconscious.  This is immoral. 

 

Pope Leo XIII, Pastoralis Officii (#1), Sept. 12, 1891: “Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause, to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self-defense.”

 

Whereas in Football – a physical sport which will rarely result in someone being knocked out – the goal is to bring the opponent to the ground and get the ball into the end zone.  In Football one is not awarded victory or points for knocking the opponent out.  That’s why it’s not immoral, but Pro Boxing is.  Thus, a person should not watch Pro Boxing.  Ultimate Fighting is simply evil.  We don’t know much about Professional Mixed Martial Arts.  If it’s similar to the others, then it would likewise be immoral.  A person shouldn’t watch any of these immoral sports (Boxing, Ultimate Fighting, etc.).  If a person made money in Pro Boxing he should (after taking care of his personal needs) confess his involvement in it and use the money for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.  This would be done in these days by supporting only that which is 100% Catholic, not by supporting any heretical groups.

 

It should also be noted that the quote above is from Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Pastoralis Officii.  This is an encyclical which condemns the practice of dueling as mortally sinful.  (Dueling was obviously more common in those days.)  While the analogy wouldn’t be exact, we believe that an analogy can be drawn between the immorality of dueling and the immorality of Pro Boxing. 

 

2 or 3 in the midst of them

 

When Christ says whoever is gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of you, are you saying he only means True catholics?

 

b…

 

MHFM: Yes, He does.  That’s why it says the following in Matthew 18:17, which is just three verses before the one you reference (Matthew 18:20):

 

Matthew 18:17- “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

 

The Church which one must hear is the only Church He founded: the Catholic Church.  Therefore, one cannot truly gather “in His name” unless one has the Catholic faith.

 

False traditionalist heretics on Benedict XVI and Luther

 

MHFM: False traditionalists and defenders of the Vatican II sect have scoffed at the recent report that Benedict XVI is planning on rehabilitating Martin Luther.  It’s interesting that almost none of them even linked to the story until after they thought they had a response to it.  Their response simply dismisses the veracity of the report and proves nothing.  They essentially call it ridiculous.  However, when they assert that the notion that Benedict XVI will rehabilitate Luther is ridiculous, they only further display their ridiculous blindness.  Benedict XVI and John Paul II have both already agreed that Luther’s main heresy (Justification by faith alone) is no longer a heresy at all, as we prove in this file:

 

The Vatican II sect's Protestant Revolution: the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification [PDF File]

 

Benedict XVI himself has also stated that Protestantism is not even heresy.

 

Benedict XVI, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one.  Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East).  It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value.  Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way.  This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian.  In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy.  Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy.  The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one.  Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic.  This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole.  The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”[6]

 

Further, as we prove in our file The Heresies of Benedict XVI [PDF file]: At Vatican II, Benedict XVI even complained that the document Gaudium et Spes relied too much on Teilhard de Chardin and not enough on Martin Luther.[7]  Benedict XVI is also credited with saving the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, which declared that Luther’s heresy of Justification by faith alone (and many others) are somehow no longer condemned by the Council of Trent. 

                                                      

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 263: “That which in Luther makes all else bearable because of the greatness of his spiritual fervor…”

 

Yes, it’s so ridiculous to think that Benedict XVI would rehabilitate Luther, isn’t it?  No, it’s the logical culmination of all of the above.  What’s ridiculous and outrageous is that these compromising false traditionalist heretics actually think that they’re Catholic, while they eat up the weekly plate of apostasy which Antipope Benedict XVI offers them.  They eat up his weekly apostasy because it’s mixed in with the spice of occasionally conservative comments.  The one consolation which those who thirst for justice can have is that compromising heretics such as this, who defend Antipope Benedict XVI and belittle or ignore all the consequences of his undeniable and well-documented heresies, won’t get away with their bad will before the Judgment Seat of Christ.

 

Flashback: Baptism of Desire advocates totally refuted

 

MHFM: About a year back we posted this important article.  It obliterates many of the most popular arguments made by baptism of desire advocates and it vindicates the position we have enunciated on the issue.  We direct people to it again, with some additional comments, because the obstinate heretics who defend baptism of desire/salvation for non-Catholics have generally ignored the fact that the most popular claims they like to make about baptism of desire have been totally refuted by the facts in this article.

 

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

 

For instance, among the many false claims made by baptism of desire advocates, the one that baptism of desire advocates like perhaps more than any other is this: baptism of desire must be the teaching of the Church because St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, said it was de fide.  J.L. put it this way:

 

J.L. “It is one thing to say that a Doctor might have erred (and who would wish to make such a claim???) - it is another thing entirely to say that all theologians for hundreds of years erred without correction, and that a Doctor of the Church labeled that error as de fide!!!  The former is merely absurd - or at least, usually so; the latter is an assault on the Church herself…”

 

The article above shows that J.L. doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about.  The article proves that St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, held that the geocentric view of the universe is de fide and that St. Robert’s position was later contradicted by Pope Benedict XV.  Since the baptism of desire advocates have been completely refuted by this article – yet have ignored the fact that they have been refuted and have continued to promote the same lies – we post this summary of points from the article.  We post it here to put them to shame once again.  It demonstrates, for anyone who might question it, that our position on the baptism of desire issue and related issues is totally consistent and that the primary claims of baptism of desire advocates are false.

 

IMPORTANT CONCLUDING SUMMARY OF POINTS

 

In favor that geocentrism is binding         Against that it’s binding

1616- eleven theologians of the Holy Office condemn heliocentrism with tacit approval of Pope Paul V

 

-St. Robert Bellarmine transmits this decision to Galileo and considers it binding; he considers geocentrism to be de fide

 

- The Cong. of the Index published a Decree forbidding all works favoring heliocentrism

 

1633- The Holy Office considers Galileo suspect of heresy for favoring heliocentrism; he is required to make an abjuration which indicates that heliocentrism is heretical and that geocentrism is de fide; this is done with approval from Pope Urban VIII

 

1664-1665- Pope Alexander VII promulgates an Index on his own authority forbidding all works which contradict geocentrism

 

1757- Pope Benedict XIV suspends Decrees of the Congregation of the Index against Heliocentric works

 

1822- With approval of Pope Pius VII, the Holy Office decides that books on movement of Earth could be printed at Rome

 

1921- Pope Benedict XV explicitly states that the Earth might not be the center of the universe in In Praeclara Summorum

 

-All popes from 1757 to 1958 at least tacitly agree that heliocentrism or a non-geocentric view of the universe may be held

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe I have shown that the acts against the denial of geocentrism are not infallible.  In conclusion I would like to emphasize that this case sheds much light on the parameters of Church infallibility.  In fact, it has ramifications for so many issues that it would be very difficult to include them all in this article.  The facts on this issue obliterate popular arguments in favor of baptism of desire.  In addition, these facts have major significance in refuting arguments in favor of Natural Family Planning, that Mary is the Co-Redeemer, that saints couldn’t be mistaken in good faith about the dogmatic status of truths without being heretics or schismatics, etc.  Allow me to summarize:

 

The argument that baptism of desire must be true because St. Alphonsus (Doctor of the Church) thought that baptism of desire is de fide has been totally refuted.  St. Robert Bellarmine thought that geocentrism is de fide and he was contradicted by numerous popes.

 

The argument that to deny baptism of desire is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church because Fr. Feeney was denounced in a 1949 letter of two members of the Holy Office, has been obliterated.  It has been shown that in 1616 eleven theologians of the Holy Office denounced heliocentrism and in a 1633 abjuration composed by the Holy Office geocentrism was declared to be de fide and the denial of it heretical.  Both of these acts were contradicted by later popes.

 

The similar but different argument that the absolute necessity of water baptism could not have been solemnly defined by Pope St. Leo the Great or the Councils of Florence and Trent because then St. Alphonsus would have been a heretic has also been refuted.  I will quote baptism of desire advocate J.D. who unwittingly proves the point:  “… if heliocentrism has been infallibly condemned by the Holy See, there has never been any point in the history of the Church when this has been universally recognised to be the case and nearly four centuries have now passed during which hardly any Catholic has correctly realised the true theological status of heliocentrism.”  What he didn’t add is that 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, 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.

 

The argument that baptism of desire or salvation for “the invincibly ignorant” couldn’t be heretical because numerous popes (especially starting in the late 1800’s) allowed these ideas to be circulated and spread in fallible sources (catechisms, theology manuals, etc.) without condemning them has been totally refuted.  As the table above shows, numerous popes disallowed the circulation of heliocentrism for reasons of faith, and then just as many allowed it.  Thus, the fact that popes such as Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X reigned when clear heresies against the salvation dogma were taught in many catechisms, theology manuals, etc. proves absolutely nothing.

 

The argument brought forward by Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI, the vigorous defender of “natural” birth control, that Natural Family Planning or the rhythm method must be acceptable because it was taught in speeches by Pope Pius XII, and even by members of the Holy Office in response to queries as far back as the 1880’s, has been totally refuted.  Just as the numerous decisions made by members of the Holy Office in the Galileo affair did not settle that case and were completely contradicted by Pope Benedict XV, the decisions and statements from members of the Holy Office and Pius XII on NFP were not infallible and contradict the more solemn teaching of Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii.  Further, Benedict XV’s statement that the Earth might not be the center of the universe in an encyclical is more formal than the speeches in which Pius XII taught NFP and baptism of desire.  Yet, the position enunciated by Pope Benedict XV in his 1921 encyclical was not held by Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII, who gave their approval to the opposite position.

 

The argument that it cannot be contrary to dogma to say that Mary is our Co-Redemptrix because Pope Leo XIII and one or two other popes called her such in non-infallible statements has been refuted.  The above facts show that numerous popes held that geocentrism was a settled issue of faith, while numerous other popes did not.  Thus, our position that one should not call Our Lady “Co-Redemptrix” because the Councils of Trent (Denz. 984-987) and Florence (Denz. 711) specifically declare that Jesus Christ alone is our Redeemer is perfectly theologically sound from the standpoint of papal evidence and the fact that popes can, in their fallible capacities, fail to recognize this.

 

These facts provide a striking vindication to the approach to these issues which we have enunciated at Most Holy Family Monastery.  This approach sticks uncompromisingly to the infallible definitions of the Catholic Church and their definitions “as once declared” (Vatican I, Denz. 1800), even if numerous statements from esteemed fallible authorities or popes in fallible capacities contradict them.  This information not only vindicates our position, but illustrates in a powerful way that the pernicious heretics [many of them named in the article] who have misled many people based on their pseudo-intellectual appearance of fidelity to the Church by arguments from theologians, from St. Alphonsus, from the condemnation of Fr. Feeney, and their disregard for arguments from dogmatic definitions, have been completely refuted and proven wrong.

 

Audio thoughts and Benedict XVI and Luther

 

Martin Luther's outrageous attacks on the Catholic faith, in light of Antipope Benedict XVI's plans to rehabilitate the heretic [5 min. audio] Martin Luther, the notorious Protestant heretic, said that the Papacy was “founded by the Devil.”  Hear more outrageous statements (which you probably haven’t heard before) from the man whom Antipope Benedict XVI wants to rehabilitate.

 

This will be found permanently in our: Traditional Catholic Audio Programs file.

 

Atheist is a fan of John Paul II

 

You people are what's wrong with the world.I'm an Atheist and a Pansexual and I have friends of all religions including those you deem "heretical" and we all coexist peacefuly with respect,although I am Atheist I respect Pope John Paul II not because he was a religious leader but because he was a good man who respected all life and all faiths you people have no right to call him a "heretic".And abortion is a womans right and is entirely a womans choice some women can't afford to take care of a child and would rather get an abortion then make a child suffer starvation and poverty.Gays aren't evil or possesed nor are they gay because of a psychological problem they are some of the nicest people on this planet.You people don't belong in the modern world with your outdated mindset.Now please go back to the dark ages and help the inquisitors torture innocent non-catholics i'm sure you would enjoy it

Dee

 

MHFM: When people like you are fans of John Paul II, it proves our whole point about the apostate antipope.  His message was one of acceptance of falsehood, sin and evil.  He provided an empty message which rejects the Catholic faith, leads people to Hell and confirms non-Catholics like yourself on their false paths.

 

Narrow/loose interpretation of EENS

 

Just exactly what is a narrow interpretation?  And since when is extra ecclesiam nulla salus "a notion"?

 

“Just one year previous, during the course of one of his regular Thursday evening lectures, Fr. Feeney gave a talk on the notion that "outside the Church there is no salvation." A young Protestant woman in attendance was so shocked by what she heard she contacted another Jesuit, who then notified the Jesuit Provincial, Fr. John J. McEleney, S.J., who registered "serious concern" about Fr. Feeney and his narrow interpretation of <extra ecclesiam nulla salus>. --Michael J. Mazza, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus: Father Feeney Makes a Comeback, Fidelity Magazine

 

MHFM: There is no strict or loose interpretation.  There is what the Church has once declared.  And that is that all who die without the Catholic faith are lost. 

 

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

Heretics who believe in salvation outside the Church like to call adherence to what the Church has once declared a “narrow” or a “strict” interpretation of the dogma.  They do this specifically because that creates the false impression that their rejection of what the dogma actually says is somehow a legitimate or true interpretation of it.  It’s a total lie.  They simply reject the dogma as it has been declared.  Thus, they lie when they say they hold it in the “proper interpretation.”  That’s just a ploy to cover up their denial of the dogma.  They know that the dogma has been declared by the Church, so they know they must come up with a way to make their rejection of it appear as somehow in conformity with the idea they reject.  And that’s how they do it.

 

What about this Mass?

 

Pax et Bonum...

I was enlightened by your website and i already found it that there was something wrong in the Catholic Church now after Vatican II... i was so sad  about the novus ordo... like the way Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated... im also a devotee of Saint Philomena, i am also sad that her Name was strike from the calendar of Saints after Vatican II... im from the City of Iligan here in the Philippines where majority of our city's population are Catholics... Tabernacles here are transfered from the center to right side of the Churches here instead of the Eucharist must be the center.

i have a question, because your site discourages attending Novus Ordo Mass... I have attended Latin Mass (Gregorian) not Tridentine before here, concelebrated by the Holy Spirit Priests(Spiritans), but  sad to say, they don't celebrated it anymore... is it ok for me to attend the kind of Mass??? it seems that it is much more solemn than the Mass spoken in Vernacular...

how can i practice Traditional Catholic Mass (Tridentine Mass) if no one is celebrating it here...??? can you help me with my problem.... thanks..

More power...


rhyan c. gomez

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  We would point out that the problem is not in the Catholic Church, but in the Vatican II sect which is not the Catholic Church but purports to be. 

 

To your question, if you are referring to an Indult Mass (i.e. one where they also have the New Mass in the same church), then you should not go.  Also, most of those priests you are referring to were ordained in the New Rite of Ordination.  The New Rite of Ordination is invalid: Why the New Rite of Ordination is Invalid [PDF File].  So that would be another reason why one couldn’t go.  There are guidelines on our website about receiving sacraments in these times.  You should look at that section on our website.  You must not go to the New Mass.  There is no obligation to attend Mass if the Church doesn’t provide you with a fully Catholic one in your area, so you might have to stay home on Sundays.  But make sure you pray the Rosary each day, 15 decades if possible.  And there is probably a place for you to go to confession, at least.

 

New Mass different in Singapore?

 

Hi
 
if you do stop by Singapore, please visit the local Catholic Churches. Compared to what your site says, how Novus Ordo is practiced is extreme to what we do here. Our adaptation o novus ordo is very different. Much of your descriptions do not apply to us.
 
Yes, perhaps there are issues that are contentious such as apparitions. Beyond that, I want to point something out. Here in Asia, things are different. Come to anywhere in Southeast Asia, and you will find near 100% Mass attendance. Our mass rituals do not differ much from the traditional Latin Rite either (this is in particular reference to your site).
 
The point I want to make across is that do not over generalise base on what you observe. Perhaps the West have many wrong perceptions of the faith, but that does not conclude anything about the faith itself. I believe there is no conflict with novus ordo and earlier treaties. Adaptations can be awry, but that is the result of individual decision. Faith must not be confused with decision.
 
Anyway, this is no attack letter. I'm just emailig out of concern as a brother of Christ. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding as result of generalisation.
 
Regards
Joseph
 
P.S. Do not use the media as looking glass to the Churches in Asia. The Western media tends to only report extemist practices that make up a very tiny minority. Also, I would really appreciate that you can send an acknowledgment reply that you have read my email. Thanks

 

MHFM: First, we think you are exaggerating the state of affairs in Singapore.  There are no altar girls, Eucharistic ministers, “Communion” in the hand?  We doubt it.   Regardless, it doesn’t make any difference.  Even if you go to the most “reverent” Novus Ordo “Mass” possible – one which doesn’t have any of the outrageous sacrileges so common in this country – it’s still an invalid non-Catholic service.  Jesus isn’t there, as we prove here: The Liturgical Revolution: A New Mass  [PDF File].  The words of consecration have been changed!  Almost all of the priests are invalid because they were ordained in the New Rite of Ordination.  Further, it’s a Protestant service.  70% of the prayers have been gutted and the whole service has been restructured to fit a Protestant and man-centered mold, as we document in that file.  So get over it if your particular “parish” offers a less sacrilegious version of the false service; it’s still a non-Catholic service which you must avoid under pain of grave sin.  We must tell you that, if you continue to go there, you will lose your soul. 

 

The pictures of the outrageous sacrileges at the New Mass, which we expose in our file/video/book, are very revealing about the demonic fruits flowing from the whole Novus Ordo system.  They expose the wicked fruits that came from the implementation of the New Mass.  They serve to reveal the total breakdown of – and departure from – Catholic Tradition and holiness which the New Mass represents.  However, they are not necessary in proving that one cannot go to the New Mass.  They are, rather, valuable in exposing the evil spirit behind the Liturgical Revolution.

 

Sunday work-eat?

 

I found the following question and answer in my daughters catechism:

 

What work is permitted on Sunday? Answer: 4th. The buying and selling of victuals, clothing, shoes, etc., in public stores.  But shop-keepers should keep their places closed in order to distinguish Sunday from the other days of the week.

 

I was under the impression that we were not permitted to go shopping on Sundays.  Any comments?

 

What sin do those commit who make others work on Sunday? Answer: They sin just as much as if they were to work themselves, and, besides, they are responsible for the sin of those who work at their bidding.

 

Am I committing a sin if I stop at a restaurant to have lunch after Mass if the Mass location I am attending is a long distance from my home?

 

K

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  People should not go shopping on Sundays.  They should also not go out to eat.  The only exception to this would be if people are travelling very long distances because they have to do so.   If they are only travelling one or two hours each way, then they should just eat when they get home. 

 

Since many people who are reading this have not been taught these concepts by the Vatican II “Church,” we must point out a few other things in this regard: servile works are forbidden on Sundays; people should not do laundry on Sundays; people should not do yard work (such as mowing the lawn, etc.) on Sundays.  Exceptions to this would be work that absolutely must be done.  For example, if you must shovel out your driveway after a heavy snowfall, so that you can get to work, then you could do so on a Sunday.  People should also try to arrange with their employers that they don’t have to work on Sundays.  However, if working on Sundays is an integral part of the job you have, then you must do it.  Or if even requesting to not work on Sundays might cost you your job then you don’t have to do that.  Likewise, other work that must be done on Sundays, due to one’s occupation or state, can be done. 

 

Clement and Ignatius - New Audio on the Papacy, Section B of Part 2

 

The Early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter's authority - Section B of Part 2 [new 14 min. audio]

 

This section moves into the evidence that the Bishop of Rome/the Church of Rome was recognized as supreme in the primitive Christian Church (precisely because it inherited the authority of St. Peter).  This section covers the famous epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (A.D. 90-100) and the famous epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans (circa A.D. 110).  Learn what you probably didn’t know about these most famous documents of early Christianity.  These documents are some of the most important in the history of Christianity and they are regarded with great respect by essentially all students and scholars of the early Church, regardless of denomination.  Learn how they demonstrate Catholic teaching on the Papacy.  Hear the very interesting admissions about these documents from an Eastern “Orthodox” scholar, and how such admissions serve to refute the Protestant and Eastern “Orthodox” position.  (Section C of Part 2 will be posted in the future.) This is found permanently in our: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" page.

 

Fr. Feeney

 

Dear Brothers,

Congratulations for your website, there are many valuable articles and interesting comments. However, I'm somewhat confused. You seem to support Fr. Feeney's teaching on Baptism, but I though Fr. Feeney had been condemed by Pope Pius XII. If so, isn't your position rather dangerous?

Roger Mitchinson

 

MHFM: First we need to point out that Fr. Feeney’s teaching (that no man can be saved without baptism) was not his teaching.  It’s the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547:  If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

 

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

 

So those who happen to agree with him on that point (that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism), as we do, are agreeing with the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.  Regarding your question about his position being condemned, this is addressed in our book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [PDF FILE].  We would strongly encourage you to look carefully at those sections which deal with Fr. Feeney and Protocol 122/49.  The true position, which Fr. Feeney espoused, was condemned by a non-infallible document written by a cardinal of the Holy Office during the reign of Pope Pius XII.  As we point out in the book, the heresy of salvation outside the Church, which was expressed at Vatican II and subsequently adopted by the Vatican II sect in brazen fashion, began to be held by priests in the decades prior to Vatican II.  The decay of faith, which led to this situation of the Great Apostasy we’re in, began with much of the clergy in the years before Vatican II.  So the fact that a non-infallible document during the reign of Pius XII condemned the true position simply further reveals that this Great Apostasy began before Vatican II.  Such fallible documents must be dismissed and completely rejected when they contradict the infallible dogmatic teaching, as the document against Feeney did.

 

Spiritual over physical

 

MHFM: Here’s an interesting quote which illustrates how the Catholic Church, always faithful to the teaching of Jesus Christ (Mt. 10:28), places the health of the soul over the health of the body.

 

“The priests of the Society [the Jesuits] observed with sorrow that many of those whom they visited on sick-beds departed life without the Church’s means of grace; [St.] Ignatius thereupon remembered the ordinance of Innocent III, ratified by the twelfth General Council, the tenor of which was that the aid of the physician of the soul should be invoked before that of the physician of the body.  He [St. Ignatius] earnestly recommended the observance of these enactments with this alleviation, that on the first and second day of illness a doctor should be allowed to attend the patient, but not again on the third and fourth day, unless latter [the patient] had in the interval made his confession.  All the theologians and canonists of the Penitentiaria signified their approval in writing.  The Pope [Paul III] was much please with the proposal; about Epiphany in the year 1544 it began to be put into execution.” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 12, p. 44.)

 

V-2 monastery teaches Hinduism

 

Dear Sirs,

Am learning about Christianity. Went through your site with great interest.  There is a Benedictine monastry in South India in a village called Thannirpalli, which is near Trichy. There they were teaching the Hindu idea, namely, 'I am God, and you are God.' What do you say about this?  Secondly, what is the truth about the shroud of Turin?

Please write to me.

Ajeet Goel.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  To your first question, the idea that man is God is not Catholic doctrine.  It’s Antichrist doctrine.  It’s condemned heresy.  There is only one God, the Most Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost).  The idea that man is God is the lie that Satan told Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:5).  So that “monastery” is not a Catholic one; it’s part of the heretical Vatican II sect which our website exposes.  Hinduism is a false religion. 

 

To your question about the Shroud of Turin, we respond that it’s definitely the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ.  The image is miraculous.  Please watch our video Creation and Miracles, Past and Present here for the facts on it.  We also sell another DVD called Jesus and the Shroud of Turin, the best film on the miraculous shroud.  The Shroud of Turin is another proof of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  We’re truly glad to hear about your interest and we pray that you follow through with it.  It’s critical for you to continue your investigation, come to accept Jesus Christ, and enter His one true Church.  This is the most important thing in your entire life because it’s necessary for salvation. 

 

Since you asked about Hinduism and the teaching that man is God, there is another point worth mentioning.  Sometime back we posted the following to show how the satanic lie that man is God rests deep in the heart of Hinduism’s “holy books”.  Further, it shows how these most ancient texts of Hinduism essentially represent the Devil’s version of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

---

Sacred Scripture is clear that the gods of these false religions are devils (Ps. 95:5; 1 Cor. 10:20).  Since we’re talking about Hinduism and the area around India, there is an interesting story which confirms the truth of Sacred Scripture about the satanic nature of Hinduism.  Fr. Roberto de Nobili was a Jesuit missionary to India in the 1600’s.  In attempting to bring Christianity into the interior of India, he came face to face with the wicked Caste System.  It was difficult for Nobili to even communicate with the members of the “higher” castes until he adapted his ways to make himself appear not to belong to a lower caste; for the high caste members wouldn’t respect him and would shun him.  The Brahmins were the spiritual leaders of the false Hindu religion.  They actually maintained (or purported to maintain) a monastic-style of existence.  They were among the high caste members of Hindu society, and only they knew the language in which the Hindu “holy books,” the Vedas, were written.  This knowledge gave them much influence over the people.  The Vedas constituted the most ancient collection of Hindu scriptures.  The esoteric language in which they were written is called Sanskrit. 

 

Through a series of actions, including things which were considered by some to be unacceptable compromises, Nobili gained the confidence of one higher-caste Hindu and became the first European to learn the esoteric language, Sanskrit.  This enabled him to read their “holy books,” the Vedas.  In reading these Nobili discovered that the central truth of the “holy books” – and thus the deepest “truth” hidden at the heart of Hinduism, resting beneath its innumerable idolatries and ridiculous myths – is that each man is God.  We will quote a passage from the biography of Nobili to demonstrate the point.  The passage introduces, and then quotes, a teaching-story from the Vedas about a father addressing his son, who is named Svetaketu:

 

“The religion of the Vedas had been developed… into a system called the Vedanta… The central doctrine of the higher truth is summed up in the formula ‘That art Thou,’ explained as follows in the Chandogya Upanisad…[It reads]: … ‘Bring hither a fig from there.’  ‘Here it is, sir.’  ‘Divide it.’  ‘It is divided, sir.’  ‘What do you see there?’ ‘These rather fine seeds, sir.’ ‘Of these, please, divide one.’  ‘It is divided, sir.’  ‘What do you see there?’ ‘Nothing at all, sir.’  ‘Then he said to him, ‘Truly, my dear, that finest essence which you do not perceive – truly, my dear, from that finest essence this great sacred fig tree thus arises.  Believe me, my dear,’ said he, ‘ that which is the finest essence – this whole world has that as its self.  That is Reality.  That is Atman.  That art thou, Svetaketu.’… Then he said to him: ‘That salt you placed in the water last evening – please bring it hither.’  ‘Then he grasped for it, but did not find it, as it was completely dissolved. ‘Please take a sip of it from this end,’ said he.  ‘How is it?’  ‘Salt.’ ‘Take a sip of it from the middle,’ said he. ‘How is it?’ ‘Salt.’ ‘Set it aside.  Then come unto me’… Then he said to him: ‘Truly, indeed, you do not perceive Being here.  Truly, indeed, it is here.  That which is the finest essence – this whole world has that as its self.  That is Reality.  That is Atman.  That art thou, Svetaketu.’  In other words, Thou, the individual soul, art God, contained within Him in absolute absorption.” (Vincent Cronin, A Pearl to India: The Life of Roberto de Nobili, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1959, pp. 92-93) 

 

So, at the core of Hinduism’s most ancient texts – some of the most ancient expressions of religious thought known to man – is the satanic lie that man is God.  It’s also very interesting that the story above contains a prominent reference to the “sacred fig tree.”  Some Biblical scholars believe that the original tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which God forbade Adam and Eve to eat from, was a fig tree.  Satan promised Eve that they would become “as Gods” if they ate from it (Gen. 3:5).  It’s almost as if this ancient Hindu text, in inculcating the satanic lie at the heart of its religion (that man is God), took it directly from the serpent in the Garden who lied about the tree!  That’s why Hinduism is idolatrous; that’s why the cultures which are infested with it are evil and dominated by something as heinous as the Caste System.  It’s because Satan is ultimately behind it all.  This simply demonstrates once again that the gods of the heathens (Ps. 95:5; 1Cor. 10:20) are truly lying devils, and they’ve been lying to man from the beginning.  Keep in mind that Hinduism is a religion praised by the Vatican II sect.

 

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2: “Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”

 

Likes info in Nigeria

 

Hello people of God,

 

I greet you all in the name of our lord Jesus Christ. My name is Anthony Ogbonmwan, I am the president of the Altar Servers association… Edo State Nigeria.  I must say that I am really and very happy and impress with what I have seen in the most holy family monastery web site I started visiting this web site this month and I have been able to see things I mean things, informations I have never known of. I have been looking for how I can get life of saints, Catholic calendar and the history of the Catholic Church but I have not been able to get it but when I visited the site I was able to see the Calendar and many other informations...

 

I pray that almighty God continue to strengthen, guild and protect you, may he give you the zeal to work for him. And as you continue to do the good work you have started may he reward you in a hundred folds and may his mercy shine upon you and may he continue to bless you till the end. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen… Keep on the good work you have started and may almighty God continue to bless you through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

 

No donations/wills to heretics - interesting quote

 

MHFM: In our material we have frequently pointed out that Catholics should neither will things nor give gifts/donations to those who are heretics or non-Catholics.  This would include those who profess to be traditional Catholics, but don’t hold the correct positions.  Well, here are some interesting canons we’ve recently come across in study.  They come from the regional councils in Africa around the year 419 A.D.  They inculcate the same ancient Christian concept:

 

Canons of the African Code, 419 A.D., Canon 22: “And that to those who are not Catholic Christians, even if they be blood relations, neither bishops nor clergymen shall give anything at all by way of donation of their possessions.”

 

Canons of the African Code, 419 A.D., Canon 81: “It was ordained that if any bishop should prefer to his Church strangers to blood relationship with him, or his heretical relatives, or pagans as his heirs, he shall be anathematized even after his death…”

 

Freemason

 

Dear sir,

I did watch some videos.  It’s a pity that there is a lot of propaganda for segregation.  You know what that means; apartheid and war.  We as Freemasons are building bridges, and looking for the things people have in common.  Not any dogma that will separate human beings from each other.  I can not understand why this fundamentalist Christianity is supporting, and creating, fear.   We must work together to make harmony in this world, not segregation/ war, as you are suggesting.  Wake up, globalize and live in peace with all dogmas there are  and don’t try to be right.  Therefore you will make things wrong.

Be in harmony. The world shall be as one.  Have a nice day, and nice dreams,

Theo
the Netherlands

 

MHFM: We post this as an interesting confirmation of the fact that Freemasons accept the wicked idea that all dogmas are true.

 

Found site, converted

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I wanted to tell your website visitors… how the Lord led me out of a complete spiritual fog back to reality. The summary is as follows.  I was confirmed in the Vatican I Church in the early 1960s on Long Island, New York. At that time the Catholic Church was very clear in its teaching about Who God is, Who Jesus Christ is, that God is Holy and that we are not. And that Jesus Christ died a death of atonement for us, a death that put an end to the animal sacrifices that mankind had been making to atone for sin. It was clear that all people needed to repent of their sins against God and be baptized in the one Catholic Church and submit to Church teaching in order to have their sins forgiven and get right and stay right with God.  By the late 1960s everything was changing rapidly. Things that used to seem clear were becoming cloudy. Even the Church's teaching was becoming clouded by the Vatican II implementation at the parish level and many of us were leaving the Church for this reason and for many other reasons… I claim no innocence here at all. I was getting caught up in the entire drift of the age, the drift from absolute truth to relativism. And it was tearing up our society and the world. It's only getting worse today.

 

In 1972 I experienced a personal revival of my faith in God, but I did not know where to go to find others with what seemed to be genuine faith. By that time I was convinced that there was something missing in the Catholic Church but I didn't know what it was. The folk masses seemed contrived to me. I ended up within the Protestant Evangelical stream but knew right away that I did not belong there either. So I was adrift from about 1972 until recently, exploring this, that and the other thing, and never really understanding where God's true Church is. I simply put up with the ambiguity.  Until recently.

 

During the past few years I noted that something terribly wrong was happening in America and all around the world. This whole "new world order" movement and globalization were beginning to stink. First it was the government's dogmatic explanation for the 9/11 incident within only three hours of its occurrence. I'm sorry, you do not investigate and solve a mystery of that magnitude in three hours. Something was fishy right there.  Then it was the weapons of mass destruction and the whole hysteria created by the mainstream media that led the American people into a totally unjustified assault on a nation that represented about as much of a threat as Cuba, Venezuela, or even Israel. The weapons of mass destruction turned out to be weapons of mass deception.

 

Then it was all the cover-ups for 9/11 and the Iraq debacle. And the torture. And the demolition of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect us from terrorists that nobody could even see. And the constant spying on every communication of every citizen, looking for "the terrorists." But more than this I was disappointed by the Roman Catholic Church's response to all this.  They were silent.  How could this be? I asked. Was there no statement on torture? No recitation of just war theory? On government lying to its own people. No statement on the emerging New World Order under Lucifer? What was going on! Perhaps it was the pedophile scandal that had shut the clergy up; perhaps the clergy were saying "We won't bother you if you won't bother us." But, finally, I could take it no longer.

 

I began to pray earnestly, "Lord, where is your Church? Where are the real Catholics?"  Within days I woke up with "mostholyfamilymonastery.com" on my mind. I had heard [of the website]… but now it was time to have a good long look at the website and see if there might be some clues as to whatever happened to the Roman Catholic Church that I grew up in during the 50s and early 60s.  Well you know the rest. You Brothers have done a splendid job investigating what happened to the Church. The true Church is still alive, but is not assembling within the Catholic infrastructure like it used to, because almost that entire infrastructure has been hijacked by this blasphemous Vatican II sect and its adherents. You have documented numerous incidents of in-your-face papal heresy and Vatican II teachings that also qualify as heresy. The Vatican II "Church" is simply not the Roman Catholic Church of tradition. It is no doubt a radical departure from the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And it is deceiving many, many people into following a Gospel of Man in the Church of Man. This is Antichrist. This new "church" is quite possibly a precursor to a coming new World Religion as part of the New World Order that many global leaders talk about. And now it has become clear to me that the divide in America and the whole world today is not Liberal vs. Conservative, or Civilization vs. Terror, as our mainstream media would have us believe. It is authentic Catholic Church vs. Everything Else. It's not Left vs. Right, it's Inside-the-true-Catholic-Church vs. Outside-the-true-Catholic-Church. But Lucifer has most people too busy fighting each other so that they don't realize that they should be taking up the Cross of Christ and fighting Lucifer. "...upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," said Our Lord. Let us put on the whole armor of God and demolish Lucifer's strongholds and invoke the coming of Our Lord with great power and glory!

Blessings in Our Lord,

 

Rob

 

Novus Ordo seminarian

 

Hello, my name is Anane Joseph, am a seminarian at Pope John Paul II Major Seminary, in Lomé, TOGO, am in my third year philosophy and a Ghanian. I was much grateful when i saw the informations on the internat, defending the Catholic faith, from all forms of heresies. May God richly bless you and the Virgin Mother continues to interceed on your behalf. I would like to use this opprtunity to ask for a favor from you, that is, some documents that can help me in my priesthood formation. Counting on your cooperation.

 

 Anane Joseph.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the interest, Anane.  The documents on our website are all very important, but you must get out of the Novus Ordo seminary.  At that seminary you will be trained to accept heretics (such as John Paul II).  You will also be trained to offer an invalid New Mass and accept the heretical Second Vatican Council. You must get out of that seminary.  It’s not Catholic.  These files (among others) show why:

 

John Paul II (manifest heretic who claimed to be pope 1978-2005)

Vatican II - false council

The Invalid New Mass

The New Rite of Ordination

 

A True Relationship

 

Sub. A True Relationship

 

I happened to come across your website on the new catholic church.  It all seemed like so much information and overwhelming.  But I know Christ talks about the false churches in the end days.  I know you say you have to be true catholic to go to heaven but I don't understand if I really love the Lord, why would I be sent to hell. Honestly, I have fallen away from the Lord.  I lost my baby son over a year ago and have had a really hard time excepting this.   I know there is more to God than just spitting out prayers and wishes but I cannot find His presence anymore.  It has been very lonely without Him.  I have seeked guidance from other churches to have no response or council whatsoever.  I am lost.  If you could send me some more information on how to start a real relationship with God, I would be eternally grateful.

 

Very respectfully,

Mrs. Frederick

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  You cannot really love the Lord unless you accept His one true faith (Heb. 11:6).  So those who don’t accept His one true Catholic faith, yet think they love the Lord, will be sent to Hell.  God allowed your child to die; you must resign yourself to what He has allowed.  All the guidance you need is found in the traditional Catholic faith.  In addition to the other material on our website, the books we offer on lives of the saints are extremely important.  In the history of the Church and in the lives of the saints one will find all the keys and facets to a true relationship with God.  In reading them, one will find in great depth and richness the profound holiness which exists only in the traditional Catholic Church. 

 

V-2 homosexual evil


I found your radio program interesting concerning the N.O. seminaries and the homosexual activities that are promoted within.  Though not new or surprising to me, I would think the liberal N.O. mess goers would realize something evil is occurring within the VII church, when nothing is done to these N.O. priests after being convicted of pedophilia…


God Bless you all,
T.M.

 

MHFM: Yes, one would think that the scandals which are rampant in the Vatican II sect would cause people to immediately connect with the truth of material such as ours, which exposes the Vatican II sect.  Unfortunately it doesn’t always work that way, since so many people are of bad will.

 

25 hours reading

 

Since I “accidently” discovered your website I have spent at least 25 hours reading. I was born and raised Catholic. Went to Catholic schools. Later in life I was very disappointed that I learned next to nothing about Jesus Christ our Savior. I came back to… a Bible study with men who are Baptists.  I very much enjoy my Bible study group and our discussions about scripture. Over the years I have lost my respect for the Catholic Church. I usually go to the Baptist service after Bible study. I have never been comfortable in a Baptist Church or Church of Christ but for a while it seemed as though I couldn’t do better. I miss the Roman Catholic Church but if it’s all Vat2 what can I do?

 

Matthew Macheca

St. Louis, MO

 

MHFM: We’re really glad to hear about your interest.  You ask what you can do.  Well, you’ve probably discovered that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church.  So you need to convert to the true (traditional) Catholic faith.  That’s the one and only faith of Jesus Christ and it’s necessary for salvation.  First, you need to stop going to the Baptist church.  Like the other Protestant sects, it’s not truly Christian.  Second, we would recommend listening to the talks in this file: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" * Audio Programs, as well as watching our videos: WATCH OUR DVDS ONLINE FOR FREE and obtaining our DVD special.  They further demonstrate that the Protestant sects, such as the Baptist sect, reject the true teaching of the Bible.  We also strongly encourage you to obtain a rosary and begin to pray it.  We have a How to Pray the Rosary file on our website.  We also offer a Penny Catechism; it explains the basics of the Catholic faith.  We also have a section on our mainpage – which is in red about ľ of the way down the list of links – which explains the steps one must take to convert to the Catholic faith.  Anyone can follow them and everyone should.

 

Insane?

 

How sad.    You deny the authority of the magisterium and its teachings on the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome (also called the Pope or Holy Father), as proclaimed

by Vatican Council I.  Yet you claim yourselves to be infallible and appoint yourselves as judge of God's Church and His appointed successor who does indeed sit on the throne of Peter.  You show very little understanding of the true theology of the Second Vatican Council's teachings, and deny all the good that has come from it, even in the midst of the confusion that followed the changes after 400 years without a council.   You talk about the beginning of the Church and speak of "having Jesus and Paul".  It is no wonder that you do not even mention Peter, whom Jesus Himself appointed as The Rock upon which His Church is built. Instead, you would rip the keys that Jesus assigned to Peter and His successor in Rome, and take them into your own hands, lock the doors of Truth and substitue your own prideful teachings.  As I said, you believe that you alone are infallible and you assume that not from God's appointment of you as chief teacher and judge, but by your own attempts to take that authority unto yourself.  You set you self in opposition to Jesus Christ Himself and His Will.   How sad.

 

Elizabeth

 

MHFM: Are you insane?  We quote popes all the time.  Further, we prove the points we make against the Vatican II sect by quoting dogmas which have been defined by popes.  We also have entire talks proving the office of the Papacy from Scripture, in order to refute Protestants and the “Orthodox.”  Yet you say that we “do not even mention Peter, whom Jesus appointed as the rock.”  So you attack our website with completely false and ignorant nonsense.  Your false and ignorant statements show that you lack almost all knowledge of the contents of the website you are attacking.  Your e-mail therefore serves as another good example of the horrible quality of argument which is typically made by defenders of the Vatican II sect.  You need to wake up and take a deep and honest look at the facts.  The facts we present prove what we’re saying from the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Vatican II and Benedict XVI trash the Papacy; that's why they praise the "Orthodox" schismatics all the time.

 

UFOs are Demons

 

MHFM: In the future we will have an article which will show that UFOs are demons.

 

Asia?

 

HI, I'm a Filipino, and you probably know by now that Filipinos are totally devout Catholics. My question is, has the influence Novus Ordo Mass reach Philippines,or any part of Asia?

 

m…

MHFM: Yes, the Novus Ordo has been implemented all over the world, including in Asia.  "… all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her” (Apocalypse 18:3).

You need the New Catechism

 

I am a devoted catholic and I find your web site offensive.  You have taken the truth and twisted it with half lies.  May God have mercy on you for this and I will pray for your forgiveness.  You need to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to know what the Catholic Church really teaches.  You should not present yourself as a monestary with teaching like you are displaying.  This is heretical.  You need to look at the divinity of the church that was established by Jesus Christ himself.  Put aside your human biases and begin to search out the truth.  May God guide you.

Fred Janofski
Devoted to Jesus Christ.

MHFM: It’s precisely because we are familiar with the New Catechism that we know what we’re saying about the Vatican II “Church” is true.  Among other heresies, the New Catechism teaches that Holy Communion, etc. may lawfully be given to non-Catholics.  That is totally heretical.

John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (#  1401): “… Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church…”

You need to look at yourself closely and come to the realization that you don’t know what’s going on, that you don’t understand the Catholic faith, and that you are not looking at this honestly.

Avoid?

 

Dear Brothers,
 
Thank you for your web site, materials and all of your advice. I do have one more question - I trust in your answers and I believe this is a matter that can effect my salvation. I grew up in a very emotionally abusive home, is it a sin to distance myself from my sister who is "addicted" to conflict and causes me to sin the sin of anger. She constantly creates chaos with her attitude and her verbal and written attacks. She attacked me so viciously today I told her never to call or contact me again. Is that a sin? As hard as I might try - she will attack me again, I just want to live in peace. Is that a sin?
 
I was very mad at her today, now I am not. I will pray for her but I no longer want contact. Thank you for your help.
 
May GOD Bless you
Gene

 

MHFM: Certainly there is no sin in cutting off contact with her, especially if she’s heretical in some area.  Considering her activity, we assume that she’s not a true Catholic.  But rather than saying that you never want to talk to her again, you might want to word it in a slightly different manner.  You might want to say: “do not call me anymore, until you change your ways and convert to the traditional Catholic faith” (assuming that she’s not a traditional Catholic).  But based on what you have said, we agree that you should cut off contact with her.

 

New audio on Papacy, Part 2

 

The Early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter's authority - Section A of Part 2 [new 14 min. audio]

 

Was Peter ever in Rome?  If so, how come the Bible doesn’t say so?  Even if Jesus gave great authority to Peter, what does that have to do with Rome?  Didn’t St. Paul rebuke St. Peter in Galatians 2:11?  Where does the term Catholic Church come from anyway?”  These are just some of the questions that are frequently brought forward by non-Catholics who object to Catholic teaching on the Papacy.  In this audio you will learn the answers to these questions and these objections.  This audio is section A of Part 2 of a larger audio presentation proving the Catholic doctrine on the Papacy from the Bible and the early Church.   Part 1 (51 min. audio) proved from the New Testament that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope.  This section shows that the offices of the original bishops and the office of St. Peter (the Papacy) were instituted to continue with successors.  They were founded by Jesus to continue through the history of the Church after the original apostles and Peter had died.  This section demonstrates that St. Peter was in Rome and was its first bishop; it demonstrates that apostolic and papal succession come from the teaching of the Bible; it discusses the origin of the term “Catholic Church,” Gal. 2:11 and more.   The next section (Section B of Part 2), which will be posted in the near future, will give examples of how the early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome to have the authority of St. Peter. 

 

This is found permanently in our: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" page.

 

Repulsed then interested

 

Dear Brother Michael Dimond,

 

I recently purchased the set of DVD’s; Creation and Miracles, Why John Paul II Cannot be the Pope and Communists and Freemasonic Infiltration of the Catholic Church.

After viewing each DVD, I have so many questions. I can guess that it is likely that you have prepared answers to the most commonly asked questions for those who have viewed your DVD’s.

 

I am feeling so many different emotions after viewing the DVD’s. I recall that my first reaction on visiting your website, (to purchase the Padre Pio booklets), was repulsion at the information on your home page as I had great respect and love for Pope John Paul II, as well as my Church. After all, the Catholic Church is my Church in whom I place my faith, my hope, my trust and my love. But, despite my repulsion to the things on your homepage, something led me to order the DVD’s. Now that I have viewed them, I do not know what to do, as it appears that you have done much in depth study and obviously feel obligated to inform all Catholics what you believe you have discovered. I am not discounting any of the information contained in the DVD’s, I am just so confused. My instincts tell me that turning to Jesus’ own words in the scriptures, and to the early Church Fathers is the most logical place to turn for the answers, which seems to be exactly what you have done. I am not an educated person, and am not confident in my abilities to fully understand and comprehend the scriptures and the doctrines as set forth by the early Church. I do know that Satan is the great deceiver, and right now I am torn between wanting to trust and believe in the Church and the Pope, and fearful that you are absolutely correct.

 

If I place my trust, my eternal salvation in what you say, that you are correct, then what should I and my husband and family be doing? Is there something/anything we can do to help prove/remove a false Pope? What should we be praying for? If our Church has the ‘new mass,’ should we even be attending and receiving the Eucharist? If no, where do we go if there is not a Church that does consecrate the Eucharist and teach/preach in the correct way? Should we only be receiving the Eucharist from a pre-Vatican II Priest, and on the tongue? What if the Priest was ordained after Vatican II? Are the sacraments he has administered invalid? Even confessions are invalid and I need to re-confess them? What about new Catholics just coming into the Church? I teach RCIC at our Parish, and my husband just went through RCIA.

 

My husband has said that we should go and talk to our Parish Priest about all of this, but I am afraid that if the Priest is deluded, that his advice may not be the correct advice. I am so frightened for the salvation of souls, especially those who are dearest to me. I am so confused and frightened, please help, and please pray for me and my family.

 

I await your reply.

 

Your Sister in Christ,

Karen, a woman crying in the desert

 

MHFM: We often get the questions: how does one know whom to follow or what to believe?  How do we know that what you are saying is true?  The answer to both questions is that you must judge everything by the standard of the Magisterium.  That’s why it’s important to look at this file and to understand the terms in it: The Glossary of Terms and Principles [PDF].  The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.  The teaching of the Magisterium is infallible.  The teaching of the Magisterium is found in the dogmatic pronouncements and the infallible teachings of the past popes.  Thus, you know that what we’re saying is true because it’s based on the past infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.  So those who reject what we say on these matters are not rejecting us, but the infallible teachings of the Church upon which our positions are based.

 

Second, you must stop going to the New Mass.  It’s not valid.  You must get out of there under pain of mortal sin.  When you’re convinced of that and of all the other positions, then we can help you with options for receiving the sacraments.  But first one must be totally convinced of the traditional Catholic faith.  Also, it’s pointless to meet with the priest of the Novus Ordo church.  You should recommend the website and material to him, but he will almost certainly reject what you have to say.  In a personal meeting with him you might be confused by his false arguments.  One who really believes in the Church should see the truth of the material we have presented, as well as the falsity of the Vatican II sect. 

 

In Depth

 

Just finished perusing the web-site for about four hours.  It is one of the most in-depth informational sites I've seen covering the controversial vaticanII abortion. It's impossible to argue with the truth if you are honest with oneself.  I was born in 1947 and blessed with 12 years of true Catholic education (taught by IHM's). I remember when one went to a quiet church and knelt and prayed humbly before a "just,merciful,and loving GOD". I remember when there were kneelers,and railings to the altar, and priests and altar boys;when you received the HOLY EUCHARIST kneeling and on your tongue. I remember that once receiving JESUS you returned to the pew and knelt and prayed to HIM for forgiveness. I remember the reverence that one had upon just entering the church.  After vaticanII abortion we were told that things have to change with the HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. They, in their infinite wisdom, would change the name to ;get this "the celebration of the mass". Anyone who knows the real MASS and reveres this most holy of traditions knows that it is not a celebration. If I want to attend a celebration I'll go to a party or a wedding reception or a parade,etc.  JESUS instituted the MASS so that we can be in union with HIM and it is no laughing and pleasurable matter. It is a very serious and joyful memory of what JESUS accomplishes during HIS life on earth.  Ever since the 70's I have been wondering, discussing and arguing with people about how inhumane the church changed everything about the mass. …Especially when it got soooooooo bad it appeared as though they were trying to tell us that we were god and we were to embrace each other during mass and hold hands,etc.  I kinda laughed when one woman asked if I was a catholic because I would not hold her hand during the "Our Father". I asked her if she thought her "Our Father" was more acceptable to GOD than my "OUR FATHER" because she was holding hands.She just rolled her eyes in disgust. But this is just one example of the hypocrisy that the church is teaching.  I could go on and on but I had better stop here before you get bored. I am sure this isn't the first you've heard from guys like me.  Anyway, please keep up the fantastic work (Truth), cause I will be visiting the web-site again;  May GOD BLESS YOU and YOUR LOVED ONES.  

 

Thanks,

David Barker

 

Heresy is Bad

 

In studying the What Happened book, it is really beginning to sink in my brain just how bad heresy is.  Sorry, I mean, I know it's bad and that's why the popes have always condemned it as they have, but what I wasn't getting before was how attached to it some people are.  How they choose heresy because it serves their own selfish desires even though they know it's absolutely forbidden. (Like any sin, I suppose).  But to know the truth and reject it, and promote heresy . . . it just is not conceivable for me.  It truly seems hateful.  Almost like there's nothing more hateful than heresy. Because it drags so many down who are weak.  Brother, this scares me to be so close to people who really might know better, but who are willingly promoting lies in order to serve some other purpose.  I see now why you say some of the things you say and how quick you are to see through people by applying the test of truth.  Thanks be to God for His saving grace on such a poor sinner.  How I came to be so loved by Him is something He alone knows the answer to.  May Our Lady keep us under her continual protection on our journey back to Heaven, our true home.  Please commend me to the Most Holy Family, Brothers.

 

S…

 

Great quote

 

Council of Laodicea, 343-381, Canon 34:  No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, that is, to those of the heretics, or those who formerly were heretics; for they are aliens from God.  Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema.”

 

MHFM: This is a great quote.  Even though the Council of Laodicea is a regional (not dogmatic) council – and thus this canon might lack the precision of an infallible dogmatic canon – this shows what the early Church would have thought of John Paul II, Paul VI and the Vatican II sect.  The early Church would have rejected as utterly heretical all those who promote the “non-Catholic saints and martyrs” heresy.

 

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 1), May 25, 1995: “The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigor to the Council’s call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation.”

 

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 83), May 25, 1995: “All Christian Communities know that, thanks to the power given by the Spirit, obeying that will and overcoming those obstacles are not beyond their reach.  All of them in fact have martyrs for the Christian faith.”

 

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995, Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”: “Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the saints - those who, at end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory.  These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”

 

John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente (# 37), Nov. 10, 1994: “The witness to Christ borne even to the shedding of blood has become a common inheritance of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants, as Pope Paul VI pointed out in his Homily for the Canonization of the Ugandan Martyrs.”

 

For many other statements from John Paul II in which he taught this heresy, consult: The Heresies of John Paul II - a comprehensive presentation [PDF].  This file is from our 658-page book, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.

 

John Paul II and the Rosary

 

Dear Brother Diamond,

 

Hello from Québec.  My name is Pat and I'm 40 a single mother of 2 adolescents.

I am a frequent visitor of your web site and once I start reading I just can't like put the book down.  Thank you so much for all the information. 

 

I can see how so many souls you are helping getting on their road to salvation.  This is truly what a disciple of Christ should be doing, fulfiling the promises we took on our confirmation.  This takes alot of courage and wisdom  through the help of God's grace.  Keep it up.  All my life I have known only the Vatican 2 church. I always went to church on Sunday with my family, most of the times with my father.  I have always been drawn to Jesus and the Church most of my life. 

 

I want to get to the point of my writing to you, It has been since October 2005,  that I discovered the truth of why the changes in the Church.  I remember when I was little my father (passed on) asking why all of the sudden communion in the hand. ( My first communion I won't forget it was on my tongue.)  Of course we didn't understand it but went along with it anyways.  I discovered that the Pope I adored and loved was a fake and deceived us all.  You guessed it...John Paul 2 strikes again.  I felt so sad and so full of agony I cried and cried..... Something confuses me about John Paul 2.    What about his devotion Mary and  the Rosary and that event at his shooting when he declared that the Virgin of Fatima saved his life.   Can you try to clear this for me.  I never could find an explanation.

 

I believe all the truths of the True Church - the Catholic Church.  I don't attend the Novus Ordo mess anymore. I tried to tell the truth to my mother and she refuted me several times....we quarelled...she is a semi-traditional catholic. Not in communion with all the truths.  Whether she is stubborn, or the truth is too hard to accept.  I also tried to to warn an adventist I was dating for a few years filled with lots of heartache and division.  I get frustrated because no one seems to listen !!  It's been really difficult and heartbreaking.  You end up feeling lonely and depressed.  Please can you give me some words of encouragement.  Of course I offer it up to Jesus as a sacrifice and my heart feels better.  I have told my 2 adolescents all the truth thank God at least one of them has more faith than the other.  

 

I have been reading about some people seeing visions that might come from hell.   I have encountered people talking to me on buses in the street like they know me.

I always thought angels were talking to me.  Maybe they were not from heaven at all.  I ponder on this now because this happened before I found the truth of the counterfeit catholic church and stopped going to the novus ordo and so on... It's incredible these days we have to be so careful, because when the Devil sees souls called by God, he tries everything to destroy their path which will lead them to Him.  It's really scary.   Hell must be getting too full  !

 

My faith is stronger than before. Lastly, I thought I could share this experience I had with a bad willed priest who refused me communion on the tongue.  He said to me to open my hands and take communion in my hands.  I refused and returned to my seat quietly.  After communion was over, he faced the people and said that communion on the tongue won't be tolerated anymore because of diseases that may be contracted.  I was so angry that I got up and left the church immediately without saying a word..Everyone looked at me.  What a disgrace.!   I hope it woke up some people to stop going to the false mass once and for all.  Since that day I never came back.  I don't have the luck of having a true priest or true mass to attend to but I do pray the mass, pray my rosary, study the dogmas of the faith and morals, the Baltimore Catechism, meditate on the mass at home, and I fast on days of obligation as much as I can.  I feel free and so much better knowing all the truths.

 

Hope to hear from you, whether on your site or in my e-mail inbox and thank you.  

 

God bless,

 

Pat  

        

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail and the interest.  Regarding John Paul II, it’s a misconception that he frequently promoted the Rosary.  We are extremely familiar with his writings.  Based on research of all of his encyclicals and every published speech he gave since his election as antipope in 1978, we can say that he basically never told people to pray the Rosary.  There is one picture of him walking with a Rosary, which is promoted again and again.  The promotion of this picture, over and over, was a deception of the Devil.  He basically never encouraged people to pray the Rosary.  Also, the entire thing about how “Our Lady” saved him on May 13, 1981 was a huge part of the spiritual deception.  We are warned in 2 Thess. 2 and Matthew 24 about a major spiritual deception in the last days which includes false signs.  That entire incident was a major part of the spiritual deception that built up the Counter Church and Antichrist in the Vatican, which he represented.  So while the Devil had people believe that Our Lady saved him on the very anniversary of Fatima, the Devil had the very same heretic burying Fatima.  For it was none other than John Paul II who released the phony version of the Third Secret and defrauded the world of the true one.  He took the Vatican II sect to new levels of apostasy and fully developed its worship of man in the place of God.  It very well might be the case that the entire event of his shooting on May 13, 1981 has to do with Apocalypse 13:3.  John Paul II had no devotion to Mary.  We prove that he knowingly preached the Doctrine of the Antichrist in the second article in this file: John Paul II (manifest heretic who claimed to be pope 1978-2005).

 

It’s important for people to understand the significance of what John Paul II preached.  Then they can begin to realize that John Paul II was not only extremely evil, but that he knew he was extremely evil.  However, he did do a few things – and the Devil made sure that he did – to make himself appealing to “conservatives” who really didn’t know what he was doing or what the Church teaches. 

 

Also, it should be noted that the Baltimore Catechism contains heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as our book on that topic shows.

 

Big Help

 

Hello Brothers

 

I actively visit your web site to nourish my soul and to try and keep informed. I've ordered your videos in the past as well.

 

I live in a hamlet called Oregon House…I do say my rosary daily and other than your web site I have no support group. You are a big help but not to fear, I will keep the Faith.

 

Sincerly

John Garcia

 

---

You have enlightened me to the ways of God. If there were only some way you could reach the starving village children in some godless country and educate them about the loving ways of the Lord, the world would be a much better place. And all the homosexuals running rampant, and the Muslims, if there were only some way you could spread your message far and wide, God would illuminate all those souls who dare follow any other path than that of the Catholic religion. Thank you, you have illuminated my soul, never again will I ever doubt in the Lord.

Bl…

 

Petros/Petra

 

…I believe that we should look at all scripture and realize that Christ spoke of petros and petra (Greek form of male and neuter gender). Peter was complimented for being solid as a rock but if we look at the Greek writings the neuter gender is implied meaning Peter, solid as a rock and on a "foundation" solid as a rock the "My Church will be built". It does not say in any text that Peter was elevated above the other Disciples or imply any other meaning….

 

MHFM: What you have stated couldn’t be more false.  You need to listen to this: The Bible teaches that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope [51 min. audio].  It covers all these points and completely refutes what you’ve said.

 

John Paul II, man of false peace

 

Hi Bro Michael and Bro Peter,

I stumbled on your site by chance and I must confess that you have a well researched site. It was very interesting and I appreciate it. I will save it as a favourite and visit from time to time to get more information. But I totally disagree with you 2 over calling Pope John Paul II an antipope. He may have made some mistakes in his approach to other religions and beliefs by being subtle and compromising but what would he have done if he was to preach peace. the world is filled with so many false prophets and viloence is everywhere. Should the Pope of the Holy Catholic Church be seen as fuelling crisis in the world?  He must set example by extending a peaceful hand to them and by so doing, many religions who have not heard of Christ finally heard the goodnews. If he had done otherwise, maybe he would not have been accepted and the good news would not be shared with these people of
other beliefs.

As our Lord Jesus Christ did, he mingled with the prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners and he was greatly condemned by the pharasees and scribes but it was for these that Christ came. The importance that these other religion give to the church may convert some people there or at least make them to want to understand the nature of the pope and
Christianity in general. I want you guys to pray to the good Lord to strengthen his church. I will also pray too. God has said he would be with his church to the end of time and I firmly believe. Let us pray for there is great darkness and wickedness upon the land and only God know those who would be saved.

Regards,

Nosa

 

MHFM: It’s the job of every Catholic, and especially a pope, not to inculcate false ideas of peace that are palatable to the world, but to preach and defend the Catholic faith.  The Catholic faith is exactly what John Paul II denied by his endorsement of false religions and his promotion of heresies, as proven here: The Heresies of John Paul II - a comprehensive presentation [PDF file].  So for you to imply that he was excused for not promoting the true Catholic faith because he was trying to promote some kind of peace is to reject the Gospel and the Catholic faith.  Jesus said He came not to bring peace (Mt. 10) – meaning that His truths will divide people.  John Paul II was definitely an antipope.  We have proven that.  He was not a Catholic, but a total heretic.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

Jamaica

 

Hi, I have been a Catholic for my life, I had joined the St.Benedicts monastery here in Jamaica and later left due to sexual misconduct on the part of our superior and others. Whilst there, i loved the order. Since then i am trying to get back a full taste for serving God through this way of life. I am now married with three wonderful children, but whole heartly want to serve my God through vocation life as a Catholic priest.  Thank you for a reply and God bless you

 

MHFM: Thanks for the interest.  Since you have chosen to get married, you may not become a priest.  You should focus on learning, practicing and spreading the traditional Catholic faith in your present vocation.  What people need to know to do this is presented on our website.

 

Down the heretics

 

Dear brothers and sisters

 

I was happy to visit your web site, now my eyes are open , I was losing my faith until I read your articles,

 

Vive la Catholicish, down the heretics.

praise the Lord,

Bour del Eau

2nd edition of Why the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination are Invalid

 

MHFM: There is a second edition of our video Why the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination are Invalid, which you can watch online here: Watch the 2nd Edition.  The second edition has new pictures and a classical music soundtrack.  It is found permanently on the: WATCH OUR DVDS ONLINE FOR FREE page.

 

Judas in Hell?

 

Dear Brothers,

 

The principal of our 'Catholic' school told the students yesterday that we cannot condemn anyone to Hell and that the Church doesn't even say that Judas is in Hell.

The children had sacrificed some of their own toys which they thought were displeasing to God and used them for a Lenten display depicting Heaven, Purgatory and Hell.  She removed the toys from the Hell section before announcing to the students that some people like 'Harry Potter' and 'Darth Vader' and 'Pokemon' et al.  These toys have 'names' so therefore we can't condemn them to Hell.  The children were very hurt and confused by this action of hers.

 

Do you have any quotes that prove her wrong on her assumption that Judas is not considered as condemned to Hell by the Church?

I know Our Lord said it would be better for him (Judas) if he had never been born.

 

 

A concerned teacher

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  What the principal said is Modernism.  Catholics recognize that all those who die as non-Catholics go to Hell.  The great St. Francis Xavier shows how a Catholic must affirm that all those who die outside the Church are definitely lost, as he does in regard to a pagan privateer who died on a ship on which he was traveling.

 

St. Francis Xavier, Nov. 5, 1549: “The corsair who commanded our vessel died here at Cagoxima.  He did his work for us, on the whole, as we wished… He himself chose to die in his own superstitions; he did not even leave us the power of rewarding him by that kindness which we can after death do to other friends who die in the profession of the Christian faith, in commending their souls to God, since the poor fellow by his own hand cast his soul into hell, where there is no redemption.” (as quoted in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, section 17)

 

In regard to Judas, one can demonstrate that he is in Hell from these points below and the quote from St. Alphonsus.  They are also found in our book The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, in the section on Benedict XVI.  They were brought up to refute one of Benedict XVI’s heresies in this regard.

 

If Judas is not in Hell, then Our Lord’s words in Matthew 26:24 (quoted below) would be false.

 

"Woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born" (Matthew 26:24).

 

If Judas didn’t go to Hell, then he went to Purgatory or Heaven.  In that case, Our Lord (the all knowing God) could not have said that it is better for Judas not to have been born.  That’s very clear and very simple.  Our Lord also says that Judas is “lost” and calls him the “son of perdition,” which means “the son of damnation.”  Judas also ended his life with the mortal sin of suicide.

 

John 17:12- "None of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.”

 

The Catholic Church has always held that Judas went to Hell, based on the clear words of Our Lord. 

 

St. Alphonsus, Preparation For Death, p. 127: “Poor Judas! Above seventeen hundred years have elapsed since he has been in Hell, and his Hell is still only beginning.[8]

 

New entry in file on receiving sacraments from non-sedevacantists

 

MHFM: There is a new entry in the following section of our website:

 

The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times

*refuting schismatic views in this area

 

The new entry concerns this issue: Some argue that the divine law forbids Catholics from ever attending the Mass of one they know to be a heretic – completely wrong and refuted by St. Thomas and the Fourth Lateran Council.  We have discussed the quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas on this point before, but this new entry shows how the Fourth Lateran Council confirms the true position we have enunciated and refutes schismatic errors.

 

Note: this section of our website deals with finer points and issues which concern those who are more familiar with the traditional faith.  Those who are new to the traditional Catholic faith might not find delving into these questions beneficial at this time; for this file concerns the specific target audience who are concerned with this specific question.

This file is found permanently in the “Where to Attend Mass” section of our website.  It will be updated on occasion, when time permits and additional points come up.

 

Sri Lanka

 

Dear Brother Michael Dimond,

 

My name is Randika Peiris.. I am 23 years old and I live in Sri Lanka I viewed your web site. I t was very interesting. Actually we as Christians gained a lot of trust and faith in Roman Catholic and got an idea about the present situation of Roman Catholicism. To be specific we were informed about the effects of the change of Latin mass from your web site..  There are many people in Sri Lanka who like to watch the DVDs which are published in your web site but unfortunately they are unable to afford these due to financial difficulties.  However the youth in Sri Lanka are willing to know more about the present situation of Roman Chotholic.There fore would I would appreciate if you could send original DVD copies free of charge so I will be able to distribute among the Roman Chatholics in Sri Lanka as the DVDs which are available on the web site is not very clear.   Further I am trying to publicise your DVDs in the national television in Sri Lanka..(Specially the DVD – Miracles and creations)  Your cooperation with regard this is greatly appreciated.

 

Thank You

May God Bless You!

 

Scapular and burial

 

Dear Brother Michael and Brother Peter

In circumstances where the Faithful cannot find a validly ordained priest to bless the Brown Scapular and enrol them for the privileges of this sacramental, should it nonetheless be worn without being blessed and would the wearer still obtain the promises made by Our Lady if worn with devotion?

I would also be very grateful for your advice on what Catholics should do concerning arrangements for the sacrament of Extreme Unction and especially a Catholic funeral where there are no validly ordained priests available or where the priests cannot be approached due to their being notorious and imposing in their heresies (eg the SSPX on salvation outside the Catholic Church). Should the deceased be buried without ceremony and a presiding priest if none can be found, and with only private prayers being said by the bereaved? This is a situation which sadly might confront many Faithful in these times of apostasy and I would appreciate any advice you have to give on what a Catholic should do in these circumstances.

I fully support your defense of the Catholic Faith in an uncompromising and consistent way. Please continue this vital work to save souls and be a witness for the truth.

Best wishes

Gerard

 

MHFM: To your first question, yes; you should wear the scapular even if it cannot be blessed.  The answer to your second question is yes as well. 

 

Baptism of Desire

 

Hello Brothers.

 

I have your book, "Outside the Church There is No Salvation" and it is VERY GOOD!   I have one question, though.  I was told that an earlier Pope issued a statement on the Baptism of Desire, which led many to believe that he was confirming its truth.  I understand that there was some misunderstanding with this, and I would really like to know exactly what it was that the Pope said and why it did not mean that the Baptism of Desire is a truth to be believed by the Church.  I tried to find it in the book, but I'm not seeing this.  Can you help?

 

Thank you and God bless your holy work!

 

Carol Walker

 

MHFM: The things that you are looking for are addressed in section 17 of: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [PDF FILE].  Baptism of desire advocates like to quote a letter which is alleged to be from Pope Innocent II, but the date of the letter is unknown and the author is unknown.  Even if it was Innocent II, it doesn’t meet the requirements to be infallible; but it’s not even clear who wrote it.  The letter also speaks about a “priest” who was unbaptized, which is a contradiction; for no one can be a priest without baptism.  Certainly it’s not infallible, and whether a pope even wrote it is doubtful. 

 

The other statement is a letter from Pope Innocent III.  That letter also doesn’t meet the requirements for an infallible pronouncement.  In fact, it’s on the same level as another letter which Pope Innocent III wrote which is entitled Ex parte tua.  In Ex parte tua, the same Innocent III taught that original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, which was contradicted by the Council of Trent.  But all those points are covered in the book, in section 17.  The point here is that nothing infallible teaches baptism of desire.

 

EWTN heresies

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I'm not sure if you caught this or not --- but EWTN has a weekly show by a Maronite Jesuit in Mitch Pacwa. During his show… there were numerous heresies being thrown around by Pacwa; e.g. that God uses other churches as sources for salvation, praising Protestant preaching, how the Orthodox sects are "true Churches," that Protestants have the gift of faith, etc. all mainly based on the documents of Vatican II. It was sickening. How anyone can support this network financially and be called Catholic is beyond me.


God Bless,

Fergus

 

MHFM: Thanks for the update.  We also have a file on EWTN: EWTN and the Charismatic Movement [PDF File.]

 

Guadalupe?

 

DEAR BROTHERS,


WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON OUR LADY OF GUADULUPE ?

 

YENC

 

MHFM: It’s a series of authentic appearances of Our Lady to Juan Diego in 1531, which resulted in the conversion of millions to the Catholic faith.  The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe’s appearance, with all of its miraculous features, can still be seen in Mexico today.  The appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe is one of the greatest things in history.  It’s also discussed in our video Creation and Miracles, Past and Present: WATCH OUR DVDS ONLINE FOR FREE.

 

Justified by faith alone?

 

If Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, and someone accepts Christ as their righteousness, and thus are justified by faith and at peace, why would it be true that only Catholics can be saved? 

 

TC…

 

MHFM: Not everyone who thinks or holds Christ to be their righteousness is justified, as shown here: Justification by Faith Alone refuted and the Catholic teaching on Justification proved by the Protestant Bible [1 hr. 30 min. audio].  You must believe in everything He teaches, which includes accepting His Catholic Church founded upon Peter (Mt. 16:18; Mt. 18:17) and the rest of the Catholic dogmas.

 

The Stripping of the Altars

 

MHFM: We’ve pointed out that the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution parallels what happened to the Mass in 16th century Protestant England.  Here’s a quote from one Roger Edgeworth, who lived during the time, which might be of interest to those who are new to these facts.  It comes from around 1550.  This quote and the one below it show how closely the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution, with its replacement of altars with tables, follows what happened in Protestant England:

 

[NOTE: THIS QUOTE IS IN OLD ENGLISH]: “… no man should see what the priest did, nor here what he said.  Then this way pleased not and the aulters [i.e. altars] were pulled dowyne and the tables set up and all the observaunce saide in Englyshe and that openly that all men mighte here and see…” (quoted in Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars, Yale University Press, 1992, p. 471.)

 

Here’s another quote:

 

“Hooper’s Interrogatories and Injunctions for Gloucester and Worcester, drawn up in 1551, were even more extreme, requiring the ripping out of any steps or partitions where altars had been, the celebration of communion anywhere except where Mass had been sung, forbidding the ‘decking or appareling’ of tables ‘behind or before’ as if they were altars, and any variation of tone or pitch or voice or posture of body, by ministers or people, which might be reminiscent of the Mass.” (Ibid., p. 472.)

                                                                                                                                            

Desperate search

 

Subject: Lost

 

As I surf through your web site and read some of your articles as there are so many of them, I find myself agreeing with your beliefs.  I am not the devout catholic that I should be.  I do attend mass on a regular basis, but most of the time I leave church with an emptiness and feeling worse than when I walked in as I find myself being critical of what our churches have become, a mockery.  I am in desperate search of truth, knowledge and above all, a true place where I can worship Jesus.  I must confess that I have been very skeptic of our Popes… I live in McAllen, Texas. Is there a true church of God in my area that you know of?

 

Led to Site


You guys are really good and brilliant at what you are doing, figuring all of this stuff out and publishing these articles and videos.  I am a convert to the Catholic faith from a Protestant denomination, all of my life from the time I was little I always had a desire to be a Catholic,a desire which would not leave me it was just always there(a part of me),and unlike alot of Protestants I never had a problem whatsoever with Blessed Mother Mary, matter of fact I always felt drawn to her and thought she is very beautiful(in her statues and images)even though I did not know her like Catholics do,and I was always thinking to myself(while growing up going to this Protestant church)why don't we have Mary?and I could never understand (and I still don't)why so many people always have a problem with Mary,how can you not love,accept,respect and embrace a Lady like her?(I'll never understand)

       So I went through this whole RCIA thing and joined the Church (on Mar,26,05 I was confirmed), or atl east I thought I had joined the Catholic Church until after my own negative experiences that I started getting since joining and being led to your website (after repeatedly bringing my complaints about everything to the Lord in prayers, I asked Him what in the world is going on in the Church?) because I wanted to be a sincere and devout Catholic but it seems there is just nothing but trouble and frustration waiting for people like this in the church(what I now know is Vatican II church/religion through you)now I don't know what to do or think anymore!  Now I don't even know if I am really a Catholic since you write everything is invalid (I was Confirmed in the Vatican II church and Baptised as a baby in the Protestant denomination by a clergyman,and I know what you say about Protestants based on the Catholic teaching) so am I a Catholic or not?(that was my sincere intention,to join the real true Catholic Church and Faith)and then what are we to do these days with all of this mess going on and we want to join the real true faith?

   Here are my negative accounts:(ever since becoming Catholic or so I thought,I have nothing but problems with the Priests and I have to admit I don't like the Priests,they are not good and not holy, they behave more like everyday men then like Priests,I think they are brute and not like a godly gentlemen that I expected ) I was told by a Priest not to even think about the Devil or worry about him,after going to talk to him about my concerns that I was being afflicted in my life,as if not thinking about the Devil/Demons is going to make him /them go away.(I remember thinking the Devil must already have him) another time and another Priest he told me"don't worry about hellfire"during a confession. Another Priest right before confession when I was trying to ask and get a answer to a religious question basically started to verbally assault me(attack!) in the confessional,I was so upset I started crying right in there in front of him and all the way home and I had to walk quite a way home that day and I almost could've got ran over by cars at the traffic light because of being so besides myself and all the tears…

 

I thought we are supposed to admonish the sinner but in the VaticanII church/religion they don't hold to that anymore, it doesn't work, all you will hear is"don't judge me""your judging me""are you Judging me?""who are you to Judge""  … Well I eventually found your website somehow. Let me tell you I never attended that Mass at that church again because I did not want to see that Priest no more!(spreading falsehood) And you are right a lot of those people on EWTN are heretics, on EWTN you here about this Universal Salvation stuff alot on their shows (especially that Fr.Groeschel)… I haven't read very many of your articles yet but eventually will get around to reading them all a few times over I hope. Yesterday I read the one on Bernardine and I have to say the changes to that cathedral are absolutely disgusting! What is supposed to be the crucifix to me looks like a man in a grave buried without a coffin(it's as if you have just opened up someones grave and your standing there looking down into it and onto the exposed corpse of a man buried in that position without a coffin, that is what it looked like to me right away and not like a crucifix at all!) Also no nails,nail marks,wounds,and no feet over each other.matter of fact also no cross to hold him behind him,this is not a crucifix and it's also no resurection,it's a man in a grave because the framing looks like earth,the earth around a grave.(chilling)and the tabernacle thing(gruesome) and the Demon faces in the marble slabs (horrifying and horrendous!,and I really wonder how they got those faces in those marble slabs,I wonder if getting those faces in there involved using some kind of supernatural means/power and not just human........makes you think!) and people that go to that cathedral or belonged to it when those renovations were done weren't noticing and wondering about that stuff?, it's really yuck! Maybe those Marble slabs have real Demons trapped in them somehow(put in there by sorcery)and that's why and how those faces got in there like that,and only if and when they break those Demons that are trapped in them will be released and come out!(sounds crazy,but you never know........) maybe they will fall down from those cathedral walls one day! 

     Anyways let me bring this e-mail to an end, it's a long e-mail I know and I really hope you will be able to read it alright, I just had a lot to say! And please pray for me and keep me in your prayers at the monastery please... Thank You, take care,and God Bless You!

 Sincerely,

           Jan                                                                                                

 

Infiltration

 

Subject: With reference to your item on the infiltration of the Church.

 

Last year I read an article stating that "in the mid 1980's, 1850 homosexual men were recruited by a wing of the communist party to enter the seminaries of the Church." Have you heard of this?

 

Robert Lockwood.

 

MHFM: We haven’t heard of that particular example.  The Novus Ordo seminaries certainly provide the atmosphere of effeminacy and indifferentism that homosexuals are looking for, which is why they flock there, as shown here: The Seminaries of the Vatican II sect are unspeakable cesspools of homosexuality and heresy [PDF File].

 

Now practicing

 

My friend was a non-practicing Catholic and now is a practicing Catholic after watching your DVDs.

 

Julie Austin,

Adelaide, South Australia

 

Unbaptized Saints?

 

The more we listen to your site the more we want your book.

 

We heard a sermon by Bishop Dolan, not the one you critique on your site, where he mentions “canonized saints” (New Testament) not baptized with water.  Saints Rogation and Donation or something?... If there were a non-water-baptized saint canonized after water baptism was instituted by a valid and legal pope that would seal the case for BOD for me.

 

John Gregory

Front Royal VA

 

MHFM: No, there’s no proof that any saint wasn’t baptized.  Our book (which you can get with another book and DVDs for only $10.00) answers the objections and covers the facts on this point.  There is no proof that St. Rogatian wasn’t baptized.  That’s the editorialization of Fr. Butler (of Butler’s Lives of the Saints) and nothing more.  Even in the story he gives, there are many scenarios where Rogatian could have been baptized.  But the key point about this issue is this: the first infallible definition stating that the elect see the Beatific Vision immediately after death was from Pope Benedict XII in Benedictus Deus in 1336.  It is interesting to examine what he infallibly declared about the saints and martyrs who went to Heaven.

 

Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 1336, ex cathedra, on the souls of the just receiving the Beatific Vision: “By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare… the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them, in whom there was nothing to be purged… and the souls of children departing before the use of free will, reborn and baptized in the same baptism of Christ, when all have been baptized… have been, are, and will be in heaven…” (Denzinger 530)

 

In defining that the elect (including the martyrs) in whom nothing is to be purged are in Heaven, Pope Benedict XII mentions three times that they have been baptized.  Obviously, no apostle, martyr, confessor or virgin could receive the Beatific Vision without having received Baptism, according to this infallible dogmatic definition.  If there were martyrs in Heaven who had not been baptized, they would have been mentioned in this infallible dogmatic definition.  But not only are they not mentioned, it’s expressly mentioned that all “apostles, martyrs, virgins,” etc. in Heaven have been baptized. 

 

Likes Papacy Audio

 

I just wanted to tell you that I finally listened to your audio on "The Bible teaches that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope".  I kept putting it off, because I thought it was something I already knew.  Although I truly believed Jesus made Peter the first pope, I actually never knew why I believed it. 
 
I was able to listen to it when my kids were sleeping, and it was the most wonderful lesson on how the Bible teaches that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope.  No, it wasn't just wonderful, it was beautiful.  I told my sisters to listen to it right away....because it was worth every minute.
 
So, thank you for putting together an outstanding audio.  I am still contemplating all of the beautiful imagery.  I cannot even imagine all of the time and studying you put into that.  May God reward you for a job well done.
 
Teri Thurman

 

The Bible teaches that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope [51 min. audio]

 

New perspective

 

After having received your DVD videos, tapes, and books just over a week ago, it is my purpose in writing to thank you for the large volume of information you have forwarded me.  I commend you for your obvious deep research on the subjects included.  This information has changed my entire perspective of my Christian beliefs... It is with my best wishes that I write and do include you in my prayers.

 

Owen Evers

St. Paul, MN.

 

In India

 

May God bless you abundantly.  I appreciate your service in India as well as over the globe.  We are all praying for your good health...

 

V. Yedukondalu

Kuppanapudi, Akividu, India

 

Life worth living?

 

In one of your videos, you decry Buddhism for believing that life isn't worth living.  By your estimation, what does or would make life worth living?  Many Protestants believe that Christ means to save all who profess His name and accept His offer for salvation.  But Catholics don't believe Christ came to save even all these.  So, if one seeks to be saved by Christ, but, for whatever reason, may not be, what would make that individual's life worth living?

 

Spencer Jeffrey Harper

 

MHFM: Catholics believe that Christ came to save all men (1 Tim. 2:4), but not all will be saved (Mt. 7:13).  Life is worth living precisely because only through living a good and Catholic life can one have salvation.  It profits man nothing if he gains the whole world and loses his eternal soul (Mt. 16:26).  If a person will go to Heaven or Hell based on what he does in life, of course it’s worth it for him to live and do what he should to have salvation!  It’s not like he will do what’s right and lose salvation “for whatever reason.”  No, a person will lose salvation if he is outside the true Church or if he dies in the state of mortal sin.

 

Studying scriptures

 

I asked Jesus to teach me how to live as He would have it.  I have since come to know and understand several things in my heart.  I know that I need to seek Him in His Word in addition to praying the Rosary, going to Confession and attending the Tridentine Mass.  I have never studied His Word before in any diligent way and seek some guidance on how to study the bible.  Could you recommend a book or instructional course for learning how to study the scriptures?

 

Also, how would one find / choose a spiritual director?

 

James

Memphis, TN

 

MHFM: It’s important to have a Catholic Bible.  But it’s equally important to understand the Bible’s actual teaching.  That requires an understanding of the teaching of the Church.  That’s covered in our material, and in a source book for traditional dogmatic teachings such as Denzinger.  This is a good book to have.

 

Grateful

 

Dear Sirs:

 

For the past several days I have been totally fascinated by reading your position(s) regarding Catholicism.  As a result I am very much in agreement with your findings and wish to find out how it would be possible for me to find an acceptable Roman Catholic church located close enough to me for me to attend weekly mass. I have already ordered several of your pieces from the monastery store for my further edification, and am grateful to have learned of your monastery and it's mission on the internet.

 

Yours truly,

 

Richard B.

 

Converting?

 

I was married in a protestant church. I was a catholic but ever since vatican2 i have been confused still no reason for me to leave. Can i still go to confession.

 

Thomas

 

MHFM: You would need to convert (return) to the traditional Catholic faith first.  You would need to accept the traditional Catholic faith with all of its dogmas, and then make the profession for converts from the Council of Trent (which is on our website).  See the section, “The Steps to convert to the traditional Catholic faith (and for those people leaving the New Mass),” on our list of links.  It’s in red about ľ of the way down the list of links.  After one converts and accepts the fullness of the Catholic faith, then he or she can go to confession.  You should start to pray the Rosary each day as well. 

 

Refreshing

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I ran across your web site… How utterly refreshing it is to see the truth being promulgated…  I CANNOT attend a vatican 2 dog and pony show any longer and will not.  I attended the seminary from 1987 to 1990.  The stories are absolutely true about the rampant homosexuality it is one of the reason I left, and I am glad that I did.  There is much work to be done in the salvation of souls!…

 

Robert Iacomacci

Donalds South Carolina

 

New section on Receiving sacraments from non-sedevacantists

 

MHFM: Below is a new section of our website which refutes a certain schismatic position.  These are just some new points and thoughts which shed light on this issue. This schismatic position asserts that it’s mortally sinful or heretical in every case to receive sacraments from priests who hold to heretical positions or are non-sedevacantists, even if one doesn’t support that priest.  This section of our website will be updated on occasion, when time permits and additional points come up.

 

The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times

*refuting schismatic views in this area

 

Note: this section of our website deals with finer points and issues which concern those who are more familiar with the traditional faith.  Those who are new to the traditional Catholic faith might not find delving into these questions beneficial at this time; for this file concerns the specific target audience who are concerned with this specific question.  Also, for those who are interested in this issue, don’t miss the second entry of this section concerning the quote from the book: The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism.  It contains a quote which is important in refuting the schismatic view described above.

 

Pro-abortion Alumnus

 

Dear Dimond Brothers:

 

I read the most recent article featured in your News and Commentary section entitled, “Catholic University Extols Pro-Abortion Alumnus Nancy Pelosi”.  It is interesting to note that Pelosi publicly identifies herself as a Catholic.  However, if you look at her public voting record and family history, it becomes apparent that she is not what she claims to be.

 

Pelosi is 100% behind protecting the Jewish abortion industry, restricting gun ownership, and is an advocate for immigration.  Her children married Jewish spouses.  Pelosi’s husband, also a Jew, is a New York investment banker turned San Francisco real estate developer.  Pelosi’s father, former mayor of Baltimore, came from a family of Argentine Jews.  She is 100% behind Israel, and stated, “The creation of the State of Israel is one of the miracles of the twentieth century”.

 

Pelosi is most likely a crypto-Jew posing as a devout Catholic.  The fact that she claims to be Catholic and supports abortion is perfectly in line (as you pointed out in your article on John Kerry – also Jewish) with the teaching of the novus ordo “church”.  How anyone can remain in the novus ordo “church” and be in communion with these beasts-who-claim-to-be-Christians is beyond me.

 

-John.

 

Testimonials

 

Bro. Michael Dimond,

 

Tonight I was searching through my computer and happened to come across your very well and professionally documented articles...  Thank you and God bless from me and my family in Ireland.

 

Brian Mc Aviaue

 -------

Thanks for the in depth wealth of information.

 

Allen Metzger

Cedar Springs, MI.

 ----------

We have been Traditionalists since 1975.  We thank you for this commitment to tradition.  No where else can we find this kind of education for our time.  We use your DVDs to educate our 11 children and grandchildren in the Catholic faith.  God bless you.

 

Charles Blake

Olathe, KS.

 -----

Dear Brothers,

 

You said that that you have taken a lot of flack over your chapter about the conversion of Russia.  I was prompted to look up in the dictionary the words "destruction" and "annihilation".  I must say it changed my opinion.  I do now believe that you are correct.  My friend insisted that "the annihilation of nations" means the complete destruction like in Sodom and Gemorrah.  So checking that story in the Bible the word destroy and not annihilate was used over and over.  Destroy - to demolish - bring to ruin while annihilate - to destroy the identity of.  So destroy is the correct word for Sodom and Gommorah.  The word annihilate would correctly identify what you describe as to the Baltic states...  I can't thank you enough for helping me in your publications through the maze of so called Traditional groups etc - to know the truth so as to avoid the snares.  You have so armed me that now I can read through their materials and immediately see their errors.  Of course my eyes would be blinded even to your info if it was not for Our Blessed Mother Mary and Her Most Holy Rosary.

 

Kris Peterson

California

 

MHFM: Thanks.  This reader is referring to a section about the actual meaning of Our Lady of Fatima’s words that “various nations will be annihilated,” which is found in this article: The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the Impostor Sr. Lucy.

 

Our Beliefs

 

Hello
 
You certainly have some interesting perspectives on your website! I mainly read some material on the sexual scandal and apostasy. Whilst I am not familiar with the detail, a lot of what was said seem to probably ring true, albeit quite unbelievable that it actually happened. A personal experience certainly lent credibility to your information: - about two years ago I was totally 'gobsmacked' to hear a Catholic Priest (a family friend) say that "God was bigger than that". This was in relation to my question to him regarding the level of distress that he felt about someone close to him becoming a buddhist nun and also being a lesbian. In light of your material I should not have wasted any emotional stress and been totally unsurprised!
 
Whilst I am fully in line with your thinking about endorsement of other religions, I totally disagree with your perspective on Protestant (non Catholic) faiths. I am neither a fan of the Catholic church (I grew up in the Catholic system which sent me off to be an agnostic (athesist?) for more than a decade), nor many of the large Protestant churches. However I do not see why you take exception to any true Christian faith that believes in the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ but not Catholic dogma. I am curious how you can find scriptural support for the notion that acceptance of the Papacy is conditional to salvation? Likewise, any scriptual endorsement as opposed to condemnation for what I would call a 'dangerous' level of adoration of Mary, Jesus' mother; nothwithstanding that she is clearly 'chosen' and blessed amongst women - I would not argue with that, nor about the supernatural and unique immaculate conception. Note however that in line with protestant thinking, I also believe that scripture indicates a normal marital relationship subsequent to  the birth of Our Saviour.  These issues and others in Catholic dogma truly have perplexed me for some time. So if you have the time please reply and enlighten me.
 
Thanks
 
Yours in Christ

 

Sp…

 

MHFM: You write: “I am curious how you can find scriptural support for the notion that acceptance of the Papacy is conditional to salvation?  It’s covered in this audio: The Bible teaches that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope [new 51 min. audio].  Since Christ set up His one Church upon Peter, one cannot belong to the one Church of Christ without accepting the Papacy.  Regarding the other points you ask about, Protestants are not Bible-believing Christians. Protestants rejects the clear truth of the Bible on the Papacy (Mt. 16:18-20; John 21-15-17), on the Eucharist (John 6), on Confession (Jn. 20:23), on the necessity of Baptism (John 3:5) and much more.  In order to make room for their man-made religion, the Protestants also kicked seven books they didn't like out of Christian Bible – books which had been accepted by the Christian Church for over a millennium.  It’s precisely because Protestantism is not true and biblical Christianity that those who adhere to it cannot be saved.  You need to look that the information in our Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" section.

 

Papal Infallibility, late?

 

Dear Bros,

 

I am a fellow sedevacantist, and believe in the one true Catholic religion, apart from the phony N.O., but I have a question that's been bugging me which I'd like an answer to. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the notion of papal infallibility not "invented" (for lack of a better word) until the late 1800's? If this is so, it seems odd to me that God would have His church go so long before coming up with such a doctrine which seems should have been created towards the beginning of the church. Now it's possible that I'm reading too much into this, or maybe I just don't have my facts straight, but please humor me for a moment. Doesn't it seem awfully convenient for the church to come up with this doctrine at a time when Protestantism was young and the Reformation was in its infancy? It seems like a convenient doctrine to come up with at the spur of the moment to keep people from leaving the church rather than a doctrine inspired by God. Again, I don't doubt the validity of the doctrine, but the timing is questionable it would seem. Your comments, please. Thanks, and keep up the good work.

 

Ds…

 

MHFM: As this audio shows, The Bible teaches that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope [new 51 min. audio], papal infallibility comes right from Luke 22.  It also flows logically from papal primacy.  In other words, there would have been no point for Jesus to institute the papacy (which He clearly did, as proven in that audio), in which one person is given authority over the Church, if Jesus would have allowed that one person to teach error when teaching to the universal Church in a binding fashion; for then the entire Church could be led into error.  So besides Luke 22 and the full import of the power to bind on Earth what is bound in Heaven, which is given to St. Peter in Mt. 16, Papal Infallibility flows logically from the authority over the flock (Jn. 21:15-17) which Jesus gave to St. Peter. 

 

Papal Infallibility wasn’t formally defined until 1870, but it was believed long before that.  You can see the concept in the early Church.  You can see it in the teaching that the Chair of Rome is undefiled:

 

Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).” (Denz. 163)

 

Notice that Vatican I, in expressing the truth of papal infallibility, said the same thing:

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR” (Denz. 1863)

 

John Paul II and Vatican II

 

Hi

 

I just read your materials on Vatican II and was a bit suprised at you conclusions, though I agree. Why did Pope John Paul II not address the non-catholic issues of Vatican II?

Why did he fail to condemn and correct the error?  Being infallible, Pope John Paul VI, as has been declared by the Catholic Church leadership, how could he deviate from the truth of Catholicism?  Being infallible, why did't Pope John Paul make the truth known about Vatican II to the millions and millions of Catholics who adhere to the Vatican II doctrines, new mass and heretical teachings?  I hope you can provide some insight.

 

Joel

 

MHFM: John Paul II didn’t address the non-Catholic issues of Vatican II because he was in full agreement with its heresies.  He was involved with writing The Heresies in Vatican II [PDF File].  John Paul II was a manifest heretic at Vatican II and prior to his “election” in 1978.  Thus, he never validly assumed the office of the Papacy.  He never had protection in his official teaching because he was an antipope, not a true pope.  You need to read this file: The Heresies of John Paul II [PDF file].

 

Sister Lucia

 

Sister Lucia (1907-2005), one of the three seers at Fatima who conversed with the Blessed Virgin Mary many times throughout her life accepted the Vatican II Popes as true successors of Saint Peter.

I hope that this information helps you to grow closer to Our Lord and Our Lady.

Sincerely in +JMJ,

Roger

 

MHFM: As shown in The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the Impostor Sr. Lucy, the post-Vatican II “Sister Lucia” was not the real one.  The aforementioned file provides the facts to substantiate that claim, but really it’s just common sense.  For instance, the post-Vatican II “Sister Lucia” fully endorsed the completely phony version of the Third Secret of Fatima which was released in 2000.  Anyone who knows anything about the issue knows that that “Third Secret,” which was given to the world in the year 2000, could not have been the real one.  Thus, the fact that the post-Vatican II “Sister Lucia” fully endorsed it as authentic proves, by itself, that she was not the real Sister Lucia.  And that’s in addition to all the other evidence.

 

Another NO “baptism”

 

Dear MHFM

 

Re: NO baptism.  I saw such a baptism about 1994.  It has bothered me ever since. 

 

It happened at the San Luis Rey Mission parish Hall where they were having "Mass".  This man "priest"  dressed like St. Francis but wearing large gold rings on his fingers, entered the church and picked up a naked baby and dunked it ceremoniously into the baptismal font or whatever.  When he lifted the "baptized" baby up, it wasn't even wet.  If he had immersed it so its head was wet, it would be dripping and its hair wet, but it wasn't. 

 

Such a horror.  It's as if the devil is insulting the sacrament by having children falsely baptized in the opposite areas of their bodies.  And you know they have been taught how to properly baptize, even in the NO church.

 

I just had someone tell me that the NO Mass is a terrible mass but still valid.  In other words, this is the Mass that Jesus wants us to attend so we can learn heresy and confusion and watch Christ being blasphemed and insulted, his words of consecration changed… and where we can watch men sin by viewing half naked women receiving "communion" because no one will ever tell them to leave or refuse them their sacrament...

 

This abomination is from the Holy Spirit?  Not even in the best of circumstances, even if their orders were valid, which they are not.  All anyone has to do is check.  They are not.  …I witnessed a Protestant baptism (before my conversion to true Catholicism) that was more reverent and correct than that N.O. baptism and "Mass".  And just imagine sending converts to Catholicism to this so-called church.  They would lose their faith.  My daugher in law got her tubes tied so there would be no more annoying children in her life.  She said she properly went to a priest, a N.O. priest.  Did he tell her it was a mortal sin and that she would lose her soul?  No.  He told her he was from the old school and that he didn't believe in it.  He never told her not to do it.  This is forbidden in the N.O. church, as is proselytism…

 

PM

 

JP2’s nude “Masses”

 

In trying to convince people that John Paul II was evil and not Catholic I sometimes bring up the fact that John Paul II had nude women at his “Masses.”  They always defend him by saying that that’s the way they are in those cultures, that that’s what is accepted in those cultures.  What would you say to that?

 

Wayne Lang,

Hays, KS

 

MHFM: First we would say that a Catholic cannot accept or tolerate elements of cultures which are opposed to faith or morals.  Walking around nude is opposed to decency and modesty.  That’s why the Catholic missionaries, who worked in all kinds of wicked and pagan cultures, always made sure to instruct the converts that they had to wear some clothing.  They would not give them the sacraments if they were not dressed.  Below is one quote which is relevant to that point.  It comes from the life of Padre Jose de Anchieta, who was called “the Apostle of Brazil”:

 

“Truly the Superior would drain the population to colonize Brazil, which, he wrote, is ‘our undertaking and has the greatest number of inhabitants in the world.’  Certainly clothing was needed.  At least one garment in all decency should be available for each new convert to wear to church.” (Helen G. Dominian, The Biography of Padre Jose de Anchieta, S.J. [1534-1597], Exposition Press, 1958, p. 46.)

 

Second, John Paul II not only tolerated the immoral nudity, but allowed this pagan way of acting into the liturgy itself.  That’s specifically condemned as Modernism.

 

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the Worship of Modernists:THE CHIEF STIMULUS IN THE DOMAIN OF WORSHIP CONSISTS IN THE NEED OF ADAPTING ITSELF TO THE USES AND CUSTOMS OF PEOPLES, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage.”

 

New Audio on Papacy posted

 

The Bible teaches that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope [new 51 min. audio]

 

·         This is a very important audio for people to hear.  It contains devastating and irrefutable evidence from the Bible which proves that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope.  Among other things, this audio covers: the change of Peter’s name; the keys of the kingdom; who is the Rock of Matthew 16?  It’s Peter; Peter’s unfailing faith; Jesus entrusts all of His sheep to Peter; the prominence of Peter’s name in Scripture; Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas; Peter’s primacy in the Acts of the Apostles and more.  This Part 1 contains the Biblical (and some patristic) evidence for the Catholic teaching on the Papacy.  Part 2 (which will be posted in the future) will demonstrate that the early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter’s authority.

 

This audio will be found permanently in the “Refuting Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy” section of our website.

 

Thank you

 

Thank you and may God bless your apostolate for giving us the truth!

 

Ralf Karlsen,

Sweden

 

Sister Faustina

 

To most misguided

How Dare You MISGUIDE Catholics in saying not to believe The Divine Mercy and the writings of Sister Faustina's Diary. I had severe bipolar and suffered. If it wasn't for the dedication of my family and finding and saying of the Divine Mercy Novena I would never have survived it and be a normail and mentally healthy woman today.

May God forgive you misguiding His children who believe the trash you write. The Divine Mercy Chaplet is a Power System for all God's children and I am completely sickened by what I found YOU SAYING ON THE NET to all around the world.

How I pity you who are so blind

Debra Farry   CATHOLIC

 

MHFM: No, you are so blind.  Her writings were on the Index of Forbidden Books prior to Vatican II.  You are obviously not a traditional Catholic, and thus not a real Catholic at all.  All you people care about are people you think are visionaries, not the dogmas of the faith. Sister Faustina's Divine Mercy Devotion is something to avoid [PDF File].

 

Perfect contrition, baptism of desire?

 

Dear Brothers:

I have a question about the Church's teaching on the perfect act of contrition.  I do not hold the baptism of desire theory, but I have always believed in the Catechism's teaching that you can make a perfect act of contrition to remit mortal sins if you cannot receive a sacramental confession in the case of imminent death. Isn't this sort of like baptism of desire in the sense that you can receive a sacrament without the outward sign in certain extraordinary circumstances? If a perfect act of contrition without the outward sign is a possibility for the sacrament of penance, then why not for baptism? They are both sacraments we need to obtain salvation.


Thank you for your time.

Melissa U

 

MHFM: The answer to your question is that we know that a baptized person could be restored to justification by perfect contrition plus the desire for confession because the Church has infallibly taught that this can happen (Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4).  But the Church has not infallibly taught that an unbaptized person can have justification by baptism of desire.  On the contrary, the Church has infallibly taught that John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written (which contradicts baptism of desire); that the Sacrament of Baptism (desire is not a sacrament) is necessary for salvation; that the spirit of sanctification (i.e. justification) is inseparable from the water of baptism; that the unsacramentally baptized are not part of the Church; that the unsacramentally baptized cannot be subject to the Roman Pontiff; and on and on.  All of the infallible teachings which contradict baptism of desire are covered in Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].  So, to give a short answer to your question: the Church teaches one concept but doesn’t teach the other.

 

Heresy of the Week

 

MHFM: If you haven’t seen it this week the Heresy of the Week was posted.

 

Confirmation

 

Dear Brothers,
         
I have recently converted to the true Catholic faith.  I am wondering whether or not my confirmation was valid since it was done in a Novus Ordo church by a bishop whom I have no idea of his ordination date.  If it was not valid, what do I need to do if anything?... Thank you for all of your help!  God Bless you all!                      

 

Jodi

 

MHFM: No, the Novus Ordo “Confirmation” is not valid, as shown here: The Changes to the Other Sacraments [PDF file].  Confirmation is not absolutely necessary for salvation.  Thus, if one doesn’t have a place to receive it (as is the case with almost everyone today) then there is no obligation to do so. 

 

A real Catholic

 

I completely desagree with the ideas written on your web site, although I respect them. A real catholic, which means a real Christ's follower, wouldn't abandone the Church of Christ just because he or she desagrees for a while with what the Church has decided. That's exactly what some eastern churches, Luther and all the protestants did. That's not to follow Christ's teachings about the unity of his Church. On the contrary, a real Christian would persevere within the Church, in spite of not understanding very well the religious decisions taken by its liders. That's to keep the unity of the Church and not attempting against it, as Saint Paul tells us with his epistles. Besides, Christ himself teaches in the Gospel that every decision taken by the Church's liders that has to do with moral or religion is inspired by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, by not accepting and by damning the Vatican II Council reforms you're away the true church of Christ and against it, so you would be considere as some heretics. I hope that this comment should help you to ponder. Thanks.

 

Paulo Hidalgo,

Catholic Layman.

 

MHFM: Paulo, you’re very confused and mistaken.  The men you are following are heretics and outside the Church precisely because they agree with the Protestants and accept them as true Christians.  Here’s just one example: The Vatican II sect's Protestant Revolution: the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification [PDF File].  They also teach that they shouldn’t be converted, that they can receive Holy Communion, etc.  Both Benedict XVI and John Paul II praised Luther, as our files document.  You should look at them.  You need to wake up and realize that staying with the Catholic Church and the Papacy is staying with the dogmatic teachings of all the true popes in history.  It’s not staying with men in Rome who are posing as popes, yet teaching a new religion contrary to what all the true popes have taught.  By following them you are leaving the Catholic Church and rejecting the Papacy.  The men you are following have been proven to be non-Catholic antipopes.  There have been over 40 antipopes in Catholic history, and the saints and doctors tell us what to do when confronted with heretics posing as true popes: The Catholic Teaching that a heretic cannot be a valid pope [PDF file].

 

Wow… a NO “baptism”

 

Dear Brothers,

I recently had the profound displeasure of witnessing the "baptism" of a child in the Novus Ordo. I know that I should not have attended, but was somewhat coerced and not as vigilant as I should have been.  The liturgy began normally enough, with the markedly unorganized air typical of the liturgical goings on of this parish. The altar girls, priest, and "deacon" processed out. They began by announcing what was going on that day, introduced the child to be baptized, paraphrased an opening prayer, anointed the child with chrism, then some laywomen read aloud the readings. A man read the gospel. The children are apparently dismissed before the readings, as there was a mass exodus of them from the nave into the narthex, where I imagine they received a watered-down lesson, or something like that. The priest, apparently an ultra-modernist, gave a sermon about repenting and "what it means to him." They then sang some nasty music. There was not one lick of traditional music in the whole thing; tambourines and electric piano, though, were given pride of placement. Then was the offertory, a time for a great many little children to run around making noise and coming up to the altar to put their offerings in a basket. It was at this point (if memory serves) that the deacon and priest walked to the font and began what appeared a typical baptism.

Then what happened I thought VERY strange. Apparently the child wrapped in towels was unclothed the whole time. The deacon removed the baby from the towels, and presented the naked baby to the congregation holding her at about chest level. He then held her behind the back and by the legs, and barely dunked her bottom into the font thrice, pronouncing the form. This was no immersion, this was a mere moistening of the bottom. The water didn't come anywhere near her head, it certainly did not flow on her head. Then there was the typical large amount of clapping as the child was handed back to the parents. I thought I was witnessing some pagan sacrifice; my jaw was probably on the floor the whole time.

The bad music started in again, the priest went to the altar and continued. The vast number of chalices and ciboria on the altar were eventually dispensed to eucharistic ministers (mostly women) who handed the "eucharist" over to people standing in long lines, many of whom proceeded to chew it as though the Body of Christ is merely a cracker of some kind - and indeed in this case it was. Most people didn't receive what is allegedly the blood, probably because they find it disgusting to drink out of the communal cup, I imagine. Those who did were typically small children who seemed to be making an effort to get as much as they could - I saw eucharistic ministers somewhat grabbing the chalices back from some kids... It ended just as it began. The closing hymn involved castanets and shouting "hallelujah!" A truly moving experience… I found this experience quite disturbing. This "baptism" was almost certainly invalid, and how many others like it have occurred unwitnessed by someone who is even aware of the concept of validity. I am baffled as to why it was done this way. I'm sure that this was more work than simply following the rubrics they had in front of them...

My question to you is this: What would be the proper course of action? I intend to write to the NO bishop, though I don't expect much. This did, afterall, occur at what is probably the second largest church in his cathedral city. But, perhaps it will incite a sudden outbreak of common sense, if only for a fleeting moment.

EE

 

MHFM: Yes, you shouldn’t have attended.  There’s no point in writing the heretical Novus Ordo “bishop.”  You should inform those who have care of the child about the necessity of a conditional baptism, if they ever intend to have the child raised in and as a member of the Catholic faith.  But since they are obviously and unfortunately immersed in the Vatican II religion, that’s obviously not their intention right now.  They need to accept the true faith.

 

Honorius “Proof”

 

Proof that Sedevacantism is wrong

Although Pope Honorius I was post-humously condemned for heresy by a general council, the Church does not consider him to have ceased to be Pope, even though he stood accused of heresy during his very reign.  Pope Honorius I was accused of heresy during his reign as Sovereign Pontiff but YET, the Church still considers him to be Pope and during his reign there was NO vacancy in the Papacy.  If you look in the complete list of Popes, Pope Honorius I was the 70th Pope who reigned from 625 to 638 and was not taken out of the list of Popes by the Church.

 

J…

 

MHFM: No, the case of Honorius doesn’t prove sedevacantism wrong.  Your objection is addressed and refuted in Objection 14 of this file: Responses to 19 of the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism [PDF file].  It’s also addressed and refuted in Part 3 of this file: A Response to the Attack on Sedevacantism.  Here’s a brief portion of the response:

 

…if you want further confirmation that heretics ipso facto cease to be popes, and that the case of Pope Honorius provides no evidence to the contrary, you don’t have to take our word for it. 

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306:  "Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was.  Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."[9]

In the same paragraph in which St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the Church) mentions Pope Honorius, he states unequivocally that a pope who would become a heretic would cease to be pope.  St. Francis De Sales wasn’t sure if Pope Honorius was a heretic or merely failed to stamp out heresy; but, whatever it was, St. Francis knew that the case of Honorius didn’t affect the truth that heretics cannot be popes. 

 

Shocked by the Novus Ordo

 

Hello,

 

I don't know how I received  the DVD of four programs in 1…  I held on to it for at least a year and am watching it today because in my visit to my mother in Long Island, NY, I met a man on the train and we had a conversation on the Catholic Church, both of us having come from pre-Vatican II backgrounds.  He mentioned the name Dimond and I recalled that I have the dvd.  

 

Not knowing that there was the term sedevacantist, I used to say that I felt that more authentically I was a "tridentine"  Catholic.  Interestingly, I stopped attending mass just before the novus ordo replaced the traditional mass and when I returned in 1987, it was strictly to a latin mass in NYC (St. Ann's and St. Agnus).  I finally decided to see what the the novus ordo was like and I was shocked, really shocked.  People walked in in shorts; the communion rail was gone; the priest was facing all of us; people touched the host; the genuflection was gone; the only latin prayer--what prayer?--was an "alleluia".  I was horrified.  But the worst part, as MHFM DVD indicates is that all those beautiful prayers and offerings of the liturgy WERE GONE!  Luckily I had my St Joseph Missal to remind myself.  And I still recite the Memorare and Prayer to St Michael to people to display the beauty and humility of those prayers.  I grew up with a protestant  father who was not around much and I knew early on that it feels like nothing is happening in a protestant church; it is like walking into an empty bowling alley.  So seeing what the Catholic churches were like in their new form, I was totally uninterested.  In Minnesota, I am surrounded by the nothingness of these structures…

 

Sincerely,

 

Rosemary Stanfield-Johnson

 

“Jehova’s Witness”

 

Hi Brothers:

 

…what would you advise a lady, whose daughter is an extremely hateful jahova's witness (with 2 hateful kids under 10), to do in addition to praying the Rosary & offering Masses for the daughter's conversion?   The daughter steals Rosarys, demands that the statue of our Blessed Mother be removed from the porch (The mother's owned mobile home is on the daughter's property) & does other more cruel/hateful things.

 

Is it fair to consider any Heretic actually possessed?

 

thanks,

 

john 

 

MHFM: Since “Jehova’s Witnesses” don’t believe that Jesus is God, we would advise her to share this file with her daughter: Where does the Bible teach that Jesus is God?  Next, we would say that she should move off her daughter’s property, if that’s possible.  If that’s not possible, she should ignore and avoid her as much as possible.  To your last question, yes many heretics are possessed.

 

Receiving sacraments from non-sedevacantists

 

MHFM: At some point soon we will be posting some comments and thoughts on the issue of whether it’s ever lawful to receive sacraments from priests who are not sedevacantist or hold a heretical position.  These thoughts will refute some schismatic views being spread in this area.

 

Creation and Miracles, Final Edition

 

MHFM: If you have not seen it, the final edition of our video Creation and Miracles, Past and Present can be seen on our WATCH OUR DVDS ONLINE FOR FREE page.

 

EENS- 1439

 

I read part of your website and found this:

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped.  Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.

 

The Catholic Church was the only Christian church in 1439.

 

So what’s the big deal? Are they not saying in 1439 that to be saved one must have faith in Jesus Christ? And the only church that was teaching Jesus was the only Christian Church at the time the Catholic (Universal) Church.

 

That’s how I see it.

 

          Peter Flood

 

MHFM: Well, that definition does emphasize the point that the Catholic faith, if broken down in terms of its simplest mysteries, is belief in the Trinity and Incarnation.  That simply means that that’s the bare minimum requirement, along with baptism, for one to positively know in order to be saved.  For instance, if you met a pagan on an island who had 3 minutes to live and he wanted baptism, what would he have to know to be baptized, hold the Catholic faith and be saved?  The answer is the Trinity and the Incarnation.  (No person above reason who is ignorant of these mysteries can be saved.)  It doesn’t mean that one can reject other teachings of the Catholic faith and be saved.  Once this baptized person who believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation becomes aware or should be aware of other teachings and rejects them, he becomes a heretic.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

All who become heretics by rejecting a teaching of the Catholic Church place themselves outside the Church.  So, even though this definition was promulgated before Protestantism began with Martin Luther in the 16th century, it applies to the Protestants just as well.  By rejecting the teachings of the Catholic Church, they become heretics.  All heretics are not saved, as this definition makes clear; and those without the Catholic faith are not saved, as the definition you asked about makes clear. 

 

Terrors of Vatican II

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter

 

I am grateful for your website.  Thank you.

 

I was Catholic schooled in the late 1950's and early 1960's just before the terrors of Vatican ll were unleashed upon us all.  I can distinctly remember the near frantic tearing down of our stately old church buildings only to be replaced with bowling alley like ultra-modern sanatoriums. Cold and sterile.  Gone were the Saints!  No more stations of the cross!  The tabernacle shoved into one corner while Our Lady was relegated to the shadows!  All this and more, all in the name of bringing the Church into the twentieth century.  Now we reap what they have sown!

 

As a young boy I loved our Church and our Faith.  As a young man I lost interest for a while.  Later, while I was raising my children, the Catholic Church ,once again, was an important part of our familys' life.  All my children were Baptised, went to Confession, received Holy Communion and were Confirmed into our Faith. My one married child was married in the Church.  Now that I am old I have learned ( from you primarily) that all those years were wasted. What a shame!  Well, the time may have been wasted but not the prayers.  For I am sure the prayers of yesterday have led me to your site today.

 

I must confess that from the very beginning I suspected that something was wrong.  As much as I loved Our Lord, I could no longer make that personal connection that had come so easily in my youth.  I attributed this emptiness to my own sinfulness.  And I am sure that this was a large contributing factor but now I am even more convinced that God no longer resides in this new religion. He is no longer approachable through these new priests with their new sacraments.

 

I have watched your videos, listened to your CDs and read your books and my question to you is: Now What?  I must get to Confession. I must receive Communion.  I must reside in the State of Grace or I will surely be dammed.  There are, no doubt, millions of lost Catholics just like me with a burning desire restore their relationship with God. Yet there are no valid Catholic Priests to administer these Sacraments.  So, I am left with the Rosary and the hope that Our Blessed Mother will intercede on my behalf.  She may well be our ONLY hope.  Pray for me brothers as I will pray for you.

 

Aidan

 

MHFM: It’s great to hear about your interest.  We have guidelines on our website concerning the issue of where to go to receive sacraments in these perilous times.  The options are limited, but there are still options out there for people.  If you contact us, we can help you more specifically with that question.

 

Confused about Vatican II

 

Dear Brothers,

I have recently came back to the catholic faith. There is a lot of hate in the world today and hatred to the Catholic Church. There has been an invasion of liberal ideas and practices that have infiltrated our church. I believe most if not all of these cases are confined within the United States. Regardless of who is pope or not pope we must stand firm together as children of our Lord. The Pope's office is a position of authority. We should have faith that no matter how evil or sinful a man becomes, that raises to the office of the papacy will be able to destroy the church.

The purpose of Vatican II was to refine and stand firm to our traditions and not fall into secular influences. Many people who called themselves catholics became upset because of the Church's position was too conservative and didn't adjust the church to the standards of society. Many of these people disregarded what Vatican II set out to do and took the power of the church into their own hands. We have seen this recently with so-called catholics ordaining women and holding untraditional masses.

Vatican II did change the translation of mass to the common language and this lead to some of the minor changes to mass but it did also effect the Old mass and made members of the church think that if the language of the church can change other disciplines of the church can be changed as well.

EWTN has reached out and spread the word of our Lord to those who were lost. I've listened to several EWTN broadcasts and I have yet to hear one that says one does not have to be Catholic to be saved. They have said those who have not heard the Gospel of our Lord through no fault of their own, but seek the grace of God, Jesus will have mercy on them when they die. This is because it is the Catholic Church's Mission to make sure every Man woman and child here the good news of the Lord if the Church fails this mission a person who is seeking God will not be denied. Those who say they know the Lord but do not hold true to his teachings will receive the judgment they deserve.

Your site and the language you use right now sounds a lot like the language used by Luther when he split from the church. He let the hate and sin of others blind him from the truth. I pray for you brother so that you will not let hate cloud your mind and your heart…. This is not an issue you face alone many see the evil that has infiltrated our church. From what I am seeing is between this pope and the last pope there is a focus on unity. The popes seem to be meeting with these "heretics" and praying with them. Does that mean the pope will allow their influences infiltrate our Church. No it doesn't, but we should keep an eye out and pray for them so that they will not err. What ever is to come God knows and as long as we hold true to what he has taught us we will not be lead astray.

Thank you,
Thomas DiGaetano

 

MHFM: You're very confused and mistaken.  You need to research the facts on our website, such as the clear heresies taught by Vatican II [PDF File], John Paul II [PDF file], Benedict XVI [PDF file], etc.  You also hold an incorrect view of Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  There are no exceptions for anyone; see Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [PDF FILE].  To say that there are any exceptions is heretical.  EWTN has indicated on many broadcasts that non-Catholics can be saved, which (as just mentioned) is heretical.  You should also look at this file: EWTN and the Charismatic Movement [PDF File].  Even EWTN’s most "conservative" preachers consider Protestants brothers in the faith, not heretics.  That’s contrary to Catholic teaching, of course.  Also, it’s the Vatican II antipopes who have praised Martin Luther and have adopted his heresies: The Vatican II sect's Protestant Revolution: the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification [PDF File].  We, on the contrary, totally condemn the arch-heretic and his heresies.

 

Bind and Loose

 

Good Evening Brothers,

 

I wonder if you may help me out on an issue that I have a hard time explaining when debating the EVILS of the Norvus Ordo Mass, the new doctrine, and all of these ANTI-POPES.  " What you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and What you loosen on earth shall be lossened in Heaven"  has been spewed at me from some liberal Catholics and I dont know how to answer them. How would you answer that?

 

Thank you

 

g…

 

MHFM: That refers to Matthew 16, of course, and the power that Jesus gave to St. Peter.  We will not get into a discussion of the precise meaning of the binding and loosing reference (which also appears in Mt. 18 in reference to the apostles), but the short answer is that it’s precisely those dogmas which have been bound which prove that the Vatican II antipopes are not true popes.  It’s precisely because we are dedicated to the Papacy, to the papal dogmas and to the papal prerogatives that we follow what the true popes have taught and reject heretics.  And there is no doubt that the Vatican II impostors are heretics.

 

The Miracles of Blessed Martin De Porres

 

MHFM: Blessed Martin De Porres (1579-1639) was an interesting person.  Blessed Martin was a Dominican brother who was beatified by Pope Gregory XVI and, during his life, was favored by God with extraordinary gifts.  He raised the dead and bilocated.  He also had a special love for animals and was rewarded with favors in this area.  He has often been invoked, especially in Italy, as a special patron to relieve distress caused by the destructive presence of rats or mice” (William J. Kearns, The Life of Blessed Martin De Porres, 1937, p. 112.).  He also raised a dog to life:

 

The procurator of the convent had a dog that served him faithfully for eighteen years.  But now, as the animal was old and loathsome, he ordered him to be cast out.  However, the faithful beast always came back, looking for his master.  Then orders were given that the dog be taken off some distance and killed.  This was done, and Blessed Martin on discovering such ingratitude, as it seemed in his eyes, was moved to compassion and asked that the dead dog be carried to his cell.  He then sought out the procurator and said to him: ‘My Father, why did you order them to kill that animal?  Is that the reward you give him after he has served you for so many years?’  Then shutting himself up in the cell where the dead animal had been placed, Martin knelt for some time in prayer, begging God to restore life to the unfortunate animal if He so willed, and God did not turn a deaf ear to this humble petition.  On the following day Martin’s brethren saw him leave his cell, accompanied by the faithful dog, alive and perfectly well.  While feeding him in the kitchen, Martin was heard to utter these words of sober advice to the dog: ‘Now, be sure not to return to your ungrateful master’s service, for you have experienced only too clearly how little your long years of faithful service have been appreciated.’  It is said that the dog survived for many years, but that he always followed Martin’s warning, fleeing from his old master whenever he saw him approach.” (Ibid., pp. 113-114)

 

Blessed Martin also bilocated, even to Japan.  “… Father Francisco d’Arce declared that an old religious, whose proven virtue made him a reliable authority, assured him that Brother Martin also visited Japan, where persecutions threatened to destroy the Faith, in order to aid the martyrs in those islands” (Ibid., p. 122.).  Blessed Martin made the most of his time: “Brother Martin was a model of industry – his days and even his nights were crowded with activity.  How he found time to accomplish so much good would be very difficult were we not dealing with the life of a saint” (Ibid., p. 22.).  And like all the other saints, Blessed Martin held strongly to the necessity of the Catholic faith and preached it to others:

 

“Blessed Martin [who happened to be of dark skin color] has been teaching his white devotees a great many lessons of inestimable social worth; but he has a message of vital import to convey to his colored brethren.  He points out to them that their only hope for true happiness here and hereafter lies in their acceptance of the Catholic Faith; and that their only true friend is the Catholic Church, wherein they may find a spiritual equality that is based on love of God and not on wealth, education, or social distinction.” (Ibid., pp. 193-194)

 

Questions from Cameroon

 

Hi dear brothers

Peace with be you in the of Our Mighty Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRist.  I am so impressed to read all what you wrote and put in your website. It is really at the same time astonishing and amazing.  I can't believe such revelations are true.  But dear Brothers, don't you think you are too hative in your conclusions? are you sure things are taking place just the way you are describing them? Why are the council; the popes and the doctrine devilishly qualified as you do? please , I am writing from Cameroon; a country in West africa. I am catholic christian and believer.

I sincerely look forward to hearing from you!

fred…

 

MHFM: Yes, we are sure what we are saying on our website is true because it’s not based on our opinion but on the infallible and unchangeable teachings of the Catholic Church.  We cite popes, dogmas and councils.  They are what all Catholics must follow.  And we prove that the Vatican II “Church” rejects those teachings and is therefore heretical.

 

Implicit Desire?

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter,   I am interested to know if you have any material stating that the so called implicit baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Church. I of course know that it is a heresy, but I need the material for my son who wants to use it in his arguments with the many people whom he knows  who believe it to be a teaching of the Church, as also for myself to use in refuting the heresy.
 
                          +    Sincerely yours in Christ,   +
 
                                                           Norton Lewis 

 

MHFM: We recommend that you obtain the book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.  It covers the objections that people bring up on this issue and will equip your son with the in-depth facts he needs to refute denials of the dogma.  It’s quite in-depth because it covers in detail the history of the issue, as well as the many objections people raise.  Regarding implicit desire, it’s proven to be heretical when you iron out what people mean by their use of the “implicit desire” idea.  In other words, you have to question them, and get them to define and explain what they mean by implicit desire.  When they do that it becomes clear that they are applying “implicit desire” to people who don’t believe in Jesus Christ and the Trinity and/or to people who belong to false religions (those “invincibly ignorant” of the Gospel).  The former denies the dogmatic Athanasian Creed and many responses of the Holy Office; the latter is contradicted explicitly by Pope Eugene IV and other dogmatic teaching.  So, their explanation of implicit desire will demonstrate that they are rejecting dogmatic teaching.

 

But people must be on their guard about something.  As our material explains, there were saints who believed in explicit baptism of desire for unbaptized catechumens only.  They were wrong on that point; their opinions are not consistent with the infallible teaching of the Church on that issue.  But those saints who believed in it never applied it to pagans, Jews, etc.  They didn’t apply it to people who didn’t believe in Jesus Christ and the Trinity.  However, in certain contexts, while trying to express their (false) opinion on explicit baptism of desire, they used the word “implicit” to mean “not expressed in words.”  In other words, they might be speaking about a person who knows of baptism and believes in Jesus Christ and the Trinity, but does not express that desire in words.  Their (false) view would apply baptism of desire to that person.  They were wrong, but they were clearly not endorsing the utterly heretical “implicit desire” theory as it is understood today: that baptism of desire can apply to people who don’t believe in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  Nevertheless, implicit desire advocates will dishonestly attempt to use those passages, by taking them out of context, in order to promote their wicked heresy.

 

There is also this quote from Pope Pius X in Pascendi.  In the following quote he is denouncing the doctrine of the Modernists.  The Modernist doctrine which he denounces sounds almost exactly like what the modern day “implicit desire” heretics say regarding people who are not Catholics being saved by a desire within them, even though they don’t know of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Catholic Faith.

 

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi (#6), Sept. 8, 19007: “They [Modernists] labor in fact to persuade man that in him, and in the innermost recesses of his nature and life are concealed a desire and need for some religion; not for any religion, but for such a one as is the Catholic religion; for this, they say, is absolutely postulated by the perfect development of life.  Here, moreover, we should again complain vigorously that there are not lacking among Catholics those who, although they reject the doctrine of immanence as a doctrine, yet employ it as a method of apology…” (Denzinger 2103)

 

Devastated by V-2 sect

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I converted to the Catholic Church a few years ago after a long journey to get there.  I had been drawn to the Church since I was a child.  I'm 53 now.  In the past few years I have had a terrible struggle with my faith.  Since joining the Church I have been so disappointed and offended.  I have stopped going, and I thought something was wrong with me.  People have told me that my expectations are too high, but I have been devastated over what I have seen at the Catholic churches I have attended.  I'm offended by the Eucharistic ministers, the altar girls, the people coming to church looking like they are wearing their pajamas or clothes they might wear to a nightclub, the terrible priest scandals, the sanctuaries that look like warehouses or some sort of "new age" temple, and many other things.  The Church has been nothing like what I thought it would be.  Thank you for the DVD's and other materials that you sent me.  They have been very enlightening.  I'm so relieved to know that I don't have to go to the N.O. mass.  I just wanted to ask you if you know of a valid mass or priest in the Jacksonville, Florida area… Thank you.

 

Cynthia Morris

 

Heresy of the Week

 

MHFM: Benedict XVI’s latest heresy is in the Heresy of the Week, which we put up on Wednesday night.

 

Annulments

 

to whomever at MHFM,


I am currently seperated and am seeking information on annulments.  You have so much on your website that somehow I am unable to locate this information.  I have close friends who are traditionalist Catholics who have advised me that I should seek an annulment.  I am not yet divorced and I feel that this legal process could take forever.  My main concern is my standing in the eyes of the Church.  My marriage is not what was intended, how do I go about seeking an annulment.


IK

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  Our article on annulments is here: The Annulment Fiasco - The Vatican II sect's De Facto acceptance of Divorce and Remarriage [PDF File].  Among other things, it points out that an annulment is a declaration that a “marriage” never was valid to begin with – it never existed.  Annulments are difficult to prove, were very rarely given, and were only given when there was clear evidence that a marriage had not been validly contracted.  If there is any legitimate doubt, the presumption is in favor of the validity of the marriage.  Since we’re in the Great Apostasy, there is presently no authority which could issue a binding decision that such a union never was a marriage.  But from what is stated in your e-mail, it sounds like you are definitely married.  Just because your marriage was “not what was intended” doesn’t mean that you can do away with it and marry again.  If you exchanged the vows and there wasn’t a clear-cut impediment, then you are married.  You may certainly separate from your spouse for grave reasons such as adultery, heresy, etc., but (based on what you’ve presented) you are not free to marry again.

 

More on Garabandal

 

Dear Bros Michael and Peter Dimond,

 

As a promoter and devotee of Garabandal for more than 20 years here in New Zealand up until about 1999, I present here a few good reasons why people should avoid this false apparition of Our Lady:… Our Lady is said to have "praised' Vatican II, a non-catholic heretical council.

 

Our Lady is meant to have told the girls that after John XXIII, there will be three more popes.

- no comment needed here!

 

About the time of the Cuban crisis (1962) Our Lady is meant to have told the girls "no third world war".( No mention here about a spiritual war which would have been more relevant in these latter times....salvation of.souls being more important than salvation of bodies)

 

A worldwide warning from God to correct the conscience of the world (that's nice, because now we don't have to worry anymore about having to tell all those souls who are on the road to damnation, and warn them that if they remain outside the Catholic Church they will burn forever in Hell ...that will save a lot of hassles!)

 

A miracle to occur at the village of Garabandal to confirm the events at which all the sick will be cured who are present....and Russia will be converted as a result of the miracle.(now that's an interesting one isn't it with Pope Pius XII having already consecrated Russia in 1952… The conditional chastisement if men do not amend...again a physical punishment and no mention of a spiritual chastisement.  Secondary considerations include the absence of the traditional Mass in the daily lives of the seers and at the village church in Garabandal...promotion of the freemasonic jewish Mess.

 

And a few others already mentioned by the MHFM in previous articles on this website.(and Deo volente, this one) St. Joan of Arc and St. Philomena - pray for us

 

David Shone

Auckland, New Zealand

 

New MP3

 

Mhfm,


My computer wont play the audio(no broadband)so ill buy it pretty soon. I noticed ye said ye will have it on the 4th audio mp3 disc comming out soon.(when is soon??),and will the 4th one have more Protestant beliefs explained?? And are ye writing a Catholic Apologetic book?? If so,when will i be able to get it??
Faithfully,

 

MHFM: The 4th edition of our MP3 disc is now available for order here: 4th edition of MP3 disc.  It contains 48 hours of audio programs including all of our recent audio programs. 

 

 

There are more projects coming in the area of refuting non-Catholics from the Bible.

 

How Absurd

 

In regards to your recent article ''SF Mayor to attend V2 ''Mass''.  I would like to mention that in the Diocese of Madison WI.  They just allowed the Latin Mass to be celebrated downtown at Holy Redeemer.  The retired N.O. Priest who was ordained in the old rite was to be saying the Mass this past Sunday.  So I decided to go to the Mass .  When I got there, someone came to me in the parkinglot  & told that the priest would not give me the sacraments due to my rejection of the three baptisms and being sedavacantist and something about  excommunication for going to independent Chapels,  unless I went to confession 1st.  So I got back in my car and left...    So let my get this straight...The SF Mayor, John Kerry and others can receive and nothing is being said against them...but yet I got turned away because I proclaim  One Baptism for the forgivenss of sins...  How absurd!!  

 

SM   Madison WI
                        

Truth found

 

Dear Sir

 

   My name is shebli Geegieh. I was born in Jordan (middle east) from catholic parents. I remember that when I was a kid I used to go to the church where there was an old traditional mass held. and when I became eighteen years old I saw major changes in the mass. they start to sing and to use musical instruments. they change the rhythm, and now I can see women  who are servants in the alter, and women who give the holy bread and the holy wine our lord body and blood to the catholic.

 

   when I talk to the priest in my country regarding that he screams on me. I couldn't understand what's happening. The salvation of non catholic was not a new thing to hear from your esteemed web site that I found suddenly by accident, I heard 5 years ago from my catholic priest. And I wondered at that time why don't I turn to a Muslim and marry four women, since the salvation is guaranteed !!! I'm 27 years old and I didn't went to the confession chair, nor taking the holy mass. for I couldn't find one good holy catholic priest.

 

I want to thank the lord for the Truth that revealed to me through your website. and I would like to thank you also. Also I would like to take your permission to translate some of your books to the Arabic language. And I'm sure that the lord will be with us. since we work for the glory of his name.

 

Kindest regards

 

shebli

 

Catholic vs. Protestant missionary work

 

MHFM: In the lives of Catholic missionaries and saints who were active in the new world after its discovery (especially those active among native peoples), it’s interesting to note the contrast between the efforts (and successes) of Catholics to convert people to the true faith and the lack of efforts by Protestants to convert people to their heretical version of the Gospel.  The following quote, coming from a Protestant, is interesting:

 

The Protestant historian Prescott, in the History of the Conquest of Peru, calls our attention to the zeal for the spread of Christianity that actuated even ruthless conquistadors and to the unselfish character of the pioneer [Catholic] missionaries: ‘The effort to Christianize the heathen is an honorable characteristic of the Spanish Conquest.  The Puritan [i.e. Protestant]… did comparatively little for the conversion of the Indian, content, it would seem, with having secured to himself the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in his own way.  Other adventurers who have occupied the New World have often had too little regard for religion themselves to be very solicitous about spreading it among the savages.  But the Spanish missionary, from first to last, has shown a keen interest in the spiritual welfare of the natives.  Under his auspices, churches on a magnificent scale have been erected, schools for elementary instruction founded, and every rational means taken to spread the knowledge of religious truth, while he has carried his solitary mission into remote and almost inaccessible regions, or gathered his Indian disciples into communities…’” (quoted by J.C. Kearns, The Life of Blessed Martin De Porres, 1937, pp. 10-11.)

 

V-2 changes

 

I don't know where to go.  My name is Cindy and I was baptized in the Catholic church in 1959.  My father stopped attending Mass when they brought in guitars and a priest who told jokes.  He had several arguments with family members that Mass was not the same and he was not going to attend anymore.  My Aunt said the changes were made by the Pope and that he is infallible and my father was committing mortal sin by not going to Mass anymore.  I have gone to Mass on and off since then and it gets creepier and creepier.  While in college, I went to different churches...mostly protestant and found that the service was much like mine.  The only difference I saw was that the minister could marry. 

 

I've read several things on your website about Mass being invalid.  Does this mean that the sacraments I've received are invalid as well?  I've had my daughters baptized in the church too and after reading your website I feel I am doing them a great disservice.

 

What is someone to do that wants to be a Catholic but can't stomach the changes that have been made?  I really need to know.

 

Sincerely,

 

Cynthia

 

MHFM: The New Mass is invalid, as covered in The Invalid New Mass [link to section].  The New Rite of Ordination is also invalid, as covered in Why the New Rite of Ordination is Invalid [PDF File].  As far as the other sacraments go, they are covered in The Changes to the Other Sacraments [PDF file].  This last file points out that anyone can validly baptize.  Thus, there’s no reason to conclude that your daughters haven’t been baptized, unless the person who baptized them drastically altered the matter or form or didn’t intend to baptize them (which would be extremely bizarre).  Our website explains what people need to do, and people can call us as well for more specific information if they’re in full agreement.

 

Astounded

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery: Do you issue a newletter currently?  If so, please send details.  Came across your website quite by accident and am astounded to read your articles!

 

Converted to Roman Catholicism about 7 years ago....am at a loss now!!  Your articles sure make sense and read them avidly!!

 

MAX EDELSON            MANY THANKS!!!

 

MHFM: Our newest updates and the newest items we offer are all posted on the website, so we encourage you to come back to it frequently.  But if you haven’t already, we would also strongly recommend that you obtain our DVD special offer which includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books (including our 610-page book with 200 color photographs), an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Born-Againism

 

Subj: Please help, I’m losing the faith

 

Mhfm,

I need help.I believe what you teach but recently i feel that im turning to ''born-againism''.Ive recently seen some,um i think ye call them ''Gospel'' channels in America,well the christians on them seem so devoted to the Bible and they seem to have the Holy Spirit pouring out of them.Ive tried to defend Catholic teaching on bebo against born-again christians but they seem stronger,and im starting to think that theres a reason why??-i really cud do with help here because once again-a believe that Jesus founded one church not many-i would greatly appreciate if ye did that book on Protestantism that ye were talking about.  My main concern is really Mary.I mean why do we need to go to Jesus through her??I mean she is just a women,she didnt die on the cross.Ive read ''true devotion'' and to be honust it didnt really help.  I guess i could do with yer prayers and help.Perhaps alot of talks on different issues??  Actually,i was trying to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin yesterday,and how brothers really means cousins,or family members.Then the Protetant siad ''how come we know Mary and Elizabeth were cousisns??'' and theres other places where the word cousin is used 2.

Yours faithfully,
Michael.

 

MHFM: We would recommend that you listen to this audio, which shows that “born-againism” is not true biblical Christianity: Justification by Faith Alone refuted and the Catholic teaching on Justification proved by the Protestant Bible [1 hr. 30 min. audio].  Also, you need to pray the Rosary and stop watching the heretical channels.  It’s poisonous to listen to heretics in that fashion.  It’s like hearing the Devil’s message.  The Holy Spirit is not pouring out of them; their religion is not remotely biblical.  Not only do they reject the clear teaching of the Bible on salvation/justification, but the Papacy (Mt. 16) and all the rest.  Their apparent devotion to God is unfortunately just a matter of externals and it lacks a true and pure intention to follow God’s law and truth.  It’s all about community and experience and making people feel good, but not about the truth.  When examined, you would discover that about 100% of those people you think are dedicated not only commit clear cut mortal sins (e.g. contraception, etc.) besides their heretical beliefs, but also hold that those who commit such mortal sins can be saved.  Don’t be deceived, and shut the spiritual poison out of your mind.

 

Contra Adultery

 

MHFM: In the book The Vatican’s Exorcists, which discusses certain cases of demonic possession, there’s this interesting quote.  It reminds us of the malice of adultery and mortal sin.

 

There’s the case of “a thirty-five-year-old woman, an accountant with significant responsibilities at a commercial firm, who suddenly became overcome with asthma-like suffocation every time she attempted to enter a church.  Her trouble began when she entered into an affair with her boss, who practiced black magic…” (Tracy Wilkerson, The Vatican’s Exorcists, 2007, p. 62.)

Baptizing a new convert today

 

MHFM: We’re happy to announce that we will be baptizing a new convert to the traditional Catholic faith today (Monday, Jan. 7).  He’s 40 years old.

 

Death and the Journey Into Hell, 2nd edition

 

MHFM: The 2nd edition of our Death and the Journey Into Hell video is available on our website; it has a classical music soundtrack throughout.  (The audio quality of the online version will not, of course, be as good as the quality on the future DVD.)  You can watch it on our WATCH OUR DVDS ONLINE FOR FREE page.

 

Interregnum

 

Hey Brothers,


Quick question. I was wondering at what point in history was the three year period without a pope. In between what two popes.
Thanks


Nate P.

 

MHFM: The longest papal interregnum (before the Vatican II apostasy) was between Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) and Pope St. Marcellus (308-309).  It lasted for more than three and a half years.[10]

 

Who’s Amazed

 

I am amazed at the irony of your website. And I am sorry you dishonour the name of the most Holy Family, especially Our Lady, who is always obedient to the Pope and the authority of her Son's Church. (And it HAS ecclesial authority in Jesus' name, whether you like what it decides or not). To call an authentically elected Pope such as Benedict a heretic is scandalous. To publicly declare it, doubly so! The Spirit leads the Church into all truth. The early Church and previous popes were for their time. THe Church GROWS through history as new things are revealed to it by the Spirit. To denounce Vatican II, a valid ecumenical council, is to sin against the Holy Spirit. May God have mercy on you for your website and your disobedience to Church authority and your assurance that most catholics are going to hell!! How arrogant! Only God knows who is going to hell, and then only at the point of their death! "Do not judge, lest you be judged!" Or do you not accept Scripture either? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your site? I pray for enlightenment and humility for you and all so-called "traditional Catholics" with all sincerity. The only "traditional Catholics" are those that continue to accept apostolic tradition and Church authority! "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one of your topics! Well then, come back inside and submit in humble obedience to your Pope! Come back to the "most holy family" of the Church that Jesus promised would not be led into error. For all your good intentions and fine sounding arguments, I am convinced that Satan has you in his pocket! Be humble enough to realise this! There is no conspiracy! The Pope IS Petrus!

Yours in Christ...

A concerned Catechist and student of Catholic theology

 

MHFM: We’re amazed at your blindness.  It’s truly amazing that you can be so blind to deny what’s documented and irrefutable (e.g., in The Heresies of Benedict XVI [PDF file]), that Benedict XVI completely rejects many Catholic dogmas (including the Papacy).  It’s amazing that you can be so blind that you fail to see that, by any traditional Catholic standard, Benedict XVI is a public heretic against the Catholic faith.  You obviously don’t have even a basic concept of what constitutes fidelity to the Catholic faith.

 

This is Benedict XVI with the “Orthodox” schismatic patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, in Nov. of 2006.  They signed a joint declaration which declares that the schismatic leader is a “pastor in the Church of Christ,” even though he rejects the Papacy, Vatican I, etc.  Benedict XVI thereby denied that the Papacy is a dogma which must be believed to be part of the Church of Christ, thus making Benedict XVI a public heretic.

 

No Mass or priest in Malaysia

                                                                             

Dear Brothers,

 

My name is Dominic.  I am 62 and a cradle Catholic. I live in Malacca, Malayisa (a small Muslim country in South East Asia). The Catholic Churches here are 100% Novus Ordo and so are all the priests. I am not sure whether there are any priests ordained before 1969.

       

Since the new mass is invalid I cannot attend any mass offered in these churches.  This means that I have no way of fulfilling religious obligations, including confessions.  There is no way for me to know whether the novos ordo priest will say the words of absolution,  as mentioned by you.  I have not been attending Mass for quite sometime now.  Please advise me on the course of action I should take to fulfill my Catholic religious obligations.  Thank you.

       

May God Bless Your Good Works.

 

Dominic.

 

MHFM: It’s good to hear about your interest, Dominic.  As our material explains, there’s no obligation to attend Mass if the Church doesn’t provide you with a fully Catholic one in your area.  Since all you have is the invalid New Mass, you obviously have no obligation to go anywhere and you should just stay home.  As far as confession goes, just look for a priest ordained in the Eastern Rite (e.g. a Ukrainian priest, but not “Orthodox”) or a priest ordained prior to 1968 who can say the proper words of absolution.  If you cannot find one of those, then just continue to pray the Rosary (15 decades each day if you can) and make an act of contrition with the intention to go to confession when you can.  The Church teaches that perfect contrition with the desire to go to confession can restore a person to the state of grace (if he’s lost it) prior to sacramental absolution.  And if you ever travel, then we’re sure that, at that point, you can find some priest who can hear your confession.  Also, make sure you accept without compromise all the dogmas of the traditional faith and that you reject all the modern heresies (as discussed on our website) and that you make the Profession of Faith from the Council of Trent (also on our website).

 

Thank you

 

I greet you in the name of our Lord.

Happy new year.

I thank the Most Holy Monastery community for the good work your doing to help the people understand our religion more.

I have printed out many copies on how to pray a rosary, i will distribute them to my people so that we can be serious on praying the Rosary.

God Bless you

Regards

Kigambo Juliet

 

Heretical relatives

 

Dear Brothers,

 

Here is a tough choice and I inquire your opinion.

 

I was released from prison and recently a halfway house in August. While at that halfway house I befriended a man who opened my eyes to the truth that the Novus Ordo I had belonged to my entire life was a false religion, not the true Catholic faith, and I now hold true to the sedevacantist position, having done a ton of research on the matters.

 

The few people I care the most about in my life, my mother, brother, and sister, refuse to listen to me attempt to tell them the truth of what's going on. I've tried for 3 straight months to get my mom to quit the N.O. but she refuses and downright gets angry at me for bringing it up at all any more.

 

I love my mom and other family members dearly, and am desperate for them to see the truth. But despite my best efforts, it's falling on deaf ears. I read in an e-exchange recently that the (true) Catholic faith forbids us to hold company with anyone who doesn't accept the church's teachings inviolate. Well, am I supposed to cut off all communication with my mother, brother, sister? If so, that's asking the biggest sacrifice I will ever have to make. Not only would it break their hearts, it happens that I am living in a house my mom bought for me to live in since I got out of prison. She has been the only one who gives a darn about me in my life and I'm supposed to leave the home I'm living in that she has provided me with and go live God knows where, perhaps even go homeless? I have no where else to go. Also considering the nature of the crime I had committed, I can't just go live anywhere, even if I did find someplace else to live. Is there no exceptions??? Can't I continue contact with my beloved family AND CONTINUE TO TRY TO CONVERT THEM?? At what point do we give up on people who are obstinate in leaving the novus ordo?

 

I know this was a long email, but I need the help very much. Thanks.

 

MHFM: We think that the E-Exchange you’re referring to was in the context of giving Christmas gifts to heretics.  That’s not something you could do, since it gives them the false impression that they celebrate Christmas as Christians.  In your situation, you should cut of religious communication with those family members your speaking about; you shouldn’t do things which give them the impression that they are of the true faith.  Don’t say grace with them or the rosary, etc. 

 

But you don’t have to leave the house which your mom bought.  Similarly, if a person lives with his non-Catholics parents or a non-Catholic sibling, then he/she can have normal interaction with them, just not religious communication.  However, since you’re mom is very obstinate and you’ve already tried to convert her many times, you don’t need to (and probably shouldn’t) bring it up anymore unless she brings something up in that regard or a matter has to be addressed.  Titus 3:10 says that one should avoid the heretic after the second rebuke.  In your case, that would just mean cutting off religious communication.  

 

Bayside, Vatican II, denouncing priests

 

I hope you don't mind a question.  I'm sincere in this, I'm confused and don't know.  My search originated with whether the apparition at Bayside, New York was approved by the Catholic Church and this is how I ended up at your site.  Before, I let myself be drawn into any articles I saw on other sites about prophecies from there and so forth.  From there I started reading a little about Vatican II, (which I see all over other sites as well) and a picture of people worshipping the Pope as the Christ and so forth.

Ok, this is my question.  All this Vatican II stuff, which I am still trying to understand may very well all be true.. Personally, as I said, I am still looking into it and trying to understand it.  One thing stands out in my mind.  In the Pieta prayer book, you read that it was revealed to Mutter Vogel that you should never attack a priest but pray for them, because they are the Vicar's of Christ on Earth.  This apparently was a directive from Our Lord.  So then shouldn't we just pray for Our Pope, Our Church and Our priests and not paint them in a bad light?

Thats my question,

Sincerely I'm curious of your answer,
Roxane

 

MHFM: First, Bayside was not approved by the Catholic Church; it’s followed by members of the Vatican II (false) Church.  The Message of Bayside contains heresies, which shows that it’s false.  See those heresies here: The False Apparitions at Bayside, NY [PDF File].  If you’re reading on Vatican II, you want to start here: The Heresies in Vatican II [PDF File] It’s the most in-depth document on the many heresies in Vatican II.  Regarding the Mutter Vogel “revelation” in the Pieta booklet, we’ve discussed it before.  It’s clearly a false message from an evil spirit.  To say that a priest should never be attacked or criticized is contrary to justice and all of Catholic tradition.  That would mean, for instance, that the worst heretics in the early Church (most of whom were bishops and thus priests) should never have been denounced and attacked.  Yet, the saints, fathers and councils attacked these heretics and evil men with vigor in order to defend truth, expose lies and teach souls.  It was necessary.  One of the most famous examples of this concerns the 5th heretic Nestorius.

 

On Christmas Day in the year 428, Nestorius denied that Mary was the Mother of God from his pulpit.  A simple layman named Eusebius stood up and protested the public heresy.  This resulted in the Catholics of Constantinople breaking communion with their bishop, Nestorius; for they recognized that since he was a public heretic, he had no authority in the Church: he lost his office automatically.  They even chanted: “An emperor we have, but no bishop.”  This reaction was praised by councils and popes, as we see described below.  Notice that Pope St. Celestine says that Nestorius had no power to excommunicate after he began to preach heresy.  This confirms that heretical bishops lose their offices ipso facto (by that very fact) when they become heretics.  And this teaching on the loss of Episcopal office due to heresy applies precisely to the manifestly heretical “bishops” of the Vatican II sect: they have no authority and are outside the Catholic Church, even though they hold the buildings and possess the putative authority of a diocese.

 

Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 4 (St. Cyril of Alexandria), p. 379: “It was then that Satan produced Nestorius… enthroned in the Chair of Constantinople… In the very year of his exaltation, on Christmas Day 428, Nestorius, taking advantage of the immense concourse which had assembled in honor of the Virgin Mother and her Child, pronounced from the Episcopal pulpit the blasphemous words: ‘Mary did not bring forth God; her Son was only a man, the instrument of the Divinity.’  The multitude shuddered with horror.  Eusebius, a simple layman, rose to give expression to the general indignation, and protested against this impiety.  Soon a more explicit protest was drawn up and disseminated in the name of the members of the grief-stricken Church, launching an anathema against anyone who would dare say: ‘The Only-begotten Son of the Father and the Son of Mary are different persons.’  This generous attitude was the safeguard of Byzantium, and won the praise of popes and councils.  When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.’”


 

Heresy of the Week

 

MHFM: Sorry for the delay in the Heresy of the Week; it will be posted soon. 

 

Some popes?

 

Strict adherence to church doctrine is great! I am only 43 and ,of course, was born after the 2nd Vatican council. I am also a Catechism teacher at my church. My question is why do you follow changes Popes have made but not the changes made at the 2nd Vatican council? Why do you accept the papal infallibility of some Popes but not all Popes? What causes some Popes to be Anti-Popes? Thanks for your time.

Tom

 

MHFM: All the popes from St. Peter to Pius XII (not including, of course, the 40 or so antipopes who at different times claimed to be popes but weren’t) taught the same Gospel and the same traditional Catholic faith.  All the popes held the same views toward non-Catholic religions, the members of non-Catholic religions, etc.  The Catholic Church teaches that to depart from the Catholic faith is to cease to be a member of the Church.  If one is a priest or a bishop or even a “pope,” the person not only loses membership in the Church when departing from the faith (i.e. when becoming a heretic), but also loses any authority in the Church.   If that person had been elected pope, he would cease to be pope.  See this file:  The Catholic Teaching that a heretic cannot be a valid pope [PDF file]. 

 

If the person departed from the faith prior to the papal election (as did John XXIII, etc.) the election itself is invalid, as the aforementioned file also documents from the teaching of Pope Paul IV and his bull Cum ex apostolatus officio (1559).  So we know, by the very fact that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are heretics, that they possess, according to Catholic teaching, no authority in the Catholic Church whatsoever (since they are outside of her). 

 

To say that these men do have authority is not to be obedient to popes.  It is to be obedient to those who, according to Catholic teaching, are heretical non-Catholic antipopes who must be rejected.

 

Consecration of Russia

 

I did read all four volumes of Frčre Michel's book, the whole Truth About Fatima, which was pretty compelling.
 
None of Fr. Alonso's material has been permitted to be printed.  He was even more thorough.
 
If Our Lady REQUESTED that the consecration be made in conjunction with all the bishops of the world on the same day, that's what she wanted.  Nobody in their right mind disregards their Mothers requests.
 
So what's the Dimond Brothers' point?

 

P

 

MHFM: First of all, Frere Michel’s work is three volumes, not four.  Secondly, the point is explained in detail in the article: The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the Impostor Sr. Lucy.   Our Lady never promised that Russia would be consecrated with all the bishops.  From the article:

 

But didn’t Our Lady promise that Russia would be consecrated in union with all the Bishops of the world?  No!  This is a key point.  Our Lady requested that Russia be consecrated in union with all the Bishops of the world, but on July 13 she only promised that “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph.  The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and it will be converted and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world.”  Notice that Our Lady didn’t promise: “The Holy Father and all the Bishops will consecrate Russia to me…”  Further, heaven revealed that the actual fulfillment of the consecration of Russia would not be fully in accord with heaven’s original wishes; for instance, it would be “late” (more on this in a bit).

 

Heaven also revealed that the actual consecration would, in the end, give only a “certain” period of peace, as opposed to the unqualified “period of peace” which was promised if her requests were completely fulfilled.  Thus, this is another indication that the actual fulfillment of the consecration would not be in full conformity with her original requests (e.g. not with all the bishops, etc.), yielding only a “certain” period of peace.  The article explains this.

 

Garabandal

 

Hello, I am confused as to the indignities perpetrated to the 4 young girls at Garabandal.The walking backwards, the sand in the eyes etc...Why was this necessary ? What are your views on the Apparitions there ?.... I dont see any mention of Garabandal on your website....regards,

 

Lee Alexander ...........

 

MHFM: We’d like to study Garabandal more, but based on what we do know, there are some problems.  The children had the vision while stealing apples; the walking backwards is problematic (as you mentioned), and there is another seemingly positive reference to the Second Vatican Council in the messages.  So for those reasons we don’t believe it.  There’s also the fact that the message stresses a “great warning” and a world-wide physical chastisement, when the real chastisement is spiritual.  It seemed to direct people away from the spiritual aspect and on to the physical chastisement, at the very time when the great spiritual deception of the Vatican II sect was getting underway.  It also promised people a warning and worldwide illumination, which contradicts the Bible’s teaching that the last days will be as the days of Noe (Mt. 24:37).  And not even when Our Lord came was every person given a personal “warning.”

 

Liked book

 

Praised Be Jesus Christ!

           

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery,

 

I just listened to the May 10 radio program and it was great. I heard that you might do a book for refuting protestantism. This would be very helpful. I don't like to use Vatican II friendly material. Please do this. I will pray for you on the project. Thanks and May God Continue to bless you

           

 

 Tom

 

MHFM: Thanks, we plan on doing more in-depth things relating to Protestantism.

 

Protestant rejection of the Eucharist

 

MHFM: Many Protestants are familiar with the writings of the famous early Christian bishop and martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch (approx. 35-110 A.D.).  Along with some others, the epistles of St. Ignatius are a staple in every collection of the very earliest extra-biblical authentic Christian writings.  These fathers of the Church (and their writings) were so early in the Church that they are called “the apostolic fathers,” because they were early enough to have had contact with the apostles.  (These writings come from the end of the first century to the first half of the second century).  St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch and was taught by the apostle St. John.  Here’s what St. Ignatius says about a group of heretics and the Eucharist:

 

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans [ca. A.D. 110.], Chapter 7: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.”

 

Is it not mind-boggling that Protestants and Protestant scholars, many of whom regard St. Ignatius as a great early Christian and are well aware of his writings, can read something like this (in conjunction with the overwhelming evidence in Scripture: John 6, the other fathers of the Church, etc.) and still fail to see that the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is the true Christian teaching?  Bad will is truly a horrible thing.

 

Extreme Unction – dilemma and basis?

 

I've a Catholic friend dying at a VA hosp..  His Prot. wife switched to N.O. years ago thinking she's now Catholic.   She claims Bill received the last Rites which isn't possible W/O a real Priest.

 

Would you please email me (or tell me where to find the info.) the basis for Extreme Unction.  I'll mail the info. to her hoping she'll allow me to try to find a Priest near them in PA. to see Bill while there's a chance he'll be lucid.  Unfortunately he stayed in the N.O.

 

They've both been devout to the Rosary.

 

through JMJ,

 

dave

 

ps:  She told my wife, by phone, that when they called for a Priest, at the recent death of their son, that a N.O. minister arrived (at the hosp.) for 5 min. & left when they asked the minister to pray the Rosary with them.  The N.O. minister said she (Bill's wife) could do it and then immediately left.

 

MHFM: The Biblical basis for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction comes from James chapter 5.

 

James 5:14-16: “Is any sick among you?  Let him call for the elders [i. e., priests] of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

 

If these people claim to be Catholics, you shouldn’t need to give them proof for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.  They should already know that it’s one of the seven sacraments!  If we are understanding your e-mail correctly, it’s problematic that they seem to be requiring proof for something that every adult Catholic must know and believe.  Further, if they are Novus Ordo, you could not arrange for a priest to administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction (or any other sacrament) to either one of them.  You must contact Bill and first get agreement from him on the traditional Catholic faith; he must indicate that he rejects the New Mass, the Vatican II sect, etc.  He must indicate that he accepts the traditional teachings of the Church, that the Catholic faith is truly necessary, etc.  Until he manifests an agreement on these matters, a Catholic cannot arrange for him to receive any sacrament.

 

New Catholic, most important stuff to get?

 

Hello brothers.

My names Stanley and i live in California. I'm 19 years old and I'm a new catholic, i wanted to thank you for all your help on your website it is amazing. i had always believed in god but he only recently shown me the right way to go about thing's.  Your site is full of information that has gone along way to help me. I also have a few questions as a new catholic i really need to know. The number one thing is what are the most important things i should buy off your site. As I'm low on money right now i would want the most important things first of course. Also i just started to say the rosary as i was unaware of the importance of it. But my question on how to say the rosary is this. Do i need the beads like in the picture on your site on how to say the rosary? Also it says to meditate on the mystery's I'm not sure on exactly how to do this. i await your reply and thank you! by the way I'm sure i have a lot more questions but at the moment I'm not sure so I'm sure ill keep in touch.

 

MHFM: Stanley, the most important thing to get is our $10.00 DVD special.  (There’s a video version of the same special for $15.00 if you don’t have a DVD player.)  That’s the most important thing to get because it includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books (including our 610-page book with 200 color photographs), an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.).  If you can get more, but only a few more things, we would recommend True Devotion to Mary, The Secret of the Rosary and Preparation for Death – tremendous spiritual books which are crucial for proper spiritual formation.  But we really recommend everything we offer.  We don’t sell a ton of items because we try to only sell things which have a lot of value. 

 

For instance, the video on Rock Music which we sell (even though it was done by a Protestant) is one of the most important tapes which those who are immersed in popular music/culture and/or don’t believe in the Devil can see.  Even those who don’t listen to that music can benefit tremendously from the tape.  The videos on the Shroud of Turin and the Exodus are tremendous.  The book Denzinger, which is the best handbook one can have for the traditional pronouncements of the Church, will give a person a good feel for where traditional Catholics are getting this stuff.  It’s also a book which our material cites frequently.  Just flipping through it will also give a person a clear idea of how the Vatican II sect is completely opposed to historical Catholicism.  And the Douay-Rheims Bible, if you don’t have one, is also very important.  The tapes we sell on 9/11, even though they obviously do not concern a strictly spiritual issue, can show people how the world is deceived on a major event.  They are all extremely powerful and important.  But if you’re very limited, we would first recommend that special offer and those first spiritual books mentioned above.  But we consider the other tapes and books we sell to be very important, which is why we offer them.

 

You should have a rosary (with the beads) if you are going to say it.  Until you obtain one, however, it would still be very efficacious to say the prayers of the Rosary without the beads: Our Fathers, Hail Marys, etc.  This file explains: How to Pray the Rosary

 

Archived Radio programs

 

Hi,

I have tried the link on your website for the radio program, but it does not work.  It keeps saying "the server is busy.  Please try again later."  This may be a stupid question, but can I get your program on a regular radio?  If so, what channel?  I am in East Tennessee.  Thank you.

Michele

MHFM: Michele, you have to click on the link at the time we are doing a program.  We do a program from time to time.  We post a notice when we’re going to do a new one.  But we have many programs archived, which you can listen to at anytime.  Just click here to see them: Archived Radio Programs.  We would recommend listening to the first and second programs (which are listed at the top) first, if you're new to the information.

 

Jesus and Church

 

… it doesnt seem like the loving Jesus I know to damn you to hell if you dont go to a certain church...It seems to me that he would be more interested in you simply worshipping him, and loving him. Im sorry, you do have some good passages you told me, but it doesnt seem in-line with the Jesus I know...PLZ HELP ME. Thanks for your time.

 

Chester Taylor

 

MHFM: No, Jesus founded His Church upon Peter (Mt. 16:18-20) and said that you must hear that Church or you will be as the heathen (Mt. 18:17).  That means that the only Jesus of the Bible teaches that if a person doesn’t hear the one true Church which He founded, which is the Catholic Church, that person will be damned.

 

To do?

 

Hello, I was looking at your website and was very disturbed but I remembered what I had read about Fatima and the Great Apostacy.  I live in a rural area where only one church serves the entire county.  I do not drive; however, if I did I would have to travel 2.5 hours to pray the nearest Latin mass.  What is a person to do?

 

In Jesus,

 

Judith Smedley

Portland, Ohio

 

MHFM: We're glad to hear about your interest.  If you called us someone could help you with that question.  There’s also a section on our website which gives guidelines on that issue.  There’s no obligation to attend Mass if the Church doesn't provide you with a fully Catholic option in your area.  The New Mass is not an option, of course, and must be avoided under pain of grave sin.  We also encourage you to pray the Rosary each day, 15 decades if possible, if you're not doing that already.  Once a person is convinced that the Vatican II “Church” and New Mass are not Catholic, and accepts the rest of the traditional Catholic faith, the Profession of Faith from the Council of Trent (on our website) is also something which those who are new to the traditional Catholic faith or coming out of the Vatican II Church need to make.

 

Convinced

 

Dear MHFM,

 

I just wanted to commend you for the hard work and dedication you have put forth for the conversion of poor sinners.  May God reward you in your efforts to lead poor sinners back to The Holy and unchanging Catholic Faith.

 

I too have been converted to the Holy Catholic Church. I also accept all of the Dogmas that have been given to us, because they are perfect in every way.  I have to admit when I began my journey….the information on your website was shocking and it hit directly to my heart and soul. I may have not understood everything in the beginning, but by the grace of God and the Blessed Virgin Mary my mother I have been able to understand and change my life around. Needless to say I am convinced that we are living in these last hours of End Days. I am just so grateful that our Merciful God has sent your Monastery and the Truth to us. Your website is a necessity for all True Catholics to hear, to have, and to live by, till the end of time.

 

I continue to pray for The Most Holy Family Monastery, and I hope you have a Very Blessed Christmas and a Blessed New Year!

 

Thank you, and May God reward you and Bless you!

Mary

 

Mary Anne Szweda

Aurora, IL

 

H.O.W.

 

MHFM: The Heresy of the Week will now be changed on Wednesdays instead of Mondays.

 

Liked audio

 

I really want to listen again to that MP3 on FAITH ALONE I am so impressed with the "ALMANAC, OF DOZENS OF BIBLE VERSES supporting this very true subject!

You know, after receiving that FAITH ALONE e-mail of yours, I sent it out to about 90 e-mail addresses in one single group  e-mail.

Within 5 days of receiving your MP3, I received not one, but TWO MIRACLES.  Your timing was so crucial in the exact sequence of events, God used you to save/rescue me out of a potential embarrassment.

My female boss at my place of employment gave me the biggest hug, right in front of 2 false slanderers who have been trying to get me fired for the last 3 and a half years!  Also a Catholic friend, Frank, witnessed this miracle at my work.  He could hardly believe the swift turn of events! Thanks with all my heart, in Jesus Christ forever for all the wonderful help you've been!  Your Monastery is so appreciated!

 

David

 

Christmas gifts

 

Dear Brothers,

Recently I sent you a sarcastic e-mail mocking your position on giving Christmas gifts to heretics.  I apologize for having done so because now I see things in a different light after having read your recent e-exchange on the subject.  I know it's absurd to think that God could bless a heretic, so logically heretics do not deserve God's blessings during Christmas.  So now it's more clear to me.  This year I gave a present to my sister-in-law who is a heretic.  But from now on every Christmas I will only give presents to other faithful Catholics and celebrate the holidays with them only.

AP

 

How to rebut this

 

Subject: How do you rebut this?

 

Dear Bros,

 

Whenever I try to explain to someone or debate the sheer evils of V2 and the Novus Order, such as to a N.O. priest or layperson, 9 times out of 10 they come up with the easy out of "Well, I don't know all the specifics/details of religious dogmas so I can't say for sure what their original intentions were". Brothers, how do I effectively refute this excuse which they seem to think lets them off the hook?? I try to point out specific heresies, the most clear cut examples such as the Joint Declaration of Justification, but they just don't get it. Please help.

 

-Josh

 

MHFM: The easiest way to refute it is to point out that dogmas are to be believed as they were once declared and that it’s therefore heretical to depart from the meaning of the dogma as it was once declared.

 

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, 1870: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” (Denz. 1800)

 

So what the people you bring up are saying is a combination of modernism and indifferentism; they could really care less what the dogma actually says.  To assert that one must investigate the “intentions” of the popes who promulgated those dogmas is pure nonsense.  Obviously one could never know all the thoughts and intentions of all the popes who promulgated infallible statements. 

 

We would recommend that you bring forward the above quote from Vatican I, and also the fact that Pope St. Pius X condemned the idea of the evolution of dogma.  If the evolution of dogma is a heresy, as Pope St. Pius X taught, it follows that dogma must have a declared and fixed meaning. 

 

If those points don’t get you anywhere, then you are obviously dealing with hard-hearted and totally faithless liberals.  In that case, there’s really nothing you can say to them, since they have not a whiff of real belief in Jesus Christ, His truth, the infallibility of the Papacy, etc.  In that case, they care neither how authoritative the pronouncement you bring up might be nor what it actually says.

 

Ranked 11th in the world

 

MHFM: In our Christmas letter we mentioned that, among “Catholic” websites, our website is the 17th most active in world.  Our website is actually higher than that; our website is actually ranked 11th in the world.  The ranking of 17th counted different sections of, for instance, the Vatican’s website as different websites.  But when you consider that these subdivisions are actually part of the same website, our ranking is 11th. 

 

John XXIII

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

 

I have a question;

 

The third secret of Fatima was supposed to be opened and read to Catholics by no later than 1960.   Of course it was not.  Did that make John 23rd a valid pope, at least until he refused to do it?  I have no doubt that those who followed him were never true popes...

 

                                            T. B.

 

MHFM: No, as shown in this file, The Scandals and Heresies of John XXIII [PDF File], John XXIII was a heretic prior to his “election” in 1958.  Since he was a non-Catholic, he could not have been validly elected.  That’s the teaching of Pope Paul IV, which is also quoted in that file, at the end.

 

The third secret of Fatima was supposed to be released no later than 1960 almost certainly because it mentions a false council.  It was in 1959 that John XXIII announced that he was going to hold Vatican II.  Therefore, if the third secret had been released to the world in 1960, it would’ve had concrete meaning for people because everyone would have been thinking about the upcoming council.

 

Christmas Letter and Update

 

MHFM: This is a Christmas Letter and Update on the Activities of our Monastery.

 

Help in New Zealand

 

May Almighty God bless you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Amen!  Greetings to you all doing great works for Christ Jesus and his true Church!  my name is Clinton Edmonds of New Zealand. I'm writing you because I need some help regards to faith. I am married with 4 children, I don't have a job and I am failing my self and my family in my duties as a Father to my Children and, a Husband to my wife, but most of all, as a Catholic.  I understand the structures of the evil one although not completely, but have definate understanding of the plan in which the Devil has worked and continues in the world and through the detruction of faith and the Catholic Church and the rising Evil in all world powers! I have seen some of your videos… and am now more informed than ever before!  I now know I am weak at the moment and need help!

 

You have mentioned the need to return to the Holy Latin Mass of our Most Holy Catholic Faith but the problem New Zealand has is.....there may be 5-7 Churches that practice the True Latin Mass and where I live, I would have to travel 3-4 hrs to get to 1 of them which is extremely hard to do without a paying job and No money to gas my car etc.

I desire to take my family and attend The Sacred Mass everyday but can't! I am surrounded by Novus Ordo Mass and can sometimes feel the Evil one laughing at us....I don't know if I should stay home or not?... I ask you humbly to do this for us!

 

and thank you

 

God bless you!

 

Amen

 

regards, Clint

 

MHFM: Thanks for the interest, Clint. You need to stay home because the New Mass is invalid and must be avoided under pain of grave sin.  You don't have to travel 3 to 4 hours to get to a traditional mass.  There is no obligation for you to go anywhere and you certainly cannot go to the New Mass.  So you can just stay home.  But if you can find a priest who was validly ordained before 1968 or in a traditional rite of the Church then you could go to confession to him, provided you agree with the faith on all issues, including: sedevacantism, no baptism of desire, etc.  We encourage you to pray the Rosary each day, 15 decades if possible, and continue to look at the information.  We pray things go well for you.

 

Unbaptized infants

 

You must have a very low opinion of Gods Mercy, to think that he would not look kindly on an infant or aborted fetes would not show them mercy. Then again the Vatican's recent pronouncements on Limbo is worth you taking a look at. Or is this also heretical, Say what you will I will continue to believe in Gods Mercy.

 

dj

 

MHFM: You reject Catholic dogma. That's how simple it is.  You’re not a believer; you can’t submit to what Christ has revealed to the Church.  And yes, the recent Vatican pronouncement on limbo is absolutely heretical.  That’s proven in this article: The staggering implications of Benedict XVI's new blatant heresy on Limbo and in detail in the second half of this radio program: August 11, 2007 Radio Program.  This program covers many quotations from the not widely read document.

 

Position on Baptism of Desire?

 

Gracious Sir,
       

I have a question, I was wondering if you could answer.   I agree with you on the current situation of the Catholic Church.  However, on your website I found it inplied that their is absolutely no such thing as Baptism of Desire.   I learned from my cathicism from a Catechism of the Council of Trent, not a new revised post-vatican II catechism and I found that there is such a thing as Baptism of Desire.  And in the Catechism they mention three ways to be baptized, baptism of water, baptism of blood, and baptism of desire.  Now I know that baptism of desire does not mean everyone who desire salvation, makes it.  I was taught that Baptism of Desire was when a person wanted to become a Catholic but forces out of their control did not allow for that.  And the person wanted to be saved through the Catolic Church, but for some strange reason could not be baptized by water.  Please explain what your position on Baptism of Desire is, so, I can understand if your entire position is consistent with the Catholic Church's teaching throughout the ages.  (I understand that some people take Baptism of Desire and say it applys to everyone therefore everyone must be saved and we do not need to convert them and that this is heretical).
Please let me know what you think.


Sincerely,
Mike

 

MHFM: Mike, we have a book, which we sell, which is the most in-depth book on that issue.  There is a section on the Catechism of Trent and much more.  You can get the book with our $10.00 special, which we encourage you to do.  Click here to: order the book.  Click here to look at the book online: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [PDF].

 

What the book proves is that the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church leaves no room for the idea of baptism of desire.  It teaches that Jesus's words in John 3:5 are to be understood literally and without exception.  It teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation without exception.  Baptism of desire is an error that has been taught in many fallible sources; it hasn’t been taught infallibly by the Church.  The Catechism of Trent is not infallible.  There are about ten arguments from the infallible and dogmatic teaching of the Church which contradict baptism of desire.  No baptism of desire advocate can successfully answer any of these arguments; they basically never even try.  They just lump together a calculated combination of distortions: fallible sources combined with misinterpreted teachings combined with an occasional falsely translated text.  When they put all of these things together they can appear formidable to a person not familiar with how to refute them.  But in sections 16 and 17 of the aforementioned book, in addition to the history and principles covered in sections 14 and 19, these objections are scrutinized individually and, when that occurs, it can be seen that not one of them proves baptism of desire.  The Catechism of Trent does not teach baptism of blood, by the way, but does contain a short paragraph which says, in a rather weak way, that people who desired to receive baptism could have righteousness.  It also contains statement after statement that no one can be saved without water baptism. 

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.

     “Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind.  The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

 

The Catechism of Trent is not infallible.  We really hope you get the book we have on this topic because all the facts on this issue will be at your fingertips.  It covers all the issues and the objections.  Also, it should be pointed out that almost 100% of people who believe in baptism of desire hold the heresy that it can apply to people of every religion, just not all people of every religion. 

 

Four New DVDs

 

MHFM: We’re now selling four new interesting DVDs at our online store.   For an order form you can print: order form [PDF].

 

Mortal error?

 

Reverend Sirs,

 

Whilst commending your zealous adherence to the word of Catholic Faith, I believe you to be in mortal error by ignoring the spirit thereof, and by so doing to be in great danger of inducing yet another schism in the Church.   Whether you like it or not the Holy Father in Rome has absolute God-given authority over your Church; to resist that is evil.  Both Popes John Paul and Benedict XVI personally experienced and endured the horrors of World War II; one knew and the other yet remembers the severe damage and unspeakable misery inflicted upon this world by political and religious divisions.   Both, as men of peace, sought and are seeking to heal differences, to bring understanding, to replace hatred by love, to banish hostility, being true followers of Christ.  The first left a great legacy of goodwill and the second is continuing what he inherited.   “Blessed are the peacemakers …” Of course you, products of a land with an ingrained bellicose tradition, will neither understand not appreciate such goodness, but at least will you not see the immense harm that you are doing to the Church and to all Christendom through disseminating your rigid bigoted propaganda?   Or are you merely, as much puppets of Manhattan as your political masters, simply trying to replace Rome by New York, pursuing colonialism?

I shall pray for you.

 

Dr. Lionel Mann.

 

MHFM: First of all, dogmas are to be adhered to as they have been once declared.  To depart from the meaning of a dogma (e.g. Outside the Church There is No Salvation) as it has been declared is to fall into heresy and a truly mortally sinful error.

 

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, 1870: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” (Denz. 1800)

 

Second, even a true pope does not have the authority to change Catholic dogma, contrary to what you imply. 

 

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, 1870: “For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” (Denz. 1836)

 

If a pope denies one dogma he becomes a heretic and ceases to be pope.  There have also been over 40 antipopes in the history of the Church, some of whom reigned in Rome for periods of time.

 

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 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."

 

Third, the fact that John Paul II and Benedict XVI endured World War II does absolutely nothing to change the fact that both proved themselves to be heretics against the Catholic faith.  Try to focus on that fact and forget the irrelevant and sentimental nonsense.  In these files: John Paul II (manifest heretic who claimed to be pope 1978-2005) - Benedict XVI (The Heresies of Benedict XVI File), it is proven beyond any doubt that both men accept false religions, embrace religious indifferentism, endorse pagan and idolatrous religions, and hold that heretics and schismatics don’t need to be converted, to name a few. By ignoring that and writing what you have written, you sadly exude thoughts of a person who perhaps deems himself sophisticated, but is actually blind to penetrating and meaningful facts. 

 

Rosary while driving and meat on Friday

 

Hi,


What is one to do if he or she forgets and eats meat on a Friday?

I have done this on an occasion or two. I either realized it as soon as I was done eating or latter in the day. This has happened because of habit. I always get the same breakfast on my way to work everyday that includes sausage or bacon. About two or three times in the past I eat the meat not thinking. I even say the rosary on my way to work in the car; but as I said, I forgot a few times and eat the sandwich.
Is there something I can do like not eat meat on saturday to make up for it or do i need confession?

Also I am worried because I feel maybe I forgot because I am getting laxed in my faith, but I do say the Rosary on the way to work.

Last question is is it a bad practice to say the Rosary while I am driving? I know I must concentrate on the road and this somewhat takes away from my concentration on the mysteries of the Rosary.

Thanks

 

MHFM: Regarding your second question first, we believe that it’s a good thing to pray the Rosary while driving.  It’s time very well spent.  Regarding forgetting to abstain from meat on Friday, if a person truly forgets what day it is then it’s not a mortal sin.  However, if a person’s negligent attitude toward such matters caused him or her to forget, then it would be a sin.  And if it happens repeatedly then that’s problematic.  In that case, a person needs to take action to prevent it from happening.  For example, place a note on the dashboard of your car or wherever you might eat that breakfast meal. 

 

For a person who has been practicing the traditional Catholic faith, abstinence from meat on Friday should be something that one practices so often that it’s built into one’s schedule.  Thus, a traditional Catholic should basically never or almost never forget about it.  But a person who is very new to traditional Catholicism might be more inclined to forget, once in a while, about the Friday abstinence.  We would recommend mentioning it in confession; just state what happened: that you ate meat on Friday because you forgot what day it was.

 

Jansenism and Fewness of the saved

 

Dear Sirs

 

       I am a Jesuit priest and one with a strong devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  The other day I accidentally ran across your website the other day.  I am curious about your position on whether many or few are saved.  Could you explain to me how your position on this mystery of God's providence compares with that of Jansenism, and specifically the position held by the Jansenist bishop Scipione de Ricci?

 

       Thank you,

       Fr. Thomas Sherman, S.J. 

 

MHFM: We can tell you that as Catholics we reject Jansenism, for it advocates many propositions which have been condemned by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  Some of these can be read in Denzinger (e.g., Denz. 1092, 1291 and following).  Regarding the fewness of the saved, we have a section on our mainpage which covers that issue.  We do hold that few are saved.  That few are saved is not only the teaching Jesus Christ and St. Peter in Sacred Scripture, but of many traditional saints, doctors of the Church, etc. 

 

Matthew 7:13- “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.  How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it!”

 

1 Peter 4:18- “And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?”

 

In fact, since it’s a defined dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and most of the world is not Catholic, it’s certain that few are saved.  The traditional teaching of the saints went much further, of course, not only acknowledging that all who die as non-Catholics are lost but that most of those who profess to be Catholics are lost as well because they don’t have sufficient interest in the things of salvation and thus die in mortal sin.  Many saints and doctors of the Church, even during the ages of faith, taught that most adult Catholics are lost. 

 

St. Leonard of Port Maurice [A.D. 1676-1751], on the fewness of the saved: “After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he [Suarez] wrote, ‘The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians [Catholics], there are more damned souls than predestined souls.’  Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone.  Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, "Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom." Saint Anselm declares, "There are few who are saved." Saint Augustine states even more clearly, "Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned."  The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: "Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence."

 

When St. Leonard of Port Maurice uses the term “Christian,” he means Catholics, not heretics.  St. Leonard is repeating the consistent teaching of the fathers and doctors: most adult Catholics (not even including the non-Catholic world) are lost.  If this was the sentiment about the salvation of Catholics in the ages of faith, what would they say today?  If you have trouble accepting the truths presented on this website because “it’s just too hard to believe that this many people could be wrong or deceived,” consider the teaching of Our Lord and the saints above.  Consider how much more true the teaching on the fewness of the saved is today:

 

“Lucia found Jacinta sitting alone, still and very pensive, gazing at nothing.  ‘What are you thinking of, Jacinta?’  ‘Of the war that is going to come.  So many people are going to die.  And almost all of them are going to Hell.’” (Our Lady of Fatima, p. 94; p. 92 in some versions)

 

Jacinta of Fatima, who had visions of future events, said that of those who would die in World War II almost all of them would go to Hell.

 

St. Anselm: “If thou wouldst be certain of being in the number of the elect, strive to be one of the few, not of the many.  And if thou wouldst be quite sure of thy salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few… Do not follow the great majority of mankind, but follow those who enter upon the narrow way, who renounce the world, who give themselves to prayer, and who never relax their efforts by day or by night, that they may attain everlasting blessedness.” (Fr. Martin Von Cochem, The Four Last Things, p. 221.)

 

If one in any way attempts to equate the traditional Catholic teaching on the fewness of the saved or Outside the Church There is No Salvation with Jansenism that is a major mistake.  Nevertheless, some dishonest individuals do attempt to equate the uncompromising view of Outside the Church There is No Salvation with Jansenism by engaging in distortion.  For instance they quote an error of the Jansensists like this:

 

Errors of the Jansenists, #5: “Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace.” – Condemned in 1690 (Denz. 1295) 

 

As anyone can see, this merely condemns the idea that pagans, etc. do not receive any graces.  It doesn’t in any way condemn the fact, which is a defined dogma, that those who die as pagans, etc. are not saved. 

 

But we have a question for you: do you accept the Council of Florence’s infallible definition that all who die as non-Catholics are lost?  Keep in mind that Vatican I defined that we must accept dogma “as it was once declared.”  If the answer is yes, don’t you have a problem with Vatican II’s teaching that Protestants are in the way of salvation (Unitatis Redintegratio #3) and that Jews are not rejected by God and thus can be saved (Nostra Aetate #4)?

 

More nonsense

 

Gentlemen, I have just stumbled across your website, quite by accident. I did not go through it thoroughly, but saw enough to get the gist of things. I refuse to sink to the same level, that you do, apparently without any sense of shame or reverence for the Church. However, I would like to say that I think you should perhaps spend your time doing something more constructive. I am a faithful, conservative Catholic, and I find your website very offensive. I know that you will surmise that this is because I have been completely brainwashed by the devil and his infiltration of the Church. I have dealt with others who share your opinions and know that you perceive the greatest sin as "compromise", when, in point of fact, Our Lord clearly tells us that the greatest sin is the rejection of the Holy Spirit. It would seem to me that our Beloved Lord, Jesus Christ would be better served by your living His Love, as opposed to spreading hatred and suspicion masked as righteousness. I can't help but feel in my heart that you just may have cast the first stone at the adulterous woman, had you been there to watch Our Lord write upon the ground with His finger and forgive her. Do not lead the world into further scandal. Be a light that shines. "Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house."

 

Pax, Bill

 

MHFM: Bill, your e-mail demonstrates that you’ve ignored the specific points and facts we’ve brought forward on our website.  Your e-mail presents a vague and emotional response and doesn’t point to one specific thing.  That shows that you are ignoring the truth right now because it’s discomforting to you.  Look at the material more carefully.  Consider, as just one example, that the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  That’s a dogma which all Catholics must accept under pain of heresy and damnation.  Then consider that the post-Vatican II Church teaches that there is salvation for Protestants, schismatics, pagans, etc.  It even teaches that Protestants and schismatics don’t need to be converted.  Consider that such a fact proves that the representatives of the post-Vatican II Church are heretical and therefore outside the Church.  Consider the fact that there have been antipopes and that a Great Apostasy, to be led from Rome, is predicted to come in the last days in order to lead professing Catholics astray.  When you face up to the facts, rather than ignoring them, you will begin to see the truth you need to see and believe in order to be truly Catholic and saved.  We ask you to listen to this radio program, for it shows how all of what our website covers about what’s going on is true and based on Catholic teaching.

Aug. 22 Radio Program: An Overview of Present situation (First Show) (click here to listen, about 2 hrs.)

*This show contains a very important overview of the present situation of the Catholic Church and the reasons why the post-Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church.  It discusses the facts, the evidence and the arguments which prove that the post-Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church.  This is a show people should listen to.   It covers the heresies of Vatican II, the apostasy of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Paul VI, that there have been antipopes, that our present situation has been predicted, and more.

Christmas get-togethers

 

Brothers,

Do you stand by your advice that it is forbidden for faithful traditional Catholics that agree on all your issues (Church Teachings) to attend family Christmas get-togethers and/or exchange gifts.

Please adress this issue on your e-exchanges as I am sure many traditional catholics will be dealing with this with their familes as the Holy Day of Christmas approaches.

Our son faithfully follows your "spiritual direction" and will not be giving his father a Christmas gift or will not attend the family gathering at his father's house. His father is a novus ordo catholic.

Thank you AP

 

MHFM: “Forbidden for faithful traditional Catholics… to attend family Christmas get-togethers and/or exchange gifts” with those who are Novus Ordo, Protestant or reject some other Catholic teaching - of course we stand by that.  It follows logically from apostolic teaching (II John 10), which was repeated in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium Animos.  Thus, your son is without question doing the correct thing.

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).”

 

To celebrate Christmas with heretics or with those who reject the faith is tantamount to acknowledging those heretics as members of the true Christian religion who can share in the blessings of Christmas.  And that would be very wrong, of course.  Hence, those who really love God’s truth and believe it matters should not only agree that one cannot celebrate Christmas with such individuals, but should be enthusiastic about not doing it.  To put it another way, a person shouldn’t need a lot of persuasion that it’s not something one can do; rather, it should make complete sense.  The very thought of celebrating Christmas and exchanging gifts with someone who is, for instance, obstinate in the Novus Ordo should spark an internal discomfort in a traditional Catholic who really believes that truth matters.

 

Changed

 

“I watched your video… and it totally changed my life.”

 

Rich Helbig,

 

Pittsburgh, PA

 

Challenge refused

 

MHFM: This is a continuation of the “Get a clue” exchange below.  That person responded with more critical comments, so we challenged him to a debate on our radio show and he (not surprisingly) refused.

 

If you are referring to the works of the evil one your divisiveness is one. Second, the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ. The manner you speak of the Holy Father thus equates to Christ Himself whom the Holy Father represents here on earth. The evil manner in which you write exposes that you do not have the heart and mind of Christ. The vitriol with which you write… makes you an easy pawn for the evil one, for whom you work fervently. Yours in Christ,


Jim.

 

MHFM: Oh really? Would you like to come on our radio program and debate the issue of whether the post-Vatican II claimants to the Papacy are true popes?

 

Thank you for the invitation. However, There is nothing to debate.  I pray God will have mercy on your immortal soul.

 

MHFM: Exactly as we expected... you prove that you are a coward.  In a debate it would be quite clear just how wrong you are that you know nothing about fidelity to the Catholic faith.  You are exactly like so many other heretics we encounter; they throw out their comments but are afraid to meet us in a debate and defend their position- just as we expected.  Someone just like you wrote a few weeks ago.  We challenged him to a debate as well.  He refused just like you.

 

No Salvation without baptism

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery,

 

I have been reading alot of the articles on your website and watching your DVDs and I agree and understand alot of what you are explaining, but I am struggling to accept no salvation without baptism.  I know God is Holy, but He is also Merciful.  I can't understand how a man can, for example, abuse and kill a toddler who was not baptized by the parents and send that child to Hell, but that killer can attain salvation if he has been baptized and repents of his sin.  Or a person who has no opportunity of ever hearing the gospel, such as a Muslim girl in a militantly Islamic country, and her being condemned if she never had the knowledge of what baptism was or even Christianity.

 

In my mind, your argument is logical that we must be baptized and I know that Our Lord Himself said we must be born again of water and spirit, but perhaps it is my faulty human heart that still hopes that these souls can be saved.  If I can accept your teaching logically, but my heart holds reservations, what do I do?

 

I remember reading in the books about the life of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich that she strongly said that the Church was the only way, but even she was surprised to learn that several of her ancestors were saved because Jesus said that had they known the Church, they would have been very devout Christians.  Also, in the lives of other Saints, everyone thought certain souls were damned, even the Saint himself, but later learned the soul was saved because they had a particular devotion to Our Lady.

 

Can you please help me to accept this better?  I know God's ways are not our ways and we cannot possibly understand them unless he reveals them to us, but I have a hard time understanding why a sinner like me has a chance at salvation after having lived a horrible, sinful life while a baby in it's mother's womb who is aborted has no chance at all.

 

Can you please help me understand this?  Thank you in advance for any help that you can give.  (And your DVD on Freemasonry is excellent!  I have ordered more copies to share with friends in the hopes it will open their eyes like it did mine...)

 

Sincerely,

 

Rachelle Wickstrom

 

MHFM: It comes down to submitting one’s mind to the revelation of Christ, which is found in Catholic dogma.  You are refusing to believe until you understand.  St. Anselm points out that a person with true faith believes in order to understand.  If God has revealed that all who die without baptism are lost, as He has, that’s because He knows infinitely more than we do about the lack of good will in those souls who die without the faith.  St. Augustine said it well:

 

St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1997.)

 

So one who doubts that all who die without baptism and the faith are lost lacks faith in Jesus Christ; for He is the one who ensures the integrity of dogmatic teaching.  The sad fact is that most men are of bad will; that’s why so many are left in ignorance of the true faith and baptism.  They are not sincere and thus God leaves them in ignorance.  In the case of infants, perhaps God taking them in infancy is merciful because if they had lived they would have died in mortal sin and gone to the fires of Hell.  If that’s the case, then taking them in infancy, even though they are barred from Heaven and put in a place of Hell where there is no fire, is the merciful thing.  Regardless, we know for certain that all infants who die without baptism are not saved.  They go to a part of Hell called the limbo of the children and God has a perfectly just reason for it.

 

You ask what you can do to help you be convinced.  We say: pray the full 15 decade Rosary each day.  If you pray it well and sincerely we believe that you will have a firm faith in this and all other Catholic teachings.

 

Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., a famous 16th century Dominican theologian, also summed up the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this topic very well.  Here is how he put it:

 

When we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith.  For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief.  As St. Thomas says, however, if they do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.” (De Indis et de Iure Belli Relectiones, ed. E. Nys, tr. J.P. Bates (The Classics of International Law), Washington, 1917, p. 142.)

 

Regarding Anne Catherine Emmerich, some of things attributed to her are heretical and thus must be rejected.  The following section from our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [PDF FILE] would be relevant for you on the point of accepting all the truths of Catholic dogma.

 

THE CHAIR OF PETER SPEAKS THE TRUTH THAT CHRIST HIMSELF DELIVERED

 

     The truths of faith which have been proclaimed by the popes speaking infallibly from the Chair of Peter are called dogmas.  The dogmas make up what is called the deposit of Faith.  And the deposit of Faith ended with the death of the last apostle. 

 

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #21: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.”[11][15] - Condemned

 

     This means that when a pope defines a dogma from the Chair of Peter he does not make the dogma true, but rather he proclaims what is already true, what has already been revealed by Christ and delivered to the Apostles.  The dogmas are therefore unchangeable, of course.  One of these dogmas in the deposit of Faith is that Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation.  Since this is the teaching of Jesus Christ, one is not allowed to dispute this dogma or to question it; one must simply accept it.  It does not matter if one doesn’t like the dogma, doesn’t understand the dogma, or doesn’t see justice in the dogma.  If one doesn’t accept it as infallibly true then one simply does not accept Jesus Christ, because the dogma comes to us from Jesus Christ. 

 

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 deceivedBut 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.”[12][16]

 

     Those who refuse to believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation until they understand how there is justice in it are simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s revelation.  Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His teaching first and understand the truth in it (i.e., why it is true) second.  A Catholic does not withhold his belief in Christ’s revelation until he can understand it.  That is the mentality of a faithless heretic who possesses insufferable pride.  St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point.

 

St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.  For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.”[13][17]

 

Romans 11:33-34- “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!  How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!  For who hath known the mind of the Lord?  Or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him?”

 

Isaias 55:8-9- “For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.”

 

Sorry

 

Dear Brothers:

In the past I have made many prank calls to your monastery, said nasty things, made vile noises, played satanic songs, and so on. I apologize. Obviously a demon possessed me to harass those who presented the truth to me, but I have now learnt to accept it and I hope to keep the demons at bay. I will be going to confession for the first time in 7 years as soon as I can find an acceptable priest. Please forgive me, and pray for me.

Alexander Mooney

 

Exorcism movie

 

Did you know there is a German movie version of the exorcism of Anneliese Michel?  It is called "Requiem".  Have you seen it?  I am probably going to rent it from Netflix since it is supposed to be more realistic and doesn't focus on the "horror" aspect of the story as much.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454931/

God bless,
Ethan M.

 

MHFM: We haven’t seen that one; thus we can’t comment on it.  We did see the DVD of The Exorcism of Emily Rose.  Despite some things in the movie we don’t agree with (as was made clear in that audio commentary), we felt that on the whole it was very good and will probably benefit the general person out there.

 

Sure of salvation?

 

Season's Greetings,

 

My name is Chris, and I am a former Catholic; one who did attend the Mass everyday, and one who prayed the Rosary often.  I am writing to ask a question or two.       

 

My Dad (Mel Gegere – that’s “G-gear”) has been a Catholic all of his days (he’s 87)… But, even after faithfully attending the Mass, keeping the Sacraments, and praying the Rosary, etc., he is still not sure that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have granted him everlasting life, and complete forgiveness of all his sins.  He has had some doubts, and, he is a bit superstitious.  -Some say that, “He is saved, but doesn’t know it.”  (Which raises a few questions, to say the least.)  In this life: Can a Catholic (or anyone) possess everlasting life - and know it? Has the Church ever believed, and therefore taught: that it would be a “sin” to say that we already have it?  (Everlasting life.)  Is it in the denial that we have it now:  somehow the key to having it later?... It appears that most in the Catholic Church do profess belief in, “the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.”   But, it also appears that many in the Catholic Church do not (in fact) believe that they now possess it.  (Dogmatically, it does seem quite elusive.)…

 

MHFM: First of all, the Bible doesn’t teach the Protestant idea of eternal security: that all who believe in Christ can be sure of their salvation.  That’s proven in much detail in this audio program: Justification by Faith Alone refuted and the Catholic teaching on Justification proved by the Protestant Bible [1 hr. 30 min. audio].

 

Second, the Catholic Church teaches that it is sinfully presumptuous for a Catholic to say that he’s among the elect, except for a special revelation:

Council of Trent, Sess. 6 on Justification, Chap. 12: “No one, moreover, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; as if it were true, that he that is justified, either cannot sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance; for except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself.”

That such an exception (“except by a special revelation”) is mentioned in the dogmatic text shows how something like the Message of Fatima – which ensured the three children of Fatima that they were among the saved – is perfectly consistent with Catholic teaching.  (It also shows us, by the way, that if there were exceptions to the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism or the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, they would be mentioned in the text.  But no exceptions are mentioned in the dogmatic texts on those issues because no exceptions exist.)  So the Protestant heresy, that all who believe in Christ are ensured of their salvation, is completely unbiblical and condemned by Catholic teaching. 

 

The sad fact is that no Protestant, so long as he remains a Protestant, will be saved unless he converts to the one true Church Christ established, the Catholic Church.  And we must say that your father, if he’s part of the Vatican II Novus Ordo “Church,” must embrace the traditional faith and abandon the New Mass and Vatican II religion if he is to be a true Catholic and be saved.  We would also strongly urge you to consider returning to the traditional Catholic faith because it’s the only true faith of Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation.

 

Get a clue

 

Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation

 

News Alert:  You are Outside the Church.

 

You do many works for the evil one, the father of lies.

 

J

 

MHFM: Sure, that's why you don't name even one.  You’re a fraud.  You know nothing about fidelity to the Catholic faith or fidelity to the Magisterium.  If you did, you would get a clue that Benedict XVI trashes dogmas weekly and holds that the Papacy is meaningless.  If you weren’t spiritually blind you would see that it has been proven many times, from Catholic teaching, that he is a manifestly heretical non-Catholic antipope.  Get a clue, you bad willed heretic.

 

Exorcism of Emily Rose

 

The Real Exorcism of Emily Rose - 2 min. video

 

This is a 2 minute clip with images and sounds from the exorcism of Anneliese Michel.  The exorcism of Anneliese Michel is the true story behind the motion picture The Exorcism of Emily Rose. 

 

A discussion of the Exorcism of Anneliese Michel - 19 min. audio [By Bro. Peter Dimond]

 

This is an audio discussion of some of the very interesting and striking parts about the case of Anneliese Michel.  It serves as a powerful proof and reminder that the Devil is real, that there’s a spiritual war going on and why people must hold the true faith and stay out of mortal sin.

 

Baptism of desire

 

It would appear that they have not heard of Baptism desire, where a mother can want there child baptized but is unable to have it done.

 

Bo…

 

MHFM: No, the Church doesn’t teach what you have said.  The Catholic Church has anathematized the idea that any child can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism – with no exceptions.  So what you have said is heretical.  From the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”

 

     Pope Eugene IV here defined from the Chair of Peter that there is no other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil (i.e., original sin) other than the Sacrament of Baptism.  This means that anyone who obstinately teaches that infants can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is a heretic, for he is teaching that there is another remedy for original sin in children other than the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif  - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - Condemned

 

    This is a fascinating proposition from The Council of Constance.  Unfortunately, this proposition is not found in Denzinger, which only contains some of the Council’s decrees, but it is found in a full collection of the Council of Constance.  The arch-heretic John Wyclif was proposing that those (such as ourselves) are stupid for teaching that infants who die without water (i.e., sacramental) baptism cannot possibly be saved.   He was anathematized for this assertion, among many others.  And here is what the Council of Constance had to say about John Wyclif’s anathematized propositions, such as #6 above.

 

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415: “The books and pamphlets of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, were carefully examined by the doctors and masters of Oxford University… This holy synod, therefore, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, repudiates and condemns, by this perpetual decree, the aforesaid articles and each of them in particular; and it forbids each and every Catholic henceforth, under pain of anathema, to preach, teach, or hold the said articles or any one of them.”

 

     So those who criticize Catholics for affirming the dogma that no infant can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism are actually proposing the anathematized heresy of John Wyclif.  Here are some other dogmatic definitions on the topic.

 

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra:  “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”

 

     This means that anyone who asserts that infants don’t need the “laver of rebirth” (water baptism) to attain eternal life is teaching heresy.

 

Vatican II pastoral?

 

Is he accurate with this Brothers?

Dennis

 

[Quote]…“While I agree with you that this is desecration, as for ścumenism you must remember that VCII was a pastoral council and none of the documents produced by it are absolutely binding on the faithful under pain of mortal sin. Catholics are, however, bound to the disciplinary changes, unless the have been abrogated afterward.

Also, please try to steer clear of the heresy of Feeneyism.”

 

MHFM: No, he’s completely wrong.  If one assumes (for the sake of argument) that Paul VI was a valid pope, then Vatican II would have been infallible in its teaching of faith or morals, just like other ecumenical councils.  That’s shown in this file below.  It proves that Paul VI could not have been a valid pope but was an antipope:

 

Was Vatican II infallible?

(This article is for those who already recognize that there were heresies and false doctrines in Vatican II, but hold that the Vatican II “popes” who promulgated them still hold true authority in the Catholic Church.)

 

For those who want to see the heresies in Vatican II, they are found here: The Heresies in Vatican II [PDF File].

 

More on John Paul II

 

JMJ

 

Dear Brothers:  Re: Your recent posting on your web site titled "JP2 and the Jews" I remember reading that JP2's best friend the Jew Jerzy Kluger was also the first one to visit him after he was "elected" "Pope!"

 

Phil

 

MHFM: Yes, we have mentioned that in our material.  In fact, here’s the picture of the first “papal” audience which Antipope John Paul II gave – it was to the Jewish Kluger family.

 

 

 

 

Calendar Correction

 

MHFM: When we posted the December Calendar it did not list Dec. 24th (Christmas Eve) as a day of fast and abstinence.  We made the correction a few days ago.

 

Necessity of the Eucharist

 

Dear Bros,

 

I understand it is a matter of fact that baptism of desire is heresy- that one MUST be baptized by water before his/her death or there is no sacrament conferred. Well what about the sacrament of the Eucharist? Wouldn't God deem necessary that one MUST receive a (valid) Eucharist at least once in his/her lifetime? Consider how many people, like myself, have been raised in the Novus Ordo and have NEVER received a valid eucharist. I'm surprised I haven't seen anything on your website that says one MUST receive a validly consecrated host at least once in their lifetime after having left the novus ordo and having first made a valid confession to a pre-vat2 priest.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

MHFM: The Church doesn’t teach that receiving the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for each man’s salvation, as the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for each man. For instance, the Council of Trent specifically declared that infants are not bound to receive it (Denz. 937).  The Church teaches that those who are able to receive the Eucharist need to for salvation; but if one cannot receive it because there is no priest around, or if one is below the age of reason, it’s not necessary.  That’s why, as shown in this section below, which comes from Section 22 of the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, it is seen that there is a subtle difference between Jesus’ words in John 6:54 and his words in John 3:5.

 

JOHN 3:5 VS. JOHN 6:54

 

     Some writers have tried to refute a literal interpretation of John 3:5 by appealing to the words of Our Lord in John 6:54: “Amen, amen I say to you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”  They argue that the language in this verse is the same as in John 3:5, and yet the Church doesn’t take Jn. 6:54 literally – for infants don’t need to receive the Eucharist to be saved.  But the argument falters because the proponents of this argument have missed a crucial difference in the wording of these two verses. 

    

John 6:54- “Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” 

 

John 3:5- “Amen, amen I say to thee, UNLESS A MAN be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”  

 

     Our Lord Jesus Christ, when speaking on the necessity of receiving the Eucharist in John 6:54, does not say: “unless a man eat the flesh of the Son of man…”  He says: “Except you…”  His words, therefore, are clearly intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not every man.  Since the people to whom He was speaking could eventually receive the Eucharist, they had to in order to be saved.  This applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, that is, all who hear that command and can fulfill it, which is what the Church teaches.  But in John 3:5, Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man.  This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written.

    

     The difference in the wording of these two verses actually shows the supernatural inspiration of the Bible and the absolute necessity of water baptism for every man.

 

JP2 and the Jews

 

Hi,

Perusing daily updates on the web, I came across this excellent article by a novus ordo magazine about JPII and the Jews; and I think it greatly shows the apostasy which this antiChrist engaged in from an early age and throughout its anti-pontificate:

"More than any other pope, John Paul II was the twentieth century’s greatest papal friend and supporter of the Jewish people. Indeed, John Paul II’s extraordinary relationship with the Jews..."

"Growing up in the small Polish town of Wadowice, where Jews and Catholics mingled with relative ease, Karol Wojtyla, according to biographer Tad Szulc, “had Jewish playmates and classmates with whom he enjoyed easy camaraderie.” John Paul’s closest friend was Jerzy Kluger, whose father was a prominent local attorney and president of the local Jewish community and its synagogue."

"On the festival of Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement and the holiest day in the Jewish year, Karol was taken to the synagogue by his father to hear the Kol Nidre, the central prayer of the Yom Kippur worship service, chanted by the new cantor. In later years, Karol Wojtyla, as bishop and pope, would often remark on how moved and inspired he was by that memorable Yom Kippur service."… [From First Things Magazine]

Pax

 

Irish Dancing?

 

Dear brothers Michael and Peter Dimond

 

My name is Caitlin McDonnell and I am 17. I was wondering if you or someone you know could help me; I am trying to live a good Catholic life and was curious to know if dancing is sinful. I have read that the children of Fatimas' Parish Priest condemmned dancing calling it Pagan, however, I also read in Fr Lasance Book for Girls that dancing itself is not a sin, which is right? I wanted to learn Irish dancing and was discussing it with my sister and mother, I thought that I would not wear the dresses for I am aware they are not exactly modest, my sister then mentioned that dancing may be sinful; do you think it would be sinful to learn Irish dancing? Please help me because I don't wish to learn somehting that would be sinful.

 

Thankyou and God bless

 

Caitlin

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail and the question.  We believe that participation in that dancing is a bad idea.  We believe that it would be sinful or an occasion of sin.  Therefore, we strongly recommend people not to pursue it.  Try to find something else for recreation or exercise.  We fully agree with the assessment of St. John Vianney. Here is the quote we mentioned on a radio program concerning St. John Vianney’s opposition to people taking part in dancing:

 

“There is not a commandment of God which dancing does not cause men to break… Mothers may indeed say: ‘Oh, I keep an eye on their dress; you cannot keep guard over their heart.  Go, you wicked parents, go down to Hell where the wrath of God awaits you, because of your conduct when you gave free scope to your children; go!  It will not be long before they join you, seeing that you have shown them the way so well… Then you will see whether your pastor was right in forbidding those Hellish amusements.’” (Abbé Francis Trocu, The Curé D’Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, p. 146)

 

There are many similar quotes against dancing from this biography of St. John Vianney.

 

Re-enforced faith

 

Dear Brothers,

I would like to thank you very much for all of your excellent work and defense of the Catholic faith. Your videos and material have really re-enforced my faith. A friend of mine introduced me to your website during a period of doubt, which was a very hard time in my life, and am extremely grateful he did. Before I read your site and watched your videos I was going a long with the Novus Ordo Church and had no idea of the absolute heresy and apostasy that is rampant in it. I have been showing your material to everyone I know and have even helped convert a friend to the Catholic faith. I am especially grateful for your video, Creation and Miracles: Past and Present, because I wasn't able to find any other Catholics who believed the Creation and Flood accounts as written in the Holy Scripture and for the excellent refutations of the Darwinists. Once again, thank you very much and keep up the great work.

Sincerely,
Dylan O'Connor,
Chicopee, MA. 12/4/07

 

Defending Vatican II

 

Dear Brothers,

       I think that your teachings on Vatican II and how it is all false is absolutely insane. I am a strong devout Catholic and I think what you are saying is wrong. First of all, you are not the pope. You don't make the rules about what the Catholic religion believes in and does not believe in. If you truly believe that the Catholic Church has total infallibility, then you should believe in Vatican II because the Church declared it.
       Second, you calling John Paul II an "Antipope" is ridiculous. He was the best pope who every lived. He traveled the world and touched many people's hearts. Catholics and Non-Catholics. The Bible teaches us to love our brothers and sisters no matter what religion they are. We are suposed to encourage them to convert to Catholicism. And if they don't convert, then at least we tried to convert them and in God's eyes we still did our part and did a good thing.
       Third of all, you guys telling everyone that they need to change their lifestyle or they are going to Hell is a sin itself!!! The Bible says that we are not to judge others based on their sins!! For we are all sinners! You cannot honestly tell me that you have never commited a sin in your life because there was only one being who has never commited a sin during his life on Earth-Jesus.
       I think that you guys should get real and stop preaching such nonsense. You make no sense at all and you are constantly contradicting yourselves. Please take everything I have said and take it into consideration that you are wrong and that these so called "Antipopes" are right. After all, they were chosen by God to become popes. Otherwise they would have never become popes. As Catholics you should believe that the Church is infallible and whatever laws of the Church the pope makes, is really God establishing these laws through him. Please get with the program and start accepting Vatican II like almost 99% of the Catholic population on Earth. Please respond if you would like to. May God Be with you my brothers.

                                                                               Sincerely,
                                                                                     Anonymous

 

MHFM: Your e-mail is pathetic, ridiculous and demonstrative of the blindness which envelopes your soul.  For instance, in response to the multitude of facts which prove that John Paul II was a heretic – such as his having kissed the Koran, his having bowed his head as the Jews prayed for the coming of their Messiah, and his having signed joint declarations with schismatics stating that he won’t convert them – you say people must love their neighbors no matter what religion they are.  So you have equated loving one’s neighbor with denying Catholic truth, encouraging a neighbor to remain outside the Church of Jesus Christ and keeping a neighbor on the road to damnation.  Anyone with a semblance of good will can see the falsity and error of such an argument.  It reveals that you are oblivious to sound logic, to Catholic dogmas and to the clear heresies of the Vatican II antipopes, as well as the fact that there have been antipopes, the fact that ecumenism is apostasy, etc.  A comment really isn’t even necessary for our readers to see that your e-mail is another example of how those who defend Vatican II are spiritually blind, bad willed and have no fidelity to the truths of the Catholic religion and no good answer to the facts which are presented against the Vatican II sect. 

 

Learning the faith

 

Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimond,

 

I was baptized in the Catholic Church but have never received confirmation and was never exposed to church teachings. As an adult I am beginning to fell a real desire to learn about my catholic heritage and to develop a relationship with Christ. I have been learning about true Catholicism and some sort of neo-catholic church. How and where can i learn about more about my true catholic heritage? I currently live in San Pedro Ca.

 

Thank you for any assistance that you could provide.

James

 

MHFM: You can learn about it from the materials on our website and the materials we offer.  We sell a traditional catechism, bible, handbook of dogmatic statements, and the most in-depth material on what has gone on since Vatican II and the Catholic teachings which oppose it.  As far as where to go to receive sacraments, you can call us here at about that question.  There is also a section on our website which discusses guidelines on that issue.  It's not like we are in normal times where you can just show up somewhere locally and receive the information about the true faith.  We're in the Great Apostasy and there are hardly any fully Catholic priests around in the country.  The true faith is first and foremost a set a beliefs which you must have, and that's what our material covers.

 

If you haven’t already, we would also strongly recommend that you obtain our DVD special offer which includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books (including our 610-page book with 200 color photographs), an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.).

 

Prot. B-ball game and no Fri. meat

 

Hello again Brothers Michael and Peter.  I have soaked up most of your information and I have also read Vatican 1st Council's documents and they seem to expressly contradict what I believe now to be heretical documents of the Second Vatican Council.  Thank you for answering all of my questions thus far.

I have another question:

Would I be sinning if I participate in a basketball game, when I know that a non Catholic Protestant speaker has been invited to do a brief evangelical talk after the game?  Is this the same as attending non Catholic or heretical worship?

And if it is not too much trouble, could you please tell me:  What is the Church's view on eating meat on Fridays? Is it a sin and if so, how severe (venial, mortal)?

Thank you very much,
Your brother in Christ,
Dave Landry

 

MHFM: If this is part of an actual league that you signed up for – and some of the people decided on their own to have this man give the talk – then, in our view, we would say that you could participate in the game and then leave.  That’s because signing up for the league has nothing to do with a few members of the team deciding to have this man talk.  But if this is a pick-up game, or a somewhat informal pre-arranged game with a smaller group of people who basically all are in favor or involved with having the person give his talk after the game, then we would say not to participate in that game.  For in that case the heretical talk is basically connected with the game and with most or all of the participants in the game and the decision to meet for the game.  So in the latter case we wouldn’t play in that game; in the former case we believe one could, as long as one leaves after the game.  We would also recommend that you talk to those you know about his false Protestant views and encourage them to look at our website and not to go to his talk or play in the game in the latter case.  But we would say that you could play in other games where such a talk is not occurring.  We would also recommend talking to the Protestant speaker, who probably believes in justification by faith alone.  We would encourage him to listen to our new audio on the topic: Justification by Faith Alone refuted and the Catholic teaching on Justification proved by the Protestant Bible [1 hr. 30 min. audio].

 

As far as eating meat on Fridays, it’s forbidden under pain of mortal sin.  But if one was not aware that this is the law of the Church then it’s not necessarily a mortal sin, unless one was sinfully negligent in acquiring this information.  But once one knows that this is the law, it’s forbidden under pain of mortal sin.  It was the Vatican II sect which abolished the laws of fasting and abstinence.  Since their “popes” were/are antipopes with no authority, the laws of fast and abstinence as they were before Vatican II are still in effect.  These two files explain them.  This section is found about 15 links down our page.

 

Traditional Catholic Calendar (December 2007) 

(to print the Calendar on one page try the “landscape” printing preference)

Info on Fast Days, etc.

 

Thank you

 

Thank you!  I was totally confused with what was going on with Vatican II, until I found your site.  I now understand better what Jesus said about the world hated Me before it hated you.  I am amazed how many “Catholics” get upset with me when I tell them what the doctrines of the Catholic Church are.  I’ve even had names hurled at me.  They refuse to believe me…

 

Ronald Eber,

West Friendship, Maryland

 

“Orthodoxy”

 

Dear Whoever,

 

I love your website - you are doing the world a great service as far as exposing these post Vatican II popes - I do love it.

 

However, and please forgive my bluntness,  you should not attack the Holy Eastern Orthodox FAITH as it the truest to the FAITH taught by Christ to His Apostles and by His Apostles to the world. Of course the Orthodox Church is filled with men and therefore filled with various flaws, and sadly, I do admit it is.

 

It is the Orthodox FAITH itself which is true, pure and has not changed.  As conservative as you are, your catholicism has been greatly compromised and has deviated so greatly from the FAITH (this is due mostly to Augustine and Aquinas etc.).   You seem like smart people. Do not confuse the imperfections of the human side of the Church with the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith which exists only among the truest of the faithful Orthodox Eastern Church or those in Communion with Her.


Read the Scriptures and the Right-believing Fathers!!! 

 

Keep up your good work, but please lay off the Orthodox,

 

                                                                                            The servant of God,

                                                                                                     Dejan

 

MHFM: This is a link to a quick explanation why the Eastern “Orthodox” faith is false: A letter refuting Eastern Orthodoxy.  Its position on which councils it accepts is completely illogical and shows that Eastern “Orthodoxy” is, ultimately, an earlier form of Protestantism.  Also, the scriptural evidence that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope is simply undeniable (Mt. 16:18-20; Jn. 21:15-17; Lk. 22:31-32; etc.).  You need to look at this honestly and think about the significance of Jesus saying these things to St. Peter and how that would be reflected and perpetuated in history.  That honest reflection should cause you to see the truth of the Catholic position on the Bishop of Rome and to become a traditional Catholic, the only faith delivered by Jesus Christ.  Hopefully soon we will have something more in-depth which refutes Eastern “Orthodox” and Protestant views on the Papacy.

 

New Article on the Ravenna Document

 

MHFM: This article concerns the bold heresies present in the document which was talked about so much in the media recently, concerning the union of Benedict XVI’s Vatican II sect with the “Orthodox.”

 

The Ravenna Document - the Vatican II sect's latest ecumenical outrage with the "Orthodox"

 

Poll on Religious Indifferentism in France

 

Dear brothers in Christ,


In case you didn't notice, there was a poll in France, made by the journal "La Croix", about the image of the christians in modern society. Among many things which confirm just everything
you say on your web site and in books, dvd's etc., one thing in particular is very interesting. Namely, around 63% of  "practicing catholics" in France think that "all religions are equally worthy". Just for comparison--the percentage of atheists and other non-catholics (well, let's just for the moment pretend that there are catholics in France at all) who think the same, is around 60%. You can look at http://www.la-croix.com/documents/doc.jsp?docId=2320114&rubId=1306 to see for yourself what is it all about.

May our Saviour bless you with many graces through our Mother Mary.

Vladimir

 

MHFM: That’s interesting.  It just confirms how widely the Vatican II apostasy has spread.  And that poll concerned the question of whether all religions are equally worthy.  That doesn’t include the people who think they are Catholic – and even conservative or traditional – who would never say that all religions are equally worthy, but freely admit that they hold that certain members of all religions could be saved.  In fact, just today we were contacted by an older gentleman who thinks that he’s a knowledgeable and conservative “Catholic.”  He knows about some of the problems with the Novus Ordo, but scoffed at the idea that those who die as Jews, etc. cannot be saved.  He remained obstinate even after the teaching Council of Florence on this point was pointed out to him, thus demonstrating that correct belief on the issues of the Faith must be our main concern and that Vatican II and other heresies against faith, in addition to false sacraments, kill souls.

 

More debating

 

MHFM: Our reply to Ferrara (from the e-exchange below) was forwarded to him, to which he responded:

 

Matt,

 

Don't you see what it is a waste of time to argue with these people?  If the statements quoted do not DENY an article of divine and Catholic faith, they cannot be evidence that one doubts an article of divine and catholic faith unless one wishes to make interpretations and deductions that do not involve an opportunity for the accused to respond. 

 

Even one who says we should not require belief in the Immaculate Conception for Protestant converts ---and Ratzinger says nothing nearly that clear---is not denying the Immaculate Conception as such.  I have no more time to waste.  Please do not send me any more replies.

 

Chris

 

MHFM: The statements absolutely deny an article of faith; they deny that the Papacy must be accepted by all Christians.  We’ve underlined that so that people can consider whether 1) the Papacy must be believed by all Christians is an article of divine and Catholic faith.  The answer is yes [], of course.  And consider whether 2) Benedict XVI has denied that all Christians must believe in the Papacy.  The answer is yes [], as proven in those quotes.  Thus, any honest person can see that Benedict XVI has repeatedly denied an article of divine and Catholic Faith.  To deny that is to be a total, mortally sinful liar.  Thus, any honest person can see what a waste of time it is to argue (see Titus 3:10) with utterly dishonest individuals who have remained obstinate on these points after multiple rebukes.  Further, contrary to Ferrara’s final false claim, Benedict XVI’s statements are as clear as a statement that belief in the Immaculate Conception shouldn’t be required for converts.  Benedict XVI says Rome “need not ask” for belief in Vatican I and the Papal dogmas.  That is to say the same thing as the example about the Immaculate Conception; it just substitutes a different dogma.  Thankfully, the person who originally forwarded the portions of our articles to Ferrara and others can see through their dishonesty.  He wrote back to Ferrara as follows:

 

Subj.: No need to reply to Ferrara.  He’s beat.

 

Chris,

 

As stupefying as it is, Ratzinger clearly says that whoever claims allegiance to Catholic theology doesn't have to "regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this [dogmatic papal] primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." What other form is this if not it's true form which is binding?

 

How can you possibly say this isn’t a doubt and denial of an article of divine and Catholic faith?

 

Look! Ratzinger expresses undeniable doubt when he says that the Orthodox teaching might be correct: "it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ [Catholic dogma] but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape [Eastern Orthodox heresy], might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church." How else can we interpret “might not be recognized” other than doubting Catholic teaching?

 

As painful as it is (and after I'd read Ratzinger's passages about half a dozen times I bitterly wept), I can find no way around it: this is heresy. Sorry, but I can only conclude you are in denial, the same denial you accuse conservative Novus Ordo Catholics of falling victim to.

 

Furthermore, Benedict XVI cannot possibly be Pope because, as the Church has always taught (and we’re bound by this teaching) a heretic cannot be Pope or be elected to that office.

 

Matt

 

MHFM: For those who want to read an in-depth refutation of Ferrara’s many completely false arguments, it’s here: A Response to an attack on Sedevacantism.

 

Debating on Benedict XVI

 

MHFM: A reader of ours forwarded some of our critiques of Benedict XVI’s heresies to prominent defenders of Benedict XVI.  He sent them passages from our articles which concern Benedict XVI’s heresies against Vatican I.  In these passages it is proven that Benedict XVI denies that Protestants and schismatics must accept the definitions of Vatican I.  The reader wanted these prominent defenders of Benedict XVI to offer a response to these passages.  He got one.  The reader forwarded the response which he received to us.  He claims that the response comes from "Christopher A. Ferrara."  “Christopher A. Ferrara” allegedly writes this short note:

 

“The statements you quote are not heresies.  They do not involve the denial of an article of divine and catholic faith, but rather theologically questionable speculative opinions, which are hardly the same thing.”

 

Ferrara is referring to these passages below.  

 

Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism.  The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.  On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 [Vatican I] and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.  On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism;… none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

 

Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historicallyNor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries [ed. This means the schismatics don’t have to accept Vatican I]The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse... In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millenniumWhen the Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millenniumRome need not ask for more.

 

Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west.  Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”

 

Ferrara’s response is ridiculous.  First of all, one is a heretic if one denies or doubts an article of divine and Catholic faith.  Therefore, in order to be a heretic, one doesn’t need to say that Vatican I is false or Vatican I is not binding.  If one says that Vatican I might be false or Vatican I might not be binding or accepting Vatican I might not be the way to achieve Christian unity, that is sufficient to qualify him as a heretic.

 

Canon 1325.2: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, such a one is a heretic…”

 

Benedict XVI certainly denies and doubts the dogmas of Vatican I in the quotes above.  Further, think about Ferrara’s response more carefully.  He says that such statements, if advanced as speculative opinions, are not heresies.  Ferrara’s assertion is simply heretical.  Suppose someone said:

 

 “You know, it’s my speculative opinion that Protestants would more likely convert if they didn’t have to acknowledge the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  So I feel that considering that teaching binding is not the way for unity.” 

 

Would anyone dare say that such an utterance is not heretical because it is that person’s “speculative opinion”?  Of course it’s heretical.  That’s the point; one is not allowed to have “speculative opinions” that contradict defined dogmas.  Ferrara’s statement is simply heretical, false and a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.  Benedict XVI’s statements, which are quoted above, not only doubt the dogmas declared by Vatican I, but they clearly deny that a dogmatic council and its definitions are binding.  That is heretical.  Benedict XVI says that accepting Vatican I is “not the way for unity” and that “Rome need not ask for more” than what the “Orthodox” already hold.  He also says that Paul VI’s gestures indicated that the “Orthodox” don’t have to accept the Primacy.  Anyone who says that Benedict XVI’s statements, which are quoted above, are not heretical denials of Vatican I is simply being dishonest, exercising bad will and defending heresy.

 

New Audio Refuting Justification by Faith Alone

 

Justification by Faith Alone refuted and the Catholic teaching on Justification proved by the Protestant Bible [1 hr. 30 min. audio by Bro. Peter Dimond]

 

Or order the audio tape here: Justification by Faith Alone refuted and the Catholic teaching on Justification proved by the Protestant Bible - Audio Tape * a great tool to give to the many Protestants and non-Catholics you might encounter who claim to be Bible-believing Christians. (1 copy/$2.00, 15/$10.00, 25/$15.00, 50/$27.00, 75/$35.00).  This audio will not be shipped for one to two weeks.  It will also be available on version 4 of our mp3 disc, which will come out soon.

 

This audio broken down by section: Introduction [9 min. audio]: explains the term Justification, the Catholic and Protestant views, Martin Luther’s view, mortal sin, venial sin, etc. The 4 Gospels against Justification by faith alone [23 min.]

The places in 2 Cor., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Tim., Hebrews and James in the Protestant Bible which refute the Protestant view of Justification by faith alone [29 min. audio] Romans [8 min. audio] 1st Corinthians [6 minute audio] Acts of the Apostles [5 min. audio] 1st & 2nd Peter, Apocalypse (Revelation) and Conclusion [9 min. audio]

 

* You will not hear a presentation like this – which makes these critical points and covers this much material in just 90 minutes – anywhere else.  Using the King James Version of the Bible, this audio gives the irrefutable and overwhelming evidence from almost every book in the New Testament that man is not justified by faith alone and that “eternal security” (i.e. the “once saved always saved” idea) is a completely unscriptural myth.  This audio proves that the Bible teaches the Catholic view of Justification, that works are a part of Justification and that a true believer can lose his salvation by mortal sin.  This audio also addresses the key verses that Protestants bring forward to attempt to prove Justification by faith alone.  This is a must-listen for non-Catholics who claim to follow the Bible as the word of God, for it shows that Scripture refutes the Protestant view of Justification which is held by millions and that it’s necessary therefore join the Church which upholds and teaches the real teaching of the Bible on Justification!

 

This is found permanently in our: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" page.

 

Love one another

 

Please, look in yourself..deep inside you cannot think that no human being will be saved, if not belonging to roman-catholic faith?!
You cannot limit Holy Ghost, my friend, to only certain group (roman-catholics) of people. The truth is that none of us knows what will be of non-christians, muchless what will even be of ourselves. Who are we to say that someone will not be saved. Only God knows that. All we have to do is to love one another, no matter what religion a person belongs to. And why do you say that Orthodoxy does not accept the Pope? Orthodoxy has one Pope and doesn`t need another till the end of time..and that Pope is Jesus Christ.  God bless, my friend.  Only love can heal us.

 

Wook…

 

MHFM: It is not we who have limited salvation to those who die as Catholics; it is Jesus Christ who has done this.  It was He who revealed this to His Church, which infallibly defined it as a dogma, thus requiring all Christians to believe it as absolutely certain.  Deep inside true Catholics not merely think, but know that only those who die as Catholics can be saved; for it is Christ who has revealed it.  You do not possess that faith, since you are outside the Church and are, we must say, quite a liberal right now.  You say that all men need to do is love one another, regardless of what religion they belong to.  And then you proceed to speak as if you are devoted to Christ.  But the idea that it doesn’t matter what religion one belongs to is a complete repudiation of Jesus’s central message, that you must accept Him for salvation and that if you don’t you will be damned (Mk. 16:16).  It’s also a false idea of loving your neighbor, for you are not loving your neighbor if you leave him on the path to eternal damnation and fail to admonish him about what he needs for eternal happiness.  So, in one sentence you reject Jesus’s teaching about the necessity to believe in Him and all His truth, while in the next you speak as if you are devoted to Him.  You are very misled.  You need to come out of your liberal spiritual stupor and begin to realize the justice of God and the obligation of truth.  You must convert to the Catholic faith before you die as a heretical schismatic and are lost.  By the way, below is what the true Church of Jesus Christ says about your idea that it doesn’t matter what religion one belongs to as long as he loves his neighbor. 

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.  They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.  Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate(Athanasian Creed).

 

Ashamed

 

You should be ashamed of yourself with all the misinformation you post on this site. If you were truly doing the work of a Christian you would try to bring unity not criticize, for one example Pope John Paul II. How dare you use pictures of him showing him meeting with other world leaders and then saying he was this or that. First off he was totally committed to doing the work of Jesus, Love One Another! He was also committed to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Further more to use the name of your site as the most holy family is a sacralige, I will do you a favor though,I'll keep you in my prayers and all the people that read the material that you put on this site and believe that it's the truth.

 

MHFM: Yes, how dare we use pictures of John Paul II meeting with the leaders of other religions and then point out that he was saying “this or that.”  How dare we!  How dare we document his departures from Catholic teachings, his many acts of condemned interreligious indifferentism and apostasy, his many denials of Catholic dogma.  Perhaps you should think about learning something about the historical Catholic faith; think about digesting the points we made and the facts we brought forward in using those pictures, which demonstrate that what he preached and did were directly opposed to traditional Catholic teaching.   Wake up and get a clue about the Catholic faith and about the meaning of dogmas and fidelity to them.  Get a clue that the Catholic religion is more than just a bland and phony message to “love one another”; get a clue that endorsing false ideas, beliefs and religions is a rejection of Christ and thus a rejection of true charity (love).

 

Encounter with the Devil?

 

Dearest Brothers,

I am 47 years old.  I was born into a family that professed the Catholic faith, so that was all I knew. My problem was, that even though my parents took me, my sister and 2 brothers to church every Sunday and on Holy Days of Obligation, I was not a very good Catholic.  My parents made sure I received all the sacraments as good Catholics parents were obligated to do.  I never really gave much reverence to the faith at all.  I am a good person but that is not good enough.  For 40 years I have been a terrible sinner.  I was totally damming myself to hell and not giving it a 2nd thought.  I went to church when it was convenient for me, I took communion when I probably shouldn't have and I went to confession to be absolved of the sins I participated in and then repeated some of those very sins again.  This past summer I went though a divorce and moved into an apartment to start my new life.  A friend of mine started to talk to me about the direction that the Catholic church had moved into & it actually peaked my interest more than I thought it would have. My friend gave me the Padre Pio book that you offer on your website to read and I was deeply moved and cried alot while I read that book. I started to look at my life and was overwhelmed with grief and guilt because of the direction I had been moving into.  I decided to look into finding a priest that was ordained prior to 1968 to confess my sins too, validly.  This was a new beginning for me.  I was completely remorseful and I fully intended to turn my life around and persevere reverently, my Catholic faith.  I happened to fall into mortal sin again and was sick about it.  I prayed for forgiveness because I knew how wrong it was and how motivated I was just prior to that. A few evenings later, I went to bed after I prayed a mystery of the Rosary.  In my quest for transformation of my life I vowed to pray the Rosary everyday, all 3 mysteries. This night as I slept, I struggled with someone on my living room floor as I was hanging over the edge of my couch.  I held this person's ankle with all my might to keep him down on the ground as he was struggling to get up to get at me with no doubt.  My strength kept him down on the floor for quite sometime. I could not see who it was because the face was not in my view, only the body. Shortly thereafter the struggle seemed to subside. All I could think of at this point was,  what is he thinking, why has he stopped the struggle with me, what is his next move.  With these thoughts, I opened my eyes, propted up my head & looked over to the empty side of my bed. What I saw on the pillow next to my face was absolute horror.  The head that lay on the pillow next to me was as black as the night,  with snakes that were slithering, on the top and around his head.  Then the whites of those eyes that were bulging out at me were as evil looking as could be, also the tongue that slithered in and out of his mouth was long, like the snakes on his head.  He grinned at me in a very mocking way.  After looking at that horrifying sight that lay next to me in my bed, my eyes couldn't turn away fast enough.  My heart was beating so fast, so hard and so loud, it felt as if it was going to bust right out of my chest.  I started to pray out to Our Blessed Mother to help me and to God Almighty for His forgiveness. When I looked back at the pillow, the creature was gone.  I believe that the devil visited me personally to mock and tease me because I had turned away from a life of sinning so that I might be able to save my soul from an eternity in hell.  He had plagued my soul for 40 years and I know that I have [angered him].  I have read The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis De Montfort and I just wanted to let all the other "sinners" out there know that there is still time for them to convert themselves and save their souls, even more so if they say the Holy Rosary devoutly everyday until death for the purpose off knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for their sins.

Thanks for listening
Michele, Buffalo, NY

 

Quote from Trent contradicts Baptism of desire

 

Subject:

Necessity of Sacramental Baptism- A NEW PROOF NOT YET USED BY MHFM!!!! (one i've never heard before!)

 

I have personally, with the Lord Jesus Christ's incredible help and that of His saints, discovered a statement from the Council of Trent that proves that the sacrament (not merely the desire) of baptism is necessary for salvation.  For Trent declares at the beginning of its "Decree on the Sacraments":

 

"For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification, which was promulgated with the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the last preceding Session, it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired."

 

 

What this statement from Trent is saying is that ALL TRUE JUSTICE in man that exists, is related to the sacraments in one of three ways: it has either begun by them, been increased by them, or been restored by them.

 

Therefore, what of that justice that first comes to a man when he is a Catholic.  If justice comes by the mere desire for baptism, and not the sacrament of baptism, then that would be justice that does not fulfill any of the three relationships required by Trent!  The justice of "baptism of desire" would neither begin with a sacrament, be increased by a sacrament, or be restored by a sacrament!!!!!!!!  The justice of baptism of desire would not relate to any sacrament, thus completely contradicting Trent's statement.  This proves, once and for all, beyond all doubt, that the sacrament of baptism alone confers justice!  This is the most powerful dogmatic proof for the necessity of the sacrament of water baptism that I have ever seen.  It totally annihilates the baptism of desire advocates!

 

To my knowledge, the Dimond Brothers or any other Feeneyite has never used this argument.  Yet this argument is more powerful than any they have advocated, because it makes the necessity of baptism universal in the clearest terms possible.  I agree with the Dimonds on what they say, but I think even they can admit this proof is clearer than theirs.  Their proofs say that baptism is a sacrament, but their proofs do not teach baptism is always a sacrament.  This proof that I have just presented clearly shows that baptism as a sacrament is always necessary for justice to be established in a man, because this proofs says all true justice meets the three requirements.  A "justice" given by baptism of desire meets NONE of the three requirements…

 

[from Philip]

 

MHFM: For years we’ve had a section on this quote and its significance in contradicting baptism of desire in the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file, online version], which you can order here for only $4.00 or get it with our special.  So it is completely incorrect for you to say that we have not used this quote.  In fact, to our knowledge, our book was the first to bring that quote forward to contradict baptism of desire.  Here is the section from the book dealing with this quote, which you can find in section 23.

 

-----

23.  All True Justice and the Causes of Justification

 

ALL TRUE JUSTICE MEETS UP WITH THE SACRAMENTS (de fide)

 

     In the Foreword to Sess. 7 of the Council of Trent’s Decree on the Sacraments there is a very important statement.

 

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Foreword, ex cathedra: “For the completion of the salutary doctrine of Justification… it has seemed fitting to treat of the most holy sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased or being lost is restored.”[14][547]

 

     The Council of Trent here defines that all true justice (sanctifying grace) either begins or is increased or is restored at the sacraments.  I repeat, all true justice either begins or is increased or is restored at the sacraments.  This means that all true justice must be at least one of the three: begun at the sacraments, increased at the sacraments or restored at the sacraments.  But the baptism of desire theory is that some persons can have a true justice (sanctifying grace) that is none of the above three!  They argue that some persons can have true justice that is: 1) not begun at the sacraments, but before; and also 2) not increased at the sacraments (since the person dies before getting to the sacraments); and 3) not restored at the sacraments (for the same reason as # 2).  Thus, the “baptism of desire” theory posits a true justice which is neither begun nor increased nor restored at the sacraments.  But such an idea is contrary to the above teaching of Trent, and therefore such a “true justice” which they posit cannot be true justice.  This shows again that baptism of desire is not a true teaching, but a false teaching littered with contradictions against infallible truths such as that above.

 

St. Ambrose (+ 390): “… when the Lord Jesus Christ was about to give us the form of baptism, He came to John, and John said to Him: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?  And Jesus answering said: Suffer it to be so for now.  For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice (Mt. 3:14-15).  See how all justice rests on baptism.”[15][548]

 

The Ravenna Document

 

Do you think that the Vatican and the Orthodox will unite in the near future?  Have you come across any other information about this Ravenna Document?

 

Dev…

 

MHFM: Yes, we read it.  It’s quite bad.  We will post some more specific comments on it soon.

 

Reader on “Bad will on B-16”

 

Good Evening Brothers,

 

In regards to the Catholic who teaches the Catholic faith on the radio, it is astonishing how the words of our Blessed St. Paul : 2Thes 2  "They will be punished by the instrument of ERROR", is so true today. The fact that numerous people who claim that they are Traditional Catholics, Catholics, or NewEra Catholics but through their words, actions, and deeds seem to speak illogically is explained by the Blessed St. Paul. The fact that these Catholics can not figure out that 1+1=2 not 3 is simply because they do not want to know the TRUTH, or LOVE GOD enough to earn the rewards of faith so that GOD may show them the TRUTH through his special Graces. Lets for example look at the remark from the Catholic who teaches on the radio: He referes to anyone who agrees with the hard work that you (Brothers) have put into this web site to guide the TRUE FAITHFUL as schismatic's and part of the "ELECT" that will fall, and have already fallen. This is an example of 1+1 = 3. To prove this all we need to do is understand what the PURPOSE of "SATAN" is.  To Lie, Deceive,Trick, Mislead,and to ultimately turn us away from GOD, so we end up in the eternal fire. When we consider the fact that 98.5% of all the Catholics today dont hold to the TRUTHS and TRADITIONS that our Blessed St. Paul ordered us to STANDFAST by, proves the illogic of such promoters of the dark.  To believe Satans goal is to trick 1.5% of Catholics is illogical, absurd, and shows a lack of charity on the part of such that promote these diabolical statements. With dedication to the 15 decade rosary, a devotion to our Blessed Mother, we WILL learn how to LOVE GOD, and learn what charity is for the better of the church. Keep up the great charities, and God Bless You All !

 

Gary C

 

Pre-Vatican II rot

 

Hi, I recently got a box of old Catholic books that were being given away for free at a yard sale, One of the books in the pile was about Natural Family Planning.

The Title is "Legitamate Birth Control According to Nature's Law In Harmony with Catholic Morality"

The book was written by Rev. John. O'Brian, Ph. D. Chaplain of the Catholic Students, University of Illinois

The copyright is 1934

The reason I am writing all of this is because many Traditional Catholis believe that anything the Church taught before vatican 2 must be truth.

Well by that very standard we must believe in birth control because it was taught before V2. This idea of course is ridiculous. Well it also proves that just because Baptism of Desire was taught before V2 it does not mean it is truth.

These so called Traditional Catholics need to wake up or maybe just read the Bible or follow the council of Trent.

What is scary is most who claim to be Traditional Catholic believe in Baptism of Desire simply because it was taught before V2.

This is sad, it is bad intentions not faith.

God Bless

 

a….

 

MHFM: That’s right.  That’s one of the biggest problems among those who profess to be “traditionalists.”  People must understand that if something does not meet the level of magisterial teaching, just because it was published before Vatican II doesn’t mean that it’s Catholic and not false or heretical.

 

Effeminacy vs. Apostolic Zeal

 

Good morning Brothers,

 

As I read the Liturgical Year for 11/22 (St. Cecilia), I was amazed with this excerpt pertaining to Apostolic Zeal and its connection with effeminacy:

 

      "Let each one of us set to work, and gain one of his brethren: and soon the number of the faithful will surpass that of the unbelievers... but why does it (Apostolic zeal) slumber so profoundly in so many hearts...?"

        "The cause is unhappily to be traced to that general coldness, produced by effeminacy ..."

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

a) I profoundly believe that this effeminacy is one of the major traits exhibited by novus ordo "bishops" and its effects are quite evident. These false successors give to their "flocks" such RECENT treasures as, in the case of the "bishop" of Birmingham in Alabama, a charismatic prayer service at one of the largest "churches" in the "diocese". Also, he is providing a "Taize" Community prayer service. A new addition to the novus ordo "mass" in at least one place - a 14 y.o. altar boy standing at the table with the president of the congregation and a deacon. The altar boy turns the pages for the "minister".

 

A RECENT EXAMPLE OF novus ordo ACCEPTANCE OF ALL CREEDS:

B) I spoke with a woman yesterday. When I told her that I was Catholic and my wife converted, she said, "That's cool." "I went to Catholic school K through 12 and it was OK." "I am Greek "Orthodox" but there was nothing in the Catholic school to make me change my religion." "Afterall, the two are so similar it doesn't matter." This woman went through 13 years of "catholic" schooling and never felt the need to convert (her analogy)…  Thanks for your apostolic zeal at MHFM. The fruits of your zeal and efforts will be strong and courageous Catholics, as opposed the effeminate pseudo-zeal of the Counter Church,

 

Gary

 

Bad will on Benedict XVI

 

I forwarded your article about the abolition of the Papacy to a very knowledgeable Catholic man who teaches the Catholic Faith on the radio.  Here was his response:  (please read carefully and completely) Traditionalists manufacture this sort of garbage faster than any person could respond to it.  I've received worse.  The only general response I can give is that, if these people really believe such conspiracy theories, then they have no reason to remain a Catholic.  Apparently, contrary to the promise of Christ, the powers of hell have prevailed against the Church.  So, why be a member of it any longer?  Traditionalists undermine their own traditionalism.  The passages taken from the Gospel of Saint Matthew refer to the Antichrist who will persecute the flock of Christ to its very heart, so that many Catholics will indeed fall away.  The original historical meaning of the "abomination of desolation" comes from an invasion of the Jerusalem temple by the Roman emperor Antiochus IV Epiphanes who, 168 B.C., placed  an image of the pagan god Zeus on the altar and sacrificed swine to it.  Our Lord's mention of a future "abomination of desolation" refers to the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in the year 70 A. D., a horrible tragedy to which Jesus referred during His carrying of the Cross.  He said to the women,

 

"Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and your children.  For behold, days are coming in which men will say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed'  Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall upon us,' and the hills, 'Cover us!'."

 

An additional future fulfillment of this "abomination of desolation" will come at the end times, and arise, as with theprevious two, from an external source of persecution; namely, the state, and most especially, the person of the Antichrist. Your traditionalist acquaintance has foolishly directed our Lord's prophecy about His primary end times foe, instead, against the Church.  How very untraditional.  You should ask him if he's consulted the original 1582 Rheims New Testament, which clearly explains this.

 

As for your acquaintance's references to the efforts of Pope Benedict - he's simply got his facts wrong.  The pope is striving to unite Christians - especially the Orthodox - under the authority of the successor of Saint Peter.  This is a great good in itself, and is especially necessary as we all face anti-Christian sentiments throughout the world.  Understand that tradionalists have no sense whatsoever of the evil of division.  After all, they're schismatics in denial and actually share in the persecution of the true Church.  Indeed, even the "elect" will fall, and have already fallen.

 

MHFM: This just demonstrates how bad willed these people are.  No matter what Benedict XVI will do, they will attempt to say that he is trying to convert the “Orthodox” – which is manifestly false.  They are liars to the core.

 

Reading

 

Dear Brothers

My wife and I  have been reading your website for three weeks now and are gaining spiritual strength by the day.  It is like reading a true handbook of our Catholic faith.  Thanks for all your work and prayers: a difference is being made!

Dennis & Michele Pacelli

 

St. Thomas on attending Masses said by heretics

 

Subj.: St. Thomas on attending non-Catholic Masses

 

I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.

 

Ihsrosario…

 

MHFM: It’s obvious that you are implying that our position, according to which people can receive Communion from certain undeclared heretics without supporting them (e.g. certain priests celebrating a traditional Mass who profess to be Catholic but who are not notorious or imposing about their heresy), is sinful and contradicts the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.  It’s too bad that you – and the heretic from whom you took the truncated quotation – didn’t bother to quote the next paragraph.  That’s typical of schismatics.  The words which you didn’t include come in the very next paragraph:

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp. Part, Q. 82, A. 9: “Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

 

Read the bold and underlined portion very carefully, for it refutes your position and shows that ours is perfectly in line with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.  This quote refutes the position, which is promoted by some “traditionalists” who claim to be traditional Catholics in our day, that receiving Communion from a priest who professes to be Catholic but is a heretic is never allowed and is always sinful.  This shows that it’s not ipso facto unlawful to receive Communion from such a priest.  Before there has been an official pronouncement, there is a distinction in notoriety between such a priest and the notoriously heretical groups (e.g. Protestant and Eastern “Orthodox”) – to which one can never go.  Now, this is very important: there can arise situations with the priest who has not yet been officially pronounced against whereby receiving Communion from him would become unlawful.  For example, if circumstances with him become such that he makes his heresy notorious or imposing, then to go to him for Communion would imply a compromise of the faith.  That’s why we point out that people must not go to those priests who make their heresy notorious or imposing.  One must analyze each case.  But this quote disproves your criticism and vindicates our position.  It shows that it’s not absolutely and always unlawful to receive Communion from such priests, contrary to what some are saying.

 

Confused

 

HELLO,   Came across your website and not really getting the full picture of what you are saying.  Post vatican 2 church is falllen. Understand  that part but then what??? sspx not the way to go,  If not catholic. join catholic church but ran by anti christ.  I actually am lost on what your advice is.??  I have read some catholic apologetics books and see how the case for being catholic makes since. But then have all the child sex abuse junk, how can my family join that??? Live in the kansas city missouri area. Confused, 

 

Doug

 

MHFM: Doug, it’s great to hear about your interest.  The steps to convert are given on our website.  If you contacted us here we could also assist you more specifically.  If you haven’t already, we would also strongly recommend that you obtain our DVD special offer which includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books (including our 610-page book with 200 color photographs), an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.).  We would also recommend obtaining a catechism from our online store.

 

[To MHFM]: dear, we all are really in state of confusion, please help us by reading these paper

we all are very worried what to do now.

 

please give us solution soon

 

people from

karachi, Pakistan

 

robson…

 

Thanks

 

Greetings Brothers

 

Thank you so very much for giving us access to such valuable information in these last days, information no other "traditional group" seems to want to provide { they know it would condem themselves } I assure you of my prayers and financial support for your work of God… Thank you so very much and may OUR LORD Bless you.

 

RB

 

Web stats for October 2007

 

MHFM: For the last period from Sept. 30 to Nov. 1 (barely over a month) we had over 4 million hits and 194,000 unique visitors on our website.

 

 

For those who want more information about our website traffic, please contact us via e-mail.

 

A punishing God?

 

I was talking with one of my sons this evening,the subject "forgiveness" came up, he is with the impression that if one forgives oneself, then God will forgive them and they will get to heaven, he does not believe there is a punishing God, I believe that we are given free will by God and those who choose wrong will be punished, He kept repeating "you have to forgive yourself '.Isn't that a practice protestants believe?

Thank You so much for your  website,don't remember how I found you,but,I am so thankful,I'm certainly anxious to read the Spirituality and Quote.I have read much of your writings,but,one just cannot get enough of the truth. Thank You and may you  continually be blessed by Jesus and Blessed Virgin Mary.You are a God Send.

 

Paula

 

MHFM: Thanks for the words of support.  He sounds like a Modernistic liberal who doesn’t fear God and therefore doesn’t have the humility to recognize that the all-powerful creator will punish Him for neglecting His truth and laws.  He says that God is not a punishing God; he says that one must focus on forgiving oneself.  That’s pretty much Luciferian self-worship, where all that matters is reconciling with oneself.  Perhaps he should focus on reading the words of God, and he will discover that God is not exactly who he thinks He is. 

 

Deuteronomy 32:35- “Revenge is mine, and I will repay them in due time, that their foot may slide: the day of destruction is at hand, and the time makes haste to come.”

 

Nahum 1:2- “The Lord is a jealous God, and a revenger: the Lord is a revenger, and hath wrath: the Lord taketh vengeance on his adversaries, and he is angry with his enemies.”

 

That’s why Jesus says:

 

Matthew 12:36- “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.”

 

Yes, the Bible is also clear that God is just and merciful, of course.  But His mercy is upon those who fear Him, something that is stated more in the Bible than perhaps anything else.   Those who truly fear Him are those who, in good will, want to do the right thing, try to do the right thing, accept all of His truth, and stay out of mortal sin. 

 

Young and interested in the Faith

 

Dear mhfm,
 
I am a 16 year old girl named Julie. I am very glad to say that i am proud of all your doing. I really admire what you are trying to do, and i totally believe in everything you say and do.  A lot of students make fun of me and my family because we believe in god and my mom has 15 children who i am all proud to have as brothers and sisters. I really dislike my classmates actions and it makes me so sad to see them offend our lord so meanly and it really makes me want to cry.  I really don't know what to do… but then they tease me, saying i do not know about god and that he is a "fake" and that i should forget about him. I would NEVER turn my back on my lord, Jesus Christ, for I love him so much for all he has graced me with and how much he loves me, and i always remember that saying Jesus said,
" If the world hates you...remember that it has hated me first...If they persecute me, they will persecute you." I just wanted to tell you that i am SO very lucky to know you, and almost EVERYTHING i know about God is because of you.... i want to say… if it wasn't for you and for our Lord, my soul would have perished by now…

 
Our lord first served
 
Julie

 

The correct “O My Jesus” Prayer

 

Hello MHFM, I have been looking at… the Rosary in latin. This intrigued me and I was wondering what you thought. Also, I noticed that they printed the 'O my Jesus' prayer as saying "deliver the holy souls from purgatory" instead of the familiar "lead all souls to heaven". Now, I ceased to pray the 'Divine Mercy' when I left the Novus Ordo but as I thought about what might make it wrong was comparable to what concerned me about the 'O my Jesus'- 'draw all souls to heaven'. They both seem to make all of humanity quite inclusive which I did not even have a problem with until I came across your material one month after leaving the Novus Ordo. I do understand that the "Divine Mercy" asks for atonement for the whole world which is quite different than asking God to 'draw all souls to heaven', but what do you think about this 'o my Jesus' prayer that I found on this website and the fact that there seems to be a small variety of ways to pray this prayer. I don't find variations being proposed with the 'Our Father' or 'Hail Mary' and in the case of 'O my Jesus' this new variation I found seems to be a more practicle prayer rather than praying for all souls to be saved 'draw all souls to heaven'. Ultimately in these questions I am always looking for what is Catholic and would never want to pray something I just liked more. I loved the "Divine Mercy" but I let it go immediately. Which version of the 'O my Jesus' is most accurate?

 

Gand…

 

MHFM: William Thomas Walsh, the author of the famous and tremendous book Our Lady of Fatima, specifically asked the real Sr. Lucy about this question in an interview with her on July 15, 1946.

 

William Thomas Walsh: “In many books about Fatima, the prayer Our Lady asked you to say after the decades of the Rosary is given in some for as this: ‘O my Jesus, pardon our sins, save us from the fire of Hell, have mercy on the souls in Purgatory, especially the most abandoned.’  Is this correct?

 

Sister Lucy: ‘No, it is not,’ she replied positively.  The correct form is the one I have written in my account of the apparition on July 13: ‘O my Jesus, pardon us, and save us from the fire of Hell; draw all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need.’” (William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, p. 220.)

 

Psychological or spiritual disorders?

 

Dear Bros,

 

I recently read in an e-exch. that it is your opinion that schizophrenia is actually possession. I'm just wondering if it's your opinion that all (or most) other pschological/psychiatric disorders are spiritually related? For example, I have tourettes syndrome (involuntary "tics") and depression, and obessive compulsive disorder. Are either of these, in your opinion, actually demonic possession? The tourettes syndrome in particular is something I've had since childhood and am now 30. As a child, I never dabbled in any type of occultism whatsoever. If I am possessed, wouldn't I have had to have made an act of will to sort of "invite" a demonic entity for it to possess me in the first place? Well, I certainly hope my disorders aren't a result of possession, but please give me your input, and what I need to do if you believe I may indeed be possessed. Thanks.

 

MHFM: Yes, it is our view that most, if not almost all, of such disorders are spiritual.  Regarding your question about your personal problems, we do believe that they are spiritually related.  We’re not saying that it’s necessarily demonic possession in your case (as we believe it is with schizophrenia), but a result of mortal sin and/or spiritual insufficiency.  (To become possessed one doesn’t have to invite the Devil inside his/her soul; one can become vulnerable to it by the commission of mortal sin.)  Depression is a common result of spiritual sloth – people having an inward emptiness that eats at them because they are not accomplishing much or anything of lasting value, since they are spiritually lazy or inadequate.  Thus, we believe such problems are a result of spiritual problems.  So, if a person makes sure that he or she is out of mortal sin, believes everything one must believe, has confessed to a validly ordained priest all mortal sins committed, is praying the full 15-decade Rosary each day, is avoiding the occasions of sin, and trying to deepen his or her faith by spiritual reading and study of the faith, then those problems will disappear.  After all, Our Lady said that there is no problem, spiritual or temporal, that cannot be solved by the Rosary.

Regarding the Holy Rosary, Sister Lucia told Father Fuentes in a famous 1957 interview:

"Look, Father, the Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Holy Rosary.  She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all, spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world, or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations that cannot be solved by the Rosary.  There is no problem I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary.  With the Holy Rosary, we will save ourselves.  We will sanctify ourselves.  We will console Our Lord and obtain the salvation of many souls."

Mixed Marriages

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery,
 
   (1) I would like to ask you what does the Council of Trent
        have to say on mixed marriages.
 
   (2) What does the Popes said about mixed marriages?
 
   (3) Should people have mixed marriages today?
 
   (4) Can a validly ordained priest give special permission for
        a mixed marriage, if the Catholic bride is pregnant out of
        wedlock from a non-Catholic?
                                                                   
                                                                  Thank You,
                                                                 Amanda Valles

 

MHFM: The popes have consistently condemned mixed marriages in very harsh words, although exceptions were allowed at times. 

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (#9), May 17, 1835: “… Church doctrine which forbids mixed marriages as disgraceful because of the communion in holy things and because of the serious danger of the perversion of the Catholic spouse and the perverted education of the future children.”

 

Pope Leo XIII, Constanti Hungarorum (#7), Sept. 2, 1893: “… it is of utmost importance that pastors never cease to admonish their flocks to refrain as far as possible from entering into mixed marriages.  Let the faithful correctly understand and resolutely remember that it is their duty to regard with horror such marriages, which the Church has always detested.  They are to be abhorred for the reason we emphasized in another letter, ‘They offer the opportunity for a forbidden sharing and participation in sacred things; they create a danger to the religion of the Catholic partner; they are an impediment to the virtuous education of children and very often cause them to become accustomed to viewing all religions as equal because they have lost the power of discriminating between the true and the false.’”

 

There are many other quotes like this that could be given, but this should give one the idea of what the Church teaches on this issue.  Mixed marriages are something that the Church looks down upon and they have only been allowed under rare circumstances with all the proper dispensations.  No, people should not have mixed marriages today.  No independent priest today has the authority to grant such a dispensation.  So, if a traditional Catholic today is considering marriage, he or she should only consider marrying another traditional Catholic.

 

Reader on Orthodox Jews spitting on Christians

 

Dear Dimond Brothers:

 

I am writing in response to your most recent article posted on your News and Commentary page entitled, Orthodox Jews spitting on “Christians”.  It is interesting to note the statement  “Archbishop” Manougian’s made to an Israeli newspaper after being spat upon and attacked by Orthodox Jews.  He stated, "When there is an attack against Jews anywhere, the Israeli government is incensed, so why when our religion and pride are hurt, don't they take harsher measures?"

 

Apparently “Archbishop” Manougian is unaware of the centuries old custom of the Jews of spitting upon a crucifix or when passing by the entrance of a church.  These expressions of scorn and hatred toward gentiles were codified in the halakhic laws and practiced by virtually all Jews from the 9th century to the end of the18th century.  Interestingly, these laws are maintained to this very day by Orthodox Judaism and taught in their religious schools (see “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years” by Israel Shahak).

 

Perhaps “His Beatitude”, being a member of the schismatic Armenian Orthodox Church, attended one of John Paul’s notorious interfaith “ecumenical prayer gatherings” and left with the impression that Orthodox Judaism is somehow friendly to Christianity (have you ever noticed how shifty-eyed those representatives of Orthodox Judaism were at the Assisi prayer meetings as documented on one of your videos?)

 

-John.

 

No priest on Island

 

Hello Brothers Dimond,
 
I took your advice and searched the entire island in the hope of finding a priest who was not ordained under the new mass, but unfortunately every single priest has been ordained under the Novus Ordo.  In such a case what can I do, for I have no other alternative to turn to, I can't imagine myself without the Eucharist.  Would it be wrong to spend time before the blessed sacrament considering that the consecration would also be done by a priest of the Novus Ordo?   I think I am truly trumatized by this ordeal and don't know what to do particularly with my very young children; should I tell them that we will no longer attend mass?  Christ did say that "unless we eat his body and drink his blood we would have no life in us," where does this leave me and my children now if we can't receive the Eucharist and attend mass.  How can a true Priest come to my island to represent the true faith and feed the lost sheep or else everyone will be led astray along with the aspostasy, (and this is exactly what is happening).
 
Please advise me, what can I do to make others aware of what is happening?
  
I TRULY NEED HELP!!
 
Yours in Christ.

 

MHFM: The New Mass is not valid.  By going there one is not receiving "Communion," not attending a real Mass and going to a sinful non-Catholic service.  Therefore, one must have nothing to do with the "adoration" in the Novus Ordo since Our Lord is not present there!  It's a matter of your salvation to have nothing to do with the New Mass or the Vatican II sect.  You should explain to your children that the New Mass is a false Mass which Catholics cannot attend.  We’re very surprised that you cannot find one priest ordained before 1968 or in the Eastern Rite to hear your confession. 

 

Regarding attending Mass, there were many Catholics in history who had nowhere to go for periods of time.  There is, of course, no sin in not attending Mass if the Church doesn't provide you with an acceptable option in your area.

 

Denying Mt. 16:18

 

You folks are loonier than the liberals!  You must hear black helicopters in your sleep.  The biggest, baddest heresy of all is the heresy that denies the clear teaching of Matthew chapter 16:18.  In your very  narrow minded little world, you are calling the Lord Jesus a liar for saying that the gates of the netherworld will not prevail over his Church.  Your entire website screams just the opposite.   

 

MHFM: Your statement demonstrates that you know almost nothing about the Catholic Faith or our website.  If you did know a little, you would discover that Benedict XVI is a heretic and an antipope precisely because he denies the office of the Papacy.  He is a heretic because he denies what was promised by Jesus to St. Peter in Mt. 16:18-20 and conferred upon St. Peter in John 21:15-17.  Benedict XVI the heretic holds that Protestants and Eastern Schismatics who reject the Papacy are part of the Christian Church.  He says that these people, who reject that Mt. 16:18 refers to Jesus telling St. Peter that he will be the first pope, are part of the Christian Church.  He holds that they are on the road to salvation and don’t need to believe that Mt. 16:18 refers to the Papacy.  By defending Benedict XVI and bringing this up you are therefore: 1) displaying your ignorance of the Catholic Faith; and 2) defending an arch-heretic who denies the very thing you are bringing up.  Below is a quote where Benedict XVI is referring to Vatican I and its dogmatic definitions about the Papacy (Mt. 16:18; etc.).  He says that Protestants and the schismatics converting to Catholicism and accepting Vatican I (i.e. Mt. 16:18 and its true meaning, etc.) is NOT THE WAY FOR UNITY! 

 

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism.  The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.  On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.  On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the Church.  While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the problem.  This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action.  That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it.  As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”[16]

 

This is BLATANTLY HERETICAL.  Any professing Catholic who sees this quote and doesn’t admit that it is heretical either 1) can’t read or 2) is a mortally sinful liar.  But this is just one quote; anyone who reads our material knows that Benedict XVI indicates that the Papacy is meaningless (in his view) basically weekly.  He does this by his heretical overtures to the schismatics who reject the Papacy.  So wake up!  There have been over 40 antipopes in Catholic history, including those who have reigned in Rome.  The promise of Mt. 16:18 doesn’t preclude the possibility of antipopes falsely posing as true popes, even in Rome, or the true Church being reduced to a remnant in the last days (which is predicted to occur).  You might want to consider these files:

 

A complete list of the 42 antipopes in Church history [PDF]

(In Catholic history there have been 260 valid popes, starting with St. Peter, and 42 antipopes – that is, men who claimed to be true popes but were not)

 

Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus Officio

(Pope Paul IV solemnly declares that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope, even with the unanimous consent of the cardinals)

 

The Catholic Teaching that a heretic cannot be a valid pope [PDF file]

Responses to 19 of the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism [PDF file]

The Great Western Schism (1378-1417) and what it teaches us about the post-Vatican II apostasy - Massive confusion, multiple antipopes, antipopes in Rome, an antipope recognized by all the cardinals; The Great Western Schism proves that a line of antipopes at the heart of the post-Vatican II crisis is absolutely possible-

 

Schizophrenia

 

To whom it may concern:

 

Please help my daughter, she is beautiful intelligent and innocent. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia and she has had all kinds of treatments most which have left her confused and unfocused. She hears a voice of a white male who brings other voices with him. They always confuse her or put her down. She is trying to go on with her life, but it is so hard. It is so very hard to watch her cry and suffer like this please help. I am a Christian and so is she, but she has not been to Church for a year.  Worried.

 

c…

 

MHFM: We believe it’s obvious that she’s possessed.  Schizophrenia is, in our opinion, demonic possession.  She needs to convert to the Catholic Faith, get out of mortal sin and pray the Rosary every day.  The Catholic Church is the only Church Christ established.  Other forms of "Christianity" are false.  Thus, if you and she are not Catholics (traditional Catholics), God will not bless you and you cannot have salvation.

 

We have held that schizophrenia is a result of demonic possession for a long time before your e-mail.  But what is stated in your e-mail is very interesting because it corroborates it.  She hears a voice (i.e. a demon) which brings with it other voices (i.e. other demons).

 

Coming back

 

Dear Bros. thank you so much for your web site. Last year I went to a mason hall for a breakfast, not knowing much about the masons I didn,t think much about it. I told my friends how cold and empty the place felt then about a month later I went to a funeral of a friend at a NO church-WOW- THE SAME FELLING.Since then I have been studying your web site and reading your books and PRAYING THE ROSARY everyday. I went to a Catholic school in the late 50,s and 60,s my Mom quit taking us to church when the new mass came out Thank GOD. Thanks to MHFM I am coming back to the TRUE FAITH  - GOD BLESS

 

DENNIS

HEBRON KY

 

Keep fighting

 

Salutations in Christ.  Your persistent investigation and protection of Truth is really a pristine spring of water for we who thirst after righteousness.  The book, What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, packs a definitive and decisive barefisted punch in the jaw to this prevalent Luciferian conspiracy representing the common consensus of contemporary Catholicism.  The thoroughness you and your brother apply to your counterattack is a magnificent sight to behold.  I consider it second only to Sacred Scripture as a mandatory book for all Catholics of the current age.  Trouble is, the “Don’t confuse us with the facts” tendency in Human Nature is epidemic in power.  Conformity cheaply provides false security, social prestige is a matter of going along to get along, and personal social prestige may be the most prevalent form of idolatry.  Christopher Columbus didn’t fit contemporary opinion, and the masses and aristocrats were quite comfortable with self-delusion.  MHFM is in a Columbus type predicament.  The truth is a terrible realization, too. 

 

Your consistent and confident audacity for Truth remains a powerful and persistent inspiration, that forges the required maturity of mind I need to observe today’s tragic events with accuracy.  Events conceived through Satanic saboteurs of the Second Vatican Council.  Your bold presentation of facts drove me out of a sleepwalk into delusion and damnation… please continue aggressive work on a video production concerning Marxist anti-pope John 23rd.  Here’s another request for you, please consider writing an article on the indifferentism which developed during the Pope Pius the 12th years, and how this infectious atrocity built the foundation for the 2nd Vatican Council… I thank God for MHFM.  The initiative you men take in investigating too often forgotten irrefutable Truth, which I previously had no contact with, has helped me understand  who we truly are as Christ’s Mystical Body, and what we are obliged to believe.  Keep fighting with tigerlike tenacity, I pray I can promote your productions more and more…

 

Henry Benton

 

Bible and Religion

 

Hi,

 

I found your names… Thank you.   You mentioned there that questions are ok, and I have a questions for you. Let me preface this by saying, I believe in the One True God, but religion was never part of it.

 

Here's my simple question... Where's the best place to get a bible? And which is best, old or new testament?

 

One more question, why not just worship God? If Jesus is God then why not worship God directly (the Holy Ghost is always there in all of us)?

 

Also, as indicated on your website...

 

“In all, St. Patrick brought to life some forty infidels in Ireland, one of whom was King Echu… On raising him from the dead, St. Patrick instructed and baptized him, asking what he had seen of the other world.  King Echu told how he had actually beheld the throne prepared for him in Heaven because of his life of being open to the grace of Almighty God, but that he was not allowed to enter precisely because he was as yet unbaptized.  After receiving the sacraments… (he) died instantly and went to his reward.”

 

Why would being baptised or not matter to God?

 

Thank you and regards,

Patrick T Wolfert

 

MHFM: The best bible to get is the Douay-Rheims.  You can get it here: The Douay-Rheims Bible.  It contains both the Old and New Testaments.  But people who are new to the Bible and new to investigating the faith should begin with (and focus on) the New Testament, and specifically the four Gospels.  You ask, “Why not just worship God?”  The answer to that is that Jesus Christ proved, by His life of miracles and His Resurrection, as well as His precise fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah, that He was the Messiah to be listened to.  So it is God who, by His prophecies about Jesus and Jesus’s power of miracles, directs all men to Jesus.  And Jesus indicated that He was both true God and true man and He proved it. 

 

Jesus explicitly revealed the inscrutable mystery of the Trinity: that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost – one God in three divine persons.  So, the short answer to your question is that we must worship Jesus because He is God and God commands us to worship Jesus.  To your other statement, that religion was never a part of believing in God, that’s simply not true.  From the beginning God commanded men to follow His instructions and if they did not they were abandoned by Him.  To acknowledge God’s existence was not sufficient.  Following precise instructions, commands and practices directed by God is what religion is; it’s truly following God.  So baptism is absolutely necessary because Jesus said it was (John 3:5).

 

We strongly encourage you to continue with your investigation into the holy Catholic faith, and to pray.  Pray the Rosary every day; our website has a file which explains how: How to Pray the Rosary.  You should get a Catholic Catechism, The Penny Catechism, and start the road to conversion; for it’s a matter of your eternal salvation. 

 

It fits

 

Dear Father,

 

I have been reading and listening to your website for a couple of days and I am amazed at what I have been learning. Everything you say fits into place like a key turning a lock. I believe what you are saying about the church and sedevacantism. I have been attending SSPX for the last five years and I have always been uneasy about certain things, mostly that I have had to constantly defend the heretical popes. I notice that when you teach catechism, you teach with authority - it is in your voices and very noticeable in the videos. The SSPX are very knowledgeable and interesting teachers but do not seem to have that same authority in their preaching. They are living in fear of Benedict XVI instead of openly proclaiming him the heretic that he is. This really weakens the SSPX and seems to be the centre of their problems… By the way, I have been devoted to St. Benedict for the past while and I have been praying to him so it is no coincidence that I found your website after all these years of searching… 

 

Yours in Jesus, Mary & St. Benedict,

 

Colm Lawless

 

Dublin, Ireland.

 

MHFM: It’s great to hear that you found the information.  Since the SSPX priests, like so many others, hold that it’s possible for souls to be saved as non-Catholics – and therefore show themselves to be unconvinced of the defined dogma that all who die as Jews, pagans, etc. are lost – they cannot be convinced that any dogma is absolutely true without qualification.  Thus, it makes sense that they are unable to teach with a conviction which comes from unswerving faith in the unerring dogmas.  The same goes for many other heretics out there, who purport to be traditional Catholics and “traditionalist” priests, but hold that there are exceptions to the aforementioned dogma. 

 

Rock Music

 

I am concerned about my oldest son's recent interest in rock music. I am sincerely concerned about the way he talks about these "rock stars". Could you perhaps reference me to some more information on the adverse effects of this music, if you can call it that, on my child's soul?

 

Sd

 

MHFM: Yes, we would recommend the video we sell: Rock-n-Roll Sorcerers of the New Age Revolution.  This video, even though it was done by a Protestant, is excellent, extremely powerful and extremely revealing.  Those who don’t understand the evil behind rock and almost all popular music, as well as those who don’t believe in the Devil, need to see this tape.

 

Problem reading

 

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO.....I SO WANT TO READ THE FILE ON THE SSPX BUT I CAN'T ACCESS IT...... I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS ANOTHER WAY TO OPEN IT OR COULD IT BE SENT TO ME.... I'M SORRY FOR THE BOTHER.....THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH AGAIN.....

AVE MARIA!!!  

 

Bonnie

 

MHFM: It’s probably because you don’t have an Adobe Reader.  You can download one for free here: Can't Read our PDF Files?  Download a free Adobe PDF Reader.  This will enable you to read all of our PDF files.  This link is also on our mainpage, the last one down on the list.

 

What’s going on?

 

Dear brothers.


i am just after reading a very long artical on your site about the messages of fatima.  The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the impostor Sr. Lucy. it is very interesting and has made me think about things in a very  different way. however my main reasion for this email. if as you say. the mass of the catholic church as it stands to day, is not a true mass and therefor invalid, means that i, as a catholic of 47 years have  never recived the, true body and blood of Jesus. infact it would mean that i am not even a catholic as i was baptize in 1960 and that was when Vatican 2 came about. where does that leave all the millions of 'catholics' who have  follow the church sence V2.  i am watching one of your downloadable videos on benedict xv1 and i have to say, you put your case very well. for almost 7 years i was with a group of lay catholics in ireland who claim the this pope is an anti christ, and will bring in the antichrist once he has prepaired the way. as you can gess they  are ont well liked. i am not sure if you have heard of the Two Patricks.  they are reciving messages from Jesus. in the messages, Jesus ask us to follow the true teachings of the Catholic  Church and points us to the last pope JP11 saying we should follow his  teachings. it seem the catholic church is in a 3 maybe 4 way split. which one is the real one, or is there a real one any more. your way of teaching sounds like, the way things where when Jesus was on the  earth. what was it he called the teachers of the law back then?
can you see where i am coming from. what if you are wrong about V2? i find it hard enough to follow Jesus in this moderen faithless world, and  now i am not even sure if i am following Him in any at all. the church as i see it will go through the same death as Jesus did in his  body, but it will rise also as he did. in full glory. the devil must enter  the church, this we know and infact is ready even now to take his place, the  place he should not be. but because he is to enter the church does not make it any less the church. Jesus was not less Jesus because of judis, was He?  hope your getting what i am trying to say.

sorry about the spelling.  please get back to me on this.

brian.

 

MHFM: Brian, thanks for the interest.  The Catholic Church is not split.  It cannot be divided. 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 4), June 29, 1896:
"The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 4):                  
"Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution - a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5):
"'There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts.'"

The Church has, rather, been reduced to a remnant, as predicted in the last days with the arrival of the end times counterfeit known as The Whore of Babylon: Is the Vatican II sect the Whore of Babylon prophesied in the Apocalypse?  The Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church, but teaches obvious heresies (e.g. ecumenism/its false teaching on other religions) which are opposed to the 2000-year faith of the Church.  If believed, these heresies render the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church meaningless.  To your question about what’s going to happen to people who are “V-2 Catholics,” the sad answer is that they will lose their souls if they have the “faith” of the Vatican II sect.  That’s why people must pray (especially the Rosary), study the faith, do spiritual reading; for if they’re not proactive in increasing their faith, growing in spirituality and making sure they save their souls, then they will fall prey to these heresies or religious indifferentism, such as the Vatican II sect teaches.  Unfortunately, most people do fall prey to such heresies because they are not doing the things we have just described and thus they go along with whatever is most convenient or familiar.  One needs to get out of the New Mass and the Vatican II sect to save his/her soul.

 

Regarding some of the other things you mentioned, the idea that dogma changes has been condemned as modernism.  The truth of Jesus doesn’t change.  Regarding the assertion that the Devil has to enter the Church, the idea that the Church can teach error or be taken over by the Devil is heresy.  It’s contrary to the Church’s indefectibility and infallibility.

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest.  She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.’”[17]

 

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 22), Dec. 11, 1925:

“Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”[18]

 

This is all wrapped up in Jesus’ promise to always be with His Church and that the gates of Hell cannot prevail against her (Mt. 16).  The idea that the Church needs to be reformed or to “rise again” is also contrary to the same promises.  We’re glad you were watching the DVD on Benedict XVI.  Any honest person who watches that will be able to see that he is without question a non-Catholic heretic and therefore is not a true pope.

 
Also, to your other question, no you have never received Jesus if all you have gone to is the New Mass.  But anyone can baptize validly, even a non-Catholic, so if you were baptized with the proper form and the person was doing it seriously (and with the intention of the Church) then it was valid. Regarding the “apparitions” you asked about in Ireland, the fact that they say that people should follow John Paul II tells you all you need to know.  They are false apparitions from the Devil.  See:
John Paul II (manifest heretic who claimed to be pope 1978-2005).  It’s truly amazing how many different people who claimed visions in the past decade or two mentioned, as part of their “message,” that people should follow John Paul II.  That, in itself, is a proof that their messages were from the Devil.

 

Guidance

 

I have spent two days reading over many things on your website, and I am quite concerned for my eternal soul and would rather spend that
eternity with God.  How do I know that I am in a valid diocese?  How can I find out if I am truly receiving the Lord every Sunday?  What consolation can you offer me?  Your website would seem to imply that the church itself is broken, but we know the gates of hades cannot prevail.  Is there any particular link on your site that might be of particualr use to me in discerning the actions I need to take in order to guard my soul from eternal separation from God?

Thanks in advance,
Dave

 

MHFM: Dave, one needs to pray the Rosary every day, accept all the traditional teachings of the Church, stop going to the New Mass and get out of the Vatican II sect.  Also, don't compromise with heresy.  There are many links on our site which cover this and document what's going on in great detail.  The section 3/4 of the way down in red, for those converting or leaving the New Mass, is also something you should look at.  It contains the Council of Trent's traditional profession of faith, which you should make once you're convinced of all the teachings of the Church and of the facts against the Vatican II sect. 

 

Also, people must avoid mortal sin and the occasions of sin.  For even if a person is 100% traditional and uncompromising on the dogmas of faith, if he or she dies in mortal sin that person will be damned. Also, regarding your comment that the Church seems broken, see the comment above.  We point out that the Vatican II sect is definitely not the Catholic Church.  One must to be convinced of that, for otherwise one is holding a heretical position that the Catholic Church has fallen into error.

 

DVDs for pennies

 

Get quantities of any of our DVDs for pennies for a limited time

 

Faith in Crisis, swearing?

 

Subj: Faith in Crisis

 

Dear MHFM,

 

1. The last line of the Council of Trent's Profession of Catholic Faith asks me to "swear" to the faith. Although I am eager to "promise" and "vow", I know the bible says never "swear" to anything. I teach my children never to swear. What does canon law say about swearing?

2. Some SSPX "priests" have been mentioned being involved with sex scandals in a Pennsylvania "Catholic" boy's high school (see below). The FSSP has since taken over operations. I read that the SSPX has formally disassociated itself with the current Vatican, yet the FSSP recognizes the Vatican's authority. I guess I just don't know who to trust anymore. I do know that I totally reject V2 and I believe we haven't had a true pope since John XXIII was mysteriously put in power. I just want myself and my family to be able to receive valid sacraments from a valid priest. The N.O. parishes in my area are quite protestant in every way and I refuse to go to them anymore, but I desperately need some sound guidance. Who can we turn to? Our souls hang in peril.

 

Sincerely,

PMC 

 

MHFM: Regarding swearing and oath taking, obviously the Church is not opposed to it.  As you pointed out, it’s mentioned in the Profession of Faith promulgated by the Council of Trent.  In Apocalypse 10:6 we also read:

 

“And the angel, whom I saw standing upon the sea and upon the earth, lifted up his hand to heaven, And he swore by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things which are therein; and the earth, and the things which are in it; and the sea, and the things which are therein: That time shall be no longer.”

 

In Matthew 5:34 Jesus is condemning unnecessary oaths in common speech, in which the name of God is flung about in a disrespectful fashion.   Thus, people should avoid stating “I swear” loosely or in a vain fashion, as so many people unfortunately do.  Jesus is teaching that frequent oaths are unnecessary, since man’s “yes” should mean yes and his “no” should mean no.  But oaths for special occasions, in which it is necessary to show that God is witness to the act, are perfectly licit and sanctioned by Church teaching and Sacred Scripture, as we see above. 

 

Regarding your question about to whom you should turn, you should turn to the traditional, infallible teachings of the Church.  You don’t put your trust in man.  These teachings are provided in our material and it is upon these infallible teachings that we base our positions.  And you certainly don’t look for guidance from the groups you mentioned, both of which are heretical in numerous areas.  To see the heresies of the SSPX, look at: The File on the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X   [PDF file].  To see the heresies endorsed by the FSSP, just look at our section on Vatican II or John Paul II or Benedict XVI, since the FSSP endorses the heresies of all three.

 

Rock Music taints the brain

 

From a story in the The Virginian-Pilot, July 25, 1997:

 

          “Your mom was right.  Rock ‘n’ roll really does rot your brain.

          That’s according to David Merrell, a 16-year-old Nansemond River High School student whose high school science experiment supports what parents have been saying for years: Hard rock taints the brain – well, at least the brains of mice.

          Using 72 male laboratory mice, a stopwatch, a 5-by-3 foot maze and the music of Mozart and Anthrax, David worked with an Old Dominion University statistician to establish that hard rock impedes learning….

To prove his point, David assembled three separate groups of 24 mice: a control group, a hard rock group and a classical group. To ensure scientific validity, each white mouse weighed between 15 and 20 grams, was four to six weeks old, and was bred to ensure no genetic abnormalities existed.

          The mice spent the first week getting used to their controlled environment in David’s parents’ basement. They received measured feedings and 12 hours of light each day. Each mouse navigated the maze to establish the base time of about 10 minutes.

          Then David started piping in music ten hours a day. The control group navigated without music. He put each mouse through the maze three times a week for three weeks.

          The result: The control group shaved five minutes from its original time.

          The mice that navigated the maze with Mozart knocked eight and one-half minutes off their time. But the group listening to hard rock bumped through the maze, dazed and confused, taking an average of 30 minutes, tripling the amount of time it previously took to complete the maze. Most noticeably, the hard rock mice didn’t sniff the air to find the trails of others that came before them.

          ‘It was like the music dulled their senses,’ David said. ‘It shows point-blank that hard rock has a negative effect all around. I can’t think of a positive effect that hard rock has on learning.

          In fact, David thinks that the negative effects go well beyond learning.

          During the four-month experiment, David housed each mouse in separate aquariums. That’s because last year, for a similar project, he kept all the hard rock mice together, all the classical mice together, and all the control mice together.  The results were horrific.

          ‘I had to cut my project short because all the hard rock mice killed each other,’ David said.  ‘None of the classical mice did that at all.’”

                  

Thanks

 

Dear Brother Dimond:

 

We thank you very much for the insight.  Now we know what’s going on.  Most Catholics we know have no clue as to what is going on. 

 

Agnes Williams,

Hillsdale, MI

 

Another Phony Annulment

 

[To MHFM]: I am sorry to bother you but I have a question about a situation I can't seem to get an answer to. 
Basically, I dated my husband for 4 years and was then married for 16.  We had 6 children (5 surviving).  My husband met someone else who could offer him a more secure financial future (his own words) and filed for a divorce.  He was granted an annulment under the fact that he "didn't realized the vow he was taking and felt pressured into  getting  married".  Even though the priest who counseled us in pre-cana asked him several times if he knew what vow he was taking and the seriousness and permanency of it.  Here is my dilemma.  Every time I pray I feel as if our Lord is telling me that the annulment is not valid and I am still considered married in the eyes of God.  I would have kept my vows until death and it sickens me that my family is broken.  I did not pursue nor did I give any reason in the annulment hearing to say that this marriage should be considered null so my conscience is clear.  What is my obligation?  Should I consider myself never married and accept the tribunals decision considering I did not pursue any of it?  Or should I consider this a farce and consider myself still married.  I can not find peace with  this.  Incidentally, the church has married him to the woman he was committing adultery with.  I have 5 children that I must set a proper example to on what is right in the eyes of God but I am still young and would like to be married if that is in the Will of God for me.  I just don't know what to do.  Can you please tell me what someone should do in a situation like this.  I am not able to talk to my local priest as he told my husband that he could be with his mistress even in front of my children prior to the divorce.  I know that is hard to believe but my oldest son told me with his own mouth that the priest told him as "long as his father acts like a gentlemen" in front of him that he could vacation as a family with her while still married to me and living under the same roof.   I shudder at the repeating of this.  At any rate, thank you for any advise you can offer. 

 

Yours in Christ, Karen

 

MHFM: No, the annulment is not valid.  You are married and he is living in adultery.  It’s another example of a ridiculous phony annulment handed out by the Vatican II sect, as explained in this article: The Annulment Fiasco - The Vatican II sect's De Facto acceptance of Divorce and Remarriage [PDF File]. 

 

Quote of the Day

 

Hi,

That was a very thought provoking quote which you had posted under "Quote of the Day", and I think it illustrates the fact that had those souls therein referred to not been brought the faith, they would have faced destruction, refuting "invincible ignorance":

Pope Leo XIII (+1902): “By his (Christopher Columbus’) toil another world emerged from the unsearched bosom of the ocean: hundreds of thousands of mortals have, from a state of blindness been raised to the common level of the human race, reclaimed from savagery to gentleness and humanity; and, greatest of all, by the acquisition of those blessings of which Jesus Christ is the author, they have been recalled from destruction to eternal life.” (Encyclical, Quarto Abrupto)

It shows once again that the faith is necessary to be saved, and that someone "invincibly ignorant" cannot be saved by it, but must believe and be baptized in order to have eternal life.

God Bless

 

n…

 

MHFM: Yes, it’s in one of the sections of our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file] which deals with refuting the idea that souls who are ignorant of the Catholic faith can be saved.

 

Coulter and “Fr.” Francis Stone of EWTN

 

Good morning Brothers,

 

A couple of items:

 

1) On your recent radio program you mentioned Ann Coulter being labeled as "anti-semitic". Yesterday, I happened upon a telecast in which Ann was already in the process of explaining her "position" and some of her religious history. She made a number of comments:

a) 'We don't need a church - we have Jesus Christ who died for us.'

b) 'If you are a Muslim or Hindu I would tell you that you have to believe in Jesus Christ. If you are a Jew, I would tell you stay where you are. You have the Old Testament and we have the New which just happens to complete the Old.'

 

2) There is discussion about Father Francis Mary Stone online, e.g.,

"That Father Francis Mary "was counseling a widow who has small children and he fell in love with her, and has taken a leave of absence to discern his vocation... he was re-thinking his vocation, that we should pray for him and all involved, that God's mercy is there for all..."
Father Anthony Mary was somber, shocked, and in disbelief...

 

"Please pray for Father Francis Mary of EWTN, who is re-thinking his Vocation as a Priest, for Our Lord to pour down upon him now, and all involved, His unfathomable love and mercy. Dear Blessed Mother, your Beloved Priest son needs you, please keep him close."

I think about the content of "Life on the Rock" and his (Stone's) allowance of immodest dress and silly content that misdirects youth, his praise of WYD (even in the face of its sacriligeous acts), and his telling people that you don't have to be Catholic.

 

I pray that he convert to the True Faith and be validly ordained. To find his vocation and minister to Christ's Church and no longer be part of the counterfeit church.

 

Gary

 

MHFM: Regarding Coulter’s statements, they demonstrate that she’s a total heretic.  Perhaps she should check out the New Testament and all the places where Jesus says that all men and specifically the Jews must believe in Him for salvation (Jn. 8:23-24; Jn. 3:36; Mk. 16:16; etc.). 

 

Regarding “Fr.” Francis Stone, it’s not a bit surprising that he’s thinking of breaking his vows and abandoning his vocation.  He reported on and vigorously promoted Benedict XVI’s apostate visit to the Synagogue in 2005.  He was a promoter of the worst of the Vatican II sect’s false ecumenism.  He also denounced those who hold the dogma that only those who die as Catholics can be saved and was angered by the thought that Protestants and other heretics are not going to be. 

 

So, if he thinks that members of false religions, members of heretical sects and their “ministers” can be saved, even though they practice contraception, don’t receive the sacraments, reject the teachings of the Church, etc., then it only follows that he probably feels that God will have mercy on him if he breaks his priestly vows.  He’s an outrageous heretic who, being excommunicated from the Catholic Church, is “delivered to Satan” (1 Cor. 5:5) – which, according to a common interpretation of 1 Cor. 5:5, is the spiritual effect of being excommunicated. 

 

Came Across

 

Dear mhfm,

               

 I want to use this medium to show my appreciation to the good work you have been doing in exposing the malicious and diabolical deceit that has been going on in the Vatican.I want also to thank God for introducing me to your web site. I came accross your site accidentally while searching for SSPX site. Since I discovered this site I have fallen in love with it and I hardly open other sites for browsing.   I want to tell you that you have exposed me to many things I have never known before about my church… I am a nigerian and married with three kids. There is almost zero traditional masses in this part of the world… I want to let you know that I have since stopped attending the novus ordo masses, I do my traditional devotion instead please tell me is this adviseable?  I will be please hearing from you soon. Thank you and God bless.  

                                                                                       

Paulmaria Ekpe

 

MHFM: Thanks for the interest.  Yes, one absolutely cannot go to the invalid and Protestant New Mass.

 

Novus Ordo Seminary and Ordination Dispute

 

What would you say to a man such as myself who believes he has been called by God and was ordained by the Norvus ordo.

Clearly I am unhappy with several matter within the Church, but I have a difficult time believing my orders are invalid -- especially when I have seen the Grace that has flowed through me by God's doing to lead people down an orthodox path.  God has worked through my sinful hands.

One other thought, I happen to be quite worried about things that are going on in the Church, but one thing is certain... my seminary was not a cess pool of homosexuality.  The one person who was openly homosexual was run out by the seminarians -- not saying he was treated with Christian charity, but this homosexual person was run out.

God bless you,
TJH

 

MHFM: TJH, you must cast aside the personal feelings that you have and look at the facts.  The New Rite of Ordination is definitely invalid, as our article shows: Why the New Rite of Ordination is Invalid [PDF File]. (This article explains why the New Rite of Ordination – which was instituted by Paul VI on June 18, 1968 after Vatican II – is not valid.)  It's invalid for the same reasons that the Anglican Rite was declared to be invalid.

 

Also, the scandals among the Novus Ordo clergy speak for themselves about the prevalence of homosexuals.  We've also conversed with many of them and been alarmed at the astoundingly high rate of effeminate Novus Ordo priests.  This is further confirmed by the fact that the Vatican II sect cannot even bring itself to ban homosexuals from its seminaries.  What a disgrace!  This reveals the perverse grip of evil which reigns over the Vatican II sect.  Even if your particular seminary was not a cesspool of homosexuality, it certainly was a cesspool of indifferentism and false ecumenism, following (as it was) the heresies of Vatican II.

 

Pittsburgh Novus Ordo Horrors

 

Dear Sir,

I am writing for a referral to any authentic Church in the Pittsburgh area.  I have studied your website… I had abandoned the Catholic faith after having had very negative experiences at the Church I was attending - somehow thing didnt seem right.  Then about 6 months ago, I was walking thru a salvage yard and saw a beautiful - really beautiful statue of Our Lady of Victories that was removed from a Church which was demonlished - it was so badly damaged that even the head of Jesus was broken off. I cannot described my reaction........I was horrified....no more so than that - that I went home and cried and cried and cried all night.  I wanted to buy the statue from the vendor but he knew my feelings to take advantage of them and placed the price over 2,000 dollars which was more than I could afford.  But I am still devestated and continually think of the horror of the disrespect. I then started to research local Catholic Churches - but I have not found one which adheres to the old ways - they are all "renewed" . Please, I want to return to the old way - but I dont know how. Help me.  Thank you.

Carol Carraway

 

EWTN Heresy

 

Dear Brothers,

Here is a recent Question and Answer on the EWTN website:

muslims in heaven- Question from ray busacco on 10/22/2007:  

My son-in-law is now a Christian, however his Mom & Dad were of Muslim faith from Iran and recently passed away.  He is struggling with thinking that they are lost and  not able to enter heaven and also thinks that it will do no good to pray for them to enter the kingdom of heaven. We are not sure how to console him.  I appreciate your response.

Thanks,

Ray Busacco

Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 10/23/2007: Ray, Our Church teaches that non-Catholics may well be saved if they lived good upright lives according to their own traditions, said their prayers regularly, considered their own faith valid. There are 5 billion people on earth who today will never even hear the word, Jesus, or anything about him. God is good and we can hope and pray for the saving of these who neverhave been told of Christ. -Fr. Bob Levis

If what Levis said was true, then why would anyone bother to go to the ends of the earth preaching the Gospel and converting people to the Catholic Faith like the missionaries did, even going so far as to be martyred, rather than tell them what Levis just stated? What a heretic!

Bridget

 

MHFM: Yes, and the pathetic part about this is that almost all sedevacantist priests who believe in baptism of desire would give basically the same heretical answer.

 

Fast Days

 

Hello Brothers,

 

I had previously sent you an e-mail on this through my yahoo e-mail, but I'm not sure that you received it because I did not hear from you on my below question. Would you please help clarify this for me . . . I see that there are certain fast days assigned in the Traditional Catholic Calendar on your website . . .

Are these days mandatory?  I presently abstain from meat on every Friday, and I observe the traditional catholic Lenten fast regulations.   Is it a mortal sin to not fast on the other assigned fast days in the year?  Your help would be greatly appreciated.   Thank you and God bless your work.

 

cw

 

MHFM: Yes, they are mandatory under pain of mortal sin for all people 21 to 59 years of age, unless a person has an unusual health problem or his/her ability to work would be greatly impeded by observing the fast days.  The law of abstinence (e.g. not eating meat on Friday) must be observed by those 7 years of age and older.  They are explained in this file: Info on Fast Days, etc., which is located in the “Traditional Catholic Calendar” section of our website.

 

Non-Catholics attending Catholic funerals, weddings, etc.

 

Greetings good Brothers,

 

    My question may not have a simple answer, but here goes:

(fyi-I am a traditional Catholic who agrees with you straight on the line in faith)

 

    Q:  If catechumens were not allowed by the Church to participate at Holy Mass after the sermon in the early days of the Church, when did this cease to be the rule?

    Also, what does the Church teach us about non-Catholics attending our weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc.?  They are now permitted to attend, even sitting at the very front of the church, closest to the altar of sacrifice, for which they hold not the same reverence as do Catholics.  What's up with that?  (pardon my ignorance, and, by the way, the 'non-Catholics' I am referring to also includes those of the New Order, family members who have left the Church/Faith for mortal sin, etc.) It appears that the Church is no longer exclusive and that penalties no longer apply. 

    I know you will be able to clarify this for us, Brothers.

 

In Christ,

Louise Kent.

 

MHFM: We’re not aware of an exact date when it fell out of practice, but the division of the Mass between catechumens and faithful, and the practice of the ancient Church to observe that division, demonstrates what the ancient Church believed about who make up the Church of “the faithful” (i.e. only the sacramentally baptized). 

 

Regarding your second question, whether non-Catholics should attend Catholic funerals, weddings, baptisms, etc., the answer is no.  They should not be invited, with one exception.  They should not be invited because it’s wrong to ask people in mortal sin and/or heresy, apostasy, paganism, etc. to celebrate or participate in something holy with you.  By inviting them to those special occasions, one gives them the false impression that he or she considers them to be in a good state or fit to celebrate with members of the household of faith.  The only exception to this would be a person who is on the road to conversion, who is open to conversion and who might benefit tremendously and be moved toward further conversion by attendance.  But that would be very rare.  But with people you have known for a long time, who have resisted or remained inert toward the true faith, even if some of them have not been hostile but simply not in agreement, they should definitely not be invited for the reason described above.  The principle involved was mentioned by the apostle John in Sacred Scripture and repeated by Pope Pius XI:

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).”

 

Benedict XVI’s recent Assisi

 

MHFM: If you haven’t already, make sure to check out this week’s Heresy of the Week.  Benedict XVI held his own Assisi-like interreligious prayer-meeting.  Have you noticed that since he “gave back the Latin Mass” he has been on an absolute rampage of weekly outrageous heresies?  He is again showing his true demonic colors, after having deceived certain “conservatives” some months back with the wider permission for the Latin Mass to be offered by mostly invalid “priests” of the Vatican II sect.

 

Recent Radio Program Archived

 

MHFM: Our Oct. 26th, 2007 radio program has been archived:

 

Oct. 26, 2007 Radio Program [1 hr. – This program covers Benedict XVI’s recent outrageous heresies, as well as the recent outrageous scandals of the Vatican II sect.]

 

It’s found permanently in: Archived Radio Programs.

 

Separation of Church and State?

 

Dear MHFM,

 

Thank you for an informative sight. I am now rediscovering the catholic faith of my Irish grandparents brought to this country in the 1920's. Your site has helped me to understand my father's point of view on the Traditional church. You see I was born in 1960 and raised in the V2 church (USA). My Catholic High School advertised it's mission was: to provide students with a superior high school education in a supportive atmosphere based upon Christian values in the Catholic tradition.

 

As you can see from their mission statement, much effort went into crafting a generic and bland religious education. The school did not want to disturb the non-catholic athletes they recruited for the football team, or upset the protestant parents who paid 30% higher tuition payments.  

 

As an adult, I have considered the Greek Orthodox church. Your sight has been enlightening as to it's theological and liturgical status. I do miss the parrish community.

 

I have one question, do you disagree with the separation of church and state? I seem to have heard this on one of your audio segments. 

 

Tim H.

Atlanta, Georgia   

 

MHFM:  Yes, the idea that the Church should be separated from the State has been condemned by the Catholic Church.  That the State should only recognize the Catholic religion necessarily follows from the fact that God’s law and His truth are to be respected, honored and given special place in the public arena as well as the private.  Separation of Church and State has been condemned repeatedly by the popes, although it can be tolerated if the alternative is worse (e.g. a State which would discriminate against the true religion).  That’s why Pope Leo XIII pointed out that the law in the U.S.A. is preferable to many other situations, but he noted that it’s not ideal.

 

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55:

“The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” – Condemned. (Denzinger 1755)

 

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 21-23), June 20, 1888:

Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.  Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in the Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it… Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.”

 

Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, Feb. 11, 1906: “We, in accord with the supreme authority which We hold from God, disapprove and condemn the established law which separates the French state from the Church, for those reasons which We have set forth: because it inflicts the greatest injury upon God whom it solemnly rejects, declaring in the beginning that the state is devoid of any religious worship…” (Denz. 1955)

 

There is much more on this issue, the religious liberty issue and Vatican II’s heresies in this regard in the main document of this file: Vatican II - false council.

 

Reader on Teen Challenges Moment of Silence Law

 

Dear Dimond Brothers:

 

I read your most recent article featured on your News and Commentary page entitled, "Teen Challenges Moment-Of-Silence Law".  A quick search on the internet shows that Robert Sherman, the father who is filing a federal lawsuit challenging the moment-of-silence law, who claims to be an outspoken atheist, is actually a Jew.

 

Sherman told The Associated Press, "What we object to is Christians passing a law that requires the public school teacher to stop teaching during instructional time, paid for by the taxpayers, so that Christians can pray.”

 

What the article doesn’t disclose is the fact this issue started over a song that his daughter was taught in chorus class.  On his homepage Sherman states, “Over the weekend, I asked [my daughter] Dawn what songs she had been taught in chorus.  Dawn said that she would sing one of the songs for me:  "Hashkiveinu !   Hashkiveinu !   Adonai echod !"  I stopped her at that point.”

 

“My jaw dropped.  I couldn't believe it.  Having been Bar Mitzvahed on my 13th birthday, I knew what "Adonai echod" means.   "Adonai" is Hebrew for "The Lord," as in God.  "Echod" is Hebrew for "One."  …Adonai echod is a central principle of the Jewish religion and is repeated in numerous prayers throughout Jewish religious services.”…    You would think that Mr. Sherman, having been schooled in Judaism and the Hebrew language, would invite Jewish songs into a public school.  However, it seems, that Mr. Sherman is so threatened by the prospect of Christianity in public schools, that any thought of Jesus Christ in the minds of children must be violently rent. (recall King Herod’s slaughter of the innocents).  Such behavior describes his federal lawsuit, which seeks to ban even a moment-of-silence in public schools.

 

Truly yours in Christ,

 

John.

 

Charismatics and Guitars

 

Dear Brother Michael:

I've recently reviewed some of your work on youtube and wondered if you might be able to help me with a couple of questions:

1.  Is the Charismatic movement New Age?  Is it heresy?  (It makes me uncomfortable and I'm trying to learn more about it)

2.  Last Sunday, I was shocked when our quitarist put her guitar down to get the people clapping.  I have already spoken to our Priest about getting back to the traditional songs that we grew up with.  So far, we have had a slight change and have been playing some traditional songs.  Can you recommend another approach that I might take in letting Father know that the clapping and shouting out is irreverent (in my humble opinion)?

Thank you so much, in advance, for your help with these issues.  I've been battling the Charismatic question for a few weeks now as there is a woman at church that keeps pressing me to attend seminars at her private facility that she calls "The Bridge".  Also, she is very well versed on the topic of the New World Order.

God be with you,

Deb Matuzak
Blue Ridge, Georgia

 

MHFM: Yes, the Charismatic Movement is heretical.  This short article explains why it’s evil: EWTN and the Charismatic Movement.  To engage in it is to participate in a false sacramental system.  That's why there are an abundance of cases of people having bad spiritual results (demonic experiences, etc.) after having participated in it.

 

Regarding approaching your "priest" for different options for music, we must inform you that one cannot go to the New Mass at all.  The New Mass itself is invalid.  Jesus is not present there, as we show here: The Invalid New Mass.  One must avoid it under pain of mortal sin.  It's really critical that you investigate this, for it's a huge matter.  We're really glad you got in contact with us.  We strongly encourage you to take a deeper look at the material on our website, for it shows that the post-Vatican II Church is not Catholic and one can have no part with it.  The fact that you saw clapping after the guitar playing is another interesting example of an outrageous scandal at the already invalid New Mass.

 

Found and Investigating

 

Hello ~
 
I just discovered your website and have been making my way through the materials, but I'm a bit confused and hope you might help me.
 
I've been in the process of entering the Roman Catholic Church for several years now, but much of what I've seen, heard, and learned has bothered me.  I now understand from your website perhaps what that might be, I'm just not sure which direction to go now.  I haven't officially entered the Church yet, and I'm trying very hard to understand what The Tradtional Catholic Church truly is then.  I take it you don't refer to SSPX, and so I'm wondering if I want to be a Traditional Catholic, what church do I approach?  Is there a "denomination" known as The Traditional Catholic Church that I should seek out?
 
Thank you for your assistance.
 
Sincerely,
Anita LaRue
Saint Louis, Missouri

 

MHFM: Anita, thanks for the interest.  The Traditional Catholic Church is simply the Catholic Church of all times.  It's the Catholic Church that Christ established, the same historical Catholic Church that spread the Gospel all over the world.  But what's pointed out in Scripture and in Catholic prophecy - as the section on our website about how a counterfeit Church is predicted makes clear - is that in the last days there will arise a counterfeit Church (a.k.a. the Whore of Babylon) which will purport to be the true Church, but will not be.  This Counter Church will appear to be the true Church but will be a fraud which teaches false doctrines and leads people (who think they are following "Catholic" leaders) astray.  It will spiritually deceive people as part of the Great Apostasy, which will reduce the true Church to a remnant.  With abundant and irrefutable facts, our material proves that the post-Vatican II Church is just that counterfeit "Catholic" Church of the last days.  It shows that its leaders are invalid usurpers with no true authority in the Church.

 

So, to be a Catholic one must reject this counterfeit Vatican II religion: its false mass, false teachings and heretical leaders.  To become a Catholic, one simply needs to follow the steps which are laid out in the section of our website which concerns converts. 

 

We really hope you do follow up with this and embrace the traditional Catholic faith.  One can obtain a basic catechism at our online store.  We also strongly encourage you to pray the Rosary every day.  We have a How to Pray the Rosary sheet on our website, if you don't know how.  As far as where to go to church, that's a more involved question in these days.  We'd be happy to help you with that question or other follow-up questions if you called us. 

 

If you haven’t already, we would also strongly recommend that you obtain our DVD special offer which includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books (including our 610-page book with 200 color photographs), an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.).

 

Everything has fallen into place

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I simply had to write to you to thank you all for this amazing information.  I am a 26 year old woman from Liverpool UK who was born and raised Catholic.  When I reached adulthood, I felt uncomfortable about going to The New Mass as I felt that a lot of the things that were taught were contradictory and I found that I felt closer to God when I was away from the church - now I know why!.  Over the past couple of years, I have been researching about The End Times and studying the Bible in great detail.  My relationship with God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit has improved immensly.  I moved to Liverpool a year ago from the Northeast of England and it was here that I formed a devotion to Our Lady.  We live 1/2 a mile from a place called Montfort House, which is ran by the Montfortian Fathers - concerned with the work of St Louis Marie De Monfort.

 

I still missed actually worshipping God in a church, but every time I tried to go to mass, it didnt feel right and I was left feeling more empty than when I went in.  I have been praying hard this last year for an answer from God as to where I can go next.  I missed the mass and most of all missed receiving Holy Communion.  I often sit in front of the computer and ask the Holy Spirit to guide me in my searches.  I ask the Spirit to reveal what I need to know next to move forward and this seems to work.  The other night, I was brought to your website (I still dont know how I found it!) and now everything has fallen into place.

 

I shared the information with my mother, who has always been a devout Catholic and continually complained about the lack of respect in churches today - she is 65 and remembers what life was like as a Catholic before Vatican II.  I have never really been able to relate to this as I was born in 1981 by which time the heresies of Vatican II had tight hold of the churches I attended.  I stayed up all night reading your page and printed pages out - we discussed them together and we both feel like we have been reborn!  We can't thank you enough!  Everything makes sense now.  My mother found a missal that she was given as a child in the 50's - it is mine now and I am studying it in great detail.  She met a lady in the village where we live the day after we had discussed your website.  This lady is 86 and has been attending one of the only churches in Liverpool that still provide the Latin Mass all her life!  She is taking us there tomorrow (Sunday).  Apparently the priest is 90 but still going strong!  I cannot wait to start my new Catholic life - and it is all thanks to the information you provided!  I am a little concerned that my Baptism, Holy Communion and Confirmation are not valid and would be greatful for your advice on this.  Should I be baptised again?  We would also like advice about adoring the Blessed Sacrament and how we know that the places we attend to do it are valid.  (Obviously, we will not attend any Catholic churches in the area that conduct the New Mass.)

 

We will be ordering DVD's and books from you to spread around our Catholic friends.  Thankyou from the bottom of our hearts for your comprehensive website.  We have been praising the Lord since we found it and will continue to pray for you all daily and the work that you do.

 

Your sister in Christ

Claire

 

MHFM: Claire, thank you very much for your e-mail and your interest.  It's really great to hear.  Regarding baptism, one doesn't have to be a valid priest or even a Catholic to validly baptize.  So, as long as the person who performed it did it seriously while pouring water on the forehead and saying the words of baptism, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," then it was valid.  If that didn’t occur or if there is some doubt about it, then a conditional baptism should be done.  The conditional form of baptism is on our website.  If your confirmation was done in the Novus Ordo, then it was invalid.  The same is true of all the "Communions" made at the New Mass.

 

Regarding confession, since the New Rite of Ordination is invalid, any confessions of mortal sins which were made to priests ordained in the New Rite (which was promulgated in June of 1968) would need to be re-confessed to a priest ordained in the traditional rite of ordination.  This is explained in the section of our website for those converting to the Catholic faith or leaving the New Mass.  Regarding adoration, you definitely should not go to any adoration services at the New Mass, since Our Lord is not present there.  Regarding the 90 year-old priest, if he accepts that Benedict XVI is the pope (which he probably does), then a Catholic cannot financially support him because of that position.  Unfortunately, many of those priests also hold heretical views on the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and other issues and so could not be financially supported for that reason as well.

 

Again, it's great to hear about your interest and we really hope things go well for you.

 

Reader on Heresy

 

Dear Brothers,

 

We appreciate your excellent apostolate which serves daily to reach many searching for the truth of our Catholic Faith.  Of the email comments by visitors posted on your site many are productive and reasonable; however a certain number are written in a spirit of bad will, and ignorant of the Church`s historic truth.  Whether a person is a heretic of Protestant or Novus Ordo variety leads down the same road, which is idolatry and loss of eternal salvation. We would like to cite something here connecting the two evils of heresy and idolatry so prevalent in history and now so evident with the development of the anti-Christ Conciliar Church.these past 45 years. 

 

From Tertullian, On Prescription of Heretics, c. 207 A.D. Chapter XL:  "The question will arise, By  whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies?  By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God.  ...Since, therefore, he (the devil) has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ`s sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints--- his interpretations from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables.  For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that "spiritual wickedness," from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does.  They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only God, they treat Him as a different being from what He is in truth.  The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry."

 

These words supply an insight into the nature of heresy.  Unfortunately, Tertullian himself severed from the Church by his acceptance of the error of Montanism.

 

Don – Omaha

 

Reader on Med. Science

 

Mary wrote: Do you deny that your traditional Church was in the past the cause of many mentally ill patients being treated as souls who were possessed with demons? Do you hold that line still or do you now accept medical science in relation to that matter?

People should really ask, “what science, where is it?”  Similar to the evolution hoax, I guess most people don’t realize that “Psychiatry” is nothing but a collection of theories.   The “profession” still honors Freud as their father, even though most in the profession have long ago written off Freud’s theories and no longer believe in the efficacy of Psycho-Analysis.  In the 1950s the profession was pushing the use of hallucinogenic drugs like LSD as a treatment.  That was discredited (and criminalized) within a decade and now we are in the age of the “chemical in-balance” theory.  Now understand, this supposed in-balance cannot be measured, it too is just a theory.  It is just assumed to exist.  (Seriously, this may seem hard to believe even for you, but it is totally made up, don’t believe me, look it up). 

 

So people, even little kids, are now drugged on a large scale to treat a theoretical in balance that cannot be observed or quantified.  Now they’re beginning to link use of these drugs (you know, the anti-depressants) to suicide!  There is nothing medical or scientific about psychiatry.  Honest Doctors will readily admit this.  Hey, Mary, it really is the Devil.

 

Bill Mulligan

 

Radio Program

 

OUR NEXT RADIO PROGRAM WILL BE FRIDAY, OCT. 26, AT 7:00 P.M. (Eastern Time)- Radio Program (to listen live click on the “Radio Program” link at the time of the program; if you have a question you want to ask during the program, call 1-800-275-1126 or 585-567-4433)

 

The Biblical uncleanness and effeminacy

 

Hi,


I notice in your piece on homosexuality on your site, you do not mention lesbians.  Your quote from the Bible refers to "effeminate". How does that tie in with lesbianism. They are women so by virtue of their gender will look effeminate anyway.  They cannot be guilty of sodomy either by reason of their physicality.  Do you know that medical science has found that homosexuality is the result of some physical abnormality? And here let me state that I believe that homo-sexual ACTS are mortally sinful.  I am as it happens not a homosexual but a practising Roman Catholic who is loyal to the Holy See and who believes that a lot of your stuff on your website is heretical and evil. It will be the cause of many people becoming mentally ill. I have suffered severe stress because of contact with a member of your sect. He has been telling me things such as that my parents are in Hell because they followed Vat 11! My parents were born before 1930 and were devout Catholics all their lives but stayed with the Vat 11 liturgy and never questioned it. How dare he!  Do you deny that your traditional Church was in the past the cause of many mentally ill patients being treated as souls who were possessed with demons? Do you hold that line still or do you now accept medical science in relation to that matter?  Jesus Christ was not cruel and vindictive. He was kind, loving and forgiving. He urged us to treat our neighbours as we would like to be treated and he forgave adulterers and anyone who asked his forgiveness received it.  To me you people are like the pharisees - whom Christ incidentally condemned - self-satisfied, self-glorifying, and holier than thou people who have no empathy with the sufferings of your fellow beings. Who the hell are you to judge people. You are not God. You are not even priests!

Mary Lawlor

 

MHFM: First, modern “science” and all of our “esteemed” universities today teach the fairy-tale of evolution as a fact.  Therefore, the fact that some study (probably conducted by liberals with an agenda) claims that homosexuality is natural means nothing.  Second, regarding the verse about the “effeminate,” St. Thomas Aquinas says that the “effeminate” and the biblical terms “uncleanness” and “unclean” refer to the mortal sin of masturbation.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas: “I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation. (Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 154, A. 11.)

 

Ephesians 5:5- “For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”

 

1 Cor. 6:9-10- “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.”

 

This very interesting passage from St. Thomas should tell those who are committing this mortal sin of masturbation that they are not only engaging in mortally sinful activity, but a seriously disordered mortal sin which is classified as one of the sins against nature.  The commission of this sin is probably one large reason why people are taken over by the evil spirit which causes that totally unnatural disorder of homosexuality. 

 

Now, regarding Lesbians, we think it’s pretty well known that many Lesbians exhibit unnatural, unwomanly behavior and act like men.  Homosexuality causes women to often act like men and men to often speak and act like women.  That’s because homosexuality is unnatural.  We simply made a special note of the frequency with which homosexual males exhibit effeminate external mannerisms.  Someone who doesn’t believe that homosexuality is a result of demonic takeover must consider this bizarre and enigmatic.  For how come and how can these males “naturally” come across as effeminate so often when they become attracted to men?  It’s not like they are acting effeminate, but this is what’s coming out of them.  This, in itself, is a powerful evidence of spiritual takeover in these individuals.  Romans 1 is clear that both female-to-female and male-to-male same sex attractions are unnatural – not instilled by God – and result from some form of idolatry.  So if you scoff at our position, then you scoff at Romans 1.

 

Regarding your other criticisms, you don’t even bring up one doctrinal point about which you think we’re wrong.  That’s because you know that your problem is not with us, but with the dogmatic teaching of the Church we bring forward to substantiate our positions.  You think that the Church’s hard truths are hateful and uncaring, but the truth is just the opposite.  They are liberating and truly loving, for they reveal the truth and the only way to true happiness.  Your e-mail exudes such modernism and liberalism that we’d be shocked if you don’t reject the solemnly defined dogma that all who die as non-Catholics are lost.  This liberalism is perhaps most in evidence in the parts of your e-mail where you seem to criticize the concept of diabolical possession.  You ask us if we accept what modern science says about mental illness, as if it has explained away the “myth” of diabolical possession.  The fact is that many things which are classified today as “mental illnesses” are, in our opinion, the result of diabolical possession. The fact that diabolical possession exists is seen throughout the New Testament (Mt. 4:24; Mt. 8:16; Mt. 8:28; Mt. 9:32; Mt. 12:22; Mk. 1:32; etc.).  If possession was such a prominent problem in the Lord’s time, then it has not ceased to be a problem in our wicked days.

 

Likes info

 

Re: Amazing Info

 

I'm sold... the analogy of the the frog in hot water comes to mind with the plan of satan..."if you put a frog in water and turn up the heat to boil the water, he will not know enough to jump out and save himself. if you throw a frog in boiling water he will jump out and save himself." 

The world is slowing changing for the worse and a lot of folks don't know when to jump out of the pot or where to turn...thanks for the info.

I'm spoon feeding myself all this info and read your response to an atheist about evolution.  It is amazing how man is playing with cloning now to try and take over God's job.  As history is rewritten over and over, it's easy to see how they could possibly say over 100 years time that man created man… We have consecrated ourselves numerous times to Jesus through Mary according to St. Louis de Montfort…

God Bless you and all your readers,

TM

 

Ten Commandments and Graven Images

 

Dear Brothers,

Just curious, how come the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments is different from ours?  Also, who was King James, of King
James Bible fame?   Thanks
                                                                 

 Rose B.

 

MHFM: The reason that the Protestants number the Ten Commandments differently is because the commandments are not numbered in the Bible and the Protestants divide them up differently.  King James was the Protestant King of England in the latter part of the 16th century and early part of the 17th century.  Your first question brings us to another point: the absolutely ridiculous objection of Protestants who say that the Bible condemns making a graven image, and therefore that Catholic statues, etc. are idolatrous.  The context of the commandment is clearly forbidding worshipping the graven image, which Catholics (of course) do not do.

 

Exodus 20:2-5- “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.  Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.  Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:”

 

The footnote in the Douay-Rheims points out the absolute absurdity of Protestant objections in this regard: “‘A graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing’... All such images, or likenesses, are forbidden by this commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for idols or image-gods, or are worshipped with divine honour. But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the word of God. See Ex. 25. 15, and etc.; chap. 38. 7; Num. 21. 8, 9; 1 Chron. or Paralip. 28. 18, 19; 2 Chron. or Paralip. 3. 10.”

 

This is just another example of how Protestants pervert the teaching of Scripture.  If, as they falsely assert, this commandment forbids the making or keeping of statues, then they would also be breaking the same commandment by carrying and using coins to pay for things.  (Coins have graven images.)  They are thus condemned out of their own mouths.  Yet there are Protestants out there who will literally protest Catholic processions with signs “Thou shalt not make a graven image,” or something of the sort, which only display their ability to pervert the Scriptures. 

 

Abandoning “Orthodoxy”

 

Dear Father,

 

I have been a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church for 20 years. I converted from the protestant heresy, and was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church. I did not join the Roman novus ordo church because I saw it was departing from the traditional Roman Catholic Faith.

For several months now, I have been questioning my own Church, and thought about going west. By chance, I found your site, and have watched some of the videos.  I really want to be in union with the true Catholic Church, but how can I if Rome has departed from the Faith? Where can I go? Are you in union with a true Catholic Bishop?

Please help me!!!

 

Ob…

 

Anti-Protestantism

 

Dear Sirs,

 

  I have been reading and listening to some of your information regarding protestantism.  What concerns me the most is the information in which you speak of protestants taking "specific phrases" from the new Testament--esp. the King James version, and using these phrases to support the thought of belief covers you by the blood of the lamb and admits you into heaven "automatically."  I believe that this is a teaching widely used by the Southern Baptists and other ultraconservatives to promote specific agendas.  Otherr groups such as The "Campus Crusades for Christ" also use these same tactics.  When growing up in the 60's and 70's we started hearing about "Born Again" Christians, and these people were telling me that I was not a true believer because I did not say that I was "Born Again".  I was raised in a family of ministers.  I have never heard any of these men take one line from the Bible to use it to prove a point.  Any intellegent  person, would know that without reading the entire scripture, and knowing the meaning of the colloquialisms of the time-- that all scripture can and will be "mis-interpreted".

  Confusion lies here in the fact that you might also be misinterpreting Biblical truth.  My pastor was raised Catholic as were many of my friends.  I was told by so many of these people that the Catholic church did not encourage their members to study the scriptures.  As a matter of fact several of them said, "Oh, well we never read the Bible in church." Mass, whatever you want to call it.  I also knew a lot of men in my youth that thought that they could sleep around on their wives as long as they went to confessional afterwards and the priest blessed them. 

    Don't you realize that what you are saying is a sin in and of itself.  To deny that there are true Biblical believers that are not Catholic is heresy itself.  You are placing yourselves on a pedestal and looking down upon good Christian people because you say "all proteststant religions misrepresent Biblical facts."  I believe that as a believer, I have a daily walk with God, that at times I may be filled with the holy spirit--none of ous think that we are God, or Jesus Christ…    Also, and well documented, historically is the fact that the Catholic church was formed on sacred land by the Roman Empire--where they themselves assasinated St. Peter.  The government at the time was losing control of the masses because, most wanted to follow the ways of Christ and not the government.  The Catholic church was formed by the Roman Empire to keep the masses loyal to the empire, and the Virgin Mary was added in for the pagans that believed in the divine feminine as creator of life. I know that the Virgin Mary was real, but she was raised to a higher level to serve a purpose.  All of this is well documented. Also, there is NOTHING in the scriptures about the Catholic faith, and by the way--some of your articles are contradicting each other.  You might want to ponder this:  I am totally NOT disagreeing with a lot of what you are saying about how messed up Vatican II is, but to say that all non-Catholic true believers that follow the ways of our Lord and Savior are not real Christian might just end you up where you say we are all going.  And, by the way--The Apostles Creed which is chanted in the Presbyterian Church every Sunday states, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church". 

Your judgmentalism is a grievous sin upon itself and you.

 

Sincerely,

Nancy Hutcheson Abbott--TRUE CHRISTIAN

 

MHFM: Unfortunately Nancy, you are not a true Christian, but a deceived heretic.  From your letter, it seems like you are a faith-alone Protestant.  If you were honest, then listening to the audio selections we have on that issue should have shown you that your version of the Gospel is false and unbiblical.  The Bible clearly teaches the Catholic view of justification.  You also say that there is nothing in the Bible about the Catholic Church.  That’s nonsense.  That’s like saying that there is nothing in the Bible about the Trinity because the word is not mentioned.  The word is not mentioned, but the content of the truth is certainly there.   The Bible points to a Church founded upon Peter (Mt. 16), with confession (John 20:23), a real Eucharist (John 6:54), which teaches baptismal regeneration (John 3:5), which teaches the truth of Christ that believers can lose their salvation for grave sin (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Cor. 9:27), etc (Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy").  That Church must have been around since the apostles and there’s only been one since the time of the apostles, the Catholic Church.  If you cannot see it, then you are just a liar who is not of the truth.  Soon we will be posting more audio selections on other topics regarding how the Bible proves the Catholic Church’s teachings.  Also, the fact that Presbyterians and other denominations recite the Apostles’ Creed – which states that they believe in the Holy Catholic Church – and then admit that they are not Catholic demonstrates that they condemn themselves out of their own mouths.  They acknowledge the Catholic Church to be the one true Church, and yet fail to belong to the only historical, traditional and visible Catholic Church.  They thus prove by their own words that they are not part of the one true Church of Christ.

 

Thoughts

 

Greetings!
 
I am a fellow Roman Catholic from Croatia, although I live in Canada now. I have watched few of your video regarding abortion, freemasons, rock music and creation and miracles. It has enlightened me that I have found a site like yours. Im well aware of the Vatican II and what it has done to our Church. There is a large number of liberal Roman Catholic priests and bishops. That is in my opinion wrong for a priest to have liberal views regarding marriage and same-sex couples. The freemasons and zionists are behind it. They have infeltrated the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican. This has caused many Catholics to take the jews for what they are not. The talmud is filled with anti-Catholic writing. Our followers dont know that. We cant expose it because the media is controled by the zionists (jews)… 
It certainty is great to knwo there are still true Catholics in the world. This is just a period of sturggle for us. We always come out on top in the end.
 
To say another thing, most of the Roman Catholic people these days who know about Vatican II, freemasonry, zionism and in-depth communist tend to lean to a far-right political site. I support these people 100%. The word far-right nowdays is immediately associated by the liberal and zionist media with neo-nazism, anti-semitism and racism. These patriots who know the truth have been coming out in large numbers in Spain, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia and Italy. We have to rid our countries from zionist-masonic rule and re-establish the real Roman Catholic church in these countries. We cant ask for support from the Vatican, not in this day and age...

 

Deno…

 

Digesting

 

Dear MHFM,

I have read some of what you have posted on your website.  It is quite a bit of information and will take time to digest.  I can tell you what I believe:
I do not concur with the Second Vatican Council (it is illicit), I do not attend the Novus Ordo service (since I do not think it is a mass or Catholic), I do not believe that JPII should be canonized, and I do not believe everything that these last few Popes have been quoting , for example : I can in no way ever agree that Islam is a religion of high regard and esteem or that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. 

As for Baptism of desire and Sedevacantism, I am not an authority on these topics but I am trying, as evidence by these emails, to determine the Truth.  I do not admire the last few Popes very much, and especially have issues with PaulVI, JPII, and BenXVI, since many of their words and actions are heretical.  If this suffices to say then I am Sedevacantist, than so be it.  I think Bugnini was a freemason, that the new mass is pagan/cult/even occultic, I agree with the Ottavani Intervention 100%, I do not believe the Vatican tells the truth, I do not think we have been told the truth about the 3rd secret of Fatima, I know Luther and Cramner are heretics and that the Pauline service is modelled after the 1549 Anglican Prayerbook, I believe that there is no salvation outside the Church, I do not believe that the Universal Church subsists within the Catholic Church, etc….

 

GOD Bless

 

Dip…

 

MHFM: What you have written about the Vatican II “Church” can lead you to no other conclusion: it’s not Catholic and the men who imposed it hold no authority.  Regarding baptism of desire, you don’t need to be an authority because the dogmatic teachings of the Church are our authority.  They tell us that no one can be saved without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

 

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

 

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18).  Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith.  Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?  It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood.  And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.  For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood.  And the three are one.  (1 Jn. 5:4-8)  IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM.  THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE.  NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.

 

Thankful

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I suppose it is fair to say I thought I was alone in the Matrix!  I am thankful with all my heart that I stumbled across your web site!  Your work is truly anointed, the Truth finally is like food to my soul.  As the vestiges of the false teachings of Vatican 2 leave my mind, I truly feel like I am being born again.  I know you understand exactly what I mean by that.  Now it is the most ardent prayer of the Church that priests rise up from this remnant…. I cannot tell you how full of joy I am to see that finally I am not alone… We must endeavor to find remnant priests to help the Faithful continue on the road to salvation.  Praise be Jesus Christ forever.  We can end the Apostate Gospel of Modernism, Communism and Social Work. 

 

Let me conclude that I am NOT a nutt, I just seek the Truth!

 

God Bless

 

Deo Vindice

 

Robert Iacomacci

Abbeville County South Carolina

 

Novus Ordo particle study

 

Dear Brothers,  

 

You are truly my fellow brothers in the Faith.  I am so very thankful for your diligent studies and holy works which help assure the One, True Faith of Christ remains upon the face of the earth.  I email your daily spiritual and doctrinal quotes to others and they are very helpful in leading others into the Truth.  I also must say that because I gained a bit of world-wide attention for my eucharistic particle study and how the practice of communion in the hand causes particles detaching to be trampled underfoot, that I repudiate as false those parts of that study and letters which give any credence to John Paul II having been an actual Pope for you have convinced me he was not only a heretic, as I knew, but an anti-pope and anti-Christ, a destroyer.  I also repudiate that part of the study and those parts of my letters to anti-pope John Paul II which would lead one to believe the new mass is in any way valid, for it is absolutely invalid, but I did not know this for certain until your proofs convinced me.  The remainder of the particle study is true and scientifically valid and has been replicated independently by others.
         Further, I fully agree with every one of your doctrinal positions as they are all of them based on the soundest researches of the infallibly revealed truths of our Holy Religion.  When I challenge anyone to argue against your proofs, I am only met by silence or an "I don't agree" resistance to the known truth - a sin against the Holy Ghost which St Thomas Aquinas tells us requires a miracle of grace to reverse this resistance.  St Augustine says that "so great is the downfall of this sin that it cannot submit to the humiliation of asking for pardon".  Judas could not humiliate himself to ask pardon, and neither can proud heretics once they turn against the known truth.   Certainly, many are in error who simply require fraternal instruction and correction, but what joy to find the few who are blessed not to be scandalized by the Truth!  With great affection in His Sacred Heart,  

 

Charles Andre St-George  

 

Please publish this that my previous errors may be known and my adhesion to the Catholic faith of all time be manifest.  Thank you…

 

MHFM: For those who are not familiar with this study, it appeared in The Angelus.

 

No exceptions

 

Dear MHFM

 

The story of the automatic underlining of those words WITH NO EXCEPTIONS is truly amazing.  It seems to be connected to your work, as this person was helped by MHFM.

 

I'm reading stories from my little blue books (Catechism in Examples) and this kind of thing happens all the time.  You clarified BOB and BOD for me as well…

 

PM

 

MHFM: This reader is referring to the story against baptism of desire that is posted a few e-exchanges down.

 

Fellowship?

 

Dearly Beloved Brother in Christ ,

 

Greetings from India! We are so glad to meet you through this mail. I happened to visit your website just now and so happy after reading the contents. First of all, I would like to introduce myself and my ministry: I am pastor ravi, serving the Lord full-time for the last over 8 years. I am married and have a daughter & son. My wife christina also works full-time in the ministry. We would like to fellowship and connect with your  ministry. Would you please let us know your heart for our nation so that I can share more about my vision and burden of the Ministry. Thank you. !

In Christ,
Pastor Ravi nadava
AWRANGAL INDIA

 

MHFM: Thank you for your e-mail.  It was nice of you to write to us.  However, one must understand that we could only fellowship with those who embrace the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, and the fullness of its traditional teachings.  If you are a minister of a Protestant or non-Catholic "church," it's imperative for you to abandon that ministry and embrace the only Church established by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church.  Belonging to the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.  We strongly encourage you to consult the material on our website in this regard; for one cannot save his soul as a non-Catholic minister.

 

Shocked by truth

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I have spent hours reading your website. I am shocked at the imposter Sr Lucy. The photographs sold me. While I still have problems with the 911 conspiracies, You are correct with every assertion on your website. This is life changing. I do not drive a car due to a slip and fall. I am forced to go to the local Novus Ordo parish on an electric scooter. How can I just stay home? All I have is the Tridentine Mass on video. I agree completely about EWTN. Thank you for clearing up all of the confusion surrounding the Consecration… I am so confused and sick at heart that I am totally overwhelmed by all of this truth. No one will ever believe me. Not that I care now. I just feel so "out in the cold."

 

Nancy M Finch

 

MHFM: Nancy, we’re glad to hear about your interest, but you MUST GET OUT OF THE NEW MASS!  It’s an invalid Protestant service: The Invalid New Mass.  Not only is there no obligation to go, but you have a positive obligation under pain of mortal sin not to go.  There were many Catholics in history who had nowhere to go to Mass.  Popes put cities under interdict at times and the sacraments couldn’t be administered there.  Japanese Catholics were without the Mass for many decades.  Many other examples could be given.  There is no obligation to attend Mass on Sunday if the Church doesn’t provide you with a fully Catholic one in your area.  People need to realize that the Catholic faith is more than showing up at a building on Sundays – especially an invalid Protestant service which one must avoid under pain of grave sin.

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

 

No need to reply to all of my previous e-mails. I continue to methodically review all of your meticulous research work. I know beyond all doubt that Our Blessed Mother Mary brought me to your website. It was no accident and I intend to go to Confession to my Pastor ordained validly in 1957 and remain in a state of grace. This is my greatest concern. I will have to stay home and no longer attend daily and Sunday Mass in the Novus Ordo. I have no way to attend a Latin Mass that is valid; I doubt that there is one. I have my Grandmothers St Joseph Sunday Missal that is Pre-Vatican II... Thank You for your website. I will order your series when I can afford to do so. I will support you in prayer and financially as I begin to work full time again. You have saved my soul. May Almighty GOD reward you abundantly. I literally had no idea what I was doing and that the Chair of Peter has been empty since 1958…

 

Nancy M Finch

North Palm Beach, FL

 

MHFM: That’s great to hear.

 

Benedict XVI’s heresy on religious liberty

 

MHFM: If you haven’t seen it yet, make sure to check out the Heresy of the Week for this week.  It’s truly outrageous heresy from Benedict XVI on religious liberty.

 

Reader shares an interesting story against baptism of desire

 

I wanted, also, to take this opportunity to thank you and Most Holy Family Monastery for all the years of textbook training your publications and videos, and too your DVDs and other literature, have provided.  For the great majority of us, there has been no other source.  Not only is the “Pulpit” silent on Catholic dogmatic truth, to a great degree, but the parish book stores have nothing.  I, admittedly, have used a great deal of your research material in my letters…

 

There is a side story to my letter to Bishop Pivarunas that you must know about.  In typing up my first draft from the “chicken scratch” it took me several days to compile, there was something very miraculous that took place.  About two days before, I had said a fervent prayer to the Holy Ghost to somehow show me that my theology on “baptism of desire” was correct.  Well, when I typed my way to page three, paragraph three, and proceeded to type in WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, the underscoring lines automatically typed in at the very same time!  This is totally impossible to do on any electric typewriter.  One must go back and set the underscoring key and hit it for each letter and space that you want underlined.  I sat back for a few moments in great awe but then remembered my prayer just a short time before.  I thanked and praised God for His answer as I do now each time I reread this letter.  Please share this with others…

 

Sincerely in the Faith,

 

Robert B. Mann

 

Baptism of Desire heretic P.W.

 

MHFM: Heretics are truly pathetic.  We don’t have the time to refute all of their attacks, simply because there are so many of them and most of them aren’t worth the time.  Most importantly, the attacks almost always rehash things that have already been addressed and refuted by our material.  That’s the case with a person named P.W. and his “proofs” of baptism of desire.  P.W. recently made this argument.  He actually thinks that it proves that the Catholic Church teaches baptism of desire. 

 

P.W. writes: “My first condemnation on your theory of Baptism of Desire lies in the fact that St. Augustine has already upheld this to be a fact and even gives an example of such by stating that if a person were to become a catechumen and had vowed to become a Catholic, he would be saved if some unforeseen event prevented him from doing so, and baptism would be supplied by desire… I take this opportunity to make you aware of the paramount importance of the writings and teachings of the Doctors of the Church which are upheld in the decrees of the Magisterium. What the Doctors teach we are obliged to obey as they have been sanctioned by the Church.”

 

This is the “quality” of argument that these people make.  It’s pathetic.  All of their arguments are addressed and refuted in detail in the book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].  This book contains a section on St. Augustine, by the way, with numerous citations of his views on the baptism issue.  The argument quoted above from P.W. is so ridiculous, in fact, that only one who is utterly dishonest to his core could actually think that it “condemns” the position that there is no baptism of desire.  For even if St. Augustine had been consistently categorical that there is a baptism of desire (which he was not, as we will see), he’s only a saint and a doctor of the Church.  He’s not the magisterium.  The teaching of doctors of the Church is not binding, P.W.  Try to get that through your heretical skull.  If it were binding then the Catholic Church contradicted itself on baptism of desire, since St. Gregory Nazienzen (another doctor) explicitly denied the idea.  The fact that P.W. has been made aware of these facts and still makes these false arguments simply reveals that he possesses a bad will that is truly diabolical.

 

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.”[19]

 

Read this one, weep and convert, P.W.

 

Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII[20]

 

Since P.W. has already been made aware of this particular error of the Jansenists (he has read our book in which it is quoted), he is therefore outside the Church for obstinately advocating the position condemned in it.  He is obstinately asserting that something said by St. Augustine proves that theological position and makes one “obliged to obey” it.  That is condemned.  So much for the fact that St. Augustine also wrote an entire book of corrections. 

 

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.’”[21]

 

Second, as pointed out in our book (which refutes all the objections), St. Augustine wavered on this issue and also taught against the concept of baptism of desire many times:

 

St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice.  Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”[22]

 

Here we see St. Augustine completely rejecting the concept of baptism of desire.  He says that God keeps sincere catechumens alive until their baptism, and that those who look for rewards in such unbaptized catechumens will find nothing but punishments!  St. Augustine even makes it a special point to affirm that the Almighty doesn’t allow unbaptized catechumens (i.e. those who desire baptism) to be killed except for a reason!  Those who say that St. Augustine held to baptism of desire are, therefore, simply not being complete with the facts.  They must add the qualification that he also rejected the idea and was on both sides of the issue.  And in the early Church St. Augustine was the only father that the baptism of desire advocates can quote who stated that a catechumen could be saved by his desire for baptism.  The one father they can quote for the concept of baptism of desire was on both sides of that issue. The rest were against the idea that unbaptized catechumens could be saved.  Moreover, the practice of the Church forbade burial to such unbaptized catechumens. 

 

St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”[23]

 

Further and most importantly, none of the baptism of desire advocates have any response to any of the dogmatic arguments which contradict baptism of desire, such as the Church’s infallibly literal understanding of John 3:5 as it is written.  That’s simply because there is no response.  So not only do doctors of the Church uphold the necessity of water baptism against baptism of desire; but, most importantly, the dogmatic teaching of the Church is definitive.  Hence, we can see that in his very first attempted argument in favor of baptism of desire, P.W. has fallen flatly on his face.  He not only put forward an argument that 1) we’ve refuted in depth in our book; but 2) that has been condemned by Pope Alexander VIII; and 3) which dismisses the complete record of St. Augustine’s other statements against the concept of baptism of desire; and 4) which remains oblivious to the fact that many other doctors of the Church (most explicitly St. Gregory Nazienzen) made statements which contradict baptism of desire.   Truly pathetic heretics and obstinate liars, they will find out in Hell just how wrong and deceived they are unless they convert beforehand.

 

Strange “Mass” and Judaism

 

Dear MHFM,

 

I am pleased to have found your website just recently. I was raised Catholic, and remember how strange the “new” mass was to my mother, sisters and me. My mother, having had a longer time in the true Church, suffered a great deal from the changes and was quite confused by them. I think she found little help from our parish priest when speaking to him about her “uncomfortable-ness” with the changes. I think she sensed their invalid nature, but, struggled with her belief from then on—truly, a shame, as she  was/is loved for not only being a wonderful mother, but for also raising me in the faith; the faith I wish to return to. My sisters and I strayed from Church attendance for many years. I have just recently been frightened by what I have learned about the “End Times”, and am desperately trying to understand so much. What little I have been able to read on your website is helping me to understand the pathetic changes in the world today (wrong being right, right being wrong, the move to one world order, the plethora of moral degradation, the socialism overtaking our country) and I will continue to study from it, and will probably e-mail often with questions I hope you’ll have the time and patience to answer. I desperately need to return, in earnest, to my faith. You have helped me to understand the strange, new mass that has always made us feel uncomfortable.  The most pressing question at this time is why did God choose that Jesus come to the earth as a Jew, if the Jewish faith is not valid? We hear over and over that the Jews are the “apple of God’s eye”.  Thank you for your time and thank you for your website.

 

Sincerely, Marcia

 

MHFM: Thanks for the interest.  The Jewish faith, the one true faith in the Old Testament, pointed forward toward its Messiah: Jesus Christ.  When Jesus came, He fulfilled the Jewish religion and instituted a new and eternal covenant centered around Him.  The religion of Jesus and His Church are that to which the Old Testament pointed forward.  So, when Jesus came those prescriptions of the Old Testament were set aside. Hence, the true faith of the Old Testament continued with all those who accepted the Messiah and His Church.  Those who continued to practice the Old Testament religion (while rejecting the Messiah and His Church) ceased to be the people of God.  The Church replaced the Jews as the people of God.  That’s why St. Paul calls the Church “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).  To put it another way, all the true believers and followers of God (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Daniel, etc.) would be Catholics if they were alive today.  Those who continue to practice Judaism are practicing a false religion which missed its Messiah and has thus ceased to represent the people of God or “the apple of God’s eye.”  Judaism is no longer the true religion because when the Messiah came Judaism became Catholicism.

 

In fact, the idea that the Jews (even though they reject the Church of the Messiah) are still the “apple of God’s eye” is one of the most heinous errors in the world today.  It comes from Judaizing evangelical Protestant heretics who totally pervert the message of Scripture.  It’s one big reason why Jewish lobbies have been able to garner so much influence.  (The Jewish media will make sure to promote, assist, cover and feature Protestant preachers who are pro-Israel.)  St. Paul makes it clear that the children of Abraham are those who accept Jesus Christ (Galatians 3).  Those who do not accept Him are not the true children of Abraham, even though they might be according to the flesh.  That’s why, as stated above, the Bible teaches that the Church has replaced the Jews as the people of God and the spiritual Israel (Galatians 6:16).  Therefore, the Jews who reject Christ are no different from any other group following a false religion.  They are not the people of God.  The idea that God confers special blessings on a group which completely rejects Him and has ceased to be His Israel – and that He will even look unfavorably upon those who don’t make an effort to help them acquire land so that they can have a country of Christ-rejecters – is an abomination beyond words.  The heretics who promote this will receive a very grave punishment in Hell indeed.

 

Mary as Mother of God

 

Dear Brothers,

 

When I was a little boy seven decades ago I was taught by the Catholic Nuns this prayer from the catechism  "God always was, is now and ever shall be, world without end Amen"  It truly incredible how you can recall these prayers from childhood.  How then is it possible for you to believe that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God?  I believe now that she was the Mother of Jesus's humanity.

 

Furthermore how is that Mary is claimed by the Catholic Church to be the Immaculate Conception, whereby she exclaims in Luke 1:46-47: And Mary said "My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit rejoiced in God my Savior"  If she was indeed the Immaculate Conception and as the church teaches was given a "dispensation from sin", she then would have had no need of a Savior.  Sacred Scripture doesn't address this issue. This appears to be a contradiction between Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I would truly like to hear your apologetics in explaining this to me.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas Ross .

 

MHFM: It’s a fact that Mary is the Mother of Jesus.  The Bible says so.  It’s a fact that Jesus is God.  Therefore, it logically follows that Mary is the Mother of God.  Jesus Christ is only one divine person with two natures.  He is not two persons.  So, even though Mary gave birth to His human nature, she gave birth to God who is truly a man.  She gave birth to God whose human and divine natures are inseparably united in one person.  To hold what you are holding, that Mary is not the Mother of God, is to divide Christ into two persons – a human person and a divine person.  It is precisely the Nestorian heresy that was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431, which held that Jesus is two persons. 

 

Regarding your statement that Mary couldn’t have been immaculately conceived because then God wouldn’t have been her savior, that’s not true at all.  God can save a person either by freeing that person who has contracted sin from the state of sin or by preventing that person (as He did only in the case of His mother) from contracting it.  In both ways He is the savior of that person.  It’s just like a doctor who can prescribe a remedy that will save a person from illness or prescribe one in advance that will prevent a person from contracting it.  In both ways he is saving that person from illness.  It was in the latter way that He saved Mary.  Further, the truths about Mary which Protestants reject are clear if one understands the deeper truths that Scripture teaches.  One must understand that Mary is clearly presented in Sacred Scripture as the new Eve and as the Ark of the New Testament.  The Ark of the Old Testament had tremendous powers over God’s enemies, housed the words of God and was made with the purest gold with no stain of alloy.  The new Ark, being that much greater, has tremendous powers over God’s enemies, housed the Word of God Himself in her womb (Jesus) and had to be conceived completely pure and without sin.  That’s why she says she is “full of grace” (Lk. 1).  This is developed in more detail on pages 47 and following of the Padre Pio book online [pdf file, takes 1-2 minutes to load].

 

Miraculous Image?

 

Bros. Dimond:
 
I feel like I ought to e-mail you.  Pray for my faith to be strengthened.
 
I'm 52, a Euromutt male, native of the Seattle area.  My background is...well, if I ever find a valid priest, my first confession is going to take a long time.  I have no hope of making a good one right off, for even though I have no criminal record there is still just too much.  The videos on your website are...most convincing.  I've learned the Hail Mary and the Our Father.  15 decades of the Rosary is...I'm working on it.
 
The other day, the sky was blue...except for the chemtrails being laid down.  There was one straight overhead, north-to-south.  I was standing out in the open.  I asked for...guidance.  Then I looked up.
 
There, in the chemtrail, was the most terrifying thing I have ever seen.  It was an image of The Virgin, formed in the chemtrail, extending from head to foot across about 1/5 of the sky, with her head toward the south and feet to the north, in a pose of grace; she looked like the very beautiful image in wood carvings on sale at the gift shop of the monastery at Ettal, Germany when I visited in 1994; her face was at the zenith or just slightly to the north of it, looking straight at me.  The barium streamers coming off the main chemtrail, falling away from the image, looked very much like the "flames" radiating from the Virgin of Guadalupe, except there was no color, i.e. the whole thing was white-with-shadows-on-blue like clouds.
 
To say that I was stunned, would be an understatement.  I was unable to bear looking at Her visage, but was riveted, unable to look away or move for about a second, with her looking straight at me, then I had to look away--I just could not bear it, and when I looked back again it was just an ordinary chemtrail.
 
I really don't know what more to say, except, it scared hell out of me.  And now I must get back to learning my 15 decades...
 
Philip

 

MHFM: That might have been a special grace for you to let you know that you are moving along the right path and that you need to continue with it.  We hope you continue your progress.  But when you go, you need to make a good confession.  Making a sacrilegious one won’t help you.

 

Novus Ordo baptisms

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery,

 

First of all, I wish to say how informative and useful I find your website.  As a convert from the Protestant religion, I was able to recognise the Novus Ordo church as simply a modern form of Protestant heresy.  However, your website has given me great help in realising how this happened and in explaining the sedevacantist position, which I now embrace (I should note that there are quite a number of sedevacantists within the SSPX in the United Kingdom)

 

 I am therefore hoping you can give me some advice on the difficult situation I now find myself in.  My cousin is due to be baptised in a Novus Ordo Church.  I now refuse to attend any non-Catholic services but there will be no 'Mass' at this baptism.  Since a baptism is valid even if administered by a heretic, and not attending may be considered a sign that I am against the baptism itself, would it be permissible, under Catholic Law, to attend this baptismal?

 

Many thanks for any reply.

 

Yours in Christus et Maria,

 

Scott George McCombe

 

MHFM: Thanks for the words about the website.  To your question, you definitely should not go to the baptism.  Not attending it will be considered a sign that you are against the Novus Ordo and having one brought up in the Novus Ordo.  Going would be a sign that you are in some way celebrating a person being baptized to eventually partake in the Novus Ordo.  Further, anyone who would inquire about your absence (presumably close friends and family) should already know why you are not attending because hopefully you’ve made it clear to them.  If they do not yet know, then you should explain it to them. 

 

Hi,  I recently attended a Novus Ordo Baptism where the presiding Priest added the word "Amen" at the end of the Trinitarian formula.  Would this addition invalidate the Sacrament?

 

MHFM: No, it wouldn’t invalidate the baptism; but you should not have gone to it, as explained above.

 

Israeli mauling

 

Dear Dimond Brothers:

 

Below is a link to an article about a recent Isreali attack against a Palestinian farming village.

 

http://judicial-inc.biz/9_30.israel_mauls_a_farming_village.htm

 

It is quite possible that these attacks are part of an unofficial policy to perpetuate violence against the State of Isreal in order to justify the expansion of Jewish power and control in the middle east.  The worst part about this policy is that innocent people have to die in the process.  This behavior is consistent with Judaism's most "sacred" book, the Babylonian Talmud, which, as you may be aware, teaches that non-jews are sub-human and, therefore, should be treated like cattle.

 

-John.

 

MHFM: Well, it certainly seems like America’s foreign policy is to keep Israel’s enemies in check so that Israel can eventually become the sole power in the Middle East.

 

Insanity

 

I just visited your site, and was reading the sections on heresies of the popes. 

 

Normaly, I'm not inclined to even dignify such obviously biesed remarks with a response, but to state that John Paul II was a heritic is both unchristian and moronic.  The man was a great follower of christ.  There was so much crap in those articles that I cant even think of where to begin arguing my points against it.  Please, if you are honest christians, stop attacking great holy men and start being christians.  Sitting around discrediting someone who did so much good in the name of god is not christian.  Its stupid and unkind.  Do something helpful, like feed the poor, or fight abortion, not holy men.

 

Kuru…

 

MHFM: We’re at a loss for words to describe your e-mail.  Knowing the Catholic faith and also what John Paul II taught, it’s difficult to express how diametrically opposed what you have said is to the facts and to the truth.  It demonstrates that you are alien to any traditional Catholic reality and any concept of the Catholic faith of twenty centuries.  Any sane and honest person can look at the undeniable mountain of evidence of the heresy and apostasy of John Paul II in this file: John Paul II (manifest heretic who claimed to be pope 1978-2005) and can see that it’s not those who recognize the obvious who are moronic, but those who defend clearly one of the worst heretics in history who made a career of spreading religious indifferentism and trampling upon Catholic truth. 

 

Also, it’s interesting that you close your e-mail by stating that we should feed the poor and fight abortion.  You obviously dismiss all the teachings of Jesus Christ on the faith, on His person, the dogmas, etc.  This is because you are a humanist and nothing more.  That’s why you love and defend Antipope John Paul II, who promoted the worship of man.  You have no faith in the dogmas of divine revelation and so Antipope John Paul II was just your kind of heretic.

 

Confused

 

Hi, my name is Terese and I was born and raised in the Catholic Church in Norfolk, NE.  When doing some research on the internet I came across your website and began reading it.  I am very confused about the Vatican ll problems that I read about.  I was born and baptized in 1960.  Does all this that you are saying about the heresies of Vatican ll mean that I am not truly Catholic.  My Grandmother was Catholic all her life and was very religious and followed all the Catholic teachings.  She never mentioned that after Vatican ll, there was any kind of change in the mass.  Does this mean that she didn't notice it or that she believed it must be ok if the Vatican approved it, or is the Catholic Church in my area is still doing the old mass?  I grew up believing that I would be saved because I was baptized in the Catholic Church and follow it's teachings, is this not true?  Please help me to understand just what I need to do.  According to your writings my whole life has been a lie.  Can you please help me??

 

Thank You,

 

Terese

 

MHFM: Terese, we're very glad to hear about your interest.  God definitely wanted you to come across this information about the traditional Catholic faith and the fraud of the Vatican II Church.  Yes, we are unfortunately living in unique times.  The post-Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church.  It's a clever counterfeit of the Devil, which has been predicted (in Catholic prophecy and Sacred Scripture) to arise in the last days as the final spiritual tribulation of mankind.  This false “Church” has a new Protestantized "Mass," which has changed the words of consecration and does not confect the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist validly.  It teaches people a general religious indifferentism which accepts false religions and rejects the defined Catholic dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  Those who have imbibed this new kind of Catholicism, one must say, do not possess the true and traditional Catholic faith.  For you, it's necessary to embrace the traditional Catholic faith and all its dogmas, get out of the invalid New Mass and reject this false Vatican II Church.  Pray the Rosary every day, all 15 decades if possible, and you will see this is the truth.  You cannot be saved in the Vatican II Church or if you continue to go to the New Mass.  Regarding your grandmother, the sad fact is that most of those who claim to be Catholic and even conservative and "devout" (we've talked to so many) are actually ignorant of the traditional Catholic faith.  Most of them don't understand the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, dogma, magisterium - a basic knowledge of Catholic history and key historical pronouncements of the Church on faith.  They generally don’t know these things because they haven’t put out the effort to acquire a basic knowledge of these matters, which is crucial for people to have in order to preserve the faith and identify false doctrines so that they can reject them.  The information on our website should answer most of your questions.  There is a traditional profession of faith from the Council of Trent which we point out that all people coming out of the New Mass should make.  It's in the red section about 3/4 down our site which is entitled: "Steps to convert… and for those leaving the New Mass."

 

You are not alone.  We are contacted all the time by professing Catholics just like yourself who are new to the information because all they have known is the post-Vatican II Church.  But, as they learn more, they see that the post-Vatican II Church is not Catholic and how it has robbed millions of the traditional Catholic faith and morality.

 

Hurtful?

 

Dear Brothers,

I have just spent several hours reading your articles that were linked through a Home Business web site.

As a Catholic Christian, I am compelled by Our Lord to accept your beliefs and interpretations about the Church.  However, I simply cannot understand, or embrace them. They were troubling to read and caused me to feel such pain that I felt the need to write to you.

I am an excloistered Franciscan Friar. Leaving community to serve Christ in a special way was a joint decision between my superiors and myself. I am an adoptive father of three special needs sons. I also work with special needs children in my apostolate as a teacher.

The boys enjoy our frequent Sunday dinners at my "home" friary, and the brothers are enlightened as we discuss the daily struggles of a single parent, and of a parent with special needs children.  I cannot tell you how spiritually rewarding my mission is. It is certainly unique in reference to your community's beliefs.

I was so disheartened to read of your willingness to move foward with the church. I cannot help but believe that Jesus would not have wanted our church to remain stagnant, unrefreshed and living in the middle ages.
I find it interesting that, even though your thoughts are in the past, you use ultra modern ways to commuicate them.

I was extremely hurt to read of your beliefs that every Pope who embraced Vatican II has been branded a heretic.  I was extremely hurt to read of your beliefs that modern day saints as Mother Teresa and John Paul II have been branded, by you, as apostasies.

I know that this letter will not change your beliefs, any more than reading your articles has strengthened mine. But,  I have shared with you the beauty of a modern day mission, and how your words are so personally painful to me. My only other thought and prayer is that your articles as you promulgate them will not cause any young person to leave the church or to move towards your beliefs.

No, they do not worship the Holy Father, they show exhuberance for the Presence of the Spirit, as felt in the presence of a "holy person" who represents Christ, not only as His Vicar, but also as all the Pope represents.
Should Paul VI have sold the papal tiara ? Yes, and I feel all the collected treasures and holdings of the Vatican were to be sold ... can you imagine the amount of simple water we could put into the mouths of starving children ?

My brothers in Christ, please accept my prayers, as I ask for yours.

Br. Michael ofm-ecl. +

 

MHFM: Yes, to those who are resisting the truth and the import of God’s Word, the truth comes across as hurtful.  But to those who want and value God’s message, the truth is and should be liberating.  The question you need to ask yourself is not: is this hurtful/does this shake my confidence in people I thought were good and holy?  The question you need to ask yourself is: is this information true and consistent with Catholic teaching?  Did Mother Teresa actually endorse and encourage false religions?  The answer is yes, as we prove here:  The Religious Orders in the Vatican II sect: Totally Apostate [PDF File].  Is that apostasy and a mortal sin against Catholic teaching?  The answer is yes. 

 

 

In the picture on the left we see Mother Teresa worshipping Buddha in 1975.  In the left corner of the left side of that picture she is kneeling.  In the other picture we see Mother Teresa venerating the Hindu Gandhi.

 

Did Vatican II teach heresy?  The answer is yes: Vatican II - false council.  Those are the questions you need to ask yourself; forgo the sentimental nonsense.  God made Hell and made it eternal because His truth and law matter.  These matters of Catholic faith are very serious.

 

Regarding your complaint that the Church should move forward, the idea that the Church changes its message or its teaching according to the advancement of time has been condemned. 

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4, Canon 3:
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4, on the true progress of knowledge: "For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted."

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chap. 4:
"For, the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominic Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, Condemning the doctrine of the Modernists: "To the laws of evolution everything is subject - dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself, and the penalty of disobedience is death. The enunciation of this principle will not astonish anybody who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects."

Our use of modern means of communication to spread that unchanging message is drastically different from changing the message itself.  So your analogy doesn’t work.

 

Buddhist scandal

 

Thank you for that recent news Post titled, "Catholic" Univ. of San Diego Conf. will feature Buddhist monk and pro-abort

I am a 1986 graduate of that institution of "fashionable Catholicism" and I can unequivocally state there is no substance of true Catholicism there. The only indicator of its once Catholic Heritage is the religious iconography that still dots the  landscape.  Ironically, the San Diego Diocesan headquarters is  located on campus. Or maybe this is not ironic.

This posting stirred up a rather unpleasant memory that I hold of their fake catholism. I had a Spanish professor who was the most brilliant academian and individual I have ever known. One day, he took an opportunity in our Spanish II class to expose the abortion agenda with a lecture. It wasn't long after this that the University began to discipline, ostracize and  to apply subterfuge to him until they found cause to terminate him. So much for academic freedom. I am sure all you Notre Dame and Boston College graduates of good conscience can identify with similar hypocrisy…

 

Bill Burns
Fredonia, New York

 

Judging Benedict XVI

 

Dear Brothers,

 

First, I want to thank you for all of your hard work and dedication to the true Catholic faith. Through the information on your site God has led us out of the novus or do and back to the true Church. I was hoping to get your thoughts on the following issue.

 My family attends the local SSPX Mass so that we can receive the Sacraments. Whenever the opportunity arises I let people know that I don't believe in any salvation outside the Church, Baptism of desire, or Benedict being the pope. However, whenever I come to Benedict not being the pope they all respond the same way. They all argue that it is not for us to decide whether or not he is a heretic or an anti-pope. They all agree that he is terrible but they still hold their ground that it is for the Church to condemn him as a heretic, not us as individuals. And that God doesn't expect to know for certain whether or not Benedict is an anti pope. I am never quite sure how to respond to this. Could you please help?  Also, in your opinion do you think someone who believes in absolutely no salvation outside the Church, no baptism of desire, or any other false teaching, but refuses to say whether or not Benedict XVI is an anti pope or not, can get to heaven? Just curious. Thanks again for your time and all your hard work. Your in our prayers. God Bless

 

MHFM: To your last question first, the answer is no.  One who has seen and digested all the evidence against Benedict XVI, and obstinately refuses to say that he is not the pope after having had time to digest the information, is demonstrating bad will and heresy.  In canon law, six months is a period of time mentioned after which those who are suspected of heresy and persist in the cause which makes them suspect of it are considered heretics.  The evidence against Benedict XVI is so clear that to affirm that he can be considered Catholic, after having seen the facts presented in our material, is simply to deny the Catholic faith.  It is to lie and to assert that a person can utterly reject numerous dogmas and still be a Catholic.  That is a mortal sin against the faith.  Such a person is denying the dogma that heretics are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ.  For instance, it is documented in our material that Benedict XVI repeatedly states that the leaders of “Orthodox” schismatic sects are “pastors in the Church of Christ.”  If a person knows that and denies that it proves Benedict XVI to be a heretic, he is asserting that one can regard the “Orthodox” schismatic leaders as in the Church of Christ.  That means he is asserting that one can hold that it’s okay not only to join the Orthodox schismatic sect (which denies Vatican I) and still be Catholic, but that one can lead it and still not be guilty of heresy!  That’s what those who obstinately refuse to say that Benedict XVI is outside the Church are saying.  Further, Benedict XVI holds, as we prove, that Protestantism is not heresy, that non-Catholics can receive Communion, that Protestants don’t need conversion, that false religions are good (basically weekly, as our Heresy of the Week proves).  It’s as clear that he’s a heretic as it is that John Kerry or Rudy Giuliani are heretics.  So, a person aware of these facts who refuses to consider him a heretic is a person with no faith.  He is unable to distinguish between a true believer and a non-believer.  His Church is not visible and has no unity of faith, for in his false Church there is no way of distinguishing between Catholics who accept the rule of Catholic faith and heretics who manifestly reject it.

 

In regard to your question about the obligation to judge Antipope Benedict XVI, we have written on this matter.  The responses to Objections 2, 3 and 7 in this file deal with the issue of judgment, but the one you want to look at is called: The Devastating Dilemma.  It starts in Objection 11, labelled as page 322 of this file: Responses to 19 of the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism [PDF file].  This is very important, for it proves that those who refuse to regard Benedict XVI as a heretic – even though his actions and words clearly prove he is – cannot consider any other professing “Catholic” a heretic.  They cannot denounce the pro-abortion John Kerry as a heretic, nor the radical modernist Hans Kung, nor Rudy Giuliani, etc.  They would have to admit that, for example, a man who claims to be Catholic, but says that the Council of Trent doesn’t bind him, must be considered a Catholic.  But that’s a mortal sin against the faith, and that’s why those who obstinately use that argument are mortal sinners against the faith.  That’s proven in the Devastating Dilemma, and we recommend that you drive that point home when discussing this matter with those who hold the “no one can judge” false position.  Also, if they cannot judge Benedict XVI as a heretic, then the people at the SSPX have no right to be leaving the diocesan structure under Benedict XVI and going to a completely independent chapel of the SSPX.  If they cannot judge, they must go back to the diocesan chapel and accept its religion.  But no.  They judge when they want to judge.  That’s what this file shows: The File on the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X   [PDF file].

 

Heretical Novus Ordo priest

 

Good Morning Brothers,

 

I have just finished a long discussion with a validly–ordained, yet fully Novus Ordo priest. Although he presents himself as conservative, he is extremely “new age”, liberal (‘Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is one of his favorites’).

 

UNBELIEVABLE:

During the discussion, according to him, when Scripture refers to our Lord’s “brothers”, “The most logical explanation is that it is referring to children St. Joseph had from a previous marriage.”

 

You do not have to be Catholic to attain salvation.  Praying with pagans, heretics, schismatics, and idolaters was OK because you are praying for a common cause (referencing Assisi)  “Placing a “buddha” on top of a tabernacle is OK if the Blessed Sacrament is not inside.”  “Most people are going to Heaven, not just Catholics”  “A man came to me that was extremely distressed. He was trying to follow the “Spiritual Exercises” and I told him to forget that stuff and loosen-up.” When asked why he didn't offered another structured spiritual practice such as “True Devotion”, he stated, “That was used in the past and I don’t believe in a step one, step two, step three type of approach to spirituality.”

 

He referred to me as being like the Pharisees – stiff and not having love.

 

MHFM: Yes… interesting e-mail… That’s basically what you will hear from almost all the diocesan “priests.”  Examining what’s believed at the local/parish level, as you have done and as we’ve done extensively in our book and material, is extremely revealing about the true malice of Vatican II and the Counter Church.  It’s also extremely revealing about why the salvation dogma – adhering to Outside the Church There is No Salvation without any exceptions – is so critical.  What you encountered in that priest is why Antipope Benedict XVI could afford to give back the Latin Mass at this late stage of the Great Apostasy.  Not only are almost all the priests invalid, but the few who are valid (such as the one you spoke with) are blatant promoters of heresy and apostasy.  Since this is unfortunately imbibed by the Counter Church, it doesn’t matter what Mass they have. 

 

Padres’ collapse

 

I enjoyed your analysis of the Padres’ playoff collapse.  I thought it very insightful.  I loved baseball as a child when I was a Phillies fan; and I was sort of following it out of the corner of my eye this year.  While I remembered your original post on San Diego’s Gay Pride Night, and while I knew the Padres had lost a heart breaking playoff against the Rockies, I hadn’t made the connection which you make seem obvious!

 

I forwarded copies of this post to people whom I ordinarily would not try to interest in the purely dogmatic arguments.  Unfortunately, stories like this are the only ones that seem to interest so many.  In my introduction I gave a brief summary of who you guys are.  I told my recipients that you are traditional Catholics who reject the new mass (briefly defining the “new” mass for younger recipients) and the Vatican II reforms.  I’m interested to see if anyone will be interested.

 

Bill Mulligan    

 

Appalling?

 

I just wanted to let you know that your extreme fundamentalism is disturbing to say the very least. The close-mindedness of your website is appalling.  It's people like you that have led me to denounce Christianity as a false religion much like you claim that every other religion is false.  The slander with which you write reminds me of being back in middle school.  Grow up.  We're all humans which must mean that someone put us here.  Logically the same God that created Jews and Muslims created Christians so what is your problem with either of those religions?  You even go as far as to say that Islam is a product of the "devil".  It concerns me when Christianity does nothing but talk down on every other religion while Muslims actually mention Christ in the Quaran and believe him to be a prophet.  Was Mohammad ever mentioned in the Bible?  Of course not because Emperor Constantine did a nice little job of leaving out anything controversial when he, in essence, created the Bible. 

In closing, Jesus had some amazingly good ideas about proper ethics that people should live by.  Like many other religions however it appears that you have totally abominated those ethics and morals and perverted any good that can possibly come out of Christianity.  God help you.

I will leave you with this: Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most respected leaders of modern history. A Hindu, Ghandi nevertheless admired Jesus and often quoted from the Sermon on the Mount. Once when the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Ghandi he asked him, "Mr. Ghandi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?"

Ghandi replied, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

Bmb…

 

MHFM: A couple of things: First, it’s not we who have declared Islam to be a product of the Devil.  We certainly believe that and know that to be true, but it’s not like we cited ourselves for the position on this matter.  It’s the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, the one Church founded by Jesus Christ.  It also flows logically from the teaching of the New Testament.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, 1434:

“… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”[24]

 

Pope Callixtus III: “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet [Islam] in the East.”[25]

 

Second, you state that Mohammed was not mentioned in the Bible because Emperor Constantine did a “nice little job” of leaving out anything controversial.  This demonstrates the profound level of confusion under which you presently labor.  Even if we suppose that your ridiculous claim, that Constantine was really responsible for the Bible, is true for the sake of argument, Mohammed couldn’t have been known to Constantine because Mohammed was born in the 6th century and Constantine died in the 4th.  Unless you are prepared to say that the “real” text of the Bible contains prophecies about a future “Mohammed” – something so absurd I doubt you would affirm – then you should see that your argument is utterly false.  Hopefully that should cause you to reassess your rejection of true Christianity.  Hopefully it will cause you to see that it is based on the same nonexistent grounds that the claim we’ve just discussed is. 

 

Further, if Christianity is the true religion (which it is), then of course it would be against those who deny the truth of God.  Of course it would “talk down every other religion.”   Wake up.

 

List of Antipopes

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Do you know of a link to a list anywhere that identifies the names of all the anti-Popes? Thank you for any help you could give me.

 

Horace Andante

 

MHFM: Yes, we have the list of antipopes in our book, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, which we strongly encourage you to obtain.  We also have a list in this file: A complete list of the 42 antipopes in Church history [PDF].  This file can be found on our mainpage.

 

Transgender?

 

i read some of your artivcles on here, i am catholic, went to catholic school.  i am also transgendered. i have felt like that since i was 10.  being gay and  having a gender problem is totlayy diferent. i dont think i was possesed by a evil spirit whn i was 10 . i didn't even know what was  wrong with me for yrs. its a real struggle. you dont know until your in that persons shoes. i went to confusion many times when i was young. and i  was feeling like a girl when i was in catholic school. i would go home and dress and stuff , feeling really confussed , because you dont know what you are… but as  me as a woman , since i was about 12 .  so i guess i  was going to hell since i was 10 according to  you and what  i am reading .  everything your saying has been around for centuries ,  

 

MHFM: You obviously committed an act of apostasy/idolatry in your early years, either through mortal sins of the flesh or worshipping your fellow man some way.  Read Romans 1, that's what happened to you.  You can get out of it if you pray the 15 decade Rosary each day, embrace the traditional Catholic faith, make the profession of faith for converts (when you truly believe) – which repudiates your past heresies – stop committing mortal sins and stop frequenting the occasions of sin, and then (after all that) make a good confession.  But this conversion and your liberation from this spiritual nightmare and grip of evil over you – which God can easily give you and wants to easily give you – won't happen until you stop believing the lie that you've always been this way.  It’s interesting that you mention that this started around 10 years of age.  Well, people reach the age of reason before 10 and so it’s clear that you weren’t this way from the beginning of your age of reason.

 

Also, you mention that such things have been around for a long time.  That’s correct.  That’s because apostasy and mortal sins of the flesh have been around for a long time.  In this short article, we discuss some instances where Catholic missionaries many centuries ago encountered grave problems of homosexuality in different parts of the world.  Guess what?  A major problem with idolatry was also always present: The Idolatry of the Vatican II sect is connected with its rampant homosexuality [PDF File]

 

Nonsense


Hi there, I accidentally stumbled on your website when doing some research into the arguments for and against the existance of God and I have to say that I am absolutely appalled at what I have read on your site.  I have NEVER seen such deep levels of closed mindedness and hatemongering.  Christianity is a religion that is supposed to teach acceptance and peace and you appear to have misconstrued the philosophies found in the bible and used them as an excuse to hate.  This is highly disappointing from a group claiming to be "Most Holy".  Other people are not there to be dispised, converted or hated.  It would be a wonderful world if we could all live in harmony, but you seem adamantly against it. 

I would be very interested to see your reply to this.

Thanks for your time,

Ryan

P.S. I am an atheist, meaning that I do not believe in a god and would certainly not be afraid of hollow threats of my own damnation...

 

MHFM: It’s interesting that you don’t reveal until the end of your e-mail that you’re an atheist.  One would have thought from your words at the beginning, in which you attempt to tell us what Christianity is about, that you claimed to be an adherent of Christianity.  It’s always interesting when atheists try to tell people what Christianity really is and should be.  What outrageous arrogance and stupidity.  You say that Christianity is a religion that’s supposed to teach tolerance.  That shows that you don’t know a thing about true Christianity.  Jesus said many times that unless you accept Him you will perish (e.g., Mark 16:16).  Does that sound tolerant to you?  Christianity is intolerant of falsehood and lies and only accepts those willing to accept the truth.  It doesn’t promote hate or racism or anything of the sort, contrary to what you imply, but it doesn’t tolerate false religions and it teaches that it alone must be accepted as the true religion.  You also err when you say that our group claims to be “Most Holy.”  The “Most Holy” refers to the Most Holy Family (Jesus, Mary and Joseph), after whom our monastery is named.  Similarly, if our monastery were called “Most Holy Trinity Monastery,” the “Most Holy” would refer to the Trinity.  So you have erred in understanding that as well.

 

Interest and a story

 

Dear MHFM-

I have been reading your website with great interest.As a Catholic I have been disturbed at the trends that have developed in the Church for a long time.  What I am about to relate is,in relation to your works (website,books,DVDs,etc),just a minor blip in the entire picture to be sure.  Two years ago,at Christmas Eve Mass at Holy Angels Church in St Thomas,Ontario,Canada we had a visiting priest from the missionary church do the homily.The Father,who's normally "runs" said church was flitting about here and there in the background doing "other" things.  On this most holy of occassions the Church was filled with an assortment of parishioners.I'd say about 35% were children.During the homily the visiting priest was describing the shepherds lot in life at the night of Jesus' birth.He explained the reason the shepherds were not welcomed inside the nearby towns was because they smelled "like sheep [bleep]”.... quote.  You could hear the crowd gasp for a second or two and the priest carried on,never missing a beat.After the service I approached the father who runs the church and expressed my concerns that of on all nights and in front of such a diverse crowd of parishioners (especially the children!), and in a holy place, that this father should use such language was quite offensive not only to us but to God and totally unacceptable.  He basically dismissed what the other father had said,saying  a)he hadn't heard it to begin with b)it was Christmas Eve and c) to go home and enjoy the holidays.  Out I went alright but I have never been the same since.  I eventually wrote the local Bishop.  To make a long reply short,he (of course) backed his priest and explained that what he had said was NOT swearing but  "slang".....nothing to worry about.  That is where it has been left ever since.  I have returned to that Church very little since.And to even attend any Church in the Bishops' jurisdiction has been unbearable.  This is just another example,though I realize very minor in the grand scheme of things,of what you write about.In my case it is 1)bad enough that what was said("sheep…") was said at all,considering the place,the day it was and the people present but to 2) play semantics with me ,try to asuage my feelings and to  cover up an abomination which is so obviously wrong from the local priest to the Bishop....is faith shaking to me,and WRONG! What goes on here?  Just thought you might like to know.  Keep up your diligence.We need it.


Bob Badgley

 

MHFM: We’re really glad to hear about your interest.  Wow, that was really a “prudent pastor” – NOT.  As you continue to read we hope you will come to the conviction that you cannot attend any of the New Masses, no matter if one “priest” or church is more conservative than others: The Invalid New Mass.

 

Debate?

 

Hi,

Your debate with William Golle was excellent, and masterfully organized. You very easily proved the sedevacantist position while destroying the position of Mr. Golle, who is so blind in his refusal to assent to the truth, who has been given over to a reprobate mind because he has not received the love of truth, who was not able to see that he actually lost the discussion, blinded by his pride, and who now flaunts the fact that he debated you thinking that his position achieved the victory; who unfortunately will be lost in his pertinacious heresy. By the way, are you planning on doing another debate, perhaps with someone more credible than Golle, anytime soon, either on the topic of salvation or the Apostasy of Rome?

God Bless,

Leo P.

 

MHFM:  Thank you for your comments.  Golle actually admitted to us recently that we won the debate, even though he still doesn’t agree with us and is as hardened as ever in his bad willed heresies.  He also said that he thinks that most people would think that we won the debate.  Regarding another debate, it doesn’t seem like very many are willing to come on our radio show to debate the issue.  But we’ll see what happens.

 

Mysteries of Light?

 

TO WHOMEVER IT MAY CONCERN:

 

MY QUESTION IS THE FOLLOWING : THE MYSTERIES OF LIGHT , ADDED ON TO THE ROSARY BY POPE JOHN PAUL II , ARE VALID ?

 

ELIZABETH FROM VERACRUZ, MEXICO.

 

MHFM: No, no Catholic should say them as part of the Rosary.  They are not part of the traditional Rosary and they were added by Antipope John Paul II to change the traditional Rosary, just like the Vatican II sect changes everything else.  That is not in any way to suggest that those mysteries in themselves are bad, of course, for everything about Our Lord’s life is good.  But they are not part of the traditional Rosary and shouldn’t be included in it.

 

Eastern “Orthodoxy”

 

Dear Holy Family Monastery,
 
Your web site was a real blessing today.  As I continue to ponder which church to go to.  While reading your letter on Orthodoxy, I got the sudden understanding that I cannot have headmanship in my family unless I have headmanship in my church!  I am not the least bit offended by this.  Our Holy Lady is so good to us!... 
 

In Christ,
 
Felicity

 

Regarding Jewish Power watch

 

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Jewish_power_watch.html   I just found this article!!... it is awesomely well done with truth as usual. I was looking for your 9 11 information with a Catholic view. still looking.  

 

Bev

 

Demeaning Antipope John Paul II

 

You shouldn't be demeaning our Popes especially Pope John Paul II.  He will become a Saint soon and you will have to face him one day with all the lies.

 

Bobbie Carlisi

 

MHFM: So, you think that John Paul II was a saint.  Wow, if that isn’t a major sign of the darkness enveloping our world and the Counter Church – the absence of any true concept of the traditional Catholic faith – then we don’t know what is.  John Paul II promoted all the false religions and demonstrated the condemned heresies of false ecumenism and religious indifferentism.  You are a prime example of why God allowed the post-Vatican II apostasy to arise.  You are a prime example of why he allowed antipopes to take over the buildings of the Vatican for this period of the Great Apostasy and bring in an invalid New Mass and invalid new rites.  It’s called bad will: since people don’t want or care about the dogmas of the faith, God allowed this Counter Church with the consequence that the true Catholic Church (which still exists) is reduced to a remnant in the last days.  You obviously don’t believe in or care about the traditional Catholic faith.  Thus, the fact that we prove in tremendous detail that John Paul II was an outrageous heretic and apostate who promoted false religions, held Christ to be meaningless encouraged people to be Jews, etc., etc. (see: John Paul II, manifest heretic who claimed to be pope 1978-2005) obviously doesn’t even faze you.

 

Spiritual devastation in the Caribbean

 

Hi Brothers,
 
I live on a small island in the Caribbean (St.Lucia - 238 sq. miles), which was a very dorminant catholic country 90% to be exact until about 17-20 years ago we got not only the New Rite of the Mass but also an Arch-Bishop who has been promoting this new ecuminism.  To date we are 65% catholic and only a handful of priests to serve.  My problem right now, is that all of the priests attended seminaries since the implementation of the Vatican II council or entered the priest-hood much later than 1968.  The Tabernacle has been moved to the side of the church, the musice is mordern with drums and guitars, people are dancing during the liturgy, communion in the hand, it is just plain simple crazy!!
 
I remember as a child kneeling at the alter-railing to receive communion in the mouth, and the most beautiful thing to me was the tabernacle on the main alter with all the candles and flowers.  All of this has disappeared.  Some of the priests in the various parishes only do confession by appointment or it is being rushed.  After visiting your web-site I realized that I am in a serious situation, who can I turn to?  The priests now wear ordinary clothing, that you wouldn't even know that they were in the priesthood unless you were told so, We have quite a lot of priests from India and Africa, some of whom the locals have difficulty understanding because of their accents.  I don't enjoy going to the loud services and of course they all follow the new mass.  My main reason for going though, is because of the Holy Eucharist.  I don't want to be separated from the Eucharist for it is my strength and my guide, but what do I do now if I am not too attend these services or if the consecration is being done incorrectly?  I have two young daughters, and I don't want them to stray away from the Church of Christ.  The faith is being watered-down, and acts more like a penticostal church than a catholic church with this charismatic chaos.
 
The Arch-Bishop's concern is more about money and the churchs' property than the souls of the people, not too mention I have been told by his grand-niece that he is a member of P2 Masonic Lodge.  Not many of the priests are Marians and the Bishop does not encourage it either.  I need some serious help here!
 
I do Eucharistic Adoration, but yet I feel a hunger for more and was not sure why until I came upon your website.  Please give me some guidance in whatever way you can because I have to find a way around the chaos and confusion.
 
Thanks,
Yours in Christ Jesus
Andrina

 

MHFM: Andrina, it’s great to hear about your interest.  Your e-mail reveals the almost universal devastation wrought by the apostate Vatican II sect (a.ka. the Great Harlot), reaching almost every island and continent.  But you need to understand that the New Mass is not a real Mass and that Our Lord is not present there.  A Catholic cannot attend it under pain of mortal sin, since it’s invalid and Protestant, as we show in this article: The Invalid New Mass.  You need to come to the firm conviction that the Vatican II “Church” is not the Catholic Church and that one cannot be part of it and be an authentic Catholic.  Just stay home on Sundays since the New Mass and “priests” ordained in the invalid New Rite of Ordination seem to be your only option.  There is (of course) no obligation to attend Mass on Sunday if the Church doesn’t provide you with a fully Catholic and valid one in your area.  Once you come to that conviction and accept all the other traditional dogmas of the Church, including Outside the Church There is No Salvation, you should make the profession of faith from the Council of Trent and consult the section of our website about options for confession.  One needs to confess having attended a non-Catholic service and for however long.  And since the priests ordained in the New Rite of Ordination are not valid, you would need to re-confess any sins that might have been mortal and confessed to priests ordained in this new rite.  If you pray the Rosary every day, all 15 decades, and continue to study the material on our website you will come to the firm conviction that this is what a Catholic must do.  

 

Talk about distortion

 

MHFM: A person named Lionel has been writing to us.  He claims to believe in Outside the Church There is No Salvation without exception and then goes on to admit that there are exceptions.  He also claims that Vatican II upholds the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.  He claims that Vatican II’s teaching is not heretical against this defined dogma.  We have communicated to Lionel that his position is completely false (as if Vatican II didn’t deny the necessity of the Church) and we have provided him with documentation.  But we present his latest e-mail to demonstrate the profound level of blindness and dishonesty of so many people out there.  It’s another striking case of profound dishonesty begetting incredible spiritual blindness.

 

MHFM WROTE: You are very much a corrupting heretic.

 

LIONEL RESPONDS: I believe that Vatican Council II says that non-Catholic religions are not true religions(Unitatis Reintigratio) and that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. So do you. I believe that the baptism of water and Catholic Faith are needed for all people without exceptions. So do you.  I believe that God can choose to make an exception and you and I do not know who are the exceptions, when we meet non-Catholics. On this point your website shows that you acknowledge the exceptions.  So when I meet a non-Catholic  I assume that he needs Catholic Faith and Baptism to be saved, this is the priority as given to us by Jesus' Great Commission.If a person is saved or has an experience of the Holy Spirit (your reference to the Centurion at the foot of the Cross), or the criminal on the Cross who went into Paradise even though he refused baptism from the Apostles and Disciples, then these exceptions are known only to God.  Our Catholic missionary priority does not change.

 

Notice that Lionel says that we agree with him that Vatican II said that non-Catholic religions are not true and that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.  Huh?  Perhaps Lionel expressed himself poorly in the process of defending his heresies, for we obviously don’t agree that Vatican II affirmed those truths.  The fact is that we document that Vatican II praised the false religions of Buddhism and Hinduism; that shows that Vatican II taught that these false religions are not false, but good.  We also document that Vatican II taught the heresies that members of Protestant sects can be saved and that schismatics and Protestants are part of the one true Church. 

 

Then notice that Lionel lies and says that he agrees with us that there are no exceptions to the necessity of the Catholic faith and water baptism.  In the VERY NEXT sentence, however, he changes his position and says there can be an exception!  He then lies again and says we agree with him.  Wow.  He continues by quoting us and then adds more heresy:

  

MHFM WROTE: We document that the Vatican II antipopes teach that members of false religions can be saved and that they esteem false religions themselves. That is condemned heresy; the latter is apostasy. 

 

LIONEL RESPONDS: They teach that in general non-Catholics need Catholic Faith and Baptism to be saved (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14 etc). However God can choose to make exceptions and who these exceptions are only Jesus will know.  The ordinary way of salvation is the Catholic Church for all people.  Through the extraordinary way non-Catholics can be saved if God wishes it.  To assume that the extraordinary way is the normal way of salvation is your personal interpretation of the official teachings of the Catholic Church.  It is a first class heresy to say that non-Catholics do not need Catholic Faith and Baptism in general for salvation. It is contrary to the Creed and the First Commandment and the Church Councils. A first class heresy is a grave sin.

 

MHFM WROTE: You are very blind to attempt, to no avail, to reconcile the heresies in Vatican II and the Vatican II antipopes' writings with Catholic teaching.   It's an evil endeavor.

 

LIONEL RESPONDS: The material you have placed on your website shows that you are reconciled with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14. Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church says all people need Catholic Faith and Baptism.  Just like me you do not deny the existence of Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14. You do not mention it on your website.  You also are  in agreement with Dominus Iesus(2000) and the Notification on the book by Fr.Jacques Dupuis (2001) but these documents are not quoted by you and not made available on your website. The Recent, Responses... says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.  So you are already in agreement with the Catholic Magisterium and Vatican Council II as interpretated by Pope Benedict XVI.

 

In Christ with the love of Our Lady.

Lionel

 

First of all, the Vatican II antipopes don’t even teach that the Catholic faith is necessary in general.  In fact, there is not one statement from any of the Vatican II antipopes in which they clearly say that any group of people (Muslims, Jews, Protestants, schismatics, etc.) must abandon their religion and become Catholic for salvation.  On the contrary, both Antipope John Paul II and Antipope Benedict XVI have stated publicly that Eastern “Orthodox” schismatics don’t need to be converted.  They have also approved official agreements stating this.  They have also taught countless times that members of false religions are in a good state before God by praising them and their false religions.  So Lionel is simply uttering lies.

 

Then Lionel says that our material shows that we are “reconciled with Vatican II.”  Excuse me?  Lionel then speaks falsely when he says that we don’t bring out the teaching of Lumen Gentium, Ad Gentes, Dominus Iesus and the recent “responses” document.  We have a separate article exposing the heresies in the recent “responses” document: Benedict XVI's new "conservative" Vatican document on the Church reaffirms only Vatican II's heresies and denies the true Church.  Further, our main article on Vatican II (Vatican II - false council) quotes heresies from Lumen Gentium and Ad Gentes, including one in Ad Gentes which denies the necessity of the Church for salvation.  On our site we also have proven that Dominus Iesus is heretical: it denies the necessity of the Church for salvation.  In short, Lionel’s responses constitute a pack of lies from a very dishonest and confused heretic.  His e-mails illustrate, once again, how bad will and dishonesty work and how they are present in people who think they are dedicated Catholics but are, in fact, corrupting heretics headed for damnation.  We closed our last e-mail to Lionel with this message: About half of what you've written in your e-mail is a lie.  We leave you with this clear heresy of Vatican II.

 

Vatican II vs. The Dogmatic Council of Florence

 

 

Nostra Aetate #4 of Vatican II: “…the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God...”

 

 

 

Vatican II, Nostra Aetate #4, Original Latin: “…Iudaei tamen neque ut a Deo reprobati neque ut maledicti exhibeantur…”[26][i]

 

Dogmatic Council of Florence: “Therefore it [the Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

 

 

The Latin of the Council of Florence: “Quoscunque ergo adversa et contraria sentientes damnat, reprobat et anathematizat et a Christi corpore, quod est ecclesia, alienos esse denuntiat.”[27][ii]

 

 

In making the infallible dogmatic declaration that all who have a view contrary to faith in Our Lord or the Trinity are rejected, the original Latin of the Council of Florence uses the word “reprobat,” which means “rejects.”  It is from the Latin verb reprobo, which means “I reject” or “condemn. 

 

But here’s the bombshell: In Nostra Aetate #4 (Vatican II’s Decree on Non-Christian Religions) to declare exactly the opposite, Vatican II uses the same verb!  Vatican II uses “reprobati,” which is the past participle passive of reprobo – the very same verb that the Council of Florence used!  This means that Vatican II and the Council of Florence are talking about the exact same thing – they use the exact same verb – and they teach exactly the opposite!  The Catholic Church defines that all individuals (Jews, etc.) who have a view contrary to Faith in Christ or the Trinity the Church “reprobat” (rejects).  Vatican II tells us that the Jews should not be considered as “reprobati” (as having been rejected).  Vatican II could hardly contradict Catholic dogma any more precisely!

 

There can be absolutely no doubt that Vatican II denies the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Florence.  Although there are many blatant heresies in Vatican II, as we will see, this is the most specific one.  Anyone who would deny that Vatican II teaches heresy, in light of these facts, is simply a liar. 

 

This heresy in Vatican II’s Declaration Nostra Aetate is the theological foundation for the Vatican II sect’s current teaching on the Jews.  It is the reason that the Vatican currently publishes books which teach that the Jews are perfectly free to live as if Christ had not come.  It is the reason that the Vatican II sect teaches that the Old Covenant is valid.  It is the reason why John Paul II and Benedict XVI both made trips to the Synagogue to attempt to validate the Jewish religion.

 

Most Active of “traditional websites”?

 

Hi, you made mention on your program with Joseph Myers that you have increasing web hits. Do you show a counter on your website?

Thank you and God bless.

 

Barbara

 

MHFM: Another website, which begins with “tr..”, recently stated that its website is the most active traditional Catholic website.  This is not true.  Our website is not only by far the most active of all the sedevacantist websites, but it is significantly more active than “tr...”  (Our website is currently ranked 192,000 websites higher than “tr…”.  Our one week traffic # is 346,000 websites higher than “tr…”)  Our website is also ranked as #1 in the world of those websites considered “not in communion with Rome” (even though, in fact, we are in communion with the Rome of all the true popes).  Our website is currently ranked in the top 40 in the entire world of websites under the title “Catholicism.”  This current week’s traffic # would put us in the top 20 of “Catholic” websites in the entire world.  Just last month, Sept. 2007, we received over 2.4 million hits and 122,000 unique visitors.  We want to emphasize that the value of a website is obviously not in numbers.  Many heretical organizations, in fact, deceive themselves by thinking that they are reaching so many even though they are watering down the truth.  But considering how uncompromising our material is, and how we do not refrain from denouncing any heretics when we deem they need to be denounced, and how the hard truths of the faith which we promote necessarily alienate so many, especially in our day, we’re very happy to say that very large numbers of people are getting the chance to hear the full truth of the faith. 

 

Last month’s activity on www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

 

We’re contacting tons of people; people are converting; people are finding out about the truth and being changed by the power of the traditional and undiluted Catholic faith.  Please spread the website and help spread this information.  We need your financial support to continue to make such a massive impact and to go further.

 

Baptism of desire and Vatican II

 

… I agree with you there is no baptism of desire in the sense that everyone needs the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.  One cannot say that this person or those persons do not need  Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, because they can have the baptism of desire. Wrong. There is no baptism of desire for them.  All people need the baptism of water to go to Heaven (Ad Gentes 7) and those who know they need to enter the Catholic Church through  the baptism of water, and yet do not do so are oriented to Hell-fires.(Lumen Gentiums 14 also Catechism of the Catholic Church).  However  in your writings you admit that Our Lord could make an exception, when he wants to and how he wants to- we do not know.  So if Our Lord has made an exception for someone, we will know about it in Heaven.  Example you tell the story of a priest in mortal sin, who at the las moment is sent back to earth because Our Lady, intervened.  You mention that the Centurion before the Cross experiences an exceptional grace, to have the Holy Spirit.  You acknowledge that the repentant criminal, on the cross, is told by Our Lord that he will go to Heaven- without the baptism of water.  So you make allowances for exceptional cases. So do I.  Would you agree with me?

 

In Christ.

Lionel.

 

MHFM: You say that you agree with us that there is no baptism of desire, and then you go on to argue that there are exceptions in this regard.  You are thus unfortunately typical of those who deny the truths of the Church in this matter: you speak out of both sides of your mouth.  You deny that you hold it because you don’t want to seem to be embracing something liberal or compromising, and then you argue in favor of it.

 

Also, we have not said that Our Lord could make allowances for salvation without baptism of water.  He cannot make allowances in this regard simply because He has set it up as His requirement that all men must be born again of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).  He said that all who enter Heaven must be baptized and He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:8).  Thus, He doesn’t make any exceptions.  Regarding the Good Thief, he’s not an exception at all, as discussed in Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file], since he died under the Old Law.

 

Regarding Vatican II, which you quote and obviously accept, if you carefully review the first file in this section Vatican II - false council and are not convinced that it was heretical then we cannot help you since you are unfortunately of bad will at this time.  Vatican II contains many bold heresies, as we prove, including the fact that it uses the exact same verb as the Council of Florence to teach exactly the opposite on Jews being rejected by God.

 

Sacrilegious confession

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery,

 

I am at the point of despair and don't know what to do.  A few years ago, I was sincerely sorry for the sins of my life, mortal and venial, and wrote an 11-page confession so I would remember all my sins.  In confession, I did sin because as I confessed, I lessened my guilt as I confessed certain sins, but I spent an hour with the priest in tears sincerely sorry for my sins.  When I left, I had no peace and realized my sacrilege.  I did not want to go back to the priest again after wasting his time and one thing he said bothered me.  He said in the Gospels, that the only sin Jesus said never do again was adultery.  So he is one of those Novus Ordo priests who don't really believe in the reality of mortal sin.  I tried three other priests who either scoffed at me or said no priest has time for such a confession and one, when I told him that I was not totally honest in my confession with the first priest, he basically said that it was okay and to "Smile, God loves you!".  How many sinners like me are "smiling" all the way to Hell?  Since then, I tried being good, but I have fallen into even more sin than before.  God recently has given me the grace to feel sorrow for my sins again…

 

I am on the point of despair and having some kind of mental breakdown because I know the reality of the Hell I am facing, a Hell that I deserve.  I fear for all souls.  Who can be saved?  I have tried praying at least a third of the Rosary everyday in hopes the Blessed Mother will help me.  Do you have any suggestions of how to find a priest who believes in the terrible consequences of mortal sin and believes in the sacrament of Confession?

 

I am sorry to trouble you with such a question, but I have few places where I can turn to trust a traditional Catholic answer.

 

Thank you and may God bless you.

 

MHFM: There’s no need to despair, since all one needs to do to be forgiven and set right with God is to take the proper steps.  First of all, we assume that you hold the fullness of the Catholic faith, that you're in agreement on all the issues: sedevacantism, no salvation outside the Church, no baptism of desire, etc.  If not, you should not receive the sacraments until you are.

 

A priest ordained in the Eastern Rite would perhaps be your best option for confession.  But if you contacted us about where you live there might be a better one.  You would look in your phone book for "Catholic churches" and it will list Novus Ordo (which you don't want) and Eastern Catholic or Byzantine Catholic.  Ukrainian Byzantine would be the ones you want for confession.  As long as the priest was ordained in the Eastern Rite, that would be valid and you could go to confession to him.  They are heretical, so you could not support them.  You don't want anything that is "Eastern Orthodox."

 

You should try to pray the full Rosary each day, especially if you spend much time at home.  We cannot emphasize that enough.  We’ve seen a profound difference with the people who pray the full Rosary each day.  Also, when you do go to confession you need to mention that you committed a sacrilegious confession by withholding the full truth or minimizing your sins when making your general confession.  And then proceed with your general confession.

 

Praying to the Holy Ghost and 3 Hail Marys before confession (that you make a good one) is something that should be done.  Another point that we think would help you is that when making your general confession, you should simply confess the sin and the number of times it was committed, and then move on.  You should not spend unnecessary time on unrelated matters or unnecessary elaboration.  Don’t misunderstand us: you must provide all the information necessary to mention the sin, but avoid unnecessary information.  For example, if someone (God forbid) had committed a grave sin against purity or fornication at a party (and those types of parties no traditional Catholic should ever be attending of course), he or she doesn’t need to say: “well, I didn’t want to go to the party, but my friend pressured me to come to McDonalds and we met a group of people and got in a car with them, and they drove us to the party and I didn’t feel comfortable and… etc.”  People who provide such unnecessary information often wind up justifying themselves in the process and making bad confessions.  (St. Teresa of Avila said that bad confessions damn a great number of people.)  That might have happened in your last confession, considering the amount of time you say that you spent.  Cut to the point and name the mortal sin that was committed and then move on.  We will say a prayer that you rectify your situation and your interest in the faith makes us confident that you will do so.  We will pray for you.  Your e-mail also reveals how horribly heretical and evil the faithlessness of the Vatican II sect and its “priests” are.  They justify everything and leave souls adrift.

 

Website

 

Dear Holy Family Monastery,

 

I have been reading and watching your site for quite some time now and amongst the good and very important work that you do, I applaud in particular the work that you do to defend the Roman Catholic faith.

 

Can you please let me know if you ever send out weekly email updates from another website or source as I very interested on more information.

 

Kind Regards,

 

In Domino,

 

Anthony

England

 

MHFM: We don’t have an e-mail list because all of the latest updates are posted on our website.  So if you come back there you will have the latest information or information about how to obtain it.  We update our website all the time.  If you haven’t already, we would also strongly recommend that you obtain our DVD special offer which includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books (including our 610-page book with 200 color photographs), an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S. but add shipping to England).

 

No pope

 

Do you really take the position that the Church of Rome doe not have a valid Pope?  With all due respect wouldn't that be calling our Lord a liar?  I mean, if there is no Pope then there is no flock and there is no Church...and the gates of Hell have prevailed?  Do you really think that God would allow all of the innocents suffer without a sheperd?

 

Kirk Timothy Mulhearn
Long Beach, Ca.

 

MHFM: We certainly take (and prove) the position that the manifest heretic Benedict XVI is not a true pope, but an antipope.  Benedict XVI is the biggest denier of the dogmas about the office of the popes (e.g. Vatican I’s definitions) in the world, as we prove: Benedict XVI (The Heresies of Benedict XVI File). You need to think about what you’re saying.  The Catholic Church has been without a pope over 200 times.  It’s called a papal interregnum.  It happens every time a pope dies.  The Church doesn’t cease to exist when it occurs; otherwise the Church would have defected and ceased to exist over 200 times already!  This and similar objections are covered in our file: Responses to 19 of the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism [PDF file].  There have also been over 41 antipopes in Church history.  It’s also predicted that there will be a great apostasy.  This apostasy will (and does) feature an absence of a visible pope for an extended period of time, in which the Church is “in eclipse.” 

 

Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted.  The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired.  But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.” (Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont, Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1973, p. 30.)

 

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”

 

But the point that we really want to drive home is that it’s precisely those who regard the schismatic and heretical Antipope Benedict XVI as the pope who deny the Papacy and call Christ a liar.  The popes of the Catholic Church teach that you cannot accept as a true pope a manifest heretic such as Benedict XVI.  Christ also said, through His Church, that heretics are outside of the Church.  Further, the official teachings of the Vatican II sect are precisely the opposite of the teaching of the true popes in history.  If you defend the “authority” of the heretics who promulgated these false doctrines, you blaspheme the Church and hold that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church because you assert that the Church has authoritatively promulgated heretical teachings.  That’s proven in the second file of this section: Vatican II - false council , which shows that Paul VI promulgated the heretical teachings of Vatican II with what would have been infallible authority if he had been a true pope.  So, either he was an antipope (which is the truth) or the Catholic Church officially contradicted itself at Vatican II (which is impossible, of course.)  There is no way that one can be consistent and reject the heresies in Vatican II (as one must) and also recognize the legitimacy of the post-Vatican II “popes.” 

 

Shocked

 

I have been very shocked and disturbed to read the information that you have put on the internet regarding the alleged heresies of Pope Paul VI, the Pope who gave the world the new mass and the Vatican II.  It is unbelievable that people even so remotely connected to God can be perpetuators of such deep hate and opposition to the pillar of faith.  In viewing other non-christian religions as demonic, and glorifying the myth that only Catholics can be saved, you have gone on to establish deep schisms in the core of human existence and displayed such hegemony that even God the Father must find despicable.  I am a Catholic lay person myself but I have felt very disheartened by the direction I see the church to be taking; Open, unapologetic criticism of the non-christian faiths as has emanated from the Vatican lately has left my mouth agape!  Pope John Paul II, once prayed in a Mosque and I consider him a true saint of our time.  The new mass has liberalised worship in my part of the world here in Africa and a call to return to the old mass is a myopic view of people who have not the Spirit of St. Peter, of spreading the Gospel, but of creating an empire where they can reign supreme.  I have committed you to the intercession of our Most Blessed Virgin Mary and I know She will not fail me.

 

Sh…

 

MHFM: So, you claim to be Catholic.  Let’s repeat that: you actually claim to be a Catholic?!?!?!  Based on what you’ve written in your e-mail, one might be shocked at your unspeakable hypocrisy: to actually claim to be Catholic yet to ridicule two infallible truths of the Catholic faith in just a short e-mail.  But, in our experience, we’ve seen so many people of bad will – people who are mired in total spiritual blindness like yourself and cannot see themselves or the truth one bit – that it’s just not shocking anymore to come across people like you.  You ridicule us for, in your words, “viewing other non-Christian religions as demonic.”  Well that’s exactly what the Bible and the Catholic Church teach, you apostate!

 

Psalms 95:5- “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…”

 

1 Cor. 10:20- “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.  And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”

 

Pope Pius XI, Ad Salutem (#27), April 20, 1930: “…all the compulsion and folly, all the outrages and lust, introduced into man’s life by the demons through the worship of false gods.”

 

Then you complain that we glorify “the myth that only Catholics can be saved.”  What you call a “myth,” that only Catholics can be saved, is exactly what seven popes have defined infallibly from the Chair of Peter and what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years, you blind abomination! [Link: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, pdf file]  And then you have the audacity to feign devotion to the Mother of God, as if the “powerful” prayers from a total blaspheming, faithless heretic like yourself will bring about our “conversion.”  The Mother of God detests your faithlessness and your apostasy.  You need to pray for yourself, that you begin to receive a little bit of light about your true state before God, which is not good.  You need to pray for yourself, that you have the grace to see that you have no faith in Jesus Christ’s revelation at this time and that you are mortally sinning against His truth and outside His Church.

 

Based on what you’ve said above, it’s not at all surprising that you don’t agree with our exposé of Paul VI’s many heresies.  That’s because his two primary heresies were to teach that non-Catholics can be saved and that false religions are good – heresies you hold as well.  But for those who do care about the truths of Catholicism, the exposé proves to any sincere person that Paul VI was one of the worst heretics ever to walk on Earth: The Heresies of Paul VI, the man who gave the world the New Mass and the Teachings of Vatican II [PDF file].

 

Stumbled

 

I wish to thank you in the name of Our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, whose divine Providence made it possible for me to stumble on your site and I have enjoyed every time spent going through your articles. They are edifying but challenging… You know we in Africa and Nigeria in particular have had the faith for less than 100 years when the changes of Vatican 11 set in. The faith of most of us have been shaped by Vatican 11 and just a few of us were lucky to have had the Tridentine Mass before the changes.  Only our Lady, the Ever Blessed Virgin Mary has been our guide and enabled us to know something of our faith but I am particularly scared after reading your articles as we are on the wrong side. What must we do in the face of what is happening in the church since we don't have an alternative than the new mass?  I would like to hear from you and please kndly send me a copy of your books, ``The truth of what really happened to the Catholic chuch after Vatican 11 and Outside the Catholic church there is no salvation''.

 

I am Peter Agbebaku    

 

MHFM: Thanks for interest, Peter.  But one must avoid the New Mass under pain of grave sin (as our material documents from the teaching of the Catholic Church), since it’s Protestant and invalid.

 

EWTN heresy

 

Brothers,
   

If you need more info about heresy, catch the latest show of Carmelite spirituality on EWTN.  I just watched your movie about how JPII taught all people are God, and the first thing I watch on ewtn after that this, priest says thru Christ incarnation, all humanity is united to God, under various different forms, under different symbols.  He was teaching universal salvation and hinting at all people are God.

 

Bill from Comstock Park Michigan

 

MHFM: Very interesting e-mail… thanks for sending it.  It’s also very interesting that you came across this particular heresy right after watching our video: John Paul II preached the Gospel of the Antichrist, in which we exposed how John Paul II taught that very heresy.  That doesn’t sound like an accident, but sounds like a providential confirmation of how the Antichrist doctrine which was exposed on the video is being circulated and imbibed in the Vatican II sect.

 

Likes website

 

Please keep up this excellent website; your answers are brilliant.  We are in desperate need of genuine Catholicism.

 

Donna Erba

Lynchburg, VA

 

Atheist

 

Your video has to be the most absurd piece of garbage I have seen to date. It baffles me that people like you indoctrinate people with you supposed facts. The Shroud of Turin has been disproved. Quite frankly there is little proof Jesus even existed. You scare people with eternal damnation…

 

Signed

Atheist in a foxhole

 

MHFM: Atheism is the most stupid thing men ever came up with.  Deep down in your heart you know God exists.  You just don't want God to exist.  Think about the human eye, the instincts of cats (e.g., to walk along a ledge of a building or a staircase and know that they can only safely jump so far or so many stairs), the complexity of the human reproductive systems, or a million other things.  That last example, by the way, provides a devastating refutation of the folly of evolution: for if man and creatures evolved by processes of natural selection, why would they ever have evolved so that they could only reproduce themselves by finding a totally separate creature, who is not only distinct from themselves, but very different?  That’s exactly the opposite of what one would expect.  If evolution were true (and it’s even painful to write that for argument’s sake, since evolution is literally infinitely stupid), creatures would have evolved in a way that they reproduced from themselves.  Did male and female evolve simultaneously, for every kind of creature?  Think about the idiocy of it, you blind atheist. 

 

To believe that all of creation happened by chance is not only to believe the impossible (e.g., the many parts of the eye would be useless unless they all came together simultaneously, thus proving they were created at once), but it is to believe in the most ridiculous fairy tale ever imagined.  The videos we have on the Shroud of Turin prove its authenticity to anyone who is of the truth.  Sadly, this doesn't apply to you at this point.  Unless you humble yourself and begin to be honest, you will die and receive the eternal punishment of misery which all people like you - who are liars to the core - deserve.

 

Speaks for itself

 

I am not certain to whom I should be addressing this. I have seen your web site and have so many questions. If I were to respond to what I have read here through the filter of my feelings I would undoubtedly have great difficulty.  I prefer, however to try to respond from the more distant perspective of intellect and cognition. I am not a gifted thinker or theologian. I am a convert to the one true faith of The Catholic Church, but if I were to take at face value what is being presented here. ( http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/) I would be forced to question what church I actually  belong to. I am only trying to gain greater insight into your thinking as a means of adding greater clarify to my thinking. I have given up a great deal to enter into Christ's True Church.  I was born into the Jewish faith and spent the greater part of my adult life as an atheist. I have been scorned by friends and shunned by family (wife, children, mother, siblings). I have been forced to step down from a very successful career.  I am now gainfully employed and one of my children has come into the Catholic Church. My life has only recently entered a slightly more comfortable phase, but at a great cost. (divorce, ridicule, familial alienation) Even though I have custody and I am very busy, I make time to volenteer often at church, and teach in the R.C.I.A. program. I serve on the parish council of my parish. I have gone on to develop new relationships with members of the church. I have such an unsettled feeling after reading some of your material. Am I following heretics or pagans or worse? Have I given up so much for so little? Do you have any provable answers?  I pray for you and wait for your response, 

 

Gary

 

MHFM: Gary, the information speaks for itself.  It presents and defends the traditional teachings of the Catholic faith, the magisterium and the dogmas.  To reject it is not to reject us, but the Catholic faith of all times.  The post-Vatican II Church is not Catholic.  The New Mass you are attending is not valid, it’s not Catholic and it’s not traditional.  Our website proves this.  You must get out of it.  The Vatican II “Church”  is a modernist counterfeit sect which has been predicted to arise.  Please consult the information carefully.

 

If you haven’t already, we would also strongly recommend that you obtain our DVD special offer which includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books, an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.).  Having the books in your hands really adds something when you have all the documentation at your fingertips.  Pray the 15-decade Rosary each day, and we’re confident you will see that this is the truth.  It’s a matter of salvation to get out of the New Mass and the Vatican II sect.

 

Greetings

 

Dear Father,

 

Greetings and warm wishes from Father. Don Bosco, st. Joseph's Orphanage, Gunadala, India. I am very glad to write to you few words. I got your mail ID from a priest in our diocese. I am sending you this mail particularly to request you to send some mass intentions. I was ordained last year as a priest. The orphanage I am in has 250 boys. Some of the boys has no body to look after, if you send me some mass intentions, I can offer mass for the intentions you send and it can also be of some support to the orphans staying here. I hope I am not burdening you. You please help me only if it is possible. I look forward to your kind and favourable reply.

 

with lots of love, prayers and affection

 

Yours fraternally in Christ

 

Fr. D. Don Bosco

St. Joseph's Orphanage

Gunadala, India

 

MHFM: Thank you for your interest.  It's nice of you to write to us.  But we are a traditional Catholic monastery.  We don't accept the New Mass or the New Rite of Ordination which were instituted after Vatican II.  Have you carefully reviewed our website?  It shows that the post-Vatican II Church is not truly Catholic, and that the New Mass and the New Rite of Ordination are not valid.  I pray that you carefully consider this information, and what a person would need to do about it.

 

The Invalid New Mass

 

Why the New Rite of Ordination is Invalid [PDF File]

(This article explains why the New Rite of Ordination – which was instituted by Paul VI on June 18, 1968 after Vatican II – is not valid.)

 

Peter and Rome

 

Hello. I am not Roman Catholic. The reason that I do not agree with you that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church, or that the bishop of Rome could possibly be he leader of the church of Jesus Christ, or that Peter handed anything down to any one in Rome, or to any Roman, (except for the Gospel, which as preached to the whole world) is that, A - The only city ever deemed holy was Jerusalem (Hebrews 12: 22. But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels) and Jerusalem is the only city said to be the home of the representative of God, now Christ (Matthew 5: 35. or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.) The first church was founded in Jerusalem (Acts 2:38-47, Acts 6:7.The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.) Peter himself lived in Jerusalem (Galatians 1 :18. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.

So seriously, how can you say that Rome has any part to play in the leadership of Christ's church? And above all, how can you you allege that any one that believes in Christ but follows the orders of some one other than the King of Jerusalem cannot be saved?

 

Em…

 

MHFM: You’re missing the point.  You have to start first with the undeniable fact that Christ made St. Peter the leader of His Church (Matthew 16:18-20; John 21:15-17).  To deny that is simply to be dishonest.  Second, you have to acknowledge that the Bible teaches a succession of authority in the Old and in the New Testament.  In the Old Testament, we see that spiritual authority is passed down through the laying on of hands (e.g. Moses to Josue in Deuteronomy 34:9).  In the New Testament, we see that Paul (not one of the original twelve) establishes Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus and Titus as Bishop of Crete to lead the Church.  The laying on of hands is again involved in this passing on of authority, so that the Church can continue its mission in the years following the Ascension of Jesus Christ.

 

2 Timothy 1:6- “Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.”

 

Titus 1:5- “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.”

 

In Acts 1:20 we see the same succession of authority.  We see the concept of replacement of those whose Episcopal Offices (or chairs) have become vacant.  The Apostles choose a replacement for Judas.  His “bishopric” (Acts 1:20) had to be filled.  Even in that decision, we see, once again, that the head of the Church, St. Peter, plays the prime role (“rising up” – Acts 1:15).  So, since St. Peter was clearly established by Christ as the leader of the Church, and since the Bible clearly teaches (and the early Church took it for granted) a succession of authority in these positions, it logically follows that since St. Peter established his permanent bishopric in Rome by his death there in 67 (as the early Church fathers acknowledge), the successor to that office receives the keys of authority that St. Peter had (leadership in the Church) and thus that office possesses the primacy over the Church, as the early Church fathers testify.   

 

St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.)

 

Those who resist this resist the one Christian Church (i.e. the Catholic Church) and are in schism. 

 

“Chance” Encounter

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery,

   

I have no idea how I first came upon your website (a "chance" encounter, as they say) but I quickly saw how important your various articles are.  Previously, I had been raised among those who only held the Catholic Faith in derision, eager to point out each and every "fault." Your articles have helped clear up so many misconceptions I have held, while also explaining the need for sound doctrine.  Your examination of The Abomination of Desolation was gripping.  I have ordered your introductory materials and am now actively seeking to become a member of the true Catholic Faith.  Thanks be to God, our saviour, for directing me to your site, and for seeing to it that there are still faithful to minister the truth to people like me.

   

Suther

 

MHFM: That’s great to hear.  God definitely wanted you to find out about the information, and we’re really glad you did.

 

Blood miracle?

 

Brothers,
 
As usual, awesome job and keep up the good work. 
 
Today, I noticed the article about the liquefaction of the blood of Saint Januarius.  I don't understand why God would allow continuous miracles to give credence to this false Novus Ordo Church.  Wouldn't it have been better if the blood stopped liquefying on these 3 days during the year starting at the date that the Catholic Church was hijacked by freemasons? 
 
I believe that the liquefaction of the blood did stop.  If the Novus Ordo Church ministers can kill off Sr. Lucy and plant an imposter in her place, then they can conspire together and liquefy some blood!  Isn't this a "lying wonder?"  Your comments would be appreciated.
 
-Kelle

 

MHFM: Thanks for the words of support.  We don’t think that the miracle of Saint Januarius’s blood lends credence to the Vatican II sect.  It’s a miracle that has been occurring for centuries.  In our view, a key point is that it’s a miracle which is connected with the authenticity of his life and the traditional Catholic faith, not with any priest in the church or bishop in the diocese where it occurs.  Certainly that church has seen a great variety of them over the centuries.  You ask: wouldn’t it have been better if the blood stopped liquefying around the time of Vatican II?  That would be an obvious sign to people that something is wrong, but God doesn’t always give such obvious signs about the spiritual dangers and tests He allows.  He allows heresies to arise to see who will fall for them and who will cling to the faith.  He allows false teachers and the construction of a Counter Church to take place to see who will reject them and who will follow the false teachers to Hell.

 

1 Cor. 11: 19- “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.”

 

It’s sort of like: how come God didn’t reveal to Padre Pio that Paul VI was an antipope so that he could have informed the whole world about it in the 1960’s?  Similarly, why didn’t God reveal to St. Vincent Ferrer, who was working miracles at the time, that he was supporting an antipope when supporting Antipope Benedict XIII during the Great Western Schism?  The answer is that God doesn’t reveal everything to saints (a truth which some people out there refuse to recognize), nor does he always make things as obvious or as easy as we would like by way of signs.  We think the latter is the answer to your question about St. Januarius’s blood.  (It might also be worth pointing out that the Shroud of Turin and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe are both housed in heretical churches belonging to the Counter Church, yet they still display all of their miraculous qualities.)  The blood continues to liquefy as a continual sign of the authenticity of the traditional Catholic Church, its saints and the communion of saints; but people are not given, by its failure to liquefy, a sign that something is drastically wrong with the churches they are attending and the faith they are promoting.  They must recognize what’s going on based on the teachings of the Church and through fidelity to the dogmas of the faith.  And they will recognize the problem if they care about the faith and are diligent in their duties toward God. 

 

Hatred?

 

Your website is hatred!  if you are a Catholic, and you believe in God, then why would you dog any sect or religion that promotes belief in your same God?  I am Catholic, vatican II to be precise, and for you to speak out against your brothers and sisters like this is the REAL heresy!  You need to get back to your roots, where there is only one thing that matters:  God!  So quit going around, spewing hatred.  God wants his followers to bring more people to him, not scare them off with anger!  You're not being a good representative of my God!  Change your ways, He's watching!!

I appreciate it,
Daniel

 

MHFM: As is usually the case with heretics who write to us, you don’t bring up anything specific in your attack.  This is because pointing to your specific problems would reveal the fact that your problem is not with us but with the faith and the dogmas we are defending and promoting.  What we have on our website is based solidly on the traditional Catholic faith of all times, the dogmas, the magisterium, the teaching of Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ said that those who don’t believe in Him are condemned (Mark 16:16, etc.) and that most go to the fires of Hell (Mt. 7:13).  Surely you would denounce that as hateful.  Thus, you blaspheme Him by calling His traditional faith hateful.  You would also consider hateful all the past saints who were uncompromising in their denunciations of false religions and forceful in their charitable admonitions to non-Catholics to embrace the one true faith.  The problem is that you have no respect or faith in God, His power, His true Catholic faith and the truth and obligations of His commands.  You receive not the love of the truth, so truth is hatred to you.

 

Outside the Church book

 

Subject: Book - Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation

 

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THIS...!!!!!!! (I just finished reading it).

 

By God’s good providence, I was (conditionally) Baptized on July 19th of this year in the Traditional form of the Rite with the profession of faith holding to the council of Trent… I intend to hold to what has been revealed to me in your book (as it is irrefutable)…

 

The theory of the hypothetical “good man” who seeks God through his own desire or through some other religion is also refuted by Divine Revelation in Psalm 52 (Douay-Rheims) “no one is good….no one seeks God.” God is saying that no one of his own accord seeks Him much less attains to salvation outside of His established means.

 

It is dangerous to say God’s Church and its Sacraments are so imperfect and so limited that God allows for other ways and means of salvation. That would also deny the universality (all people – everywhere- throughout time) of the “Catholic” Church. If we profess a “Catholic” Church, then we must believe in its universality.

 

Soon, I plan to order copies of your book to give out to those I know will give it the consideration it deserves.

 

Thank you so very much once again,

 

God Bless you.

 

Charles

 

MHFM: We’re glad you benefited from the book.  People can order the book at our ONLINE STORE.

 

Indefectibility

 

I do not want to deny Christ by continuing to be part of the PIUSX society or the NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM counterfeit church....therefore i have come to a (conjectural) conclusion:

 

The TRUE CHURCH ended and ceased to exist between 1962-1965....and the "leaders" (antichrist henchmen) of the Liberal Academic International Religion (LIAR) ie the Luciferians from the corrupt banking system, the freemasons, the skull and bones , and all those whom convened there and made a whore of our originally special language (latin) to be able to communicate in a WORLDWIDE abduction of the church

 

as soon as VATICAN II convened the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ceased to exist

 

the church began with Jesus and Paul....and it ended with VATICAN II

 

I reject any priest ordained in the vatican ii church as an instrument of Satan

I reject any bishop or "cleric" claiming to be catholic even if they are shizmatic because it is not possible to be catholic.......

 

Matt

 

MHFM: What you are believing is heresy; it contradicts the Catholic dogma on indefectibility and Jesus's promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail and that He would be with His Church all days until the consummation of the world (Mt. 16:18-20).  You cannot believe what you are presently believing and be a Catholic.  As we have explained, the Church can be reduced to a remnant, has been reduced to a remnant in the past (e.g. Arian crisis) and it's predicted that at the end there will only be a remnant left (Luke 18:8).  And that’s exactly what there is.  The Catholic Church still exists; it’s just smaller and “eclipsed” by the Counter Church of the last days, as Our Lady of La Salette predicted.  You must abandon this heresy you are presently holding.

 

No sense?

 

Hi

 

i am a true beliver of jesus christ and i am a true roman catholic.. well you guys dont make any sense at all.. pope is a sheperd he is a high priest and god as anionted him. he is a wonderful person who really care for human race no matter he is a muslim or jews. i guess you guys are bad. and seriously need prayer.

 i will pray to jesus and holy ghost and mother mary, and almighty father for you guys.. to be forgiven..

 

a true roman catholic.

 

praise the lord.

 

Ashley

 

MHFM: No, we prove from the teachings of the popes of the Catholic Church that the post-Vatican II “Church” is not Catholic.  You need to look more carefully at the information.  What they are teaching now is not what the Church has always taught.  It's predicted that there will be a great apostasy at the end.  Below is a radio program which discusses all of these issues in-depth and, if you listen to it, we think it will help you better understand what’s going on.  But you need to put out more effort and carefully look into the facts that are provided on our website.  This radio program provides an overview of the situation.    You can download it by right clicking and "save target" as.  You should listen to it and look at the other information.  You are not correct about this.

 

First Radio Program: An Overview of Present situation (First Show) (click here to listen, about 2 hrs.)

*This show contains a very important overview of the present situation of the Catholic Church and the reasons why the post-Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church.  It discusses the facts, the evidence and the arguments which prove that the post-Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church.  This is a show people should listen to.   It covers the heresies of Vatican II, the apostasy of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Paul VI, that there have been antipopes, that our present situation has been predicted, and more.

Former Catholic

 

As a former catholic who was called by God (justification by faith), I wish to refute you in your saying that our interpretation of the doctrine of justification by faith is wrong.  I question anyone who teaches confession and absolution by a priest, praying to Mary, praying to saints and what ever other anit-Biblical dribble you preach.  God hears you and will hold you accountable for spreading such wrongful doctrines to millions of people, just think you are responsible for causing the damnation of all of those people. When I was in catholic school, I was told we could not read the Bible.  I wonder why?  Could it be that they did not want us to know the Truth?  Your religion kept me away from knowing the Jesus of the Bible, but praise God he took me away from your church.  Why should we confess our sins to a sinner himself?  READ THE BIBLE, we only confess to Jesus to God and God to Jesus.  As far as praying to Mary, is wrong, we are to pray only to Jesus to God and God to Jesus.  "Let no man stand before Me", ever hear or read that verse?   Saints, again read the Bible, saved Christians are called saints by Jesus in the Bible and that includes me because I am a saved Christian, called by God and God alone and not by works, that comes after salvation not before.  You preach works will get you to heaven you could not be further from the Truth.  It is our personal relationship to Jesus Christ that does it by justification by faith. 

 

bp…

 

MHFM: Confession is in the Bible.  Read John 20:23.  Jesus would never have given them the power to forgive sins if they weren’t meant to hear confessions of sins.  Duh!  Regarding devotion to Mary, Luke 1 is very clear about how her soul “magnifies” the Lord and how all generations of Christians (which unfortunately doesn’t include you at this point) will call her “blessed” (as in the Hail Mary).  But something more in-depth on that issue will be posted at some point on our website. (In the Padre Pio book online, on pages 51-55, there is some very important scriptural proof that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.  That PDF File takes a few minutes to load.)  For the purpose of this response, we must simply emphasize how strikingly unbiblical your position is.  You state: “You preach works will get you to heaven you could not be further from the Truth.”  Are you completely oblivious to the fact that the Bible says:

 

James 2:24- “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

 

You really need to hear these audios.  They prove, from the Protestant Bible, that your present position on justification is completely unbiblical.  Are you open to what the Bible teaches?  It’s a matter of salvation that you listen to this information, for your present position is heretical and against the teaching of the Bible.  

 

[Audio]

The places in 2 Cor., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Tim., Hebrews and James in the Protestant Bible which refute the Protestant view of Justification by faith alone [37 minute audio] * see how the Bible devastates Protestantism – a must listen!  It also responds to and explains key verses from Ephesians and Galatians which Protestants like to quote and how they have misunderstood them.

[New Audio]

The places in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Protestant Bible which refute the Protestant view of Justification by faith alone [31 minute audio] * see how the Bible devastates Protestantism.  It also addresses key verses brought forward by the Protestants from the Gospels, such as John 3:16.

 [Audio]

Radio discussion of the places in 1 Corinthians of the Protestant Bible which refute Protestantism and especially Justification by faith alone [10 minute audio] * non-Catholics should take the 10 minutes and listen

 

Substance

 

Wow! I'm in the state of shock! I read some of your articles.  I will say this...being a Pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic a lot of what you say has substance.  But I think your trying to catch the wind.  One of the , so called, clever saying during Vatican II was..."open the windows...let fresh air blow in the Church"  Who would have ever imagined it blew ...almost...everything away!  Do you have an exact word by word translation of the third secret of Fatima? Or, do you know where I can obtain a copy?

 

Pray for me as I pray for you,

Mel Fox

 

MHFM: We’re glad you’re reading the articles.  Not just some of the information has substance, but all of it does.  The conclusions are based on facts and the teachings of the Catholic Church.  We hope you continue to look at the information.  Regarding the Third Secret, it hasn’t been released.  So there is no copy you can read.  But people can form an idea of its basic contents based on what those who have read it have said and based on the last statement prior to the undisclosed Third Secret of Fatima.  This is discussed in our articles on Fatima.  It can be concluded that the Third Secret concerns a prophecy about the Vatican II Counter Church and the Vatican II apostasy from the Catholic faith, which is led by those who purport to be the leaders in the Catholic Church but aren’t.

 

The Message of Fatima: a heavenly sign marking the beginning of the end times and a prediction of apostasy from the Church [PDF]

 

The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the Impostor Sr. Lucy

 

Thanks

 

Dearest Brothers,

 

The articles and videos presented in your website were absolutely amazing and very useful indeed. I am a Catholic raised in the traditonal way. My entire family doesn't go to church since in has become modernized and secular. When I was still in the Philippines my country, I used to have the necessary documents to defend the faith if it is being attacked, but since we moved here in Canada, I did not bring along with me all my documents only my old Latin missal and some prayer book for me to use for my kids. Thank God I can now print all the necessary documents to show to my friends what has happened to the Catholic Church and the heresies that are engulfing the entire world right now. I have also ordered books and DVD from your monastery which I am still waiting. Currently, I am full time mother so I have all the time to read more…. Thank you very much and May the Most Blessed Holy Trinity and the Most Holy Mother of God Bless you and your endeavor to defend the Catholic Faith. Indeed it is true that "Outside of the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation". God Bless.

 

Yours In Christ,

 

Candace A. Diala  

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

 

Faith in Croatia

 

Subject: Greetings from Croatia

 

Dear MHFM,


Blessed be the God who gave us the one and only true Faith, and Who always provide for the means to keep the Faith  whole and  unviolated.

I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your work on exposing the apostasy of V2 sect. I know from my own experience how confused and disordered are the poor souls who adhere to the V2 sect. They are filled with so much contradictions that very often they are not able to see the most banal incompatibilities of what they are saying with what they are supposedly believing.  For example, some adherent of V2, who called JPII and BXVI the "princes of the Church", said to you:"Repent now...", totally disregarding the undeniable fact that these very "princes of the Church" on many occasions claimed that nobody is obliged to convert-- be they Protestants, Muslims, Jews or even atheists--
in order to be saved. In the doctrine of V2 sect everybody is saved. Except the followers of the Truth.

Keep up the good and God's work on upholding the Truth. May our Savior through the intercession of The Immaculate bless you, and have mercy on all poor
souls.

Vladimir D.

 

MHFM: It’s great to hear about your interest.  It really is an outrage that supposed “Catholics” defend these heretics even after it’s made clear to them that they hold that non-Catholics don’t need to be converted for salvation.

 

St. Peter’s unfailing faith

 

Dear Brothers, where in your writings to you discuss the passage in the Bible where Jesus tells St.Peter that He has prayed that Peter's faith doesn't fail him?How are we to understand this in light of the faithless Vatican 2 anti-popes?  Thank you and God bless.

 

Barbara

 

MHFM: For those of our readers who might not be familiar with what you’re referring to, you’re asking about the unfailing faith that Jesus promised to St. Peter alone in Luke 22:31-32.  This is a scriptural proof for the Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibility.  To your question, the Vatican II antipopes have no impact on this truth whatsoever.  This is because they never validly assumed the office of St. Peter to begin with, since they were manifest heretics (and also conspirators) prior to their “elections.”  Thus, in reality, their heresies have as much impact on the purity of the Papal Office and St. Peter’s unfailing faith as any other Freemason or heretic out there: no impact whatsoever.  Related: The Catholic Teaching that a heretic cannot be a valid pope [PDF file].

 

Waking up

 

i have been studying the antichrist issue on your website.  i have found it to be very comprehensive and a real hoodwink remover.  i met a messianic jewish person at a jack in the box the other day. he states openly that a pope will indeed call himself god

 

however, i am unsure whether to associate with this character since he is not one of us.  i would like your opinion on the matter if you get a chance but if there are too many emails i will understand

 

i have other questions but i will not waste your time with them unless i finish reading the entire website and still do not understand

 

… i thank you......i grew up in the V2 sect but i know better now thanks to you.  i have begun attending a chapel that holds the latin rite mass......and i have finally been baptised legitimately.  Soon i will begin studying for my first communion and confirmation and this is a joyous time for me indeed… one of the priests says that no pope or council had the right to remove the tridentine mass as a true pope from the 1500's stated that it would be the "mass for all times throughout the world"  i think it is sad and scary what has happened...even scarier that my generation grew up in this sham church

 

is the clown mass a myth?  i hope so.  this is getting really weird and i took a good look at the dollar bill today....and of course it has a picture of the illuminati and words "novus ordo" and on the front washington the first freemason president.....its scary but its starting to make sense now i am "waking up a little"

 

i have a lot to study....so i will stop wasting your time now and read some more ( i always wondered why liberal professors are so hellbent on political agendas....now i know.....i wasted 4 years in university but today i have begun my REAL education about the way the world really is.)

 

-Mike

 

New Audio: The Four Gospels against the Protestant view of Justification

 

[New Audio]

The places in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Protestant Bible which refute the Protestant view of Justification by faith alone [31 minute audio by Bro. Peter Dimond] * Fast-moving; see how the Bible devastates Protestantism.  It also addresses key verses brought forward by the Protestants from the Gospels, such as John 3:16.

 

This has been added to our: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" section.

 

Bulletin

 

DEAR,

I AM ITALIAN, 26 YEARS OLD, MY NAME IS PIERGIORGIO. I HAVE VISETED YOUR WEB PAGE WITH PLEASURE. I WOULD ASK YOU A QUESTIO: DO YOU HAVE THE BULLETIN OF YOUR MONASTERY TO SEND ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCHE. I PRAY FOR
YOU.  YOUR SINCERELY IN CHRIST

PIERGIORGIO VALETTO

ITALY

 

MHFM: Thanks for the interest.  All of our latest updates are posted on our website, and our latest materials are made available for order at our online store.  So, if you check back to our website frequently you will be up to speed on our newest projects, posts, articles, items, etc.

 

Videos and Question

 

Good day. I have just watched some the videos on your website. Being a staunch defender of my Catholic faith, I stand rather lonesome  as a so called traditionalist and conservative in my friend and family circle. Anyway, I never had thought I would find anyone who represents the same strong attitude as I do- and then to find the best men on the subject, that is Priests, is quite something. My review and empression of your documentaries :Sensational! Fantastic! Fascinating! Great! It really makes you think about the personal conviction. I`d like to know from you therefore wether or not it is possible to bring the whole dispute over heresy or not to an investigation from the competent church department and if positive outcome to an ecclesiatistical court?! I`d be thankful for a short answer.

 

Most respectfully Christopher Benham

 

PS The evidence against rock music and freemasonry is wonderfully described and done. Keep on the wonderful work. God bless

 

MHFM: We’re glad you like the material.  No, it wouldn’t be possible to bring the dispute over the heresies of Vatican II and the Vatican II antipopes to any department inside the Vatican II sect because all of the authorities are fully in favor of Vatican II and the Vatican II antipopes.  It’s simply a situation, just like during the Arian crisis (4th century), where the heretics are in control of the buildings and the true Church has been reduced a remnant – a remnant which appears to most to be on the outside but is, in reality, the true Church.

 

Fighting for the Devil

 

Reading through your virulent attack on the most noble princes of the Church in the persons of Pope John Paul 11 and Benedict XVI places me at a loss of which purpose you guys 're out to achieve. I get the impression from perusing through your write-ups that you guys are the real heretics and schismatics. I also get the sense of the lack of basic understanding of logic and history of the church which you proudly manifest.

I personally do not want to join issues with you guys but only to let you people know that you are not fighting for God but for the devil who is the father of falsehood and confusion. You simply need to take a journey to the Papal visits like the last one that happened in Mariazell in Austria to see that you are fighting a loose game. We the catholics have absolute faith on our spiritual leaders and will always be by their side.

If you people have no other thing doing than to attack them, you better go and have your heads examined very well. People that claim to fight for God cannot be as mean and wicked as you people appear in your write-ups. Our God is a merciful God and the fathers of the church and the saints you always made referenceto were obedient to the leaders of the church. If you guys have issues to trash out with Vatican, you better take a flight to Rome rather than dirtying our computer screans with this garbage you paste on your website. We are not deceived by the antics of the evil one in the name of fighting for the church.

Repent now you still have the time lest Jesus will tell you guys that you have laboured very well but not for him. A word is enough for the wise. Chau.

Gerald.

Berlin Germany.

 

MHFM: You don’t want to “join issues” or point out anything specific because you would be refuted.  The truth is not on your side.  The fact of the matter is that we prove the case with undeniable documentation and based on the teaching of the Catholic Church.  It’s irrefutable because it’s true.  We are defending the Catholic faith, the dogmas, the Magisterium, the necessity of the Church and the necessity of Jesus Christ.  You are the one fighting for the Devil by defending some of the most pernicious heretics in Church history, who mock by their false ecumenism the deaths of the martyrs and trample under foot all Catholic dogmas by their religious indifferentism.  You mock Jesus Christ by claiming to believe in Him while defending men who so clearly repudiate the necessity of Him and His holy Catholic Church and its teachings.  You are blind and have no real faith.  If any saint from the past saw the actions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI alone, without even reading a word of their heretical teachings, they would immediately denounce them as total apostates who represent Antichrist in the Vatican.  You have no concept, not even a whiff of the true faith. 

 

Opened

 

You really opened up my eyes.  Thank you so much, and God bless.

 

Michael Dennie

Troy, MI

 

Pakistan

 

FROM MCA CHURCH OF PAKISTAN

 

Dear in Christ

 

I am pastor salamat gill serving the Lord in my local church very effectively. So I have read about you by net.

 

 I want to work with you in future.

 I am waiting your reply here soon.

  

 God bless you richly.

 

  Pastor Salamat Gill

 

MHFM: It’s very nice of you to contact us, but we could not work with anyone or any group that is not traditionally Catholic.  Christ only founded one Church, and that was the Catholic Church upon St. Peter (Mt. 16:18-20).  We encourage you to listen to the programs in this section:Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy."  Soon we will be adding more things which show, against the many Protestant denominations, that the Catholic religion is the only true and biblical Christian religion.  We truly pray that you will consider this information and how critical it is for you to embrace the one true Christian religion, the Catholic religion.

 

Islam

 

Brother

         

I think That you people dont know anything about Islam. All the muslims believe From Adam(a) to Hazrat Isa(a)(Jesus) as you believe.But we believe one thing more that Jesus is not a God. He was one of the Most Great Prophet of God . We believe in virgin Mary.We believe in every Prophet. God send them to our world to teach us about God. They are the messenger of only one God.God is one. God told us by the Holy Quran to believe in all of this.Last Prophet Hazrat Mohammad(S) teach us to believe on that. Jews dont believe Jesus, we believe. We dont crusified him, Jews did. We are not unbelievers ,we believe more than you. I am not requesting you to learn about Quran,Please  Learn your  real Holy Bible first and learn that properly, Than Learn the Holy  Quran. You can read the Book named "Bible Quran And Science" writer,Dr Moris  bukaily.Buy

 

                                                                                                A Muslim

 

di…

 

MHFM: Contrary to what you state, we do know something about Islam.  And we can demonstrate, in just one minute, why it’s a false religion.  The true religion (which is the Catholic religion) cannot have blatant illogic at the heart of its teaching.  Islam has blatant illogic at its heart.  Islam considers Jesus to be a prophet, but it denies that He was God.  Islam says that God had no Son and it repudiates the Trinity. 

 

The illogic is this: Jesus said and indicated that He was God many times (e.g., John 8:58).  If He was not God (as Islam says), then He was a false prophet for claiming to be God when He was not.  According to Islam, he would logically – and we say this for the sake of argument for those who, God forbid, might accept Islam as true – have to be considered a blasphemer and a false prophet.  He could not logically be considered a prophet.  That proves that Islam is a false religion and that it has an official teaching which is blatantly false and illogical.  It proves it without even getting into the other false teachings of Islam which demonstrate that it’s a false religion which was inspired by the enemy of mankind to lead souls astray.

 

Jesus Christ was God, and the Catholic religion is the one true religion.   You need to convert to it and be baptized for salvation.

 

Deuterocanonical

 

Good morning Brothers,

 

While reseaching protestant removal of books from the bible - came across: In the New Testament, Hebrews 11:35 refers to an event that was only explicitly recorded in one of the deuterocanonical books (2 Maccabees 7). Even more tellingly, 1 Cor 15:29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?", is an allusion to 2 Maccabees 12: 44, "for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death". 1 Cor 15:29 is an obvious reference to suffering to help the dead be loosed from their sins. (Baptism also means salvific suffering for others in the New Testament, cf. Mat 20:22-23, Mk 10:38-39 and Lk 12:50) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical

 

I think you have mentioned several of these examples in the past - what reasons did the proteatnts cite for the elimination of Biblical Books? This is important when I speak with protestants that state, "I believe only in the King James Bible translated from the original Greek. This and only this Bible"

 

This assumed freedom, 1500+ years later, to say it's a valid book or not should be something that would make a protestant pause and wonder.

 

The reading from Judith 13:22-25 today (Seven Sorrows) is another gorgeous example of a book being eliminated that coincides directly with Catholic Teaching and therefore "had to be removed" (our blessed Mother prefigured).

 

Would appreciate you continuing the work you do on refuting protestantism…

 

Please continue your work,

Gary

 

MHFM: Those points are interesting.  For those of our readers who are not familiar with the “deuterocanonical” books, these are the seven books of the Old Testament which the Protestants reject.  It’s also interesting that the New Testament, when quoting Old Testament passages, can be shown to be quoting the Septuagint version in many passages.  This is the Greek Translation of the Old Testament, compiled by 72 rabbis from the 1st to the 3rd century A.D., which included the seven books with the Protestants reject.  Thus, the New Testament writers quote the version of the Bible which the Protestants reject.

 

Jew from Israel wishes to convert

 

I am Jewish, from Israel.  As surprising as it may sound, I wish to convert to the one true faith.  Can you give me instructions and a list of TC churches in Europe?

 

Only two ex cathedra pronouncements?

 

Could you tell me how many times and which popes have spoken ex cathedra in the history of the church? Or where I can find out this 
information. I am discussing with at deacon and he claims that the popes have only spoken ex cathedra twice in the history of the 
church. Is this true? Please advise Thanks

 

D

 

MHFM: What that “deacon” said is completely untrue, but it’s something that’s very commonly stated by members of the Vatican II sect and also by “traditionalists.”  Below it will be explained why these people say this.  A very quick way to refute it is this:

 

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (# 20), Nov. 18, 1893:
"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (The Papal Encyclicals, Pierian Press, Vol. 2, p. 335; Denzinger 1952)

 

The phrase “solemnly defined” refers to an ex cathedra pronouncement.  Thus, Pope Leo XIII is stating that the parts of the Councils of Florence and Trent he is referring to are ex cathedra pronouncements.  That proves that there are, of course, more than two ex cathedra pronouncements in Church history.  It’s very interesting to note that the part of the Council of Florence he is referring to  – namely, the statement on the Bible and its inspiration – is from the Bull Cantate Domino (Denz. 706).  That’s the same bull which declares that all who die outside the Catholic Church are not saved.  So, this is an interesting way of proving that the Council of Florence’s definition on salvation, that all who die as non-Catholics are lost, is “solemn” or ex cathedra.

 

Now, as stated above, the modernists of the Vatican II sect commonly state that there are only two ex cathedra statements in Church history.  This is completely false, as we’ve just shown.  They say this because they are ignorant of Church history and the true nature of dogma.  Some of them think that papal infallibility only became true when Pope Pius IX defined it as a dogma in 1870.  Hence, they falsely think that ex cathedra statements only could have occurred at the same time (1870) or after the definition of papal infallibility in 1870.  And since there have only been two “big” solemn pronouncements since 1870 – namely, Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility itself, which occurred in 1870, and the definition of the Assumption in 1950 by Pius XII – only those two are ex cathedra pronouncements, according to the modernists’ argument.  Such a view is not only ridiculous, but heretical; for when a pope defines a dogma, he doesn’t make it true from that point forward, but defines the truth that Christ already revealed and what has been true since the death of the last apostle. 

 

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #21: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.” (Denz. 2021) - Condemned

 

Thus, when Pope Eugene IV defined in 1441 that all who die as pagans, Jews, etc. are lost, he wasn’t making that true, but declaring what has always been true since the death of the last apostle.  Hence, all statements, going back to the beginning of Church history, which fulfill the language requirements which were defined by Vatican I, were ex cathedra.

 

Now, other Modernist heretics in the Vatican II sect think slightly differently.  Some “traditionalists” also hold this view: They say there were only two ex cathedra statements in Church history, but they say that the only two were: the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX and the definition of the Assumption by Pope Pius XII in 1950.  Why do they say this?  They say this because these are the only two statements in Church history in which the popes, when making the definition, actually said that they were defining what “was revealed by God.”  (Or, as is probably the case with most, they say it because they heard it from someone else and they simply regurgitate it.)  In the definition of the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX says that what he is defining “has been revealed by God” (Denz. 1641.).  In the definition of the Assumption, Pius XII says that what he is defining “was revealed by God” (Denz. 2333.).  But there is nothing in the definition of Vatican I which says that the pope must say that what he is defining has “been revealed by God.”  There are many different ways in which a pope can indicate that a point of faith or morals is a truth of faith which must be held.  As Vatican I defined, to speak ex cathedra a pope doesn’t have to say “revealed by God,” but must simply define a point of faith or morals while using language that makes it clear that he’s speaking as head of the Church and that his statement binds all Christians.  Popes can and have indicated this in many different ways.  Such a truth is necessarily revealed by God. 

 

Regarding the number of times popes have spoken ex cathedra, the Church has never given a number on how many times these requirements have been fulfilled.  However, whether a document is ex cathedra is known by looking at and understanding the significance of the language used by popes for different pronouncements.

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:

“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.” (Denz. 1839)

 

Hopefully that explains why these two modernist misconceptions are false.

 

Cardinal Newman

 

I am a Catholic and I am wondering what your position is in regard to the teachings of Cardinal Newman. Is there anything about his works that is questionable or truly and clearly in error and if so what?  And If so, how should we approach his writings?

           

Thank you,

Bob Gates

 

MHFM: Newman held a heretical view of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  He believed that there are exceptions to that solemnly defined truth.  Such a view is heresy.  His view was so heretical, in fact, that even certain heretics in our day who deny that dogma by watering it down have said that they consider Newman’s expressions to have been offensive to Catholic doctrine.  Newman’s writings should be approached with extreme caution, and only by those who are formed and well grounded in the traditional Catholic faith and what is going on today – by people who will not be swayed from the faith by reading passages of a modernist.

 

Depression

 

Re: Your site, and questions

 

Hi,

 

I wanted to ask you something thats kind of important to me. But not really quite sure how to ask it. So I will just jump right in, and hope that what I mean is clear.  I have not really been wanting to talk about this. Its been something that I have kind of kept hidden. But with the book out about all of Mother Teresas letters on her faith crisis, I feel that I can say a bit more in regards to myself.

 

I have a kind of cold, dark feeling myself when it comes to faith. Nor to be fair, I am not sure of it the Bipolar depression, or just my "self" having issues with faith itself.  Do you know what I am refering to?

 

Any advise?

 

R

 

MHFM: Regarding people with issues of depression, we discussed this on one radio program some time back.  We would recommend praying the 15 decade Rosary each day, and getting out of mortal sin (if you are committing it).  Also, carefully consider your life and see if there is a grave sin you committed that has not been confessed.  Also, depression can arise from spiritual sloth.  If people are not doing things that are productive in their lives for their salvation, or helping other souls, a deep emptiness can set in; for deep down they know they should be doing more that is truly productive and valuable than what they are doing and it bothers them. 

 

A Protestant converts to the traditional Catholic faith and enters our community

 

MHFM: Below is a link to an interesting audio interview with Joseph Myers, a new convert to the traditional Catholic faith from Protestantism (from evangelical Protestantism and Calvinism).  After receiving our material recently, Joseph converted to the traditional Catholic faith and joined Most Holy Family Monastery.  Hear about his story and the graces he has received.  Among other things, Joseph talks about the change in his life, coming out of a spiritual fog, the power of the Rosary, hearing angels sing the first day he arrived here, etc.

 

Audio interview with Joseph Myers, convert from Protestantism and newest member of our religious community.  He speaks of his recent conversion and entrance into religious life [31 min. audio]

 

Joseph Myers, convert from Protestantism

 

“Catholic” funeral for Pavarotti

 

Dear Brothers,

Once again, with the elaborate "Catholic" funeral of Pavarotti, the Vatican II church promotes the heresy that there are no eternal consequences for the mortal sin of adultery. Even Benedict XVI sent his condolences to a man who dumped his wife after 35 years of marriage and "married" his secretary. Here is a link to an article in which a novus ordo priest, who stated that the whole funeral amounted to "profanation of the temple", was criticized by the funeral director.  This funeral director stated that the NO priest should have "kept his mouth sewn shut".  This is quite telling of the funeral director, since that is one of the things they do to the dead. 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5118751.html

The whole event shows once again TOTAL APOSTASY of the Vatican II church.

Bridget

 

MHFM: This is quite a scandal.  Divorced and remarried, yet he’s given a “Catholic” funeral by the Counter Church, in the cathedral with 18 priests and the “archbishop” in attendance!  Wow, this is really an outrage.  As you mentioned, Antipope Benedict XVI also sent his words of praise for the adulterer.  This is just another proof that the Vatican II sect is apostate, and that it totally rejects basic Catholic teaching on morality, to say nothing here of its innumerable heresies against dogmas of faith.  It is truly a Counter Church, and who will refuse to see it? 

 

These people in the Counter Church stand for absolutely nothing!  They refuse to excommunicate the most notorious pro-abortion politicians, and put “Catholic” funerals for adulterers right in the public’s face.  What an abomination!  What a grave sin and an expression of faithlessness and no love of the truth for anyone to obstinately defend as Catholic this manifest heretic and abomination, the evil and wicked apostate Antipope Benedict XVI!  Woe to those that do not expose and denounce this heretic and his apostate “bishops.”

 

Works

 

Hello, if you do not mind I would like to add a few things to share the Grace message of our Lord with you. In searching the scriptures, I do not see where the Lord gives divisions to anyone..meaning... He does not judge man by being Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Methodist...etc. These divisions are man's doing. There is the Jew, the gentile,the saved person, and the lost. Salvation is through grace and faith alone with nothing added as the Lord did all of the saving while we did all of the being saved. If Christ wasn't enough and we had to add works or anything else to it, then God the Father would have to be one of the most cruel gods around. To send His Son..His only begotten Son to the cross to die the most awful,  ugly and totureous death and NOT have His Son be the ONLY way to salvation, is the meanest thing anyone could do...and yet we know that this would be impossible for our Lord to be that way. Say for instance Jesus saved you 99% of the way and it took you the other 1% to be saved,  you would still be 100% lost. You cannot be your own savior and yet that is what you would be doing in adding that 1%. A person needs to come to Calvary hat in hand with the Lord doing all of the saving . The only thing that we could do without doing anything is believe. Many people have different doctrines and they will all be straightened out once we go to be with the Lord. The most important thing is"Are you saved?" Was there a time  that you had asked the Lord to be your Lord and Savior and do you know without a shadow of a doubt that when you take your last breath here on earth that you will be with Him forever? That salvation is all of Him and none of us, for He will not share His glory with anybody. It is all of His work...praise the Lord. I pray that you are saved and that I meet you one day in heaven with all of the other saints. I love talking about the Lord and His word…

 

Denise

 

MHFM: You say: “He does not judge man by being Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Methodist...etc. These divisions are man's doing.”  He certainly does judge men for what doctrine of Him they hold.  That’s why He says that unless one hears the Church he is as the heathen (Mt. 18:17).  The men who reject the Catholic Church have divided themselves from the teaching of Christ.  You believe in justification by faith alone.  You have a grave misunderstanding of the Bible’s teaching on works.  Justification by faith alone is condemned right in the Bible (James 2:24).  You really need to hear this audio:

 

 

The places in 2 Cor., Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Tim., Hebrews and James in the Protestant Bible which refute the Protestant view of Justification by faith alone [37 minute audio]

 

 

You also say: Salvation is through grace and faith alone with nothing added as the Lord did all of the saving while we did all of the being saved. If Christ wasn't enough and we had to add works or anything else to it, then God the Father would have to be one of the most cruel gods around.”  Well, you don’t even believe this.  You believe that one must believe in Christ, so Christ didn’t do it all; one still must believe, even according to you.  If He did it all, then one wouldn’t even have to believe.  But the idea that He won’t condemn people on the basis of works is totally unbiblical and refuted by loads of passages, as the above audio shows.  But here’s one verse which is covered in the audio which refutes your common Protestant view that God does all the saving and we are merely saved without our doing anything.  Yes, God saves because one needs His grace to do all good things; but man must cooperate with His grace by choosing to accept the grace and then choosing to do (or not to do) things which will bring him to salvation, as we see here:

 

1 Timothy 4:16- “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”

 

We see that one must not only continue in the faith (i.e. one could lose it) but also do things to be saved.  In doing these things (which God gives one the grace to do) one saves himself, as St. Paul clearly teaches.  By failing to do them, one damns himself.

 

Benedict XVI in Austria

 

Dear Brothers, 

 

I was flipping channels and came across EWTN's live transmission of Benedict XVI adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in a church.  The Blessed Sacrament was exposed, Benedict XVI incensed the Blessed Sacrament and went back to kneel before the Blessed Sacrament.  THEN A VERY INTERESTING CEREMONY HAPPENED.  First, a couple, in some sort of Hindu garb lighted some candles in a platter with flowers in it, came forward and placed it on the floor in front of the Blessed Sacrament.  Then, another couple, black, in African garb, also with a platter full of small candles lit the candles, came forward and placed the platter on the floor in front of the Blessed Sacrament.  Then, an Asian couple, also dressed in Asian garb, came up, the woman spooned a substance on a platter that was full of candles, the candles were lit, then they both came up and placed the platter on the floor in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

Brothers, PLEASE EXPLAIN, were these couples Hindu Catholics, African Catholics and Asian Catholics or were they of other religions placing who knows what in front of the Blessed Sacrament IN THE PRESENCE OF BENEDICT XVI?  Even if they were Catholics, this hideous ritual in front of the Blessed Sacrament was totally out of place.  Is there any way of finding out who these people were and why this was done?  Thank you for your kind response.

 

Maria

 

MHFM: Thank you for the information.  Without seeing exactly what occurred, it would be difficult to say precisely what happened.  However, it sounds very much like the superstitious practices of various false religions were being incorporated into the ceremony.  This is very common in the Vatican II sect.  John Paul II had it as basically a staple on his trips abroad, as we show in this file: The Heresies of John Paul II - a comprehensive presentation [PDF file]

 

 

Above: John Paul II’s “Mass” in 2002 in Mexico City, which incorporated the customs of the demonic Aztec culture.  Indians danced before the altar wearing headdresses and breastplates.  As they performed, the snake-like hiss of rattles and the beating of tom-toms could be heard.  John Paul II himself was actually the recipient of a pagan “purification” ritual which a woman performed.

 

 

We would also point out that one should not refer to what’s occurring at a Novus Ordo church as adoration or to the piece of bread they are worshipping as the Blessed Sacrament, since the New Mass is not valid and Our Lord is not present there.

 

Heresy of the Week

 

MHFM: This week’s Heresy of the Week will be posted on Tuesday, Sept. 11.  If you missed last week's, it’s a pretty bad one from Benedict XVI on Buddhism.

 

Like a veil is being lifted

 

Hello

Thank you so much for your website! You mention a book that explains the basic catechism. Which one is that?  I went to CCD in the late 80's and it was pretty liberal. I don't want to attend the New Mass because, not only now I am realizing it's wrong, but because it always seemed so Protestant to me. My older relatives (born in the 1920's) always said there were so many things wrong after Vatican II. It was so strange for them to adjust. What is the position on these people who are older and still go to the New Mass every Sunday? Will they be allowed into heaven, because they just don't know.

Also, do you post a list of valid places to go to Confession or Mass? Do you know of any in Evansville, IN or Owensboro, KY?

Thank you so much. I have a lot to learn. It's like the veil is being lifted from my eyes.

God bless!
Elizabeth

 

MHFM: We’re really glad you came across the information, Elizabeth.  The catechism we sell for $5.00 is a basic catechism.  The package we'd recommend if you're familiar with the basics of the Catholic faith is: our 6 DVD special for $10.00, which includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books, an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.).

 

Regarding your question about where to go to receive sacraments, if you called us here at 1-800-275-1126 we'd be happy to answer your question about that. What you said about CCD in the Vatican II "Church" (i.e. that it was Protestant) is very interesting.  We've heard so many similar stories from other people.  It’s very important to note because what goes on at the parish level really drives home that the Vatican II "Church" is not the Catholic Church, but a heretical counterfeit constructed for the last days. 

 

Regarding your question about the older people in the Novus Ordo, they are being given invalid sacraments and being taught a religion of religious indifferentism.  It's a matter of salvation for them to find out about the traditional faith and get out of the New Mass.  The new religion and the New Mass kill souls.

 

Your comment about it’s “like a veil is being lifted” is very similar to what we’ve heard from many others.  When people begin to recognize what has gone on and the truth of the traditional catholic faith, and how what’s being offered at the parishes is not the traditional faith, they then are able to put their finger on the emptiness and the problems which they perceived at those parishes before but couldn’t precisely identify.  It all makes sense to them that this Vatican II “Church” is the counterfeit sect predicted to arise in the last days to lead people astray.

 

More on Popular Music

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I totally agree with your analysis of rock-style music.  Although many people seem to think that "lite rock" or "easy listening" music is harmless, in a way it is the most dangerous of all because what it does, as you mentioned briefly, is deify human love.  They go on and on about perfect love, everlasting love, true love, even "heaven is a place on earth."  The quotations could be endless, but it all ends with attempting to pass as divine what is simply human love at best, or mostly, actually, human lust.  Anyway, I'm glad you brought this up.  It is a bad habit to be addicted to -- listening to this "safe" music, and I think the spiritual detriments are much graver than most realize.  It is making man into god, and leaving no room for the One True God.

 

Sincerely,

Bruce

 

Watching

 

Hi, my name is Juan and im from Texas. For this past week i have'nt been able stop watching the videos in which brother Michael Daimond explains salvation and everything esle. I want to be saved and i need spiritual
guidance…

 

Juan

 

New Audio: 2 Cor., Gal, etc. through James totally refutes the Protestant view of Justification

 

[New Audio]

The places in 2 Cor., Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Tim., Hebrews and James in the Protestant Bible which refute the Protestant view of Justification by faith alone [37 minute audio by Bro. Peter Dimond] * see how the Bible devastates Protestantism – a must listen!  It also responds to and explains key verses from Ephesians and Galatians which Protestants like to quote and how they have misunderstood them.

 

The evidence cannot be denied.   Many passages are covered in this audio, including crucial points regarding a verse in Ephesians which (to our knowledge) have not been emphasized before.  One should spread the link to Protestant acquaintances.  This has been added to our: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy". 

 

Comment on Prot

 

I posted the link to your refuting Protestantism radio program on myspace so everyone that is on my list will be able to access it, hopefully it gets passed around. I just thought I would mention before I became involved with the occult I was a protestant and one of the reasons I thought it was that Christianity was a joke was because of justification through faith alone. There was one particular time when my youth pastor was talking about  following the Ten Commandments and I asked him why it was necessary to follow them if we were just going to heaven anyway. He said that we had to follow them because God wanted us to. Then I asked if my faith wasn't enough to get into heaven. Then ,of course, he said it was. When I pointed out the contradiction he told me that I was asking too many questions.

 

God Bless You,

 

Misty

 

Refuting Protestantism

 

MHFM: We have expanded (and will continue to greatly expand) our Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" page.  You can now listen to an audio discussion of 1 Corinthians and how it refutes Protestantism as a separate (and short) audio file.  (We will be adding many others relating to Protestantism soon.) You can spread the link to your Protestant acquaintances.  We hope that these discussions will be well circulated and effective because people generally don’t like to spend much time.  This discussion of 1 Corinthians is short (only 10 minutes), to the point and uses the Protestant Bible.

 

Audio Programs: (more on other books of the Bible and other issues relating to Protestantism coming soon)

Radio discussion of the places in 1 Corinthians of the Protestant Bible which refute Protestantism and especially Justification by faith alone [10 minute audio] * non-Catholics should take the 10 minutes and listen

 

Exorcism

 

Greetings:

I recently reviewed your website.  I don't know if it is true or not, although I agree with you about Post Vatican II Catholicism.  I just don't know if what you say about Pre Vatican II is true.

I do know that I need an exorcism, as I have been tormented by demons for about 10 years.  Can you help me?

P S

 

MHFM: We believe your problem could be solved without an exorcism.  First, get out of mortal sin, if you are committing it.  Second, be convinced and accept the fullness of the traditional Catholic Faith.  The profession of faith from the Council of Trent is also something you should make once you are convinced of the material on our site.  The comments in your e-mail show that you are not yet aware of the traditional Catholic faith (the one true faith).  Pray the 15 decade rosary every day.  When you are at the point of doing this consistently and convinced of at least the basics of the traditional Catholic faith and what’s going on today, make a good confession of all past mortal sins to a priest ordained in the traditional rite of ordination.  If you do all those things, then we believe your problem can be solved without an exorcism.  But you need to have the true faith completely to be freed from the Devil's grip; that's why you need to research the material on our site which presents the traditional teachings of the Church and what’s going on today.

 

Popular Music

 

Hello, just wanted to let you know that I love the videos that you made. They're very informative. I watched the Abortion, Rock music, and Freemasonry exposed one tonight. It was very good, but a couple things that bothered me was the way that you stereotyped rock music, and totally bashed one of God's greatest plant's and compared it to satanism. It's obvious that you've done your homework on alot of things, but obviously not rock music and marijuana. Marijuana has a ten thousand year medical history and is used to make all types of things like clothing and paper for example. And I noticed that you only mentioned the occult rock musicians, and left out alot of the positive ones like Chris Cornell, Zach De La Rocha, KRS-One, Tupac Shakur, Jim Morrison, John Lennon, Johnny Cash and other's who are trying and did try to spread Peace and Love through their music and art. It's those kinds of statement's that spread negative energy and hate to good men and women like you who are only trying to make this world a better place the only way they know how to do it. Although I believe that everyone has the right to their own beliefs, I thought it strange that you are spreading hate through your word's when you claim to be a minister of God. To say that all rock musicians are satanist's is the same thing as saying all of you minister's are satanist's just like the Pope. That is clearly not true, as is the case with rock music. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I sincerely hope you take what I've said into consideration and expand your mind so as to spread love to everyone. Thank you, hope you have a great day.
 
Peace and Love 

 

C

 

MHFM: Smoking marijuana for recreational purposes is a mortal sin, just like getting drunk is.  The point was that Satan wants people to smoke marijuana because when they get into it he’s got them in mortal sin and often locked there.  That’s why they very often become zombie like, or more apathetic about their responsibilities, or even moved into harder core drugs. 

 

Regarding your other comment, there are no positive rock musicians.  As musical experts could explain, rock music is inherently disordered.  Among the ones you mentioned as “positive,” you included Jim Morrison, John Lennon (of the Beatles) and Tupac Shakur.  You really need to obtain this video on rock and other popular music.  It’s excellent.  It’s 3 and ˝ hours and it covers some of these very names you mentioned who you think were “positive” and shows how they were also involved in the occult.  It shows how they are all guided by the Devil.  The “peace” and “love” you mentioned is a false peace and love about the universal brotherhood of man to be held in this life, regardless of religion and moral values.  This is an anti-gospel which attacks the necessity to accept the true faith of God and deceives men who are on the road to spiritual death because they are without the true faith and the worship of the true God.

 

You mentioned John Lennon as “positive.”  He convinced the masses to “imagine there’s no Heaven” – that is, imagine there’s no God.  That’s totally evil.  If you cannot see the evil of that then you are spiritually blind.  Tupac was a rapper and, although we’re not familiar with his lyrics, we would find it shocking if he didn’t promote violence, fornication, impurity – mortal sins.  Such persons are the spiritual slime of the Earth, wallowing in mortal sin after mortal sin and corrupting the youth with such evil.  You really need to get that tape; it was done by a man who was deeply involved in this music and saw that the music was simply being given to him from a spiritual source (i.e. demons). 

 

1 John 5:19- “… the whole world is seated in wickedness.”

 

The fact of the matter is that almost all of the music that would be played on mainstream popular music stations today is not something a person should listen to.  Most of it is inspired by the Devil to mezmorize people with thoughts of this life, to shut them off from aspirations for the supernatural, to capture them in worldly pleasures.  Even something like country music, which some might consider innocuous, is not.  It’s worldly, sensual and ingrains upon a person a sensual (and often mortally sinful) way of looking at life.  This music often preaches the idolization of human beings through the worship of one’s spouse or “partner.”  It’s bad stuff, and if people listen to this music they are closing off graces for themselves and being moved away from God.  People absolutely should not listen to it.

 

Debate

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I recently had the opportunity to sit back and listen to your debate with William Golle about the Sedevacantist position from your archived radio shows.  I listened to all 3 hours of the debate last week but reserved judgment on a few things until now.  You guys hit Mr. Golle hard with facts for which he readily admitted he did not have answers, but that he would be glad to debate again if you would pick 5 of your best heresies and give him time to prepare.  I didn't hear you say whether you accepted his challenge, but regardless, what strikes me the most about the entire debate is this: Mr. Golle's entire case rests on one thing: His disbelief that such a thing could ever happen.  He lacked thoughtful refutes and evidence, but pounded away at the incredulousness that this could in fact be the case.  That's it! That's all he had for the most part.  Sedevacantism can not be true because such a crisis has never happened before to this extent and he can't humanly see how we could get out of this mess. That was his entire argument.  Wow!!  So I'd like to ask him if he believes that Jesus actually resurrected from the dead, or if saints and mystics have carried the stigmata or if Moses parted the Red Sea.  You see, just because we humans don't understand something does not make it untrue.  The entire Catholic faith is based on things that are mortally impossible.  There are many things we simply don't know the answer to but he would be wise to concentrate on what we do know and worry about figuring the rest out later: this church is not The Catholic Church and hasn't been since day 1 of it's commencement.  This debate kind of reminded me of 9-11.  Depite mounds of blatant, irrefutable evidence that the official story of 9-11 is complete hogwash, stubborn and foolish people refuse to believe it, but instead focus on the questions that are still unanswered such as what exactly happened to the passengers on the planes etc.  As soon as someone can't tell them exactly what happened to the passengers, they claim that the official story must be true.  Same here with the sedevacantist position.  The overwhelming evidence that this church is counterfeit is clear as day once you begin to objectively look.  I argue that that is all we need to know at this time.  Get the heck out of that false church immediately, convert to the true faith, and let God worry about how God is going to deliver us out of this chastisement.   The longer these stubborn and prideful people such as Golle defend the Homo Ordo Church, the longer God may see fit to keep us in the dark. 

 

JP (Buffalo)

 

MHFM: We agree with your points.  Mr. Golle called us just a few days ago, by the way.  He admitted that we won the debate, but he’s as hardened as ever in his heretical positions.  Unfortunately, one must say that he’s of outrageous bad will.  We might debate him again, but the question is whether we want to cover similar issues with the same person.  The facts and arguments covered in the first debate, which no defender of the validity of the Vatican II antipopes can answer, really speak for themselves.  But we might debate him on a different issue.  We’ll see what happens.  We’re also working on something more in-depth against Protestantism.  If you haven’t heard the debate, you can go here to listen to the debate.

 

New John Paul II photos

 

Here’s a new file with some very interesting new photos of John Paul II:

 

New John Paul II Photos

 

Antipope John Paul II taking active part in a pagan ritual!

 

 

This is a photo of John Paul II being "blessed" in a pagan American Indian ritual in 1987.  We had a picture of this in our book: The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.   However, this particular angle shows something different: it shows that John Paul II was bowing his head in order to receive and participate in the pagan ritual!  This is an absolute act of apostasy.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

 

Who would be so blind to deny that John Paul II was a non-Catholic heretic and therefore an antipope?

 

Package

 

Greetings Good Brothers,

 

Just a note to let you know that I received the package I ordered from you and that I send you my compliments, for whatever they're worth.  You really have left no stone unturned in researching and compiling your books and video representations. Thanks be to God!   Oh, but...well...some of it is kinda hard to face.  Not hard to believe, just sad to see… I will send another order in some time this week...I hope to distribute some of the books, esp. the one on No Salvation Outside the Church... Both books tell the truth and the DVDs are great….

  

SA

 

To do?

 

Hello,

I have seen a few of your video postings. I found them interesting. So tell me, hearing all of what you posted, whats a person suppose to    do to become a valid Catholic?

I am in Louisville, KY. This is a very Catholic town. Lots of  Churches. (And it had a lot of sexual abuse problems here as well).   And its all Vatican related. What is your advise for people that need to do what you have said, but have no avenue?

Thanks,
Rob

 

MHFM: We have a section on our website explaining what people are to do who are converting to the Catholic Faith from Protestantism, etc. or who are coming out of the New Mass and the Vatican II “Church.”  We would also recommend that you call us and we can help you with more specific questions about possible options for the sacraments in your area.

 

New John XXIII photos

 

Here’s a new file with some interesting new photos of Antipope John XXIII:

 

New John XXIII Photos

 

Antipope John XXIII was the first claimant to the Papacy to welcome a Shinto High-Priest to the Vatican

 

 

B-16 not a pope - when will they get it?

 

Dear MHFM

 

I was just reading over the list of praises of Benedict XVI for pagans and now the Chinese (in China).  If this "pope" and his Vatican II predecessors lived in Stalin's time, is there any doubt that they would visit Russia and heap praise and respect upon them while people were being massacred by the millions and  sent to the Siberian Salt mines.  In China they tortured our Catholic missionaries and put people's heads upon poles as examples to others.  Their tanks ran over their own people in Tianmen Square, and, oh, yes, forced abortions.    And yet  this so-called Pope praises China.  When are we going to get it?  Satan is laughing his head off as these “popes” carry on their Communist antics for loyal  "Catholics". 

 

The cousin I emailed Benedict's quotes to has not replied yet.  Nor has the sister in law who was so sure she could find fault with your web site.  This was several months ago.  I think she ran into the brick wall of truth. 

 

PM

 

Insult

 

… I've read the excellently researched PDF you produced, in which you argue convincingly and dispassionately, and demonstrate beyond doubt, the heretical posistion of this antipope.  What an insult he is to all those Catholics in Ireland who risked death and suffered economic humiliation for 400 years rather than convert to protestantism!  Worse still, they now believe him to be a traditionalist zealot rather than an apostate.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

MHFM: Good point: it’s when one considers the sacrifices made by Catholics in so many different circumstances in history not to become heretics or schismatics or apostates that the true evil, malice, sin and heresy at the heart of the actions and teachings of the Vatican II antipopes come through.  Their actions completely mock and declare worthless all the sacrifices and hardships suffered by those Catholics because they would not compromise the faith.  That demonstrates why Antipope Benedict XVI and the Vatican II sect are so evil, and why those who obstinately defend them are so evil.

 

B-16 video

 

Hello,

I have been watching… your video entitled "the amazing heresies of B XVI. It's excellent! Congratulations for such a brillant work. I would like to show it to a friend…

 

Thank you for your time.
God speed,
Delphine


PS/ Do you know any valid priest who celebrates the Holy Mass in Ireland (I mean non in union with papa Ratzi?)

 

MHFM: Thanks for the interest and the words of support.  Unfortunately, we don’t know of priests in Ireland who are not in communion with Antipope Benedict XVI.

 

“Orthodoxy”

 

May peace be with you.

I was reading your article that argued against Eastern Orthodoxy. Your argument to their illogic: It seems a simple answer that knowing the difference between a valid or a robber council seems to be inline with determining if a council is heretical or not. However, does this not exactly parallel to the argument of finding a pope a heretic or not?

May God bless you.
Holy Mary protect you.
-Christopher

 

MHFM: No, one can consistently and logically show that the Vatican II antipopes are heretics (and therefore never assumed the papal office) because their teaching notoriously contradicts the past dogmatic teachings of the popes.

 

Now, how do the “Orthodox” distinguish between the valid and binding councils and (false) robber councils?  Ask them, and you will receive no specific answer.  You will hear: “because the Church accepted these councils.”  And when you say: “Specifically, how do you know that the Church accepted those councils,” you will again receive no answer.  This is because there is no consistent answer for them to give.  All bishops are equal, according to them; but there have been many councils at which many bishops were present and issued decrees that are heretical.  So, why did the Church not speak at those councils but did speak at the ones they accept?  They have no response.  That’s why there must be (and is) an office of supreme bishop (the Bishop of Rome).

 

HenceeHence, , as Catholics we have a consistent and logical set of criteria by which we can know and show that something is heretical and that a person is a heretic.  In the case of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” however, since they recognize no supreme bishop, they have no consistent and logical set of criteria by which they can distinguish a binding and infallible council from a false and heretical one.  At most, they could say that they accept a particular council because its teaching is in accord with their personal interpretation of Scripture and fathers of the Church.  Hence, it is nothing more than an earlier version of Protestantism.  Every man decides for himself, with no real Church having real authority which exists from Christ.  They cannot, by any means, say that they can consistently believe or prove that the first seven councils are infallible and dogmatic.  Their claim in this regard is empty, false and illogical.  (Here’s the letter to which he refers, by the way: A letter refuting Eastern Orthodoxy.)

 

Register

 

Dear editor am Fr. Dr. Deogratias Ssonko professor of Liturgical science in many theological seminaries here in Uganda and regular presenter on Radio Maria.

 

Kindly register me for your publications

 

Thanks

 

Fr. Dr. Deogratias

 

MHFM: We’re really glad to hear about your interest.  The newest information is on the website or can be ordered from us.  We hope you look into it.  We strongly recommend viewing our DVDs and obtaining our books.  We really hope you continue to look at the information on the website, especially about the dogmas, the Vatican II “Church,” the New Mass, the invalid New Rite of Ordination, etc.

 

New Paul VI photos

 

Here’s a new file with some new photos of Antipope Paul VI.  There are some very interesting shots, including some new shots of him wearing the breastplate of the ephod:

 

New Paul VI Photos

 

Over the next few days we will be adding more interesting new photos of the other Vatican II antipopes.  These will include a very important one of Antipope John Paul II.

 

NJP

 

Dear Brother Dimond

The article on NJP was excellent and long overdue. I was one of the unfortunate few who read the article by Brian and Laura K… and was sold on NJP.  But thanks to you a ray of hope is visible. One of your statements has become my guide "Salvation of souls is the supreme law of the church" and I'm sure the church will never shut that door.

I have also cleared a misconception that Abp.Lefebevre was wrong in consecrating bishops without papal mandate.But the sad part is that these bishops have all professed and adhered to severe heresies and have laid to waste a good deed.

I would be grateful if you could clarify the difference between valid and invalid and licit and ilicit sacraments.  Please send me the specific prayers to St.Joseph

God Bless you and your work.  I remember you in prayer.

Jerome D'Souza
Goa - India

 

MHFM: We’re glad you found the material helpful.  For those who haven’t seen it, the article to which he refers is this:

 

Facts which Demolish the "No independent priest today has Jurisdiction" Position - Did St. Vincent Ferrer have jurisdiction? If you hold the position that "no independent priest today has jurisdiction," then your answer must be no. [pdf]

 

Regarding your question, a sacrament is valid if it takes place.  A sacrament is licit if it takes place lawfully.  The prayers to St. Joseph can be found here, and on our mainpage by going to one of the lower sections of our site called “Prayers to Powerful Saints.”

 

Something missing

 

Hello,

 

My name is Jim Keane and I live in Southeastern, Georgia. I have viewed some of your DVD's and read your literature. I agree with most of what you are conveying, some of the information I am still absorbing. I am old enought to be pre-vatican II and miss our older ways, which I consider the right ways of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. With that said I still attend mass every Sunday and most of the Holy days of obligation, but I always feel there is something missing?... 

 

Jim

 

MHFM: Jim, what’s missing is the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.  As our DVD and article on The New Mass  [PDF File] show, the New Mass is not valid since it lacks the words of consecration.  One must avoid it under pain of grave sin.  We hope you come to that realization.  The Vatican II “Church,” with its New Mass and new teachings, is not the Catholic Church, but the clever counterfeit created by the Devil as part of the predicted Great Apostasy.

 

Re-investigating

 

Dear Brothers Dimond:

 

I heard Br. Dimond on the Art Bell show and was very impressed with his unflinching presentation.  I haven't been a Catholic since I was a kid, but that presentation and your web site have me re-investigating Catholicism.  I have long suspected that the modern church does not believe in the message of Jesus Christ, but I had no hard evidence of this.

 

I would be astounded at the way many people dismiss the unassailable evidence presented on your site, but I'm now 42 and I've been well-schooled in the incredible ability most people have to dismiss facts they find distressing.

 

I will be ordering your book/cds package within a week…. Anyway, I think your work is excellent and look forward to your next radio show.

 

Frank

 

MHFM: We’re very glad to hear about your interest.  We hope you follow through with it and return to the true (traditional) Catholic faith.  We have been astounded as well by the bad will which is so prevalent.  But thankfully there are people out there of good will who care about the truth and are acting upon it.

 

Anti-Blessing?

 

Have you noticed that the picture of Jesus Christ on Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth has his left hand raised in a satanic blessing?  The original picture "Salvator Mundi" has the right hand raised in blessing, so they had to change it to have it as such on the cover.

Do you know if there is occultic connection with the palm of the hands raised (as in the back picture of the book), or the double arm, palms up, double rise that PaulVI, and JPII  are always seen doing in your films?  Is that something that Popes have always done.  Also, are you aware of the upside down cross blessing that both PaulVI, and JPII do in your films?  Do you know where this could be researched?  

 

Thank you.  Cordially, Mary

 

MHFM: We have definitely noticed that when the Vatican II antipopes “give blessings” (e.g. when present in front of large crowds) they make a very quick gesture which is supposed to be the sign of the cross but it is not.  It’s a quick movement of the hand, definitely not a complete sign of the cross.  It’s difficult to make out what it is: it could be an upside-down cross or something else sinister.

 

Difference?

 

Hi

 

I've seen some of your stuff on the Internet.  I think that you expose very well the incoherence of Vatican II.  In discussing the Novo Ordine Missae, however, I have an observation to make, of which you probably aware, but would be interested to know what you think.  I remember as a kid (late 60s) that the Creed in the English vernacular finished with "...and I LOOK FORWARD TO the resurrection of the dead", which was, in a further development, changed (and I don't know if this is just in the British Isles) to "...and I LOOK FOR the resurrection of the dead"

 

This seems a crucial difference to me.  In the Latin "ET EXPECTO RESURRECTIONEM MORTUORIS" I understand EXPECTO as "hope for/look forward to (hopefully)", but certainly not "LOOK FOR" (ie  "I am looking/searching for..")  It seems that this is an even further development to V2, which attacks the HEART of Pauline Christianity (no resurrection=no hope=no point).

 

What do you think?

 

Best regards,

Sean Nation

 

MHFM: Expecto or Exspecto means “I await” or “I long for.”  We don’t think that “I look for” is a significant difference.  But Ratzinger definitely attacks the reality of the Resurrection is his heretical book Introduction to Christianity, which we expose here: The Heresies of Benedict XVI  [PDF file]

 

Heretic

 

Dear Brothers,

 

Can you please provide a simple and concise definition for 'heretic?'  I don't believe Webster's dictionary quite grasps the meaning of such an individual, in today's modern age. I am trying to explain to a 'Born-again' couple, who have formed a missionary in Ecuador, that they are leading souls to Hell, regardless of their 'works.'  I quoted St. John 10:1 and St. Matthew 7:21-23, in a general message, on their blog. I also added a verbatim of Cantate Domino. 

 

My hope is to scare them into investigating their skewed interpretations of God's Word and their 'goofy' belief, that they are eternally saved, by merely 'inviting' Jesus into their heart.  In the mean time, I referred your website to them. 

 

Thanks!

 

L…

 

MHFM: Here’s a concise definition:

 

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, such a one is a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, such a one is an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

 

Mother Teresa’s darkness

 

Dear Brothers:
 
In the September 3, 2007 issue of Time Magazine  there are a few additional quotes from Mother Teresa's letters that are interesting.  I have not seen these quotes in other articles and I think online article at Time.com is also different.  Anyway, one of the quotes in the article has her saying ...that if she ever becomes a saint--she will be one of darkness and will be continually absent from heaven--she will be a light to those in darkness on earth.  A paragraph or so later she also has a statement that says she is willing to suffer for all eternity if it will be possible.  I am not sure what that related to--I don't have the article in front of me because I gave it to my mom to read.
 
I am sure her wishes to be saint of darkness, her continual absence from heaven and her eternity of suffering are being met as we speak.
 
Thank you and God Bless you.
 
Rene

 

MHFM: That’s very interesting.  Her message, which was to help men in their fleeting earthly existence while keeping them in their false religions and thus deprived of what they need for supernatural happiness, epitomized darkness and emptiness.

 

Tradition and Protestant heresies

 

Dear one,

Which do you accept, the Bible or the tradition when they are in contradiction?  Much tradition was formed when the Bible was forbidden and not taken into consideartion.  It seems to me that now that you are studying the Bible, you find that it leaves your tradition in shambles.

Wayne Searfoss

MHFM: The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that (Apostolic) Tradition and Scripture are the two sources of revelation.  The Bible itself teaches that you must accept Tradition (2 Thess 2:15-16; 2 Thess. 3:16).  Protestantism is ridiculous and so unbiblical.  One needs only to think deeply about the self-refuting doctrine of “scripture alone” (which is taught nowhere in the Bible but contradicted by it) and the outrageously absurd “justification by faith alone” (which is condemned as a heresy in James 2:24 and refuted by loads of other passages).  The fact that millions and millions follow this massive perversion of the Bible (i.e. Protestantism) is so demonstrative of the level of bad will in the world that it makes one want to yell out in righteous indignation to the followers of this perversion: how is it that you are following a religion which you claim is biblical, and yet your two core doctrines are clearly refuted by the plain words of the Bible?!  How do you think you will escape on the Day of Judgment?!!  The Bible not only refutes your two core doctrines, but clearly teaches the Papacy to anyone who is honest and can read (Mt. 16:18-20; Jn. 21:15-17), confession (Jn. 20:23), the necessity of baptism and baptismal regeneration (Jn. 3:5; 1 Peter 3:20-21; Acts 2:37-38), etc., etc.!  The Catholic Church is the only Church that’s been around for 2000 years!  Why would God leave a false Church as the one visible Church – the Church which brought the Gospel all over the world – especially when He said He wouldn’t allow the gates of Hell to prevail against it (Mt. 16:18)?!  He obviously wouldn’t!  It’s beyond stupid!  Wake up and save yourself from your damnable blindness!

Since the Church of Christ (the Catholic Church) and the Bible itself teach that Tradition is a source of divine revelation, Tradition obviously cannot contradict the Bible.  It was also the Church which told us which books make up the Bible.

St. Joseph

 

Brothers:

 

I understand if you do not want to get the middle of this, but if you could inform Timothy to turn to St. Joseph.

 

First though, Timothy must ask for WORK, not money!  I learned this the hard way.  God understands that we need money and  He always answers very promptly if you ask for WORK.

 

Only then should Timothy go to the great St. Joseph who will help him in all things financial and home life.  Like St. Teresa of Avila, I have found St. Joseph to be a wonderful source and a prompt helper whenever I have needed work to support myself.  And being a self-employed transcriptionist, I have had to turn to St. Joseph many, many times.  He never fails.

 

Many thanks for all your Website and radio programs,

Deidre Howard

 

Judge?

 

10NewOrdination.pdf, page three of 8

 

[MHFM writes]: “…there is not one mandatory prayer in the new rite of ordination itself which makes clear that the essence of the Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and that the sacrament imparts a character which differentiates a priest not simply in degree but in…

 

By whose authority was the gift of judgment -- which Jesus repudiated in his teachings -- "Judge NOT, for with the judgment you judge, you will be judged!" -- given to ANY human being, nee "Christian" ?

 

By what sovereign right does any member of ANY church presume to have the power to judge others?  I just want to know, that's all.  WHO SAID SO?  Can you answer?

 

Thanks be to God.

Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg

 

MHFM: We’re not sure exactly what your question is.  If you are saying that to adhere to, defend and proclaim the facts and truths of the Catholic Faith – and the conclusions necessarily flowing from those facts and truths – is to violate Jesus’s admonition to “judge not” (Mt. 7:1), then you are gravely mistaken.  We mentioned on our last radio program that Matthew 7:1 is about the only scripture certain liberals memorize.  They make sure to memorize it in order to justify their own evil deeds, as well as those of others.  However, contrary to what they think, Jesus is condemning unjustified judgments and hypocritical judgments.  That’s why He proceeds (as recorded in the very same chapter) to explain that a man must remove the log out of his own eye before he tries to help remove it from his brother’s (Mt. 7:4-5).  In other words, His statement is directed against hypocritical and unjustified judgments.  The Bible itself is clear that one must judge.

 

1 Corinthians 6:1-5: “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust, and not before the saints?  Know you not that the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?  Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things of this world?  If therefore you have judgments of things pertaining to this world, set them to judge, who are the most despised in the church.  I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not among you any one wise man, that is able to judge between his brethren?”

 

Men should be judged by their actions.  Heretics should be judged and denounced because of their actions.

 

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 30, concerning judging those who are heretics, including one who claims to be pope: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

 

Take St. Polycarp’s conduct (who certainly had the Apostolic Faith) as an example.

 

St. Ireneaus, Against Heresies: “Once he [St. Polycarp] was met by Marcion, who said to him, ‘Do you recognize me?’ and Polycarp replied, ‘I recognize you as the firstborn of Satan!’” (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:212)

 

Since St. Polycarp had the true faith, he recognized that a person such as Marcion (who demonstrated an obstinate rejection of the truth) was of bad will and of Satan.  St. Polycarp (A.D. 70-156), by the way, knew the Apostle John himself. 

 

Turned around

 

Dear brothers;

 

… I was just writing to let you all know how much your web site and material has done for me. It has literally turned my life around in all aspects, especially my relationship with God. We have not attended the novus ordo in over three years, going nowhere for Mass at all for almost a year. ( I had a run in with a couple of priests over things going on in the “church” today)…. I just wanted to let you and anyone know how thankful I am that God led me to your web site ( it was purely by accident)… and thank you for all the extra stuff you send when I do order!!...                             

 

     Thank you and God bless you all and your monastery

           Stu Ingraham, Darby Montana

 

Reading

 

Dear Brothers: I have been reading your books and watching the DVDS. I have not been to mass more than half a dozen times since 1969.  It seems like I lost my faith around that time, but I was only 20 years old and the sexual drug revelution was going on and like a lot of people my age I dove right into it. But that aside being much older looking back it seems not only did I leave the church but the church left me first.Going to the NEW MASS just left me flat. I went to catholic school 1st through 6th grade and was an alter boy in the traditional church. Their was no sexual molestation in those days. It was unheard of.  Anyway I'm 57 years old and have alot of atoning to do. Whare can I find a traditional catholic church? I need confession I live in southern michigan in Niles near South Bend IN, home of Notre Dame. Can you help me.  Thank you.

 

p…

 

MHFM: We're glad that you are reading the material.  One must stop going to the New Mass, if one hasn't already.  Pray the Rosary each day, all 15 decades if possible.  There’s a section on our website dealing with steps that should be taken by those who are converting or returning to the Church or leaving the Novus Ordo.  Call us about the sacraments question.

 

Novena

 

Hello Brothers,

 

I would just like to say thank you for standing up for the truth, when so few will do so.  These are very trialing times that we live in, and without the proper thoughts in mind one could be very discouraged and confused. Its very sad to see many that are blinded by the B.O.D controversy.I tried to help a few people in regards to what the Catholic church teaches (Pope Eugene IV etc ..)  but then they get upset and walk away, or just throw accusations of being a Fenny-nite....or stay away from that..To me, the Catholic church has always taught that "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church",

 

I would like to know if you could help me out on a special request? Firstly,what is a good novena for financial help? I started reciting Our Mother of Perpetual novena by St. Alphonious on Sunday, after my rosary.  Of course i will except whatever is given to me by Gods holy will.  My request is for my financial situation which is very dim at the moment, if i could trouble you to keep me in your prayers as well.

 

God bless you

Thank you

Timothy

 

MHFM: On our website we have some prayers to numerous powerful saints.  That section is called “Prayers to powerful saints.”  We would recommend those; but if there is a saint or two or three that you have a special devotion to then that would be a great idea as well.

 

Canon Law

 

Subject: Request for clarification on your NJP article and my confusion with Dogma and Canon: what's the difference and how can I know it?

 

Dear Brother Peter and Brother Michael,

 

When I first read the new NJP article I was very pleased because I found it to be consistent with your very excellent work; yet, at the same time, I also sensed I might be missing something important.  Thus, I ask you to clarify something for me:  What is the real difference between Dogma and Canon—because, from the NJP article, I now sense there may be a difference.

 

From your web site in the section “Regarding the Interpretation of Dogma” you state the following, from which I concluded that Canon was a reiteration of Dogma:

 

The word “canon" (in Greek: kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure.  The Council of Trent is infallibly declaring that its canons are measuring rods for “all” so that they, making use of these rules of Faith (the meaning of the word “canon”), may be able to recognize and defend the truth in the midst of darkness!  This very important statement blows away the claim of those who say that using dogmas to prove points is “private interpretation.”  This canon teaches exactly the opposite of what they assert: that all cannot make use of these rules of Faith!  This is a very important statement not only for the salvation/baptism controversy, but also for the sedevacantist issue.

 

The point of the dogmas is so that the faithful know what they must believe and reject, so that they are independent of the mere opinions of men, and are following the infallible truth of Christ.  If the faithful have to rely to someone else giving their version or understanding of the dogmatic definition, then that (fallible) person becomes the rule of faith, and not the infallible dogmatic definition.

 

From the Catholic Dictionary… I find the following definition for Canon—I bolded the segment that caused me to agree with your points indented above:

 

An established rule for guidance, a standard, or a list of such rules: 1. in biblical usage the catalogue of inspired writings known as the Old and New Testaments, identified as such by the Church; 2. in ecclesiastical usage, a short definition of some dogmatic truth, with attached anathema, made as a rule by general councils; 3. the Eucharistic Prayer, which is the essential part of the Sacrifice of the Mass. In religious life, certain orders of men with specific duties often attached to a particular church, shrine, or ecclesiastical function; 4. in music a composition that repeats the same melody by one or more voices in turn, producing harmony; 5. in printing a size type, namely 4 line pica 48 point, used in printing church books or the Canon of the Mass; 6. catalogue of canonized saints; 7. rules of certain religious orders and the books that comprise them; 8. in art and architecture the established rule, which is periodically specified in ecclesiastical matters by Church directives or legislation; 9. a member of the clergy attached to a cathedral or other large church, with specific duties such as the choral recitation of the Divine Office. (Etym. Latin canon, rule, standard of conduct; summary, record; from Greek kan_n, rod, rule.)

 

From your NJP article you state:

 

- YOU MAKE SOME GOOD POINTS ABOUT CHURCH LAWS, THEY WILL SAY, BUT DOES THIS

PRINCIPLE APPLY TO CASES OF JURISDICTION FOR CONFESSIONS?

● A pope is above canon law, further illustrating that canon laws or ecclesiastical laws can be

changed and can cease to apply in a necessity

● Two other examples of papal laws which were authoritatively promulgated and were overturned

 

What is the real difference between Dogma and Canon and how can I tell when they are not one and the same?  I humbly request clarification on this because I do genuinely respect and trust what you write—and I look forward to each and every new web site posting.  With many thanks and much respect,

 

Gregg

 

MHFM:  Thanks for the question.  When one refers to “canon law,” that refers to the governmental laws of the Church: Church disciplines, etc.  Those can be changed.  That’s why we see Pope Benedict XIV saying this:

 

Pope Benedict XIV, Magnae Nobis (#9), June 29, 1748: “The Roman Pontiff is above canon law, but any bishop is inferior to that law and consequently cannot modify it.” 

 

Archbishop Cicognani – a professor of canon law at The Pontifical Institute of Canon and Civil Law in Rome before Vatican II – explained it the same way: “Canon law may be defined as ‘the body of laws made by the lawful ecclesiastical authority for the government of the Church.’”[28]

 

But when we are talking about canons from dogmatic councils which deal with faith or morals – and the quotation you gave from our book was in reference such canons on FAITH OR MORALS – we are talking about unchangeable teachings of faith or morals.  So the important distinction involves whether a canon from a dogmatic council deals with something disciplinary in nature (i.e. something pertaining to the Church’s governance) or whether it deals with faith or morals.  If it’s the former, even if it’s from an ecumenical council (e.g. Trent, Florence, etc.), it can be changed and might cease to apply in certain situations or necessities.  If it’s the latter, it cannot be changed and has no exceptions because it’s an infallible and unchangeable truth of faith or morals which must be accepted under pain of anathema.  (We’re speaking here of canons promulgated at an ecumenical council.)

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:

“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.” (Denz. 1839)

 

Heretics

 

Hi, do you have a list of statements from popes and saints showing that heretics cannot be Catholic? Also, are there any ex-cathedra pronouncements saying this? Please e-mail me what you have. Thank you. I agree with you that Benedict, John Paul and Paul the 6th are heretics. I think your arguments are air tight. They are clearly heretics. They have been established by Antichrist in order to destroy the Catholic Church. The pseudo-patriarchs of Orthodoxy have also been established by Antichrist. The devil wants to work from the top and go down from there. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are being hijacked by Satanists. Antichrist is in the process of creating a pseudo-Christianity with false bishops. Rome and the corrupt Freemasonic patriarchs of the Eastern Church will eventually unite to create a "new" and completely false Christian Church. Most, if not all, of the dogmatic and orthodox teachings of historic Christianity will be denied. This "new religion" will have more in common with the New Age movement. The "charismatic movement" is also the work of the devil. It came out of the pentecostal movement of heretical protestant evangelicals. Antichrist is creating a false hierarchy, a false spirit, a false Christ, and a false liturgy (see 2Cor.11). The recent union between the Communist Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church abroad, is just the beginning of the absorption process and the creation of the Whore of Babylon where Antichrist will sit as absolute leader. I appreciate your stance. I think we are approaching the time where the truth faithful will be found in traditional remnants groups.

 

Evfimy

 

MHFM:  This file covers the dogmatic teaching that heretics are outside the Church: The Catholic Teaching that a heretic cannot be a valid pope [PDF file].  If you haven’t gotten it already, we also strongly encourage you to get our 6 DVD Special (also includes 2 new books) for an amazing price of only $10.00  This special includes our newest book The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, the DVDs and more.

 

China

 

Hello,

Can you advise when a MHFM commentary will be on your website about Pope BXVI's Letter to Catholics in China recently released by the Vatican? Also, I have searched for a comment from the SSPX about how it reflects on their own situation and cannot find any responses, as yet. Have you heard?

Thank you,
Marta K.

 

MHFM: In case some people missed it, it’s covered in the Heresy of the Week for this week.  We’ve been a little late on the Heresy of the Week in the past few weeks.  You don’t want to miss this one.  It’s truly outrageous.  For those with eyes to see it’s more proof that Benedict XVI is totally evil and probably a satanist or a member of the occult.

 

Liked article

 

Loved your article on the White vs. Hitchens interview.  I actually heard some of that debate live on the way home from work one night last week.  I had that feeling that I often have of wanting to jump through the radio to grab and shake Mr. White (a feeling I often have when listening to the radio or watching talk shows).  The liberals I am used to; it is the people who are supposed to be conservative that are more infuriating.

 

I agree that Hitchens is less dangerous, as he at least seems to properly understand Catholic dogma.  He rejects it outright, but does not misrepresent it.  I think it is much worse when people who can present themselves as Catholics and as experts misrepresent the faith in that they are much more likely to damage and confuse the faithful than are the rantings of one who honestly calls himself an atheist.  Using Dante as his authority!!  I had the same reaction, like, hey are you joking?  Is this some kind of a parody?  Unfortunately the guy is “serious”.

 

It is an interesting insight on your part that Hitchens seems sex obsessed.  It is I think the stumbling block of most in a popular culture that is so saturated with sex and no longer holds any behavior as wicked.  Rather it is considered wacky (actually “hateful” or “judgmental”) today to defend morality…

Bill Mulligan

 

MHFM:  We’re glad you liked the article.  It was such an awful and revealing heresy that a more detailed analysis was necessary.  To your point, there is no doubt about it that the sins of the flesh are the biggest stumbling block for most people.  Those are the sins which put most in Hell and keep most outside the Church.  Almost the whole world is presently obsessed with, and saturating itself in, this mortal sin.  It’s why comparatively few people have interest in the things of God and the true faith.  Even in Our Lady of Fatima’s time, Jacinta came to know that, according to Our Lady, most souls go to Hell for the sins of the flesh.  Can you imagine what she would say today?  That’s also a reason why Protestantism is so popular.  Protestantism allows people to remain in their sins of the flesh, whether of thought or of deed, even though wicked Protestant ministers (in the manner of evolutionists) will use every kind of distortion possible to assert that they don’t believe such.

 

Interview and New Article regarding the Heresy of David Allen White

 

MHFM: This article concerns a very interesting recent radio program on which David White was a guest.  It analyzes and refutes an outrageous utterance of heresy, and provides a link to the program:

 

David Allen White's revealing and heretical encounter with an Atheist on a radio program  

 

See how a supposed “traditional Catholic,” who has been prominently promoted by various “traditional” groups, uses false ideas on salvation and “invincible ignorance” to justify outrageous heresy and evil.

 

Where?

 

If Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are, according to you, both heretics where does the true Catholic Church subsist?

The Rev Richard Budgen

 

MHFM: The Catholic Church exists and is visible in those Catholics who maintain all the teachings of the Church without compromise.  This is true even though such true Catholics have been reduced to a remnant in our day.  It’s similar to the Arian crisis in the 4th century, when Arian heretics got control of most of the buildings and the true Church was visible only with the remnant.

 

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Coll. Selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum. Caillu and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp. 411-412.)

 

St. Gregory Nazianz (+380), Against the Arians: “Where are they who revile us for our poverty and pride themselves in their riches?  They who define the Church by numbers and scorn the little flock?” (William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 33.)

 

Here’s a question for you.  Since the Papacy is the principle of unity in the Church, as the Church teaches – which means that those who reject the teachings of the Papacy are not in union with the Church – do you not agree that Benedict XVI is not in union with the Church because he publicly declares that leading schismatics who reject the Papacy are in the Church?

 

New video posted

 

A new video called Current Freemasonic Enemies of America and the World has been posted.  You can watch it here: WATCH OUR DVDS/VIDEOS ONLINE FOR FREE.  It’s about ľ of the way down the page.

 

Head Coverings

 

Why did women cover their heads to enter the Church and when going to Mass?

 

Nano…

 

MHFM: The reason can be found in 1 Corinthians:

 

1 Corinthians 11:5,10- “…every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven… Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.”

 

Note: - “‘A power"... that is, a veil or covering… and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.”

 

New Convert

 

Subj: I have converted…and I thank you!!!

 

Dear Brothers:

My name is Joseph Myers.  I am a new convert.  I was baptised on the 7th of August, 2007. I appreciate your material so much.  I have been truly changed because of the truths of the Catholic Faith, and, because of the books and material that you have compiled.  That later simply points to The Catholic Faith, so, thanks for the books, but even more heartily, thanks for bringing out and un-eclipsing the True Faith!!!

I first became familiar with your stuff on Coast to Coast.  I heard both programs.  At the time I was in a protestant sect that believed in this current great tribulation.  I was spending a lot of time in the king james bible and in the original languages therein.  I was doing this on my own, being already convinced that the world was in a terrible time.

I called in late June of 2007.  I was immediately sent your material.  I started praying the 15 decade Rosary.  I purchased a Bible (with the other 7 books
that were suppossedly added) in July along with a catechism and another book.  I immediately got more aquainted with The Catholic Faith.

Thanks for everything!!!  From a now...not so lost
Californian,

Joseph George Myers

 

Religious Orders?

 

Dear Bros Dimond,

 

In the message of Our Lady of La Salette, one part which states, "They will blind them in such a way, that , unless they are blessed with a special gace, these people will take on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious institutions will lose all faith and will lose many souls… Rome will lose the faith, and become the seat of the Antichrist… The church will be in eclipse….!

 

My question is in the part of "several religious institutions"…. When we see the word "several", this would indicated that, many or most, would lose the Faith but also means that some would not lose the Faith.   In todays world or the world of the Traditional movement, can you pick out, or name any particular religious group or institution that is among the few , who have not lost the true Faith ?

 

My second question which somewhat follows the above train of thought, is, if there are those few  groups or institutions out there who have not lost the Faith, where are they getting the authority to absolve sin, without Ordinary supplied Jurisdiction. ??

 

Will await you reply

 

Prayfully

f. l.

 

MHFM: We can tell you that our order has not lost the faith.  Regarding the jurisdiction issue, that’s what the article we recently posted on Jurisdiction [pdf] addresses.  Jurisdiction is supplied to independent priests for the salvation of souls.  That supplied jurisdiction is distinct from ordinary jurisdiction, and it is also distinct from the fact that many of these priests (who profess to be in union with the Papacy, unlike the “Orthodox”) do hold heretical positions.  The jurisdiction is not supplied to them for them but for the souls it can benefit.

 

To do?

 

Hello,

My question is pretty straight forward.  What is one to do?  Additionally, I would be lying if I said that current priests and Pope John Paul II have not helped me, through their words and writings, in my search for God.  Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Dan Grolemund

 

MHFM: That's a large question, but in brief: accept the fullness of the Catholic Faith, reject the Vatican II sect and the New Mass, and then go from there.  (One shouldn’t call John Paul II “Pope,” by the way.)  Our website has a section on what people leaving the New Mass, etc. should do regarding confession, etc.  We would recommend that you consult that section.  Pray the Rosary every day, all 15 decades if possible.  Do spiritual reading and study the faith.  Try to inform and convert others with the fullness of the Catholic Faith.  If one, however, after having seen an expose of John Paul II's heresies and false ecumenism, is not yet at the point where one can recognize that he was an evil heretic, then that person doesn't yet possess the faith. 

 

A strong conviction that Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith are truly necessary for salvation is a foundational belief that one must have.  If one doesn’t have that foundational conviction, his faith is corrupt.  That foundational conviction necessarily entails a recognition of the evil of heresy and of the evil of those who promote heresies and false religions. 

 

Hence, one who possesses the foundational belief he needs to have will necessarily see, after having been presented with the facts, that John Paul II was an evil heretic.  If one cannot see that, then that person still lacks the foundational belief described above concerning: the necessity of Christ, the necessity of the Catholic Faith, the evil of heresy and the evil of false religions.

 

Jurisdiction Article

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

 

I want to thank you for this excellent article on jurisdiction.  This issue has bothered me for some time, though I am not a committed "home aloner".   I was just more comfortable with the so-called independent priests than these traditional societies with their own little Vaticans.  I thought it was somehow unseemly for priests to go around looking for some willing bishop to consecrate them.   They set up societies and fight each other.  It's almost like Protestant denominations.  Yet, no bishops no priests.   I suppose it's just a bad situation we will have to live with until Our Lord intevenes.  Thanks again. 

 

T   

   

MHFM: Thanks, we’re glad you liked the article.  The problem with these groups is not the fact that they’ve taken steps (e.g. independent ordinations or consecrations) to spread the traditional sacraments and priesthood, but the heresies they hold on doctrinal issues.  But obviously that wasn’t the subject of that article. 

 

Radio Program Archived

 

Our most recent radio program has been archived:

 

August 11, 2007 Radio Program [55 min. – discusses Benedict XVI giving back the Latin Mass, his statement that there’s proof for evolution, his declaration that another schismatic leader is a pastor in the Church, the hypocrisy of false traditionalists on B-16 and schism, a very quick synopsis of Benedict’s new heretical document on the Church, and “Cardinal” Bernardin.  This program also takes a careful look at the Protestant bible and the book of 1 Corinthians.  It examines all the places in this book alone which completely refute Protestant beliefs.  This program also discusses in depth the major heresies in Benedict XVI’s document on limbo, which until now have only been summarized in news reports.  It shows that this document rejects major dogmas and attempts to justify its heresies with “baptism of desire” and the same arguments that many false traditionalists use.  This program also covers other recent heresies of Benedict XVI and some other issues.] Archived Radio Programs

 

Web Stats

 

MHFM: In July we received over a million hits on our website.

 

New Video

 

MHFM: New video coming Monday night or Tuesday called Current Freemasonic Enemies of America and the World

 

Link?

 

Hello Brothers:

 

I again want to thank you for all the invaluable information on your site.

I do want to report that it seems that when I click on to the pdf files that nothing comes up.  Is there a

broken link here?????

THanks,

JMJ

Marie

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  We suspect it’s a problem with your Adobe reader.  You can download the latest Adobe reader for free here.  Hopefully that will solve the problem for you.

 

Likes website

 

Your site, is the one I visit most often concerning matters of the faith, Once I start I just can't seem to put it down (like a good book).
 
It hasn't been long since I have known the truth about The Novus Ordo, anti-popes, Vatican 2.  The only thing I was sure in my heart that if we are to be faithful to God and for our salvation is to not follow the new fashions.  Since I was a little girl , I have always felt myself turned to Our Lady of Fatima and remembering what she said to the children :  people who serve God do not follow the new fashions.  It means everything that has to do with sticking with tradition and what the Church always taught.  Even the new fashions concerning modesty in dress in public and in church.  It makes me sick, and turns me off the most, to see people going to church in shorts, women sleeveless, people talking,(how do you expect to pray in peace).  Even in a church (novus ordo)  you can't have any peace.  It has been in the month of October 2005 (yes the month of the Rosary), that God has shown me the man whom I loved with all my heart and admired as I admired Christ was indeed a false pope. I'm speaking of Pope John Paul ll.  How shocked I was and imagine the sadness and depression I have been decieved !  I'm sad to find out I haven't known everything all about the faith all along.  Then God kept feeding my intelligence with knowledge as I searched more and more for the truth.  I know the True Catholic Faith more than anyone around me.   
In the 80's , at my Parish ,I remember one time at church on Sunday, My  father and I were wondering why everyone was receiving communion in the hand all of the sudden.  Our heads went blank and we went along with it. 
Confusion, confusion.  Thanks to God everything is clear now.  It's been 9 years, I went to church receiving communion on the tongue and going to frequent confession.  Genuflections I make MANY!   People staring at me, some people even taking my example.  Priests have refused me communion on the tongue !  Even saying that in one Parish he doesn't give communion on the tonque anymore because of reasons of hygene.  I said nothing and I went back to my seat.  After communion he said infront of all the people in the church what he just told me.  I was so angry and shocked I ran out fast out of that Parish and never came back since !  I cried like a baby. Aren't you hearing this dear Brother !  Doesn't it make your ears Squeek.  Of course all this happening in a Novus Ordo Church.  I didn't know better then.  This is not the Catholic Church thanks to all your information on your website.   Things are so much clearer now.
 I am not blessed in having a Tradional Latin mass to attend.  I have stayed home praying the mass, reading the council of trent, reading scripture, the Rosary, etc. on Sunday. I have been doing this for 2 months now.  I have to admit I feel lonely and I miss Church.  I feel more close to God now than I have ever been in my entire life.    I hope one day to see and attend the True mass of all time.  Please pray for me Brother. 
 
United in the True Faith,  Patty from  Montréal, Canada   

 

Another new article

 

Was the most powerful "Cardinal" in America after Vatican II a secret Satanist? [pdf]

 

Radio Program tomorrow

 

MHFM: We will be doing a radio program Saturday, Aug. 11, at 8:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

 

Radio Program (to listen live click on the “Radio Program” link at the time of the program)

 

Jurisdiction Article Posted

 

Facts which Demolish the "No independent priest today has Jurisdiction" Position - Did St. Vincent Ferrer have jurisdiction? If you hold the position that "no independent priest today has jurisdiction," then your answer must be no. [pdf] *new feature article

 

MHFM: We had planned on getting to this issue in a more detailed fashion a while back, but other things continued to sidetrack us.  The article is posted now, and it covers a very important issue because the “no independent priest today has jurisdiction” position is more widespread than one might think.  We have received many questions about this issue.  We strongly recommend that those who are interested in or concerned about this topic print this article out and read it.  This article specifically addresses and completely refutes those who hold this position.  It specifically mentions the writing of Barbara Linaburg on this topic.  But what is said applies to many others who have held and promoted this false position.

 

Locked up for the Faith

 

DEAR  BROTHERS ,

 

WE RECEIVED WITH JOY AND THANKSGIVING TO THE MOST HOLY TRINITY AND THE IMMACULATE MOTHER OF GOD THE PACKAGE YOU SENT TO US. IT IS REFRESHMENT AND NOURISHMENT TO OUR SOULS WHICH HAD BEEN STIFLED FOR SO LONG DUE TO THE APOSTASY OF OUR TIMES AND THE POISON OF V—2. WE CANNOT PRAISE GOD ENOUGH IN THIS WORLD ON ACCOUNT OF HIS MUNIFICENCE IN GIVING US HIS MERCIFUL MOTHER. WE ALWAYS PRAY FOR YOU AS WE CONSTANTLY UNITE OURSELVES SPIRITUALLY WITH YOU AND THE WHOLE BODY OF CHRIST IN PRAYERS.WE HOPE THAT YOU ALWAYS REMEMBER US TOO… OUR… GROUP MEETS FOR PRAYERS ON SUNDAYS AND OTHER EVENTS ESPECIALLY HOLY DAYS OF OBLIGATIONS. MOREOVER, THE V-2 CHURCH WE WERE ATTENDING EXPELLED US AND ALL WHO ACCEPTED THIS MESSAGE LAST YEAR AND FOR DISSEMINATING IT, SOME OF US WERE LOCKED UP IN POLICE CELLS FOR DAYS ON THE INSTRUCTION OF THEIR APOSTATE ARCHBISHOP.

 

YOURS IN JESUS     &MARY

EMEM-MARIA OFFIONG(MRS)

ABUJA-NIGERIA

 

Only One Baptism

 

I've done my homework as to just what to believe about salvation.  (see attachment)  I truly believe there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.  I grew up pre-Vat, with 16 years of Catholic schooling, and I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism about the "3 baptisms," so I never worried too much about evangelizing others because "they could desire baptism, " etc.  But yet in the Mass for All Times, canonized, (the Indult, John XXIII, Mass is not the Tridentine, which Benedict seems to get confused about!), it says: "ONE BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS" not THREE!  And when I bought the first edition of the Baltimore Catechism while I was at the National Cathedral bookstore in Baltimore, this summer, there is NO mention of "3 baptisms,"  not until the second edition. 

 I have made the decision to stay with ex cathedra teachings of the Church. Saints aren't infallible, only Popes (valid) when speaking from the Chair of St. Peter; and three times from the Chair of Peter, the dogma, No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church, has been declared.  That should end the discussion - period!  The division among the "Traditional" Catholic groups on this issue, is playing right into Satan's hands.  I have a problem with each of the groups putting down one another, as you do, also, because outsiders do not see UNITY, and if, supposedly we are all Roman Catholics (Trad.), then we should be of  One Mind, One Faith, UNITED!  All these groups cannot be right!   The only way for Unity (if, indeed these groups want that because they ought to know that this is the only way, having a united front, not all the in-fighting which is most confusing to people (and confusion is straight from Hell),  that they can be effective in winning souls for Christ and His Church. 

All Traditional Catholics must pray for this Unity as Christ prayed for His to have Unity, to be One, a Mark of His true Church.  With unity, then these groups could concentrate on attacking the real enemy, rather than one another.  Perhaps there has been some infiltration?!

Thank you for all you do to education Catholics of the Catholic Faith, necessary for salvation!  Our Triune God continue to bless you and all you do in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost!                             

 

MJERP 

 

MHFM: We agree with most of your e-mail.  The part about how you read about the “three baptisms” and it stifled your desire to evangelize was very interesting.  However, we don’t agree with what you said about division and how there should not be “in-fighting” but a united front.  There can only be a united front when those who are presently denying the truth change their position.  In the meantime, the heretics must be put down.  They are the cause of the division – that is, their own division from true Catholics and from true Catholic teaching.  It’s not our fault that they are not satisfied with the simple defined truth that unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  It’s not our fault that they insist on teaching people that men don’t need baptism or the Catholic Faith for salvation, which accomplishes nothing good and contradicts solemnly defined teaching.  It also devastates supernatural faith in the necessity of the Church, Jesus Christ and one’s belief in the need to convert his or her neighbors.  All of this is their fault, their bad will, and they must be refuted and denounced when they attack Catholic teaching and lead people astray.

 

Mass, Baptism, Heretic

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

    I talked to a "traditionalist" priest recently. I asked him if he believes that you must be a baptized Catholic in order to be saved. More specifically, I asked him if people needed water on the head with the form "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."  He first claimed that St.  Augustine believed in the possibility of salvation for the unbaptized catechumen. He then gave his own example. He asked me to consider a 17th Century, French fur trapper alone in the wilderness who desires water baptism but cannot get to another person fast enough before his death. He said, "Does the fur trapper go to hell when he dies? I don't think so."

   Then I asked him, "Would you consider a person who believes in the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation to be a heretic?" He said, "Yes, that person would be a heretic."…Can one attend the Mass of this priest?


T.D.

 

MHFM: No, a Catholic must not attend his Mass.  He’s an imposing heretic.  We do think that you should inform him of our website and our book on the topic, so that he can see his objections in this regard answered, as well as the facts from the solemn magisterium which contradict his position brought forward.  We would also be shocked if he didn’t believe that Buddhists, etc. can be saved.  The quick response to the faithless heretic’s imaginary case of a good-willed French fur trapper who desires baptism, but cannot get it, is very simple: there’s no such person; God would get it to him.  It’s really that simple.  But since he brought up the French, and mentioned the 17th century, that reminds us of the the following stories covered in section 25 of Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].  They concern the life of St. Isaac Jogues, who was an extraordinary French missionary to North America in the 17th century.  These stories contradict the heretic because they support the truth that God gets His absolutely necessary sacrament to all good willed souls who want it.  These are just three stories; there are many others.

 

There is another interesting story in Jogues’ life which confirms this.  After having much success in converting people in various places, he and his companions began to be shut out from all the villages in a certain section of the heathen savages.  The Devil had convinced the heathen savages in this area – and the idea was spreading – that the presence of the missionaries was the reason why there were famine and disease among them.  So, being totally exhausted and shut out from every hut in the area, and freezing from the cold and dying for a place to rest and warm themselves, we pick up the story:

 

The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 145-146: “…wandering about from place to place, and everywhere meeting with blows and threats and hatred, Jogues and Garnier came to a little cluster of cabins in the heart of the hills.  They were both exhausted by the terrible exposure to the cold and by the lack of food.  They forced themselves upon one of the cabins and were grudgingly received.  Jogues felt feverish and sick through all his body.  He could not move from his mat.  Then came a messenger from one of the villages in which they had been welcomed on their entry into the Petun land.  The runner told them that some of the people who were sick were begging them to return.

     “It was a call from God.  They could not but heed it.  In order to complete the journey of thirty-five miles by daylight, they started out about three o’clock in the morning.  All the country was pale with snow in the dawn, and the mountain air was painfully cold.  Jogues was still gripped by the fever and unsteady on his legs.  They slid their snowshoes laboriously over the crackling crust of the icy snow.  Frequently, they stopped for breath in deadly exhaustion.

     “But they had to shorten their rests, for fear lest they die of the cold.  Their only food, a lump of corn bread about the size of the fist, was hard as ice.  They arrived at the village late at night, covered with sweat and yet half-frozen, they said.  The sick persons were still alive.  They were baptized.  ‘Some souls gone astray here and there, who are placed on the road to heaven when they are just about to be swallowed up in hell,’ was their comment, ‘deserve a thousand times more than these labors, since these souls have cost the Savior of the world much more than that.’” (Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 145-146.)

 

      As St. Isaac Jogues says, he knew that if he did not reach these people, instruct them and baptize them they would be “swallowed up in hell.”  That is why he forced himself at the very moment he had just found a bit of rest and warmth to make the thirty-five mile trip, though he was starving, freezing and exhausted – a trip which almost killed him.  There is another interesting story which illustrates the same truth.

 

“When dawn trickled through the firs, they [Jogues and Garnier] struck out along the trail, now blanketed with snow.  Some distance on, beyond a clear field, they noticed a few cabins.  The families, they found, were just abandoning their huts and were going to the nearest Petun village, for they had neither corn nor any other food… They [Jogues and Garnier] attached themselves to the band and traveled all the day… ‘We had no special plan to go to this village [which we named] St. Thomas rather than to any other,’ they remarked ‘but since we had accepted what company the savages offered, and since we followed them there, there is no doubt but that we arrived where God was leading us for the salvation of a predestined soul which awaited nothing but our arrival in order to die to its earthly miseries.’  They had finished their supper and were conversing with their hosts, when a young man entered and asked the Blackrobes to visit his mother who was sick.  ‘We go there,’ they exclaim, ‘and find the poor woman in her last extremities.  She was instructed, and happily received, with the Faith, the grace of Baptism.  Shortly after that, she [died and] beheld herself in the glory of heaven.  In that whole village there was only that one who had need of our help.”  (Ibid., p. 141.)

 

The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 225: “Two of the Hurons, Jogues learned, were to be burned to death that night at Tionontoguen.  He stayed with them on the platform and concentrated his appeals on them.  Finally they consented.  About that moment, the Mohawks threw the prisoners some raw corn that had been freshly plucked.  The sheaths [of the corn] were wet from the recent rains.  Father Jogues carefully gathered the precious drops of water on a leaf and poured them over the heads of the two neophytes [new converts], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  The Mohawks understood that his [Jogues’] act meant to bring happiness to these hated victims.  They raged at his audacity and beat him down, threatening to slaughter him with the Hurons… That night the two Hurons [whom he had baptized] were burned over the fire.”  (Ibid., p. 225.)

 

     If the sheaths of corn had not been thrown at that very moment, Jogues wouldn’t have had the water with which to baptize the two Indians.  And, as noted in his life, St. Isaac Jogues always instructed the heathen in the essentials they had to know for baptism.

 

John 3:5,7 – “[Jesus saith] Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God… wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again.”

 

Eastern Schism

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

Thank you for a great website! In Praeclara Gratulationis  Pope Leo XIII in 1894 writing in regards to  the Eastern Orthodox Church, is this particular sentence that I  would appreciate your comments on: " to cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of  Our heart bids Us conceive the hope that the day is not far distant, when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned."  My question is: what did Pope Leo XIII mean by "so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past?"

Thank you for your help,

Wyatt Lee

 

MHFM: Leo XIII means that, prior to their split from the Church, these Churches (Constantinople, etc.) were illustrious representatives of the ancient Catholic faith.  They were some of the oldest and most important local Churches in the early Church.  To give just one example: St. John Chrysostom, one of Catholic Church’s great saints, was the Patriarch of Constantinople prior to its split from the Catholic Church and the Papacy.  That’s all Pope Leo XIII is saying.  He makes it quite clear that these Churches have since abandoned the Church and fallen into schism. 

 

We’re glad you brought that up.  For whenever a Catholic speaks of the glorious past of the Eastern Churches before the schism, he must make it clear that he’s talking in terms of prior to their entrance into schism.  Pope Leo XIII does that clearly by saying that he yearns that they “will return to the fold they have abandoned.”  In all the countless praises heaped upon the schismatic sects by the Vatican II antipopes – contained in literally hundreds of speeches – have you ever heard anything from them like that?  No.  Think about that.  They will never say that they have abandoned the faith or the fold.  Pope Leo XIII, on the other hand, a valid and Catholic pope, makes it quite clear that he no longer regards the schismatic Churches as illustrious, but outside the fold.  You will never hear any of the Vatican II antipopes say that because they are not Catholic and are inculcating a different religion.  

 

Confusion?

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery: 

 

I found your website very good except for the hate and ingratitude you show toward the SSPX, and except for your denial of baptism by desire.

 

Is it pride that keeps you from comprehending or accepting that others, who have not been handed the faith like you have, can be saved?  If you were God, how would you judge a man that joined a group of Christians to be martyred because he believed and wanted to be Catholic?  Or how about the good thief who can to be named a saint?  Or how about the man honestly looking for the true faith but can't find it because the true Church is practically invisible at this time?  Would you damn them all because they weren't yet baptized and officially part of the church?

 

I hope you come to see the light as your folly is keeping YOU out of the church.

 

Sincerely,
Michael Davis

 

MHFM: God can and does keep any good willed soul alive until baptism.  St. Augustine, in the following passage, reiterates the simple truth of Catholic Tradition on this point – a point on which he unfortunately didn’t always remain consistent. 

 

St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice.  Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1496.)

 

Jesus made it clear that no man gets to Heaven without rebirth of “water and the Spirit” (John 3:5), and the Church understands those words as they are written.

 

A very interesting thing about your e-mail is that you readily acknowledge that you believe that people who don’t have the Catholic Faith can be saved.  You thus acknowledge that you dissent from the faith of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and that you are therefore not Catholic.  Like so many others, you think that you are a traditional Catholic, but you are not.  You must have faith in Catholic dogmas to be a Catholic.  The scary part about this is that you might not realize, until you die and meet Jesus Christ, that you’re not even part of the Catholic Church.  But then it will be too late, and you will be condemned to Hell for not believing what the Catholic Church “firmly believes,” and not professing and preaching what the Church firmly professes and preaches. 

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

 

Contrary to what you suggest, there is no such man who is sincerely looking for the true faith who doesn’t find it.   Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you (Mt. 7:7).  Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., a famous 16th century Dominican theologian, summed up the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this point very well.  Here is how he put it:

 

When we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith.  For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief.  As St. Thomas says, however, if they do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.” (De Indis et de Iure Belli Relectiones, ed. E. Nys, tr. J.P. Bates (The Classics of International Law), Washington, 1917, p. 142.)

 

Regarding the Good Thief, that’s not an example against the necessity of water baptism, as pointed out in Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].  He was saved under the Old Law.  Regarding the SSPX, if you cannot see, after consulting this evidence, that their official positions are offensive to Catholic dogma, schismatic and heretical in key areas, then you are unfortunately of bad will on that issue, just as you are on the baptism/salvation one. 

 

Gall

 

I found your website of 'heresies' and am appalled at the gall you have to believe that only Catholics will have salvation. When I read the Holy Word of God, nowhere does it say that if I do not believe in the infallibility of the papacy (which, mind you, is heretical in itself) will I not have eternal life with Christ. The Scripture says that you are to CONFESS that JESUS IS LORD. That's it. Nothing less, nothing more.

 

There will be people in HELL because they were taught that it was enough to know about Jesus and the traditions of the church. Jesus will look at them on that day and say, 'I NEVER KNEW YOU. Away from me, you evildoers.' (Matthew 7:23)

 

God have mercy upon you.

 

rob etheridge, CHRISTIAN (Southern Baptist taught/ worshipping at an Orthodox church)

 

MHFM: The Bible says that if you don’t hear the Church, you are as the heathen (Mt. 18:17).  That “Church” was founded upon St. Peter (Mt. 16:18-20).  Thus, the Bible does clearly teach that you must hear that one Church founded upon Peter, which is the Catholic Church.  Scripture is abundantly clear that one must do more than recognize Jesus as the Lord to be saved.  That’s why it says:

 

Matthew 7:21-24:“Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: BUT HE THAT DOTH the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.”

 

Notice, Jesus is quite clear that not all who say that He is the Lord will get to Heaven; but rather he that DOES OR PRACTICES the will of God will enter Heaven.  Did you get that?  One must DO or PRACTICE the will of God to get to Heaven.  That refutes your position.  It’s not sufficient to say that He is the Lord.  To deny that this verse refutes your position – as well as all of the others in the Bible which clearly indicate that works are necessary and that a man who believes can lose his salvation – is simply to be a liar.  “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).  Protestantism rejects the clear truth of the Bible on the Papacy (Mt. 16:18-20; John 21:15-17), on the Eucharist (John 6), on Confession (Jn. 20:23), on the necessity of Baptism (John 3:5) and much more.  It’s really that simple.  It’s a man-made religion.  You’re not a Christian.  The fact that you (and other Protestants) can claim to be Christians while rejecting the clear teaching of the Bible in so many areas – and failing to recognize the undeniable fact that the Catholic Church alone has been around since the beginning – is simply an outrage and a total lie, and it’s why you will not save your soul unless you convert.

 

Fr. Wathen

 

Greetings in Jesus Christ, dear Brothers!

 

Just a quick thank you.  I have continued to study your website every afternoon, some days more, some days less, and finally read your analysis of Father Wathen's apparent beliefs.  I had no idea it was that bad.  When I saw his statements, I said, "Is this really true?  Could he actually say those things?"  How wicked.  I didn't know about any of this.  Was he confused?

 

MHFM: Unfortunately, he was not confused.  He obstinately rejected the dogma that heretics cease to be Catholic.  He was one of the few non-sedevacantist priests who was honest enough to admit that the Vatican II antipopes are definite heretics.  Most of them realize that if they admit that they are heretics, then they must take the sedevacantist position.  Hence, in order to avoid taking the sedevacantist position, they dishonestly deny that the post-Vatican II antipopes are heretics – even though it’s so obvious and undeniable.  But Wathen was quite clear that they are heretics.  He repeatedly called John Paul II a heretic, a nonbeliever, etc.  Yet, when he was approached and contacted with the necessary consequence of considering them heretics (i.e., that these men are therefore outside the Church and thus hold no authority in it), he rejected it and ignored the magisterial references which show that heretics cease to be Catholic.  Apparently, until his death he continued to maintain the heretical view that once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

 

Jurisdiction

 

MHFM: Soon we will be posting an article which refutes the position, which is popular in certain circles, that essentially no independent priest today has jurisdiction.  Since that is a very important topic, people should keep an eye out for that article.  We will also be posting another short article on a different topic which we feel our readers will find interesting.

 

Musician at non-Catholic churches

 

Dear Brothers,

 

Thanks for all your hard work in spreading the truth, the more one reads and prays - the more the seriousness of our situation becomes apparent.  I would like to ask for your advice on a situation that I have found myself in.  I am employed in the military as a musician. It is a great job with many benefits which, for the most part, I enjoy. Several times a year however, gigs come up that involve playing hymns at "non-denominational" church services. After talking to my CO about my resignation (which I handed in a couple of weeks ago) he asked that I seek outside advice, as he felt that resigning over this was a big step/mistake.  Since the only validly ordained priests I can find are holding to one heresy or another - and my confessor actually told me it was ok to play at these services, I would very much appreciate your input on this matter.  Once again thank you for all your time and effort.

 

-Matt NZ

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  If they require you to play at non-Catholic churches, then it’s clear that you must resign.  As we pointed out a few E-Exchanges ago, a Catholic absolutely should not be present at non-Catholic services even passively, despite what some people think when they wrongly attend non-Catholic services passively for funerals or weddings.  Playing music for such services is not only passive presence, but active participation.  It would definitely be forbidden.   

 

Brown Scapular

 

Hello. I was wondering about the Brown Scapular. I was wondering that since there are no more priest out there  (unless there an old age)  to bless brown scapulars would it be necessary to bless scapulars on our own?

Can the Brown Scapular save a soul in mortal sin?

 

Bana…

 

MHFM: To your first question, one can make the sign of the cross over things.  (Fathers blessed their children in the Old Testament.)  But it’s not the same as a priestly blessing.  You should just wear the scapular anyway, even if it has not been blessed by a priest. 

 

To your second question, the Brown Scapular cannot save someone in mortal sin.  This issue is covered in our book on salvation: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].

 

SSPX chapel

 

Hello Brother Michael or Brother Peter :

 

A few weeks ago a friend of mine who attends a SSPX chapel in Sanford, FL went to Mass there and after Mass he heard the priest, Father Young, conversing with someone and he (Fr. Young) told the person that sedevacantists are schismatics.  I was unsure of Father Young's position until now.  However, he has not publicly stated it.  Is it ok to attend his Mass and what should I tell my friend because he doesn't see a problem with attending that chapel?

 

Thanks.

 

Fad…

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  No, one should not go to the chapel.  He is an imposing heretic.

 

Prot. Funeral

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

 

Please enlighten me:

 

My protestant cousin's protestant service & burial takes place in 2 days. 1. I do not intend to enter the protestant 'church' at any stage.

 

2. I do understand that the protestant minister will be saying some "committal prayers" at the graveside & leading the hymn-singing, & other prayers.

Because of this, i feel uneasy about even attending the burial at the cemetery.

 

Am i over-reacting?  Over scrupulous?  Please adise me at your very earliest.

 

Once again, thank you for your GOD-FILLED work.  May you continue to be blest.

 

Yours sincerely

 

PETER de NIESE

Melbourne

A U S T R A L I A

 

MHFM: It’s quite simple.  You absolutely should not go: not to the funeral service, not to the cemetery, nothing.

 

Mutter Vogel says never attack a priest

 

Dear MHFM, I copied this from a web site.  This statement has been published in a blue prayer book titled The Pieta Prayerbook which contains several other errors as well, yet it is a very popular prayerbook among NO "Catholics". 

 

WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST to Mutter Vogel, 1937
"ONE SHOULD NEVER ATTACK A PRIEST, EVEN WHEN HE'S IN ERROR, RATHER ONE SHOULD PRAY & DO PENANCE THAT I'LL GRANT HIM MY GRACE AGAIN. HE ALONE FULLY REPRESENTS ME, EVEN WHEN HE DOESN'T LIVE AFTER MY EXAMPLE! WHEN A PRIEST FALLS WE SHOULD EXTEND HIM A HELPING HAND THROUGH PRAYER & NOT THROUGH ATTACKS. I MYSELF WILL BE HIS JUDGE. NO ONE BUT I! WHOEVER VOICES JUDGEMENT OVER A PRIEST HAS VOICED IT OVER ME: CHILD, NEVER LET A PRIEST BE ATTACKED, TAKE UP HIS DEFENSE. CHILD, NEVER JUDGE YOUR CONFESSOR, RATHER PRAY MUCH FOR HIM & OFFER EVERY THURSDAY, THROUGH THE HANDS OF MY BLESSED MOTHER, HOLY COMMUNION (FOR HIM). NEVER AGAIN ACCEPT AN OUT-OF-THE-WAY WORD ABOUT A PRIEST, & SPEAK NO UNKIND WORD (ABOUT THEM) EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE! EVERY PRIEST IS MY VICAR & MY HEART WILL BE SICKENED & INSULTED BECAUSE OF IT! IF YOU HEAR A JUDGEMENT (AGAINST A PRIEST) PRAY A HAIL MARY. IF YOU SEE A PRIEST WHO CELEBRATES THE HOLY MASS UNWORTHILY, THEN SAY NOTHING ABOUT HIM, RATHER TELL IT TO ME ALONE! I STAND BESIDE HIM ON THE ALTAR! OH, PRAY MUCH FOR MY PRIESTS, THAT THEY'LL LOVE PURITY ABOVE ALL, THAT THEY'LL CELEBRATE THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS WITH PURE HANDS & HEART. CERTAINLY THE HOLY SACRIFICE IS ONE & THE SAME EVEN WHEN IT'S CELEBRATED BY AN UNWORTHY PRIEST, BUT THE GRACES CALLED DOWN UPON THE PEOPLE IS NOT THE SAME!" (Our Lord's Revelations to Mutter Vogel, 1937.)

 

This statement from Mutter Vogel, whoever that might be, also seems to be the NO attitude.  Just imagine all the NO abominations and according to "Jesus Christ" we are to keep our mouths shut and "just pray".  Allow our fellow Catholics to go to hell but never mention the sin being committed right before our eyes.  I've even seen little children react to NO priests heresies in the NO churches.  One woman who was far from rich and lives on a pension, gave a priest $10,000 to put up a sign in front of the church showing the mass times.  That was about eight years ago and still no sign.  A new pastor came and she gave him the same amount of money for a sign.  Nothing... but we are not allowed to criticize them.  They can molest our children but it's disrespectful to mention it.  I was told by a N.O. "priest" not to put out… newsletters exposing pedophile priests before the crisis.  It wasn't a nice thing to do.

 

PM

 

MHFM: Yes, we’ve told others about that in the Pieta booklet.  It’s clearly a false revelation.  In fact, it’s exactly what the Devil wants people to believe.  This way heresies spread without opposition, and scandals abound without protest.  It contradicts all of Catholic Tradition.  It’s absurd.  According to Mutter Vogel, when the priest (and bishop) Nestorius denied that Mary is the Mother of God from his pulpit on Christmas in 428 the layman Eusebius should have remained silent rather than attack him publicly.  It was his public rebuke which eventually led to the Council of Ephesus’s condemnation of Nestorius as a heretic in 431.  Not everything in the Pieta booklet is correct, obviously, but there is much good there.

 

Turning?

 

Dear Representative of Holy Family Monastery,

 

This is an urgent email. I hope that you will responde. But Before I place my request, first I wish to thank you for your website stripping the bayside prophecies.  I am a catholic and had spend days looking over all the directives and the statements that were made by Veronica. After i read most of them i did a quick search to find your website listing some of the reasons why The prophecies were false. I noticed then that a bishop in New York came in the

80's and branded the prophecies as NOT VALID and that no catholic is to participate in the vigils...etc.

 

However the purpose of this email is because there is something that disturbs me greatly.  It is the following: Why would you consider the last pope john paul as not valid and the current mass as invalid? Are you not trying to accomplish that same thing that veronica did (without knowing) and that is that you are causing catholics to turn away from their church? that the mass is invalide and the vatican II issued by the church is false? also are you implying that the sacriments that the catholic church now is giving is invalid?? IE the holy eucarist, penance, babtism?  etc.

 

It would seem that you (without intention offcourse since I am not accusing or insulting anyone) are acheiving the same thing that the devil is trying to achieve which is to ditract catholics from their mass, faith, parishes...etc.  Please excuse my challenging you on this issue as i would not have sent this email unless I truelly wish to find the truth in all of this.  I am turning to you for an answer.

 

Thanks

Yousef

 

MHFM: We are turning people away from the counterfeit post-Vatican II Church.  We are promoting and defending the Catholic Church.  You really should look more carefully at the material on our website, especially the information which exposes the invalid New Mass and John Paul II's many heresies against Catholic dogmas.  All of our conclusions are based upon the teaching of the Catholic magisterium.  It’s predicted in Catholic prophecy and in Sacred Scripture that in the final days there will be a massive spiritual deception which features a counterfeit Church (which is heretical and devoid of the true faith) and an abomination in “the holy place.”  These will pose as Catholic when, in fact, they are not; and they will lead many astray.  That’s the post-Vatican II Church and the invalid New Mass, as the material on our website documents in detail.  If you haven’t already, we would also strongly recommend that you obtain our DVD special offer which includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books, an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.).

 

Group

 

Brothers,

 

Firstly, I want to thank you very much for a string of videos I just watched… I found the videos very well produced, and incredibly well researched.

 

Shortly after, I found an article on your E Exchange page regarding the CMRI nuns that recently returned to the Vatican II church. In your response, you commented about the theological standpoint of the congregation they left.   You said: "the group which they left is also not Catholic and its heresy of salvation outside the Church paved the way for their acceptance of the manifest heretic Benedict XVI as good."

 

I am very interested in a clarification and/or elaboration on this heresy you mentioned, and your sources for saying so.

 

Thank you.

 

o…

 

MHFM: The Heresy of the CMRI is documented and explained in our book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file].  If you scroll down to page 309 of the PDF, that’s where the section on the CMRI begins.  Their heretical positions are also summarized here: The CMRI – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church.  They adhere to Protocol 122/49 (Suprema haec sacra), the heretical letter written in 1949 by a member of the Holy Office against Fr. Feeney.  It promotes the “invincible ignorance” version of the baptism of desire false theory, which means that members of any religion might get a “baptism of desire.”  This heresy is held by almost 100% of laypeople and priests who believe in “baptism of desire” today.  That’s why the priests and nuns of that group will readily tell people, if questioned correctly, that Jews, etc. can be saved.

 

New Article

 

Benedict XVI's new "conservative" Vatican document on the Church reaffirms only Vatican II's heresies and denies the true Church *new article

 

This article exposes the numerous heresies in the recent document published by the Vatican II sect, which is entitled: Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.  This article examines all five responses which the Vatican II sect gives to explain its doctrine on “the Church.”  In addition to exposing the heresies in this new document, it discusses the Vatican II sect’s use of “subsists” and exposes certain false traditionalists who actually praised this heretical document.

 

Padre Pio book in Spanish

 

MHFM: We’re glad to say that the Padre Pio book is now available in Spanish.

 

Padre Pio: Un Sacerdote Católico que Hacía Milagros y Tenía las Heridas de Jesucristo en su Cuerpo (pdf)

 

This will be found permanently on the section of our mainpage called:Books in Espańol and Français.

 

Interest is Key

 

Greetings Dimond Brothers,

I recently sent my good friend Mark a comprehensive set of your materials who has been in the conservative Catholic movement for twenty years. He attends the Tridentine Mass every Sunday. Here is his response. Any suggestions on crafting a rebuttal. Appreciate any input on this.


-Bill Burns, Fredonia, New York.

---

Bill:

Sorry I've been out of touch. So busy. Lots of travel for work.


… Here are some thoughts:  The Church is in a very bad state lately...going back at least 40 years...but it's been thru it before (athanasian heresy in the early church..). Yes...I believe the council was an occasion for much of the present day confusion.


However, I do not agree at all with the conclusions of the Dimond brothers...the sedevacantist position. Moreover, I think it's a destructive position and that their ideas can really put a soul in jeopardy.   Of course it is difficult to be sure of much in these times of confusion, but the rule I follow is when in doubt...pray to Our Lady...and pray for the Holy Father..that is the current one, Benedict XVI...

 

I would have called by now but I just don't have the time it would take to discuss issues like this in the depth they require...one of these weekends when it's rainy & I can't do any yard work...I'll ring you up.

Hope all is well.

 

Mark

 

MHFM: Well, there is certainly bad will at work.  For someone to dismiss all the facts as “the Church has gone through this before” demonstrates no level of hatred of heresy or a deep concern for God’s truth.  But what is perhaps most exuded by his short letter is that he doesn’t care very much.  He doesn’t want to spend much time looking into the issues in depth – perhaps when he cannot do yard work he will call you.  No, wouldn’t want to put off trimming those bushes for finding out whether the man I think is the pope is actually a heretical impostor, or whether almost all the supposed “Catholic Masses” and “Catholic priests” in the world are actually invalid and heretical.  He has a lack of interest.  Interest is key.  Interest in God, the things of God, the Catholic Faith, is critical.  If a person doesn’t have a deep interest in it, he doesn’t stand a chance.  Without a deep interest one will go with the herd of heretics, pagans, etc. to Hell.  That person won’t care enough to hold what he needs to hold and do what he needs to do to be saved.  In our experience, lack of interest (which is connected with bad will, of course) is the biggest problem today; most people don’t care enough.  We’ve spoken to so many people who haven’t read the four gospels, even though they can read just fine.  You could pray 3 Hail Marys for him.  Then I think you should explain to him the significance of heresy and of the heresies held by the Vatican II antipopes.  Then I think you should tell him that his position is contrary to the Catholic faith and that it involves a rejection of Catholic teaching.  That involves the eventual loss of his soul (should he continue on that path) and eternal damnation.  Perhaps that message will increase his interest.  If he still rejects it, then you should move on, as St. Paul says (Titus 3:10).

 

Blown Away

 

Greetings:  I have been blown away by your website.  It's a fantastic resource.  After having read many of your papers I just have to ask what exactly your position is with the Holy See?  Are you what are known as sedevacanists?  Are you considered schismatics?  Do you believe that all of the priests, bishops and deacons that have been installed since Vatican II are invalid?  I'm honestly not trying to corner you I really want to know what you believe.

 

I am a convert to the faith (2005) and I attend both the N.O. Mass and the Tridentine Mass (FSSP) but after reading some of your materials it seems that I may just need to stay home since they're neither one really "valid" per se.  I'm very, very confused and troubled by all of what I have read.  I don't know what to do.  Please advise.

Pax vobiscum,

Steven M. King

 

MHFM: Glad you like the site… Our position on the Holy See, as reflected on our website, is that we accept all the true popes throughout history, the first being St. Peter and the last valid pope (although we would characterize him as a weak pope) being Pope Pius XII (who died in 1958).  Yes, we would be known as those who hold the sedevacantist position, that the Chair of St. Peter is presently vacant.  That is undoubtedly the true position which all faithful Catholics must take, since Benedict XVI is certainly a heretic.  We hold that all the priests and bishops ordained in Paul VI’s new rites of ordination and episcopal consecration are invalid, yes.  The case against the New Rite of Ordination is simply irrefutable, as covered here: Why the New Rite of Ordination is Invalid [PDF File]  Most of the people should be staying home today; there is no obligation to attend the Mass of a heretic, and one cannot attend the invalid New Mass.  But we have a section on our mainpage which addresses that issue.  Once again, we’re really glad to hear about your interest and we hope you continue to investigate the information.

 

Waited

 

DEAR BROTHER MICHAEL AND BROTHER PETER, I'M WRITING TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME, AND PUTTING FORTH SUCH IMMENSE EFFORT, IN WRITING EXTREMELY DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT VATICAN II AND THE SPIRITUAL DESOLATION IT HAS WROUGHT!!  I HAVE WAITED MANY YEARS FOR THE FOUNDATION OF THIS TRUTH TO BE DOCUMENTED, CONCISELY…

     YOU SEE, I HAVE SUFFERED MOST OF MY LIFE BECAUSE OF VATICAN II.  IF I WERE TO SAY I IDENTIFIED WITH A PARTICULAR CULTURE, AS IS VERY POPULAR TO SAY TODAY, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY I AM FROM A CATHOLIC CULTURE!  I WAS BORN TO CATHOLIC PARENTS IN 1959, AND CAUGHT THE TAIL END OF CATHOLICISM... NO MEAT ON FRIDAY...EVERY FRIDAY (I BELIEVE I REMEMBER)... AND LATIN MASS WAS THE MASS EVERYONE ATTENDED, EVERY SUNDAY.  I WENT TO CATHOLIC SCHOOL STARTING IN KINDERGARTEN.  IN @ 1966-1967 I WAS SEVEN YEARS OLD, AND THINGS STARTED TO CHANGE!!  I REMEMBER MY SECOND GRADE TEACHER, SISTER PERPETUA, TAKING US TO OUR CHURCH ONE DAY DURING SCHOOL HOURS,  HAVING OUR CLASS WALK PAST THE RAILING (WHICH WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN TAUGHT NEVER TO DO), AND GATHER AROUND THE ALTAR IN A CIRCLE. ALTHOUGH IT HAD BEEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL ALTAR, IT HAD BEEN SEPARATED FROM THE MAIN ALTAR, BROUGHT FORWARD, AND MADE TO APPEAR AS A TABLE. SISTER PERPETUA THEN INSTRUCTED US TO TOUCH IT. I DIDN'T WANT TO, AS IT WAS FORBIDDEN. BUT, SHE TOLD US IT WAS OK NOW.  WHAT WE HAD BEEN TAUGHT BEFORE DIDN'T COUNT ANYMORE. SO...I TOUCHED IT.  I WAS EXTREEEMELY UNCOMFORTABLE TOUCHING IT, AND KNEW IT WAS NOT OK...SOMETHING WAS WRONG.  ON ANOTHER DAY, SHE TOOK US TO THE CONVENT WHERE  THERE WAS A PRIEST WHO GAVE MASS IN THE LITTLE CHAPEL.  THERE, AGAIN DURING SCHOOL HOURS, WE WERE TAUGHT HOW TO TAKE COMMUNION IN THE HAND.  THIS WAS ALL DONE BEHIND OUR PARENTS' BACKS.  MY MOTHER KNEW NOTHING OF IT, UNTIL I TOLD HER YEARS LATER, HOW WE WERE BEING DESENSITIZED TO THE OLD CATHOLIC TRADITIONS WHILE AT SCHOOL.  NONE OF IT EVER FELT RIGHT TO ME.

    … I WAS COMPELLED TO WRITE TO YOU AND TELL YOU MY STORY, BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW VATICAN II STRIPPED ME OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF MY FAITH.  IT STOLE MY FAITH FROM ME, AND REPLACED IT WITH THE COUNTERFEIT CHURCH YOU DESCRIBE.  IT'S AN ABSOLUTE HORROR!!  NOW I KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHY IT DID NOT FEEL RIGHT ON SO MANY OCCASIONS...IT WASN'T!!! I COULD NOT REASON AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS HAPPENING WHEN I WAS IN SECOND GRADE...AND NO ONE ELSE EXPLAINED IT TO ME.  MY PARENTS JUST TRUSTED THE SCHOOL TO TEACH ME THE ACADEMIC PRINCIPLES OF THE FAITH!!  THEY TOOK ME TO CHURCH EVERY SUNDAY.  THAT WAS IT!  TOO I APPRECIATE THE USE OF THE WORD COUNTERFEIT CHURCH!!!  THANK YOU TOO, FOR YOUR VIDEO, DEATH AND THE JOURNEY TO HELL.  MY SON AND I TRY TO THINK ABOUT DEATH, DYING, HEAVEN AND HELL, EVERY DAY.   SOMETIMES IT'S TOO MUCH FOR ME THOUGH.  ALSO, HAVE YOU EVER READ HIDDEN TREASURE HOLY MASS, BY ST. LEONARD?  PHENOMINAL INFORMATION.  I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT. IT TOO CHANGE MY LIFE.  THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR BOOKS AND VIDEOS.  I KNOW I WROTE A LONG DISSERTATION, BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG 41 YEARS!!

                                 SINCERELY,
                               THERESA SMITH
                            ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

 

Gates of Hell

 

Subj: Greetings from a former sedevacantist

 

Dear Brother,

It is a serious sin against Faith, when we deny the words of Our Lord, and proclaim that the gates of hell have prevailed against His Church, whom He has promised to be with to the consummation of the world. It is a dogma of our Holy Faith, that He is with us visibly, in His Pope, to this end. Embracing this initial error that hell has indeed prevailed, even for a short time, is such a great act of pride in the presence of God, it clouds your mind for everything else. You become blind, though you are quite certain, in this pride, that you are filled with a great grace, to see.  This very certainty is your downfall, because you do not think then you need to ask God "What is the Truth?" with humility, thinking so surely you possess it… 

 

AMDG+
Kathy

 

MHFM:  You hold that the gates of Hell have prevailed, for you hold that the Catholic Church can officially overturn her dogmatic teachings. See, for instance, Vatican II vs. the Catholic Church on Jews being rejected by God and on religious liberty (The Heresies in Vatican II) [PDF File].  Benedict XVI holds that the leaders of schismatic sects are IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST!  He has agreed with the Lutherans on Justification.  If he's the pope (which he isn't), then being a Catholic and believing in any traditional dogma (such as the Papacy) is utterly meaningless.  What planet are you on?  Do heretics, such as yourself, who defend the heretic Benedict XVI have a clue about the significance of Benedict XVI’s actions with the “Orthodox”?  It’s simply astounding that supposed “Catholics” can argue for fidelity to the Papacy and defend Antipope Benedict XVI.  How many times does it need to be proven that he holds that the Papacy is meaningless?  He just signed another joint declaration in which he declares that a schismatic leader is in the Church of Christ!  Wake up, you dupe of the Devil!  There are definitely some people of good will out there, and we hear from them all the time; but there are so many people of bad will, such as yourself, so many.

 

Non-Catholic event

 

Brothers,

Has the Church ever infallibly defined that it is sinful to go to a non-Catholic wedding or funeral?  If it has not been infallibly defined, where have Popes taught about this issue?  Thanks so much and keep up the good work!

-Anne

 

MHFM: It wouldn’t be, strictly speaking, the subject of a dogmatic definition, but rather disciplinary laws or instructions which are tied up with faith.  In the years prior to Vatican II, the idea of “passive attendance” developed whereby one could attend non-Catholic services as long as one didn’t actively participate; in other words, the liberal idea was taught that one could go to Protestant churches, schismatic churches, and perhaps even Jewish synagogues, etc., for the funeral or wedding of a relative or friend, as long as one didn’t “actively participate.”  This was clearly a bad and compromisingly development.  To refute it, we will cite Pope Pius IX’s encyclical, Graves ac diuturnae.  Speaking of the “Old Catholic” heretics and schismatics, Pius IX says:

 

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875: “They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings.  They should shun their writings and all contact with them.  They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction.”

 

(This is a new quote which comes from our new book, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.  We also talked about it on our radio program.) Obviously if one must “totally shun” their religious celebrations and their buildings, then one cannot attend non-Catholic services, funerals or weddings for any reason, let alone to pacify friends, relatives or co-workers and give non-Catholics the false impression that non-Catholic lives can lead to salvation or that non-Catholic weddings are pleasing to God.

 

Also, one definitely should not go to the wedding reception or the funeral events after the services.  To do so is to give the non-Catholics the same false impression: that their marriage is pleasing to God or that people can be saved as non-Catholics.   A true Catholic should completely shun all events associated with non-Catholic funerals and weddings, including the events afterward.  This has been added to the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of our website.

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you(II John 10).”

 

Refuting Eastern Orthodox

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

Recently I have been discussing the orthodox religion with one of my friends who has studied it much. She proposed a very interesting idea to me that I had never heard before.  She claims that before 1054, the Pope was not necessarily in charge. Yes, he was the head, but had no more power than any of the other patriarchs, which is why they all had to make a decision mutually.  This I can understand, even though I am not at all certain that that is true. However, I do believe that the dogma of papal infallibility  was established in the Council of Trent, malmost 500 years after the split.

However, what I found truly interesting was the that she was claiming that the reason for the split was because the current pope, in that time, was trying to force the East to add "and the Son" into the creed. Then the East got mad because they didn't believe that just the pope could inflict a rule as such without having a council about it.  Thus the split occurred. Supposedly, they both anathematized each other at the same time. Now the orthodox current claim is that the Catholic church has had no valid councils since then because we didn't have a unified church, meaning the orthodox were still not in union with the West. I think here is when Constantinople comes into play. I believe he was the one that "reunited" the East with the West, or at least thats what the West thinks. The orthodox still, however, don't consider that to be the case. So I guess us Catholics believe that the orthodox are in schism. But following this logic, there is no foundation to claim that it is the orthodox that actually are. Why did the West prevail, while the East maintained its ground? It seems as if the orthodox are in a coma; not believe anything that has been declared after the split, but at the same time, the West has grown immensely, but obviously not in the right direction. It almost seems as if this split paved the road for the crusaders, and maybe the Church hasn't developed into what it ought to be, had there never been a split.

So my questions to you are these:  Firstly, How does the "West" have the authority to declare that they were still a unified church without the East.   If it is true that the pope didn't have the sole authority, then why could he make that decision without the East involvement? And secondly, if it is true that there has to be a UNIFIED church to have a valid council, then how can we claim to have had any valid
councils since?

One last note, I was reading something that you had written about orthodox that my dad gave to me. I believe it was an e-mail answer. In it you stated that because God promised to be with his Church to the end of time, doesn't it strike you a bit odd that He would be basically absent from it since 756 ( i believe the year was), which is the last valid council the orthodox accept. Yet, at the same time, we believe that the VII was invalid and all the other ones following that. Thats at least a good fifty years. I am not questioning the validity of it whatsoever, because i firmly believe in what you publish; yet fifty years versus a thousand is that not great a spectrum in God's time. I just don't think that that reason is a concrete enough reason to disregard the orthodox position. That doesn't disprove their position.

Anyway, thanks for your time. Hope to hear back from you. Some insight would be wonderful that way I can defend the Catholic faith against
this. Thanks so much!

Diane B.

MHFM: Diane, thanks for the interest.  I must point out that what you are holding as possible, namely, that the pope did not have a greater authority than the other patriarchs in the early Church, is contrary to Catholic dogma.  Christ clearly made St. Peter the first pope, as an abundance of scriptural evidence proves (Mt. 16:18-20; Jn. 21:15-17; etc.).  The bishops of Rome, as the successors to St. Peter, also exercised this unique primacy in the earliest centuries, as Vatican I declared that all Christians must believe. 

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “Surely no one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood.  Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.” (Denz. 1824)

 

There are many examples of the popes exercising this primacy in the early centuries.  There is the case of the sedition at the Church of Corinth in the first century (A.D. 90-100).  The Church at Corinth asked for help from the Bishop of Rome, Pope St. Clement.  They requested him to intercede, even though the apostle John was still alive and closer in Ephesus.  This shows the Papal Primacy from the beginning.  In response Pope Clement wrote his famous epistle to the Corinthians.  In this epistle from the first century, the pope clearly uses authoritative language to command them to be subject to their local pastors.  Here are some quotes from his famous epistle:

 

"Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have befallen us (i.e., the persecutions of Emperor Domitian), we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury." (First Clement, Chapter 1)

 

"Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue." (First Clement, Chapter 57)

 

"Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth." (First Clement, Chapter 46)

 

I will also mention the case of Pope Victor, around the year 190, ordering local synods to be held all over to settle the date of Easter.  There are other examples, but they are covered in many books on the primacy of St. Peter, so I will not repeat them here.  I will say that one of the reasons that the primacy of jurisdiction of the popes wasn't emphasized quite as much in the early Church as it was later on - even though it certainly existed -  is because it was obviously more difficult at that time for popes to step into controversies in far off places.  Due to the difficulties of travel and communication with far off places which existed prior to the invention of modern means of travel and communication, it was obviously not as easy for the Bishop of Rome to settle controversies in distant lands or dioceses.  That’s why examples of this type of intervention were less frequent, even though they existed.  For the same reason, the role of the local bishops and patriarchs in the early Church was especially important at that period in putting down heresies and handling controversies that arose in their localities.  However, here’s a quote from St. Irenaeus (around the year 200) which expresses the authentic and original truth on this issue: that the Church of Rome had a primacy of jurisdiction (e.g., all must agree with it) from the beginning.

 

St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.)

 

Regarding your statement that papal infallibility wasn’t established until the Council of Trent, that’s not correct.  It was defined as a dogma at Vatican I in 1870, but the truth of it was believed since the beginning.  We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.

 

Luke 22:31-32- “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

 

Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not.  Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. 

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR
[29]

 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
“… the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not ...’”
[30]

 

And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.   

 

Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”

 

The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.”  Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith.  And it was also believed in the early Church, as we see here.  Though this truth was believed since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

 

The primary way to refute the Eastern "Orthodox" position is covered in this short letter: Refuting Eastern Orthodox.  It’s just an introduction, but it covers the fatal flaw of illogic at the heart of Eastern “Orthodoxy.”  We’ve added it to the section of our website called “Refuting Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy.”  It’s new, but we will expand it over time.

St. Philomena

We recently added a prayer to St. Philomena to our website.  She’s a powerful saint:

 

Prayer to St. Philomena

 

“Cardinal” Keeler’s heresies

Please I need some help. Is there any way you can find info on Keeler for me, like his heresies in writings or so on?  I dont know how to find out what type of heresy he is in. thanks.

 

PP

 

MHFM: Yes, on August 12, 2002, the American “bishops” in union with John Paul II issued a document on the Jews.  It was called “Reflections on Covenant and Mission.”  Spearheaded by “Cardinal” William Keeler, who was the “Archbishop” of Baltimore, and without a peep of objection from John Paul II, the document publicly declared: “… campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”  Thus, “Cardinal” Keeler holds that the Old Covenant is still valid and that Jews don’t need to – and shouldn’t – be converted to Christianity.  He is thus a notorious apostate.  That should provide you with the information you’re looking for, but Keeler also accepts all of the heresies of Vatican II, false ecumenism, etc., of course.  His view on the Jews, by the way, is common among the Novus Ordo “bishops,” as we show in: The Apostasy of the Hierarchy and prominent members of the Vatican II sect - is this your hierarchy? [PDF File]  That’s because it comes from the teaching of the post-Vatican II antipopes on the Jews, which itself comes from Vatican II’s heretical teaching that Jews are not rejected by God (Nostra Aetate #4).

 

Nicea and Bible

 

Hi Brothers

I am a member of a forum and we are currently debating which is the most accurate bible (though the forum itself is not a religious forum).  My understanding is the most accurate bible and the one I should purchase is the one I can purchase through your online store.  However, when I said that this was the best bible to purchase someone wrote that the Council of Nicea in 325 under the order of Emperor Constantine edited the bible.  I have actually heard this before.  Could you please tell me if this is true and if it is not why do people think this?

Thank you for taking the time to read my email.

VJ

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  The Council of Nicea in 325 did not edit the Bible or formally compile a list of the inspired books.  The Council of Carthage in 397 was the first council at which we find a complete list of the books of the New Testament as we have now.  They might think that it was at Nicea by order of Constantine because it’s a popular myth among non-Catholics that the Catholic Church started with Constantine.  So some of them seem to refer practically everything to Constantine.

 

Apparition

 

hi i just went to your website,and found some info on fatima. well i tell you she is acurate there are images of men burning in the hells. i am told the souls are round,and i feel that to be true intuitivly but alsp have seen dead people roaming the earth,and in the lower subway stations of nyc i have seen invisible bodys blackened by negativity... basically i just laugh god will send thenm all to hell-im staying with jesus the trinity and the virgin mary,and all the angels and saints of god. good luck 

 

barry paul finlay

 

MHFM: What you have said is interesting, but one has to be careful with things such as what you’re describing.  One of the primary means of deception today is false apparitions.  We’ve spoken with a shockingly high number of people who claim to have seen and received supernatural and preternatural things such as you describe.  In many cases, they are obviously deceptions of the evil one since the person is embracing some heresy or living a bad life; but the person cannot see it.  I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case with what you’re describing, but one has to be careful not to look too deeply into them or for them. 

 

When you think about it, such a revelation can be a very effective tool of deception for Satan.  For once he grants a person such a revelation or apparition, quite often (not in every case) that person begins to think he or she is special and has an inside track to God.  It can subtly appeal to that person’s pride.  That person might become complacent or, in so many cases, falsely confident that he or she is on the right path when, in so many cases, he or she is not on the correct path and is actually embracing a heresy or not doing what God wants.  So we would say, in general, that one should not put too much stock into those things; but I’m sure our readers have found what you have said interesting. 

 

Nuns

 

Brothers,

Here is an article about the former CMRI nuns being accepted into the Vatican II church:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703883.htm

Just as you pointed out, people see a few traditional things coming out of Rome, and it totally wipes away all the heresies the Vatican II church holds!  It'svall about appearances! God has allowed these nuns to become more blinded because of their own heretical belief concerning the salvation dogma.

Bridget

 

MHFM: Yes, here’s another one: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=24641. I find it interesting how externals often play such a key part in the Devil’s efforts to deceive people.  He made sure that there was some traditional Latin chanting at the funeral ceremony for the beastly Antipope John Paul II, and that’s all these faithless “nuns” needed to see.  They don’t love the truth, and their supposed dedication to God is a fraud.  The really sad part is that while their move back to the Devil’s Counter Church was, in essence, a full-fledged choice for the Devil, the group which they left is also not Catholic and its heresy of salvation outside the Church paved the way for their acceptance of the manifest heretic Benedict XVI as good.  This “realization” that he is “good” was, as they admitted, the key for them in changing their position.

 

Abjuration

 

Dear MHFM:

 

I was wondering why you have not discussed on your website the issue of "Abjuration" It's my understanding that a catholic that has fallen away from the catholic church would need to make an abjuration to enter back into the catholic church.  And since there is no remission of sins outside of the catholic church or salvation outside of the catholic church.  There must be a clear understanding of this issue, if we are to have a chance to save our souls.        

 

Thanks!

 

JAG 

 

MHFM: For a long time we’ve had on our website the Council of Trent’s profession of faith for converts, which is an abjuration.  In professing it, one condemns everything the Church condemns. “I condemn, reject, and anathematize everything that is contrary to those propositions, and all heresies without exception that have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church.”  We also recommend that people add that they reject specific sects to which they formerly belonged. 

 

The Council of Trent’s Profession of Faith for Converts

 

We have received some e-mails stating that we reject the need for abjuration.  Such a statement is a lie.  It’s typical of the kind of calumny and distortion that schismatics engage in.

 

EWTN

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I just saw on EWTN's The World Over, a segment commenting on Moto Propio.  Raymond Arroyo was interviewing a "Fr." Robert Sirico.  A caller called in and asked whether the priests ordained in the new rite of ordination would have to undergo ordination in the old rite in order to celebrate the traditional Mass.  The dishonest "priest" replied, "No there is only one ordination.  I, myself, was ordained in the new rite and I can celebrate the old rite........"  He didn't even have the honesty to address the issue of whether the new rite is valid or not. 

 

AP

 

MHFM: That doesn’t really surprise me, considering that almost all of the “priests” in the Novus Ordo are oblivious to the major problems with the new rite.

 

Geocentrism Article

 

Hi,
I read through the entire artcle tittled, "Examining the Theological Status of Geocentrism
and Heliocentrism and the Devastating Problems this creates for Baptism of Desire Arguments" I thought it was one of the greatest works for arguing against the false heretical idea of baptism of desire. Everyone who is Catholic or claims to be Catholic (traditional or not) should read this artcle of yours. It also brought my attention to the fact that the Blessed Mother should not be called Co-Redemptrix. I have always believed that that title is fine and so has many traditional Catholics that I know. I think I simply misunderstood the definition of co-redemptrix because I always knew that Christ is the only redeemer but throuh Mary she would help you find Christ and avoid sin, thus being redeemed by christ with the help of the Blessed Mother. I thought that is what co-redemptrix meant, I guess I was wrong. I think maybe many people misuderstand the real meaning. Well anyway I thank you for your great work on the truth of true Infallibility . All should read it.

God Bless

 

a

 

MHFM: Thanks, we’re glad that you liked it and that you read it.  The silence of the leading baptism of desire advocates in regard to the points raised in that article is deafening.   Those who follow these issues closely know that the facts and arguments in that article literally crush what these people have been arrogantly telling and teaching masses of “traditionalists” for years.  If they continue with their silence, soon we will be forced to specifically call them out again, to further expose their hypocrisy and to draw even more attention to the fact that they do not have the truth on their side and that they have been totally refuted.  They have been totally refuted on what they have said about the authority of the actions against Fr. Feeney, about the authority of the teaching of theologians and doctors of the Church, among other things. 

 

Consider the fact that these groups have published tracts and articles stating that it’s a mortal sin to reject baptism of desire because of the 1949 letter of two members of the Holy Office (Suprema haec sacra, a very heretical document).  But not one of those same groups, to my knowledge, holds that it’s a mortal sin to deny that the Earth is the center of the universe, even though geocentrism was considered de fide by St. Robert Bellarmine and to deny it was declared heretical by a decree of many members of the Holy Office in 1633!  Think about this profoundly outrageous hypocrisy, which is demonstrated by these prominent “traditionalist” priests and bishops and is now right in front of us all.  It’s like the elephant in the room.  Yet these bad willed, necessity-of-baptism-denying, salvation-for-non-Catholics-believing heretics ignore it and go on their “merry” way.  They think they are safe ignoring these facts.  However, when they meet Jesus Christ they will find out just how wrong they were and just how much they sinned against His truth.  They won’t get away with it; nor will the heretical laypeople who ignored these and other facts, and continued to accept the heresies of these priests or continued to support them.

 

Regarding the “Co-Redemptrix” issue, soon we will be posting some thoughts which we feel further demonstrate why that title is not a proper title to express Our Lady’s profound role in our salvation, and why it is excluded by the language used in the dogmatic definitions of Trent and Florence.

 

Bitter?

 

After perusing your site for even a short time, I was able to conclude that you most certainly weren't holy, you are actually bitter; you're not part of the family, you've cut yourselves off and then blamed everyone else for being wrong. I'll pray for you.


Patrick

 

MHFM: You do not name even one issue about which you think we're wrong, since you are a coward and you would be refuted. You are a blind and arrogant heretic.  You're a fraud who is headed for damnation.  You present an exterior of charity, when in reality you have none.  Are we angry at obstinate heretics who reject or mislead or attack Catholic teaching?  Of course we are.  Since you are devoid of the true faith and, as a result, devoid of any sincere concern for God’s truth, you call solicitude for the truths of Catholicism and a hatred of heresy unholy bitterness.  You are gravely mistaken. 

 

Psalm 96:10- “You that love the Lord, hate evil: the Lord preserveth the souls of his saints, he will deliver them out of the hand of the sinner.”

 

You are those of whom the Scripture speaks:

 

Isaias 5:20- “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.”

 

Woe to you, heretic.

 

Rosary

 

We’re glad to say that we now have a “How to Pray the Rosary” page on our website.  We send out many sheets on how to pray the Rosary with orders to various individuals who do not know how to pray it (since they are from a non-Catholic background) or who have forgotten how to pray it when they stopped praying it years ago.  But now one is available on our website:

 

How to Pray the Rosary

 

More on new Motu Proprio and the Sunday limit

 

I suspect that the Motu Propio document on the "freeing of the mass" has a Satanic purpose.

 

The American Bishop's conference are interpreting the request to allow only one 1962 version mass per Sunday (in article 5 of the Motu) as on a Diocese level instead of one per parish (in article 4 of the Motu). I looked at some sites online that list indults and in my rough calculation, this will actually lead to about a 50% reduction in the current number of indults. So, it does not seem like the goal of the document was to increase the availability of the indult to lay people - at least not the goal of the Bishops, and probably not the goal of Benedict XVI, based on all his other words and actions.

 

I think the document on China and the document on the freeing of the mass have something in common. Both are encouraging priests and lay people to come out of hiding and identify who they are that want anything that even looks more like the genuine faith. This will make it much easier to round them up.

 

This would be similar to how the Russian Communist's persecution played out. Per Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, they had special intense tortures for Catholics, so much more intense that the nonCatholic Christians being tortured considered themselves very fortunate in comparison; But still, the Communists were not satisfied with just torturing Catholics. So, it looks like the Novus Ordo, who knows us already, is using the Motu to find sympathisers.

 

It certainly does not seem like an effort to lure people away from SSPX or other trad chapels, because so many of the indult chapels are to be closed through this Motu anyway.

 

It looks like this document is simply part of some final preparations for a much greater persecution. Since it is not for the purpose of freeing the mass nor for luring trads back into the Novus Ordo structure, what then, do you think, is it's purpose?

 

MHFM: We have mentioned in numerous places on our website – most recently the News and Commentary section – what the purpose of this new motu proprio is.  It is extremely significant to also note that part of the restrictions that Benedict XVI has placed is to only allow one Latin Mass per Sunday.  Think about that.  Most people only attend church on Sundays, especially people in the Novus Ordo.  So if there were one day on which there would be a need to have more than one Mass it would be on Sunday, of course.  But that is precisely the day on which he disallows more than one Latin Mass.  That should tell you something about his true intentions and evil agenda.

 

----

 

Brothers,

Thanks for your response.  I stand corrected.  I should not have said the "Motu Proprio" did nothing.  I think in effect it will do very little.

It is true that priests ordained in the New Rite of the Vatican II church are not true priest, and therefore even if they perform the ceremony of the Tridentine Mass, it still won't be a valid mass.  Besides this most significant point, there is also in Art. 4 of the "Motu Proprio" the very vague and disturbing words "observing all the norms of law".  What this means, nobody knows.  I believe the "pastor" and the "bishop" will interpret
these words in a manner that best suit their whims.  The devil doesn't want the laity attending any valid masses, so for the older priests who were
validly ordained in the pre-Vatican II rite, I am afraid the "pastor" and the "bishop" will use this clause to suppress any attendance of the laity
from these private, valid masses as "authorized" in Art. 2 of the "Motu Proprio".  As you say, the Vatican is simply using the conservatively-billed and
advertised documents like the "Motu Proprio" to get the conservative Novus Ordo "catholics" to continue hang on and the confused traditionalists to
come back to the counter church, the false bride of Christ.

Another example is the document entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church", which was released today July 11, 2007 under the approval of Benedict XVI.  Regarding this "conservative-sounding document about the Roman Catholic Church being the one Church of Christ" as you put it, the document was full of ambiguous and contradicting statements, and in effect, it did very little in clarifying anything, except proving once again that the church in Rome is not the Catholic Church.

For instance, the document correctly states in the Response to the Second Question that "Christ 'established here on earth' only one Church" and "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic".  These are both true statements, and a conservative Novus Ordo "catholic" might read it and say "See look, Benedict is not a heretic." But indeed Benedict XVI is a heretic.  Case in point, the document goes on to completely contradict itself later in the same Response to the Second Question with "It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in
communion with the Catholic Church ..."  This is nonsense.  It contradicts the de fide teaching that the Church is Christ is one as was just declared
three sentences prior in the same document.

"For since the Mystical Body of Christ, like His physical Body, is one (I Cor. 12:12), … it were foolish to say that the Mystical Body is composed of
disjointed and scattered members.  Whosoever therefore is not united with the Body is no member thereof; neither is he in communion with Christ its Head." -Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, Paragraphs 15-16.

What is also laughable is how the counter church tries to convince everyone that it is trying to clarify the dogmas that the true Church has already
decreed.  For instance, in the Response to the First Question the document states "What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach ... that which was uncertain, is now clarified ..."  Come on, what could be more simple than the dogma that the true Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church, one and undivided.  What this new Vatican document tries to explain is purposely obtuse and incomprehensible.

So I concur with you.  The Vatican is purposely using these conservatively-billed and advertised documents that in effect will do very little in bringing about any changes in the counter church.  I should not have said that the "Motu Proprio" did nothing.  In effect, it will just do very little, considering how few real priests there are and the vague clause contained in Art. 4. Thanks again for all that you do.

Francis Pagnanelli

 

MHFM: Yes, also having read this new supposedly “conservative” and traditional document on the Church, I can only say that anyone who has read it and thinks that it represents traditional Catholic teaching is totally of bad will.  It’s completely heretical.  We will discuss it soon on our website and on our next radio program.

 

Dr. Tom Droleskey

 

MHFM: A recent e-mail exchange for those it may concern:

 

Dr. Tom Droleskey believes that members of false religions can be saved

 

This will be found permanently in the “Beware” Section of our website.

 

On New Motu Proprio

 

Brothers,

I have read Benedict XVI's "Motu Proprio", and I have to say that for anyone who is still a conservative Vatican II "catholic" waiting for the reform of the reform, it really did nothing for them with regard to increasing the usage of the Tridentine Mass.

In his "Motu Proprio", Benedict XVI simply stated that "It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962."  This is nothing new.  Pope St. Pius V told us that 437 years ago in his Papal Bull "Quo Primum".  Benedict XVI even admitted that the Tridentine Mass was "never abrogated", as if the counter church had the power to do so anyway.

Let's look at the "Motu Proprio".  In Art. 5, it states that in diocesian parishes where there exists a desire of the faithful to attend the Tridentine Mass, then "the pastor should willingly accept their requests".  Note that the "Motu Proprio" does not state that the pastor is obligated to accept their requests, and that even if the decision is made by the pastor to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, then that decision still needs to be made "under the guidance of the bishop", meaning that the "bishop" still has the supposed authority to stop its celebration.

So what exactly did the "Motu Proprio" do?  Nothing.  You brothers are right.  This long awaited "Motu Proprio" is just a ploy keep conservative "catholics" hanging on in hope that the reform of the refom will someday
come.

Francis Pagnanelli

 

MHFM: I have read it as well.  While there are definitely some restrictions, I definitely disagree that it is nothing new.   It definitely expands permission for the use of the 1962 Missal, contrary to what some are saying.  It’s very different from the situation prior to the promulgation of this moto proprio; for, as we showed on our website, Paul VI clearly affirmed that the New Mass was binding and that the traditional mass was only allowed for very few conditions; and later documents only allowed the Latin Mass with the specific permission of the “bishop.”  Now any “priest” in the Counter Church could cite Art. 2 below to justify his use of the 1962 Missal, without any permission, if confronted by his Novus Ordo “authorities.”  These are words coming from his very own Antipope Benedict XVI, a post-Vatican II “pope.”  The “priest” wouldn’t need to argue that St. Pius V’s decree is still binding.

 

“Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his ordinary.”

 

People at his church could then use Art. 4 to attend such celebrations:
 

“Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may -- observing all the norms of law -- also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.” [Link to new “Motu Proprio”  ]

 

So it is definitely different, contrary to the claims of one false traditiionalist website.  [The false traditionalist website I’m describing constantly attacks the Counter Church as a non-Catholic sect, but outrageously, obstinately and schismatically continues to regard its leadership as the authorities in the Catholic Church.  It thus has an axe to grind in lessening the significance of this new motu proprio; for if all “priests” in the Counter Church can now say the Latin Mass, there is less of a distinction between his own false position and theirs (which he hates so much) and it undercuts his reasons for remaining independent of the Vatican II hierarchy.  So that’s why that particular website is dishonestly asserting that this new document grants essentially nothing.]  After this motu proprio, however, things are no different in terms of most of the Masses still being invalid, since almost all the priests are invalid anyway, which is why Benedict XVI was willing to do it.  We are not denying that apostate “bishops” in the Counter Church might do their utmost to circumvent these permissions, and therefore its effect will not be as widespread as some in the Counter Church think.  Nevertheless, the point is that Antipope Benedict XVI has definitely stepped out and made a concession to “traditionalists” as part of his diabolical plan. 

 

The Devil probably waited as long as he could to make this concession, picking just the right time.  As we hear more and more every day about the acceptance of homosexuality becoming essentially a world-wide dogma which people of the world must accept or face ostracization or even criminal charges, we know the time is very short.  Now there is talk about a conservative-sounding document about the Roman Catholic Church being the one Church of Christ which will supposedly anger Protestants.  This comes after scores of joint declarations of Antipope Benedict XVI and Antipope John Paul II with schismatic and Protestant leaders in which they denounce trying to convert schismatics and accept Protestant heresies.  Again, this is all part of the plan.  After many “traditionalists” fall for it, they will probably move quickly with the “canonization” of the beast Antipope John Paul II, making them worship Antichrist. This concession of the 1962 Missal was one the Devil had to make as part of his final surge.  It’s obvious, at least to us, that part of Benedict XVI’s mission from Satan is to try as hard as he can to deceive the “traditionalists” while not violating his program of ecumenical apostasy and the promotion of Vatican II.  It’s quite something, but we are truly living in those times of which Our Lord spoke, when he spoke of the spiritual deception being so profound that even the elect would be deceived “if it were possible” (Mt. 24:24).  The question is who loves the truth (the full truth), who hates heresy, who condemns heretics (e.g., the apostate Antipope Benedict XVI) without becoming a schismatic who falsely condemns people who are not heretics, and who holds the other dogmas of the faith (such as Outside the Church…) without any compromise?  If one doesn’t denounce this apostate after becoming aware of his apostasy, it doesn’t matter how many Latin Masses one attends, whether they are valid or not, for that one is a Christ-denier.  

 

Cum ex

 

Dear Bros Dimond,

 

I have read and reread this Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, and having a difficult time of determining what the complete message is.

I am hoping that you would have some time to decipher it for me, and explain it to me in simple laymans language.. 

 

As I see it , it’s a warning with teeth , against "Usurpers", who are in the the Church or intend to be in the Church , in any position of Authority , that being from Pope even down to layman, that if they are convicted of any Serious Heresy, are removed , all power and authority taken away, never to be able to hold a position of authority again ,FOREVER,to be put away in some monestary or Order , to live the rest of their lives , on bread and water..  The document repeatly talks of , "In perpetuity", etc…

 

I need to know the weight of the document , if its in the area of Divine  law, which must be obeyed to the letter, by all , as in the case of something that is "Ex Cathara", or Infallable.. or does it fall in the category of , "Disiplinary" , of some sort. 

 

Thank you, Await your reply

Sincerely

Fred landolfi

 

MHFM: Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV definitely has some disciplinary aspects to it.  However, the central point that heretics cannot hold offices and rule in the Church is dogmatic.  It’s tied in with the dogma, defined by Eugene IV and others, that heretics cannot be inside the Church.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

 

Sunday rest

 

MHFM: Here’s a story to remind us of the obligation to refrain from doing forbidden work on Sunday.  Padre Jose de Anchieta was a famous 16th century Jesuit missionary to Brazil.  He exerted great efforts in bringing the Catholic Faith to the natives of that land.

 

“Edifying signs of some conception of right and wrong appeared in unexpected places.  One Sunday as [Padre] Jose went visiting he found a little boy diligently weaving a basket that he had begun that morning, apparently having forgotten about the Sabbath.  We do not know what Jose said to him, but the following morning the penitent brought his precious basket to school and before all the children threw it into the fire.  Gradually the natives learned to observe the days of fast and abstinence although, as in most things, they depended upon the ‘padres’ to remind them not only about the Lenten season but also about Fridays.” (Helen G. Dominian, Apostle of Brazil, p. 115)

 

Approved?

 

I have just finished reading your booklet on Padre Pio and enjoyed it immensely. However in lokking over your various items for sale, I am wondering seriously if your monastery is a truly Catholic one and in good standing with the Church, if it has the approval of the  Bishop of the Diocese you are located in. I am familiar now with your website but the section of "Our Manastery" is very limited in information of the detaiuls which I would like to know… I thank you for any information I would like before I proceed in ordering any more of your tapes and dvds.

 

Yours, in Christ.

 

Gir…

 

MHFM: You really need to look more carefully at the material on our website.  It shows that the post-Vatican II Church and its “authorities” are manifestly heretical and therefore not Catholic.  They reject many dogmas of the Catholic faith and, according to Catholic teaching, cannot hold authority in the Catholic Church.  They are today’s equivalent of the Arians.  In the 4th century, the Arians (heretics who denied the Divinity of Christ) were successful in occupying many of the Catholic buildings and making true Catholics look as if they were the outsiders.

 

The “bishops” of the post-Vatican II Church obviously don’t regard as “approved” groups such as ours, since we adhere uncompromisingly to the traditional Catholic faith and reject the heretical Second Vatican Council and the Counter Church to which it gave birth.  Since you asked about the local Vatican II “bishop” in Buffalo, you should read the file below.  He’s the first one covered:

 

The Apostasy of the Hierarchy and prominent members of the Vatican II sect - is this your hierarchy? [PDF File]

(This article covers the astounding heresies and apostasy of the “bishops” and other prominent members of the Vatican II sect – the Counter Church – as well as the Catholic teaching that heretics immediately lose authority in the Catholic Church)

 

Major EWTN Heresy

 

FYI - While flipping through the channel lineup on TV this morning, I came across Mother Angelica Live on EWTN.  If anyone ever needs evidence that proves she believes in Universal Salvation, you can find her speaking about it from the May 16, 2000 episode, which came on as a rerun.  She firmly and deceivingly claims that it is the teaching of the Church and supports this heresy whole-heartedly.

 

Lidash…

 

Relative to your most recent radio broadcast (Dolan’s discussion of Father Feeney and the dogma of No Salvation):

 

I view EWTN periodically with the intent of having specific cases to use in discussion with various people trying to hold tight to a belief because EWTN said it was so and they can’t be wrong (I also use your material which is far more insightful than anything I am capable of doing).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Friday 7/6/07; re-broadcast of “Mother Angelica Live” from the year 2000

 

The last caller of the program asked, ‘Will people of other religions lose their souls if they do not eat the Body of Christ?’

 

“Mother” Angelica answered:

“God judges by your light.”

 

She quotes Luke 12:47,48: She says, ‘There is a passage in Luke 12 where it speaks of the servant who knows what his master wants, he will receive many stripes but the one who does not know but deserves to be beaten will receive less.’ ‘You see, if you don’t know, how can you be held …’

 

And then she wraps everything around her next statement, ‘There was a heresy a few years back that you had to be Catholic to go to Heaven. The Church does not teach that.  All people are saved by the merits of Jesus through the Church.’

 

She continues, ‘Nobody has told them, back to your question (the caller asking about the Eucharist). We will be judged only by what they have been told and the graces we have.’

 

Some additional paraphrases: The degree (of grace?) given to priests, religious, and bishops means that more is expected of them.

There are other people we must save - Jesus and the Church want all people to go to heaven My judgment will be different than others because I am religious and more is expected. You have light and knowledge by what you have been told - to whom is given a great deal much is expected, but, if you haven’t been given a great deal …

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This was a carbon-copy of the many examples of heresy you have provided to Catholics pertaining to the deceit or ill-will or ignorance that people in leadership positions (as with Dolan) pass-off as authentically Catholic. Makes me recall a number of years ago how I yearned for my cable company to provide EWTN so that I would have access to true Catholic teaching – THANK YOU – for opening my eyes to the many angles the counter-church uses to subvert Catholic Teaching and Tradition.

 

Regarding the scripture passage from Luke - the Haydock commentary provides: “Shall be beaten with few stripes. Ignorance, when it proceeds from a person's own fault, doth not excuse, but only diminsheth the fault"  That is quite different from the interpretation "Mother" offered.

 

Gary

 

MHFM:  That’s quite a heresy.  The fact that Mother Angelica called the seven-times defined dogma of the faith (i.e. Outside the Church There is No Salvation) a heresy and said that the Church “does not teach that” is so heretical that it’s difficult to find the words to describe how bad it is.  It further proves that she is outside the Church, that she is a false prophet, that her network is not remotely Catholic and is a vehicle of the Devil to lead conservative-minded individuals into the Counter Church he has constructed. 

 

It’s also interesting to note that her programs are typically so lacking in substance, so worthless, so boring, so focused on trivial matters or making her audience laugh at unimportant things, that they are, in our view, pathetic.  This is not to suggest that laughing at unimportant things is wrong, but if it provides the bulk or a large portion of one’s message to the people then there is a big problem.  Her programs are usually worthless because they are the products of a dead soul.  What’s amazing is that so many people have remained glued to them (and thus frozen in the Conciliar Church) rather than losing interest in her lifeless message and searching instead for things which provide more substance, more material relevant to the hard-hitting truths of God and the Catholic Faith.  It speaks to the sad truth of how few savor the truth and are attracted to it and to what’s important.

                                                          

RCIA

 

Dear Brother Diamond,

I've been reading your website… First, please let me extended a deeply heart-felt expression of gratitude towards you and those of your monastery. It has been instrumental in kindling the small, but sufficient, flame of hope and faith in my soul throughout that time. I hope this email finds you all well.

For years now, I've been growing in my traditional Catholic faith. I'm 28 years old, have never been baptized, and was raised in a vaguely Protestant family.  Without getting too much into my story, over 7 years of study, contemplation, and prayer in mostly Carmelite traditions, along with Eucharistic adoration, has sown a burning desire to fully live the Catholic faith.  From the beginning, I've known the heretical nature of Vatican II, and have had a natural aversion to it. Many times early in my study, I could sense the spirit of Vatican II in things that I'd pick up to read well before learning that it had, in fact, been written by someone closely associated with that heretical movement.

For four years now, I've gone from RCIA program to RCIA program, "Traditionalist" church to "Traditionalist" church, trying to find a home where I can be baptized and fully incorporated in The Body of Christ.  Each time, my resolve to continue the programs broken by manifest heresy being taught, the overall flippant attitude towards Christ, or, in the case of the "Traditionalists", a scared, timidity and spirit of compromise, even if their word be not compromised….

 

Most cordially,
Shaunna Burk

 

MHFM: We contacted this individual.  It’s great to hear about the interest in the faith.  It’s also very interesting to hear yet another testimony about the manifest heresy in the Vatican II sect’s “RCIA” programs.  We’ve heard many such stories.  At this point in the apostasy these programs must be truly outrageous.  No one should have anything to do with the RCIA programs of the dioceses, of course.  (We mention this for those who are new to this website.)

 

Christians

 

MHFM, Which papal encyclical was it that stated that no one but catholics may be called Christians?  Wasnt it Vatican II council of apostasy?  But which pope said it, and what was the encyclical?

Also, if you are all sedevacantists, why does it not necessarily follow that you must immediately move to solve the solution of the problem of the papacy?

From,
E

MHFM: It was in this encyclical:

 

Pope Pius IX, Etsi multa (#25), November 21, 1873: “Therefore the holy martyr Cyprian, writing about schism, denied to the pseudo-bishop Novatian even the title of Christian, on the grounds that he was cut off and separated from the Church of Christ. ‘Whoever he is,’ he says, ‘and whatever sort he is, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ.’”

 

I’m not sure what you mean by your last statement, for we are not advocating the election of a pope.  It is the Vatican II antipopes who have tried to solve the “problem” of the Papacy by removing this dogma from the list of things which a person must accept to be a true Christian.

 

Archived radio program

 

We did a radio program last night, Tuesday, July 3.  We didn’t decide to have a program on Tuesday night until a few hours before the program, so that’s why not much advanced warning was posted on our site.  But here’s the link to the program:

 

July 3, 2007 Radio Program [1 hr. and 4 min. – discusses at length and quotes from an extremely revealing sermon by Bishop Dolan on baptism, salvation, Fr. Feeney and “Feeneyites.”  Hear his own heretical words.  Hear a true heretic in action.  This is a must-listen if you are familiar with this bishop.  This program also discusses other things.] All the Archived Radio Programs

 

Web stats

 

How many hits do you get on your website?

 

MHFM: Over the last 65-day period we received more than 2 million hits on our website. 

 

Job question

 

Dear bro micheal,

 

I was playing football befor i joined the novus ordo seminary but after i discover the evil of vatican 2 i left and i went back to my football game but i still feel the desire to serve God as a religius but we dont have a traditional seminary in my country( nigeria) what do i do concerning the football i am playing do i continue with it or look for another job to do? in my country Nigeria almost every Job is against the Catholic faith. plz advice me on what to do i am confuse.

 

Terry Markmary

 

MHFM: If that's the best job you can find, and if there's nothing which involves the compromise of your faith, we see no reason at all that you cannot continue to play football (or soccer, as it is called here) to make a living.

 

Some readers’ comments

 

I just read your last e-exchange on true christianity.   This poor soul may not even know that the first bible wasn't published until some centuries after the birth of the Church.  Yet before that the earliest christians had the faith which was handed down to them by word and tradition from the Apostles who received the Holy Ghost on Pentecost.

 

AP

---

Dear MHFM

 

Your logic in the latest e-exchange with the Protestant is irrefutable, but it probably will not convert very many; nor did Jesus convert very many while he walked the earth when most walked away and only a few were left who believed him.

 

The infant is born with a need to know and he or she is constantly testing, tasting, touching, exploring....

    When does the human being stop this searching for truth which we are all born with an obligation to come to know? 

    It stops when we begin to be influenced by our peers--by man--and into pleasing man and leaving God by the wayside. This pleasing of man has gone so far that mothers now routinely murder their own infants in the womb or prevent their existence with contraception, and now families are suddenly murdering each other; even children are murdering children. and everyone is taken by surprise that this should happen.

    Where are our priests? "Priests"? They are having ego trips and telling jokes in Novus Ordo churches, assuring us all is well in order to receive human approval. 

    They call it peer pressure and as they fall into hell they blame others for failing to continue their search for the truth. that would have saved them had they not stopped and catered to their fellow MAN.  

 

PM 

 

MHFM: Amidst all the darkness, the good news is that some people are converting.  In the past few months we’ve been contacted by many people from a non-Catholic background (e.g. Protestantism or nothing) who are taking actual steps to conversion after having received or heard some of our information.  We’ve been contacted by many, many more (and continue to be contacted all the time) by people in the Novus Ordo who are interested in the truth and are coming to a full recognition and practice of the traditional Catholic faith.

 

Brothers Michael and Peter,

 

Regarding the email sent by Robert Dombrowski I would like to add this point.  Robert if Benedict XVI is your pope and you have the same faith as he does, which by the way, you must admit, then you must also believe that Jesus and Allah are one and the same.  Just in case you don't know, Robert Jesus is God. However, Benedict XVI, as did JPII, say and believe that the god of the Muslims is the same God of the Christians.  Therefore you must also hold that that Jesus and Allah are one and the same.  This is Blasphemy.  The Church has always held that the god of the Muslims is a devil.  Benedict claims that devil for his god.  In turn, the god of the church BXVI resides over is a devil and those who are in that church do not follow The One True God, but the devil.  So Robert before you begin to tell others they are wrong you ought to know who you serve.  Again, your pope says that the god you and he serve is one whom the Church has always taught is the devil.

 

Paul

Texas

 

Jesus

 

Bros. Dimond,

 

I your recent appearance on Coast to Coast you said that Jesus said, "I am God."  I have come across articles that claim Jesus did not know he was God.  If Jesus knew he was God, how did he suffer as a man? Certainly He could have controlled his crucifixion and its torments at his whim.  Or, alternatively, where do the claims that He was unaware of his real being derive?  I'm sure you can settle this apparent dilemma.

 

Thanks,

 

Howard Prass

 

MHFM: The New Testament repeatedly teaches that Jesus is God, as shown here: Where does the Bible teach that Jesus is God?  Jesus is God, yet suffered as a man because He is both God and man.  He is one divine person with two natures.  He did not suffer in His divine nature, but He suffered in His human nature.  Thus, God (the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) suffered in His humanity, which He assumed in the Incarnation.  As God, Jesus could have stopped His torments, but He submitted to them and suffered for the redemption of the world.  One must know and believe the teaching on the Incarnation; one cannot be saved without faith in it.

 

Marriage

 

Dear MHFM Brothers,

I have two friends that are husband and wife. They are on their way to the true Catholic Church and are in the process of examining you material. They presented me with a question of whether or not their marriage is valid or not, since they were married before a Novus Ordo "priest". I informed them that they are the ministers of that particular sacrament so it is valid. They understood but then wanted to know if their marriage was blessed, and if not what they could do to get it blessed. If anything.

                                                                        
Thanks for all your help,
Nate from Detroit

 

MHFM:  As you correctly state in your e-mail (assuming they hadn’t been married before they married each other and assuming they were both professing Catholics), they are validly married.  There’s no need to get it blessed, especially since there are so few fully Catholic priests around today.  Simply, if they come out of the Novus Ordo Church, accept the fullness of the traditional faith, make the profession of faith from the Council of Trent (available here), and make a good confession, then their marriage would be in good standing before God.  A good confession includes mentioning any involvement with heresies or having partaken in non-Catholic services, etc., as well as any mortal sins (such as Natural Family Planning or artificial contraception) which may not have been confessed to a priest ordained in the traditional rite of ordination.

 

Absurd?

 

Brother Diamond or whoever :

After thouroughly reviewing your website I must say that the real heretic is you.  It appears that you are
outside the Church.  I notice also that you attack just about every traditional "Catholic" group there is, implicitly suggesting that you are the only true Catholic.  Your belief that the popes after Vatican II are antipopes is utterly absurd.  There certainly exists many problems in the Church today but schismatics such as you only serve to create division and more confusion.  You need to renounce your false positions and return to the Church under the leadership of Pope Benedict.  That's right! POPE Benedict!

Robert Dombrowski

 

MHFM: The Heresies of Benedict XVI  [PDF file].

 

Heretics, heretics, what can one do?  The truth, the truth, it’s all schism to you.  Ever heard of Vatican I?  You are no more a Catholic than Attila the Hun.  The councils, the dogmas, the Office of Peter, to not see that Benedict denies them is to be a heresy eater. 

What part of “Protestantism is different from heresy” (Benedict XVI) don’t you understand?  When you defend all of his heresies, where do you think your soul will land?

 

The Joint Declaration on Justification, the Balamand Agreement, have you ever even read the Council of Trent?  By what demonic spirit have you been sent?  Like a Muslim, in a mosque, toward Mecca, he prays; no matter, you accept every egg of heresy which he lays.  He tells the Protestants and the schismatics there’s no need to be Catholic – how sick!  You must possess the understanding of a tick.  He denied Jesus by worshipping in the synagogue; you can’t see the crime because you’re in a spiritual fog. 

 

Religious liberty, ecumenism, so many heresies in V-2; you claim to be Catholic, but you are closer to a Jew.

 

Benedict XVI tells world’s leading schismatic that he’s in the Church of Christ, yet you defend him anyway because you’re part of his spiritual heist.  No matter how many heresies you see, you still won’t believe; your bad will is so profound it makes me want to heave.

 

With blind bats like you, Catholic truth is perverted.  Perhaps when you consider the heresy below, you will be converted. 

 

I really don’t feel like proceeding with this amateur rhyme; heretics like you aren’t worth the time.

 

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism.  The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.  On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.  On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the Church.  While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the problem.  This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action.  That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it.  As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

Notice that Benedict XVI specifically mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith.  He says that their conversion and acceptance of Vatican I and the Papacy is NOT the way for unity.  This is a total rejection of the Catholic Faith.

 

[For you to actually look at the information on our website (as you claim you did), and specifically the heresies of the manifest heretic Antipope Benedict XVI (who doesn’t even believe that Protestantism is heresy), and then to call our position absurd is so absurd that it prompted me to respond in a rather unusual way to your e-mail.]

 

True Christianity

 

Saw some of your videos. I am amazed of your awareness of what Catholicism is and has always been. Nevertheless you hang on to this religion, that is totally anti biblical an tries to steal the Church of Christ for themselves. The Bible and ONLY the bible is the word of God, but you keep citing Catholic Dogmas that are out  and contrary to the word of God. "I am the way, the truth and the life no one comes to the father but through me", says the Lord Jesus. Please, if you beleive in Christ , be a Christian and nothing more, everything else is from the devil.     

 

frem

 

MHFM: While I’m glad that you have some interest, you are not a Christian at this time.  None of the Catholic dogmas contradict the Bible; they only contradict your own imagination of what is Biblical teaching and your misunderstanding of scripture, which scripture itself warns us about.

 

2 Peter 3:16- “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

 

The primary claim of your e-mail directly contradicts scripture; for, as we see below, scripture teaches that there is a word of God besides the written word of scripture.  That is called the oral tradition.  We see that clearly in this verse:

2 Thessalonians 2:15- “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

2 Thessalonians 3:6- “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

That’s why the Bible teaches that the Church, not the Bible, is the pillar of the truth.  For while the Bible is the infallible word of God along with true apostolic tradition, the Church is the primary rule of faith which Christ has entrusted with infallibly teaching people the true meaning of the Bible and oral tradition.

 

1 Timothy 3:15- “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of Truth.”

 

As we saw above, your entire position of sola scriptura (scripture alone) is found nowhere in scripture and is directly contradicted by it.  That’s not to mention all of the other doctrines which you, as a non-Catholic false “Christian,” almost certainly reject.  As a Protestant or as some other false “Christian,” you probably reject the clear truth of the Bible on the Papacy (Mt. 16:18-20; John 21-15-17), on the Eucharist (John 6), on Confession (Jn. 20:23), on the necessity of Baptism (John 3:5) and much more.  In order to make room for their man-made religion, the Protestants also kicked seven books they didn't like out of Christian Bible – books which had been accepted by the Christian Church for over a millennium.  Jesus Christ only founded one Church, and that was the Catholic Church.  It’s necessary to hear that Church for salvation (Mt. 18:17).  To claim to believe in the Bible and to reject the foundation of the Papacy upon St. Peter is to be a liar.

 

This is not even to get into the teaching of the earliest Christians, the fathers of the Church (i.e. the prominent Christian writers of the first millennium), who from the very beginning attested to the Catholic teachings on the Papacy, the Eucharist, etc.  You remain unaware of, or completely dismiss, all of that, for you are, at this time, oblivious to authentic and historical Christianity.  I would encourage you to study some Christian history; you will see that it is Catholic.  There was only one Christian Church from the beginning, against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail, and that was and is the Catholic Church.  That’s why one person correctly stated: “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

Finally, in your e-mail you state that Jesus Christ alone is the way to the Father, as if the Catholic Church doesn’t teach this.  The Catholic Church has taught this truth more vigorously, repeatedly and effectively than any of the false “Christian” sects.  It was the Catholic Church and her missionaries, not the man-made false sects, which, preaching this truth from the beginning – with a consistency and a power only to be found in the one true Christian Church – brought the Gospel to the farthest of the nations.  Start to accept the truth and consider the abundance of facts from scripture (such as those above) and Church history which prove your position wrong.  The false “Christianity” to which you adhere is a phony religion which was invented in the 16th century; it is refuted both by scripture and Christian history.  You cannot have salvation in it; pray sincerely to God and ask Him to enlighten you about His true Church.

 

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:

“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under Heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ in which we must be saved.  This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

 

Debating

 

I need your help clearing something up. I am currently debating “x” and “x” on whether or not Benedict XVI is a valid pope. They claim that he is a bad pope, but still the pope. They have claimed that a pope is the only one who can remove himself from the Papacy and the rules of excommunication don't apply to them (stupid I know but that is what they claim). They will however admit that a heretic cannot become Pope…I decided to use the 1983 code of canon law(since they view JPII as a valid pope they must adhere to it) to prove that Ratzinger was in violation of canon law . One of the things I claimed was that Ratzinger was in violation of Can. 1389 §1 A person who abuses ecclesiastical power or an office, is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or the omission, not excluding by deprivation of the office, unless a penalty for that abuse is already established by law or precept. §2 A person who, through culpable negligence, unlawfully and with harm to another, performs or omits an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or office, is to be punished with a just penalty.

 

I said he was in violation of this because when he was head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he was responsible for dealing with the sexual abuse that were occurring and the only thing he did about it was cover it up and shuffle the priests from one parish to another, and once the cat was out of the bag he asked President Bush for immunity from charges, which he was granted. This to me is a total abuse of power because he used his position to get out of punishment even though concealing the abuse was in violation of several laws including: Obstruction of justice in concealing the felony of statutory rape and child endangerment. They claim that I am interpreting this wrong. It is very possibly that I might be. Any help you could give me I would appreciate.

 

God Bless You,

 

Misty

 

MHFM: The point we would focus in on is that they seem to be admitting that Benedict XVI is a heretic, but they deny that a “pope” who is a heretic receives ipso facto excommunication (and thus severs his membership in the Church) like the rest of the heretics. In holding this position they are contradicting the infallible dogma of the Church below (defined by the Council of Florence), which declares that all heretics are outside the Church.  If a heretic “pope” could remain in the Church and not receive excommunication which severs his membership, as they claim, this dogma is not true.  But we know it is true, and thus we know that what they are saying is false.  What they are also denying is the related dogma that all in the Church have the same faith (as in one, holy, catholic and apostolic), and that a Catholic cannot therefore profess communion with a person who doesn’t hold the Catholic Faith (e.g. a heretic such as Benedict XVI).

 

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…”

 

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

 

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22):

“As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.  And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican.  It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

 

It’s easy to see, therefore, why those who admit that Benedict XVI is a heretic, but maintain that he is the pope, don’t have a leg to stand on in this debate.  Their position is demolished by the facts.  Oh yeah, and those who deny that Benedict XVI is a heretic also don’t have a leg to stand on and their position is just as easily demolished by the facts.  See: The Heresies of Benedict XVI  [PDF file].

 

Discovered

 

Dear Fathers and Brothers,

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!  It's been less than a day since I discovered your website and have begun reading through your PDF files.  I have much more to read and to learn.  Unmistakably, however, you are right about the Novus Ordo church. Many others have tried, with varied results, but no one else yet, in my experience, has laid bare the falsity of today's "Catholic church" as you do.  Indeed, you get right to the heart of the matter by identifying the deliberate mistranslation of "pro multis" as "for all" in the Novus Ordo mass.  The form has been altered, and with form (as I learned many years ago as a student of Russian literature--of all things!) goes content.  The Body of Christ is not there…

I could easily write many pages more here (as it happens, I was a Benedictine monk in the Novus church for some time in the 1990s, and DID write a book about my experiences there, intended for self-publication later this year), was baptized Catholic as an infant in 1968 (in what probably WAS in fact a valid ritual, given the date), saw my parents turn Protestant in my early childhood and become really ugly, morally obtuse people, my immediate family destroyed by Calvinist doctrine--not an exaggeration--though I see the Novus Ordo church working in equally perfidious ways.  (Again, I could write pages, having been there, as a Novus Ordo Benedictine [not ordained].)…

Yours most respectfully and prayerfully, in the name of Jesus Christ, the King of Glory,

Donald Webber
Seoul, Korea

 

Excommunicated Cardinal being elected?

 

SUBJ: Can an excommunicated Cardinal be a valid pope [re: Constitution of Pius XII].  If I am not mistaken you have written an article on this same question. If not would you be able to answer this question for the Faithful who visit your website ?

Joe

 

MHFM:  That objection is responded to in the “Objections” section of our new book.  It’s also covered here, Responses to 19 of the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism [PDF file], in Objection #10.

 

New Radio Program Archive

 

MHFM: Our June 22, 2007 radio program has been archived and is available in the Archived Radio Programs.

 

Shame on you

 

Shame on you, trying to tear apart our Catholic Church,  God will punish you for trying to destroy the one true church of God.  I feel sorry for you.

 

vicki dorsey

 

MHFM: Well, I don’t feel sorry for you.  I can’t feel sorry for people who have a chance to look at the truth and, because of their bad will, completely reject it and attack it.  I can’t feel sorry for people who think they are Catholic, and claim to be such, but so clearly take a position opposed to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and in favor of the post-Vatican II anti-Catholic Counter Church.  You are too blinded by your pride and bad will to come out of your darkness.  You probably completely reject the Catholic dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, if you even know what a dogma is.

 

Compelling

 

Holy Family Monastery,

 

I have three words to describe the deposit of truth on your website: COMPELLING, CONVINCING, CONVICTING.  Now, I can finally put the pieces together. Now I know why I struggled and agonized for years with confusion while striving for truth.  Now, I understand the source of my intellectual and spiritual battle where I always knew in my heart and mind that I was falling short of the inviolable intrinsic truths of the  Catholic Faith that God was calling me to know.

 

Simply, if you are predicating your search for truth, as I did, on the assumption that vatican II was a council inspired by the Holy Spirit and its proclamations and doctrines are were inspired by the True Catholic Church you will like myself, find yourself in a constant state of spiritual perplexity.  What a masterful satanic plan vatican II was. The father of all lies deceives you into thinking that you are engaged in a legitimate spiritual battle with him, but keeps you in a perpetual state of confusion, because he himself is behind the counterfeit church that you were deceived into perceiving as true.

 

Not to sound charismatic, but never before has the Scripture "the truth shall set you free” been realized to its fullest. I always intellectually understood this scripture but I could never realize it until now.

 

Bill Burns
Fredonia, NY

 

“Baptism of Blood” sophistry

 

Dear Dimond Brothers

 

[This person] quotes Pope Benedict XIV and tries to explain something on the example of St.Simon of Trent but fails miserably…

 

Thank you

Greetings from Croatia, V.

 

"Martyrs only, or infants, whether baptized or *no [*NOT BAPTIZED], which were slain out of hatred
to the name of Christ, are to be accepted
[eligible to be canonized as official Saints in Heaven]..."

 

(a) Pope Benedict XIV. 1. i. de Canon. c.14. p.103 shews that children who die after baptism before the use of reason, though saints ought not to be canonized, because they never practised any heroic degree of virtue ; and because this was never authorized by tradition in the church. Martyrs only, or infants, whether baptized or no, which were slain out of hatred to the name of Christ, are to be accepted ; as is clear from the example of the Holy Innocents, who are stiled martyrs by St. Irenaeas, Origen, and other fathers ; and the most ancient missals and homilies of fathers on their festival, prove them to have been honored as such from the primitive ages. Hence infants, murdered by Jews out of hatred to Christ, have been ranked among the martyrs ; as St. Simon of Trent, by the authority of the bishop of that city, afterward confirmed by the decrees of the popes Sixtus V. and Gregory XIII. also St. William of Norwich in England, (though this child, having attained to the use of reason, is rather to be called an adult martyr.) And St. Richard of Pontoise, also about twelve years old, murdered in 1182, by certain Jews in the reign of Philip Augustus, who for this and other crimes banished the Jews out of France in April, that same year. The body of St. Richard was translated to Paris, and enshrined in the parish church of the Holy Innocents, where his feast is kept on the 30th of March, but at Pontoise on the 25th. (Extracted from: Life of St. William of Norwich Martyr, The Lives of the Primitive Fathers, Martyrs, and other Principal Saints by Rev. Alan Butler Vol. III Edinburgh, 1799 A.D., p. 176 (a) Imprimatur)

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  This is an excellent example of the dishonest argumentation that “baptism of desire” advocates in our day make a habit of employing.  It’s a classic example of sophistry.  First, there is no quote from Pope Benedict XIV.  What we’re looking at is a quote from Fr. Alan Butler.  Butler begins by paraphrasing Benedict XIV; and, since no citation is given, we don’t know if he is paraphrasing him accurately.  But even in the paraphrase we see that Benedict XIV is only speaking of baptized individuals.  That’s a key point.  Alan Butler then proceeds to give his own views on baptism of blood.  Thus, this quote proves nothing except that Butler believes in baptism of blood.  But since the quote has been very dishonestly presented by the heretic who cited it, the casual reader might be led to believe that all of what is said comes from Pope Benedict XIV.  It’s a very misleading and dishonest way of presenting the quote.  This is typical of heretics on the salvation issue who are used by the Devil to corrupt the truth, especially this truth.  They don’t have the truth on their side, so they must resort to deception, half-truths, exaggeration, lies, misleading presentations, etc.  These all come from their father, the Devil, who is the father of lies.

 

In fact, “baptism of desire” heretics such as this are very similar to evolutionists.  Just as evolutionists will brainwash and deceive people by a half-truth here, a subtle distortion of evidence there, a subtle exaggeration here, a falsehood there, baptism of desire advocates do the same by presenting half-truths, exaggerations, mistranslations, non-infallible statements as infallible, etc.  When all of these lies, distortions, half-truths, etc. are piled up, they can seem somewhat imposing and overwhelming to a person who doesn’t know how to filter through it all – just like a complete skeleton of an “ape man” constructed merely from the evidence of a pig’s tooth (e.g. Nebraska man) can seem to a person being taught evolution.  But when these things are examined one by one, as is done in our book on the topic, the lies fall apart and the arguments are shown to prove nothing.  It’s interesting to note in this regard that a few years back one of us engaged in a somewhat lengthy e-mail discussion/debate with a salvation-for-non-catholics defender.  A friend of ours had asked us to step into the discussion.  This individual with whom one of us was debating threw together a pile of quotations from the Summa Theologica which seemed, to the person unfamiliar with them, to support that one could saved without believing in Jesus Christ.  No direct citation to the part of the Summa he was citing was given, of course, nor were complete citations given, just partial ones.  When I saw these, I recognized that he was taking them completely out of context.  (In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas makes it clear that in the Old Testament period one could be saved without explicit faith in the coming of the Messiah, but after the coming of Christ all had to have explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation.)  I insisted that the individual had grossly taken these quotes out of context.  He denied the charge, and declared with confidence that they were all used in proper context.  Well, when I had the time to track down every one of his butchered quotations (since he didn’t cite the part of the Summa from which they came) I copied in the complete context, which made it abundantly clear that St. Thomas was not teaching what he affirmed.  In fact, St. Thomas directly contradicted what he had said.  The dishonest heretic, who until then had acted very arrogantly, was not heard from again.  But it’s a typical example of how these heretics argue, especially against this truth that one must be a baptized Catholic for salvation.  This is because the denial of this truth was the key to the Great Apostasy: this truth has a central place in the preservation of supernatural faith in the necessity of Our Lord and His truth.  That’s why the Devil hates it so much and why he has his unwitting servants (i.e., useful heretics) use every distortion they can to argue against it.

 

The heretic who put together the above on “baptism of blood” is aware of and rejects the dogmas cited below.  He rejects these undeniably infallible dogmatic definitions which declare that no infant can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.  Since he rejects this dogma with demonic obstinacy, he is outside the Church of Jesus Christ and on the road to damnation.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra:  If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

 

Torn

 

Brother Michael - First, let me say that I love the Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, Himself. I am 69 years old, and have 
felt a tremendous loss in my life ever since Vatican II. I felt something went terribly wrong. I never left the Church; in fact, I am very active in my Parish. But, I must say, that every time I attend Mass, I feel this sorrow within me. What bothers me is that I know that I should be feeling a tremendous joy instead. I have discussed this many times with my Pastor(s) and other priests I have known. There were a couple of times, that I just got up and left for a time.  In fact, about 2 years ago, I walked out of Mass when a woman came up to proclaim the gospel and give the sermon. After a lengthy discussion with the Pastor, I came back because of his apology and his admittance that what I had experienced was completely wrong. I  have been on the Parish Council for some time and have been constantly at odds with other members on certain aspects of our Church and the Liturgy… I am so torn, Brother Michael. Even writing this to you is tearing me apart… Thank you and may God bless you in what you do. Any advice you can give me would be so helpful. I live in the Diocese of St Paul/Minneapolis.


Richard

 

MHFM: Richard, it's quite obvious: you need to get out of the New Mass since it's not valid and it's not Catholic.  You need to come to a complete rejection of the post-Vatican II Counter Church.  All of the documentation for this is available on our website.  If you call us here and manifest agreement on the core issues, we could help you with more specific info about possible Mass locations in your area.  If you haven’t already, we would also strongly recommend that you obtain our DVD special offer which includes 3 DVDs (with 10 programs), as well as 3 important books, an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.).

 

Demonic Possession

 

MHFM: It’s interesting to note that a study of past cases of demonic possession reveals that many people have become possessed because another person has cursed them.  Obviously there are many other ways that people can and have become possessed, but this seems to be a common one.  Such a demonic curse, of course, could only have effect over one whose soul is already in the possession of the Devil by means of mortal sin.  For instance, the famous case of the girl possessed by many demons in Earling, Iowa in 1928, was allegedly a result of a demonic curse by the girl’s father: “… developments disclosed the fact that that he [the girl’s father] had… cursed her and wished inhumanly that the devils would enter into her and entice her to commit every possible sin against chastity, thereby ruining her, body and soul” (Fr. Carl Vogl, Begone Satan, Tan Books, p. 19).  Eventually the exorcism revealed that the girl was possessed by Beelzebub, Judas, her damned father (Jacob) and his damned mistress (Ibid., p. 33.).

 

In pondering why such a demonic curse could be effective in possessing people in so many different cases, one thought that comes to mind is that it indirectly sheds light on the truth inculcated by Our Lord in Matthew 7.  In Matthew 7:7, Our Lord says: “Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.”  When we pray with sincerity – when we ask God, Our Lady and his saints for specific things in prayer – God, Our Lady and the saints hear our prayers.  People would be amazed at the spiritual effects of simple prayers, even things such as three Hail Marys for specific intentions, or asking a saint for a certain temporal favor.  Likewise, for those who give themselves to the Devil by mortal sin and thus reside in his spiritual kingdom, God can allow the Devil to grant favors to those of his servants who ask him for them.  The result is that he will sometimes be allowed to possess a person in mortal sin if he has been specifically asked by one of his servants to curse that person.

 

Fatima

 

There is much truth in your book, however were you aware of this and that Sister Lucy said that it [the consecration of Russia] must be with all of the Bishops?

 

stella cooper

 

MHFM: Yes, when Sr. Lucy was questioned about Our Lady’s original request, she would, of course, repeat that Our Lady requested that it should be done with all the bishops.  But that’s precisely what we emphasize in the article: Our Lady requested that Russia be consecrated in union with all the bishops of the world, but on July 13 she only promised that “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph.  The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and it will be converted and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world.”  Notice that Our Lady didn’t promise: “The Holy Father and all the bishops will consecrate Russia to me…”  Further, Heaven revealed that the actual fulfillment of the consecration of Russia would not be fully in accord with Heaven’s original wishes.  This is a key point which we emphasize and expand upon in the article.  Our Lord Himself said that the consecration would be “late”; and Our Lady, in describing the “period of peace” which will actually come as a result of the consecration, only says it will be a “certain period of peace” (that word is added by Our Lady), instead of the unqualified “period of peace” which was promised originally if her requests were heeded precisely. 

 

Thus, there is nothing from Our Lady or Our Lord which indicates that when the consecration is done it will be done with all the bishops; on the contrary, Our Lady’s words imply that it will be done by the pope alone.  All of this (and much more) is covered in this article: The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the Impostor Sr. Lucia.  Moreover, it’s very important to note that in 1947, when asked by William Thomas Walsh about Pope Pius XII’s 1942 consecration of the world, Sr. Lucy didn’t even know if it was sufficient.  Again, all of this is discussed in the article.

 

William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, p. 222: “After my return from Portugal I wrote several questions which His Excellency the Bishop of Leiria was good enough to send to Sister Dores [Sr. Lucy].  Her answers, written February 17, 1947, reached me just too late for the first edition of this book… Q.  Is it your opinion that the Pope and the Bishops will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary only after the laity have done their duty, in Rosaries, sacrifices, first Saturday Communions, etc.?  A. [Sr. Lucy] The Holy Father has already consecrated Russia, including it in the consecration of the world, but it has not been done in the form indicated by Our Lady: I do not know whether Our Lady accepts it, done in this way, as complying with her promises.  Prayer and sacrifice are always the means necessary to draw down the graces and blessings of God.”

 

Denzinger

 

Dear brother Dimonds,

I am very much appreciating your excellent work (I think, Jesus and Immaculate also), I will very soon purchase all of books, which you are offering for sale, but I am seeking also for Denzinger (summary of all popes and church official documents), and I haven't find it yet. Could you, please, advice, where can I obtain this Denzinger, from which most of your documents have citations? Thank you very much for your answer…

God bless you.  I am very happy with your work, and I am also continuing with translations of your excelent web-sites to czech language (even if I know, that almost nobody takes care in this country about truth... and I am not sure, if even there is somebody else except me, who is or want be true catholic with true catholic faith...)


Josef [Czech Republic]

 

MHFM: Thanks, we are selling Denzinger at our online store.

 

Found

 

Hi

 

I found your site while surfing.  I have a life-long interest in the work that you do, and I am impressed.  Good work. Sister Lucy imposter, of course.  very good.  Satan has entered the Vatican for sure.  So, you have a fan here.  Keep up the good work…

 

M. Kavanagh

Victoria, BC Canada

 

Dentist

 

It's always good to see new people discovering the truth from your web site.  It seems that the questioning Protestant is guilty of reading only enough to continue her confusion.  I told my angry brothers to read ALL of your web site before they pass judgment.  So far they haven't. 

 

I gave a copy of the Vatican II book to my dentist with the DVD on Hell and a Padre Pio book.  He mentioned once that his wife and grandchildren go to church but he doesn't any more.  He has been my family dentist for maybe 30 years and I took my family to several bad dentists till I found him.  He is very fair and honest and has worked for hours  get a tooth just right without charging extra.  You don't see too many people like that these days.  He also seems to be a thinker, OR I may be in big trouble.  Nevertheless, I keep in mind that we should never be ashamed of Jesus and of the truth, but, oh, it's not easy to take those blows when they come. All my life I've avoided them. 

 

I think your book is God's gift of a last chance to see the truth before the final days. You've put the pieces of this puzzle together and it is a picture of a very small Church surrounded by a mass of confusion on the outside and peace on the inside. 

 

God Bless

 

MHFM: That’s great; hopefully he will take a careful look at the information. 

 

JP2 and B16

 

Dear Bros.,

 

I have a dear NO Catholic friend, in her late 70's & whose husband is in his 80's.  Having chosen to remain in the NO following V2, they have been infected with ecumenism & were taught, in the Fr. Feeney case, in Boston, that he was incorrect & that the Church declared that non-Catholics can be saved.  So, documents asserting the above cannot be used in winning them over. What I need is links to JP2 & B16 open proclamation that everyone can get to heaven... universalism.  It must be very clear & it must be well documented, esp in the Press.   I've been pressing Therese to read the Catechism of the Council of Trent & to compare it to the CCC.  & she is delighted to hear that B16 is "going to" reinstate the Baltimore Catechism & restore the Liturgy - to what I'm not sure, altho we may be VERY sure that it won't be to the truth. She looks upon all documentation of the infiltration of the Church by marranos, as being uncharitable. So, you see what I'm up against. IF, I can get the BIG one across to her... that the anti-popes held the heresy of Universalism, I have a chance.  Please help me to find the right pages & documentation. 

 

Jennifer Hill

 

MHFM: John Paul II definitely taught universal salvation; that’s covered in the article below.  Benedict XVI has taught that Jews, Protestants and pagans can be saved and that men are saved in all religions.  He has also repeatedly taught that Protestants don’t need to be converted.  All of their worst heresies – most of which pertain to the salvation issue – are covered in the articles below and in our DVDs.

 

The Heresies of John Paul II - a comprehensive presentation [PDF file]

 

The Heresies of Benedict XVI  [PDF file]

 

False convert

 

I read this and thought of you immediately. What you could say to this soul to show he is not fully Catholic.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=24243&page=3

 

Thank you for your quote this morning on St. Thomas and family, I needed this and all the others you post.

 

Keeping you and  your monastery in prayer,


MLouise, VA

 

MHFM: Yes, it’s another example of a false convert to the Vatican II sect, one of the same mold as those featured on EWTN’s The Journey Home.  He makes reference to the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, and essentially puts Catholicism and Protestantism on the same level by speaking about how both should learn from the other.  It’s very pathetic; it’s truly a new religion.  If we had a chance to speak with him, we would (among other things) charitably inform him of the Church’s teaching Outside the Church There is No Salvation and its no exceptions meaning, as well as the fact that the Joint Declaration to which he makes reference completely trashes the dogmatic Council of Trent.  We would further point out that, according to the teaching of the Church, Protestants are heretics who need to be converted for salvation and that his present position seems to definitely contradict that.  There is almost no doubt that he holds that his Protestant family members and former fellow churchgoers are also on the road to Heaven, but that they are simply wrong about a few things which the Catholic Church explains better.  These false converts reject the essential truth, that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, and thus lack the first rule of salvation to get to Heaven: an uncompromising belief in the faith.  It’s very sad.

 

Liar defends Benedict XVI

 

I'd suggest you knock it off and have a little more trust in Christ and his promise not to let the gates of hell prevail over the Church.  Just because you happen to not like how certain truths are expressed now as opposed to a few decades ago, doesn't give you the right to tell outright lies, such as Benedict allegedy saying that Jesus might not really be the Messiah. Rubbish. Absolute rubbish straight from the Evil One.

I'm calling you out to knock it off, and conform your life to those truths you thought were changed, but in reality are just expressed differently.  Don't worry we all have to conform our lives to the will of God.

Read the Catechism and Benedict's works AGAIN, buddy. I think you're seeing what you want to see - NOT what's actually there.

MLECW

 

MHFM: You say that it’s a lie to assert that Benedict XVI holds that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the Messiah.  We will now demonstrate the type of execrable liar that you are.  Benedict XVI wrote the preface for the notorious book, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.  This is a fact.  It states:

 

Section II, A, 5: “Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain...”

 

In section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible further states:

 

“…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one…”

 

Let me spell this out for you: the passage first explains what it means to read the Bible as Jews do.  It then explains that such a reading necessarily “exclude[s] faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.”  It then explains that the Jewish reading is possible.  Thus, according to this Vatican book and Benedict XVI, Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish position that Jesus is not the Son of God and the prophesied Messiah is a possible one.  Benedict XVI teaches the same denial of Jesus Christ in a number of his books:

 

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts…  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.

 

Benedict XVI says that there are perfectly good reasons for not believing that the Old Testament refers to Christ as the prophesied Messiah.  He says that the Old Testament doesn’t point unequivocally to Our Lord as the Messiah.  This is another total denial of the Christian Faith.

 

Benedict XVI, Milestones, 1998, pages 53-54: “I have ever more come to the realization that Judaismand the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel’s Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.  The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways…”

 

Benedict XVI again declares that Scripture is open to holding the Jewish view of Jesus, that Jesus is not the Son of God.  This is precisely why Benedict XVI repeatedly teaches the heresy that Jews don’t need to believe in Christ for salvation.  Liar, these facts completely refute you, although you would deny it again and again because you are a liar, like your father: the Devil.  You are headed straight for damnation.  You aren’t even remotely Catholic.  You would also probably try to tell us that Benedict XVI didn’t go into the mosque last year and pray toward Mecca like the Muslims, or that he didn’t go into the Jewish synagogue and take active part in a Jewish worship service, or that he doesn’t teach that Vatican I doesn’t have to be accepted by schismatics, or that he doesn’t teach that the Lutheran view of Justification is not condemned by Trent.  Yes, you would deny it all because you hate the truth.  So long as you persist in this position and attitude, you are a prime example of why people are sent to Hell forever; your bad will is incorrigible; your dishonesty is insuperable. 

 

Sunday Catholics

Good afternoon again… I refer to the following [ BELOW ] from your website, and ask with all sincerity just where one can find the remnants of the Church? I am a Catholic who has no alternative here in Australia but to worship according to the Vatican 11 Rites, as far as I know. I am not trying to trap you into revealing anything. I am sincerely asking the question above.

I came across your website quite by accident.

Sincerely.

Keith. [Australia]

MHFM: The Church is not defined by buildings.  If you only have Vatican II churches which offer the New Mass around you, then you must stay home on Sundays.  (One could go to confession, however, to a priest ordained before 1968, as long as he says “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”) The Church law that one must attend Mass only obliges if the Church provides you with a true Mass within a reasonable distance (and if the priest is not a heretic).  The Church is visible in all those places in the world where true Catholics are found.  For so many, even those who claim to be "traditional," the Catholic Faith is basically whether or not they show up at a Mass on Sunday. If they don't have anywhere to go, it's as if the Church isn't visible or as if the faith cannot be practiced.  That’s a very wrong understanding of the Catholic Faith.  Many Catholics in history had nowhere to go on Sundays.  The Catholic Faith is much bigger than whether or not one shows up at a church on Sundays or what one does on Sundays; it's a set of beliefs which must be adhered to, something that is lived everyday, regardless of whether one has a church to attend.  One of the reasons we are in the Great Apostasy is because, prior to Vatican II, many people simply became “Sunday Catholics.”  They acted as if as long as they showed up at Mass on Sunday, looked and acted piously for a few hours at Mass and listened to their priest, then they were on the right path.  But during the rest of the week they didn’t study the faith or try to deepen their faith or increase their relationship with God or do spiritual reading or work for souls or live everyday with a true spiritual outlook with the Catholic Faith informing all of their actions and priorities. .

 

In this vein, one can talk about people who get very excited and spiritually motivated around major holidays, such as Christmas, but during the rest of the year have a very lackluster interest in the things of God.  These people are spiritually phony and not pleasing to God.  While Christmas certainly and obviously marks a special feast, people should essentially live each day the same, living each day with a profound dedication to the faith and the things of God and the desire to please God, gain supernatural merit and help souls.

 

Newly convinced

 

Hi Brothers!

 

My name is Jerry Anderson. I'm 57… I only found your website last week, by God's grace, obviously. Thanks be to God! I barely remember "Feeneyism" being mentioned in some of the many (almost everything they've written) articles by Bishops Dolan, Sanborn, Pivarunas, Fr. Cekada, etc. and had not noticed (since I'm no longer married) much about Natural Family Planning though I HAD read about "invincible ignorance" and baptism of blood and desire and was questioning it a lot very recently.

 

I'm pretty sure I remember being taught by the Holy Cross nuns about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood about 45 years back - maybe even in the Baltimore Catechism, it seems. I have always used those original "pre-Vatican II" teachings as my theological ruler in comparison to the Novus Ordo stuff I picked up beginning at Brebeuf Prep from the Jesuits, starting with the Council documents (my most boring high school class - taught by Father Carl Meirose). Reading more today about Baptism of desire, I realize the Holy Cross nuns must have already been laboring under false, heretical beliefs, during the reign of the weak Pius XII, when modernism was already creeping in.

 

Long story short, your presentation of the infallible teachings of the popes makes me realize the arguments by Fr. Cekada about theologians positions (which seemed very valid) are not correct. I feel like I've now completed my return to the true faith and am very grateful for having found your website.

 

I intend to support your apostolate as fully as I'm able in the future. I'm an insurance agent and have been very successful until the past couple years and am now trying to rebuild financially. If God grants me success in the efforts I'm now applying I will share it with your monastery exclusively henceforth.

 

I've read most of your site and look forward to obtaining your book very shortly. Thank you for maintaining this website, brothers!  May God bless you always!

 

Jerry Anderson

 

CMRI nuns leaving – not a surprise

 

MHFM: Some of our readers may have heard that a significant number of nuns of the CMRI – some say over 20 – are leaving the group because they no can longer remain with a society which rejects Benedict XVI.  (For those who don’t know, the CMRI is a “traditionalist” group of priests and religious which takes the sedevacantist position, but holds that souls can be saved in false religions and that birth control is acceptable.  It is a heretical group, as we have exposed on our website: The CMRI – a group which believes in salvation outside the Church.)

 

Even the woman who was acting as “Mother Superior” of the CMRI nuns has now come out with her change of position and resigned.  Well, some may ask, can one really blame the leader and priests of the CMRI for the fact that these heretical nuns are not convinced?  Yes, in part.  1) The CMRI, a supposed sedevacantist group, had not only allowed non-sedevacantists to belong to their group at this late stage of the great apostasy – and thus promoted an atmosphere of acceptance of the Counter Church at a time when acceptance of the Counter Church by those who have seen the facts is simply an act of astounding bad will, faithlessness and dishonesty considering all of the irrefutable evidence – but 2) the CMRI had even (until this recent development) allowed these non-sedevacantist nuns to teach at their schools!  In other words, the CMRI allowed people who remained faithful to the Counter Church in mind and heart to receive the sacraments on a daily basis, be part of their “traditional” community, and even teach children. 

 

Based on these facts, one can say that the CMRI is sedevacantist in name only.  They don’t believe that a full rejection of the Counter Church is a position which one must come to in order to maintain essential faith.  That’s why, even after this recent development in which nuns shook up their heretical group by leaving, the only step they have taken to remedy the situation is to say that no nuns can teach or manifest disagreement with their sedevacantist position.  They still allow non-sedevacantists to belong to their group, as is shown by this letter written by the heretical leader of the CMRI, Bishop Mark Pivarunas: http://www.cmri.org/02-sisters-letter.html.  (By the way, Bishop Pivarunas’s arguments in favor of baptism of desire and Natural Family Planning were further demolished by the facts in our recent article on geocentrism.)  We’ve also been in contact with numerous people who have attended the CMRI for long periods of time; they have reported that the CMRI is so unaggressive and silent at these chapels about the situation of the Church, and what one should think of it, that a new person could have gone there for more than a year or much longer and not even have recognized that he was attending a chapel run by a group which claimed to reject the entire Vatican II Church. 

This revelation of faithlessness and spiritual rot inside the CMRI is not surprising at all.  It certainly should not be a surprise to staunch Catholics.  It’s directly tied up with the fact that the CMRI members do not possess any real supernatural faith – that’s right, zero real faith in Jesus Christ.  This is because they reject the necessity of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.  The members of the CMRI believe that it’s possible for Jews, Buddhists, etc. to be saved by “baptism of desire,” as their priests have indicated numerous times, as well as a nun who was questioned by one of us about the issue over the telephone.  This is simply a fact.  It’s also clear from their publications on salvation, which include numerous heretical articles from people such as Bishop Robert McKenna, who believes that Jews who reject Our Lord Jesus Christ can be saved.  Someone who has seen the dogmatic definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation and continues to believe that it’s possible for certain Buddhists, Jews, etc. to be saved, as the CMRI’s members do, has no real faith in Our Lord at all.  As Pope Leo XIII says, in rejecting the teaching of just one dogma that person rejects all faith because he thereby rejects the guarantor of the dogmas of faith (Our Lord Jesus Christ).

 

Since the members of the CMRI have no real faith in Jesus Christ or His revelation, it makes perfect sense that it would be a continuous and monumental struggle for them to believe that the sometimes conservative arch-apostate Antipope Benedict XVI has actually excommunicated himself from the Church.  Since they do not believe that the Church is truly supernatural and guided by a power and principles not always seen, it’s extremely difficult for them to continue to believe that the Counter Church could persist this long in Rome or that the sly Benedict XVI could really be this evil or a heretic, when he does conservative and nice things on occasion and is regarded externally by so many as the pope.  In short, this recent news item from the CMRI reveals the true lack of faith hidden within the depths of CMRI and other groups like them, which purport to be traditional and sedevacantist, but are spiritually fraudalently and heretical primarily because of their heretical rejection of the true teaching on Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  What is said here could also be applied to the SSPV and other sedevacantist groups.  The SSPV, by the way, allows non-sedevacantists to enter its religious order, doesn’t even make it publicly clear that it regards Benedict XVI as a non-pope, and has never (at least to our knowledge) publicly denounced him as a heretic who is outside the Church.

 

What to do?

 

I am inthe military and stationed in Japan.  Prior to arriving here we (my wife and I) had decided that the Traditional Church is the one for us.  We were attending an FSSP parish and receiving the sacraments. Once we began reading we stopped receiving them as our parish priest was ordained in the new rites.  My question is what are we to do now?  We have three children and are in Asia with no Church.  I understand that we will face a time when the sacraments will not be available to us, however we are humans and therefore sin.  We have turned to the Holy Rosary so as to procure the promises made to us by Our Most Holy Mother, is there anything else left for us?

A.S.

 

MHFM: It’s important to keep in mind that many Catholics in history (including centuries ago in Japan) were left in situations where they couldn’t go anywhere.  But you can go to confession if you find a priest ordained before 1968 who says "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." 

 

St. Thomas and more

 

Dear Members of the Most Holy Family Monastery

I have been reading portions of your commentaries on your website with regards to the state of the Cathoilc Church in our world today. There are some questions left unanswered which I hope you will address in your next articles, in particular St Thomas Aquinas' position on the Immaculate Conception of Mary (Is this canonized saint a heretic because of his differing views from Duns Scotus?, Why has his
canonization not been reversed if he did not subscribe fully to this doctrine?), also how do we relate to non-catholics in our workplace and
communities - do we shun or despise them simply because they do not believe in God and in Jesus Christ in the same way as we do? how should pro-vatican I catholics relate to pro-vatican II catholics and vice versa? should we place more emphasis on being judgemental than in sharing the Gospel so as to get people to know Jesus and help them to be effective in their chritian faith and discipleship?...
I look forward to hearing from you

From a brother in Christ

Andrew

 

MHFM: The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not solemnly defined until 1854, by Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus.  Thus, there is no argument whatsoever that St. Thomas was a heretic for not believing in it.  As far as non-Catholic co-workers go, no, you shouldn’t shun them.  You should share the faith with them, at least those you’ve gotten to know somewhat.   To your third question, the Gospel is the Gospel.  It’s not like we either share the Gospel, focus on people getting to know and love Jesus and downplay its judgments or share its judgments and downplay other parts.  Sharing the Gospel (the Catholic Faith) is true charity, and that message of charity necessarily entails informing people of the consequences and the judgments that fall upon those who reject its teaching or fail to live up to it.  Also, in answering this question it’s worth pointing out the truth which is repeated over and over again in Scripture: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Ps. 110:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10; Ecclesiasticus 1:16; etc.).  Scripture teaches that people first convert by fearing God, and then learn to love Him later on as they advance.  It makes sense, therefore, that informing people of God’s judgments upon those who sin mortally or reject His teaching is very often a key component in bringing people to conversion.  That’s why St. Benedict says the following about the first degree of humility.

“The first degree of humility, then, is that a man always have the fear of God before his eyes (cf Ps 35[36]:2), shunning all forgetfulness and that he be ever mindful of all that God hath commanded, that he always considereth in his mind how those who despise God will burn in Hell for their sins, and that life everlasting is prepared for those who fear God. And whilst he guardeth himself evermore against sin and vices of thought, word, deed, and self-will, let him also hasten to cut off the desires of the flesh.” (St. Benedict, on first degree of humility)

The reason why so many people commit mortal sins is that they are too proud to even fear that God will cast them into Hell for their sins.  They lack the very first degree of humilty, the beginning of wisdom, and thus they cannot advance even one bit toward eternal life because they are too proud to see point #1.  Thus, when one considers the unfortunate masses living in mortal sin and thus headed for Hell – so numerous that Jacinta of Fatima said that almost all who would die in World War II would go to Hell – one can say that the primary reason is because they lack the very thing described above in St. Benedict’s first degree of humility.

 

Joint Declaration article

 

Vatican-Lutheran Agreement on Justification

 

Brothers,

You referenced in your book that there is a more indepth study of this agreement on your website, but the only article I can find is the PDF that is in thebook. Can you send me the link to your indepth article? Thanks!

Bridget

 

MHFM: There’s an older, more in-depth article here: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Issue-4_Joint_Declaration_with_the_Lutherans.html...  Most people, however, should read the following one since it covers the main points in just a few pages: The Vatican II sect's Protestant Revolution: the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification [PDF File]

 

Left

 

I came across you Web site by accident. I was looking for Christian Web sites. How can there be two different Catholics?  Vatican and after Vatican 2? As I was reading the site and clicking on most of the links, I became confused. The I realized there is NO difference between the two. Which became very confusing to me. Then I realized that God is "NOT" confusion. Why is the Catholic Church all  mixed up with Vatican 1 and Vatican 2?  And, why has Vatican 2 be able to get this far. None of this makes any sense.

I am glad I left! Thank you,

 

Sue

 

MHFM: Sue, you didn't read carefully enough; in fact, you didn't look at the website carefully at all.  One of the first sections on our website explains that, at the end of the world, an apostasy from the one true Christian faith (the Catholic faith) is predicted to occur in Rome during the Great Apostasy, a massive spiritual deception orchestrated by the Devil as his final assault on the true faith and true faithful.  The post-Vatican II "Church" is exactly that counterfeit Church.  There's only one Catholic faith, and that's what the Church has taught for 2000 years, not the post-Vatican II new inventions, which are all predicted and which contradict traditional Catholic teaching.  You shouldn't be glad you left because the Catholic Church is quite obviously the only Church which Christ established; it is the only one that is scripturally, logically and historically based. The gates of Hell cannot prevail against it (Mt. 16).  That does not mean that it cannot be reduced to a remnant in the final days, which is what is predicted (Lk. 18:8; Apoc. 12:6.).  In leaving the Catholic Church, the only Church established by Christ upon St. Peter, you put yourself outside the true Church, the only truly biblical Church, and on the road to damnation.  It’s critical for you to reconsider your position and the Catholic Faith.

 

B-16’s new book

 

Hello, Brothers.

 

I was flipping the channels on TV last night and stopped for a couple of minutes at EWTN.

 

There was an elderly priest with long gray robe on, bald, with eye glasses and a long white beard.  He had two lay ministers with him, and they were taking phone calls.  In answer to one caller, the priest suggested that every Catholic obtain a book written by Benedict XVI, called Jesus of Nazareth.  He praised the book and said it is full of insight and he could not put the book down. 

 

I was wondering if you were familiar with this book, however, I'm sure that if B-16 wrote it, it has heresy in it.

 

carol…

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  Yes, one of us read Benedict XVI’s new book.  Yes, there is heresy in it, as usual.  We will probably discuss it on our next radio program. 

 

Cleveland Desolation

 

Dear Brothers: This link will take you to the Plain Dealer article following the one in May 31 PD.  I saw that you linked it to your news.  This is an update saying the schools are subject to closing This was a "train wreck" waiting to happen.  “Bishop" Lennon came from Boston where he closed countless church and schools.  Everyone saw the handwriting on the wall when he came. Of course, this is the counterchurch anyway. So they are reaping what they have sown.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/isedu/118069751549240.xml&coll=2

 

… I finished the book last night!  I used 2 highlighters to mark important things-of course the whole book is important-that is why it took 2 highlighters!!  The way you write is wonderful… One of the last chapters-about the Apocalypse and your explanation is fantastic!  After reading the book, and all the things that have gone wrong with Vatican II and its heresies and apostasies, The explanation of the Apocalypse makes sense!  When you read it, it seems like St. John is writing in riddles, but with  the explanation of the seven hills and the whore of Babylon , it all comes together! I hope everyone reads this book.  God bless you.

 

God bless you.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Rubio

Solon, OH

 

MHFM:  Thanks, it’s very interesting to hear about the desolation of the Counter Church from those who are following its gradual evaporation at the local level.  There’s nothing left there.

 

Convert

 

Dear Sir,

 

A few moments earlier, I had the opportunity to speak with you on the telephone about the tremendous impact of the materials sent to me by the Most Holy Family Monastery -- as well as, more importantly, my resulting desire to be baptized into the true, traditional Catholic Church. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain to me what steps I need now take, as well as for offering to assist in finding a traditional Catholic who could perform a conditional baptism. I truly appreciate your guidance and assistance…Again, thank you for all of your help, and please do not hesitate to let me know if there is anything else that I need to do to facilitate or expedite the process of my full conversion.

 

Sincerely,

Lance Lambdin

Lincoln, NE 

 

Scandal

 

Hello Brothers,

 

Do you believe John Paul II knew about the scandelous pedophilia problems all over the place and turned a blind eye to it?  I read that he actually promoted Cardinal Law to a post at the vatican after his resignation from the Boston Diocese.  If that is true, on what grounds does he feel justified in appointing such a despicable man to a position at the Vatican?   What jurisdiction does the Pope have over such matters and why in your opinion didn't John Paul II swiftly and authoritatively ex-communicate all involved with the sexual abuses throughout the US?  This happened on his watch!  The abuses and ruined lives are countless and that only includes those who came forward.  And what do you know about an alleged cover up with Fr. Macial? Do you have references for John Paul II knowing and turning a blind eye toward the sexual abuses?  Thanks,

 

JP

 

MHFM: Yes, Antipope John Paul II definitely knew about the homosexuality/pedophilia scandals among the Vatican II clergy.  Besides the fact that he kept himself very much up on what was going on, he had people briefing him not just on that situation but on many others in the Vatican II sect.  Why then, you ask, did he promote “Cardinal” Law to a prominent position at the Vatican after Law’s part in the scandal was exposed?  This answer is obvious, but will only be accepted by those who have a true understanding of how evil Antipope John Paul II was and also believe that demons exist and are at work.  The answer is that John Paul II promoted “Cardinal” Law with the deliberate intention to mock the Church, to mock Jesus Christ, and to mock all the members of the Vatican II sect.  (That’s why, by the way, in one of his speeches John Paul II actually praised the “social justice” of Communist China.)  He knew that “Cardinal” Law epitomized disgrace and scandal, and that he deserved nothing but punishment for the evil that he facilitated and the immeasurable scandal that he caused to what people deem to be the Catholic Church.  So John Paul II promoted him, to thank him for what he did.  That will be hard for some to accept, but that’s the truth.  He promoted him for the very same reason that he knowingly and deliberately preached that man is God – as we proved in our video and in our article, John Paul II preached the Doctrine of the Antichrist – with a combination of subtlety and audacity which reveals true premeditation and an intent to perpetrate astounding evil on people who don’t recognize it.  He didn’t remove the pedophiles and the homosexuals because he was totally evil.  That’s why he didn’t excommunicate any pro-abortion politicians.  But when Bishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops in 1988 in order to perpetuate the traditional Latin Mass he had them excommunicated within 72 hours. 

 

Comment

 

Dear Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

 

     The interview with Father Webster was very interesting.  It shows how lies can be spread (about the Thuc line), but also it appears as though the Communist government is completely tied in with Vatican II.

 

Nancy Battle

---

Great interview about Bishop Thuc…

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

Interview Posted

Bro. Michael Dimond interviews Fr. Neil Webster about Archbishop Thuc, his final days and his line [1 hour audio]

For those who don’t know, the “Thuc line” refers to the “traditionalist” priests and bishops who derive their orders from Archbishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc (1897-1984), the Archbishop of Hue, Vietnam prior to Vatican II.  After Vatican II, Archbishop Thuc took the sedevacantist position and ordained priests and consecrated bishops in the traditional rites for the preservation of the traditional Latin Mass and in resistance to the post-Vatican II sect.  Most of the priests in the world who offer the traditional Latin Mass derive their orders from Archbishop Thuc or from Archbishop Lefebvre.  We regard both the Thuc and Lefebvre lines as valid.  This obviously does not mean that we endorse all the positions held by priests who were ordained through those lines.  We present this interview not because we endorse everything Thuc said or did, and not because we endorse everything that Thuc line priests say or hold, but so that our readers can become more familiar with the extremely interesting story of his final days.  This interview is also important because some have called into question the validity of the Thuc line based on the accusation that Archbishop Thuc was not in possession of his mental faculties when he performed some of his Episcopal Consecrations.  We reject this false position.  The Society of St. Pius V, a heretical group headed by Bishop Kelly, which also believes in salvation for non-Catholics (like so many other groups), is so adamant that the Thuc line cannot be considered valid that its priests ridiculously refuse the sacraments to anyone who goes to Thuc line priests.  In this interview, Fr. Webster, a priest who was with Thuc in his final days, addresses the objection of his mental capacity. 

 

This interview is centered around the very interesting story of Archbishop Thuc’s final days and what happened to him.  It’s important to remember that Bishop Thuc’s brother was the anti-communist president of S. Vietnam who was assassinated in 1963.  This reveals that powerful individuals were very well aware of the activities of Bishop Thuc’s family.  Did Novus Ordo Church “authorities” conspire with powerful people to kidnap Bishop Thuc, in order to prevent him from consecrating more traditional-minded bishops who would spread the traditional Latin Mass, ordain priests in the traditional rite, and oppose Communism and the Vatican II sect?  Hear the fascinating story. This interview also discusses Bishop Louis Vezelis, who played a prominent role in Thuc’s final days.  It exposes Vezelis (who also believes in salvation for non-Catholics) for the spiritual fraud that he is.  [This interview will be found permanently in the “Archived Radio Programs” section of our website.]

 

New interview

 

Brothers,

 

When are you planning on having the next radio show?

 

Ethan

 

MHFM: Possibly soon, but in the next day or two we will be posting an interesting interview, which none of our listeners have heard, concerning Archbishop Thuc, his final days and his line.

 

B-16

 

Dear Brothers, If  B16 could eradicate Limbo, that would make abortion almost an act of charity. The unbaptized baby would go straight to Heaven. What more completely anti-catholic teaching can we get.  Also, for those who have B-16 as their pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth,  what then is their opinion of Jesus Himself? Their teachings are the exact opposite. One has to be truth and the other error. Doesn't it seem obvious to adhear to what Jesus taught us?  May God have Mercy on us,

 

J.C.

 

MHFM: That’s right; these false traditionalists are truly abominable for not denouncing him as an antipope after that one, and all the rest.

 

Faith apart from works of the law

 

Brother Diamond,

I believe that it is through Faith ( by grace alone) that I am saved. Yet on Coast to Coast you stated that in James 24:2 ( Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. ) that because of this we are not  saved by grace alone. Yet out of the same Bible, I read these verses.....

Gal. 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but  by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law:  for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Romans 3:24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that  is in Christ Jesus

Eph. 2:8-9  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of  yourselves: [it is] the gift of  God Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Philippians 3:-9   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

Is the Bible contridicting itself here or are you wrong?

thanks,

Garry Myers

 

MHFM: The Bible is not contradicting itself nor are we wrong.  It is the non-Catholics who have totally misunderstood and perverted the meaning of those passages.  On the May 10 radio program, which has just been archived and is mentioned below, we address precisely those issues you bring up.

 

May 10th radio show archived

 

MHFM: Our May 10th radio program is now available in Archived Radio Programs

 

Description: [1 hour– discusses: questions from callers; the true meaning of the Bible in those passages which mention that man is justified by faith apart from works of the law; the Protestants’ rejection of the clear teaching of the Bible; specific Bible verses proving Catholic teaching on many subjects; an interesting point about Galatians 2:11; the ABC debate on whether God exists; how ridiculous evolution is and how it is destroyed by scientific arguments; quick proofs against evolution; specific evolution hoaxes; and more.]

 

St. Francis Solanus contra BOD

 

MHFM: St. Francis Solanus is called the “apostle to America” because of his labors for the conversion of pagans in South America.  In his life, there is a very interesting story which bears relevance to the absolute necessity of water baptism.  The ship on which he was traveling ran into a deadly hurricane which threatened to destroy the ship and kill everyone on board.  This was shortly after he had begun to instruct some unbaptized in the faith:

 

“As they floundered crazily under this fantastic pounding [of the hurricane], it became apparent that the galleon was doomed.  The hysteria and then the despair of the passengers were indescribable; while Fray Francisco’s [St. Francis Solanus’s] poor Negroes, senseless from terror, crowded as closely as possible about their new friend, who had been telling them so many strangely beautiful, heretofore completely unsuspected things about the God Who was as much theirs as the white man’s.  Now he was telling that same God about them and their dreadful plight…

     Water was now passing freely through the hold.  In the midst of the tempest’s fury, the ship was falling to pieces beneath them; and as there was but a single lifeboat aboard, the disaster could only mean death for the majority of the company.  Moreover, the hope was very slight that in such a sea and wind even those few who could be transferred to the small craft could be saved.  Nevertheless, the Captain made all haste to get the Franciscans and some of the more prominent passengers over the side, that they might be given this one last slim chance of survival. 

     “Seeing that Fray Francisco [St. Francis Solanus] made no move to join his brothers in the boat, Juan de Morgana implored him to hurry.  There was space for but one more.  But the missionary had already decided that he could not leave his stricken negritos to die abandoned in their agony.  Who could say that he might not be granted the time to administer Baptism to some of them?... So his reply to the Captain’s importuning left no place for argument.  ‘God will not allow me to save myself by leaving my poor brothers to lose not only the life of the body, but also that of the soul, which is eternal.’” (Francis Royer, St. Francis Solanus- Apostle to America, pp. 69-70)

 

Once again we see the belief that these pagans, whom he began to instruct in the mysteries of the faith, would be lost if they did not receive water baptism.  This completely contradicts the false ideas of “invincible ignorance” and baptism of desire.

 

Pro-abortion and part of the Vatican II sect

 

MHFM: This is a new section we’ve added to our website:

 

One can be pro-abortion and part of the Vatican II sect at the same time [PDF File]

 

On Geocentrism Article

 

Dear Brother Peter,

 

Great essay connecting the heliocentrist v. gecentrist view of the universe to the baptism of water v. baptism of desire.  Well thought and goes right at the wrong reasoning of the BOD position.  These BODers just do not give much thought to their position other than trusting the "authority".  I attempt to keep the argument simple i.e. "a person cannot desire what one isn't aware of" and that ignorance cannot save because Christ commanded the apostles to teach all nations; to teach and eliminate ignorance of the gospel.  It would be silly for God to give that command if being kept in ignorance could lead men to salvation.

 

Great job.  I hope this article corrects many wrong thinkers.

 

Tar..

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter Dimond,

First of all, a great article on Geocentrism and Baptism of Desire. Very informative reading. Keep up the great work.

 

Stephen and David Shone
New Zealand

 

New Article on Geocentrism Posted

 

MHFM: We’re happy to inform our readers that a new article on geocentrism has been posted.  The link is here:

 

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

 

This article is a must read, especially for anyone who studies the “baptism of desire” controversy.  In addition to specifically examining the theological status of geocentrism, this article contains irrefutable arguments and facts, never before examined in this context, which take on and demolish the most popular arguments in favor of baptism of desire which have been made by its most “learned” defenders.  After reading this article, the most prominent defenders of baptism of desire in our day will literally have to change their arguments and drastically revise their positions.  If you’ve spent any significant time defending the salvation dogma against its attackers today, you’ve heard from them about St. Alphonsus, the condemnation of Fr. Feeney, etc.  They tell us again and again that this proves baptism of desire.  Weaving together the two controversial subjects of geocentrism and baptism of desire, this article specifically addresses their points in these areas and shows that the defenders of baptism of desire have been proven completely wrong by the facts, once again.  Once these facts get circulated, they will send shockwaves through the baptism of desire and “anti-Feeneyite” community, which holds many members in the “traditional” movement and in the Novus Ordo Church.  The prominent defenders of baptism of desire will truly have to trash their favorite arguments after reading this article.  Since this article deals with the subject of infallibility, it also has major implications for arguments made in favor of Natural Family Planning, that Mary is “Co-Redemptrix,” etc.  It’s a must read for anyone who closely studies the faith in these days. 

 

Right Path

 

Reading that book on Vatican II [the Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II] is amazing. It’s like the red sea parted for me, and I saw that my church is a Vatican II church, and not the true Catholic Church. I don’t think that anything was mentioned about the Rosary in my church, but after reading the Padre Pio book I learned about the importance of the Rosary. I really feel like God has touched me since I started to read this.  I feel like I’m going down the right path for the first time in my life.  Thank you so much.

 

Michael Cotton

Laguna Woods, CA 

 

Curious

 

To whom it may concern:

 

I am not exactly sure how I came across your site but I am very curious.  It is so overwhelming.  Can someone kindly tell me in a nutshell what you are all about and what danger you feel I am in by being a practicing Catholic?  ANy shortened answers is greatly appreciated. 

 

MHFM: We are saying that everyone should be Catholic, for the Catholic Church is the one true Church.  What we are saying is that the post-Vatican II sect, with its New Mass and new teachings, is not the Catholic Church.  Please look at our website carefully, especially the first two sections which introduce terms and the facts about the predicted apostasy from the Catholic Faith in the last days.

 

Church, where?

 

 …I have been trying to figure out the TRUTH, and no one will tell me, and no one will let me know WHERE this church is?  Who are the Benedictines you are affiliated with and wondered if any in my area?? I know you are Benedictine but you are not thesame as many, I do not think? I also have joined ( on line)  as a  Lay Cistercian,  connected with Conversi community of New Melleray, and Our Lady Of The Mississippi Abbeys' of Iowa.  The are Trappist Monks and Nuns, but am on line and Lay person who is taking part as best I can while living a distance, from the community. They  too, believe in the Benedictine Rules. I do take part in the chat talks each month and do readings etc and write on topics in forum etc. Now what do you say about this group, are they in keeping with correct beliefs?

 

I just wonder exactly which Benedictine following you are with, and perhpas many are left not understanding WHERE they should be led?  I am being earnest, in my questions, and hope you could answer this for me, if possible. I know you are very busy and it is not easy, but I do search for the truth and want to follow correctly but how can  we do that when no one helps us find the WAY?

 

Thank you for your suggesstions on readings and praying, I do appreciate this.

 

 

In Christ,

 

Katherine

 

MHFM: The religious communities you are referring to are obviously part of the post-Vatican II sect, which accepts the New Mass, false ecumenism, etc.  They are not true religious of the Catholic Church, even though they claim to be.  One must have nothing to do with those orders or the New Mass or the false sect to which they unfortunately belong.  Regarding where the true Church is, the Church exists with the remnant of traditional Catholics who adhere uncompromisingly to the faith.  One point that we want to emphasize – a point which some people who are new to this information seem to struggle with – is that the Catholic Church is not defined strictly in terms of buildings.  You don’t have to go to a particular building to be part of the true Church.  That is why, by the way, an infant who is baptized by heretics in a building belonging to a sect becomes part of the visible Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church is defined by faithful and members, not buildings.  It is a true saying that where Peter is there is the true Church.  When there is no pope, however, as is the case today and at many times in the past, the best answer to your question is that the true Church is found and visible where the true faithful are found:

 

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

 

Recent Article

I cannot find the article on your website that covered Benedict's recent heresy on baptism and original sin.  Would you please direct me to it?

Carol Walker

MHFM: It's found here:

 

The staggering implications of Benedict XVI's new blatant heresy on Limbo

 

It can also be found in the "Recent Articles" section of our website.  Articles which were used for “Heresies of the Week” or posted prominently on our website are frequently moved to the “Recent Articles” section of our website or put in some other appropriate section if the subject matter applies specifically to it, such as the Benedict XVI section.

 

Inquisition

 

Subject: Great book and some comments

 

Dear Brother Michael & Brother Peter,

Your new book, The Truth About The Church Since VII" was solid, as are your other works. I will periodically replenish my supply, and I will distribute them whenever it is possible.

Regarding some E-exchanges I've read recently, the use of torture reminded me of William Thomas Walsh' book, "Characters of The Inquistion." In it the "torture" used was hardly considered torture at all, compared to the secular and heretical government punishments of the time, and even by todays standards, these "tortures" were more of an extreme annoyance that anything. And as Mr. Walsh asks, what punishment should be handed down to a heretic who causes another to lose their eternal soul to hell for eternity? Death, because without sincere repentance, countless souls would continue to be at risk, even if that person were imprisoned for life. Can any of the naysayers who scoff and ridicule MHFM say that their own eternal, immortal souls are not priceless? Heretics were only punished when they tried to undermine the religion of a country and/or when they caused another to fall into heresy. And they were given numerous opportunities to recant and repent. And now that the heretics are no longer punished, look at the result; all Catholic countries are virtually non-existent, the anti-christ and his beast are knocking at the door, and the remnant has fled to the mountains. The price paid by not extinguishing heresy has indeed been very high.

Oh, by the way, skinning and salting of wounds was used by the pagan Romans and, perhaps, even the pagan Japanese against Catholic martyrs, according to Saint Alphonsus de Liguori in his "Victories Of The Martyrs."

Howard Shaffer
Hot Springs Village, AR.

 

More on Hatred

 

Dear Brothers

 

I wonder, does your correspndant feel a hatred towards Communism like "the fire of a thousand suns", since it was responsible for millions more deaths last century than the Inquisition was for the entire six centuries of it's existance? I somehow doubt it!

 

No, I suspect it's much more personal than that. He/she is probably living a life-style at odds with the Church's moral teaching and, in order to justify his/her sin, must needs paint the Church as evil then there is no need for repentance and conversion.

 

God bless you,

Mary.

 

Mass in CA

 

Dear Sir:

 

… I would be interested in attending one of your traditional Catholic churches if there is one in my area of Chico, Calif.  I looked under Catholic churches in the Yellow Pages and found a church called Saint Therese Roman Catholic Chapel, which advertises itself as having the Latin traditional mass, but it doesn't say anything more about the actual belief it teaches.  I would call them, but I am afraid that they might make false claims.  There phone number is (530) 894-4040.  Maybe you can tell me if they are genuine, or if not, whether Chico has any genuine Catholic traditional church at all. Do you have a list of churches?

 

I would appreciatiate any information you can provide.

 

Thank you,

Wanda Alexander

Chico, CA.

 

MHFM: There isn’t one in that area that is totally genuine, no.  But below is the address for a valid traditional Latin Mass in Martinez, Ca.  It is our understanding that the priest, Fr. Zapp, holds the correct sedevacantist position.  Unfortunately, it is also our understanding that he believes in baptism of desire.  (Almost 100% of those who believe in “baptism of desire” also believe in salvation for those who are “invincibly ignorant,” members of false religions, etc.)  Because he holds a position on salvation that is not in line with Catholic dogma, one should not financially support him, though one might be able to receive the sacraments from him,.  Like all other priests, we would sincerely hope that he would come around and change his position on that crucial issue of faith.

 

Blessed Sacrament Roman Catholic Church

1150 Mellus St.

Martinez, CA  94553

925-228-9852

 

Hatred

 

My hate for you and your God is a fever that burns with the fire of a thousand suns. Was the Catholic Church infallible when it executed all of those "heretics?" When it skinned them, poured salt on the wounds, and set them on fire at the stake?  Or how about when they invaded Paris and massacred all of the Huguenots?…

 

MHFM: The fire of a thousand suns?  That’s pretty hot.  It’s probably something like what you will feel for all of eternity in Hell.  In Hell, that is, unless you convert to the Catholic Faith.  But that will never happen until you humble yourself and recognize that God is God and you are not.  Perhaps that tiny exercise of humility will get you the grace to be open to the truth, and see that Jesus Christ’s life of miracles and resurrection proved who He was.  Then you might be able to see that you are not only laboring under outrageously false ideas of what happened in Catholic history (e.g., that the Church “skinned people” and “poured salt” on their wounds, which is complete nonsense), but that you are also unable to see the reason why some of the things which you consider outrageous could have been justified.  But until then it’s pointless to attempt to argue truth with a person like you or explain something such as what constitutes an infallible teaching of the Church.

 

Abandon?

 

Dear Brothers Dimond

 

    Thank you very much for responding to my email.  Its all abit overwhelming for me...  and I must pray and fast very much.  I was raised in the Post Vatican II church, its pretty much all I've ever known, so this is very painful...  I was blessed in that my parish was shepherded by a good priest after the "change" who changed things very little at all, and continued to teach and espouse traditional Catholic devotions and teachings.  However, he has long since retired.

I must ask you, as I sit here in my dark night of the soul, do you believe its possible to change and heal the damage that has been wrought by Vatican II?   In my vocational journey, God lead me to some of the most blatent examples of how bad the "New Catholicism" is...  for over two years now I have through obediance to what I believe is His church, been obediant to the authorities appointed over me, I have told God that I know something is very wrong, but I do not know what it is, or what to do about it, except remain obediant and have faith, even though the "fruit" appears to be rotting on the vine... Tuesday, I pretty much had it out with God...  I told Him I cannot do it anymore, nothing makes sense and I'm so lost I do not know what to believe anymore...  and Wednesday morning, your DVD and booklet on Padre Pio was in my mailbox...  ( God tends to have a keen sense of humor, I think) So... I see alot more now, and I am wondering...  What would have happened IF Luther had faith, remained obediant to the Church, and trusted God to prevail?  What IF The King of England had faith, remained obediant, and trusted in God...  The entire Vatican Council...  for whatever reason gave us this apparent mess...  everyone pretty much agreees "this" is not what Vatican II was supposed to be... So is it a greater evil to abbandon this mess, and profess that we have so little faith in God to prevail? Or is it the greater evil, as you point out to remain in this mess, and be a part of it? Please understand I am not criticizing, my world has just taken a serious wound and I'm doing triage here...  and my first impression is not to abandon "this" but to fight "it".

   In any event I thank you for your website, I have ordered more DVD's and your book, and have

much I need to contemplate, and I thank you for being a catalyst for me!

                                     Deus Gratius,

                                              

Andy schnelly

 

MHFM: There is no evil in abandoning a false Church, which has a false Mass, false teachings and non-Catholics (who believe in all sorts of heresies) as its leaders.  There is evil in remaining with it.  That is to abandon the Catholic Church.

 

More on the salvation heretic

 

Dear Brothers,

 

Just had to comment on Sonya's "gotcha" e-mail.  Wow.  I actually sat back and laughed.  What a mess of illogical, convoluted "thinking".  If that isn't devilspeak, I don't know what is.  Poor Sonya.  Keep bringing us the unadulterated, CLEAR truth of Catholic teaching.  Bless you, bless you!

 

Sincerely in Christ,

Margaret Moore

Grand Rapids, MI

 

Another salvation heretic

 

MHFM: The following very interesting e-mail comes from a woman who wrote to us asserting that it’s wrong to say that members of other religions don’t go to Heaven.  We responded by pointing out that Outside the Church There is No Salvation is a dogma, and that those who don’t believe in this infallible teaching of the Catholic Church are not Catholics.  Her response to our e-mail is below; it is very interesting.  She makes reference to an article on the topic and says:

 

I guess you didn't look at this article that I sent you. It does say that this [outside the Church There is No Salvation] is correct, but whoever taught you that it meant that other religions are not going to heaven is off. Tell me what you think of this article. It never disagrees with the dogma, but what the dogma means is different from who taught it to you. So I do believe it, but I don't believe it means what the person who taught it to you believes, because it isn't what it means. So now who isn't Catholic?

Sonya

 

We responded to Sonya by pointing out that the dogma means what it says, and what has been solemnly declared.  It has no other meaning.  She obviously totally rejects this meaning.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

Moreover, let’s focus a little more closely on her incredible response.  One could probably search in vain for a better example of a heretic who denies the salvation dogma while simultaneously claiming to believe in it.  Now remember: this is a woman who wrote to us asserting that we were wrong to say that the members of other religions don’t go to Heaven.  While still asserting the same totally heretical position – she hasn’t changed it one iota – she is now saying that holds the dogma we referred to.  To justify her lying position, which reduces the salvation dogma to a meaningless formula, she makes reference to an article by another person who was advancing invincible ignorance and baptism of desire.  Do people see how it works?  Do people see the fruits of the false theories of “baptism of desire” and “invincible ignorance”?  Do they see that to support these ideas is to deny the true meaning, the only meaning, any meaning, of the salvation dogma?

 

While Sonya’s evil denial of the dogma is quite obvious to the true Catholic, the fact is that there are tons of people who believe in exactly the same thing she is expressing.  This includes almost 100% of alleged “Catholic” priests, including those celebrating the traditional Mass. The difference is that these others are simply more crafty in utilizing euphemistic phrases to express their denial of the dogma.  For instance: they won’t come right out and admit that “other religions [sic]” are going to Heaven, but they will say things like “a person unbaptized,” who “follows the will of God,” who “seeks the truth,” and has the “implicit desire” can be brought into a union with the Church.  When pressed specifically about their positions and the meaning of their phrases, however, these people are forced to acknowledge that they hold that certain Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. can be saved.  After acknowledging that, they frequently then try to deny that they ever said such a thing when the true Catholic starts to attack them for it.  That’s because they are liars.  Like all heretics, Sonya is a liar, an obstinate one, who had a chance to see the dogma and continues to deny it and even abominably claims to agree with it while denying it!  She says that the idea that “other religions are not going to Heaven is off” – so, there is salvation outside the Church – yet she claims that her position “never disagrees with the dogma”!

 

In answer to her question, we say to Sonya: you are not Catholic.  We say to you and to all the others who deny this dogma, you are liars.  If you continue as you are, you will definitely find your portion in the pit of Hell where all liars go.

 

Apocalypse 21:8- “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

 

Wants to convert

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

 

My name is Thomas Richardson and I live in Ocala, Florida. I was hoping that you could possibly give me some guidance. To make a long story very short, I have been searching, in a spiritual sense I guess you could say, for several years now. I was raised in Protestant churches and have attended them all my life.  I began to have doubts and to question some of the major Protestant doctrines. This was a gradual process that occurred over a period of several years. One thing led to another and I began reading books on Catholic apologetics and watching EWTN, especially the “Journey Home” program. It became evident to me that if the Catholic Church was  established by Jesus Christ himself, then all other religions which were not established by Jesus Christ must be false.

 

I began attending a Catholic parish locally on an irregular basis. The first thing I noticed is that the service did not seem so different from other Protestant services I have seen.  The Church has women Eucharistic ministers and almost everyone receives Communion in the hand while standing. To me, if the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, this seemed terribly irreverent.

 

I noticed that everyone comes forward to receive Communion in this parish. I must be the only person in the building that does not come forward to receive Communion, and this is a very large Church. I sometimes wonder if I am the only non-Catholic visitor in the congregation or if every one of those going to receive the Eucharist are all Catholics in a state of grace.

 

I have read about the many problems of liturgical abuse and novelty being introduced into the new Novus Ordo Mass since Vatican II. It seems the Church has been in a state of crisis since its “opening up” to the world and its embracing of Modernism. Of course everyone has heard about the terrible sexual abuse scandals of the Church. I have even read of “Pink” seminaries and a “Lavender Mafia” within the Church that protects and defends the homosexual Priests and seminarians. For one considering entering the Catholic Church all of this is a little confusing and disconcerting, to say the least… My dilemma is that I believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church and the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. But how can I become Catholic?

 

To be honest, I am confused. I am starting to lean in favor of the position of the Sedevacantists. The position of the Traditionalists who support the post Vatican II “Popes” seems very inconsistent. They reject Vatican II; they reject the Novus Ordo “Mass”; they recognize the Church is in a great state of apostasy; and yet they still accept as Shepherds of the Church the men who allowed this great crisis and apostasy to overcome the Church. These “Popes” not only allowed this apostasy to enter into the Church, in fact it seems that they facilitated and promulgated these heresies. If the Church is truly indefectible and infallible, how can this be? It seems that the gates of Hell have prevailed against ourChrist’s Church…I have just sent away for your 3 DVD Special pack of materials. I am looking forward to receiving your materials. I love our Blessed Lady and I pray the Rosary nearly every day. I am trying to pray the Rosary at least once daily. Thank you for any answers you can provide me in my search for the truth.

 

God bless you.

 

Thomas Richardson

Ocala, Florida

 

Loss after V-2

 

I was raised a Catholic and found great comfort in the church until the changes made by the church in the mid-sixties.  Even though I was young, it made me question all the facts I was taught until that time.  Eating meat on Friday no longer a sin, the statues covered as if in shame, the guitar masses etc. made me embarrassed to be a Catholic.  I didn't leave the church it left me in an effort to gain popularity and increase its ratings.  I still hold on to the true teachings however, I did not have my daughtetr baptized.  And according to your interview on Art Bell's show, the church is not the true church anyways.  Is this decision of mine going to sentence her to hell for eternity?  Am I not as qualified to baptize her as is the father of the local church which does not represent true Catholicism?  I could not get through the lines on Sunday's show.

Sincerely,

 

Valeire Jeanne

 

MHFM: The Catholic Church is always the true Church.  The indefectibility of the Church is a dogma.  What we are saying is that the Catholic Church still exists, but the post-Vatican II sect, with its new Mass, new teachings and antipopes, is not the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church has been reduced to a remnant in these final days, as predicted in Scripture and Catholic prophecy – a remnant composed of uncompromising Catholics who maintain the true faith.  As pointed out on our website, anyone can validly baptize.  Regarding your question: if your daughter dies without baptism or without the Catholic faith or without practicing the traditional Catholic faith or without the state of grace she will not be saved.  We must also point out that a Catholic parent has an obligation under pain of grave sin to see to it that his or her infant children are baptized.  We would strongly encourage you to look carefully at the things on our website and obtain our $10.00 special, for they specifically cover the things and issues you have mentioned.

 

Found

 

By the grace of God I found your site yesterday. It is amazing, as well as you two Brothers Dimond. My question is: I am in Mobile, Alabama. I, too, believe that you commit a sin going to the new Mess (Mass). There are no Traditionalist churches within several hundred miles from here. I know that Mass and Sacraments are a must, but as you can see are impossible. I was born Catholic (1951) and was raised in the Traditionalist Church, until Vatican II. I read on your site that you recommend praying the complete Rosary (all 3 Mysteries) every day. Is there anything else that I need to do?

Also, from your site, I gleened that I am to stay away from SSPX, and Society of St. Peter. Which Traditionalists are recommended and are there any others to dodge? Since you are "in the know", who can I write to or call to possibly get a Trad priest here to set up a parish? Our Archbishop has already announced that he is going to retire soon, and he is N.O. bigtime.

Thanks, have enjoyed your tapes and videos that I have listened to (you won, bigtime, in the debate!!!). I never knew that there was so much I didn't know about my own faith. Keep up the good work and a lot of those hits you are getting on your site is probably me.

I will be ordering something soon, so you will see my name come across your store.

T. Ray Aspinwall

 

MHFM: It's great to hear about your interest.  If you called us here someone might be able to help you with more detailed questions you have.  A confession to a validly ordained priest of any mortal sins that were confessed to "priests" ordained in the New Rite of Paul VI would also be necessary.  We would mention that people coming out of the Novus Ordo should mention in confession that they had been attending a non-Catholic service and for however long.  The profession of faith from the Council of Trent (which is found on our website and in the back of our two large books) is something everyone should make, especially those coming out of the Novus Ordo.

 

Seminaries

 

Dear Brothers,

 

Thank you for your website. It is a great light against the fog produced by the enemies of Christ.

 

It appears to me that due to the great apostasy, there are now no "valid" seminaries for the Priesthood? The SSPX and CMRI seminaries appear sadly to inculcate various false positions: particularly "The baptism of desire" and denial or doublespeak surrounding "outside the Church there is no salvation."

 

Based on Catholic teaching, would it be a sin for a Catholic understanding these heresies to commence priestly training in these seminaries? (Despite ordination ultimately being done by valid Bishops?)

 

Thank you once again and may God bless you,

 

Robert McMorrow Jnr,

Strathclyde,

Scotland

 

MHFM: Robert, thanks for the interest.  Yes, it would be wrong to join those seminaries because one would be training to enter a group which holds mortally sinful heresies against a solemnly defined dogma of the faith.  The dearth - or rather, apparent non-existence – of fully Catholic seminaries in these days is another sign of where we are in terms of the Great Apostasy.

 

Pagan grandparents

 

Dear Bro. Dimond,

 

I have a question regarding our association with pagans.  My husband’s parents are idolaters.  Like all Chinese they have an altar in their homes.  We don’t live with them.  But we do bring the kids to the grandparents place.  After reading your website, I get the idea that we should even refrain from letting the kids go to the house and have meals at their homes.  They know we are Catholics, in fact we were thrown out of the house few years back.  They have apologized so we have become a family again but we don’t live together.  But they still are pagans.  We do not partake in any of their rituals but I am wondering would it be wrong just to be there.    Please advice.

 

God Bless,

Angelia

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  The answer is that you should not allow them to go to their house.  Since their grandparents are idolaters and outside the true faith, it would be wrong to continue to send your kids there.  The answer in this case is especially clear because by having one’s children around grandparents who are outside the faith, one is encouraging the children to have a devotion and a respect for people who are on the path to perdition and can seriously mislead them.  One is further encouraging the children to look to their grandparents for guidance – something which they obviously should not do – as well as encouraging the children to develop a special relationship and bond with people who are God’s enemies. 

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).”

 

Matthew 10:14-15 “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.  Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

 

Donating-buying

 

MHFM: Some time back we posted an E-Exchange which emphasized that one cannot donate to heretics.  Someone wrote in ridiculously asserting that our position was “inconsistent” because we said you could buy books from a group that is heretical, but couldn’t donate to such a group.  In response to this absurd accusation of inconsistency on this point, we emphasized the obvious fact that there is a major difference between giving a flat donation to a group –which clearly shows that you endorse their positions – and buying something from someone.  The latter means that you paid money for a certain service or item; it does not mean that you necessarily endorse the other things they support.  The distinction is so obvious that it is baffling that anyone could not see it, unless that person is blinded by bad will.  Bad will is a major problem today, as more and more examples continue to demonstrate.  So here was another response on this issue from someone who obstinately maintained the aforementioned ridiculous position in order (obviously) to justify donating to heretics:

 

It is not obvious at all (as you allege) that purchasing books from TAN is okay as long as you do not donate money to them.  Purchasing books from TAN is providing them with a profit.  Or do you believe that they sell their books at cost?  Therefore, if you believe some of their books are heretical, you are supporting an enterprise that spreads heresy because it is only by being profitable that they continue to exist.  Your position is inconsistent at best.  Perhaps you do not see this fact because you are too busy hurling anathemas at everyone.

 

John C. Gorka 

 

MHFM: Your position is ridiculous.  In that case you couldn't buy anything at all since about 100% of the companies which produce about 100% of the products in the world support and/or promote things that are contrary to the faith.  Therefore, one couldn’t buy anything at the grocery store.  Thus, I assume you never go to the grocery store.  If so, you are a hypocrite.  By the way, you do not name one person at whom we've “hurled an anathema” who, in your view, doesn't deserve it. 

 

Refuting an “Orthodox”

 

MHFM: Recently we responded to an antagonistic Eastern “Orthodox” who wrote to us.  Our response provided some biblical proofs for the Papacy, as well as other points which prove the illogic at the heart of Eastern “Orthodoxy.”  He responded by quoting a portion of our response and making the following staggering statement:

 

MHFM STATED: Jesus Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter (Mt. 16),
and gave him jurisdiction over his flock (John 21:15-17).  St. Peter was the
Bishop of Rome, and his followers (i.e., the members of the Church in Rome)
elected his successor, or he appointed his own successor as the Bishop of
Rome and head of the universal Church.

HIS RESPONSE: The RCC is nonsensical. Here is an example. Your conclusion
does not logically follow from the premise of your argument. John 21:15-17
simply says that Christ told Peter (not his successors) to feed HIS (Peter's
sheep).
Not the entire episcopate, and this mandate is given to Peter, not
his successors. Western heretics have always engaged in circular reasoning
by reading into these texts their already assumed belief. You are reading
into this passage something that simply is not there. This is known as "the
Peter syndrom" common among RCC apologists.

 

MHFM: We respond as follows: You actually wrote that John says that Christ told Peter to feed Peter's sheep!  This is staggering.  Read the verse, in case you've never read it.  You are truly a blind heretic.  Christ says feed my lambs, that is, Christ's!  This clearly shows that Christ entrusted all of his sheep and lambs to St. Peter.

 

John 21:15-17-“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?  He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith to him: Feed my lambs.  He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith to him: Feed my lambs.  He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?  Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee.  He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

 

Here’s another “gem” from the Eastern “Orthodox”:

 

MHFM STATED: Eastern Orthodoxy is perhaps the most illogical of all the phony
sects.  Here is a quick proof that Eastern "Orthodox" cannot logically
believe in any dogma because all bishops are considered equal: [and we gave specific examples to demonstrate the point]

HIS RESPONSE: Orthodoxy is logical, because it is the Bride of Christ. The
very Church that He founded.

 

MHFM Comment: Wow, that’s quite a response; that’s really some argument. 

 

The blindness and the obstinacy of this heretic – who even had a chance to consult the verse and see its teaching before responding the way he did – reveals the serious level of bad will at work in schismatics.

 

May 13, Fatima

 

MHFM: Since Sunday was the anniversary of Our Lady’s first appearance at Fatima on May 13, 1917, here is the account of what happened on May 13:

 

“For just before them, on top of a small evergreen called the azinheira – it was about three feet high, and its glossy leaves had prickles on them, like cactus – they saw a ball of light.  And in the center of it stood a Lady.

     As Lucia describes her, she was “a Lady all of white, more brilliant than the sun dispensing light, clearer and more intense than a crystal cup full of crystalline water penetrated by the rays of the most glaring sun.”  Her face was indescribably beautiful, “not sad, not happy, but serious” – perhaps somewhat reproachful, though benign; her hands together in prayer at her breast, pointing up, with Rosary beads hanging down between the fingers of the right hand.  Even her garments seemed made solely of the same white light; a simple tunic falling to her feet, and over it a mantle from her head to the same length, its edge made of a fiercer light that seemed to glitter like gold.  Neither the hair nor the ears could be seen.  The features?  It was almost impossible to look steadily in the face; it dazzled, and hurt the eyes, and made one blink or look away.

     The children stood, fascinated, within the radiance that surrounded her for a distance of perhaps a meter and a half.

     “Don’t be afraid,” she said, in a low musical tone, never to be forgotten.   “I won’t hurt you!”

They felt no fear now, in fact, but only a great joy and peace.  It was the ‘lightning,’ really, that had frightened them before.  Lucia was self-possessed enough to ask a question:

     [Lucia]: “Where does Your Excellency come from?”

     “I am from Heaven.”

     [Lucia]: “And what is it you want of me?”

     “I come to ask you to come here for six months in succession, on the thirteenth day at this same hour.  Then I will tell you who I am, and what I want.  And afterwards I will return here a seventh time.”

     [Lucia]: “And shall I go to Heaven too?”

“Yes, you will.”

     [Lucia]: “And Jacinta?”

     “Also.”

[Lucia]: “And Francisco?”

     “Also.  But he will have to say many Rosaries!”

Heaven!  Lucia suddenly remembered two girls who had died recently.  They were friends of her family, and used to go to her house to learn weaving from her sister Maria.

[Lucia]: “Is Maria da Neves now in Heaven?” she asked.

     “Yes, she is.”

[Lucia]: “And Amelia?”

     “She will be in Purgatory until the end of the world.

     “Do you wish to offer yourselves to God, to endure all the suffering that He may please to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and to ask for the conversion of sinners?”

[Lucia]: “Yes, we do.”

     “Then you will have much to suffer.  But the grace of God will be your comfort.”

As she spoke the words, “a grace de Deus,” [the grace of God] the Lady opened her lovely hands, and from the palms came two streams of light so intense that it not only enveloped the children with its radiance, but seemed to penetrate their breasts and to reach the most intimate parts of their hearts and souls, “making us see ourselves in God” – these are Lucia’s words – “more clearly in that light than in the best of mirrors.”  An irresistible impulse forced them to their knees and made them say, fervently: “O most holy Trinity, I adore You!  My God, my God, I love You in the Most Blessed Sacrament!”

     The Lady waited for them to finish this.  Then she said, “Say the Rosary every day, to obtain peace for the world, and the end of the war.”

     Immediately after this she began to rise serenely from the azinheira to glide away toward the east “until she disappeared in the immensity of the distance.” (Our Lady of Fatima, by William Thomas Walsh, pp. 51-52)

 

New Rosary

 

I read the chapter/pdf on Pope John Paul II from your web and it did concern me a bit.  I haven't gotten all the way through yet.

 

However, specifically with the details in the Luminous mysteries, I wasn't able to discern specific teaching which I thought was contrary to the teachings of the original church.  The one insert about the presence of Jesus at a wedding turned it into a sacrament was curious.  Jesus also attended a crucifiction.  Indeed though, it was a sacrafice that was coupled to the culmination of an entire teaching/Redemption.

 

At any rate it was not on par with the examples of regressions that may have been described about PJP II.  He may have only intended to reach out to other "churches" for peace, but I also think it may have been contrary to what was taught about the real meaning of the new Covennant - in which peace does not overcome something more important…

 

With regards,

David

 

MHFM: Obviously we’re not asserting that his insertion of new mysteries proves by itself that he was a manifest heretic.  All of his other heresies do.  Nor are we asserting that the mysteries which were chosen are bad things.  Of course not, since they pertain to the life of Our Lord.  We are merely pointing out that he changed it in order to change the traditional Rosary of 15 mysteries to something different, just like the Counter Church has tried to change everything else (Catechism, Mass, sacraments, teachings, etc.).  Since these new mysteries were inserted by a manifest heretic who can be proven to have been an antipope, they should obviously not be included in the Rosary. 

 

Positive responses to Coast to Coast

 

MHFM: Below are just a few of the positive responses we received from people who heard the program on Coast to Coast:

 

I cannot remember when I have heard anyone in our Church that is so informed and prolific in the support of our beliefs. Br. Dimond is a gift from the Holy Spirit.  Thank you for all you do. Your apparence on the Art Bell Coast to Coast program and your answers to the call in participants was the greatest. This is why I had order your book.


Jim Vondras

Florissant, MO 

----

I heard Brother Michael on Coast to Coast. Thank you so much.  You were a wonderful example of what St. Paul meant when he said "To every man an  answer,".  I enjoyed every minute of it and I prayed for you through the
whole show.

May God Bless you and your work as he uses you to spread the Word.

 

Holly

-----

Dear Brother:

 

What you are saying somehow rings true to me.  I am a Catholic from birth, and am extremely knowledgeable regarding history and religion, and find your message quite interesting.  I am very active in the Catholic community in Los Angeles, but live in horror as to what the local dioceses has done to the youths of our schools and churches… God bless you and keep you and give you strength to continue to spread your truth.

 

Francine V. Limon

Murrieta, California

---

Dear Brother Diamond: Last evening I listened to your discussion on Coast To Coast, with Art Bell. I was so impressed with your directness and courage, that I am compelled to send you this word of support. I agree totally with your position, and I intend to support you and your community as best as I can.

 

Regards,

Brian Bastinelli

---

 

Your time on art bell was refreshing and stimulating.

 

Robert

---

Hello Brother Michael Dimond,

 

I heard you today on Coast to coast and was startled by your commentary.  I went to your website and your video on various events such as the flood, was most clear and resonated with me…

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Steve DeJoseph

--- 

I enjoyed Brother Dimond’s time on Coast to Coast. 

 

Bobbie Luymes

Peers, AB

Canada

---

Dear Catholic Brothers and Sisters,   I was very happy to have heard Br. Dimond last night on a late night talk show.  I admired his ability to remain calm and forthright after the many questions and rudeness that he received from many callers. 

 

Boo

 

 Dear Brother Diamond,

   I just finished listening to you on Coast-to-Coast AM and was very excited to hear you doing such a fantastic job of Catholic Apologetics to the callers in. I am proud to be Catholic when someone like you handled the callers’ objections and misconceptions of our Catholic faith very gracefully…

 

~Peter Vü

-----------

Another Great Show,  I sat up to 4am listening to the show with some people that are in the fake church  and they were speechless...Im glad I  recorded the show on audio tape....  Good Job

 

-Steve

Marshall WI

 

More stories from the Novus Ordo

 

I just remembered something from Newchurch.  One of my last pastors was head of Diocesan Ecumenism and the rule was that no priest was allowed to pray the Rosary at funeral services lest it should offend the Protestants who were present.  Also, when we exchanged churches with the Protestants, or when this church had a Christmas lights festival where people visited the decorated church, no proselytizing was allowed.  A history of the building of the church that contained nothing Catholic was available.

 

Prisoner wants to convert

 

I had occasion to hear you on coast to coast am with Art Bell.  I am in Jail for perhaps the rest of my natural life and I wish to convert.  I believe that Christ lived, died and rose again to save me.  I would like you to send me the information on the steps I need to become a Catholic.  Please.

 

Respectfully,

 

Raymond H. (we have withheld his full name)

 

Charismatic movement

 

I HAVE JUST COME ACROSS YOUR WEBSITE AND AM QUITE INTRIGUED AND CONFUSED ABOUT MY CATHOLIC FAITH RIGHT NOW. I DONT KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE ANYMORE. I PRAY THE ROSARY AND HAVE BEEN A FOLLOWER OF THE DIVINE MERCY PRAYERS WHICH HAS STRENGTHENED MY FAITH. MY QUESTION TO YOU HOWEVER IS WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT. I SEARCHED YOUR WEBSITE AND COULD NOT FIND ANY INFO ABOUT IT. YOU SEE MANY YEARS AGO, I WAS AWAY FROM THE FAITH, BUT I CAME BACK AFTER AN EXPERIENCE IN THE CATHOLIC CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR VIEWS EITHER ON THE MAIN WEBSITE OR DIRECTLY. 

 

CARL

 

MHFM: The article below covers the Charismatic movement.  I would strongly encourage you to read it.  It can also be found on the “Guide” to our website.  There one will also find an article on The Divine Mercy Devotion, and why Catholics should avoid it.

 

EWTN and the Charismatic Movement [PDF File]

(This article covers what a Catholic should think of Mother Angelica, the Eternal Word Television Network, and the Charismatic movement)

 

What else?

 

Dear Brothers -   in a response to my sister in which I had sent her the following:  her answer follows... hurt, angry, the whole emotional gambit.      Please help us to understand get them to see that we are merely trying follow God through His True Church...  what else can we say to them?  whenever we would try to quote something from the Bible we are "displaying cult like behaviour" and mentally sick...  not thinking with our own minds....???   according to them.    melanie & bill

 

MHFM: If you've been repeatedly rejected by them, there's nothing more to say to them and you should not continue.  St. Paul says that we should avoid the heretic after the second rebuke (Titus 3:10).  Many people waste much time disputing with obstinate heretics of bad will who will not be convinced by anything that is said.  In some cases, with those of weak faith, not only will much time be wasted disputing with these totally obstinate heretics, but listening to their unbelief over and over can cause some to be weakened in their own convictions. 

 

SSPX

 

I am a devout Roman Catholic and I have read a lot on the web site listed after your interview on Art Bell's radio show.  I thought I understood what you were saying until I read the part about Pius X. I wonder now what you are suggesting. Until I read the opinion about the Pius X movement, it seemed as if you were in agreement with them.  Did I miss something? If so, what? I did miss a lot of the radio show as it is on very late in this area.

John Beal

Cave Creek AZ

 

MHFM: On our website there is a section on the SSPX.  It explains that they do some good things; for instance, they oppose the New Mass, much of Vatican II, false ecumenism, and they promote many traditional Catholic things.  However, their positions are actually heretical in a number of key areas.   This article explains it: The File on the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X

 

Slavery?

 

On "Coast to Coast," when your spokesman, Brother Michael Diamond, was questioned about the church's acceptance of slavery, he sited a specific Pope as the "most recent" to condemn slavery. It would have been more useful to most of us if he had told us when this was said & when (or if?) earlier Popes objected to this horrid practice.

Chuck Little
29 Palms, Ca.

 

MHFM:  There are many papal documents we could cite against slavery, but below is just one for now.  It comes from Pope Paul III’s Bull, Sublimus Dei, May 29, 1537.  It’s interesting to note something in addition to the condemnation of slavery in this Bull.  Speaking in context about those above the age of reason and about those who haven’t heard of Jesus Christ, Pope Paul III declares that no one “may obtain salvation save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,” thus providing another example of the traditional dogmatic teaching of the Church on the necessity of believing in Christ for salvation. (This quote, by the way, is found in the 2nd edition of our book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.)  This is a dogmatic truth which is rejected not only by the counterfeit post-Vatican II sect, but unfortunately by many “traditionalists” and “traditional priests” who believe that some Jews or Muslims or pagans can be saved. 

                                                                                                        

Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei, May 29, 1537:  (Topic: the enslavement and evangelization of Indians)

 

“To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction. The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and teach all nations.' He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.

 

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

 

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.”

 

On our previous show

 

Dear Brothers,

The show with Gregory Safreed was very interesting. It would be great to have him on again so he could tell us what the reaction was of his N.O. parish when he quit.  Since he was actually an administrator, hopefully he could influence more parishioners to get out of there.

Concerning the call from "Peter" who found it almost unbeleivable that a priest or bishop could actually encourage such immoral activity such as looking at Playboy magazine or seeking out a prostitute, it should be noted that Mel Gibson himself actually gave an interview with Playboy back during the time when he made the movie Braveheart.  Someone online posted an excerpt of the interview.  William F. Buckley, another "Catholic" wrote "extensively" for Playboy. Here is a link to the article in which he admitted this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200312191325.asp

So what kind of "Catholics" would do such things? These are just 2 examples to show that what Mr. Safreed was told to do by these so-called "Catholic clergy" really shouldn't be so shocking.

Bridget

 

heard, wondering?

 

I heard Brother Diamond on Coast to Coast the other night and as a protestant convert to the Catholic faith 9 years ago I have some questions.  First let me say that I loved the passion, knowledge and love that Brother Diamond has for the Catholic faith and what we believe in regards to the one true faith, Mary, Eucharist, Confession, The Pope etc. 

 

Where I started to get uneasy and now I’m questioning and looking for answers is once he started talking about the current Roman Catholic Church as not being the true church, invalid masses and Anti-Popes.  As a convert to the faith I can honestly say that there are some things about the mass that I don’t like.  I don’t like they way some younger priest say mass, especially during the consecration, it took me a long time to get use to contemporary music groups but thankfully I’ve never been subject to clown masses or other ridiculous things such as that.  And I do whish in many ways the church is the way it was pre Vatican II even though I’ve never experienced it.

 

If I were to agree with you…then what?  What do you do if you don’t have a pope to follow?  Just wait it out?  Wouldn’t you then be a protestant…a “protester” of the Catholic faith?  You obviously believe that a “true” pope is necessary and designed by Christ so it’s like you’re a lost sheep without a shepherd.  It feels wrong to abandon it even though I don’t agree with it 100%.  Wouldn’t I be just like Martin Luther?

 

Brother Diamond spoke about Jesus setting up Peter as the 1st Pope which I agree, and gave him the authority to bind and loose which I agree, so why is it that what happened at Vatican II doesn’t fall under that?  I know you don’t like that changes, and I don’t like all of them either, but if we believe what Jesus said then shouldn’t we believe that the Pope is leading us in the way that God wants us to go as a church?  This is my biggest stumbling block…

 

Ryan McLellan Sr.

Goffstown, NH

 

MHFM: Ryan, we strongly suggest that you consult the information on our website and in our DVDs and books, for they answer many of your questions.  The reason that Vatican II was not protected by the authority of St. Peter is because the men who called and confirmed it, John XXIII and Paul VI, were radical and public heretics prior to their “elections.”  According to the teaching of Pope Paul IV, the election of such a heretic is invalid.  There is also evidence that neither one of them was lawfully elected at all (in addition to the fact that they were excluded because they were heretics).  Evidence suggests that Cardinal Siri was elected first and then his election was uncanonically set aside.  Thus, there is no violation of the promise that Peter’s faith will not fail (Lk. 22:32) because these men never lawfully assumed that authority.  That is proven by examining the teaching of Vatican II, which we do in our material.  Vatican II authoritatively teaches the opposite of true popes on many issues, which is impossible if the man who confirmed it was a true pope.  Regarding Luther, it’s precisely because we maintain fidelity to the Catholic dogmas which oppose and refute Luther that we denounce the Vatican II sect.  The Vatican II sect agrees with Luther on Justification, and holds that Lutherans don’t even need to accept the Papal Primacy to be Christians.  The Vatican II antipopes – specifically John Paul II and Benedict XVI – have also praised the arch-heretic Luther!  This is a quick answer to your question; a more thorough consultation of the our material will make it more clear for you: the Vatican II sect is Protestant and a revolution against the Papacy and holds the Papacy to be utterly meaningless.  It’s a fact of Church history that, at certain times in the past (e.g., the Great Western Schism), antipopes have reigned in Rome.  Thus, it’s really not a surprise that God would allow a deception with antipopes in Rome to happen at the end of the world.  The facts proving that this is what’s going on today are irrefutable.

 

Convert

 

Hi!

 

I live in a rural area south of Canandaigua, NY.  I work two full time jobs over the internet, so it is difficult for me to travel anywhere.

 

Is it possible for me to study and become a member and baptized in the true church?

 

Thank you,

Claire

 

MHFM: Claire, on the “Guide” to our website there is the profession of faith for converts from the Council of Trent, as well as the form of baptism.  Anyone can baptize you if you know the basic catechism and accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church.  We would also recommend that you start praying the Rosary each day.  So, yes, if you follow the simple steps for a convert that are listed on our website then you can quickly become a Catholic. If you have already been validly baptized, then a general confession of all mortal sins to a validly ordained priest (with a mention of adherence to other sects) would be necessary.  If there is some doubt about whether you have been validly baptized, a conditional baptism (which anyone can perform for you) could be done prior to your general confession.  The conditional form of baptism is also given on our website.

 

Introduction to Terms and Principles discussed on this website

 

For those who are new to this website, you might want to check out the “Introduction to Terms” which is found as the topmost entry on the “Guide” to our website which is located our mainpage.  We have also quoted and linked to this introduction here for your convenience:

 

This website is dedicated to defending and spreading the Catholic Faith, as taught and defined by the authoritative teachings of the popes throughout history.  It is also dedicated to exposing in great detail the post-Vatican II pseudo-“Church” and the New Mass which purport to be Catholic, but are not.  Please consult the “Glossary of Terms and Principles” below for a more helpful introduction to the material on this website and for an explanation of the Catholic basis for the conclusions asserted here.  It explains such terms as “Magisterium,” the Church’s “indefectibility,” “ecumenism,” “sedevacantism,” “Papacy,” “Papal Infallibility,” “heretic,” “antipope,” and others.  It also explains important principles about what the Catholic Church teaches about other religions, that heretics cease to be members of the Church, the new teachings after Vatican II, etc.

The Glossary of Terms and Principles [PDF]

(This glossary contains important definitions of key terms and principles about the Catholic Faith, about the post-Vatican II “Church,” about how the Catholic Church views non-Catholic religions, etc. which people should see.)

 

Huge Response to Coast to Coast

 

MHFM: It was another huge response to Bro. Michael’s appearance on Coast to Coast AM.  We will be posting a few of the e-mails that we have received.

 

New Mass is the Abomination of Desolation

 

MHFM: For those who are interested in prophecy, you might want to look at this article on the New Mass as the Abomination of Desolation in the holy place as prophesied in Matthew 24:15.

 

The New Mass is the Abomination of Desolation - and the First Four Vatican II Antipopes parallel the Four False High Priests at the time of the Abomination of Desolation in the Machabees

 

Ordination

 

Hello Brothers,

  What proof can someone give that he was ordained before 1968?  Is that person's word supposed to be good enough?

T.D.

 

MHFM: In most cases, yes, you would have to go by the person’s word.  But there are obviously things which could tip you off that his word might not be reliable.  For instance, if he has always been a “priest” in the Novus Ordo diocese, but is clearly not old enough to have been ordained before 1968 and if he wasn’t ordained in the Eastern Rite, then there is a good chance that he is not telling you the truth or isn’t accurate with his information.  In another case, if you are dealing with a person who is not merely known to be heretical, but shady and dishonest about other matters, then there is a good chance that his word is not reliable about when or in what rite he was ordained.  On this matter we could cite the case of an independent “priest” from Pennsylvania who celebrates the traditional Latin Mass.  He told numerous people different things about whether he held the sedevacantist position; we’re talking about clear contradictions.  He was also “ordained” right around the time when the changes to the rite of ordination started to be implemented.  So, one would have to trust his word on the rite used when he was ordained.  Since he contradicted himself and wasn’t forthright on his position about the antipope, we do not feel that his claim that he was ordained in the traditional rite of ordination is reliable.  He was the type who basically wanted to tell people what they wanted to hear, so there is a very good chance that he was doing that when addressing concerned individuals about his ordination.

 

Canada

 

Hello,

My name is Josh Fougere.  I live in an isolated rural area of Nova Scotia, I have two questions.  The first is: How can I find churchs that have valid sacraments within Canada?  The second question is:  Have you ever heard of  the prophecies of the great monarch?  If so, what are your thoughts on them?   Thanks a lot for all the support you give to us who are lost.

Josh

 

MHFM: Josh, the question of where to receive valid sacraments in Canada is a tough one.  We would say that your best option is a valid Eastern Rite priest (e.g., a Byzantine priest).  If he is not a notorious supporter of the Vatican II religion, we believe you could receive sacraments from him without supporting him at all.  Many of these priests are so heretical, however, that you couldn't even go to them at all.  It's a tough situation, but you could probably find one there in Canada.

 

Regarding the great monarch, we are familiar with some of the prophecies about it.  We don’t really have an opinion on it because there are so many prophecies about the great monarch which contradict one another that it makes it difficult to make sense out of them.

 

May 4th Radio program Archived

 

The latest radio program has now been archived: Archived Radio Programs.

 

Guest

 

Tonight (Fri, May 4) we will have Gregory Safreed as a guest on our radio program.  He is the former pastoral administrator of two Novus Ordo parishes in the Diocese of New Ulm, MN.  We will be discussing the outrageous things he saw in the Novus Ordo “Church” and in Novus Ordo seminaries.

 

Third Order Novus Ordo?

 

Bro. Dimond, I have been clothed into the Discalced Carmelites Secular and I wonder if they would ask me to leave if they saw that I refused to go to the new mass offered at the monastery when we are supposed to occasionally and that I did not believe the last 5 popes where true. What do you think? I truly believe God has called me to this order and to serve him here.

 

Sincerely Deb

 

MHFM: We’re very glad to hear about your interest.  Regarding being a third order or secular member of a Novus Ordo religious order, that's not something a Catholic could do.  A Catholic can have nothing to do with the false Vatican II sect or the New Mass.  You should take off the habit if you do wear it, and have nothing to do with their monastery.  God is calling you to serve him as an uncompromising supporter of the Catholic Faith of all times.

 

SSPX priests

 

So here is my question:  Might it not be possible, even likely, that some SSPX priests are closet Sedevacantists?   If so and they have decided to hold that position quietly in order to give souls access to the Sacraments (this guy must hear hundreds of confessions per week) are they sinning, or performing a service for the remnant underground Church?... 

  

Follow-up, can one support a priest, whom one deems not to be heretical apart from supporting the SSPX, which I agree has an illogical, really ridiculous position?

 

Bill Mulligan    

 

MHFM: It is probable that numerous priests in the SSPX are closet sedevacantists.  To your second question, it would be wrong for them to publicly remain in union with the SSPX as closet sedevacantists; for they are publicly affiliating themselves with the position that Benedict XVI is the pope (even though they reject that position privately), in addition to the SSPX’s heresy on the salvation dogma.  Standing for the truths of the faith is more important than dispensing the sacraments to individuals who are learning heretical positions from a group which espouses heretical positions. To your third question, no, one could not support a priest who seems to hold the correct position privately, but still affiliates himself with a heretical group publicly. 

 

More on Siri

 

Dear Dimond Brothers:

My family has benefitted from the information contained on your website, and we have shared it with others. Thank you for your work. One question that is continually debated among us relates to the following statement taken from your article on Cardinal Siri:

"* Note: We believe that Cardinal Siri was elected pope and unlawfully forced to resign – thus invalidating the “elections” of John XXIII and Paul VI.  But his failure to oppose the apostasy, stand up for his office and denounce the Antipopes in the decades following those fateful days preclude Catholics from holding that he remained pope in the decades following the 1958 and 1963 conclaves.  Cardinal Siri may have been paralyzed by fear, uncertainty and confusion about his status and what to do about it; nevertheless one cannot recognize that he remained pope in the years following his elections because, at least in the external forum, he did not stand up for his office or oppose the antipopes.*"

Without exception, nearly everyone who considers the events regarding Siri is perplexed by his inability to fight the crimes within the church. However, there is much evidence to suggest that Siri was under constant threats his entire life, including the prospect of horrific crimes against his flock. Perhaps he could be labeled as a poor Pope or a weak Pope. Nevertheless, it would appear that he maintained the hope of one day reclaiming the papacy (he nearly was elected over JPI in 1977 and vigorously lobbied for the chair). While we are free to question Siri's prudential judgment, it is difficult to comprehend the weights he bore on his shoulders. Perhaps he recognized how far the cancer had spread in the church and felt abandoned without recourse. It is a fact that he was drugged throughout Vatican II, as he even collapsed and went into convulsions (the only time this happened in his life) during his one moment to speak. Peter denied Christ three times, but he did not lose the Papal chair. Prophetically, there is much evidence, particularly from A. C. Emmerich, which accurately foretells these circumstances. Is it conceivable, in your opinion, that Siri always remained Pope, though he was exiled as a captive in his own diocese? It is not without precedent for a pope to handpick a successor before his death. It has happened twice before. Please offer your thoughts on the subject. Is it absolutely,
unequivocally impossible that he remained pope?

In Christ,

Mr. T S

 

MHFM: Yes, in our view it is definite that he did not remain pope.  A validly elected pope loses his office by resignation or by adherence to heresy.  We give our explanation for our position on this matter on the radio program.  We encourage you to listen to it in the Archived Radio Programs, if you haven’t heard it yet.  Among the reasons we give, Siri publicly accepted the Vatican II antipopes, thus proving that he regarded them as the true popes.  He said the funeral homily for Antipope John Paul I.  He was pictured on the balcony as John Paul II emerged as the newly elected “pope.”  He worked to bring Lefebvre into full union with Antipope John Paul II and Vatican II.  He accepted the New Mass in his diocese.  It’s utterly ridiculous to assert that he remained pope.  In addition, it’s counterproductive.  We have a slam dunk case against the Vatican II antipopes which is based on sure and unassailable doctrinal grounds and arguments.  No one can refute it; if one tries to debate it he gets blown away because the facts and the heresies cannot be answered.  By focusing on the doctrinally untenable position that Cardinal Siri remained pope when, in the external forum, he manifested allegiance to the antipopes, one provides enemies of the truth with an easy way to attack and avoid the unshakable doctrinal arguments which obliterate their position.  It hurts the case of traditional Catholics against the Counter Church.  Here’s the quote from the Biography of Marcel Lefebvre to which reference was made on the radio program:

 

Bishop Tissier De Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, p. 508: “On Nov. 18, through an initiative of Cardinal Siri, John Paul II received the archbishop [Lefebvre] who said he was ready ‘accept the Council in the light of Tradition.’  [The footnote says:]… The cardinal [Siri] flattered himself with having brought Archbishop Lefebvre to ‘accept the whole Council,’ but the reservation expressed by the Archbishop was of capital importance.”

 

According to this, Siri not only worked to bring Lefebvre into union with Antipope John Paul II, but “flattered himself” that he got Lefebvre to accept all of Vatican II. 

 

Finally, you bring up the point that St. Peter denied Christ three times.  Our opponent in the debate brought that up, and we responded by pointing out that St. Peter wasn’t made the pope until after the Resurrection, as defined by Vatican I.  In Matthew 16 Jesus promised Peter that He would build His Church upon Him, but John 21 (after the Resurrection) is when He actually gave St. Peter jurisdiction over the Church.

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. 4, Chap. 1: “And upon Simon Peter alone Jesus after His resurrection conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold, saying: ‘Feed my lambs…’ (John 21:15).” (Denz. 1822)

 

It was somewhat amusing to note that, after our opponent in the debate was completely refuted on this point, he tried to downplay it by saying something like: “that really wasn’t a big matter of contention anyway.”

 

Staggering implications

 

Brothers,

 

It will be interesting to see how the SSPX spins this one!  I don't think Bishop Williamson

will be able to pass it off as just another example of Ben16's liberal-infected mind.

After all, according to the bishop, he is "good hearted, a dear pope".    

 

T Quinlan

 

MHFM: Unfortunately, if they’ve seen all the other heresies and still accept him as a Catholic then I don’t think this one will put them over the edge.  If they have accepted all the others, they are very much in the grip of the evil one.

 

----

Thank you for you great clarification on Limbo!  We needed the quotes from the great Fathers of the Church.  Benedict XVI again overturned the whole teachings of the great and holy councils,and your verifying of all the teachings, gives us ammunition to use against all these liberals who will argue with us. The liberal media just reported the "new and false" facts of Bendicts XVI, and made him into the "right" teachings, like to 2 quotes you used at the beginning of your article-the Fox news one said "the conclusion of the many factors they considered" WHAT factors? They are so vague because they are wrong.

Thank you again for a great article!

 

Sincerely,

Kathryn Rubio

Solon, OH

 

Comment

 

Dear MHFM,  

 

I just wanted to let you know first, before going any further, that your last radio program was wonderful. Especially the story of the Japanese Martyrs and the question regarding depression. I also wanted to thank you for the quote which you placed on your web site (28APR07) under Doctrine. I have been having a hard time with this issue, and couldn't find anything that the Church had written on this…

 

May Our Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST and the Immaculate Heart of His Mother Mary be with you,
                                                                              

 Charlie Plante
 

Attack

 

SUBJ: HERETICS

 

YOU !! most "holierthanthou" "brothers..Yep, you 2 are really brothers so that makes you capable of using the "brother" part of your names. YOU are the true heretics!! I am appalled at what you have been putting out in the name of MY Catholic Church. You need true forgiveness because you have been successful in pulling my 93 year old mother away from Mass for the first time since she became a convert in 1946. She somehow started getting "crap" from your most vile monastery( I'm sure it's a business only) and for some stupid reason she is falling for your lies. She missed Mass on Easter Sunday for the first time EVER ! Aren't you proud of your "money-making" selves?? We have discovered that you are not a true monastery and are definitely NOT associated with the Benedictine Monasteries. I have armed myself with plenty of writings to try and prove to her how FALSE you two are.. I'm sure you have a FAMILY of heretics working for you too. Money is the "root of all evil " and you are truly EVIL.  My family is truly sickened by what you send out and I pray that God will reward you JUSTLY- "NOT".  I pray that we can save our mother before her life ends. She now doesn't even believe that the Eucharist is real. You are truly Sick,Sick people are are anti-catholic and real "tools of the devil".

 

MHFM: You obviously don't have a clue about the Catholic Faith, and you lack the good will to uncover your ignorance. You are not even remotely Catholic.  You probably haven't even read one papal encyclical, probably couldn't even name the first council of the Church, or explain what the Papacy is.  You are a vile heretic, totally blind to the truth, and headed for Hell. 

 

We sell our material for probably for less money than any organization in the world (e.g., DVDs for less than a dollar with no shipping charge), which shows how utterly baseless and malicious your false accusation is.  By the way, money is not the root of all evil, as you say; it's the "desire of money" which is the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10).  You are a prime example of a person of bad will, which is why you fail to respond to even one specific point we bring forward and instead you focus on launching easily refuted personal attacks. You are a prime example of why God sends people to Hell forever: you hate the truth. 

 

Why bother?

 

I recently returned to the Catholic Church after a void of 30 + years. I am trying to be good and during those years I made an effort to be good during the last 15 or so. Reading your site and the fact that only one in one hundren thousand might reach Heaven and the rest go to hell, I wonder why poeple like myself and so many others are even bother to try to get to heave. We have no chance. I thought that Christ said that all we had to do to reach Heaven was to believe He was God. No amount of good works could get us in Heaven. If the Rapture is coming, so few people would be taken up, that no would would know it came and went.

Help me out here.

 

Holly

 

MHFM: First of all, it’s quite surprising that you would say that you “returned to the Catholic Church” when you clearly hold Protestant views of salvation.  You thought that Christ said that all we had to do was believe that He is God?  That’s pure Protestantism.  A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24).  Belief in Christ is necessary, of course, but He also said you must hear the Church (Mt. 18:17) under pain of damnation, and that He will render to every man “according to His works” (Mt. 16:27).  The Bible also clearly teaches that all who die in grave sin are lost, and it specifically mentions fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, etc. (1 Cor. 6:9).  Christ also includes with adulterers those who lust in their hearts (Mt. 5:28).  Thus, to say that all one has to do to reach Heaven is to believe in God couldn’t be farther from Biblical truth and Catholic teaching.

 

Now, to your rather pessimistic outlook (why bother?), we would say, first of all, that if you don’t bother you are definitely going to be miserable for all of eternity.  Hence, even if it were excruciatingly difficult and painful to reach Heaven, you should do your utmost to do it because eternal Hell is INFINITELY worse than any effort you might make here on Earth.  But the truth is that for those who truly believe in God, accept His full truth, don’t compromise it and want to do the right thing, it’s not hard to reach Heaven.  As Christ said, “My yoke is sweet and My burden light” (Mt. 11:30).  The reason that so few make it is not because it’s that hard, but because they refuse to believe the simple and easy things He has revealed, and do the simple and easy things He has commanded.  Those who do what God wants and believe what He says realize that they are much happier than they were before.

 

Friday’s Radio Program

 

MHFM: Friday’s radio program has been uploaded to the Archived Radio Programs.  It is also linked to here, with a description:

 

April 27th, 2007 Radio Program [58 min. – discusses: the incredible sufferings of the Japanese martyrs, the question of whether Siri remained pope, a person defending Sr. Faustina’s devotion, questions about the Joint Declaration, Fr. Ryan, depression and more, and an in-depth discussion of John Paul II’s incredible teaching that man is Christ, with a special and revealing look at specifics from Evangelium Vitae, Redemptor Hominis and other encyclicals.]

 

Novus Ordo “bishop” on SSPX

 

On Saturday, April 14, 2007, the Newchurch Bishop of Altoona-Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Joseph Adamec, gave an emphatic No! to an "Indult" Mass in the Newchurch diocese, even if a new "indult" were issued by Newvatican. Expressing the opinion of the bishops of the United States, Adamec said that the "Indult" Mass is only a concession to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Adamec said that he might be willing to make available a Novus Ordo service partially in Latin, but not the "Indult" Mass. He said that if the "Indult" Mass were made available, it would signal a reversion to an outdated religion.

 

In…

 

MHFM: It’s interesting to hear what these apostates are up to.  It’s also another example of a Novus Ordo “bishop” labeling the Society of St. Pius X schismatic.

 

Recent radio shows archived

 

Dear Brs.

Do you have an available tape of Friday's live radio show (4/20/07)?

Bernadette

--

Hi brothers,

I got your new book and i'm really enjoying it. I missed your radio program that youhad last week and i'm wondering if you are going to put it in the "Achieved Radio Programs" for download.

thanks,
Glenn

 

MHFM: We have just archived our six most recent radio shows.  They are found here: Archived Radio Programs.  They can also be found by clicking on the “Radio” section of the Guide on our website.   We will be adding descriptions of what these shows contain in the next few days.  So far we have descriptions of three of the most recent shows.

 

Realizing we don’t have a pope

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter:


I just finished listening to your radio program of August 22.  Although I have suspected it for some time, I have not been willing to admit it to myself, We do not have a Pope!  This program filled in the blanks, enough to convince me of this fact.  I became acquainted with the writings of Father Feeny many years ago, and did not have any trouble accepting EENS and One Baptism… I already have some of your VHS tapes.  I intend to order the DVD set in a few minutes.  I forgot to tune in to your program last Friday, and was disappointed to find that it was not archived.  I will make it a point to listen and record it this Friday.  Are you going to archive them also?  They make great podcasts, and I am able to listen to something worthwhile at work. Keep up the good work.  Thank you again so much, for so much.

Our Lady, Pray for us,

Charles H. Ivers
Benbrook, Texas

 

Book/Jurisdiction

 

Dear MHFM:

 

I read your new book and it is great!  It is "making the rounds" of our friends and relatives.  However, I noticed it doesn't address the problem of no jurisdiction for many of the "group" and independent priests today; even with the few who are truly solid in the Faith, this is an issue. I noticed your quote of Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#4) March 23, 1875, which seems to condemn those who operate without jurisdiction, and I am wondering what your thoughts are on this issue in general, and how the Pius IX quote may or may not apply with regard to our situation today among the so-called Traditionalist priests, assuming they are solid in every regard otherwise, yet appearing to have no jurisdiction or "a legitimate mission" (an official sanction)….

 

-Bruce

 

MHFM: We thought about including a short section on jurisdiction in the book, but we decided against it.  The book is primarily about the Vatican II sect.  While it does cover many issues which pertain to “traditionalist” controversies, the issues covered in the book are “traditionalist” controversies vis-ŕ-vis the Vatican II sect.  There simply wasn’t room (nor was it necessarily appropriate since it would shift off topic) to include a section on every controversy among traditionalists.  For instance, we could have included something on the claim that Lefebvre’s priestly orders are invalid because he was ordained and consecrated by one alleged to have been a Freemason (Cardinal Lienart), but you get the idea.

 

Regarding our thoughts on jurisdiction, we will post something on this topic.  Not too long ago, after having been sidetracked on other matters for some time (and still getting sidetracked quite frequently), a start has been able to be made on one article.  After that particular article is posted, something else on jurisdiction will be done, which will hopefully clarify some misunderstandings on that issue.

 

On New Book

 

I forgot to tell you I finally finished the book you and Brother Michael wrote.  I bought it mostly for a reference book...but after I got through the first 10 pages, it was anything but "singing to the choir"....I couldn't put the book down.....there was so much information that I didn't know about....or I've heard you mention on the website....but with greater detail in the book, I actually understood it.  The short section that touched on divorce really made me lose sleep....I think divorce and remarriage is so integrated into our society that, even though I know it's completely wrong and terrible, I've become numb to it (especially since I was born in 76). 

 

Anyway, the ironic point is that I bought it to be able to defend the truth to others quickly, but it actually was perfectly for me....And what seems as such a big book, didn't seem big enough at the end.

 

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!  And may God reward you for perseverance in the truth! 

 

Teri Thurman

 

SSPX radio program

 

Dear Brothers Dimond

I was listening to your radio programme on the SSPX and I couldn't help but agree with all the comments made by yourselves, your guest speaker and other callers. These comments concurred with many of my own experiences when I was attending an SSPX chapel in England. I was involved with the SSPX for a couple of years a few years ago, before I had come to explicitly accept the sedevacantist position and the necessity of water baptism and membership of the Catholic Church for salvation. Being involved in the SSPX delayed my coming to accept those positions as the SSPX propaganda was aimed at condemning
sedevacantists and 'Feeneyites' as heretics and beyond the pale.  So there was no room for discussion of these issues privately with priests or other Faithful or publicly.  Somebody who was vocal on the salvation dogma was condemned as a heretic in a slanging match with the District Superior in the Church hall after Mass one Sunday. For the SSPX, a questioning of their position can lead to their many tactics to freeze you out, such as withholding the Sacraments from you
and/or calumnising you among the faithful.  This behaviour put me on my guard and did not provide an incentive to debate.

But what also concerned me was the cultishness of the SSPX: the almost idolatry of the faithful towards the Priests and Lefebvre, who to them
appeared the arbiters of all Catholic Truth.  I also was concerned that the SSPX wanted to keep Catholics dependent totally on them.  For example, they said Catholics could not go elsewhere to the Indult Mass, even though the Indult offered the same 1962 mass permitted by the Diocesan authorities they claimed to recognise! I was amazed that a couple who were getting married were advised by the local SSPX to get married in a  civil Registry Office rather than the 'Conciliar
Church' and   receive a blessing from the SSPX. In this way, the SSPX informed this couple that there would be less paperwork for the SSPX than if they conducted the wedding ceremony themselves. I also became concerned at the totally novel innovation of 'Canonical commissions' in which the SSPX has taken over powers reserved to Rome concerning granting annulments and other adjudications.

Finally, I became concerned about the self aggrandisement and inward lookingness of the SSPX.  From my observations, the faithful were
often treated as fodder or drones to serve the priests, often with unreasonable impositions placed on them. For this reason, I noticed
there was quite a turnover of people who would come along, offer to get involved, but would subsequently leave in acrimonious circumstances due to the unreasonable cultish behaviour of the priests or other Faithful. For example, within days of my first inquiry about the SSPX, the District Superior telephoned me to ask if I could drop everything and go to the SSPX school to teach!  This would have been a live in position. I was even offered a room at the SSPX District headquarters, and somebody else I knew was invited to live there! Fortunately, I was cautious of such offers to get further involved, as I feared that a fall out with the priests would also leave me homeless and without a job, as has happened to others who made sacrifices to help them.  I nonetheless gave a lot of help to the SSPX, and was the first assistant editor of their new District Magazine. However, I found the contradictory position of the SSPX on so many issues, and the cultishness of that organisation, impossible to reconcile with Catholic truth and practice. When I left the SSPX, I withdrew permission for them to reproduce my copyrighted writings on their website but to my astonishment they refused to do so.  They only complied after I complained to the webhosting company who took down the website because it breached conditions of their webhosting contract.

Thank you for highlighting for listeners the contradictory positions of the SSPX and the fact that, sadly, they are to be avoided.

Best wishes

Gerard

----


Good show… The Saint Pius church topic hit upon reality at the community level.  I personally have drawn conclusions about the community level in reference to the sedevacantism position but haven't heard any discussion of it.  I think your discussion was helpful.  I have no history with the St. Pius churches having grown up in NW Chicago.  Knowing that these churches almost have it right but don't is a curiosity.  Being a lone Catholic I do imagine what life was like in history when entire communities were Catholic.

Maybe your last show could be posted on the web site so I may listen to it again….

Rob Urbasic
Denver, Colorado

 

Barrage of E-mails about new limbo heresy

 

Vatican buries Limbo :

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070420/ts_nm/pope_limbo_dc

 

Fa

---

Brothers,

This new belief of the Vatican II church that says that babies who die without baptism go to heaven anyway, is a direct attack on the Blessed Mother andher Immaculate Conception. They might as well declare EVERYONE to be conceived without sin.

Bridget

---

B16 threw out Limbo with the bathwater. Why fight abortion then—if unbatized infants are going to heaven—you are doing God a favor to Abort your kid—is the logic!! Why chance a soul to come in the world—because the majority of souls living do not go to heaven [Traditional teaching]—so you are doing a good thing then—because isn’t the ultimate goal to get all souls to heaven? B16 just gave now heretical approval for the fast track method!

 

Pope revises Catholic teaching on 'limbo'

Pontiff approves report saying there is hope for unbaptized babies

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-pope0420,0,6597293.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

 

Pope Revises 'Limbo,' Says There Is Hope for Unbaptized Babies

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267420,00.html

 

JY

---

Pope revises 'limbo' for babies - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_limbo

 

SN

---

How much longer will Our Lord be able to stay the Hand of God the Father?  B-16 has just openly destroyed the reason for the Catholic Faith in his position that Limbo does not exist & that Baptism is only a protestant rite, bringing one into the faith community.  I know he is (an or THE) Anti-Christ...

 

Jennifer

----

Pope revises 'limbo' for babies - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_limbo

 

Lida Lewis

 

MHFM: This is undoubtedly a huge scandal both for those people inside the Vatican II sect and for Protestants, etc.  One headline we read said: “Catholic Church reverses its teaching.”  But for those of us who know that Antipope Benedict XVI is an antipope, and that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, it is a huge vindication.  We wonder what those heretics who said that sedevacantism is absurd are saying right about now…

 

Searching and open

 

Dear Brothers in Christ

 

    Today, I just recieved, by fate, a copy of your free DVD in the mail...  After watching the first 5 minutes, I had to go to website... its overwhelming!  I have much studying to do at your website, and so many questions...I was raised in the Post Vatican II church, and within  a very old fashioned and devout Catholic Family, thank God.  Something always seemed to "be missing" within my church... but I was lucky in that my family's pre-vatican II devotions, made up for it.  At a young age I knew I had a vocation, but it took me until I was 37 to go off and pursue it.  I was with The Servants of the Paraclete, and The Vocationist Fathers, as well as doing visits and retreats with The OFM's, Norbertines and others...  What I experienced there, sickened my soul, and well, pretty much murdered my vocation.  Yes I spoke up to Church authorities, and was pretty much blown off or told to shut up, I was pretty much advised not to speak about the things I witnessed in religious life, because I would be responsible for scandalizing others' faith... 

   You have no idea what it does to me to sit in church every week, surrounded by so many good

souls, knowing that wolves are tending the flock... and not knowing what to do about it, or worse yet, believing that I must be the one at fault, that I must be so outside the church that I cannot feel the devotion, love and respect of God in my church anymore.  For love of God, my priest even criticizes the rosary as being Idolatry, and openly discourages devotion to the Blessed Mother... 

    I'm sorry, I'm digressing...  I do not know where this new revelation will lead me, but I want to thank you

for all the information on your website, that I will be reading in the next few days...  I know that the Catholic Church must condemn you as heretics, Ha! Ha!  Thats kind of ironic isn't it?  But after what I've seen with my own eyes, within the Church, I'm going to "listen" with an open mind, and discerning heart.

If time and responsibilities permit, I would appreciate any information and backround on your apostolate...

Because I see in you two, perhaps something I could use...  For truly you two are standing up against something so huge, that I'm afraid to admit, it has crushed me.

                                        

 Pax Christi,

 Andy Schnelly

 

MHFM: Wow, your “priest” criticized the Rosary as being idolatrous?  That’s really some outrage, even for the Novus Ordo!  You need to get out of the New Mass.  (Someone here just spoke with a woman who, while still in the Novus Ordo, went to nine different “priests” and eight out of nine said that the Biblical account of Adam and Eve is a myth.)  The material on our website shows that the New Mass is not valid, that it’s a false Protestant service which all must avoid under pain of mortal sin.  Keep researching the information presented on our website and you will see that the “Church” you are describing – which has alienated so many by its heresies, scandals and attacks on the Catholic Faith – is not the Catholic Church at all, but Satan’s counterfeit “Catholic” sect of the last days.  As you continue to investigate you will see that people must leave the New Mass and practice and believe the traditional Catholic Faith of all times.  It would not be accurate to say that “the Catholic Church” condemns us as heretics; you are obviously referring to the Vatican II sect, which is not the Catholic Church.  We’re confident you will recognize that as you continue to examine the material.  Again, we’re very glad to hear about your interest and that you came across the information.  Pray the full 15-decade Rosary each day and ask God for His guidance and assistance to see and act upon the truth on these issues.

 

John Paul II rosary

 

Hello Dimond Brothers :

 

Just to show how bad things are in the Great Apostasy - there is a Novus Ordo group called Food For The Poor.  I used to donate to these people years ago when I was still in the N.O. but no longer do since I saw the truth of the Traditional faith.  However they never took my name off of their mailing list, and today, unexpectedly, I received a Rosary dedicated to John Paul II.  It has the distorted crucifix that he carried around with him and in place of the Our Father beads there is an image of JPII with the inscription "Pope John Paul II" on one side and on the other side, "Pray for us."  What a joke and an insult to Our Lady!...

 

M.H.

 

Response to June not liking material

 

In response to Junes e-mail on not liking material:

of course it gave her chills, the truth effects people in different ways. For me it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up and say " I knew it (the novus ordo) was'nt supposed to be that way"  She needs to keep reading and researching and most of all PRAYING that God will lead her back to the true faith not the protestant novus ordo where the evil one has been lurking for 40 years.

 

                                              stu, montana

 

Guest on Radio Program

 

MHFM: On Friday’s radio program we will have a guest.  We will have a discussion with a former supporter of the SSPX about what it was like to come to the truth on the sedevacantist position and the salvation dogma while being an adherent of the SSPX, and what his experiences were in trying to share some of this truth with other supporters of the SSPX.

 

What’s that book?

 

Dear Bro. Michael Dimond,

I received in a flyer sent to me awhile back some information about a TAN Publisher book which is required reading for the men in your monastery. I'm interested in purchasing the book through TAN and cannot recall the name of the book. (Is it Ligouri? I remember that it cost around $20 and is around 700+ pages.)

Please help! God bless you in your work in the monastery. I much appreciate your writings and DVDs and devour them with great relish!

Sincerely,
Scarlett C. Miller
Chico, CA

 

MHFM: Thanks, we're glad you like the material.  The name of the book is The True Spouse of Jesus Christ by St. Alphonsus.  It was written primarily for religious.  Hence, not all of it is applicable to non-religious; but everyone will benefit from reading it because the spiritual advice carries over into so many areas and it will assist everyone who follows the spirit of the message that is being given, even if a person does not or cannot apply precisely everything that is being said.

 

Doesn’t like the material

 

I received a tape from your what you call “Holy Family Monastery.”  I don’t know who you are or what your plan in life is but it is not from God….  This tape just brought chills to my spine. What you are doing is wrong.  The devil is sly and he is after all religious.  You have fallen into his trap…

 

June Furno

Meadville, PA

 

MHFM: It’s quite interesting that June fails to cite even one specific thing which she feels demonstrates her point.  She doesn’t cite even one thing because she can’t prove her point by citing anything.  Rather, she can only appeal to her emotions.  Her emotions have been shaken up by the true information which has convicted her and uncovered the deception under which she is laboring in the Counter Church, and even sent “chills” down her spine; but instead of receiving the grace to hear the truth she rejects it and attacks the information she cannot refute.

 

On Radio Appearances

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter,

 

Your show on Saturday was great!. So inspiring and filled with information.  Especially those about people who had met the anti popes and how evil they appeared to be.!   Can we download this program in the future? There is always so much information to digest, we have to hear it over and over again. This moring on theMark Dankof show you were also wonderful and filled with information, and I hope that you reached people who do not know the truth yet and it will get them to thinking about learning more!  (I think you may have reached Mark Dankof!  - he seemed very impressed and wanted to learn more- and he was very respectful of you and a very good host!)  Let me know when you will be on that again too. I am sure he will want to have you back… I am about a quarter through your book, What really Happened after Vatican II.  Everyone should read this book!  I don't understand why people cannot see what has happened-all they ever do is complain and ask why these things are happening in the Church, and when people like you and us try to tell they they dismiss us!!  Everything you say makes sense as to why we are in the Apostasy.  Everyone talks about when the Apostasy will happen, and then when we really ARE living through it, they don't want to see! I mailed 3 DVD's you gave me, one to my brother and his wife, and 2 to friends.  None of them said a word to me about receiving it, watching it- or even telling me that I am "wrong?".  Everyone ignores the truth!  God bless you and your work and for helping us see the truth!

 

Sincerely,

 

-------

 

Dear Brothers Michael & Peter....we heard you on the radio talk show yesterday but we were not successful in calling in. Just wanted to say that you both did an excellent job of presenting your arguments in a cool headed logical way....and we noted that the radio host was even impressed. Keep up the good work. God Bless.....Michael & Barbara Gregory

 

Divine Mercy, where?

 

MHFM: Some people have wondered where our article on why people should avoid the Divine Mercy Devotion has gone.  It has been moved to a new section, which is found on our Guide, called “False Apparitions.”  There one will also find articles on the false apparitions at Bayside and Medjugorje.  We have been re-organizing some of the things on our website in order to simplify things, to make available primarily the most recent and important articles we’ve done on a particular subject, and to make them easier to find.  We are still involved in that process, but much of it has been done, as one will see by consulting the sections on the Guide.

 

A reader’s thoughts on prophecy

 

Dear Bro. Dimond:

 

I don't think there'll be another V2 antipope after Benedict XVI. First, the period of 40 years (one generation) of "abomination of desolation" (novus ordo mass) is coming to an end. Second is the Malachi Prophecy, It contains decriptions for both real popes and antipopes without distinguishing who is a pope and who is an antipope. see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes  (Antipopes like Peter de luna are on the list) The last entry "Peter the Roman" should be dismissed because:

 

1. it doesn't appear as part of the prophecy until 1820.

2. meaning is too obvious compared with previous entries.

 

"Peter the Roman" may be appended by conspirators to fool the world into thinking Jesus is a long coming(Luke 12:45) so Antipope Benedict XVI ("Gloria Olivae", a few versions read "De Gloria Olivae") is the last entry. Descriptions can be about important events during the popes'/antipopes' reign as well as popes/antipopes themselves. for example the one on Pope Benedict XV ("Religio depopulata") is about events during his pontificate (WWI and Soviet Union).

 

I think the following 2 interpretations are possible:"Olive" can refer to Benedictine Order. So during Benedict XVI's antipontificate, your Order will be glorified just as St. Benedict himself prophesized what would happen at the end of world.  "Olive" can also refer to Jews/Israel, so it is "glory of Israel" and this should mean conversion of Israel to the Catholic faith which is a major event right before the end of world.

 

Since Ratzinger is a deceiver, the purpose of choosing the name "Benedict" may well be to prevent people from digging the meaning of the prophecy.

 

God bless you!

 

d k t

 

Comments on radio program

 

Hi,

Great program and excellent expose on the so-called "charismatic" movement, also, very good treatise on the issue of attending non-Catholic worships and/or services. Some kind of in-depth post on the topic, I believe would indeed be very helpful, as there are many converts out there who may or may not have considered the Catholic perspective on this matter, which is so important as it directly affects their personal salvation. There is always that issue of non-catholic relatives and some form of religious profession involved in the performance of certain funtions of religious rites, such as funerals, wedding, and baptisms, which is a very important thing for Catholics to understand when dealing with non-Catholic relatives.

God Bless,

Nigel P.

 

MHFM: Thanks, we’re glad you liked it.  You will notice that below we have just very recently posted the quote we referred to in the discussion on passive attendance. 

 

Dear Brothers,

That was another fascinating program tonight!  You were really giving me the creeps when you were talking about the possessions of Paul VI and JPII.  Someone asked me a question recently that I couldn't answer, maybe you can.  What do people who deliberately give themselves over to the devil think their eternity is going to be like?  Do they really believe the devil is going to give them a reward, like a huge flaming throne in hell? 

Also, concerning what the non-sede traditional Catholics are going to think when JPII is canonized; I read a forum discussion on one of their sites.  It was extremely depressing.  They were saying that if Benedict canonizes JPII, then JPII must have been a saint!  That he must have been very holy, only nobody knew about it!  I don't know what will wake them up.

The world is getting crazier every day, but you guys are a breath of fresh air!  God bless you!

LM

 

MHFM: That’s an interesting question.  We would speculate that they either believe that Hell will bring them some kind of pleasure – since they believe that the Devil is the one in control – or they willingly give up an eternity of misery in exchange for what they want from the Devil here and now, since they only care about what’s here and now.

 

No passive attendance

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

 

I received my books on Padre Pio and your latest on Vatican II.  Thank you for the extra book on Padre Pio and the flyers.  I have a question also for you.  Is it a mortal sin to have to attend the NO Mass because of work or family pressure.  I didn't receive communion and didn't take part in the Mass at all. I just sat in the pew like a fellow Jewish co-worker did. I actually left the funeral mass right before communion and came back after communion.  The funeral was for my boss's mom. I know in the future I will have to attend other family or friend funeral masses. Also, what do I do when I try to educated my mom and wife about the NO Mass and they still attend. Thanks again.

 

J. Settimo  Matawan

 

MHFM: You should not have gone to New Mass, and we do believe that it is a sin.  You should tell your boss that you cannot attend funerals of those who were not traditional Catholics, and services that are not Catholic.  In the years prior to Vatican II, the idea of “passive attendance” developed whereby one could attend non-Catholic services as long as one didn’t actively participate; in other words, the liberal idea was taught that one could go to Protestant churches, schismatic churches, and perhaps even Jewish synagogues, etc., for the funeral or wedding of a relative or friend, as long as one didn’t “actively participate.”  This was clearly a bad and compromisingly development.  To refute it, we will cite Pope Pius IX’s encyclical, Graves ac diuturnae.  Speaking of the “Old Catholic” heretics and schismatics, Pius IX says:

 

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875: “They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings.  They should shun their writings and all contact with them.  They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction.”

 

(This is a new quote which comes from our new book, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.  We also talked about it on our radio program.) Obviously if one must “totally shun” their religious celebrations and their buildings, then one cannot attend their services, funerals or weddings for any reason, let alone to pacify friends, relatives or co-workers.

 

Radio programs

 

MHFM: We also wanted to note here that:

 

Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimond will be on Mark Dankof’s radio program on Monday, April 16th, from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time), on  the Republic Broadcasting Network.  To listen to that program live: Listen Live.

 

Reader: Benedict XVI did not become Muslim!

 

Subj: pointing out an incorrection

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I am writing to let you know in Christian charity that one of your statements contains an error. In your E-exchanges section recently, you wrote: " All of this shows us again how quickly someone such as Pope Sixtus V would denounce as absurd the idea Benedict XVI – a man who became a Muslim and likes to go to synagogues and schismatic churches – would be considered the pope with authority over the universal Church ." (Emphasis Mine)

 

It would be the sin of omission for me not to point out the following: One does not become a Muslim by praying the Salat with Muslims, as Benedict XVI did, even if they use the correct form of the ritualized prayer (which includes washing various parts of the body, chanting parts of the Quran, resting in a specific position, and the correct number of repetitions (Rakas). The way a person becomes a Muslim is by making the Shahada (statement or confession) which states: "La ilaha il Allah, Muhammad-ur-Rasool-Allah" or "None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." Therefore, unless Benedict said these words out loud, before witnesses, he did not become a Muslim. 

 

I certainly do not condone what this man did, or continues to do, in the erroneous name of interfaith dialogue. It is heresy and a mockery of the true Catholic Church. I am merely pointing out this point of Muslim doctrine (or heresy, rather) so that you can be completely accurate in sharing the truth with others. At one point in my life (namely, after my brief conversion to Islam), if I had read your statement, I would have completely disregarded anything else you might have said because of this one error. And perhaps my soul would have been lost. I simply don't wish it to be a stumbling block to others.

 

Sincerely,

J

 

(If you post this message, please leave out my name. However, my first initial may be used. Thank you!)

 

MHFM: No, the statement that Benedict XVI became a Muslim is accurate.  First, your problem is that you are looking at this issue from the perspective of a Muslim (a false religion you had embraced), not the perspective of a Catholic.  It would be true to say that according to the specific criteria a Muslim would require for a Muslim to consider someone as part of that false religion, Benedict XVI did not do enough for a Muslim to consider him a Muslim.  But as Catholics we don’t evaluate things according to what Muslims think; we evaluate them according to the teaching of the Catholic Church.  According to the traditional Catholic teaching on what a Catholic would require to consider someone as apostatizing from the true religion to join a false one, Benedict XVI did do what was required.  According to the traditional teaching of the Church, as repeated by St. Thomas Aquinas, an action such as worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet would be to apostatize.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

 

Such an action would be to apostatize only if worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet (which is something short of making the famous Muslim confession) signifies the embracing or joining of the Islamic religion.  Therefore, according to how a Catholic views such matters, one doesn’t need to make the Muslim prayer confession to be considered part of that false religion.  Other actions signify it as well.

 

Thus, based on this adherence to a traditional Catholic understanding of apostate actions, it is accurate to say that when Benedict XVI prayed in a mosque toward Mecca like the Muslims (in front of millions on television) he did what was required to be considered as having joined the Muslim religion.

 

We can see the point illustrated by also considering a converse example.  Suppose that 100 years ago a prominent Muslim imam traveled to a Catholic cathedral in a Catholic country.  Suppose that he went into the cathedral and made the sign of the Cross with the archbishop.  The mufti then prostrated himself along with the archbishop before the Blessed Sacrament.  Most reasonable people would agree that, if this were somehow able to be shown to millions of Muslims on television, Muslims watching would almost unanimously conclude that the imam had accepted Christianity and apostatized from their false religion by joining another.  Even though the imam hadn’t been baptized validly, which is the first requirement for one to be considered a Christian (and therefore he wouldn’t be considered Catholic in the eyes of the Church), in the eyes of the Muslims he would be considered to have joined another religion.  So, even though Muslims might not view Benedict XVI’s action as sufficient to consider him their fellow “believer,” Catholics adhering to the traditional teaching of the Church on such matters do view Benedict XVI’s action as sufficient to consider him false believer who has embraced a false religion. 

 

The fact that you made this point (which is not an error) such a bone of contention, and even felt obliged under pain of sin to “correct” it, displays, in our view, an unhealthy level of pride which clouds sound judgment.  This is especially revealed, in our view, by your ridiculous statement that, if you had read that “error” in the past, you would have dismissed everything else we had to say.  Unless a person is clearly assaulting the Catholic Church or its teaching, for someone to say that he or she would dismiss everything a person has to say based on one mistake is a clear sign of bad will.  For the person who makes such a statement is not only demonstrating staggering pride, but dishonesty – as if he or she never makes a mistake.  It’s the type of bad will that would cause one to become a Muslim, as you did.  And, as we explained above, our statement about Benedict XVI becoming a Muslim is not an error, but is accurate from the standpoint of Catholic teaching.

 

Another reader on B-16’s Good Friday service

 

Dear Brothers Dimond

I would like to show my appreciation for your insight into the motives of antipope Benedict XVI and others who seek to displace the crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ with the Jewish Holocaust as the worst event in human history.  It is disgusting and insulting to Our Lord for antipope Benedict XVI to distract attention on Good Friday, of all days, away from Our Lord's sufferings at the hands of the Jews.  The deicide of Our Lord is the worst and most evil event in history. The Stations of the Cross is intended as a devotional to evoke in our hearts remorse for this crime by contemplating on the sufferings of Our Lord, which He endured for all mankind. It is wrong to distract attention from this by focussing on other people's sufferings as if those sufferings have the same degree of importance and significance for our redemption as the evil inflicted on the innocent and pure Holy Victim. I share your concern that the world is being forced to pay homage to the Jewish Holocaust in place of the homage and veneration we owe to the sacrifice on the cross of Our Lord.  I also hope that you will continue to develop research into this subject, as I fear that more and more 'Catholics' consider questioning the Jewish Holocaust as off limits, whereas they feel free to deny Sacred Dogmas
of Holy Church.

Best wishes

Dr Gerard Daly

 

Another reader on “Holocaust”

 

I just wanted to comment on something you wrote:

 

"We have pointed out that this is a diabolical campaign to bring about the union of Synagogue and State, to outlaw any opposition to the Jewish agenda and to make the “Jewish Holocaust” the central tragedy of history in replacement of the Crucifixion of Christ.  The Devil wants to replace Christ as the primary victim of history, and he wants replace Him with the Jewish people who rejected Him.

 

That is a great point, and I think you are right.  I'd love to see something written on this subject. 

 

 

Robert Siscoe

 

MHFM: We made this point about two months back on a radio program.  The fact that the diabolical Benedict XVI did include this in the Good Friday service is very interesting, and lends further credence to our contention.

 

Reader on “Holocaust”

 

Hello Brothers in Christ,

 

Speaking of the so-called "Holocaust" and Nazi atrocities, don't you think that what happened in the Soviet Union under the Bolshevik Revolution was the worst atrocity in human history?  In my opinion it was.  Tens of millions of Catholics and other Christians perished due to the Bolshevik takeover of the Soviet Union.  The point I wish to make is that the Jewish controlled media will never even acknowledge it because most of the Bolsheviks were Jews (at least 70%), including its chief rulers such as Stalin and Lenin.  Yet the Jews have succeeded in deceiving so many people into thinking that the phony Holocaust is the worst thing that ever happened in history.

 

Yours in Christ,

M.H.

 

MHFM: Yes, it probably was the worst ever in terms of numbers.  It definitely was worse than the Nazi atrocities, even if you go with the bogus number of 6 million promoted by the Jews.  And you are right that the tens of millions killed by the Soviet Union are basically never mentioned.  From 1930-1934 alone over 10 million “kulaks” were led to their deaths.  This is not to include the millions of others killed by the Communist regime.  The following is quoted in our new book, on the section on the Consecration of Russia:

 

“Who were these ‘kulaks’?... In May 1929 the Council of People’s Commissars formally defined a kulak as any farmer who made any money whatsoever from any source or activity other than the sale of agricultural produce grown in his own fields.  Any outside income, any processing of goods done on the farm (as by a small hand-operated mill), was sufficient to make a kulak.  When the campaign of liquidation was launched in 1930, from ten to fifteen per cent of the small farmers in every region were arbitrarily dubbed kulaks and liquidated.  If there were not enough of them fitting the May 1929 definition, others had to be added to fill up the quota.  They could be selected by income level, actual or apparent; by leadership in local villages… by opposition to forced collectivization (a particularly frequent reason for designation as a kulak); or simply by being devout ChristiansIt was the first act of a farm holocaust from 1930 to 1934 that took ten million lives by Stalin’s own estimate given to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta, and an estimated 14.5 million when all the victims, including those sent to the labor camps and dying there later, are taken into account.”[31] (Warren H. Carroll, The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution, pp. 224-225.)   

 

So much for “Latin Mass freed by Easter”

 

MHFM: For a few years now false traditionalists all over the world have been hysterical over the possibility that the “Protestantism-is-not-heresy” Antipope Benedict XVI might give “permission” for the Latin Mass.  These false traditionalist publications were hysterical with reports that he will give back the Latin Mass by Christmas.  After that it was that it would return by Easter.  A few months ago one of them quoted “Msgr.” Barreiro, who supposedly stated: “I have information from a serious high level source that it is likely the motu proprio will be published before Easter.”  Well, this didn’t happen either.  This might be the tenth such false report.

 

These repeated reports (so far not one of them has been true) which have been spread with the help of false traditionalists – false traditionalists who are ready to jump at any scrap of food from the beast’s table – are getting quite annoying.  As we said a long, long time back, they should stop giving credence to any of these reports.  They should stop declaring that it will happen, until something is actually done, accomplished, completed.  Let’s see if anything actually happens.  For building up the report that it will happen or will probably happen (when it never seems to happen) only helps to build the antipope’s public image in the eyes of “traditionalists” who want to view him as a conservative. 

 

Of course, we’ve pointed out that if Antipope Benedict XVI does give back the Latin Mass (which he might), it will only be a calculated move to deceive traditionalists and lure them back to the Counter Church at a time when almost all of the “priests” are invalid anyway.  If he ever does give “permission” for it, it might only come just before or after something such as the “canonization” of Antipope John Paul II, as part of a compromising package for false traditionalists, the acceptance of which will be one of the greatest abominations in history.

 

A father on salvation

Dear Bros Dimond,

I'm not sure whether this has already been addressed or no, but, while scanning through some early Church Fathers' writings I came across these most excellent quotes which most befits the current situation of the Church and heretics who pervert Christ's true teaching concerning salvation.

St. Cyprian of Carthage: "Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters." He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. ...He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

And again, "Evil communications corrupt good manners." The Lord teaches and warns us to depart from such. He says, "They are blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall into the ditch." Such a one is to be turned away from and avoided, whosoever he may be, that is separated from the Church. Such a one is perverted and sins, and is condemned of his own self. Does he think that he has Christ, who acts in opposition to Christ's priests, who separates himself from the company of His clergy and people? He bears arms against the Church, he contends against God's appointment. An enemy of the altar, a rebel against Christ's sacrifice, for the faith faithless, for religion profane, a disobedient servant, an impious son, a hostile brother, despising the bishops, and forsaking God's priests, he dares to set up another altar, to make another prayer with unauthorized words, to profane the truth of the Lord's offering by false sacrifices, and not to know that he who strives against the appointment of God, is punished on account of the daring of his temerity by divine visitation.

These, doubtless, they imitate and follow, who, despising God's tradition, seek after strange doctrines, and bring in teachings of human appointment, whom the Lord rebukes and reproves in His Gospel, saying, "You reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition." This is a worse crime than that which the lapsed seem to have fallen into, who nevertheless, standing as penitents for their crime... puffed up in his heart, and pleasing himself in his very crimes, separates sons from their Mother, entices sheep from their shepherd, disturbs the sacraments of God; and ...he sins daily. Finally, ...if he have been slain without the Church, cannot attain to the rewards of the Church.

St. Cyprian here speaks of a false sacrifice with false words, much like the new mass of Paul VI, and that he who holds not the faith holds not life and salvation. This correspondence with our present situation is striking.

In Christ, Nigel P.

 

MHFM: Yes, the first quote you cite from St. Cyprian is also used by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Satis Cognitum.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896: "The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever... He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation."

 

It’s also interesting to note that the last part you quote from St. Cyprian was incoporated into one of Pope Pelagius II’s epistles.

 

Pope Pelagius II, epistle (2) Dilectionis vestrae, 585: “Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair.  Such a one can be slain; he cannot be crowned… if the other is slain outside of the Church, he cannot attain to the rewards of the Church.” (Denz. 247)

 

Most of this quote has been cited in our new book to contradict John Paul II’s heresy on non-Catholic saints and martyrs.

 

Why not more unity?

 

Why hasn't the entire traditional movement come together? Why do readers see so many attacks against other traditional groups on almost every web site that claims to be "Roman Catholic?" When do we see less condemnation and more unity?

 

God Bless you!

 

Frank "Sarge"

 

MHFM: Unity without the true faith – or among people who don’t share the true faith completely – is meaningless, as we see expressed in the following papal quote.  

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 10), May 17, 1835:

“… Christ established this ecclesiastical power for the benefit of unity.  And what is this unity unless one person is placed in charge of the whole Church who protects it and joins all its members in the one profession of faith…”

 

Gregory XVI is emphasizing that the pope must hold the true faith, just as much as all the members.  But his quote applies just as well to your question and to our situation today, when there is no pope.  The “entire traditional movement” cannot come together because many self-professed traditionalists are unfortunately rejecters of the truth in one or more areas.  Therefore, these particular individuals are not part of the unity of the Church, as the material on our website documents.  It’s not the fault of true Catholics that many of these people believe that Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved.  It’s not the fault of true Catholics that many of them obstinately reject the facts and continue to recognize a manifest heretic, such as Benedict XVI, as a Catholic.  It’s not the fault of true Catholics that they obstinately profess communion with the utterly apostate Novus Ordo “bishops.”  There is true unity among uncompromising traditional Catholics of good will who care about the faith and hold all the true positions.

 

A treacherous cardinal betrays Christendom

 

I recently received my book order, thanks very much for the extras you threw in.  You guys run a smooth operation.  I’ve a question which I’ve tried to research sporadically and haven’t found much of an answer.  During the 30 Years War, a Cardinal Richelieu, was I believe the Foreign Minister and most trusted advisor to France’s Louis XIIIth.  For some reason, this “Prince of the Church” convinced the King to bring France into the war on the side of the Protestant Princes of Northern Germany and Scandinavia against the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor.  Without the intervention of France, Protestantism may have been dealt a crushing blow at a critical time, rather than spreading its influence.  Richelieu also plotted against King Phillip of Spain (who I believe was the nemesis of England’s Elizabeth).  Historians say that Richelieu had at heart, the interest of France.  But I find it astonishing behavior for Catholic Cardinal.  Do you think or do you know if he had Masonic ties?  If so, it is interesting evidence of how long (nearly 400 years ago) this infiltration of the Church has been going on.  I really appreciate your work.

 

Bill Mulligan

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  Freemasonry was officially organized and instituted in 1717 – after Richelieu’s time – but conspiratorial forces and societies which served as the root of its development were clearly in existence long before that.  I don’t know if Cardinal Richelieu was a deliberate conspirator, but there is no doubt that he didn’t care at all about the Catholic Faith and served as one of its biggest enemies in history. 

 

For those who don’t know, Cardinal Richelieu was the Prime Minister of France in the 17th century.  These were tumultuous times which saw Protestants and Catholics battle for control of various countries in Europe.  Every country which the Protestants gained control of saw the Catholic Mass outlawed and the Faith greatly diminished, if not eliminated.  It was critical for Catholics, therefore, to win these military engagements and to do what they could to support the Catholic side.  But the despicable Cardinal Richelieu, who should have had the true Faith as his top priority and who served as the prime minister of the weak and pathetic King Louis XIII, was more concerned about weakening Spain, so that France would become the world’s leading power, than he was about anything to do with the Catholic Faith.  Cardinal Richelieu deliberately funded Protestant armies all over Europe in order to weaken Spain; Spain was fighting the Protestants in various places.   

 

“In 1630 Cardinal Richelieu renewed his alliance with the rebel Netherlands for seven more years, promising them a subsidy of a million pounds a year in return for their pledge not to make peace with Spain without French consent.  He was deliberately using this exhausting war to wear down crippled Spain so that France might supplant her as the world’s leading power, not at all concerned that he was thereby strengthening the hands of the deadliest enemies of the Catholic Faith.” [Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 (The Cleaving of Christendom), p. 525.]

 

In 1635, when France itself started war with Spain, King Philip IV of France declared the truth in anguish:

 

“The King of France, defying God, law and nature, has opened hostilities against me… At a time when I was attempting to rein in the heretics, he has gone to war with me, without challenge or warning, in support of heresy.” (Ibid, p. 550)

 

Cardinal Richelieu – and this would have to apply to King Louis XIII, who allowed him to do it – is a figure so evil and dreadful that he could probably be considered one of the most evil men in Church history.  Some speculate that Pope Urban VIII didn’t excommunicate Richelieu because he feared that Richelieu would take France into schism, as King Henry VIII did with England.  The truth is that Pope Urban VIII should have excommunicated him, and he should have threatened King Louis XIII of France with excommunication if he didn’t remove Richelieu as prime minister, and if he didn’t stop funding heretical armies who were rooting out the Faith of countless Catholics in Europe.

 

Cardinal Richelieu also funded Protestant Sweden, which was fighting Catholics in various places in Europe. 

 

“… the reunion of Germany under Catholic leadership was rendered forever impossible by his [Cardinal Richelieu’s] intervention, as Richelieu intended.   The leadership and the victories in battle were Gustav Adolf [of Sweden]; but the money to pay for them came from a prince of the Church, the cardinal who betrayed Christendom.” [Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 (The Cleaving of Christendom), p. 527.]

 

So, to answer your question, I don’t think that Richelieu was a conspirator, just an extremely wicked man who cared about political ambition and nothing for the Catholic Faith.  Assuming he died unrepentant – and there is no evidence that he did repent – he is now suffering in Hell the hideous torments which he brought upon himself for betraying the Church.  These excruciating torments are probably multiplied by every Catholic whose attempt to practice the true Faith was made exceedingly difficult in the countries he helped Protestants takeover.

 

Confused about B-16

 

I have looked at the artilcles on your website and am a little confused.

Why is it bad that the current pope does not believe christians should consider the pope as the supreme leader in regards to the chiristian
religion?

 

VW

 

MHFM: It’s bad because it’s a dogma of the Catholic Faith that a pope (the successor of St. Peter), by the institution of Jesus Christ (Mt. 16-18-20; John 21:15-17), is the head of the Christian Church with supreme jurisdiction over the universal Christian Church.

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "… 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... Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Denz. 1826-1827)

 

Thus, when Benedict XVI teaches that other “Christians” don’t need to consider a pope as the visible head of the Christian religion on Earth, he is expressly denying Catholic dogma.  This alone proves that Benedict XVI is a heretic against Catholic dogma.  A heretic against Catholic dogma cannot be a true pope.

 

Powerful conversion story from New Zealand

 

Dear Dimond Brothers

 

A few weeks ago I wrote to you a number of times accusing you of being in serious error in your interpretation of church teaching, and of bad faith in the propagation of that interpretation. You replied, warning me that I was placing my soul in peril by criticising the church in this way. You pointed out that I was guilty of intellectual pride and that my habit of repeatedly visiting your website indicated that, deep down, I knew what you were saying was true.

 

That got me thinking. I began to feel guilty about my attacks on you. I struggled with my conscience for several days and nights until, finally, I decided to look more deeply into what you had to say. I approached a friend who had a high-speed broadband connection and asked if I could use his computer to view some of your videos.

 

After watching just two of them, I was overcome with grief and remorse. The first one I watched was the exorcism video. At first it seemed to be just a scripted performance, but then I heard the priest say "Does Satan exist?" and in a blood-curdling shriek I heard the answer of the possessed: YES! This was unsettling enough, but then I moved on to perhaps the best-known of your videos - Death and the Journey into Hell.

 

This was the one that clinched it for me. The vivid images of dead bodies, of gravesites, of headstones, of row after row of suburban houses, added to your compelling voiceover reminding us again and again that we will all die someday and our bodies will rot and decay and return to nothing but dust, moved me deeply.

 

I am now ready to accept the church's teaching fully. I live in New Zealand. Please tell me what I need to do.

 

Yours in Jesus Mary & Joseph

Alan Vincent

 

Bi-Ritual “priests” in TN

 

Hello,

 

I have just ordered some materials from your site.

 

On the very day I read your "Where to go to Mass or Confession?" section, I received a copy of our local diocesan newspaper. It provided some startling new information regarding bi-ritual priests being introduced to our State.

 

I was wondering if you could offer an opinion, in general terms, regarding the validity of the forthcoming Rites mentioned in this article.

 

http://www.dioceseofnashville.com/tnregister.pdf

 

Many of us residing in Middle Tennessee have been unable to access a valid Mass for quite a duration. Upon reading the aforementioned article, we are guardedly optimistic the cure of the diocese could be an answer to our prayers. However, your viewpoint regarding its validity would be most welcome and appreciated.

 

Thank You,

 

Christina Williams-Triana

Smyrna, TN

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  The particular “priests” in question would almost certainly be invalid because they are diocesan “priests” almost certainly ordained after 1968 in the invalid rite of Paul VI.  Thus, even if they celebrated the traditional Byzantine liturgy, it would not be valid.  The priests who were ordained in the Eastern Rite, however, would be valid.

 

St. Hilary on the Antichrist

 

Dear Brothers,

I was browsing through a copy of the Abbe de Nantes "Liber Accusationis Secundus" and found this interesting quote he attributes to St. Hilary of Poitiers:

"Again, heed this advice: Beware of Antichrist!  With the excuse of peace and concord you make your way to church.  You do wrong to love
the walls so much and to respect the Church in her buildings.  Can you doubt that one day Antichrist must needs be seated in the same places?"

He says that is from a letter against the Arian Auxentius.  I was unable to find a copy of the actual letter to verify it, but have no reason to
doubt the Abbe, even though, as far as I know, he's still bowing to the antichrists in the Vatican.

God Bless,
LM

 

Contradiction?

 

I have been reading through your website.  Would you please explain this inconsistency to me?  On the one hand you encourage people to purchase certain books listed below from TAN Books and you even provide a phone number.  Then you add that you don't recommend all their books because some are heretical.

 

But then you state that someone can go to the Mass of a priest who teaches heresy (as long as he isn't "notorious" or "imposing" about his heresy) but you cannot support him or his chapel.

 

How consistent are you by stating that it is wrong to support a priest who espouses a heretical position, but it is perfectly okay to support a book publisher who sells and distributes heretical books to thousands of people and has a likelihood to disseminate heresy to a much greater audience?…My closing comments: I would be interested in reading how you explain the above contradiction in your position, i.e., that it is perfectly acceptable to support a publisher who spreads heresy (but who also has some good points) but it is not acceptable to support a priest that spreads heresy (but who also has some good points). 

 

I thank you in advance for your response.

 

John C. Gorka

Chesterland, OH

 

MHFM: It's quite obvious to any logical and honest person that there is no contradiction.  We said you could purchase books from Tan, just like you could purchase food at your local grocery store.  But you cannot donate money to Tan, just like you cannot donate money to a heretical priest.  It's quite simple and quite obvious.

 

There is no inconsistency at all.  In fact, if we were to accept the premise of your argument, namely, that a purchase from someone is equivalent to a donation, then one could never buy food at the grocery store; for that provides the store with money which enables it to further disseminate the scandalous magazines and books it sells.  But of course there is a difference between buying something one needs or can use or can benefit from, and donating money as a free gift to a heretical or non-Catholic source.

 

Using the power of excommunication

 

In late October 1605 [Pope] Paul V decided to challenge new laws in the immemorially Catholic state of Venice prohibiting the sale, gifts, or even building of a church, monastery, hospital or other Church structure without the consent of the Senate of Venice, and prohibiting the disciplining of Venetian clergy by Church courts without the Senate’s consent.  Pope Paul V sent a formal rebuke for approving these laws to Doge Grimani, who was dying.  The rebuke was therefore not delivered to him, but to his successor Doge Donato, already an ‘avowed enemy’ of the Pope’s authority in the Church.  When Donato would not yield, the Pope excommunicated him and the entire government of Venice, and put the city under interdict.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 (The Cleaving of Christendom), p. 487.)

 

Divine Mercy

 

Hello!  Your work is extraordinary!  Thank you!  Without understanding I was lead to discontinue the use of the Chaplet of Mercy several years ago.  I had tried to read her diary, but found it difficult and tedious.  Anyway, your article about the chaplet was very helpful, I especially liked the  connection you made to the undermining of Our Lady of Fatima's request; and the suggestion to say the Stations of the Cross instead.  I wondered if Faustina's "god of mercy"  is the same  god of islam who will judge us at the end of the world?...

Cordially,
Mary

 

No heretic King

 

MHFM: As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, understanding the Catholic concept that a heretic holds no authority in the Church is crucial for a proper understanding of the Catholic situation today.  It’s very interesting to note that, in line with the concept that a person outside the Church cannot command in the Church, the Church also declared at certain times in history that heretical kings couldn’t hold civil authority in Catholic countries.  Of course, there is not always a strict incompatibility in holding civil authority over Catholics while being outside the Church as there is with the idea that one can rule in the Church while being outside of it; but since relations between Church and State in Catholic countries were so intimate, the Church sometimes declared that a heretic cannot be the king:

 

“The straightforward Pope Sixtus V took the Treaty of Nemours at face value, as a commitment of the king with the Catholic nobility and people of France to preserve the Faith and eliminate heresy, and so followed it up on September 21 [1585] with the formal excommunication of Henry of Navarre, absolving his subjects present or future from all allegiance to him, and declaring that no heretic could ever be recognized as king of France (a law which most countries of Christendom already had on their books, though it was evidently not being enforced in the Protestant countries).” [Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 (The Cleaving of Christendom), p. 434.]

 

All of this shows us again how quickly someone such as Pope Sixtus V would denounce as absurd the idea Benedict XVI – a man who became a Muslim and likes to go to synagogues and schismatic churches – would be considered the pope with authority over the universal Church.

 

By the way, some people think that we’re too hard with some of the things that we say.  Well, here are some of the things that Pope Sixtus V did:

 

“On the very next day after his election the new pope [Sixtus V] showed his decisive, hard-hitting character.  Crime had gone out of control in the papal states in Gregory XIII’s enfeebled last years.  Brigands and highwaymen infested the countryside.  Pope Sixtus V told his cardinals entrusted with keeping public order, his military commanders and his chief barons that he would hold them personally responsible for suppressing crime and administering justice.  If they failed, he would execute the generals and the barons and lock up the cardinals in the prison cells of Rome’s impregnable fortress, the Castel Sant’Angelo. 

    “Ten days later he led a procession through the streets of Rome to take formal possession of the Church of St. John Lateran, but did not hold the customary banquet on this occasion, ‘on account of the miserable state of the population.’… In July he assigned two experienced bishops to make a formal visitation of every parish and college in Rome… He began almost at once moving [and he put a Cross on top of] the old pagan obelisk which had stood at the center of the Circus Maximus, where St. Peter and so many other Christians had been martyred by the Emperor Nero, to the magnificent courtyard of the new St. Peter’s, now nearing completion.  In January 1586 he issued a vigorous condemnation of astrology, the most influential and widely believed superstition of that age.” (Ibid, p. 407.)

 

New spiritual books

 

MHFM: We’re selling some new spiritual books.  See the book section of our online store for some of the items: New books.

 

Liberius, book, chapel

 

Dear Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

 

     There were about 8 people last week in a restaurant discussing the Bible.  I overheard them and asked if they would like the Padre Pio book and the dvd with Journey into hell, etc. and then I talked to them about Catholicism and the Counterfeit Church, etc.  They asked if I would join them, and I told them to watch the video's and I'll join them next week.  I was going to ask, any advice, but just received your new book.  It's great!  It will be just the book to bring.

 

     Also, after just starting to read your book, specifically in the table of contents (Chap 21):

Obj.  Pope Liberius gave into the Arian heretics and excommuniated St. Athanasius:  yet he remained the Pope.

 

Answer:  According to Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Anastasius, Liberius was falsely accused by the Arians and remained faithful to Catholic teaching. 

 

     In the Church bulletin (March 18th) of Father Carley's Chapel in Akron, Ohio, there is an article on St. Athanasius and the Fourth Century Catholics.  Here are parts:

 

..."Pope Liberius to his credit stood firm and was sent off into exile, but there under threats, tortures and sufferings conceded to the compromise and excommunication of St. Athanasius.  The Semi-Arian formula of the Creed which the pope accepted was not heretical though it was ambiguous and could be interpreted in an heretical way, a compromise with the truth which was to bring even greater sufferings upon the faithful Catholics, for now the Arians could claim a great victory with the Pope back on the throne of Peter.  A Pope with whom they could claim communion yet hold their Arian doctrine.  Those who remained faithful were now open to even greater persecution, branded and ostracized by those very bishoops still officially in communion with the Pope."

 

     "...Such was the predicament of these fourth century Catholics, to find themselves at odds with their parish priests, the bishops and even the Pope;...".  

 

                              -   Nancy Battle

 

New out of the Novus Ordo

 

Greetings,

I came across your website earlier this year while browsing the internet.  I used to attend The Novus Ordo Mass on a regular basis.  The more I attended, the more something was telling me that things are not as they are meant to be.  Over the last year I have investigated the Novus Ordo Mass and I realized this is not the mass.  Upon reading literature, and websites such as your own I know now what I wish I had years ago.  Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessful to convince others that the Novus Ordo Mass is not the Mass and have cited examples, but to no avail.  Many say, no matter what reference I cite such as from The Anti-Popes benedict XVI and JP2, that they are the supreme pontiff and thus infallible.

Even if benedict has 'Deep Respect' for and holds 'high esteem' of the Islamic faith, they claim he is infallible or that they see no wrong in him trying to create dialog with these heretical religions.  Many say that there is nothing wrong with him contributing and promoting the distribution of the Koran.   I utterly cannot fathom how they do not realize that is contradiction to the Catholic Faith.  In addition, I have been told by many Modern Catholics that I should not quote from the Bible since you cannot take it as literal. Admittedly I am not a great speaker nor well versed in The True Catholic Faith, but what I know is The Novus Ordo Mass is not a Catholic Mass. another example, Eastern Rite supporter claim that their Mass is valid without 'Mysterium Fidei' and that they contain the 4 marks. I would very much appreciate any advice you can offer. 

Respectfully and God+ Bless,

Dipak.

 

MHFM: Dipak, it’s great to hear about your interest.  God was definitely giving you the graces to see that the New Mass is not of God and that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church.  Our material covers the “mysterium fidei” issue.  There is a discussion of it in our new book. I would recommend that you consult that.  The bottom-line is that the New Mass is definitely invalid because “for all” doesn’t signify the union of the faithful with Christ, which is the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

 

Heresy before Vatican II

 

I was unable to sleep last night and found myself up until 4:30 this morning.  I was looking on my bookshelf and found this old small book that was reprinted by Tan Books.  It was originally published in 1917.  The book is, Is There Salvation Outside The Catholic Church? by Fr. J. Bainvel S. J., and translated by Fr. J. L.Weidenhan, S.T.L.  Knowing what I know on this topic, and realizing this book was written in 1917 I was curious as to what it might say.  Upon skimming through the pages it took about 10 seconds to realize the heresies being promoted at that time.  

 

As he tries to explain that there is no salvation outside the Church, he teaches the visible Church and the invisible Church heresy; he teaches the belonging to the body of the Church compared to belonging to the soul of the Church heresy; he teaches baptism of blood and baptism of desire substitutes for water baptism heresy; he teaches the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation as a necessity of means, then says that is only under the "normal means", but that in God's Providence salvation can come outside of that, (which really means this priest believes God commands the impossible - which we know is itself impossible).     

 

What I found to be relevant in this regard is most "Traditional Catholics" will look at the date that a book is first published in order to determine its orthodoxy.  Many think that if it is from the 1950's or earlier it is probably okay.  Well, here is a fine example of a book written in 1917 full of heresy. 

 

PS

 

MHFM: Yes, you are correct.  A body of bishops and priests which eventually went along with the explosion of apostasy after Vatican II into a full-blown Counter Church didn’t become heretical, apostate and in favor of religious indifferentism overnight.  That’s why in our book on the salvation dogma there is a section called “Heresy Before Vatican II.”  Even though Vatican II represented the outward explosion and the formation of the Counter Church, the loss of faith among the clergy began in the decades leading up to Vatican II.  It began with the denial of the necessity of the Catholic Church and baptism for salvation, as taught in disgustingly heretical books such as the one you have mentioned, and also by priests such as Fr. Denis Fahey, who taught that Jews who reject Christ can be saved.  By the way, if anything is an example of one’s yes not being yes and one’s no not being no, it’s the heretical book you have mentioned.   

 

Comment on new book

 

I just received your new book.  It’s marvellous, remarkable, outstanding.  I couldn’t stop reading it.  I want to order two copies to be sent to my friends.

 

Cecilia Buse

Surprise, Arizona

 

Money Masters, where?

 

MHFM: Some people have called us asking where the link to The Money Masters video has gone.  It’s permanently located on the watch our videos page: Click here to Watch Our Videos/DVDs Online for free!  The Money Masters is the last one down before the audios.

 

New Book

 

The new book is perfect for those who really want to know why I  left the NO church.  I can just hand them a copy and tell them "It's all in here and I bet you can't find one thing in here you can refute." 

 

Pauline Moulder

 

Convert

 

My dad was a Protestant preacher.  He watched the Death, and the Journey Into Hell DVD and he immediately converted to the Catholic faith.  He has now become a true traditional Catholic.

 

Justin Prescott

Sugarland, TX

 

Free Color order forms

 

MHFM: If anyone would like free extra copies of our color order form, please call us at 1-800-275-1126.

 

St. Joseph of Copertino and a Lutheran

 

MHFM: St. Joseph of Copertino was an extraordinary 17th century Franciscan saint.  He was known for his ecstatic flights or levitations.  One time, out of curiosity, a Lutheran prince named John Frederick, the Duke of Brunswick, came to his Mass with some companions.

 

The saint [Joseph of Copertino], who was not informed of their presence, was made aware of it when about to break the sacred host, which he found so hard, that, in spite of all his efforts, he could not break it, but had to replace it on the paten.  Fixing his eyes upon the host, he wept and with a loud cry rose in kneeling posture about five paces into the air.  With another cry he returned after some time to the altar and broke the sacred host, though with great effort.  At the instance of the Duke, the Father Superior asked him why he had wept, and he replied: ‘My dear compatriot, the persons whom you sent to my Mass this morning, have a hard heart; for they do not believe all that Holy Mother Church teaches, and therefore the Lamb of God was hardened in my hands so that I could not break the sacred host.’  The Duke, astonished at this occurrence, deferred his departure in order to consult with the servant of God.” (Fr. Angelo Pastrovicchi, St. Joseph of Copertino, Tan Books, p. 43.)

 

The Duke was eventually converted to the Catholic Faith.

 

Divine Mercy

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter Dimond,

 

Is the devotion to the "Divine Mercy" initiated by Maria Faustina a valid devotion?  Thank you again, for your GOD-FILLED work.

 

Sincerely

 

PETER de NIESE

Melbourne, AUSTRALIA.

 

p.s. I searched your 'Selected Questions & Answers' section, but could not find this topic.  May i suggest that you add your answer to this section.

 

MHFM: The article on why Catholics should avoid the Divine Mercy Devotion is found it the Recent Articles section of our website.  It’s also found in our new book.

 

New Flyers

 

We are now offering some new 11 x 17 flyers.  One is on the heresies of Benedict XVI and one is on the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  The flyers are obviously not nearly as complete, interesting or effective as the books we have on these topics, which we encourage people to get, but they are handy for introducing people to these issues in a lightweight and easy-to-distribute format.  If the type seems small, that’s because we tried to pack as much information as we could on the two pages of the flyer.  

 

New Flyer on Benedict XVI         New Flyer on Outside the Church There is No Salvation

 

Episcopalian at Novus Ordo high school

 

Venerable and Dear Brother,


I am a high school junior who attends [x] School in Pennsylvania. On Thursday this institution that I attend will host the "progressive Episcopalian" Bishop John Shelby Spong, this is the man who purports that God is not theistic and has been called a non-Christian by other supposed Protestants. It is my hope to confront this man but, although I have pondered some questions I might ask of him, I am sure that you would be vastly more capable of constructing questions and arguments for this "Bishop" than I could be. Thus I write to you in hope that you may provide me some information on Spong or any edifying questions or points of contention. I hope to video tape my questioning of Spong and to be able to share the footage with MHFM and other Catholic outlets. Regretfully, Spong's visit to the institution of learning that I attend will be on Thursday and I was only apprised of this fact today; hence I must be brisk in preparing questions for Spong.
Thank You,

[name of person and school removed at his request]

Post Scriptum: I thank you for the  charitable amount of additional literature and DVDs you sent for free with OTCCTIANS; the list of John Paul's heresies has proven itself invaluably helpful in impromptu debate.

 

MHFM: The first question I would ask him would be how can he be part of a “Church” which only came into existence in the 16th century after King Henry VIII decided to break away from the Catholic Church because the pope refused to grant him the annulment of his marriage which he so desperately wanted?  Could any arrangement be more obviously man-made? 

 

Masonic Legislation

 

Greeting MHFM

 

Here is some interesting info on pending legislation in the US house.

 

 www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-33

 

God Bless,

Robert Blascyk

 

MHFM: That’s very interesting, especially the House Resolution number: 33.  It just so happens that it’s called House Resolution #33, when there are exactly 33 degrees in Scottish Rite Freemasonry.

 

What to do?

 

Hello,

 

I am a devout Catholic.  I attend Mass 3 to 4 times daily.  After reading your web site, I am confused and troubled.  Are you telling me that I have not been going to Mass and receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ?  I am 47 years old and have never been to a Latin or Traditional old Mass.  Please, what am I to do?

 

Don McEvoy

 

MHFM: That's correct. The New Mass is invalid.  It is a non-Catholic service, with an invalid form of consecration.  It was invented to Protestantize the Catholic Mass.  We would recommend that you obtain our new book and DVD special.  They explain all of this and give all of the documentation.  We also have a section on our website for what people should do; that section explains that one must make a confession to a validly ordained priest for having attended a non-Catholic service, the New Mass, for however long one attended, about making a general confession (since priests ordained in the New Rite are invalid), etc.  You can also call us at 1-800-275-1126 and we can answer that question about where to go to Mass in more detail and help you with possible Mass locations.  But a person must avoid the New Mass under pain of mortal sin and extricate himself from the Vatican II sect.  One should also pray the Rosary every day.

 

John XXIII revealed that he was a Jew?

 

MHFM: As we said, from time to time we will be posting just a few of the many new quotes and points that are found in our new book, even in those sections where some of the information has been covered on our DVDs, such as on the heresies of Benedict XVI.  (There are, of course, many new sections in the book which we have never covered before.)  The short analysis below is something that is new to the section on John XXIII.    It concerns John XXIII’s oft-quoted and very mysterious statement to the Jews: “I am Joseph your brother.”  We were, like so many others, always quite puzzled about what this strange statement to Jews by John XXIII meant.  We believe that the points below shed light on its meaning.  What we want to emphasize is that there is no doubt that John XXIII said this to Jews.  In the book, we cite as our source for this statement a document that was published by the American “bishops.”  John XXIII’s statement to the Jews, “I am Joseph, your brother,” is so well known and well documented that, in a discussion of Vatican II and post-Vatican II new relationships with Jews, one of the most prominent things mentioned is this mysterious statement by John XXIII.

JOHN XXIII REVEALED THAT HE WAS A JEW?

John XXIII once greeted some Jewish visitors with the words, "I am Joseph, your brother."[32]  Even though this very mysterious statement of John XXIII to Jews has been quoted frequently, the significance has not yet been explained.  We believe there is a good explanation of its significance: This statement by John XXIII, “I am Joseph, your brother,” is a quotation from Genesis 45:4. 

[Genesis 45:4-5- And he said mildly to them: Come nearer to me. And when they were come near him, he said: I am Joseph, your brother, whom you sold into Egypt. Be not afraid, and let it not seem to you a hard case that you sold me into these countries: for God sent me before you into Egypt for your preservation.]

It was made by the patriarch Joseph, the son of Jacob, to his brothers when they came into Egypt during the time of famine.  Those familiar with the Biblical account know that Joseph had been sold into slavery by his brothers many years before, but had risen to the highest position in the kingdom of Egypt (even though he wasn’t one of them) because he had successfully interpreted Pharao’s dream.  Since he had risen to the highest position in the kingdom of the Egyptians, he was free to dispense the treasures of the kingdom at his pleasure – e.g., to his brothers.  He gave plentifully to his brothers at no charge.

When we consider the evidence that John XXIII was a Freemason, that John XXIII began the process of revolution against the Catholic Church at Vatican II, and that John XXIII’s “pontificate” initiated the new revolutionary attitude toward Jews, among other things, the meaning of his statement to the Jews becomes clear.  Just as Joseph, who was not one of the Egyptians, found himself entrenched at the very pinnacle of the hierarchy of the Egyptians and revealed this to his brothers with the statement “I am Joseph, your brother,” John XXIII told the Jews that he is “Joseph, your brother” because he was actually a Jewish infiltrator entrenched at the very highest position in the hierarchy of the Christians (or so it appeared).  It was John XXIII’s cryptic way of revealing what he really was: a conspiratorial antipope at the service of the Church’s enemies.

SSPX/FSSP

 

Dear Reverends

Some years ago the in-charge of the SSPX chapel in Singapore removed the so-called Feeneyites from the chapel. Recently, certain members of the chapel tried to stage a coup in favor of the St Peter's Society. Do you consider this to have been necessary since St Peter's as well believes in salvation outside the Catholic Church?

Yours etc
SF

 

MHFM: Well, even though both groups believe that members of non-Catholic religions can be saved, there are significant differences on other issues.  The Fraternity of St. Peter holds that everyone should operate in working communion with the Vatican II sect, its antipopes and its apostate bishops.  It also holds that Vatican II, being the official teaching of the Church, is without doctrinal error.  The SSPX criticizes some parts of Vatican II’s official teaching.  And the SSPX obviously holds that people should be independent of the Vatican II sect because working in full communion with it presupposes a compromise with the new religion.  Thus, it makes sense (not from the standpoint of truth, but from the standpoint of the heretical premise which they are working from) that some of the heretical supporters of the Fraternity of St. Peter (or of the Indult position) would want to extirpate the independent mentality of the SSPX.  It’s interesting that you mention a “coup” at an SSPX chapel.  In certain cases, there is no doubt that FSSP or Indult position supporters have tried to infiltrate various independent chapels and get legal control of them by deceptive means in order to bring these independent Latin Mass chapels into the full power of the Counter Church.  These people are instruments of the Devil.

 

An extraordinary saint

 

MHFM: St. Francis of Paola is one of the most extraordinary saints in the history of the Church, yet very little is known about him in the English-speaking world.  He is called the wonder-worker and “God’s miracle worker supreme” because of the staggering number of miracles that he worked.  One interesting example deals with his pet lamb, Martinello:

 

“Being in need of food, the workmen caught and slaughtered Francis’ pet lamb, Martinello, roasting it in their lime kiln.  They were eating when the saint approached them, looking for his lamb.  They told him they had eaten it, having no other food.  He asked what they had done with the fleece and the bones.  They told him they had thrown them into the furnace.  Francis walked over to the furnace, looked into the fire and called ‘Martinello, come out!’  The lamb jumped out, completely untouched, bleating happily on seeing his master.” (St. Francis of Paola by Simi & Segreti, Tan Books, p. 26.)

 

How to Pray the Rosary

 

Can you please tell me how to pray the 15 decade rosary. Do you accept the mysteries of light?

 

JK

 

MHFM:  No, we don’t accept the Mysteries of Light.  In the Catholic Church, the Rosary has 15 mysteries: five joyful, five sorrowful and five glorious.  It was Antipope John Paul II who added the Mysteries of Light.  Here’s an address where you can see online how to pray the Rosary: http://www.pacifier.com/~rosarweb/howto.htm 

 

Since the group providing the illustration on how to pray the Rosary is a Novus Ordo group, they list the Mysteries of Light with their instructions on how to pray the Rosary.  Those should be ignored.

 

Regarding the Holy Rosary, Sister Lucia told Father Fuentes in a famous 1957 interview:

"Look, Father, the Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Holy Rosary.  She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all, spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world, or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations that cannot be solved by the Rosary.  There is no problem I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary.  With the Holy Rosary, we will save ourselves.  We will sanctify ourselves.  We will console Our Lord and obtain the salvation of many souls."

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio

 

Also seeking reference to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio that was made in the VCI Declaration on Papal Infallibility.  Do you know where this 
citation is made in that declaration?  This would be very helpful.   Many thanks

 

Patricia Culver

 

MHFM:The Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV – which declares that the election of a heretic to the Papacy is invalid – is not cited in Vatican Council I.  It’s cited in the footnotes for canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.  This canon declares that a cleric who publicly defects from the Faith loses his office without any declaration.  In declaring that a publicly heretical cleric loses his office without any declaration, the 1917 Code makes reference to Cum ex apostolatus of Pope Paul IV because it authoritatively taught the same principle it was teaching in canon 188.4: a heretic cannot hold office in the Church and loses that office automatically.  

 

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration.  These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.

 

Money Masters video

 

The Money Masters - Part 1 (1 hr. 44 min. video)

 

The Money Masters - Part 2 (1 hr. 46 min.)

 

This a link to a fascinating and important two-part video presentation called: The Money Masters: how international bankers gained control over America.  On this topic there is also the excellent lecture by G. Edward Griffin below.  Some may find this lecture below better as an introduction to this topic.  It is certainly powerful and frightening, though it doesn’t cover the history and many other important points covered in the money masters.  Both of them are worth watching/listening to.

 

 

The Creature from Jekyll Island: Audio Lecture on the Federal Reserve (1 hr. 13 min. audio) – need a real player for this one


"G. Edward Griffin exposes the most blatant scam of all history. It’s all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity. It's just exactly what every American needs to know about the power of the central bank."

 

While these excellent presentations obviously don’t deal with a strictly spiritual topic, and therefore are not necessary to know for salvation as the spiritual truths are, they are definitely worth watching.  This issue has also been addressed by popes, as we will see below.  The Money Masters video and The Creature from Jekyll Island audio expose the Federal Reserve System.  The Federal Reserve System – and this is sure to be a shock and even a jaw-dropper to those unfamiliar with some of this information – is actually a private bank that creates America’s money out of nothing and charges interest on top of it!  It constitutes one of the biggest secular scams in all of history.  (By the way, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, is Jewish.  The current chairman, Ben Bernanke, is also Jewish.)  This private bank, deceptively called the Federal Reserve System, essentially runs America; and the money masters have used their power, influence and deceit to get the leaders of other countries to accept similar arrangements.  The video quotes many prominent politicians who admit that the international bankers constitute an invisible government; these politicians also admit that the bankers control the majority of newspapers.

 

As The Money Masters video presentation so effectively shows, understanding the money masters and how they gained control of the world’s finance is the key to understanding major events in American history.  It uncovers the real reason for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, President Garfield, etc.  It also covers the rise of the Jewish Rothschild banking dynasty, the most powerful family in the world, and the incredible way that it came to take control of England’s central bank.  The Rothschild family was said to hold half of the wealth of the world by the end of the 19th century.  This corresponds to the assessment of Pope Pius XI.

 

Pope Pius XI, Caritate Christi compulsi (#3), May 3, 1932: “… the wealth of nations is heaped up in the hands of a very few private men, who – as We warned you last year, in Our Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo anno – control the trade of the whole world at their will, thereby doing immense harm to the people.”

 

This video presentation reveals that, since the money masters have such power over the money supply, they can create wars and depressions (the latter by tightening the money supply).  These created recessions and depressions are used to threaten and/or punish governments if they resist the international bankers aims to take control of their money supply.  In other words, they are used to get countries to submit to the central-bank-in-private-hands system.  The quotations from Pius XI above and below confirm the accuracy of the message contained in The Money Masters. 

 

Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno (#106), May 15, 1935: “This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money.  Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will.”

 

These presentations are not only a history lesson, but will change the way one looks at the world.  These links and descriptions have been added to the “Watch our videos page” on our website.

 

Reader on Money control video

 

MHFM- The documentary on money is awesome.  Why have you chosen to remove it?  At least mention the film and author on the Jewish Control Watch page.  I feel lucky that I saw it on your video page.  Who was the author so I may finish watching the second part?

Rob

 

MHFM: We just temporarily took it down because we wanted to add a description and modify a link.  As the E-Exchange above shows, the link is back up.

 

Likes website

 

Your material and website is the very best!  Thank you!!

 

Linda Collins

 

New quote

 

MHFM: From time to time we will be posting just a few of the many new quotes that are found in our new book, even in those sections where some of the information has been covered on our DVDs, such as on the heresies of Benedict XVI.  (There are, of course, many new sections in the book which we have never covered before.)  The quote below from one of Pope Pius XII’s encyclicals, regarding what St. Benedict did to a pagan worship site, was a new find we came across which happened to fit very nicely into the section of the book refuting Benedict XVI’s heresy on “Christian hotheads.”  Even though Pius XII is quoting Pope St. Gregory the Great’s traditional account, the fact that he included this portion of it in an encyclical helps to further establish the difference between the two religions (i.e., the difference between the false religion of Benedict XVI and the true Catholic religion of all the popes and saints in history). [Endnote references are found in the book].

 

BENEDICT XVI CRITICIZES AS “HOTHEADS” THOSE WHO DESTROYED PAGAN TEMPLES

 

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 373: “There were in fact Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything more than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated.”

 

Those “hotheads” whom he criticizes would include St. Francis Xavier and St. Benedict.

 

St. Francis Xavier [regarding the heathen children he had converted to the Catholic faith, +1543): “These children… show an ardent love for the Divine law, and an extraordinary zeal for our holy religion and imparting it to others.  Their hatred for idolatry is marvelous.  They get into feuds with the heathens about itThe children run at the idols, upset them, dash them down, break them to pieces, spit on them, trample on them, kick them about, and in short heap on them every possible outrage.”

 

St. Benedict overthrew a pagan altar and burned the groves dedicated to Apollo when he first arrived at Mount Cassino:

 

Pope Pius XII, Fulgens Radiatur (# 11), March 21, 1947: “… he [St. Benedict] went south and arrived at a fort ‘called Cassino situated on the side of a high mountain; on this stood an old temple where Apollo was worshipped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the ancient heathens.  Around it likewise grew groves, in which even till that time the mad multitude of infidels used to offer their idolatrous sacrifices.  The man of God coming to that place broke the idol, overthrew the altar, burned the groves, and of the temple of Apollo made a chapel of St. Martin.  Where the profane altar had stood he built a chapel of St. John; and by continual preaching he converted many of the people thereabout.’”

 

Book Pictures

 

Dear Brothers,

I've ordered 2 copies of the book, after reading the entire table of contents. I hope it reaches many readers and I will help, after I've read
the book.

Just one thing; I think it's unfortunate that you chose pictures of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI in which their expressions appear to  be
so --  what word, unflattering is not appropriate, though they are that.  Misleading is a possible choice.  An expression photographed at the wrong
angle, or at a bad time, can give a false, as well as a true, picture.  One would think that you wish to portray them as sinister, or violent, etc. They may be truly evil, but only God can make that judgment.  Their actions and words have certainly given grounds for questioning their intentions, but neither is in a position to answer your conclusions as to their intentions. It would be interesting to hear Pope Benedict's responses.

Nevertheless, what you have presented regarding the teachings of theChurch seems to be completely accurate.

While it's probably too late to do anything to make a change of photos(should you wish to), I feel it would be to your credit if you had chosen photos in which the Popes had ordinary, or neutral expressions.  Your intention was quite obvious and, I think, is beneath you.  Let their words and actions speak for themselves.

                                Sincerely,

                                   Virginia Schultz


MHFM: Virginia, one doesn’t have to look very far to find pictures of the Vatican II antipopes in which they appear sinister or evil.  That’s simply because, as the book documents in great detail, their words and actions reveal their true intentions and sinister designs.  The facts in the book (over 1,700 references, 658 pages in 46 sections), as well as the many revealing photographs (such as those of false ecumenism, etc.), certainly speak for themselves about what they represent.  Once it is in their hands, we feel that sincere people who examine the evidence in it will definitely agree. 

 

Readers on Jewish power updates; our view of how it became such

 

Hi,

Very interesting articles.  It is sad that things have gotten so bad, sometimes I wonder why this world continues to exist as evil as it is. It is indeed a miracle that this country still exists due to the amount of evil that it has spread around the globe.

It is amazes me at the power of the Jews. They have control over almost every facet of human life. They are the entertainment, the news, the transportation, the religion, and a whole host of  human life. It is indeed very saddening that we are free to do evil and immorality but not free to be holy. They have made it to where we may have a menorah up during advent but not the Holy Family.

And if that is not enough most "traditionals" are not even Catholic and don't even bother to try. The story about Bella Dodd is most interesting and I think that it helps to explain how the Catholic Church has ended up in the terrible position that it is in. I found it so interesting, that I could not help but spread it around, so I copied and pasted it into a public forum, is this ok?  The News and Commentary is a very good section of your website and is very informative regarding the things that are going on in our world… I have been able to restore the sound on my computer, thus, I now have the capability of listening to your awesome radio programs.

God Bless.  Na p

----

Dear Brothers:

 

I read your website not only for your theological insights, but for your heroic opposition to Jewish power and establishment "history."  I found an interesting quote from St. Augustine.  He is commenting on St. Matthew 24, verse 21:  "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

 

Here is the quote: "And so Josephus, who wrote the Jewish History, relates evils so great happening to this people as to seem hardly credible.  Whence it was not unreasonably said, that such tribulation had never been from the beginning of creation, nor should be; for though in the time of Antichrist shall be such, or perhaps greater; yet to the Jews, of whom we must understand this, such shall never more befall.  For if they shall be the first and the chief to receive Antichrist, they will then rather inflict than suffer the tribulation." [emphasis mine].--St. Augustine, quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea, St. Matthew, p. 812. 

 

Augustine is saying that the greatest instance of Jewish suffering occurred during the siege and sack of Jerusalem (67-70 AD), and that there will never occur an instance of Jewish suffering to equal or surpass this.  But, of course, if the official version of "the Holocaust" is true (6 million deliberately miurdered, gas chambers, lampshades of human skin, etc.) then the Jewish sufferings of 1939-45 have far surpassed those of the siege and sack of Jerusalem, and the scripture (or St. Augustine's interpretation of it) would be false.

 

But, as we know, it is the Jews who are in error, and not the scriptures or St. Augustine.  May God help us all in this age of Judaic power.  They are all set receive Antichrist, and indeed, they may have already received him.

 

Sincerely, Christopher Albrecht

 

MHFM: Some of our readers probably wonder: how have the Jews (only 2% of the American population) come to have such a domination over the media, the culture, American foreign policy, etc.?  Before answering this question, we reiterate, once again: we condemn all forms of racism; we desire the conversion and eternal happiness of all Jews.  Jews frequently make tremendous, and even the best, converts.  (The 19th century conversion story of the Jew Alphonse Ratisbonne is quite moving and something Catholics should familiarize themselves with.)  Not everything we say about Jewish power applies to all Jews.  Some Jews are certainly more reasonable than others, but all of them are outside the Church and in need of conversion and baptism for salvation.  That being said, Jewish power and its attempts to corrupt culture, obliterate the name of Christ and make criminals out of Bible-believing Catholics must be exposed.

 

So, to get back to answering the question, how have the Jews, such a relatively small number of people, come to such power?  We believe that there are two reasons.  First, while some Jews would like to persuade themselves that it’s because Jews are naturally more talented and intelligent, the answer, we believe, is found elsewhere.  As Ted Pike’s video The Other Israel shows, the Jewish “holy book,” the Talmud, looks upon non-Jews as animals.  Thus, the “sacred” literature of the Jews teaches them to consider themselves as an elite race, approaching the manifestation of God Himself.  While not all Jews hold or even know about the racist propaganda contained in the Talmud, of course, it’s true that a great majority of them have imbibed a certain form or degree of elitism from their parents: an elevated view of themselves and their fellow Jews, which causes them to make their Jewish lineage the center of their lives.  We see an effective illustration of this fact among the Jewish “converts” to the Novus Ordo sect, such as those featured on EWTN.  Even after supposedly having come to accept Christ, these “converts” still want to make their Jewishness the center of their “Catholicism.”  Take, for an example, the “Association of Hebrew Catholics.”  They are too proud to really, interiorly believe that Christ is the center, and that their past and their “heritage” is not.  They need to retain their former Jewish identity as the center, because, in their blind pride, everything revolves around them and their elite view of themselves as “Jewish.”  They are not true converts to Christ, and they sadly remain blind to the profound truth which St. Paul expressed:

 

Galatians 3:27: “For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female.  For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

 

This elitism of the Jews is why once a Jew gets control of a business or an organization, often there is a conscious effort to elevate mainly Jews (not necessarily those who practice Judaism, but those who are of the Jewish race).  This can be easily seen by anyone who looks carefully at the staggering amount of Jewish names featured as authors in mainstream newspapers, as TV correspondents, etc.  

 

The second reason that the Jews have come to such staggering power is found in Matthew 4.  In our opinion, this is the main reason:

 

Matthew 4:8-10- “… the Devil took him [Jesus] up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me.  Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.”

 

Since the Jews did not accept Christ, they became the servants of the Devil.  Since they refused to have the light, they become enveloped by darkness.  Since they refused to accept the kingdom of God which, as Our Lord says, is within you (Luke 17:21) if you belong to Christ and which admits entrance into eternal life (where the home of the elect truly resides), they get a temporal kingdom, a kingdom on Earth.  They get power in this world: “the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them,” which the Devil can grant in this life to those who are on his side.  This is really shown on the Money Masters series of videos, which exposes Jewish banking domination and the incredible way it came to fruition.

 

Frankly, a preternatural power is the only thing which can explain the ways that Jewish groups have the ability, the desire, the energy and the effectiveness to constantly organize, push, collude and branch out for the Jewish agenda, to make themselves the constant victims, the vigilantes against Christ and Christianity, the purveyors and defenders of filth and liberalism, etc., as shown on that Hate Laws video, or exemplified by Israel’s lobby or any extensive exposé of Jewish media control.  Again, all of this is very relevant today because we are currently at war in Iraq, and probably soon going to go to war in Iran, mainly for Jewish Israel – which, by the way, possesses weapons of mass destruction and doesn’t allow U.N. inspectors.

 

Liked Debate

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter,

 

I just listened to your debate with Mr. William Golle last night.  I commend you both for defending the Catholic position on the Novus Ordo "NOpes."  I thank you both for the wonderful work you do for the Holy Mother Church.  Take care, and God bless you.

 

In Christ,

Michael McBee

 

MHFM: Thanks, we’re glad you liked it.

 

Fatima-Convert

 

Dear Brothers,

"Thus saith the Lord: For three crimes of Damascus, and for four I will not convert it: because they have thrashed Galaad with iron wains."
Amos 1:3 (Douay)

The footnote says: "'I will not convert it.' That is, I will not spare them, nor turn away the punishments I design to inflict upon them."

That supports what you wrote about how the conversion of Russia in the Fatima message didn't mean "convert to the Catholic Faith." 

Enjoy your work,
LM

 

MHFM: Good point.  We feel that the facts brought forward in that article (The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia…), especially about the precise context in which Our Lady used the word “convert” in conjunction with what Our Lord said about the effects of the consecration of Russia, make it quite obvious that the position we have enunicated on that issue is correct.

 

Bella Dodd

 

MHFM: Someone recently wrote to us stating that Bella Dodd never spoke about the infiltration of the Catholic Church.  (We have since lost her e-mail).  This person said that the story of Bro. Joseph Natale (the founder of MHFM), that he heard Bella Dodd say things about the Communist infiltration of the Church, is false.  Well, it just so happened that we recently received another letter from an older woman in the Bronx.  Her letter is posted below.  When this woman from the Bronx was young she heard Bella Dodd speak about the very same things that Bro. Joseph heard her speak about.  This utterly refutes the claims of the woman mentioned above, who just so happens to be a particularly arrogant and sceptical person who also thinks that Fatima was a fraud.  [It’s quite ironic that this person, who sees conspiracies behind almost every corner (Fatima, etc.), doesn’t believe that Bella Dodd spoke about a Communist conspiracy to infiltrate the Catholic Church.]  Here is the letter we recently received, which refutes the sceptic and further corroborates what Bro. Joseph said:

 

Is it possible to get the Fall 1989 Issue of “Crying in the Wilderness” – Brother Joseph’s recollections of Bella Dodd?  I would like to xerox it + pass it around.  I was a young girl about 19 yrs when I heard Bella Dodd telling her story in a small Church in the Bronx – St. Angela Merici.  What impressed me was her crying telling her story as she knew what would happen.  I was truly convinced nothing could happen to the Roman Catholic Church.  Her story should be told again.  God bless + protect you all.  Thank you!

 

Sincerely,

Peggy Deely, Bronx, NY

 

Liked Death and the Journey Into Hell video

 

… the “Death and the Journey Into Hell DVD.”  It scared me and did more to force my solemn contemplation of Eternity and God’s Judgment than anything I ever saw.  It is incredible.

 

H Benton

 

Liked Hate Laws video

 

Hi, I Just got finished watching the videos you have posted about the agenda of the ADL and the anti-speech laws. First I would like to say that they are great informative videos. They are trying to brain wash the world. There is much brain washing of this nature where I work.

I work for Fluor industrial services, they are an extremely large construction contractor who has many government accounts all around the world. I am currently working at an IBM facility where Fluor has a contract.

 

Every year Fluor’s employees are mandated to attend an anti-discrimination class. It is a brain washing class that teaches respect and tolerance for all people including but not limited to gays and atheist.   It is basically a threat to our jobs and livelihood, they say that if any employee is found to be critical of the aforementioned and other ideas on and off the work site, he or she can be written up and even fired. They say that you can not even be accidentally overheard speaking in any way against anyone or any religion, even if it is just a joke.   This anti-discrimination class not only threatens us but also trys to brain wash us so we will not have to worry about “offending” anyone.  I figured this experience would be a good example of the brain washing of society. I do not remember if the ADL was mentioned or not, but I would not be surprised if it was, and the next mandatory class that I attend, I will pay closer attention or even ask to get a copy of the video we are forced to watch, I will send it if I get my hands on it.

 

 Thanks

 

Davies

 

Dear MHFM

 

I just came across an article titled A Heretical Pope? by  the late Michael Davies.  I always thought M. Davies was a great Catholic writer.  This article proves he was an idiot and that he worked very hard to maintain his idiocy.  Or maybe he was just terribly confused.  Just a sample:  He says, "Catholic theologians accept that a pope could lose his office through heresy, but it would have to be such notorious heresy that no doubt concerning the matter could exist in the minds of the faithful...."

 

In other words, he admits that the Pope is a heretic, but he would have to be a really big heretic in order to qualify for deposition.  Davies himself, through his writings, admits that the conciliar popes are the biggest, most notorious heretics in the history of the Catholic Church.  I wonder how much worse they would have to get to qualify for deposition which Davies' insists, in this article, could never happen because providence would never allow it.  Providing no documentation, Davies insists that the Church "...will continue to exist until the Second Coming as a visible, hierarchically governed body, teaching the truth and sanctifying its members with indubitably valid sacraments." 

 

Maybe Mr. Davies was just insane. 

 

Re: the new book… Too bad we weren't taking pictures:  of the (gay) priest who walked down the aisle with bunny ears on Easter Sunday; the African American Masses with drums and costumes… the seminarian in Benediction Robes boogyeing up the aisle the night before his ordination when he places the monstrance on the altar accompanied by loud rock music for an hour.  Or the Mass (excuse me, "liturgy") where talking and experiencing the real presence of Christ in each other substitutes for Communion; people chatting and eating just inches away from a tabernacle placed next to a door; tight jeans and shorts worn by "Eucharistic Ministers"; giving "Holy Communion" to immodestly dressed women and openly gay women....the list is endless.  No stone has been left unturned.  My sister finally quit her job as Eucharistic minister on her own after a great deal of stress I caused her about it several years ago.  She said she could no longer give Communion to the  immodestly dressed women who approached her.  Maybe she's ready for the new book and a video...

 

Again, God Bless

P. Moulder   

 

MHFM: As we’ve pointed out in the article on our website, Davies was, unfortunately, a heretic.  He definitely rejected the solemnly defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as we see in the quotation below.

 

Michael Davies, The Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “He would, presumably, agree with me that Jews who are convinced that the old covenant still prevails and are perfectly sincere and conscientious in their observance of the Jewish law can be saved.”

 

This demonstrates that Davies had no real supernatural faith in the infallible teaching of the Catholic Magisterium.  He did not have any real interior submission to what Christ has revealed through His Church.  If he did, he would have accepted the definition of the Council of Florence that all who die as Jews are lost.  Moreover, anyone who studies his book, The Order of Melchisedech, knows that it advances argument after argument which proves that the New Rite of Ordination promulgated by Paul VI cannot be considered valid.  Davies admits again and again that the New Rite follows the Anglican Rite in its pattern of deletion.  (And the Anglican Rite was declared to be invalid by Pope Leo XIII precisely because of its pattern of deletion.)  Here are just three examples:

 

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 83: “As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI].  In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”

 

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 99: As a final comment on the new Catholic ordinal, I would like to quote a passage from  Apostolicae Curae and to ask any reader to demonstrate to me how the words which Pope Leo XIII wrote of Cranmer’s rite cannot be said to apply to the new Catholic Ordinal, at least where mandatory prayers are concerned.”

 

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, pp. 94-95: “When the changes [to the Rite of Ordination] are considered as a whole it seems impossible to believe that any Catholic of integrity could deny that the parallel with Cranmer’s reform [the Anglican reform] is evident and alarming.  It is quite obvious that there are powerful forces within the Catholic Church and the various Protestant denominations determined to achieve a common Ordinal at all costs… The sixteenth century Protestants changed the traditional Pontificals because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood.  Archbishop Bugnini and his Consilium changed the Roman Pontifical in a manner which makes it appear that there is little or no difference between Catholic and Protestant belief, thus undermining Apostolicae Curae [of Leo XIII].

 

But his conclusion was, amazingly, that the New Rite must be considered valid!  He based his conclusion completely on his position that Paul VI was a valid pope.  Of course, Paul VI could not have been an antipope, you see.  This demonstrates the diabolical fog under which he was laboring.  It’s sad to say, but the truth must be spoken: Davies, while he did some excellent research on the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination, was used as a tool of the Devil to mislead conservatives about the Liturgical Revolution: to convince them that the new liturgical rites of Mass and Ordination promulgated by Paul VI, though inferior and Protestantized, are still valid.

 

Reader on EWTN on omissions

 

Dear Brother:

        Speaking of EWTN, yesterday morning I was watching their "Mass" and "Fr." Miguel Marie was the presider.  His homily was about the Chair of Peter and the Pope being the head of the Church.  Everything he said was ok until he started to talk about "Pope" Benedict XVI and how God has entrusted him to be the leader of the faithful, etc.  What really turns me off about EWTN besides the fact that they are Novus Ordo is that they completely evade and ignore all the facts about the V2 antipopes.  They pick out things that the antipopes say that may seem conservative or in-line with Catholic teaching but never make any mention of the heresies of the antipopes and the terrible acts of apostasy that they've committed.  This morning I mailed a letter to "Fr." Miguel expressing my feelings about his evasive attitude about the antipopes.  In the letter I also informed him about the Church's teaching that a heretic cannot be a valid Pope.

 

Alain Perrault

 

MHFM: Yes, that’s exactly right.  They don’t even criticize them at all, not even for such things as kissing the Koran or going to the synagogue or going to the mosque.  In this regard one thinks not only of the EWTN “priests,” but people like Scott Hahn, etc.  They know very well that much of what the Vatican II antipopes have done is a betrayal of the basic teachings of Our Lord, but you won’t hear them even speak negatively about things they have done.  These outrageous omissions are what will primarily convict them before the Judgment Seat of Christ.  It’s utterly dishonest and actually idolatrous.  This is not to say, of course, that those who do criticize the Vatican II antipopes, but obstinately maintain that they are popes, are justified.  They are horrible as well.

 

Horrible, sad, angering and revealing heresy on EWTN

 

[This post has significance even for those who are unfamiliar with EWTN, for it demonstrates what the Vatican II sect of Benedict XVI represents in the everyday lives of people.]

 

In EWTN’s program Catholicism on Campus, which aired on Feb. 23, host “Msgr.” Stuart Swetland fielded a number of questions on salvation from college students.  He was asked: is it necessary for salvation to be Catholic?  In his answers, “Msgr.” Swetland said that non-Catholics can be saved, even those who don’t believe in Christ.  He said that the Protestants can be saved, that they are incorporated into the Church at baptism.  He made no qualification whatsoever; the message was that all Protestants are going to Heaven.  He also said that Muslims and others can be saved.  He also told the college students that Vatican II teaches (in Lumen Gentium 16) that those who don’t even believe in God can be saved.  (By the way, this refutes a heretic whose initials are B.S.  B.S. went out of his way to argue that Lumen Gentium 16 doesn’t teach that atheists can be saved, after we proved that it does.  As we can see, Swetland agrees with us.)

 

“Msgr.” Swetland was also asked about once saved always saved, held by many Protestants.  He said that Catholics and Protestants believe the same thing on that issue, but just express it differently.  It’s all a matter of language, you see.  (Again, these were college students who took the time to get – and were probably thirsting for – answers to these critical questions on salvation from one they think is a conservative “Catholic” monsignor.)  As “proof” that Catholics and Protestants have the same view of salvation/justification/once saved, etc., EWTN’s “monsignor” pointed to the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification and said that Catholics and Protestants believe the same on justification. (This again demonstrates what we’ve proven, in contradiction to the claims of many heretics who have attempted to deny the undeniable, that the Vatican II sect agrees with the Lutherans on justification.)

 

After having heard his explanation, that essentially the members of all religions can be saved and that it’s not necessary to be Catholic, Swetland was also asked if evil people can be saved.  He responded by stating that the bible teaches that we are all evil, and that he won’t say that anyone is in Hell.

 

How empty, how heretical, how horrible, and how definitely Hell-bound is this apostate who calls himself a “monsignor,” and who is featured as a beacon of truth on EWTN!  How certainly Hell-bound are also all those who promote, defend or excuse such heresy and heretics by either obstinately professing communion with them and their sect, or by failing to condemn and expose their sect when they can!  How sad that these college students are being fed this spiritual poison, being left out to (spiritually) dry because they aren’t hearing the truth and don’t have the interest to search it out themselves!

 

If only they were hearing the simple, true and traditional teachings of the Church, it would probably spark something within some of them to take a deep interest in the Faith and change their lives.  As the missionaries (e.g. St. Francis Xavier) and Sacred Scripture (Isaias 5:13) point out, people do perish because of lack of knowledge.  That means that some would have responded and would have been saved if they had heard the truth, but they were lost because they didn’t.  That’s why, for example, spreading this new book we have on the Counter Church is so important; and it seems to have generated interest among people so far.

 

Those who imbibe this Vatican II heresy, promoted by Swetland and EWTN (and promoted from corner to corner of the Counter Church by “priests,” nuns, catechists, etc.), do not have the Faith they need for salvation.  One could tell by the line of questioning of the college students that they could see, at least in a certain way, that it didn’t make sense, that, deep down, his answers constituted an inconsistent fraud.  For after the “monsignor” gave his explanation, one of them asked: “…if all men are saved, why send missionaries to other countries, why be Catholic?”  The heretic responded by saying that it’s important to make explicit the implicit faith they have. 

 

Hate Crimes/Jewish Power/Loss of Freedom

 

More loss of freedom: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020104.html

And look at who is demanding this.   Please comment on this article.

Thank you and may God bless you and your work.

Frank Granic

 

MHFM: We’re glad that you sent us that article because on Jan. 5 Hate Crimes legislation was re-introduced to Congress.

 

Hate Crimes’ Legislation is back

 

Hate Crimes' Bill Signals End of Freedom of Speech and Religion in America

 

We’ve just added two videos from Ted Pike to our videos page. Ted Pike is unfortunately a Protestant and therefore we don’t endorse him or all of his material, but he has done tremendous research on Judaism and Jewish control.  One of his videos is called Hate Laws.  Click here to Watch it or our videos; Pike’s videos are near the bottom.  (The Communist and Masonic Infiltration of the Church and Freemasonry’s Vast Influence over America have also been added to our videos page.)  People need to see this frightening presentation by Pike, which you can access on our videos page.  (Unfortunately, Pike’s films frequently display some objectionable and immodest images, e.g., unnecessarily long footage of homosexual parades, etc.  This reveals the lack of prudence and lack of a sense of modesty so typical of a Protestant.  Nevertheless, these films we’ve mentioned are very interesting and important.)  His film Hate Laws shows how, due to the pressure of Jewish groups, it is now against the law in Canada to condemn homosexuality, preach those parts of the Gospel against Jews or hold that six million Jews didn’t die in the “Holocaust.”  And if the Jews aren’t stopped, it will be that way in America through Hate Crimes legislation concoted and pushed by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.  The legislation now being introduced to Congress does not criminalize the things mentioned above – rather, it federalizes crimes committed against individuals because of bias – but it would serve as the toe in the door to eventually introduce Canadian style Hate Laws.  These will end freedom to speak the truth and will make criminals out of true Catholics, as well as Protestants who adhere to Scripture’s teaching on those matters.

 

Pike’s presentation also exposes how the Jewish Anti-Defamation League was caught illegally spying on the people, stealing banking information, drivers’ licences, etc.  The purpose of such spying is to acquire as much information as possible on those deemed to be opposed to the Jewish domination of society (i.e. “radical” conservatives), so that when these Hate Laws eventually go on the books the Jewish group can give the information to authorities to round up conservatives.  On that video page, we’ve also added Ted Pike’s film The Other Israel.  This enlightening film shows what the Talmud, the Jewish “holy book,” really teaches about non-Jews, about Our Lord, etc.  It also discusses the fact that the most esteemed rabbis in Judaism endorsed sex with girls below the age of four.  It shows how Jews were dominant in the creation of Bolshevism which became the Communist Empire, how Jews dominate the media, etc. 

 

Related:Catholic” League's Bill Donohue accused of being “anti-semitic.”  Give me a break [link] 

 

Jew Keith Olbermann has accused “Catholic” League President Bill Donohue of being “anti-semitic” because Donohue correctly stated that “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews.”  The truth is that Donohue is a despicable apostate who grovels at the feet of Jews who reject Christ.  He admitted publicly that he actually wishes Jews “Happy Hanakau.”  Donohue is a major proponent of the Vatican II sect’s endorsement of Judaism; he frequently describes rabbis as his good friends and expresses his esteem for those who practice Judaism.  Such a ridiculous accusation by Olbermann is another example of how the Jews consolidate power by always portraying themselves as the victims, always putting their opponents on the defensive, including those who actually promote Judaism.  This has been added to our Jewish Power and Control Watch.

 

Thoughts on Europe

 

To whom this may concern, Most Holy Family Monastery:

 

        Dominus vobiscum. I have reviewed your information for some time now, and I admit that it is compelling information. I appreciate the effort you and your contributors apply to the task of exposing the liberal elite plaguing the Church and diluting the Faith, especially in America and Europe. I just wanted to say that, while Europe is in spiritual shambles for now, the socialist and atheist Old Guard will be disappearing in a few generations; they simply refuse to produce new children and raise families, leaving their foolhardy futures uncertain; this has become very evident by the declining populations throughout Europe. I feel it is in this time that good Catholics from North America (primarily the United States and Canada) should consider moving back to the continent of our origination- be it spiritual or cultural. For example, if a few thousand traditional Catholic families moved to Ireland or Britain and continued to produce new generations, thousands of faithful Catholics could help regain parts of Europe for Christ our Lord.

 

        I pray that our ancient lands do not fall to the Mohammedans in this modern era, as did the lands of the Byzantine East five hundred years earlier.  I know that I personally intend to move to Ireland or Scotland with my fiancee within a decade a raise a family in my ancient homelands; I feel everyone should grant this some contemplation.

 

        Pax Christi.  

 

MHFM: You mention the well-documented fact that, if birthrates continue as they are, Europe will eventually be overtaken by Muslims.  Besides the fall of the Catholic monarchies in the 20th century and the arrival of the Counter Church in Rome, this fact is also a sign of where we are in history (i.e. the last days).

 

Great story

 

I work in a large office building of over 500 people.  Just recently I moved to a different location within the building next to a women who had 'tons' of pinups / photos of a celebrity  at her desk which included immodest ones, some of the photos have been up for about a year. This person would take great pride in 'showing the pictures off ' and admitted that she was obsessed with the celebrity.   None of the co-workers or managers ever had a problem with it.  Not knowing if I should complain to managment - or confront the person themselves about the improper pictures, - So I decided to pray a Novena to The Baby Infant Jesus of Prague ( the same prayer Padre Pio said daily)  telling Him to come down from Heaven and remove the photos Himself.  I promised that I would spread the Infants devotional prayercards if the prayer was granted..I also prayed to Padre Pio as well during the 9 days.  After the 9th day of the Novena, when the women came into work that day, I sat in shock & amazement in my office chair as I watched her take all the photos down for good & they havent been up since.   I see her daily  but the reason for her removing them is still a mystery!     Thanks Infant of Prague and Padre Pio for 'cleaning up' my workspace.

 

SM 

 

MHFM: That’s a great story.  If you haven’t already, perhaps you could give her a Creation and Miracles DVD or a Padre Pio book.

 

Lienart/Lefebvre

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

Marcel Lefebvre was ordained a priest by Achille Lienart, a known Freemason. Consequently, how can it be assumed that a known Freemason would intend to do what the Church wanted done during Lefebvre's ordination? Furthermore, one of the frequent defenses of Lefebvre's priesthood is that his episcopal consecration would have supplied priestly power, especially since -- unlike ordination -- there are multiple parties involved in an episcopal consecration who can supply for any defect in intention. Yet St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologica, Suppl. q.40 a.5 that, unlike Orders, "episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore the episcopate is not an order." Since Lienart's masonic membership makes his intention doubtful doesn't that also make Lefebvre's priesthood and episcopacy doubtful as well?

Thank you for your time and God bless you.

David

 

MHFM: When a minister uses the external matter and form prescribed by the Church he is presumed for that reason to have intended to do what the Church does.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does.  On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.  On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

 

During the French Revolution, the Bishop Talleyrand was a Freemason.  He ordained many priests.  There is no evidence that the Church re-ordained any of those men; on the contrary, they were accepted as valid.  Further, it was discovered after his death that Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, was a high-ranking Freemason.  Surely Rampolla ordained priests, but there is no evidence that any of the men he ordained were conditionally re-ordained.  If one can doubt the validity of the Lefebvre-line orders then one can go back in history and question almost anyone's orders.

 

Padre Pio book

 

Dear Brother Michael,

 

The Padre Pio book may well be the most important book of our era.  I wish you much success in its distribution. God speed, Yours always in Jesus and Mary

 

Mark Lillywhite

 

Alhambra, CA

 

Antichrist video

 

Hello -I've been trying to watch "John Paul II preached the Gospel of the Antichrist" online, but within the first minute and again in the 18th
minute, the video breaks off. I've tried a couple times, and it breaks off at the same points each time. There may be other breakoffs - I haven't tried
watching past the 18-minute dropout.  Just though you might like to know.


Keith Shirk

 

MHFM: Keith, it sounds like a problem with your internet connection.  What I would recommend is that you download the video.  Once it has been successfully downloaded, you could play it on your computer hopefully without a problem. 

 

Pius XII and DVDs

 

Hi Brothers,

The DVDs that I ordered from your monastery: "Abortion, Rock Music and Freemasonry exposed", "Freemasonry's Infuence on America", "The Communist and Freemasonic Infultration into the Catholic Church","Creation and Miracles Past and Present", "The Heresies of Benedict XVI", and "Why the New Mass and the New Rite of Ordination are Invalid." all came in today.

I watched the freemasonry videos and was suprised to see how much influence this satanic cult has on the world and the post Vatican II church. It truly resembles the religion of the beast fortold in the book of revelation. One question I have is that Dr. Wardner twards the end of the video seemed to suggest that Pius XII might have had some connection with the masons, if this were true would he still hold his pontificate or would he have lost his jurisdiction and become an antipope?

In Christ,

Glenn

 

MHFM: Pius XII was meeting with those people because he was meeting with high-level officials of the U.S. Government at the time, who happened to be high-ranking Freemasons.  A pope could not be considered to have lost his office unless there is clear and repeated proof that he has become a manifest heretic. 

 

Exorcism videos

 

Dear Brothers,

 

The  exorcism videos  in your website show convincingly the reality of Satan and his devils.  These videos are a must- see for everyone Catholic or non-Catholic alike and I hope that you can sell them to us in VHS or DVD so we can show them to others.  Not everyone has a computer, you know.  If you can obtain other actual exorcism videos to add to what you already have would be great.  Thanks.  God be with you.

 

In Christ,

Marie of Toronto

 

MHFM: We’re glad you liked the videos.  Our readers also might be interested to know that we have recently combined some of the best parts of the exorcism audios into one audio tape, which is available from us.

 

FSSP

 

Hello,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Mike and I was directed to your website by a new friend I met in Yahoo Catholic Chat tonight.  We were discussing papal heresy, both old and current, and he sent me a link to your pages.  Alot of info there.  It will take months to wade through it all.  We then got to talking about Latin Mass and various congregations that have the Latin Mass available to them.  I sent him a link to the one I go… and he said that the priests of FSSP might not be legitimate priests because they were ordained by a
Bishop that is not recognized as valid by the Church.

Do you have any info on FSSP that will either lay my mind at ease or
send me scurrying to the confessional?

Thanks,
Mike

 

MHFM: Mike, it's true that the FSSP men were ordained by “bishops” consecrated in Paul VI's New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, which is of doubtful validity.  Therefore, except for the few in their group who were validly ordained in another group and then joined their society, their men should not be considered validly ordained priests.  Here are some facts about the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration:

 

TRADITIONAL FORM FOR CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS

 

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: …in the Episcopal ordination or consecration… the form consists of the words of the ‘Preface,’ of which the following are essential and so required for validity:

 

Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”

 

With its mention of “the fullness of Thy ministry… raiment of all glory” this traditional form unequivocally signifies the power of the episcopacy, which is the “fullness of the priesthood.”  Paul VI’s new form in the 1968 rite is given below.  The two forms only have one thing in common, the single word “et,” which means “and.” 

 

PAUL VI’S NEW FORM FOR CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS

 

• “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by Him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

 

This new form does not unequivocally signify the power of the episcopacy.  The phrase “governing Spirit” is used to refer to many things in scripture or tradition (e.g. Psalm 5:14), but it doesn’t unequivocally signify the powers of the episcopacy.  Therefore, the new form is of doubtful validity.

 

St. Martin, catechumen and morning prayers

 

Hi. I am writing about St. Martin of Tours because he is a great saint to pray to in these times we are experiencing. He was around the time of St. Hillary and the arian heresy. I have found it hard to find any traditional Catholics that know anymore about him then the popular image of him giving a poor man half of his cloak. This is a shame because he fought arianism as fervently as St. Athanacious and is also a powerful Saint to pray to for help in praying with more fervor and such. It was almost impossible to obtain any information on him as if he was becoming a forgotten saint. I finally found a book that is out of print from Amazon.com It is called "St. Martin of Tours" by Henri Gheon. I don't believe any books are in print anymore on this wonderful Saint.        

 

I was also wandering about what prayers you believe are essential for morning prayers…

I would be most appreciative if you could e-mail me a list of such prayers so I may see if I am missing some essential daily prayers.

 

Thanks, God speed,

Vinny

                                                                                                                  

MHFM: Since you mentioned St. Martin of Tours, it’s worth repeating that he was a saint who raised an unbaptized catechumen to life for baptism.  The miracle is also mentioned by Dom Prosper Guéranger:

                           

Was not the catechumen of Liguge snatched from the land of the living, when thou [St. Martin] didst call him back to life and Baptism?” (The Liturgical Year, Nov. 11, Vol. 15, p. 255).

 

It’s also very interesting that the Life of St. Martin by Sulpitius Severus says that the unbaptized catechumen, upon being restored to life, revealed that he was condemned to the “gloomy regions” (i.e. Hell).  In other words, the unbaptized catechumen would have been condemned to Hell without baptism.  It’s just more evidence that no one can be saved without baptism, as Jesus said (John 3:5) and as the Church has defined.

 

Regarding morning prayers, people should make a morning offering to start the day.  This is a good one:

 

“O my God, in union with the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I offer Thee the Precious Blood of Jesus from all the altars throughout the world, joining with It the offering of my every thought, word, and action of this day. O my Jesus, I desire today to gain every indulgence and merit I can, offering them, together with myself, to Mary Immaculate, that she may best apply them in the interests of Thy most Sacred Heart.  O Precious Blood of Jesus, save us.  Immaculate heart of Mary, pray for us; Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.” 

 

The prayer to the Most Holy Trinity given by the angel at Fatima is also recommended:

 

Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly.
I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity
of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world,
in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges, and indifference
by which He is offended.  And through the infinite merit
of His Most Sacred Heart, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.

 

The following indulgenced short prayers found in the New Roman Missal by Fr. Lasance are also good to start a day:

 

-Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation.

-My Mother, preserve me this day from mortal sin.

-Holy Mary, deliver us from the pains of Hell.

-My Mother, my trust.

-Mary, Virgin Mother of God, pray to Jesus for me.

-In thy Conception, O Virgin Mary, thou wast immaculate; pray for us to the Father, whose Son Jesus Christ, conceived of the Holy Ghost, thou didst bring forth.

-To thee, O Virgin Mother, who wast never defiled with the slightest stain of original or actual sin, I commend and entrust the purity of my heart.

-O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

 

Heretical bishops

 

Good day Diamond Brothers, I want to know about the Traditional Bishops that are holding heresy. We Know that a Pope loses the pontifficate if he fall into heresy. But Can Bishop loose the anionting of the episcopacy? Can they seize to be Bishops by heresy?

 

Sincerely

Emmanuel Nwafor

Abuja Nigeria

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  No, once a person receives the fullness of the priesthood through Episcopal Consecration the powers which come from that consecration cannot be taken away from him.  But a heretical bishop loses all jurisdiction (or authority) in the Catholic Church.  So, a bishop who becomes a heretic would still be a bishop, but would cease to be a Catholic bishop and would cease to hold authority over Catholics.

 

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ‘ipso facto’ deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

 

Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos infallible

 

I notice that alot of sedevacantists are offened by john paul II and Benedict XVI's visits to non-catholic worship services, did any pope ever do this before vatican II?  When pope Pius XI condemmed inter faith prayer meetings (like assisi) was this ex cathedra or just his personal feelings?


God Bless,

Glenn

 

MHFM: No true pope took part in non-Catholic worship services.  The Church has always forbidden such activity under pain of mortal sin.  Regarding Pius XI’s condemnations of interfaith prayer meetings, it was infallible because it was a clear example of a pope speaking with the ordinary and universal magisterium (which is infallible according to Vatican I).  Not everything a pope says in an encyclical is part of the ordinary and universal magisterium (as we will further prove by something we will soon post), but when a pope uses language such as the following it is definitely from the ordinary and universal magisterium.

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics, for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it …”

 

The pope says “this Apostolic See” has never allowed its subjects to take part in non-Catholic assemblies.  This means that it is the universal teaching of the Church that such an action is forbidden.  Notice that the pope links this teaching with how the union of Christians is to be promoted; in other words, this is not merely an ecclesiastical law or a Church discipline, but a Church law connected with the Catholic Faith. 

 

Additionally, while it’s not necessary to prove that this statement of Pius XI is ex cathedra in order to prove that it’s binding and that it refutes the heresies of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II antipopes, one could argue that it is ex cathedra.  Here’s why: in order for a statement to be ex cathedra a pope must speak: 1) as pastor and teacher of all Christians, 2) on a point of faith or morals to be believed by the universal Church, and 3) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority.  When Pius XI says “This Apostolic See,” he is saying “This Chair of St. Peter.”  The Apostolic See = the Chair of St. Peter.  That means that he is speaking as pastor and teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority as occupant of the Chair of St. Peter.  And since he is setting forth a teaching involving faith or morals which has always been binding on all “subjects” of the Church, one could argue that he has fulfilled the conditions to speak from the Chair of Peter mentioned by Vatican I.

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4: “And since the sentiment of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over when He says: ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Mt. 16:18], these words which were spoken are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated.”

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:

“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

 

Kissing Koran question

 

I have a hypothetical question that could happen in the future.

You can answer yes or no and if you desire, explain your answer. In my book there is no right or wrong answer.

 

You fall into the hands of radical Muslims. The Muslim shows you a copy of the Koran. The Muslim says: This book denies that your Christ is God. This book denies the atonement of Christ. This book denies that your Christ rose from the dead. Reverently kiss this book or we will behead you. What would be the proper response, kiss or not?

 

MHFM: Of course you couldn’t kiss the book.  That’s quite obvious.  In that scenario the choice is martyrdom or apostasy; the Catholic must choose martyrdom.  You are wrong when you say that there is no wrong answer to that question.

 

Geocentrism

 

Was the view Geocentricism declared as infallible when Galileo was condemned?

            

R.W.

 

What do you think of Geocentrism?

 

M… from Penn.

 

MHFM: We will be posting something on this issue soon.  We receive questions about it somewhat frequently.  There are some very important points about this issue which hold relevance to many things. 

 

Heresy of the Week note

 

The Heresy of the Week will now be updated on Mondays instead of Fridays.

 

Interested in salvation

 

Most Holy Family Monastery,

I have recently seen a couple segments of yours on DVD.  I went to your website and now my eyes are open.  Your teachings have brought my faith back to the front of my life.  I am soon to be twenty-one, and over the past several years I felt I just lost touch with the Church.  I believe that the current state of the Church has been the reason for that.  But now that I see the true state of events, what should I do in order to enjoy salvation?  Since the Consecration has changed in the New Mass, does that mean I have never really received true Eucharist?  Can salvation still be mine if I don't receive Eucharist?  If it is necessary, where can I go or how could I?

I read on the website that I should go to a priest who was ordained prior to 1968 for Confession.  What if I cannot find one?  If there are few genuine Catholic priests left, won't there eventually be none?  Is everyone now doomed because Confession would not be possible?

My last question deals with marriage.  My girlfriend is unfortunately non-Catholic.  In light of everything that  has come to my attention recently, I am going to do everything in my effort to convert her to the true faith.  If I am successful, and we decide that marriage is what God is calling us to, will that even be possible?  Can I still enter into a marriage that is pleasing to God given the current apostasy?

God bless,
Michael Piccillo

 

MHFM: Michael, your interest and that of so many others who contact us serves to show that if the immemorial teachings of the Church are simply made known – in other words, when people are preached to – people will become interested in the truth.  When the true Mass and teachings of the Church were taken away from people, they fell away.  To your first question, to enjoy salvation one must be baptized, hold the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled, and die in the state of grace.  This can best be done by having a strong prayer life, a true devotion to the Mother of God (daily Rosary), and a zeal for the Faith (which includes spiritual reading daily, evangelizing your friends and neighbors, studying the Faith to deepen your knowledge of God and His truth, avoiding the occasions of sin, etc.)  We strongly recommend everyone to make the true devotion to Mary set forth by St. Louis De Montfort by his book True Devotion to Mary.  For those who have been away from the Faith, they should make the profession of Faith for converts from the Council of Trent, which is given on our website.  Those who were involved in the Novus Ordo should also confess that they have attended a non-Catholic service (and mention for how long). 

 

To your second question, the answer is yes: since the New Mass is invalid, that means that you have never received the Eucharist (assuming that you have only attended the New Mass).  To your third question, can salvation be yours if you don’t receive the Eucharist?  Our Lord teaches (in John 6) that receiving the Eucharist is necessary for salvation for those who can receive it.  If there is no acceptable option for you to receive the Eucharist, then there is no obligation to do so and one could be saved without doing so – a situation which many Catholics in Church history found themselves.  (St. Isaac Jogues, for instance, during his lengthy stays among particular groups of heathen in North America, was unable to say Mass or receive the Eucharist.  The Chinese Catholics were in a similar situation.)  There are old priests in many dioceses in the country to whom one could go for Confession; that can be done in this necessity.  We have posted in the E-Exchanges below the process by which one could get married without a priest.  But you could only marry a traditional Catholic.  The Church denounces mixed marriages.  People must be very careful not to enter into marriage with one who is not truly interested in the Faith, for many make the wrong decision which becomes a burden to them for most of their lives.  Again, it’s great to hear about your interest.

 

False apparition

 

Good day Dimond Bothers, I picked up a book tittled "Maria, Rosa Mystica" by A.M Weigl. I have read up to Page 66, and it's about a supposed "apparition" of Our Lady with the name Rosa Mystica" I don't if you have gone through it or done something on it, but with the pages i have read so far i am not comfortable at all.  this is what supposedly Our Lady said of Antipope paul vi… "One may send part of this wheat to my beloved son Paul VI. and tell him that this wheat comes from his home land of Brecia, from Montichiari, and that it is blessed by our apparition. Tell him also what my divine son Jesus Christ wishes... Part of the wheat is to be to Fatima"  I don't agree that the man who solemley decreed all the Heresies of Vatican II, just a year after that ambormination could be honored by Our Lady Mother of God as "my beloved son", and with the words that suggest Our Lord Jesus christ's and her's approval of him. 

 

MHFM:  Of course, that message cannot be from God.  It’s just another example of a false apparition of the Devil. 

 

St. John Vianney against dancing

 

MHFM: Here is the quote we mentioned on the radio program concerning St. John Vianney’s opposition to people taking part in the dancing that occurred at his time:

 

“There is not a commandment of God which dancing does not cause men to break… Mothers may indeed say: ‘Oh, I keep an eye on their dress; you cannot keep guard over their heart.  Go, you wicked parents, go down to Hell where the wrath of God awaits you, because of your conduct when you gave free scope to your children; go!  It will not be long before they join you, seeing that you have shown them the way so well… Then you will see whether your pastor was right in forbidding those Hellish amusements.’” (Abbé Francis Trocu, The Curé D’Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, p. 146)

 

We can only imagine what he would say about the proms and dances hosted by schools today – including almost all “Catholic” High Schools – which feature rock, rap and heavy metal music, in addition to horribly improper dress and dancing.  Obviously St. John Vianney would consider all of the parents who allow their children to take part in such dances to be in mortal sin.  That would include about 100% of parents who have their children in “Catholic” High Schools.  Considerations such as this may shed further light on the fewness of the saved.

 

Interested, what to do?

 

Bro. Dimond, I am writing this to you after visiting the website where you have the videos regarding Freemasonry and the Anti popes and Vatican II.  I found it quite disturbing but so much of what was there rang true in my heart and soul. :… I viewed the video entitled   Why the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination are Invalid .

 

This was astonishing to me because for about 10 years, during my prayer life I heard or felt a movement in my soul precisely telling me all that your video discusses.  I have had serious questions about the priest being valid and the Eucharist being truly consecrated.  I remember little about the Pre Vatican II mass as I was born in 1960 however there has always been something within my heart since I made my total consecration to Our Lady that something in the new mass was wrong, very wrong. 

 

After watching this video, I am almost heartsickened because I now realize that I have been deprived of the Sacraments and I am wondering where I should go to practice my faith… I was baptized a Catholic and have recently began attending the Tridentine Mass.  Can you tell me where it is that I can go to mass and be in full communion with the true One, Holy and Apostolic Roman Catholic Church.  How do I find such faithful priests?  I have recently started attending the Tridentine Mass.  Your videos online indicate that the priests ordained post Vatican II are not legitimate priests.  Am I correct?  If this is so, then how is it that the priest celebrating the Tridentine Mass be a true Catholic priest and does this mean that the mass I am attending is not valid?  Thank you

 

Ms. Rachel Laisne

 

MHFM: Rachel, unfortunately in this time of apostasy, there are almost zero faithful priests.  That’s what people need to realize.  Even in the case of priests who celebrate the traditional Mass, almost all of them believe that non-Catholics can be united to the Church without baptism or the Catholic Faith, which is heresy.  Many of them support the sinful birth control practice of NFP, and many of them accept the Vatican II antipopes as valid.  None of those priests can be financially supported, even if they are celebrating the Latin Mass.  And if they are notorious or imposing about their false positions, their Masses should not be attended.  Someone here would be happy to speak with you about your particular situation if you called us.   Please do so.  We’ve posted guidelines on our website about this difficult question – and we get questions about this all the time – so people should consult those.

 

Regarding your question about priests ordained post-Vatican II, if they were ordained in the traditional rite of ordination by a bishop consecrated in the traditional rite of Episcopal Consecration then they would be valid.  But that would be the case with priests ordained independently of the dioceses because the dioceses began using the new invalid rites of Paul VI after 1968-1969.

 

Are unbaptized children wicked?

 

MHFM: The material we have put out defending and promoting the truths of the Catholic Faith sometimes sparks strong reactions among heretics of various persuasions.  People in the Novus Ordo Church, as well as people who profess to be traditional Catholics but who have fallen prey to one of the many errors that unfortunately circulate today, very often have comments on our material.  So, just as we have many times in the past, we will continue to post in this column some quick comments/refutations of the statements and points that have been raised by some of these individuals.  If our response gets too long, we will post a separate article.

 

One individual (a schismatic referred to a few E-Exchanges below) has commented on our position that the term “justification of the impious/wicked” doesn’t describe unbaptized infants, but only mortal sinners above the age of reason.  Before we continue, it should be pointed out that this particular individual has no credibility: he has, among other things, claimed to be a prophet while admitting he was a heretic; publicly contradicted positions he and his followers profess in writing as truths of faith; and stated, among many other things, that St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus “idolized” St. Thomas Aquinas.  To “idolize” someone is to make an idol out of him; i.e., it is to commit idolatry.  To assert that canonized saints of the Catholic Church, who are also Doctors of the Church, made idols out of another saint – and therefore that the Church raised idolaters up for universal veneration and imitation – is horribly wicked and impious, to re-use the aforementioned phrase and apply it to an appropriate object, if I may do so.  It is equivalent to heresy.  When someone reads such an utterly idiotic statement from someone who purports to be defending Catholic teaching – a statement so wicked, so foolish, and so insulting to the Catholic Church – that in itself should be sufficient to cause a person to realize that he should stay far, far away from such a heretic’s material.  Nevertheless, since we have refuted this individual before – and lest a few of our readers who are familiar with him think we don’t have a response to his latest – we thought we’d post the following few points.

 

We have stated our position that the Council of Trent’s use of the term iustificationis impii (the justification of the impious/wicked) is a strong phrase which describes mortal sinners above the age of reason.  (That word “impii”  is used in Jude 1:4 and Jude 1:15.  Both usages – as is clear from the context – describe mortal sinners above the age of reason.)  Even though unbaptized infants are certainly guilty of original sin and they are outside the Church and under the dominion of the Devil until they receive Baptism, they are incapable of actual sins (de fide, Trent); and therefore it is our position that the strong phrase (which we believe describes mortal sinners) doesn’t apply to them.   That was simply the point we made; nothing more, nothing less.  Based on this rather innocuous statement of our position, this utterly dishonest individual – like so many other Protestants and heretics who use impressionistic rhetoric and take things out of context to attempt to make someone they don’t like look bad or to attribute to him things he doesn’t hold – went on a tirade declaring that we are heretics for saying that infants are not sinners, and that we essentially don’t believe that infants are under the dominion of the Devil and barred from Heaven if they die without baptism – something that is completely untrue. He states:  

 

“The Dimond Brothers idolize children.   Every little infant is rotten to the core.  The Dimond Brothers have actually taught that unbaptized infants are not really evil; they are not wicked sinners.”

 

He didn’t take the time to point out to his few schismatic followers that all we did was repeat the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, which declares that infants are incapable of actual sins, even though they are certainly in original sin:

 

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, #4 on Original Sin: “For by reason of this rule of faith from a tradition of the apostles even infants, who could not as yet commit any sins of themselves, are for this reason [original sin] truly baptized for the remission of sins… for unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].” (Denzinger 791)

 

Unbaptized infants have original sin, but they are incapable of actual sins (de fide).  That’s all we said; if you condemn that as heresy then you condemn the Council of Trent.  Without pointing out that this is what we were repeating, he dishonestly attempted to condemn our “heresy” as follows – and he fell into a major ditch, as heretics and false prophets so often do, as a result:

 

 He stated: “People are looking at these young ones; and they are idolizing them, and they are making them innocent.”

 

He clearly and repeatedly indicated that it’s “heresy” to consider unbaptized infants “innocent.”  Keep that in mind.  First of all, it should be pointed out that we didn’t say once that they were innocent.  So this is another example of this totally dishonest fool attributing to someone a statement which he didn’t make.  Second, while he is condeming as “heretics” those who refer to unbaptized infants as INNOCENT, I guess this schismatic has never heard of the feast of THE HOLY INNOCENTS.  In case he didn’t know, on Dec. 28 of each year Catholics celebrate the feast of the Holy Innocents, which refers to those children slaughtered by Herod at the time of Christ.  These children were in original sin, but the Liturgy of the Church calls them “innocents” because they had no actual sins.  We don’t know how many times this wicked and impious false prophet schismatic needs to be refuted before he will crawl back into his hole, convert to the Catholic Faith and close up his sect, but the handful who actually are persuaded by this utterly illogical servant of the Devil are not innocent, but truly wicked.

 

To hammer the point home, we will quote Dom Prosper Gueranger, who quotes the Antiphon of the Magnificat from the Liturgy:

 

“Innocent infants were slain for Christ, children at the breast were murdered by a wicked king…”

 

By the way, this is a quotation one of us came across shortly after this latest “controversy” erupted.  It further demonstrates the point and contradicts the heretic. 

                                                                                                                                                                                          

Pope Pius XII, Quemadmodum (#1), Jan. 6, 1946: “But of almost all the countless ills born of the dire struggle none so hurts or wounds Our paternal heart as that which involves a host of innocent children, millions of whom it is estimated are in many countries without the necessities of life…”

 

Pius XII is clearly speaking here of both baptized and unbaptized children, who were destitute as a result of World War II.  Thus, he is clearly describing many unbaptized children as “innocent.”  He describes them as such not because they aren’t in original sin – they are; not because they can be saved – they cannot; and not because they aren’t under the dominion of the Devil – they are; but because they have no actual sins on their souls and are therefore innocent of all actual sins.  It’s quite a simple distinction, but heretics often corrupt proper distinctions and attack those who make them.

 

[By the way, some people in the Old Testament – who were still in the state of original sin – were described as “holy” (Ecclesiasticus 27:4; Numbers 6:14; 1 Esdras 8:28) because they had the preliminary form of justification that was given in the Old Testament, but they did not have the complete true justification which is only available in the New Testament period.]

 

Valid priests?

 

Good morning,

I have recently started to learn more about & am attending a Traditional Catholic Church. I am a cradle catholic & was around 6 yrs old when the Latin Mass was changed to the Novus Ordo mass.  I have been told that since the words of consecration have been changed from "For this is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith;
which shall be shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins", many has been changed to "all", that this makes the new mass invalid. Does this mean that all priests ordained after Pope Paul VI are invalid priests & are they invalid even if they say the traditional Latin Mass??

Also, if someone receives the sacraments by a Novus Ordo priest or heretic with the proper intention of the church, matter & form, is it still valid?? Your website is very informative & I appreciate the time you take to answer questions.

thank you,
Cindy Tuss

 

MHFM: Thanks, we’re glad you like the website.  The only priests ordained after Antipope Paul VI who are valid are those who have been ordained in the traditional rite of ordination (whether Eastern Rite or Roman Rite ) by a bishop who was ordained in the traditional rite of consecration.  And there were many priests who continued to be ordained validly in the traditional rites after Paul VI changed them in the Novus Ordo Church.  But those priests and the bishops who ordained them were independent of the dioceses which had been overtaken by the counterfeit V-2 Church.  Regarding your second question, a validly ordained priest who is a heretic (such as a Novus Ordo priest or Eastern “Orthodox”) can validly confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist, provided matter and form is adhered to.  But that would only apply to a priest validly ordained in the traditional rite, of course.  And since the Novus Ordo Mass has an invalid form, it wouldn't matter if a validly ordained priest said it; it would still be invalid.

 

We hope that answers your questions.

 

When the baptized children of heretics become heretics

 

So what is Church’s teaching on Baptism—there is but one baptism and one Church that one is baptized too. If properly done, (even a lay person can baptized in case of emergency—so a pagan with the correct intention could baptized) –so all Protestants start off as members of the Church—right—wrong?   If there is but one baptism and one Church at what point do these heretics stop being members of the one Church?—if they were members at one time, are they not the same as a fallen away Catholic and only need a conversion of heart and confession to become members again?

 

MHFM: To your first question, yes, as the Council of Florence says, anyone (including a pagan) is capable of validly baptizing. 

 

>>>so all Protestants start off as members of the Church—right—wrong?>>>

 

Wrong.  It is not true that all Protestants start off as members of the Church.  Protestants who were baptized as infants started out as members of the Church, yes…

 

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 869)

 

but Protestants who were baptized into a sect while rejecting the Catholic Church or some of its teachings were baptized as heretics and therefore were never made members of the Church. 

 

>>>>If there is but one baptism and one Church at what point do these heretics stop being members of the one Church?—>>>>

 

Your question needs to be more precise.  What you mean is: at what point do these baptized individuals start being heretics and stop being members of the Church (for no heretic is a member of the Church).  We’re glad that you asked this question because there is an individual in the Western part of this country (who is definitely a schismatic and has essentially founded his own sect and whose positions are rife with blatant inconsistencies) who states that all the baptized children of heretics become heretics at the age of reason.  He says that as soon as the child reaches the age of reason he becomes a heretic.  He says that this position is a dogma, and that our position – which is that the baptized child of a heretic (e.g. a baptized child of a Protestant) becomes a Protestant heretic at the time when he rejects the Catholic Church or one of its teachings – is actually heresy.  We have already totally refuted his utterly illogical position elsewhere, but a few short comments are in order here, since he actually says that our position was the root cause of the Great Apostasy.  We’ve come to our position after careful thought and study of the matter; we will see below that it is our position which is the Catholic position, and totally in accord with logic, the teaching of the Church and Tradition. 

 

In answering this question precisely, we must point out that the Catholic Church has never infallibly defined at exactly what point the children of sect members become heretics/sect members, or specifically what actions render them heretics/sect members.  We know that they become heretics when they obstinately reject a Catholic teaching or the authority of the Church, but debate could occur as to exactly what actions, short of an explicit rejection of Catholic teaching or the Catholic Church or the Trinity or the Incarnation, renders them heretics and causes them to lose the Catholic Faith and subjection to the Roman Pontiff which they already received at their baptism as infants.   Secondly, we must point out that heresy is a personal sin which severs membership in the Church and sends a person to Hell because one draws down on his own head an eternal flame.   

 

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:

“… ALL HERETICS corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”

 

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, on Heretics: “We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under.  They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride.”

 

Notice, the councils teach that all heretics bring the punishment down on themselves, and all heretics are alike in their own pride.  Thus, it is not the pride of one’s father or mother, nor the heresy of one’s father or mother, that brings down eternal punishment on one’s head; but it is one’s own pride and one’s own act that makes one a heretic.  This, in itself, should demonstrate to us that the baptized child of a sect member doesn’t become a heretic immediately upon hitting the age of reason, for he hasn’t yet done anything at all; but he becomes a heretic at that time when he, through his own pride and bad will, obstinately embraces a heresy and rejects the teaching of the true Church.  This is, of course, perfectly logical and consistent; and anyone who thinks about this issue deeply and honestly (something the aforementioned sect member, mired in his blindness, does not do) would have to come to the same position. 

 

For example: suppose you have a family that adheres to the Society of St. Pius X.  Suppose they are obstinate in the false positions of the SSPX; they obstinately reject the “canonizations” of the one they deem to be the pope; they filter all of the official teachings of the Vatican II sect (which they think is the Catholic Church) according to the what the SSPX says about them, etc.  They are schismatics; they are sect members.  There are certainly some of these in the SSPX.  Now suppose this unfortunately schismatic family has two baptized children below the age of reason, one of whom reaches the age of reason tomorrow.  According to the position of the schismatic person mentioned above, as soon this baptized child hits the age of reason in the schismatic family he becomes a schismatic, for “as soon as the child reaches the age of reason he becomes a heretic. 

 

Now suppose that a year later the other baptized child in this family is about to hit the age of reason.  But one day before their other child hits the age of reason this family of the Society of St. Pius X comes to a realization of the truth, rejects their false positions and converts to the Catholic Faith.  According to the position of the aforementioned schismatic, their second baptized child, upon hitting the age of reason (although he did nothing different from his older sibling), would become a Catholic, since his parents are now Catholic!  Could anything be more stupid?  According to this illogical and false position, every baptized child in this family would become a Catholic or a heretic based, not on his own actions, but upon whether his parents were heretics or Catholics at the time he reached the age of reason!  This contradicts the councils which teach that it is through one’s own actions that one becomes a heretic.  Only a person who doesn’t think deeply about the dogmas, or who doesn’t savor logical consistency, or who is just a dishonest heretic, could obstinately advance this nonsense and have the audacity to actually call our position (which is consistent with Catholic teaching) the root cause of the Great Apostasy. 

 

This example demonstrates, once again, that the baptized children of sect members don’t become sect members and lose the Catholic Faith they received at baptism immediately at the age of reason, but when they obstinately embrace heresy and reject the Catholic Faith or one of its teachings.  Moreover, the gravity of the error of the aforementioned schismatic, who outrageously called our true position the root cause of the Great Apostasy – just one of his many grievous schismatic mistakes – becomes that much more obvious when we consider that exactly what we hold on this issue was held in the early Church, as can be seen here from the Council of Elvira way back in 300 A.D!  (Protestants are often forced to say that the Great Apostasy started back in the early Church when confronted by evidence from the early Church which they don’t like.  The aforementioned schismatic, who criticized our position on this issue, would have to agree and say that the Great Apostasy started in 300).

 

Council of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy, and then returns again, it is determined that penance is not to be denied to such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin.  Let him do penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward to communion.  If, indeed, there were children who were led astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be received without delay.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)

 

We can see that the Council of Elvira recognized that the children of heretics don’t become heretics at the age of reason, but when they obstinately embrace the heresy by rejecting Catholic teaching.  This proves that our position was held in the early Church, and it utterly refutes the aforementioned schismatic.  While the Council of Elvira was a regional, not dogmatic, council, it demonstrates that the position we’ve enunciated above was held since the beginning – being consistent with logic and the Christian teaching, delivered by the apostles, on what makes one a heretic. 

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 5., A. 3: “Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will.  Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error.”

 

St. Augustine, Against the Manichees: “In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.” (quoted by Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 11. A. 2.)

 

Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

 

By the way, the reason that the aforementioned schismatic lashes out at our true position on this issue is because it devastates his entire sect.  He has actually had his handful of schismatic followers sign a formal statement of Faith declaring that all the people above reason at all traditional chapels in the world are heretics.  Well, if our position on this issue is true (which it is), then this blows away his official declaration that all the people at these chapels are heretics and it proves that he is a schismatic.  Furthermore, notice that Pope Clement VI enunciates exactly our position in the document below:

 

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.  In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”[33]

 

In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see the position we’ve explained on this issue clearly taught.  All who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”  So, one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost.  2)  Among those who are baptized as infants, they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism.  They only sever that membership (which they already possess) when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

 

To your final question, for a Protestant to convert he or she needs to accept the Catholic Faith, reject Protestantism, and be forgiven in confession.  He also should make an abjuration, but since this is an ecclesiastical law, in danger of death, for instance, a Protestant who accepted the Catholic Faith and rejected Protestantism and was forgiven in confession would be a Catholic and therefore could be saved.

 

Convert

 

Dear Dimond Brothers,

After reading and listening to items on your website, I seem to be in a catch-22 situation. I have been looking into converting to Catholicism and the New Mass seems to be only what's available where I live in southwestern Michigan. (Unless you know of a church I haven't found?) The problem lies in that I have never been baptized so in order for it to take place, I must not only take RCIA classes but attend the New Mass. My question to you here is, what do you recommend? Would it not be better to attend the New Mass and classes than remain unbaptized since this is how it has to be done now because of Vatican II rules? Or how would one find a traditional Priest that might be willing to do a baptism?

Many thanks for your informative and thought provoking articles.

Linda

 

MHFM: Linda, it's great to hear about your interest.  It’s critical that you come to the realization that you cannot go to the New Mass if you want to truly convert, since it is a false and invalid Mass.  We have a DVD on this topic which explains it.  Also, attached is a copy of the basic Catholic catechism, which you should learn on your own.  You don't need to take classes, especially not from those who instruct for the new, false Vatican II “Church.”  The Profession of Faith for converts is on our website.  You should look it over and make it.  We know someone in Michigan who might be able to help you with your baptism.  But you first need to be convinced that one cannot attend the New Mass or accept the new Vatican II religion.

 

We'd be happy to discuss this with you if you called us at 1-800-275-1126.  Do you have a rosary, and know how to pray it?

 

St. John Vianney on ignorance being a sin

 

“The great misfortune of those poor people was their ignorance of religion and the indifference that resulted therefrom.  They were by no means unbelievers, for they had preserved a remnant of faith.  Their parish priest [St. John Vianney], severe but clear sighted, saw in their ignorance more than a mere deficiency – he thought it a sin.  We are convinced,’ he declared from the pulpit, ‘that this sin alone causes the loss of more souls than all the other sins together, because he who is ignorant does not realize the harm he does by his sin, nor the great good which he forfeits.’” (Abbé Francis Trocu, The Curé D’Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, pp. 127-128)

 

MHFM:  No adult can be saved while being ignorant of the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.).  It is true, of course, that an adult could be ignorant of some aspects of Catholic Faith (while holding the essential mysteries) and not be guilty; but one who is ignorant of the basics, or things which one clearly should learn to practice the Faith in his daily life – as were many of the people with whom St. John Vianney was dealing – is guilty of sin.  This sinful ignorance among the people of his day is analagous to the ignorance of many in the Novus Ordo churches today.  Most of them, through their own lack of interest in God and in the Catholic Faith, fail to learn, for instance (even though they easily could), that Protestant religions are heretical sects which lead to damnation, that non-Chrisian religions are of the Devil, etc.  Since they are ignorant of these things, they willingly imbibe the new religion of false ecumenism presented by the Vatican II sect and their Novus Ordo “priests.”  They are not excused because they don’t know any traditional Catholic who is informing them; their ignorance is a result of their sins of sloth, lack of interest, etc. and therefore their ignorant state is mortally sinful.  We’ve talked to so many even adult “traditional” Catholics who haven’t learned what the Papacy is or what Papal Infallibility means.  This is another example of sinful ignorance.

 

Marriage without a priest

 

Good Day Dimond Brothers,

 

I am writing on behalf of the Traditional Catholic Society Abuja, Nigeria. we recieved your advice concerning the heretical traditional Priest. It encouraged us to take the stand that he should not come any more. Thank you.

On thursday last week, one of our member, a mother, passed on. She has been following the traditional teachings of the church since we left the Vatican II sect, though her husband is still a full member of the VII. Her name is mrs. Ndiokwelu. It's a week now, and that's because we got the news late. So we trully want to know what we are to do in the following situations:

1. At the death of a Faithful Catholic, like this one.

2. when in need of Booking Mass

3. in time of marriage for our members

 

Thank you for being there for so many souls.

 

Sincerely

Emmanuel Nwafor.

Abuja, Nigeria.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  In your present situation, you should just pray for the soul of the deceased traditional Catholic. 

 

Regarding marriage, it can be contracted without a priest when no acceptable priests are available.  This is because in marriage the sacrament is exchanged between the spouses and the priest is merely the official witness.  In the absence of a priest, the bride and groom should exchange consent using the traditional words that are used when there is a priest.  It should be done in the presence of two witnesses.  Any Catholic may ask the questions which precede the exchange of consent, but a male is preferable.  This goes as follows:

 

The person asks the bridegroom: N., do you take N., here present, for your lawful wife according to the rite of our holy mother, the Church?  The bridegroom replies: I do. 

 

Then the person asks the bride: N., do you take N., here present, for your lawful husband according to the rite of our holy mother, the Church?  The bride replies: I do. 

 

Then the person leading the ceremony in the absence of a priest says: Now join your right hands and say after me:

 

[Groom says] I, N.N., take you, N.N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. 

 

[Bride says]: I, N.N., take you, N.N., for my lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. 

 

Also, both the bride and the groom should sign a document stating that they are freely entering into sacramental marriage with the other person.  Marriage without a priest is mentioned in canon 1098.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

 

Communist Infiltration

 

Dear Brother Dimond: i am interested in reading the testimony given to the Congress in the 50's by Bella Dodd. She testified as to the infiltration of the Communist Party into the Catholic Church. Can you help? Thank you.

JB

 

MHFM: We can tell you this: Mrs. Bella Dodd spent most of her life in the Communist Party of America and was Attorney General designate had the Party won the White House.  After her defection, she revealed that one of her jobs as a Communist agent was to encourage young radicals (not always card-carrying Communists) to enter Catholic seminaries.  She said that before she had left the Party in the U.S. she had encouraged almost 1,000 young radicals to infiltrate the seminaries and religious orders; she was only one Communist.

Brother Joseph Natale, the founder of Most Holy Family Monastery, was present at one of Bella Dodd’s lectures in the early 1950’s.  He stated:

 

“I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end.  Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter.  You would think she was the world’s greatest prophet, but she was no prophet.  She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church.  She explained that of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.”

 

Bella Dodd converted to Catholicism at the end of her life.  Speaking as an ex-Communist, she said: “In the 1930’s, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.”  The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as monsignors and bishops.  Back then, she said: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church.  They are working to bring about change in order that the Catholic Church would not be effective against Communism.”  She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognize the Catholic Church.” (This was 10 to 12 years before Vatican II.)

Brother Joseph went on relating what Bella Dodd had said: “The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing.  Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church…  to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of predjudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries.  This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies.  The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.”

           


new articles

 

MHFM: Once we’re finished with the major project we’ve been working on (we’re almost completely finished), we plan on posting two articles on other issues which are much debated and very controversial in the traditionalist world.  Further study of one of these issues has led to some important new insights on the other.  Some of these facts which we will discuss absolutely blow away a position which is rampant among “traditionalists,” and they further confirm (not that there was any doubt) that the position we’ve advocated is in line with the truth.  These articles won’t be composed and then posted for some time (for we are completing this other project we have mentioned), but we will continue to update our website in the meantime.

 

Confession

 

may I make confession with a piece of paper (on which I would write my sins, so that I would not forget something), and read my sins from that piece of paper? 12)if I don't know for sure if I commit some kind of sin, may I confess that sin, and add that I am not sure if I've made it?

 

R.P.

 

MHFM: Yes to both questions.

 

Siri and false elections

 

hello Brothers,

 

If i understand it, in order for john XXIII through Benedict XVI to be antipopes something would have had to have gone wrong at  the 1958 and 1963 conclaves. Is it your theory that there was communication with the outside at both conclaves and therefore John XXIII and Paul VI elections were invalid and so neither of them were protected by the holy spirit? But what would have rendered John Paul I and John Paul II's elections invalid? Is it possilbe that the "Siri Thesis" is correct and Cardnal Siri (Gregory XVII) was the true pope (by law) until his death in 1989... The way I see it, the only way that five consecutive popes could really be antipopes and menifest heretics is if the ones who elected them were manifest heretics or if something went wrong at the council because nothing like this has ever happened before.

 

MHFM:  According to Pope Paul IV’s Bull (which is quoted on our website), in order for these men to be antipopes (as they are) something would not have had to have gone wrong in the conclaves.  The fact that they were heretics is sufficient in itself to render them antipopes and their elections invalid.  However, it makes perfect sense that something did go wrong in the 1958 and 1963 conclaves, as the evidence indicates.  The fact that Siri was elected and then intimidated into not accepting the office in the 1963 conclave is even admitted by Malachi Martin.  The invalidating factor would be the outside communication combined with the fact that Siri was elected and then didn’t have freedom to accept it.  Siri did not remain the pope for very long, however, and certainly not until his death 1989.  This is because he fully accepted the Vatican II antipopes and therefore abdicated by going along with them.  He even gave the funeral homily for John Paul I!  The Siri information is interesting, but completely unnecessary in proving the point that the Vatican II “popes” are not true popes.

 

We are undoubtedly dealing with a set of conspirators, in addition to manifest heretics.  John XXIII was a Freemason, as the Grand Master of the Grand Orient Lodge of Italy stated.  Paul VI and John Paul II were probably Jews; their families have Jewish lineages.  In this book which we are just about finished, there is much new information, including a discussion of something one of the Vatican II antipopes said which cryptically reveals that he was a Jewish infiltrator. 

 

Benedict XVI is probably an occultist of some sort, a high level one.  We say this because a man as intelligent as he is fully understands that he is knowingly deceiving the world and playing a role when he poses as a Catholic pope while getting initiated into Islam, saying that Jesus might not even be the Messiah, etc.  We’ve just seen recently in the news from Poland how real it is to speak of infiltrators posing as members of the clergy and working for the Church’s enemies.  But regardless, we can prove without any doubt that Benedict XVI is a public heretic and therefore not the pope based on doctrinal grounds alone.

 

EENS is nuts?

 

Brother Dimond,

            

Absolutely no salvation outside the Church?  You're nuts man.  The Church has always taught that people can be saved who are not Catholic.  I don't believe however that any liberal, atheist, pagan or whoever will get to Heaven.  The Church rejects both extremes.  And no valid Pope since Pius XII?  Go and see a psychologist!  As far as the Latin Mass is concerned, I have nothing against it.  Our Holy Father Pope Benedict as well as Pope John Paul the Great says it's ok to attend the Latin Mass.  But you have no right to reject the New Mass.  It was promulgated by a valid pope, Pope Paul VI.  Get with it man!

 

Eric B. D

 

MHFM: No, a person like yourself, who actually claims to be Catholic and says that it’s “nuts” to assert that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church when the Church has dogmatically defined this, deserves to be considered nuts.  Your e-mail provides an effective demonstration of why God allowed the post-Vatican II deception to occur: people like yourself don’t deserve Catholic priests, a valid Mass all over the world, and true popes reigning in this time.  You got exactly what you deserved in being deceived by the post-Vatican II apostasy.

 

It also makes perfect sense that you would think that John Paul II was great, for you think the dogmas of the Catholic Church are “nuts.”  (Those who think that the dogmas of the Church are great hold that people like yourself – who think that John Paul II was great – are worse than “nuts.”)  Here are the words of Pope Gregory XVI about heretics such as yourself – teaching as the dogma of the Catholic Church exactly that which you call “nuts.”

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life  You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.  He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’  Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma.  Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’  Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use.  We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction.  Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you.  But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

 

(By the way, some people have written to us asserting that it’s accurate to say “There is No Salvation Outside the Church,” but not “There is Absolutely No Salvation outside the Church.”  This is not true.

 

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “THERE IS INDEED ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

 

The original Latin reads: “Una vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur…”  The Latin words nullus omnino mean “absolutely nobody.”) 

 

Lastly, your position is illogical.  The Church has never said: “Yes, there is salvation outside the Church, but a very liberal pagan or atheist cannot be saved.”  It has declared that all who die as non-Catholics are lost.  Thus, if some Jews or Buddhists, etc. can be saved, then there is no basis whatsoever upon which you can argue that a liberal pagan or atheist cannot be saved.  Yet you take this position because it appeals to you – it’s what you like – and you believe only in what you want to believe, not what Christ has revealed.

 

Padre Pio

 

[Was Padre Pio a heretic]

 

Dear Brothers,
You may want to respond …

 

Regards,
Michael A. Creighton

 

MHFM: We responded to that in our E-Exchanges about two weeks ago.  You can find it below.

 

Palmer de Troya

 

Dear Rev. Brothers

 

Do you think that there is a problem with Palmar de Troya consecrations?. What's the difference between the ones Abp Thuc performed for Palmar de Troya and those he did for others?

 

Best wishes for 2007

AJNC 

 

MHFM: While we believe that the original consecration performed by Archbishop Thuc was valid, one would have to doubt the validity of subsequent consecrations peformed in their sect.  That’s because we know that they have changed the Mass, removed significant portions of it, etc.  Thus, there is no confidence that they would adhere to the traditional rite of ordination without deleting things or devising their own rites. 

 

By the way, their self-proclaimed “pope” also “solemnly declared” some years ago that, after the time of his declaration, there are no more valid sacraments outside the Palmerian sect.  In a discussion with a member of the Palmerian sect, one of us brought this declaration forward to prove that this Palmerian “pope” is a self-proclaimed evil and heretical antipope.  For his “solemn declaration” that there are no sacraments outside the Palmerian sect is false and ridiculous.  It’s part of the deposit of faith that even heretics can confer valid sacraments, provided matter, form, etc. are present.  The member of the Palmerian sect responded by saying that what their “pope” did was the equivalent of what Pope Leo XIII declared with regard to Anglican Orders in Apostolicae curae in 1896.  She failed to understand that Leo XIII was not making Anglican Orders invalid from time of his declaration (something he couldn’t do), but declaring that they were already invalid due to defects in the rite.

 

What about?

 

On your web site, you quoted:

Pope Pius XI (+ 1922): “We lament, too, the destruction of purity among women and young girls as is evidenced by the increasing immodesty of their dress and conversation and by their participation in shameful dances…” (Ubi Arcano # 14)

But, how about THE BORGIA POPE and his "dance of the chestnuts", his bastard children, his incestuous relationship with his daughter, his murders, etc.   I wonder if he said mass in Latin?  Hmmm.  Something to ponder don't you think?

 

Skip…

 

MHFM: The fact that a few true popes of the past were immoral (while not being manifestly heretical) is something one should be aware of.  (Some of these cases are greatly exaggerated by non-Catholic historians, however.)  Knowledge of, for instance, Pope Alexander VI’s immorality reminds a Catholic of the limits of the papal office, the meaning of infallibility, etc.  It also reminds a Catholic that just because one goes to the Latin Mass or purports to be a traditional Catholic, it doesn’t mean that he or she is going to Heaven, of course.  Many of these individuals commit mortal sins, demonstrate bad will and are not sincere.  That’s why Our Lord says that few are saved (Matthew 7:13).  But if you are insinuating (we’re not sure if you are) that an immoral pope who celebrated the Latin Mass somehow proves that it’s of no consequence whether one celebrates/attends the Latin Mass or the English Novus Ordo, that would, of course, be ridiculous.

 

Consecrating a bishop

 

Brothers,

 

I just learned that Bishop Kelly of the SSPV is going to consecrate Fr. Santay as bishop.  Can a bishop subjectively just decide to consecrate someone?  Supposedly, this is being done under the state of emergency, but the situation seems ripe for abuse.

                                                                                                

TR Quinlan

                                                                                           

MHFM: The laws which have forbidden a bishop to consecrate a bishop without a papal mandate are ecclesiastical laws, not divine laws.  A bishop may consecrate a bishop without a papal mandate in a state of necessity, as we will discuss in a future article we will have on jurisdiction and related matters.  Hence, the concept of Kelly consecrating one of his priests a bishop is not the problem.  The problem is that Kelly, as head of the SSPV, believes that members of false religions can be saved and is a heretic. 

 

The Society of St. Pius V, The Roman Catholic, Winter, 2005, p. 54: “Q. Do Catholics believe that non-Catholics cannot be saved.  A.  No.”

 

His group also refuses sacraments to those who believe (as the Church has defined) that only baptized Catholics can be saved.  Thus, no Catholic should receive the sacraments from his priests at all, since they are imposing and notorious about their heretical position.

 

Interested and wondering

 

Hi Brothers,

 

I have been studying the material on your website and I believe what you say about "no salvation outside the catholic church." Many people today are teaching universal salvation, and it is so appalling! I'm not at this moment a sedevacantist but I understand that even if you gave popes john XXIII though Benedict XVI the benefit of the dought the fact remains that it is clear that they were lax when it come to teaching "no salvation outside the church." 

 

I'm 19 years old and have grown up in the Novus ordo mass, I just recently discovered the beauty of the tridentine mass at the indult church downtown and I wonder why in the world did we need the change? The Novus ordo seems so empty now and I question the "for you and for all" in the consecration when the words of our lord are "for you and for many." I honestly feel that the more I look into tradition the more I feel disillusioned with the changes of Vatican II. But If I were to embrace the sedevacantist position…

 

God Bless,

 

Glenn

 

MHFM: It’s great to hear about your interest in these days of darkness.  You ask: why did they have to change the Mass?  The answer is they didn’t.  A group of manifestly heretical conspirators, headed by a manifestly heretical antipope, changed the Mass into a Protestant service with the help of Protestant ministers. 

 

Regarding Benedict XVI being “lax” on Outside the Church There is No Salvation, he isn’t merely “lax”; he utterly rejects the dogma.  He holds that we shouldn’t even convert Protestants and schismatics, as our material documents.  The Novus Ordo feels so empty, as you mentioned, because Christ isn’t present there, and it’s nothing more than a Protestant service posing as a Catholic Mass which people must totally avoid.  We hope you continue in the direction which God and Our Lady are leading you: the sedevacantist position and a full rejection of the Counter Church in fidelity to “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). 

 

Praying 3 Hail Marys for specific intentions – such as that you become convinced of the sedevacantist position if God wants you to (and He does) – is very powerful and something we recommend.

 

Defending Christmas gifts for heretics

 

Dear Dimond brother,

Just read your e-exchnage re Xmas presents; what a miserable pair of no good turds are yous....

 

Coomaraswamy?

 

Dear Brothers Michael & Peter Dimond, 

 

I am curious to know your attitude towards Rama Coomaraswamy, who choose to be Hindu, Perennialist and pretended also to be Traditionalist Catholic.  I ask because you have usually a page or pages on several prominent persons of the Traditionalist movement, but I cannot find anything specifically on Rama Coomaraswamy on your website. 

 

Kind regards,

Lucio Mascarenhas, Bombay, India.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  We don’t know anything about him being a Hindu, but he definitely denied the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  He obstinately held that “pagans” can be saved.  Those were the words he used in one of his articles.  He even stated in one of his writings something to the effect that it would be wrong to think that most pagans are saved; in other words, many pagans can be saved, but it’s wrong to think that more than half (of the hundreds and hundreds of millions out there) are saved.  Coomaraswamy was unfortunately a man who had no real Faith in Christ.  He didn’t believe that Christ was important enough that all the pagans had to know Him.

 

1 John 5:11-12: “And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life.  And this life is in his Son.  He that hath the Son, hath life.  He that hath not the Son, hath not life.

 

“Now this is life everlasting, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

 

As Pope Leo XIII says, he who rejects one dogma rejects all Faith.  He rejected the Revealer of the dogmas by refusing to accept the content of the dogma which He revealed.  Coomaraswamy was, very sadly but entirely through his own fault, a heretic.  One of us spoke with him a few years ago in an attempt to change his mind about the issue, but he was not interested in abandoning his heresy.

 

B-16 playing them like a fiddle

 

MHFM: A reader of ours was recently conversing via e-mail with the Novus Ordo “priest” named “Fr.” Brian Harrison.  (Harrison is a man who attempts, to no avail, to explain away every heresy of the post-Vatican II sect.)  In his e-mail, there was a very interesting comment.  Harrison wrote:

 

BH: “…I presume you've heard that Pope Benedict XVI has ordered that "pro multis" in the new Mass be retranslated correctly in all languages so as to say "for many" instead of "for all". (Why would an evil anti-Pope do that, if he thought that keeping the translation "for all" - which he could very easily have done - made sure that the vernacular "Masses" remained invalid,as most sedevacantists maintain?) I am saying "for many" already in my English Masses. I'm not going to wait years before the next edition of the Missal comes out!)”

 

BH

 

Notice that Harrison – and many other dupes in the Novus Ordo sect like him – is being played by Benedict XVI like a fiddle.  Remember, Antipope Benedict XVI just finished the most heretical stretch of his life, during which he committed numerous acts of heresy and schism in non-Catholic temples.  He was also initiated into the false religion of Islam by public prayer toward Mecca in a mosque on Nov. 30, 2006.  God allowed all of this heavy duty heresy and apostasy to come out quite publicly so that the whole world could see the satanic beast’s true colors.  Our readers will also recall that we wrote at the time that since Antipope Benedict XVI did this, we expected him to do some conservative things in order to deceive “conservative” members of the Novus Ordo. 

 

Shortly thereafter and around the same time, Antipope Benedict XVI said and did a few conservative things in order to deceive bad willed heretics such as the “priest” mentioned above.  One of those things was to approve a statement which criticized the translation of pro multis as “for all.”  Whether any such change ever gets implemented is another question.  Nevertheless, the fact that one of Benedict XVI’s “cardinals” even discussed such a thing makes all the “conservative” heretics in the Novus Ordo forget about Benedict XVI’s apostasy.  Notice that Harrison is diving for the bait. 

 

So, to answer his question: why would an evil antipope mention that “pro multis” should be translated as “for many”?  ) 1)  To deceive people like you, BH, because so long as you accept as a Catholic a man who has been initiated (for the whole world to see) into Islam, it doesn’t matter how many true Masses you attend, you are headed for Hell.  2) Almost all of the “priests” are invalid anyway, so even if they were using a 100% correct form of consecration, it would still be invalid.  3) The deletion of mysterium fidei (“the mystery of faith”) still causes a doubt about the validity.

 

But let’s focus in on #1.  After deeper consideration, Benedict XVI’s Nov. 30, 2006 activity in the Blue Mosque wasn’t just a heinous act of apostasy.  It is absolutely true to say that Benedict XVI was initiated into Islam.  Benedict XVI followed the Muslim’s command to turn toward “the Kiblah” –  the direction of Mecca.  Then the prayer began.  Benedict XVI prayed like the Muslims toward Mecca in a mosque.  He even crossed his arms in the Muslim prayer gestured called “the gesture of tranquility.”  Benedict XVI was initiated into Islam – no doubt about it.  He holds that one can be a Muslim and a “Catholic” at the same time – it’s all the same “God” according to him.

 

We cannot emphasize enough that Benedict XVI’s act was arguably the most notorious and worst act of apostasy since the promulgation of the Gospel, simply because of how many people saw it, combined with the position that Benedict XVI purports to hold and what he manifested and where he manifested it.  Since it was carried on the major news networks all over the world and in Muslim countries, an unknown multitude (over a billion?) witnessed this scandal of immeasurable proportions: the alleged leader of the world’s Christians praying like a Muslim toward Mecca in a mosque.  It was truly a signal moment which God allowed the whole world to see, to register, to take in, so that, whatever occurred hereafter (B-16 giving back the Latin Mass?), it would be there, on record, for Judgment Day, to convict and condemn if people fail to denounce this man as a non-Catholic apostate or continue to accept him because they consider other things more important than whether he denies Christ. 

 

Bowled over by video and website

 

I am watching the new mass video and I am absolutely bowled over.  By the way, fantastic website.

I was raised catholic, baptized, confirmed...but fell away from RCC after I visited a Newman Center at University of KY that made a mockery out of the mass that I was familiar with.  I was an altar boy and knew the latin responses and even considered the priesthood at one time.

After 20 years of 4 white walls and a 50-minute sermon, protestantism has lost its appeal ...I tried several versions including being a full blown calvinist for some time.

I am now attending a traditional anglican church that offers "mass" with the priest facing to the back...it sounds like the Roman Missal
translated to English and is far more respectful than any "catholic" church in this area. It is based on the 1928 BCP and feels like the
church of my youth - minus the Latin of course. 

This Anglican body (Anglican Province of America) is far more worshipful. than any catholic church around here.  For instance, I
attended St. John Neumann Catholic on the Vigil of Immaculate Conception and was aghast at the building - picasso art...silly women
parading all over the sanctuary...women serving communion...it was hideous… The Sedevacantist position seems to be more consistent.....so what can I do as a rebound catholic who desires a true communion with our savior and a valid worship?  There are no Tridentine masses within 150 miles of Charlotte.

sincerely and frustrated,

Michael Thayer

 

MHFM: It’s great to hear about your interest.  The first thing is to stop going to the invalid Anglican church.  The second thing is to make the Council of Trent’s profession of Faith for converts and begin praying the Rosary each day, if you’re aren’t already doing so. 

 

The Council of Trent’s Profession of Faith for Converts

 

Please call us and we can discuss your dilemma about where to go, if there is any place for you to go.  We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Defending JP2

 

Shame on you for trashing Pope John Paul II.  He was a great man, even if you think otherwise.  Where did the Church's teachings on obedience get lost in your translation?  As Christ was obedient from the Cross, so too were his disciples to their leaders, all the way on 21 centuries later.  Obedience is a Catholic virtue, and you guys seem to have ignored it.  The pre-Vatican II traditionalists were outvoted.  I have nothing against the Latin Mass, but rules are rules.  Get with the program.  I will pray for you.  Remember what Christ said about misleading people.....

 

Dweb

 

MHFM: How deceived and bad willed so many people are… I guess that’s why Our Lord spoke about how few find the way to salvation (Matthew 7:13).  Here are just two quotes demonstrating that John Paul II was one of the most wicked apostates in history.

 

John Paul II, Message to "Grand Sheikh Mohammed," Feb. 24, 2000: "Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion.  Islam has become a culture.  Christianity has become also a culture... I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture.  I thank those who are developing Islamic culture..."

 

John Paul II, March 21, 2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan...”[34]

 

Radio program

 

Hi,

 

I was looking at your website and I saw the page about the reaction to your radio address on "coast to coast." It sounds like something that could have been interesting to listen to. Is there anyway that one could possibly listen to an audio recording of the program?

 

thanks,

 

Glenn

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  Unfortunately no, the only way to listen to it is through coast to coast.

 

Musical instruments at Mass?

 

Dear Brother: Please could you tell me if Pope Pius X (or maybe another Pontiff) wrote a teaching regarding the use of musical instruments during the Mass.   On Midnight Mass this year, we had a stringed quartet during the Mass, and I am wondering if this is Traditional?   I have been told that only the organ is to be used in the Sacred Liturgy.  Could you please clarify this teaching? Thank you and God Bless.

 

Phil and Bryanne Weber

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  In his encyclical Musicae sacra, issued on Christmas of 1955, Pope Pius XII addressed this question.  He stated:

 

Pope Pius XII, Musicae sacra (#58-59), Dec. 25, 1955: “Among the musical instruments that have a place in church the organ rightly holds the principal position, since it is especially fitted for the sacred chants and sacred rites… Besides the organ, other instruments can be called upon to give great help in attaining the lofty purpose of sacred music, so long as they play nothing profane, nothing clamorous or strident and nothing at variance with the sacred services or the dignity of the place.  Among these the violin and other musical instruments that use the bow are outstanding because, when they are played by themselves or with other stringed instruments or with the organ, they express the joyous and sad sentiments of the soul with an indescribable power.”

 

Changing consecration

 

Brother Dimond,

An aquaintance who believes the NO Mass is valid responded to my citation of Pius V, Council of Trent, regarding the valid words of the consecration of the wine, in this manner:" He refers to how Pius V established excommunication for modifications to the Mass done 'without Our approval and consent'. That was an invocation of the 'Royal We,' meaning, the approval and consent of a reigning Pontiff.  And, the Novus Ordo Mass did have the approval and consent of a reigning Pontiff.” If one accepts that none of the Vatican II popes involved was/is a valid pope, the problem is resolved.  In the case of a valid pope, e.g., Pius XII, does the argument of the "Royal We" apply?  I recall seeing in a writing of John Paul II that he used, "I," rather than ,"We."  Does this have any significance in the matter?

In a similar situation, I quoted from Pius XI's encyclical, Mortalium animos, to a priest friend, regarding non-Catholics, etc.  He replied that
Vatican II 'changed all that."  If there is a "Royal We" principle, then Vatican II (regarding the new ecumenism) would be right. If the "Royal We" does not pass through from doctrine-to-doctrine,  (regarding theTridentine Mass, and the words of consecration, Vatican II would be right, again.  On the other hand, maybe there's NO SUCH THING AS A "ROYAL WE" PRINCIPLE.

 

-bucky

 

MHFM: A pope can change disciplinary matters, but he cannot touch matters of Faith or matters pertaining to the “substance of the sacraments.”

 

Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo, Dec. 26, 1910:
"it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments" (Denz. 2147a)

 

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947:
"the Church has no power over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign..."

 

The words of consecration pertain to the substance of the Sacrament of the Eucharist because they were specifically instituted by Our Lord.  Thus, not even a true pope could change them.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo," Decree of union with the Armenians:
"THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT ARE THE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR WITH WHICH HE EFFECTED THIS SACRAMENT." (Denzinger 698)  

Rock music video

 

Dear brother Dimond, the information on the rock video is amazing, but do you know if he has turned catholic? He’s very sincere and I was
wondering if you have given him catholic information?
thanks.

 

MHFM: [Note: this person is referring to the video we sell called Rock and Roll Sorcerers of the New Age Revolution, by a Protestant named Joe Schimmel.]  We have no information that Joe Schimmel became a Catholic.  We sent him a package a few years back in the hope of converting him.  We have also tried to call him numerous times, but were unable to reach him.  He’s a Protestant who rejects the Catholic Church and promotes the heresy of faith alone.  While he’s sincere about some things, unfortunately he’s not sincere overall.  We hope he becomes so, but if he were truly sincere he would see that Protestantism is simply a man-made religion.  Nevertheless, for those who haven’t seen his video, it’s quite powerful.  It exposes the major rock bands of the past few decades and shows how the Devil worked through them.  It’s the most powerful tape we’ve seen exposing rock music, and the best thing for young people immersed in the pagan culture – or for those who don’t believe in the existence of the Devil – to see to awaken them to a realization of the spiritual battle that is being waged.  We know people who have been basically converted to a belief the supernatural and in the existence of the Devil by watching that video.  It can be ordered at our online store. 

 

Community

 

How many people are in your religious community?

 

MHFM: Currently there are four people in the community.

 

St. Alphonsus and Padre Pio

 

I have some thelogical question, by the way: Since St. Alphonsus Liguori believed in BOB and BOD, we are bound to believe that he did not believe in this at least in the hour of death, because by the infallibility of canonization we know that he is a saint, and also we know that one can only go to heaven if he believes in the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate, right?

However, I don't know about Padre Pio, because he wasn't canonized (as there is no pope), and he was outside the church by following an antipope. If he was truly sincere, he would have been enlightened that the "pope" was antipope, at least at the hour of his death.

 

Chan…

 

MHFM: As we’ve pointed out before, there’s a difference between believing in baptism of desire and blood for unbaptized catechumens only and believing that it could apply to Jews, pagans, Muslims, etc. (as most do).  Both are wrong and incompatible with the infallible teaching of the Church, but one could believe in the former idea (for catechumens only) in good faith until all the evidence is presented to him or her.  The latter (which is held by most) is blatantly contary to Catholic dogma and would have to be rejected immediately by those familiar with the solemn definitions.  The following link is to another section of the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation which addresses this issue.  This section is new to the 2nd edition. 

 

How can Baptism of desire be contrary to dogma when... [PDF File]

 

It refutes those who say that it’s impossible for baptism of desire to be contrary to dogma if a saint such as Alphonsus Liguori believed in it.  Some don’t know that St. Alphonsus also held that the words “This is My Body, This is the Chalice of My Blood” are sufficient for a valid consecration; he was dead wrong.  It was interesting to recently read from a group of sedevacantists who are hog-wild about “baptism of desire” (and constantly make reference to St. Alphonsus on the issue) try to deal with St. Alphonsus’s error on the words of consecration, especially since one of them (John L.) has correctly said that the Council of Florence (before St. Alphonsus) dogmatically declared the words of consecration.  Since they hold the form of consecration to be all the words mentioned by the Council of Florence, which is contrary to St. Alphonsus’s position, they would have to admit – but are too dishonest and bad willed to do so – that St. Alphonsus contradicted, was unaware of or didn’t understand the significance of the Council of Florence and Pope St. Pius V’s De Defectibus on the words of consecration.  But no… in their religion of man, this is impossible since theologians are the proximate rule of Faith, as the aforementioned fellow also ridiculously and wrongly declared.  But in the Catholic Church, no saint or theologian is infallible and it’s possible for a saint to be confused about a dogmatic issue or mis-read a text pertaining to a dogmatic issue or fail to understand the significance of a text pertaining to a dogmatic issue, as the above section proves. 

 

In fact, some time back we received a letter from an individual who was attending the New Mass and was troubled by our arguments against its validity.  He struggled with the issue of whether to go to the New Mass until he read St. Alphonsus’s (wrong) opinion on the words of consecration.  After reading St. Alphonsus’s opinion, the individual was convinced to remain at the New Mass.  This is a prime example of why the Church teaches that it’s not Catholic to follow the opinion of a saint or theologian above a papal bull or papal decree; it’s a prime example of how those who obstinately elevate the opinion of a saint above an authoritative papal bull do so to their own damnation.

 

Regarding Padre Pio, even though he was favored with extraordinary gifts by God, he didn’t know everything.  People really have a problem with following man today.  St. Vincent Ferrer worked miracles during the Great Western Schism while serving as the confessor of the invalid Antipope Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna).  God doesn’t reveal everything even to great saints.  This should be quite obvious. 

 

It’s interesting that you ask about Padre Pio.  Someone recently wrote in to a newspaper about our book on Padre Pio.  The person asserted that Padre Pio was actually in favor of the heretical idea that members of false religions can be saved.  In our book on Padre Pio, it’s pointed out that many statements are attributed to him which he never made.  The most famous is the statement that Padre Pio supposedly made to John Paul II: “One day you will be pope.”  John Paul II himself admitted that Padre Pio never told him this, but it’s widely held that he did.  These people would have us believe that Padre Pio, who told people that they were in mortal sin for dressing immodestly and failing to be honest in confession, said that a Protestant and a Jew who rejected the Catholic Faith and confession altogether would be saved without being Catholic.  It’s ridiculous; it would make a mockery of all the hours he spent in confession, as if he held that one who rejected the Sacrament of Penance, Our Lady, etc. could go to Heaven.  People spread such lies in order to justify their non-Catholic family members, or for some other reason.  We’ve discovered to our dismay that many people, including those who claim to be traditional Catholics, are not honest.  One minute they tell you that their priest doesn’t believe in salvation outside the Church, and the next they are defending that very heresy.  Thus, it’s not surprising at all that Padre Pio, one of the most famous men in the world at his time, the most photographed and perhaps the most admired, would have many, many statements attributed to him by people who, in their vanity, wanted to have Padre Pio saying this or that.  Further, even if Padre Pio said such things (which we don’t believe that he did at all), he would have been teaching heresy.  In fact, if somone looking like Padre Pio made a miraculous appearance today (and was even accompanied by an angel) and told you that a Jew or a heretic can be saved, a Catholic must say to him: YOU ARE ANATHEMA. 

 

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.”

 

The faithless apostate who wrote in to the newspaper asserting that Padre Pio’s statements show that there is salvation “outside” the Church doesn’t understand this because he’s not remotely Christian.  He’s a believer in man, not Christ.  People like him reveal that they don’t have the slightest faith in Christ, but are complete worshippers of man.  They elevate a statement they think or someone said Padre Pio made above an infallible definition of the Church.  It’s despicable.  In other words, they put man above Christ.  They are an abomination, and Jesus Christ will vomit them out of His mouth.  The fact is that if you read the letters of Padre Pio you will see that there is nothing at all which reflects in the slightest way the heretical teaching that there is salvation for those who die outside the Church.

 

Deeply concerned

 

Dear Brothers

 

I am deeply concerned about the turmoil in the Church and even more so since I have been studying the material from your web site.  I have gone back to Council and Papal documents and I can't help but agree with your logic…

 

However, my real Reason for writing is to see if you have any comments about Fr. Gobbi and the MMP.  Through-out the messages we are told numerous times that JPII is her Pope and that she has groomed him from early in his life.  I know your feelings on JPII  and I can draw conclusions about the MMP messages too from that view point.  So, do you know of anything specific on this topic?...I am a 78yr old dyed in the wool Catholic who served the Tridentine mass for about 15 years but unfortunately have had no access to it in 37 yrs.  My wife and I go to the NO mass almost every day and say our rosary daily as well.  I was commenting to her not too long ago that we ought to be saints by now but we are not;  something just seems to be wrong.  Needless to say the NO is not a prayable mass and seems also to be graceless as well.  We are in the Archdiocese of St. Paul MInneapolis which is a big area and there is only one Church in this huge diocese that has the Real Mass at 3 weekend masses once a week.  What a shame.  Only Jesus can save us; he has to shorten these times like he said.

 

Most respectfully

 

Jim Fink

 

MHFM  Jim, Gobbi said that the triumph of Our Lady would take place by the year 2000.  In his view, the "triumph" involved some sort of universal restoration.  That didn't happen.

 

But the fact that Gobbi said he was told that John Paul II is “Mary’s pope” is all a truly believing Catholic needs to know to see that the revelation is not from God, but from the Devil.  John Paul II promoted religions which are false, demonic and which reject the true God, as our material proves in detail.  Those who still think that he might have been “Mary’s pope” after seeing the evidence against him - evidence covered on this website and in our DVD - have a serious problem with Faith in Jesus Christ and Catholic dogma. 

 

You mentioned that you noticed that something is wrong.  What’s wrong is that you’re going to an invalid “Mass” and attending a completely empty church which has defected to a new religion.  We understand that you placed an order.  We hope that you received the material and review it.  We hope that you stop going to the invalid New Mass because Christ is not present there.  It's a matter of salvation.  We're glad that you're deeply concerned; it demonstrates a level of interest.  The biggest problem today is lack of interest.  Most people are damned because they don't care or don't care enough about the truth, the things of God and matters of salvation.  It's critical that you act upon this information, which is based on the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

St. Cyprian on baptism

 

The book points out St. Cyprian's error that non-Catholics cannot confer baptism, but cites him saying that non-Catholics cannot receive baptism.  Or am I misunderstanding?  The book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation says:

 

---

Second, St. Augustine held that it was de fide that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of hell and St. Cyprian held that it was de fide that heretics cannot validly baptize.  Both were dead wrong. 

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, 1910, “Limbo,” p. 258: “...St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide [on unbaptized infants suffering the fires of hell]...”[400] 

 

St. Cyprian, 254 A.D.: “We... judging and holding it as certain that no one beyond the pale [that is, outside the Church] is able to be baptized...”[401] 

 

MHFM: St. Cyprian wrongly held that all baptisms among heretics (i.e. received by or conferred by heretics) are invalid.  "He [St. Cyprian] did it always by affirming that heretics and schismatics had no power to give Baptism..." (Tixeront, History of Dogmas, p. 369)

 

Thus, one legitimately speaks of St. Cyprian as holding that no heretic can confer baptism in the same context as his teaching that no heretic can receive baptism - for all baptisms among (received by or conferred by) sect members are invalid, according to his erroneous teaching.  For those who haven’t read the book, this came up in the discussion about how theologians, fathers and doctors of the Church have made many errors and are not infallible.  St. Cyprian thought his position was the position of tradition and he was completely wrong.  This is a powerful example of the fact that the infalliblity of the Magisterium is not given to theologians or to doctors of the Church, contrary to what many heretics are (in effect) asserting today.

 

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.”[35]

 

Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII[36]

 

Inviting heretics?

 

Dear MHFM, i ve just read your E-exchanges and was attracted by your thoughts about no christmas celebration with heretics.  may i have your thoughts on whether it is reasonable to invite a non catholic friend to a catholic wedding celebration. i have read your thoughts on why a catholic cannot attend a noncatholic weeding or the reception but i am not sure of what you think of the reverse.  thanks for your time

                                                          

frank

 

MHFM: We would say that if the person is open to conversion (i.e., has demonstrated a sincere interest in possibly converting), then contact with traditional Catholics at something such as a wedding might increase his interest in the Catholic Faith, and thus facilitate his conversion, by getting to know more of those who practice it.  But if it’s a friend or a family member who has obstinately rejected the Faith or remained obstinately united with the Novus Ordo sect or some other sect, then one should definitely not invite such a person; for that would be to celebrate the event with a heretic – as if he is a fellow Catholic who possesses the true Faith.

 

No Outrage

 

MHFM: Did you notice that there was basically no outrage at the fact that Antipope Benedict XVI went into Eastern Schismatic churches on his trip to Turkey?  His act of apostasy in the mosque sparked some outrage, but his joint declaration with the schismatic patriarch and other acts of schism were considered no big deal because they’ve become so frequent, so typical.  On his trip to Turkey alone, he went into at least two different schismatic cathedrals (to manifest heresy by deed) and met with three different schismatic patriarchs.  We’re at the point now in the post-Vatican II apostasy that, for most, it’s not really a big deal.  He stops into schismatic churches, prays with them, etc. like he’s stopping by McDonald’s.  Truly, for him to go into schismatic churches on his trips is about as frequent and accepted by most as for him to stop by the local “Catholic” churches.

 

A word of warning

 

MHFM: Since Benedict XVI recently completed perhaps the most heretical week of his life with his recent trip-of-apostasy to Turkey (during which the whole world saw him endorse and embrace the false religion of Islam in a mosque), expect some conservative things to come from him, either statements or actions.  That’s his modus operandi.  That’s the game the Devil is playing in these last days: apostasy mixed with occasional conservative words, in order to keep those who receive not the love of the truth inside the false Vatican II sect – meanwhile they have accepted apostasy and false religions by accepting as Catholic the man who endorses them.

 

Benedict XVI teaches the most outrageous heresies, commits acts of apostasy and schism, and then makes the bad willed forget about it by talking about “relativism” or a wider permission for the Latin Mass or some other conservative thing which tickles their ears.  The bad willed usually forget about his acts of heresy and apostasy shortly after they are done with, and are carried away by a few conservative words.

 

Against Eastern Orthodox

 

Recently I confronted an Eastern Schismatic on the internet. He could not reply to questions in your article on E"O" [against the Eastern Orthodox] and he was enraged when I asked him why they venerated Constantine XI the last Byzantine Emperor who died a Catholic and in full communion with Rome. (Feast day May 30th on E"O" calendar) He compared post Eastern-Schism Catholics to Mahomet and Buddha before I confronted him.  I posted a link to your videos so he couldn't use Vatican II antipopes to justify his cause.
Eastern Schismatics simply can't really follow any authority, either ecclesiastical or secular.

 

MHFM: We’re glad to hear that you were able to use the arguments. [He’s referring to an E-Exchange we posted a few weeks back against Eastern Orthodoxy].  Some can see it so clearly, but unfortunately, through bad will, many can’t.  It’s sort of like a follower of Episcopalianism or Anglicanism who never deeply thinks about the origins of his religion.  If he would only make the effort or demonstrate the honesty to internalize the fact that he is following a “Church” that separated itself from the Catholic Church simply because King Henry VIII wanted a divorce, perhaps he would see how outrageous it is for him to follow such a “Church.” 

 

Likewise, if one just deeply and honestly considers the “logic” of Eastern Orthodoxy – which holds all bishops equal and therefore must logically hold all councils with equal numbers of bishops to have the same authority, including many false councils in the early Church – one sees that in their religion there could be no binding dogmatic council at all.  Their religion is a fraud, and their claim to uphold the first seven councils as dogmatic a complete farce.  

 

No Christmas gifts for heretics

 

I have asked the children, during Advent to spend 15 minutes with reading spiritual works - (my selection) for them, each day.   Our Christmas tree is decorated simply during the Advent season with purple balls with a little gold & white accent ornamentation -until Christmas Eve which I will get the other Christmas ornaments down to let the children finish decorating it with the other ornaments...  Any other suggestions or comments to what we are doing now would be very greatfully received,

 

thanks so much,

 

melanie

 

MHFM: Thanks for the email.  At this time of year it’s necessary to point out something some traditional Catholics don’t seem to recognize, but should.  Traditional Catholics should not give Christmas gifts to heretics, other non-Catholics, members of the Novus Ordo, or false traditionalists. 

 

[Note: we’re speaking here of one’s family members, friends, etc. who have rejected, or failed to live up to, the full truth of the Catholic Faith after one has presented it to them.  (If one has not yet presented the traditional Catholic Faith to such non-Catholic family members and friends, members of the Novus Ordo, etc., then one has failed to live up to one’s duty to spread the Catholic Faith and is sinning by omission.)  Thus, we’re not speaking here about a person who is truly interested in the Catholic Faith or in the process of conversion.]

 

It’s part of the Catholic Faith that Catholics cannot have communion with heretics.  To give a Christmas gift to a heretic or to another non-Catholic is to honor a person who rejects God and His truth and is on the road to damnation.  It is to give a person who rejects the truth of God the false impression that God is pleased with him (that he’s worthy of a reward) – or that what he’s doing with regard to God makes him worthy of a reward – when, in truth, he is headed for damnation.  All over the New Testament we find instructions on generally how to deal with people who reject the truth of God.  The message is clear and consistent.  Pope Pius XI quotes a portion of one of these clear scriptural instructions in Mortalium Animos:

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).”

 

In light of this, it’s quite obvious that a Catholic cannot exchange Christmas gifts with someone who “brings not this doctrine” [i.e., fully authentic traditional Catholic doctrine] – such as a Protestant, a follower of the Novus Ordo, some other non-Catholic, or a false traditionalist.  (By the way, this verse also shows us that we shouldn’t say “God bless” to a heretic or to a person outside the Church because God does not bless a person in such a state.)  In the citation above, Pope Pius XI does not quote verse eleven of the 2nd Epistle of St. John, which states: “For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicates with his wicked works.” 

 

To give a Christmas gift to a person rejecting the truth of God is to communicate with his wickedness by honoring him in his state.  We see the same scriptural message on how to deal with non-Catholics in many other places in the New Testament, such as in Titus 3:10; II Thess. 3:6,14; 1 Cor. 5:11; etc.

 

Therefore, it’s clear that Catholics should not celebrate Christmas with non-Catholics, false traditionalists or members of the Novus Ordo.  Don’t have them over on Christmas for the exchanging of gifts or for Christmas dinner.  Explain to them why you cannot do so by once again charitably calling them to conversion or a change of position.  If a non-Catholic friend or family member gives you a gift and wonders why you didn’t reciprocate, you should charitably explain to him or her that you cannot give a gift to someone who is outside the true Church or rejecting such and such a teaching of the true Church or going to a false Mass.

 

Those who have a major problem with this conclusion, as some certainly will, given the bad will of most men – a conclusion which flows so clearly from scriptural and apostolic doctrine – have a problem with it because they don’t stand for the Faith in their everyday lives.  They have a problem with it because they are liberal, and they are respecters of man more than of God.  They don’t hate evil, and the Faith doesn’t inform every aspect of their dealings.

                                                                                         

Greetings from Moscow

 

Good morning.  My name is Maxim Bychkov. I live in Moscow. I'm 26 year old. I'm catholic. In modern world very difficult to be catholic. I ask Your prayers about me.

                                   

Maxim Bychkov      12.2006

 

Lucy dead?

 

dear brother micheal and peter- do you know about the website that includes the names of camelite nuns that has died?

sister lucia name was included it stated that she was born march 22 1907, proffesed october 1928 and died may 31 1949 comments please.

 

mark

 

MHFM: As we pointed out in the article, we believe that she died a little later than that: shortly before Vatican II and shortly after the Fuentes interview.  However, this fact serves to show that there is something fishy going on that most people don’t realize.

 

Little girls

 

Greetings,

 

As a former little girl, I take exception to your comparison of the boorish Mr. Sungenis to little girls. There are lots of little girls who are made of sterner stuff.  Consider the true story of a poor little Irish girl told in Stories from the Catechist. The child attended a Catholic school run by nuns.

 

One day, the Protestants came by, and bribed the impoverished mother into giving them access to her child in exchange for them giving the mother a blanket. When the girl came home, the mother announced that the girl would be going to a Protestant school from now on. The child immediately saw that her soul was in danger, and expressed her horror to her mother that she had sold her soul for a blanket. The mother was not to be dissuaded.  The child sank to her knees and asked the Blessed Mother to let her die rather than become a Protestant. Her prayer was granted and her mother found her dead the next morning.

 

Regards,

Miss Ross

 

MHFM: Good point… There’s also this story:

 

“A Calvinist nobleman was once disputing about the real presence with the father of St. Jane Frances de Chantal. Frances was at that time only five years of age. Whilst the dispute was going on she advanced and said to the nobleman: ‘What, sir! do you not believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Blessed Sacrament, and yet he has told us that he is present? You then make him a liar. If you dared attack the honor of the king, my father would defend it at the risk of his life, and even at the cost of yours; what have you then to expect from God for calling his Son a liar?’ The Calvinist was greatly surprised at the child's zeal, and endeavored to appease his young ad­versary with presents; but full of love for her holy faith, she took his gifts and threw them into the fire, saying ‘Thus shall all those burn in Hell who do not believe the words of Jesus Christ.’” (quoted by Fr. Michael Muller, The Catholic Dogma, Part 1, #7)

 

Musician at Prot. church

 

Brother Dimond,

What is your opinion on the matter of Catholic musicians serving as musicians at Protestant churches?  I was organist/choir director for many
years at an Episcopal church, and have  auditioned for another  position recently available.  It pays more than I have ever received for a church
job and the extra income for this retiree is desperately needed (I have a  MA Degree in Sacred Music).

Reading your material has caused me to give the matter some consideration.  It will be purely a job, nothing more.

According to responses on a website which invites comments on the state of Catholic Church music, as found in the ubiquitous "Glory and Praise" and "Gather," a multitude of Catholic musicians have fled to employment at Episcopal churches for the opportunity to be engaged in the performance of good quality music. I am one of them, having quit my short tenure at our local Novus Ordo church.  I have also recently stopped attending there.

 

MHFM: No, one couldn’t have a job as an organist/choir director for a Protestant church because one would be actively assisting non-Catholic worship.  It would be forbidden to a Catholic under pain of mortal sin.  We hope that answers your question.

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”[37]

 

We will have more quotes dealing with this point in a future work we are going to publish.

 

Marriage

 

I've thought of an argument that isn't insurmountable based on existing MHFM research but is still quite disturbing:  With the Catholic church in the seemingly state of physical disunity because of the chaos of the V2 sect,  it has become an extraordinaryly hard task for a man to meet a woman both of which hold or intend to hold the Catholic faith upon marriage.  (I say 'intend' because a Catholic could meet a non Catholic and help them to convert before marriage.  However, I have reason to think this is not a good strategy.) I don't know any females that hold the sedevatantist position.  This isn't a surprising fact considering all the variables.  I now hold this position, myself.  So, I find myself seeking females with the philosophical capacity to listen to the case for a Catholic faith.  Obviously this is a challenged task with a secular raised woman.  To be on the grounds of a V2 sect church, could make this challenge statistically better; but, I have not done this yet.  I'm now praying to be lead to a mate.

 

I think the topic of 'more than 40 years without a pope' isn't the priority issue for the theologian.  The higher priority is dealing with the topic of whether perpetual generations of Catholic families are required for the Catholic Church to survive over time.  The Catholic Church needs a living population just as much as it needs a priest.  Logically following, aren't valid Catholic families required to exist to populate the Church and heaven?  Doesn't God need and want marriages to happen and children to be born?  One of the variables has to give.  Is the variable of 'the final days' the only explanation.  (It wouldn't be the first surprise of that kind this month.  Colorado flipped from Republican to Democrat last week...a lot sooner than I expected it would.)

 

My questions:

1.    Are there pockets of 'family' Catholics upholding the faith elsewhere in the world?  I don't know where to look in the USA.

2.    Do you think God would allow his Catholic Church to be increasingly maintained only by Catholic singles instead of marriages?  I agree it's not an impossibility.

3.    Does the fact that it is 'extra hard to find a mate' only supply more evidence that we are in the "final days"?

4.    Has any church doctor realized the seeming problem of mass apostasy for generation after generation?

5.    My final concern is that the continuation of God's creation that would happen in a Catholic family does not seem right to be stopped by negative forces.  Is this happening?

My motivation for writing is that I'm further stunned because the task of finding a mate is now somewhat removed from my choices.  I want to get married.  I prey to get married.  I believe that God is able to lead me to a mate.  I intend to actively do my part of the search.  Previously, singles have chosen by one reason or another to be single.  I choose not to be single; but, I am with no potential mates.  I logically don't like this choice because marriage should be better for both her and I.  A good marriage can only bestow more grace. 

 

Do you agree: It's not in my best interest as a Catholic to have children with a non Catholic women?  Is a Catholic allowed to have children with a non Catholic?

Am I being too much of a perfectionist?  My family accuses me of this.  Thank you for your answers last email; they helped my make a correct choice.

Please share these concerns and answer what you can?

 

Rob

 

MHFM: Rob, yes, there are pockets of Catholic families keeping the Faith all over the world and in this country.  Before one pursues marriage, however, he should attentively search out whether God might be calling him to a vocation or to single life.  This should be done in prayer, and also by reading the first chapter of St. Alphonsus's The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, which deals with the advantanges of celibacy over marriage.  Many more are called not to marry than realize it.  That being said, you may be called to marriage, and the fact that it’s so hard to find good Catholic women is a sign of the times.

 

You couldn't enter into a marriage with a non-Catholic, since the Catholic Church condemns mixed marriages.

 

Pope Benedict XIV, Magnae Nobis (# 2-3) June 29, 1748: “Nor is it necessary for us to prove in full the antiquity of the discipline by which the Apostolic See always condemned the marriage of Catholics with heretics ... We hold that the marriages of Catholics with heretics are altogether to be avoided, and as far as it depends on us, We aim to keep them far from the Catholic Church ... His Holiness grieves very much that some Catholics today are demented in their base love. They no longer shrink from these detestable marriages which the Church has always condemned and forbidden.”

 

We hope this answered most of your questions. 

 

Confession where?

 

Hi,

I just want to ensure I follow the right path or way.  I do not have any valid priests or non Vatican 2 chuches in my area, in fact I am sure that
the priest's in all the local parishes support vatican 2, where can I go to get a valid confession?  I know I can keep Sunday Holy by praying the Rosary, but if I have no priest to go to, how can I confess my sins? I have read about general confession, but what exactly does that mean.

Despite quite a few priests telling me that you are dead wrong in your teachings,( in fact one is a much older pre-vatican 2 ordained priest), I
still feel in my heart that what you say is true, you have changed my life, thank you.

Gene

 

MHFM: Gene, a general confession is a confession of all of the mortal sins in one’s entire life that one committed after baptism (if one committed mortal sins).  Those who have confessed some mortal sins to priests ordained in the new rite of ordination need to confess those sins to a validly ordained priest.  (If he’s a diocesan priest, that would be before June 18, 1968.)  If a person has committed mortal sin and needs to go to Confession, he can go to a Novus Ordo priest who was ordained in the Traditional Rite of Ordination as long as the priest says “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”  This can be done if a person needs to go to Confession.  But one cannot go to his false “Mass,” of course.

 

A devastating act

 

MHFM: Benedict XVI’s recent act of praying in a mosque toward Mecca like the Muslims was a very devastating act – devastating, that is, to his claim to be pope and to all who claim that he is the pope.  We’ve received many e-mails from people about this blatant act of apostasy.  I mean, come on, what is one going to say about this one?  It’s a striking confirmation, for any who doubted, of the truth of what we’ve been saying about him.  Sedevacantism is growing; all the time more and more are seeing the truth that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, but rather the Devil’s counterfeit sect in the last days created by manifestly heretical antipopes.  If you’ve been opposed to sedevacantism in the past, but now want to change your position, do not delay because of the fear of embarrassment about having been wrong.  The important thing is to change your position and stand for the truth.  True Catholics will immediately embrace all those who want to change their positions and stand for the truth.

 

Just a day or so ago, when one of us had to travel out of the monastery, a conversation started (as sometimes happens) with a stranger.  This person was a professing Novus Ordo “Catholic” who was totally scandalized by Benedict XVI’s outrageous act.  It provided a good opportunity to explain to her what’s really going on, and that Benedict XVI is not a true pope at all.  But this shows us how important this information is: those who don’t have this information are in deep trouble; most of them are concluding that a pope of the Catholic Church officially endorses Islam and the acceptability of worshipping as the Muslims do.  They are concluding that holding Jesus Christ to be God and holding Him not to be God are both acceptable; they are concluding that the diabolical and apostate sect of Islam is acceptable.  They are embracing religious indifferentism and losing Faith in Jesus Christ as the only truth and Catholicism as the only true religion – as one would if one thinks that Benedict XVI represents authentic Catholicism.  Their acceptance of this apostasy will not give them a Faith sufficient for salvation, but lead them to damnation.  That’s why spreading this information is so important, so critical.  Be evangelistic: spread the website, the DVDs, the books.

 

On Sungenis Article

 

Dear Dimond Brothers,

I heard the debate with Sungenis… and could not believe how stupid or evil or both Sungenis is. I told everybody about it.

Your latest article exposing him is simply awesome! I wish everybody who follows [his organization] could read it and see for themselves
the wickedness of Sungenis and his cohorts.

Keep up the great work!

Steve Speray

 

MHFM: Thanks, glad you liked the article.  Some of our readers might consider your words too strong.   They are not.  Those who consider them too strong really need to consider how bad willed Mr. Sungenis is, how he’s made it his mission to defend manifest heretics, apostates and manifestly heretical documents, and how viciously he attacks those who stand for the truth.


Your article on Bob Sungenis and the debate was really excellent.  His performance was dreadful with the most horrendous statement, in my opinion, being that if you say Vatican II was bad because its fruits were bad, then you'd have to say the Creation was bad because its fruit was the Fall!  To me, that actually sounds blasphemous.  His attack on Brother Michael's appearance on the Frank Whalen program
was also ridiculous and pathetic.  That was a very interesting program, a sort of mini-tutorial of all the information on your website wrapped up into a concise and informative two hours, in spite of the goofy callers at the end (where do they get those people?!).  Br. Michael did a wonderful job, as usual.  As for the prophecy stuff, I find everything you both write about that to be fascinating and thoughtful; and I hope you're planning to write more on the subject.  I was especially interested in Br. Michael's comment that the two witnesses were thought to be Saints Peter and Paul because it has always puzzled me how they would appear and convert lots of people and yet when Jesus returned shortly after their deaths, there would be little faith left on earth; unless, of course, Antichrist killed all the new converts, which raises more questions.  Anyway, it's a very interesting subject for discussion; if you don't get all snitty about it like Bob Sungenis.

Keep up the good work!  I'll be ordering lots of copies of your new book and am looking forward to your own radio program coming back online now that the book is done.

LM

 

MHFM: Thanks for the kind words of support.  Actually, the book that we’ve been working on that has caused a hiatus in the radio program is another book, not the 2nd edition of Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.  This other book should be done soon as well.

 

A sample of sections that are new to the 2nd edition of Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation

 

MHFM: The 2nd edition of the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation is now available for order.  You can order online at our store or you can call in your order or you can send it in.  One copy of the book is $4.00.  Below are three PDF Files which provide a sample of some of the points and sections that are entirely new to the 2nd edition.  In all, there are almost 40 pages of information that are new to the 2nd edition.  The 2nd edition is 336 pages.

 

Sacred Scripture Against Invincible Ignorance - and the Evidence of the Immediate Dissemination of the Gospel throughout the world [PDF File]

 

About half of this short section of the book is new.  Note: this is only one of a number of sections on “Invincible Ignorance” that are included in the book.

 

A Sample of a few of the other points and quotes that are new to the 2nd edition [PDF File]

 

This is just a small sample of a few of the points that are new.  This doesn’t include the entire sections that are new, nor many other points that are new and incorporated into other sections.

 

The Table of Contents [PDF File]

 

This is what the Table of Contents for the 2nd edition looks like.  The sections in red are sections that are entirely new to the 2nd edition.  Many of the sections not in red, however, have new points and quotes which have been added to them.  The Table of Contents is somewhat more detailed in this edition, which makes things easier to find. 

 

Order the book today, and have at your disposal the information you need to defend this crucial dogma and the necessity of water baptism against the constant attacks they face today.  This is by far the most detailed book that has been written on the salvation dogma and the water baptism issue.

 

Liked debate

 

Dear Brother Peter and Brother Michael,

 

Bravissimo!  Once again, the truth shone with unmistakable brilliance during your debate on sedevacantism.  Mr. Golle completely disgraced himself with the mental contortions he had to employ to stick to his absurd positions.  He spent the whole time making excuses for these VII antipopes.   His whole defense seemed to be "I don't know if they really said that, but if they did they didn't mean it."  Reminds me of Bill Clinton who famously said "it depends on  what the meaning of is is."  Certainly not the unmistakably clear language of the Catholic Church. I had the same thoughts as the writer of the email which you posted on E-exchanges  -- Mr. Golle has no faith in God at all!  So, thank you so much for your tremendous efforts on behalf of the truth.  I love hearing it.  God bless you!

 

Sincerely in Christ,

Margaret Moore

 

Faith at University

 

To show how ridiculous BOD is, every time I preach to pagans/atheists, they often ask me if it is true that one dies without Catholic Faith surely goes to hell before I mention the dogma. I always tell them they must convert or will definitely go into the everlasting fire, and they feel it's quite natural. Even atheists understand if God exists, to die without the true religion means hell.

 

I'm being persecuted in Adelaide University for holding Catholic Faith. I refuted a geology teacher because he taught evolutionism and I was driven out of the classroom.  In an assignment of writing an article on engineering in general, I lamented the lack of Catholic spirituality in modern architecture, praised the beauty of Catholic cathedrals and condemned immoralities against the 9th and 10th commandments in the construction business. And the university didn't allow me to pass.  Your website impressed and converted me about half a year ago. I decide to follow the Holy Rule of St. Benedict as much as possible. I avoid eating delicious food, try my best not to talk to anyone about worldly things or provoke laughter. In addition to 15 decades of Rosary, I pray the traditional Breviary in full everyday, sometimes I need to skip classes to keep the time. I detest the wild lifestyle of my roommates, they deprive me much sleep by partying and give me a hard time getting up for Marins, Lauds and Prime. They hate my seriousness and often (may well be purposely) create noise to wake me up. Once they even tuned the temperature of the air conditioner in my room from 25 degrees to 18 degrees (the control panel is in the public area) to freeze me and they admitted they did it for just that purpose.

 

Du…

 

MHFM: It’s interesting to hear about your travails.  Keep battling.  In addition to your other prayers, we recommend 3 Hail Marys for knowing and fulfilling God’s will.  If you could avoid living with college pagans and somehow live by yourself, that’s absolutely what you should do.

 

Catholic Culture

 

For those who don’t know, St. John Vianney is the patron saint of parish priests. 

 

When just four years old, St. John Vianney “had a rosary which he greatly prized.  Gothon [his sister], who was eighteen months younger, took a fancy to her brother’s beads, and, of course, wished to get possession of them.  It came to a scene between brother and sister; there was screaming, stamping of feet, and even a preliminary skirmish, when suddenly, full of grief, the poor child ran to his mother.  Gently, but firmly, she bade him to give the beads to Gothon: ‘Yes, my darling, give them to her for love of the good God.’  Jean-Marie, though bathed in tears, immediately surrendered his precious rosary.  For a child of four this was surely no mean sacrifice!  Instead of petting and fondling the child with a view to drying his tears, his mother gave him a small wooden statue of our Lady.  The rude image had long stood on the mantelpiece of the kitchen chimney, and the little one had often wished to possess it.  At last it was his… ‘Oh!  How I loved that statue,’ he said seventy years later.” (Abbé Francis Trocu, The Curé D’Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, pp. 7-8)

 

If only the youths of today had as their “problem” a desire to fight over their favorite rosary... This story is a pleasant reminder of how great Catholic culture is (where the Faith is at the center of life from one’s earliest years) and how sad it is that it has vanished.  

 

False Baptismal Certificates

 

Is it lawful for a bishop to issue false baptismal certificates to aid Jews to escape persecution during WWII?

 

About John XXIII: "As apostolic delegate in Turkey and Greece after 1935, he engaged peaceably with the worlds of Orthodoxy and Islam," said Tenembaum, who is also the founder of the Angelo Roncalli International Committee. "When World War II erupted, he risked his position and security to provide thousands of Turkish transit visas, 'temporary' baptismal and immigration certificates, authorizing Hungarian Jews persecuted by the Nazis to escape to Palestine.” (Zenit)

 

B.

 

MHFM:  No, it wouldn’t be lawful.  It’s tantamount to asserting that one has the true faith when one doesn’t.  It’s tantamount to asserting that one worships the true God when one rejects Him.  It would definitely not be lawful to issue false baptismal certificates to Jews.

 

Salvation book

 

…do you have the new :"Out side the chruch there is no salvation" book?  I have access to a computer in the library. But I need a cd or dvd to really be able to take the time to reflect on all the material in your offerings. I stop and start the cd's . It is hard to do that in a noisy library.

 

Anthony

 

MHFM: The second edition of the book should be available in about three weeks.

 

Radio Program

 

We really appreciate the internet broadcast.  I have re-listened to the achived ones several times.

 

Would appreciate more programs - it's an important aspect to our understanding and ability to talk with novus ordo individuals.

 

Thanks,

Gary

 

MHFM: Our radio program is on a temporary hiatus because we are in the process of completing a major book project.  When that is completed (which will hopefully be soon), we will resume our radio program.  We will continue to add updates to our website in the meantime.

 

A Baysider responds

 

Hell-bent world!  Pray and spread good news, stop judging!  You like all the evil that is going on.  Stop countering bayside.  Pray!  Pray for Truth!  I don't fear you!

 

Mari…

 

MHFM:  You don’t care about what the Church teaches, and that’s why you are blinded to the clear heresies in the Bayside Message – which prove it to be a fraud that was concocted by the Devil to cleverly keep people inside the Counter Church and at the New Mass.  You are obstinate, and take the bait of the Devil – hook, line and sinker.  You are truly a Baysider; unfortunately you are not a Catholic.  You are among those about whom it was written that God allowed them to be deceived because they receive not the love of the truth:

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12: "Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying. That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."

The False Apparitions at Bayside, New York [link]

This article exposes the lengths to which the Devil has been allowed to go to deceive people about the Vatican II apostasy, the Vatican II antipopes and the New Mass

 

SSPV supporter responds

 

According to you folks at Holy Family Monastery.The only ones that are not heretics, ARE YOU.? All otherTraditionalCatholics are going to hell ! You attack the SSPV because they believe Sanctifying Grace Saves, and if YOU don't believe SanctyfyingGrace saves, that makes you folks at HFM, heretics.   

                 

                                                  Andy A.

                                                     PA.

 

MHFM:  Sorry, but that’s a lie.  We never said that “all other Traditional Catholics are going to Hell.”  When we have to denounce an obstinate heretic (which happens to be very often during these days of the Great Apostasy), we corroborate the accusation with evidence.  We challenge anyone to write in and identify someone we have denounced who doesn’t deserve it. 

 

In the case of the SSPV, we rightly denounce them because they believe that non-Catholics (Buddhists, Jews, etc.) can be saved without the Catholic Faith. 

 

The Society of St. Pius V, The Roman Catholic, Winter, 2005, p. 54: “Q. Do Catholics believe that non-Catholics cannot be saved.  A.  No.”

 

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

 

Could anything be more clear?  The SSPV rejects the defined dogma that all who die as non-Catholics are lost.  They try to justify this and distract people from it by talking endlessly about Fr. Feeney’s error on Justification, with which we don’t even agree, by the way.  That’s what Bishop Kelly does, and it was also recently done by Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV.  It’s so slanted dishonest that it cries out to Heaven.  In talking almost endlessly about this, they effectively brainwash and distract their people.  They go on and on about one passage from Fr. Feeney, like a Protestant or a “Jehovah’s Witness” who keeps bringing up the same “papal scandal” again and again because he has such a paucity of evidence for his position.  The SSPV priests surely don’t like don’t like to address their heresy, according to which Buddhists and Jews can be saved.                           

 

This group?

 

Brothers,

Is the Purgatorian Archconfraternity on Golgotha Monastery Island, Papa Stronsay, Orkney, United Kingdom, an acceptable place to send money to have Masses said for the souls in purgatory? I know that the Tridentine Mass, presided over by a valid priest, is necessary along with a sedevacantist aknowledgment of the Church's current plight; but finding suitable priests to say Masses for the dead is next to impossible in this day and time. Please, steer me in the right direction. May God bless you abundantly for the soul-saving information you impart on a daily basis.

In deepest gratitude,
Craig Sexton

 

MHFM:  Unfortunately, one couldn’t send money for Masses there because they are affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, which holds that souls can be saved in false religions and that Antipope Benedict XVI is the pope.

 

Constance on popes

 

Brothers,

The Church Teaches Documents of the Church in English Translation by Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's Kansas, page 76  number 158

"8. If the pope be a reprobate and an evil man, and, consequently, a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful given to him
by anyone, except perhaps by the state."

What does this mean? Is this saying that the pope can be a reprobate and a member of the devil and still have power over the faithful, ie
still pope?  Thanks for your response and the work you are doing.

Bill

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  This is from the errors condemned by the Council of Constance.  You can find it, and other propositions condemned by Constance, in Denzinger.  For instance, this is a similar error from John Hus which was also condemned:

 

Errors of John Hus, Condemned by the Council of Constance: “#20. If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown (as a reprobate), then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the Devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it."[38] – Condemned

 

Some object that this proves that heretics can be popes.  They are very wrong.  The Council of Constance didn’t condemn the idea that a heretic would cease to be the pope at all.  This is a serious misunderstanding of this proposition.  As we see clearly above, the Council condemned something significantly different.  It condemned the proposition that a wicked man would cease to be the head of the Church, since he is not a member of it.  The proposition from the heretic Hus rightly asserts that one who is not a member of the Church cannot be the head of the Church, but it falls into trouble by stating that the pope ceases to be a member if he is “wicked.”

 

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:

For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”[39]

 

A merely wicked pope doesn’t cease to be pope, but a heretic or schismatic does.  This is because heresy and schism and apostasy separate one from the Church, while other sins (no matter how grave or wicked they are) do not.  Thus, we can see clearly that the proposition is condemning the idea that wickedness separates one from the Church.  It is not condemning the truth that a heretic ceases to be the pope.  In fact, many of the other propositions from John Hus which were condemned by the Council of Constance repeat the false idea expressed above in different ways: that the wicked are not part of the Church.  It’s undeniable that heretics cease to be popes.

 

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26).  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 (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

 

By the way, in the other debate on sedevacantism which took place, this easily refuted argument from the above errors condemned by Constance was brought up by the non-sedevacantist.  If he was aware of what this proposition really taught and had seen its refutation in our material – i.e., that it mentions a “wicked pope” and not a heretical pope – then it was a profoundly dishonest move to bring it up – since it doesn’t prove his point at all but gives the impression to those listening (most of whom are unfamiliar with the issue) that it does prove his point.  (He wouldn’t have gotten away with it in a debate with us.)  If he wasn’t familiar with the refutation of it, it simply shows how weak his case is.  This is one of those things which provides shock effect when presented in a debate or a discussion because many don’t know how to respond; but, in reality, it doesn’t prove the point at all, as we see above.  Unfortunately, the sedevacantist who was debating the non-sedevacantist didn’t say a word to refute this argument, just like he cite one heresy in Vatican II, nor one act of false ecumenism.

 

Creation question

 

Dear MHFM,

Just to let you know I am thoroughly enjoying your archived videos and audios… Also, is there a written version of your presentation on miracles, Creation, etc? There is so much material in the audio version that I can't take it in. I'd like to read up on some of the claims you present.

Thank you,
D. Oderberg

 

MHFM: What we recommend for that is the book we sell: In the Beginning by Dr. Walt Brown.  See our online store.  It’s the best book refuting evolution and proving the Biblical Flood.

 

On the grave situation

 

Dear Brothers

 

I acknowledge your wait and see advice since you are more war wary with this Roman (or is that now Roaming) Hierarchy than we are.  The shocking thing is that globally, if there are no more valid priests ordained and no Bishops to ordain them, then it doesn't really matter how many indults he issues. The dire results will be the same. It will all be just a sham without a faculty to validly ordain priests, will it not? I speculate they will insist on the latest rites for ordination as a compromise to appease the naysayers.

 

And the spiritual starvation for millions of  Catholic souls if the Sacraments under the pre Vatican 2 rubrics are not maintained. Imagine the confusion trying to sort out those ordained before and after the abandonment dates of the sixties and by whom.

It may hasten the formation on enclaves where certainty of validity and continuity of dogmas held will be the only sane modes of perserverance. At least Tradition might be left alone to continue the Faith in such refuges. Somehow I suspect we won't hear the end of it so lightly.  My wondering how long can I last without the sacraments is akin to seeing how long I can go without taking water. If it means we will be forced to become Saints, then thats the real challenge each one of us will have to take up seriouslyand our consolation.  Our one hope, is in our Blessed Mother that she will find a way to nourish us in this desert we are all being quietly herded towards.

Finally, wouldn't it be ironic (and perhaps deserved) that this generation wanders 40 years in such a state, till He comes.

 

In Christo

 

Michael

 

MHFM: Yes, the situation is very grave.  It’s exactly what Our Lord said when He asked if He would find any faith on Earth (Luke 18:8). We think that’s why Our Lord also said: “… behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Mt. 28:20).  Perhaps He added the word “even” because, at the end, it will seem like He is no longer with the Church, even though He is.

 

Comment on magazine

 

I just finished reading the references to the Apocalypse in issue #4.  It all fits and makes perfect sense.  And to think that John 23 removed the prayer to St. Michael and those things that would make the devil ineffective to him and their plan... I knew about this yet I still couldn't put it all together. Just ONE of these hundreds of changes and statements and outrages should be enough for us to see the truth.  Many  left because they mistakenly believed that this was the true Church so they lost their faith.  Others saw it for what it is and left.    Still others had to wait till they couldn't take any more and then they believed…

 

P.

 

Debate comment

 

Dear Brothers,

I listened to the debate and learned a few things, thank you.  I wonder why you chose to debate William Golle?  He sounded much like Rush L., a big wind bag and not saying anything.  You all did an outstanding job of the debate. He wants to debate again on specific points you make and to prove he can disprove your points ... don't waste your time.  The Modernist will sound like a traditional Catholic in one breath and turn his head and sound like a heretic in their next breath ... Saint Pius X said the same.

May God Bless and Our Lady Perfect you all,

Gerry Keaveney

 

MHFM: We debated Mr. Golle because he challenged us to a debate.  He said “any time, anywhere.”  He was also very flexible with his schedule and easy to deal with. 

 

By the way, going into the debate Mr. Golle was quite confident.  In fact, before our debate took place and after he had listened to the other debate on sedevacantism, Mr. Golle thought that if he had debated the other person he would have “killed him.”  I don’t think Mr. Golle left our debate quite as confident as he went into it.

 

Novus Ordo Seminary

 

I have the Interview George Noory (Coast To Coast) did with Brother Michael Dimond on pod cast. I have listened to it three times now. There is so much compelling information. There are things the Brother said that resonated with me. There have been things I have been noticing for a long time about my local Catholic Church, its members, and "Christians" in general. There are things that just seemed wrong with the mass. There seems to be a lack of reverence and holiness. Attitudes about what true Catholic faith is has changed.  There are just so many things that haven't felt right about the current church. I just haven't been able to adequately explain what I was seeing and feeling. I January, I will be attending Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, Mi. I will be studying Intro to Theology and Intro to Sacred Scripture. At this point I think my calling is for lay ministry although my discernment is ongoing. I am currently working as a hospice RN.  Will I be learning true Catholic scripture at Sacred Heart Seminary? 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave Stechschulte RN

 

MHFM: We’re glad to hear about your interest.  The answer to your question is no, you will not be learning true Catholic teaching at the Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, since it’s part of the Vatican II sect.  You will be instructed in a new heretical theology, which rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, among many other Catholic teachings.  You will be subjected to the invalid and Protestant new rite of Mass (the Novus Ordo).  It’s imperative for your salvation that you don’t enter the Novus Ordo seminary, and that you stop attending the New Mass.  The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church.  Please watch our DVDs online or obtain them, and please contact us so that we can help you out in this situation.

 

Update on Gerry Matatics

 

For those it may concern:

 

Gerry Matatics changes his position and sells out to those who believe in salvation for non-Catholics [link]

 

Strong Testimonial

 

At the risk of inflating your pride (I think you can handle it OK), I want to congratulate, encourage, and most of all thank you for the incredible service you provide.  I have to say that I have never seen or heard anyone on any topic who had the totally mastery of his subject as do you guys.

 

You have really changed my life, and I consider it an incredible grace that I was introduced to your information.  Though a life long Catholic, long bemused by the apparent contradictions within what I understood to be the “church”, I never would have figured it out because my 12 years of “Catholic” education gave me no foundation in the doctrines and history of the Church.  Seeing your material was like flicking on a switch in my head and I accepted it almost immediately.  Suddenly everything made sense, not just within the Church, but the whole, silly, political and cultural world.

 

I went to confession (after searching out valid priests) for the first time in 20 years.  I began saying the Rosary and was able to easily walk away from sinful habits and ways of thought that were decades old.  When I say easily I mean really SIMPLE.  I still find it astonishing.  I introduce your material to as many people as I can, especially Novus Ordo priests.  I still don’t have a convert, the “priests” are especially obstinate, but I think I may be on the verge of my first one. 

 

My wife thinks I’m nuts, but my children (4 older teenagers) seem a little more receptive.  My “conservative” father, head like a brick.  But I am hopeful. 

 

Thanks again.  Know that what you are doing matters and you do have your victories.

 

Bill Mulligan

 

To go or not to go?

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I found your website today, quite by accident and have found it  fascinating.  Would it be better for me to not go to mass at all this Sunday than to go to a Novus Ordo mass?... In any case I admire your bravery and the courage you have in defending the faith.  Thank you very
kindly.
                                                                   

John

 

MHFM: John, you absolutely cannot go to the New Mass for any reason, since it's not a valid Mass. Our DVD and the articles on our website provide all the evidence for this.

 

Can 5 and ex cathedra

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.” (Denz. 861)

 

My doubt resides on this, ex cathedra . A Council is a ex cathedra act of Pope? I m not asking about infalibility but only if it is ex cathedra or other solemn act of Extraordinary Magisterium of Pope or both is the same thing…

 

Alexandre de Oliveira

from Brasil, Săo Paulo

 

MHFM: The canon from the Council of Trent is definitely ex cathedra (from the Chair of St. Peter), and therefore a solemn act of the Magisterium.  Any canon promulgated by a pope, which anathematizes all those who deny its teaching on faith, in itself fulfills the three requirements for infallibility.  They are: 1) the pope must speak as head of the Church in virtue of his supreme authority, and 2) on a point of faith or morals and 3) to be believed by the universal Church.  When a pope says that: 1) anyone who denies this teaching on 2) a point of Faith is 3) expelled from the Church, that fulfills the three requirements.  It fulfills: 1) speaking in an authoritative capacity as head of the Church, and 2) speaking on a point of faith or morals, and 3) speaking to be believed by all Christians.

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:

“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when [1] carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority [2] he explains a doctrine of faith or morals [3] to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.” (Denz. 1839)

 

That the canons of Trent are dogmatic ex cathedra pronouncements is proven in the following condemned proposition:

 

Error # 70, condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864: “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 (Denz. 1770)

 

CDs and roommates

 

A topic that I need Catholic information on in order to make decisions in my life has to do with economical transacting with the world at large to make money, to make a living, and to perhaps begin a family.  My primary goal is to be with God when I die; yet, when I walk down a street I observe action and words that tell me that most people deny God's Catholic Church.  Padre Pio says flee from temptation to save one's soul.

 

Some simple economic situations that I deal with include: Finding and living with roommates: for reasons of money I've had and still have to live with house mates.  I can't say I ever lived with a Catholic house mate.  I briefly lived with some Opes Dei individuals once.  My concern is that I'm subjecting myself to non- Catholic beliefs.  I guess one's Catholic faith will pull one through these situations.  I'm I Catholic to sell something anti- Catholic to a non Catholic, example: Someplace I have probably 5 cds of rock and roll music.  Considering the small business opportunity of selling these on ebay.  Must I destroy this music or may I sell it to an anonymous non- Catholic.  After putting this thought into words I say I need to destroy these cds. The flip of selling is buying, example … I generally feel alone in this world and even from my family.  I only know through the Internet that the true Catholic faith is kept by others.  I've pursued the idea of Catholic unity by researching on the web.  It was shock of reality to find out there is a number of proclaimed popes in the world.  I suppose a true pope would be able to answer the questions I have or significantly change the landscape so my questions don't exist.. 

 
Rob Urbasic
Denver, Colorado

 

MHFM: Rob, if you can avoid heretical and non-Catholic roommates, then obviously that’s the thing to do.  You should make every effort to get out of that situation; but if you’re stuck and simply cannot sustain a place on your own then you have to do the best in your situation.  Regarding the CDs, you should just destroy them.

 

Fighting for the Faith in AR

 

I stopped going to the New (World) Order Mass at the end of August this year. There are just 3 churches in this state that have the Tridentine Mass and I am trying to verify the validity of one priests’ ordination before I attend a valid Mass. I have the misfortune of being a Catholic who has probably never received a valid Eucharist. I converted to Catholicism in 1997. Most of my confessions are probably invalid as well… I am in an interesting position to view the continual deterioration of the faith. I am surrounded by cafeteria-Catholics, indifferentism, and a general apathy. The indoctrination of the last 45 years of the V-II church is astounding. It's sad that people can say it's fine top accept Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception and the Eucharist but in the same breath they cannot accept teaching on heretics, baptism, divorce, etc. They take what they want and discard the rest…

 

When I had friend over 10/16 we watched the DVD, "Why John Paul II cannot be Pope." After 20 minutes I stopped the player and we started a discussion. Bro. Michael was labeled a potential freemason, as it was put forth, and that your "method" of teaching is of a "freemasonic nature" and that you seem to be "driving people away from the church." Unfortunately, I did not have the presence of mind to mention that for a freemason to ask people to say the rosary 3 times a day, or recommend the reading of St. Louis de Montfert or St. Alphonsus, would, at the very least, be a conflict of interest. Congratulations Bro, Michael, “freemason!” I have since removed myself from the company of such folk who say these things.  I know what you write about Church teaching is true. Ours is a disciplined faith, hard as that may be. But I completely understand and I am cognizent that Jesus was not ambiguous, wishy-washy or watered-down. My faith is almost the size of a mustard seed, thanks to your ministry, as I now more clearly understand the true Catholic Church and what is expected of a true Christian.

 

I will continue to support your monastery and ministry to the best of my ability. I have not yet given up on my family and friends, although, I will have to change tactics.  I will pray for your health, for your continued endeavor and research, and for your continued heralding of the truth about the Catholic Church.

 

Sincerely,

 

Howard Shaffer

Hot Springs Village, AR.

 

MHFM: It’s ashame that your friend didn’t stick around for the rest of the DVD.  The Why John Paul II Cannot Be the Pope DVD, especially after about the 15 to 20 minute mark, is quite devastating.  Anyone who watches it would be quite convicted; for it covers in brutal visual detail the worst of John Paul II’s undeniable apostasy with the different false religions and heretical sects. 

 

It’s great to hear about your interest; it’s sad to hear about your family and friends’ lack of it.

 

Cemetery

 

Dear Brother;

 

Please don't think I'm stupid but which day is it we, say go to the cemetary and pray, it's all souls day right?And is this permissable for I know there is non christians, novus ordo and maybe a mason or two buried there.

                                              

thanks

stuart ingraham

 

MHFM: All Souls Day (Nov. 2) is dedicated to the souls in Purgatory, but one may go to the cemetery any day.  In fact, going to the cemetery and seeing tombstone after tombstone – and thinking about how all those people lived and are now dead and (for the most part) completely forgotten – can be extremely powerful and awakening about what really matters (i.e. saving one’s soul) and how quickly this earthly life vanishes.

 

Likewise, reading books on the four last things (death, judgment, Heaven and Hell) serves a similar purpose.  One could also watch our video Death and the Journey Into Hell for something very important in this regard.  But when you go to the cemetery, you could only pray for the souls of the faithfully departed (i.e. those who die as Catholics presumably in the state of grace).  In other words, one could only pray for the deceased who lived and died demonstrating fidelity to the true Catholic Faith of all times, not modernist or liberal “Catholics,” nor those who die clearly in a state of sin or estrangement from the practice of the Faith.

 

Halloween

 

MHFM: Halloween was first celebrated by the Druids hundreds of years ago.  These people were very superstitious and believed that witches, demons and spirits of the dead roamed about on the night of October 31st.  Because the Druids were so afraid of these forces of evil, they disguised themselves as evil spirits to confuse the real evil spirits.  They also set out food offerings to the spirits.  This is where the term “trick or treat” comes from.  The Druids “tricked” or “treated” the evil spirits.

 

Obviously, no Catholic should participate in any way in this demonic festival.

 

Halloween is also the day before All Saints Day (Nov. 1), of course.  All Saints Day is when all the saints are honored – the day when all the saints come out, if you will.  So it makes sense that the devils would plan a festival for all the creatures of Hell to come out the day before all the saints come out.  It’s also not just a coincidence, in our view, that Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on Oct. 31, 1517 (Halloween).  His action, which unleashed a torrent of evil, occurred on the day when all the devils come out – the devils which his revolution against the Church unleashed all over the world.

 

Montini (Paul VI) a homo?

 

Dear Rev. Brothers

Why is it that all Traditionalist websites sove under the carpet that Montini [ Antipope Paul VI ] was a homosexual? How is it that he was elected pope, by the then so-called traditional minded cardinals when his homosexuality was public knowledge? What sort of cardinals were these?

God struck down Sodom and Gommorah for this vice, one of the sins that cry out for God's vengeance. Yet, a practitioner of this vice was elected in 1963 by the whole college of cardinals to head the Catholic Church !. Why the cover up? How can anyone dare to say that the Holy Ghost inspired this perverted conclave?

You have applied your mind to the Sister Lucy question. Now please do likewise concerning Montini. Look at the legacy this man - the " spiritual father " (!) of Wojtyla - has left.

S. Francis

 

MHFM:  We haven’t seen proof that Montini (Antipope Paul VI) was a homosexual.  We have proven that he was a public heretic.  We stick to what we can prove.

 

Paul VI, Address to Dalai Lama, Sept. 30, 1973: “We are happy to welcome Your Holiness today… You come to us from Asia, the cradle of ancient religions and human traditions which are rightly held in deep veneration.”[40]

 

Debate stats

 

MHFM: The debate has been available online for less than a week; so far there have been over a thousand downloads of it.

 

What about this Bishop?

 

Dear Brothers Michael & Peter Dimond,

 

I read in the section of your website "Our Monastery" that the Most Holy Family Monastery had its roots in New Jersey.  I was wondering if you know of any valid priests celebrating the Traditional Latin Rite mass here.  I have been to Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Pequannock, which is very far from where we live now, and to Mater Ecclesiae, until I learned from your website that, due to when he was ordained, Fr. Pasley was not a valid priest.  I'm guessing an independent would probably be the best way to go, anyway.  I saw a listing on the internet for a St. Mary the Virgin Chapel in Paulsboro.  Their priest is Bp. John Hesson, OSB and I thought it was interesting that he came from St. Vincent College in Latrobe, PA - the same Benedictine community as your founder Bro. Joseph Natale, OSB.  Do you know Bp. Hesson?  He was ordained in May 1967, so he would be valid. I took a really quick scan of his website and it appears he is in line with the doctrine that Outside the Church there is no salvation.

 

I have been going to a Byzantine mass, but I really miss the Latin Rite.

 

Thank you for helping to save souls,

Maria Nicoletti

 

MHFM: Maria, unfortunately Bishop Hesson holds the same heresy as Bishop McKenna and so many other priests: that souls can be saved in false religions.  One of us spoke with him over the telephone about the issue.  When he was asked about no salvation outside the Church, he responded that "moral theology" teaches that non-Catholics can be saved.  He also made it clear that one would not be able to receive the sacraments from him if one believed that only those who die as Catholics can be saved.  Since this is his position (i.e. an imposingly heretical one), he should be avoided.

 

Comment on Debate

 

Dear Bros. Dimond,

 

I waited till now to listen to the debate because three hours is a long time and I wanted to hear all of it.

The poor man lost hands down.  He never answered anything, just kept repeating the same thing over and over as if it was a great trump for anything that came his way.  I noticed a couple of things and one was that the people who believe in Baptism of Desire seem to have little faith in God.  He cannot save someone from death or bring them what is needed before death if they have a good heart, so they must hope that the desire will work, or even if they don't believe anything at all they can be a good person and saved through the church.   But this God who is Almighty and All Powerful cannot point out a man who is to be pope and make it known to all Catholics and non-catholics as well?  He cannot step in and fix this crisis in a manner that is of HIs own choosing?  He came down and gave Moses the Ten Commandments, gave him instructions in detail on how He was to be worshiped right down to the design on the curtain and the bells and fringe on the priests robes, but He cannot point out a pope.  He came to Noah and told him how to build an Ark and what to put inside but He is unable or unwilling to do the same for us in some manner.  He could send His Son down to be true God and true man to die for us but he cannot give us a pope?

   The next thing I noticed that upset me was the lack of Faith in God a second time.  Just who was Jesus anyway?   To say the Muslims worship the true God of Abraham not Jesus, is well,  strange.  I do seem to remember Jesus saying, " Before Abraham was I AM." and it got Him nailed to a cross for sure.  However, since the Muslims worship a single deity that would mean that if Abrahams God was their God the Trinity could not have formed before the Birth of Jesus Christ.  He makes more heresy to explain heresy away!   And Jesus lied by saying before Abraham was I AM since He could not have been if there was no Trinity!   I sure hope there is not going to be a debate on the top four or five quotes so he can prove there is no heresy in them.  If he can do no better than he did with the quote the Muslims worship the same God as Catholics he has not got a hope.

 

Thank you a little late for the wonderful book on Padre Pio and I think putting four programs on one CD is a great idea! 

 

Mary Ann Davis

 

Council of Braga and catechumens

 

Dear Brother,

 

We have had some correspondence with Fr Laisney.  …  in a footnote he states ..."Previous canons of the Council of Braga are irrelevant, because they were for  very different circumstances:  indeed, at this time, there were some "permanent catechumens" who were waiting until the end of their life for their Baptism:  now such certainly do not have Baptism of Desire, and therefore the Council of Braga was right in refusing them ecclesiastical burial…Is this canon of the Council of Braga referring only to these  "permanent catechumens" as Fr Laisney says?   I dont believe it is, but I would like to prove to him that he is wrong.   Could you please explain to me how this Canon from the Council of Braga is referring to all catechumens. Thank you for all your work to inform people of the truth and God Bless your effort.

                        

Phil and Bryanne Weber

MHFM: The Council of Braga, expressing the tradition of the entire early Church, forbade ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without baptism.  No qualification is made; it’s quite self-explanatory.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism.  There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhereThe practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD):  Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”

For someone to attempt to deny the clear meaning of this by ridiculously asserting without any proof at all that: “oh… well… that only referred to permanent catechumens…” is outrageously dishonest.  It’s to be a liar, which is exactly what Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX is.  Remember, this is the same priest who said in his book that the Council of Florence “mentions” baptism of desire!

 

Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 47: “Moreover, the very Council of Florence, in the very same decree for the Jacobites (part of the bull Cantate Domino) mentions baptism of desire.”

 

This is a complete lie, of course; and Fr. Laisney knows it.  We don’t see how someone could write a lie like this (one of the worst lies we’ve seen in any book), and at the same time present himself as a teacher of Catholic truth, without being possessed by the Devil.

 

Contra B.O.D.

 

Dear Dimond Brothers :

 

I would like to make a point against the false doctrine of baptism of desire which I think its advocates would have trouble to refute.

If God were saving unbaptized adults who are ignorant of the faith through so called "desire" then wouldn't it be quite unjust for God not to save unbaptized infants, who are the most ignorant and innocent human beings and who are incapable of desiring baptism?  Almost all B.O.D. advocates hold that unbaptized infants are not saved but go to Limbo.  So it doesn't seem logical that they hold that unbaptized adults could be saved.

 

William

 

Breviary argument boomerangs back to refute baptism of desire/blood advocates

 

Howard --

 

    Did you write to the Dimonds and ask them about the Lawgiver being superior to His Law argument for salvation by desire and blood ?

 

    If they were not considering it, they should put it into their 2nd edition, also the infallible breviary argument.

 

    If not, why are they avoiding these two ?

 

MHFM: First, God cannot reveal to His Church that which would be false – so the argument about Him being superior to His Law is irrelevant.  He doesn’t reveal anything that doesn’t hold true.

 

Second, regarding the Breviary and the baptism of desire/blood advocates who cite the Breviary’s reference to St. Emerentiana as a “catechumen,” we’ve pointed out that the recently baptized person often continued instruction and was sometimes still referred to as a “catechumen.”  That’s why the Council of Braga in 572 makes reference to “catechumens who have died without baptism” in forbidding them ecclesiatical burial.  The Breviary nowhere says that one can be saved without Baptism.

 

But there is a devastating refutation of baptism of desire/blood advocates who make reference to the Roman Breviary.  The argument of baptism of desire/blood advocates from the Roman Breviary actually boomerangs back and knocks them out.  This point was made in the 1st edition of the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, but it is made much more forcefully in the second edition of Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, which should be available in about 5 weeks.

 

Here is what the Roman Breviary has to say about the teaching of the great St. Gregory Nazianz, who clearly rejected baptism of desire.   A reading for the feast of St. Gregory Nazianz (May 9) in the Roman Breviary states:

 

The Roman Breviary, May 9: “He [St. Gregory] wrote much, both in prose and verse, of an admirable piety and eloquence.  In the opinion of learned and holy men, there is nothing to be found in his writings which is not conformable to true piety and Catholic faith, or which anyone could reasonably call in question.”[41]

     

This rather significant fact totally refutes baptism of desire/blood advocates who argue that the teaching of the Breviary proves that men can be saved without Baptism (which we already saw is not true).  St. Gregory Nazianz clearly rejected baptism of desire (see below), and the Breviary says here that there is nothing in his writings which is not conformable to the Catholic religion or which one could call into question! 

 

St. Gregory Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked.  This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them.  Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire.  Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it

     “If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism.  But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter?  I cannot see it.  If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory.  You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory.  Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”[42]

 

Therefore, if one holds the teaching of the Breviary to be infallible, then he would have to reject baptism of desire.  As baptism of desire advocate J.D. put it:

 

J.D., Sept. 2, 2006: “And of course theologians consider that it is impossible that there should be theological error in the Breviary…”

 

It looks like this baptism of desire advocate will have to reject baptism of desire or revise his arguments (hopefully the former).  It’s interesting how God puts the refutation of these objections right before us.  To refute the Breviary objection, we need only consult what the Breviary says about the doctor above who clearly rejected baptism of desire!  To refute the false claim that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent teaches baptism of desire, we need only consult the rest of the sentence which the baptism of desire advocates leave out, namely, “as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

 

On another matter, a person who had claimed to defend the salvation dogma has now defected to stand with the heretics.  We will probably have some comments about this soon.

 

Some early reaction to the debate

 

Congratulations.  Slam dunk…

 

Awesome.  This was a fight between Rocky Marciano (the Bros. dimond) vs. Twigy (Mr. Golle)

 

I just want to say that he was not prepared for the onslaught of information.  Even if he was, he could not respond nor defend the indefensible.  I do not believe that he understood that your quotations from the Vatican II antipopes were "their explanations" of the Vatican II heresy.  Sad indeed.

 

If he repeated that our position was not true because you, the Bros Dimond, could not tell us who and when the next pope were to be chosen, I was going to scream.  He, even though he believes in the V2 popes, cannot tell us who or when the next pope will be chosen.  Afterall, you, I, nor he is a prophet.  So, stop with the assertion of predicting the future.  Great job in staying on task.

 

Big victory…

 

Yours in Christ,

Bill Boyd

Baldwinsville, NY

 

You did an EXCELLENT job in this debate on Sedevacantism because you presented facts to defend your position.  Mr. Gallo presented opinion.  God is not about opinion, only Truth based upon Facts!  Also, he was like a broken record about "when will we have a Pope if the Chair of St. Peter has been empty for 50 years?"  I guess Mr. Gallo didn't hear you quote St. Anthanasius who said that the Catholic Church is found where there is a valid priest and valid Sacraments, where there is but a handful of faithful Catholics.  And it is most obvious he does not know the history of how Popes in the past have been elected.  But he thinks like most NO Catholics I know.  The problem is that if they are in communion with the post-Vat. II "Popes," then they cannot be in communion with St. Peter and his valid successors.  They do not teach the same Faith, which is obvious if one but do a comparison and contrast of the Roman Church with the post Conciliar Church.  My third graders know how to use a Venn Diagram to compare and contrast.  Perhaps everyone who wants to be Roman Catholic would benefit by using this stategy.  Salvation is at stake!...

 

fandm

             -------------------

            Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

 

A job well done.  There were so many areas in this debate that Mr. Golle proved himself is not even be Catholic.  People who believe as he does, are in essence atheists, as evidenced by his statement regarding the Muslims praying, "not necessarily to Jesus, but the God of the old testament".  Unbelievable!!!! 

 

Paul and Theresa Smith

 

Dear Brothers,

 

The Lord was truly with you last nite during the sedevacantism debate. You were both well prepared and presented the case flawlessly. I tuned in to see if there were any NEW arguements coming from the anti sedevacantist camp. As usual, it was the same arguement.... "IT JUST CAN'T BE SO... BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE CONCLUSION".  You present the facts that can't be denied by anyone with an ounce of good will at seeking what is true and correct and the opponent dismisses ALL the evidence and facts simply because acceptance of them means a conclusion that he does not wish to arrive at or have answers for. This is as bad as protestants who REFUSE to read anything written by Catholics in apologetics which may lead to their conversion simply because "Catholics CAN'T be correct"..

 

Sincerely,

Edward 

 

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

Well done on your debate with Mr. Golle!... You both did a great job in showing that even people
who actively support abortion, such as John Kerry, can be in good standing in the Vatican II church; so much
for Truth on that issue...Mr. Golle denies that such actions such as kissing the koran, praying at the Wailing Wall, kneeling before a schismatic patriarch,  praising Protestants such as Martin Luther, or praying with heretics can infer support for these false religions!  These are acts of apostasy! However, I would like to point out that Judas himself betrayed Jesus with a KISS! This is why Jesus warned us of Wolves in Sheep's clothing. These guys at the very top of Mr. Golle's hierarchy know EXACTLY what they are doing! They want all these people to remain where they are so they have NO CHANCE
at salvation…

 

Bridget Burrows

            -------------------------------

Dear Bros.Michael and Peter,


Listened to the debate,all I can say is "Outstanding." May Jesus and Mary continue to protect you,
you have done so much for so many.


Paula

            ----------

DEAR BROTHER PETER AND BROTHER MICHAEL,

 

Excellent debate!  A friend who wanted to listen was unable, and fortunately it's already on your web site!

 

Nancy Battle

            -----------------

Dear Bros:

That was a good debate you made Mr. Golle; you maintained your coolness. I'm treasuring the mp3. I wrote to you sometime back but feel like writing to you again. Not only Mr. Golle but most Vatican II sect supporters do not understand that sedevacantists are not self-righteous Catholics on the look out for a pope who would fit in to their personal style and ideals of the Church. In fact, it's difficult for them to live without looking up to a living pope as Christ's vicar on earth as much as the Novus Ordos need to look up to their "popes." But more difficult for them is to hold an apostate as their Holy Father…

 

Dennis Gabil

-----------------

We would agree that the Dimonds utterly obliterated the position of their opponent tonight…

 

PB

            -----------------------------------------------

Dear Brothers,

I am getting grief, because my friends don't think William Golle has a sufficient Degree to be a reliable opponent.   Would you please post his credentials that make him a worthy debater.

Thank you,
Carol

 

MHFM: We assume that means that even your non-sedevacantist friends can see who won the debate.  As we posted, Mr. Golle is a writer for the Catholic Star Herald with a degree in Systematic Theology from a “Catholic” University who is on his way to his Masters Degree.  He studies sedevacantism, and is familiar with our arguments.  It wouldn’t have mattered who was debating on the other side or answering the questions, the result would have been the same.  The questions are unanswerable; the truth is irrefutable.  We were so glad that we finally got a chance to debate one of these individuals.  We’ve been in so many conversations where they could lie about, evade or ignore the true points being presented, but in a debate they cannot escape the facts. 

 

Probably on our next radio program we will also have some comments about the pathetically weak case which was presented by another supposed sedevacantist who recently took part in a debate.

 

What about this priest?

 

Dear Brothers,

 

As you probably know, Fr. Francis LeBlanc of Our Lady of the Sun International Shrine died on September 28, and we

now have a new pastor, Fr. Paul Andrade who was ordained by Bishop Dolan at a Cistercian seminary in Warren, Michigan

about eleven years ago.  From his comments so far, we know he is a sedevacantist.  Do you know if priests of this Order hold to any heresies, as do those of the SSPX, CMRI, etc.  If you answer this in your web commentaries, please use a pseudonym for my name,

 

                                        Sincerely yours,

                                        [name withheld]

 

MHFM: Thank you for your question.  We don’t know what Fr. Andrade personally holds, but he almost certainly denies the salvation dogma (although we hope we’re wrong).  From what we’ve been told by an individual who attended his chapel in Nevada and conversed with him, Andrade was affiliated with Bishop McKenna (who rejects the salvation dogma and holds that Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace).  You should not support him at all until he manifests that he doesn’t accept baptism of desire under any form (although that’s extremly unlikely) and indicates that he is not affiliated with any priests who deny the dogma.  Andrade also might have some affiliation with Bishop Dolan or Bishop Sanborn (who all deny the dogma, and who are all basically part of the same crowd). 

 

Bishop Donald Sanborn, Sacerdotium V, p. 24: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ.  The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ.  If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry.  It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error.”

 

By the way, Bishop Sanborn’s colleague, Fr. Anthony Cekada, believes similarly and even said that the Catholic dogma on salvation doesn’t exclude the idea that non-Catholic “individuals” are saved, but only that their sects are means of salvation. (Closing statement in a debate in The Remnant, 2002.)  That is not true, of course; it is a heretical rejection of the dogma, since the dogma declares that all individuals who die without the Catholic Faith are lost, not simply that non-Catholic religions are not means of salvation.

 

Comment on SSPX reconciliation and Bendict XVI

 

MHFM: Just a quick thought: If Benedict XVI plans to 1) lure the SSPX fully back into the phony Vatican II sect (a.k.a. the Whore of Babylon) and 2) “canonize” the gargantuan apostate John Paul II, he probably knows that he must do #1 before #2.  For if he “canonizes” John Paul II first, that would be a tremendous impediment to their full union with the V-2 sect.  It would basically end negotiations, in our opinion.  But once he reconciles with them and brings them in they are stuck (unless they completely break ranks with the SSPX and New Church), and he can proceed with the “canonization” of Antipope John Paul II and then force them all to venerate the man who represented antichrist in the temple of God.  If the SSPX does fully reconcile, don’t be surprised if the “canonization” of John Paul II follows quickly.

 

Death Penalty?

 

MHFM,

 

In November there will be a referendum on the ballot as to whether or not the state of Wisconsin should allow capital punishment.  The local novus ordo  are saying Catholics should oppose the death penalty, that it is part of the "culture of death."  Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with it.  For instance, if the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had been executed by the state, I do not see that as a miscarriage of justice, provided he was given the opportunity to repent and convert if he desired it.  Instead he was beaten to death while in prison by another inmate, presumably while the prison guard looked the other way.  I recall in Oklahoma Timothy McVeigh was rather defiant up to near the end of his life, but received the last rites and had a prequiem mass - via novus ordo.  Are we to believe the justice system did wrong?  I don't.  (He was also cremated - do you think this is a good practice for Catholics?)

 

Sincerely,

John

 

MHFM: The Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty.  That’s another novel and heretical idea of the Vatican II sect.  In fact, one of the condemned errors of Martin Luther is:

 

Errors of Martin Luther, #33: “That heretics be burned is against the will of the spirit.” – Condemned by Pope Leo X (Denz. 773)

 

The Catholic Church also condemns the practice of Catholics getting cremated.  The 1917 Code of Canon Law forbade Christian burial for those who requested cremation.  That’s covered below in this passage from our article on Benedict XVI’s heretical book, God and the World:

 

BENEDICT XVI ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE VATICAN II SECT HAS ABANDONED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S TRADITIONAL PROHIBITION OF CREMATION

 

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 436: “Q. Is it permissible to have dead bodies cremated, or is that just a heathen ritual?  A… Right up to the Second Vatican Council, cremation was subject to penalties.  In view of all the circumstances of the modern world, the Church has abandoned this. ”

 

Benedict XVI is acknowledging the radical teaching of John Paul II’s 1983 Code of Canon Law in this regard.

 

1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1176 § 3: “The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the dead be observed; it does not, however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.”

 

So, as long you claim that you are not getting cremated for the express purpose of contradicting a dogma – but rather, for instance, because you want your ashes to rest on your favorite golf course – cremation is allowed by the Vatican II sect.  This is a very serious issue because the teaching of the Catholic Church, as reflected in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, forbids cremation under pain of mortal sin and further stipulates that those who requested it cannot receive Christian burial.  This shows us a clear difference between the two religions.

 

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1203 § 1-2: “The bodies of the faithful departed shall be buried, their cremation being reprobated.  2. If anyone by any manner orders that his body be cremated, it is illicit to execute that desire; and if this was added to any contract or testament or any other act.”

 

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1240 § 1-5: “Unless they gave before death a sign of repentance, the following are deprived of ecclesiastical burial: 1. Notorious apostates from the Christian faith, or those who notoriously gave their name to heretical sects or schismatic or Masonic sects, or other societies of this sort; 2. Excommunicates or those under interdict after a condemnatory sentence; 3. Those who killed themselves by deliberate counsel; 4. Those who died in a duel, or from wounds related thereto; 5. Those who ordered that their body be handed over for cremation; 6. Other public and manifest sinners.”

 

Convert from Protestantism

 

Brothers Dimond,

 

I have been reading your material online for a few weeks now and needless to say, it is startling.  I am a baptized Protestant but after the last four years of studying I have determined the Catholic Church to the be the true faith.  After going through most of the RCIA program at a local Novus Ordo Church I could sense something was wrong-the faith I had believed the Catholic Church to hold was absent and in its place was a mockery.  In short, over the past few months I have realized the truth of the traditional Catholic faith.  I still need to be formally recieved into the Catholic Church but am in a quandary as to how to go about it… I feel like I have been on a goose chase and am very concerned of the frightening possibility I could die as a non-Catholic-even though I believe whole-heartedly all that it teaches and claims for itself.  I would be very grateful for any suggestions/advice you could give me.  Thank you.

 

Brad

 

MHFM: We have contacted this individual.

 

Benedict XVI restoring Latin Mass?

 

Dear Brothers

 

Gods grace be upon you for your explanations of the Faith and continue in the good fight.  We hear that the SSPX in New Zealand are hinting of an announcement in November 2006 that they have been accepted and will return to the sheepfold. Problem is, wolves are now on duty, looking for more fat ones to break their hooves, travelling to and fro.  Where does that leave the rest of us who soon will have fewer alternatives for the Sacraments?

 

BENEDICT XVI WILL BROADEN USE OF LATIN MASS

 

Does this pending announcement change anything about SSPX"s status or does the announcement, to be seen and understood have no effect? The timing is close to the suspected announcement of their "deal". Since St Pope Pius V made his ex cathedra pronouncement, what effect can this have on that? Will the local ordinaries now release their Churches for the Old Mass. It will be interesting to see who disobeys this instruction.

I guess its a strategic position to begin with, we can but trust in Gods grace.

In Christo
Michael Sheehan

 

MHFM: If Benedict XVI does allow the Latin Mass universally that will, of course, be a calculated move on his part to lure traditionalists into the false Vatican II sect at a time when most of the priests are invalid anyway – as we’ve pointed out repeatedly.  But we think that people should wait and see if it even happens.  There has been a lot of talk – and nothing more – for a long time now.  We think that people should put all the speculation and the sensationalism on hold until it happens, is signed and put into effect.   We’ll see if what we’ve been hearing for a few years now ever happens at all.  If it never happens, Benedict XVI has benefited by the rumors, for in the minds of the lax “Catholics” who don’t keep up on things, the fact that he was said to want to give the Latin Mass back provides the impression that he is traditional (even if he never follows through with the promise) – once again deceiving people, confirming them in the whore, wasting their time, neutralizing them. 

 

People shouldn’t forget how bad this recent Heresy of the Week by Benedict XVI is.  It’s as bad as John Paul II kissing the Koran.  It alone would prove he is not the pope.

 

Regarding where to attend Mass, this is a difficult issue.  Obviously one cannot ever attend the New Mass.  On our website (see the Guide for the section on this question) we have posted some guidelines on our position about how a Catholic may avail himself of the sacraments that are provided by a traditionalist priest who holds a heretical position, as long as that priest is not notorious or imposing about his heresy – and as long as the Catholic doesn’t support the priest at all financially.  Since there are so many different priests in the SSPX, those guidelines on our website which address this issue should be applied to your particular situation.

 

Comments on G.W.S article

 

Dear Brothers, I appreciated your comprehensive article on the Western Schism. I thought it was very well done. I had been trying to find accurate information on this topic… Keep up the great work. God bless.

 

Barbara

-----

In your article on Pius XII and BOD, I believe you meant to say Pope Stephen VI, not Pope Stephen VII.


Michael Bongard

 

MHFM: No, we meant to say Stephen VII.  He is listed both ways (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 115).

 

-------

 

Br. Peter Dimond has come out with an excellent essay discussing the Great Western Schism and drawing lessons from it:

 

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Great_Western_Schism.html

 

He builds a good case that sedevacantism is not as absurd as it might at first seem.  All of the cardinals of the Church went over to an Anti-Pope; an Anti-Pope ruled from Rome; the true Pope was the weakest of three claimants; most of the theologians recognized an Anti-Pope.

 

JB

 

Pius XII and Baptism of desire?

 

Dear Brother Peter

I would appreciate your comment on the following quote from Pope Pius XII which appears to explicitly endorse Baptism of Desire in the last sentence of the quotation. 

 

Gerard

 

MHFM:  We have posted a short article which comments on this issue.  It is found here: Comments on Pius XII and Baptism of desire


JP video chilling

 

Dear Brothers,


I have been so busy telling my friends to go see your New JPII Video that I have forgotten to Thank You for taking the time and effort to make it. It IS Chilling...so subtle.  I'm left almost speachless just thinking of the magnitude of this discovery.   If anyone had any doubts, this should surely nail the lid shut on those. 

 

Carol

 

Like Radio Program and Article

 

Dear Brothers,

It was a fascinating program tonight, as usual; but much too short!  Your article on the Western Schism was really interesting.  It was funny how you used the term "patent aburdidity" several times as it was Christopher Ferrara's article on "Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise" which used that phrase repeatedly regarding sedevacantism and which was the impetus for my becoming a sedevacantist. 

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your website.  You seem to be the only really sane people on the internet.

 

Contra NFP

 

Greetings,

 

Just a note to thank you for your article on NFP. As a single woman, I find NFP to be disgusting, obscene, and revolting. I have told married people over and over again that manual strangulation is not a superior method of homicide because it is "natural" and uses no devices like a gun. It has the same effect, and the Church Father Caesarius said that contraception is a kind of homicide because it prevents the life a person whom God willed to exist.

 

By the way, there was a quote by a Saint to the effect that heretics persist in their sin because they lead bad lives.

You are right that Mel Gibson sins mortally by denying the Faith publicly whilst pretending to practice it…. Given the obscene nature of his films, one isn't surprised.

 

Regards,

Miss Ross

 

Refuting the illogic of Eastern Orthodoxy

 

[note: someone we know recently declared his intention to become Eastern Orthodox; we pointed out to him that E. Orthodoxy, without recognizing a supreme bishop, cannot believe in a dogmatic council at all.  He e-mailed us back saying that it’s no more of a problem than differentiating between true popes and antipopes.  Below is part of his e-mail and our response, which brings up points which prove that Eastern Orthodoxy, the schismatic sect which rejects the Papal Primacy and the last 13 councils of the Church, is completely false and illogical.]

 

I appreciate your prompt response, but I am not sure that after much reflection and reading there is a sufficient answer at this point to the questions we discussed.  Your comments were helpful, but I do not feel that you answered the issue of certainty as to an ecumenical council as to certainty of a valid pope.  Nicea is valid because of its self-attestation to the traditional Faith which, as the Fathers often say, is in line with "the tradition of the Holy and orthodox fathers."  At some point we must admit the certainty of the individual as to what is orthodox.  If the individual can have certainty, then its not merely a matter of knowing which is the valid pope, since we know there have been numerous antipopes and numerous false councils.  How do you know Constance was a false council when it was called?  You will say because later sessions were ratified by a valid pope (Martin V).  How do we know Martin V is the valid pope?   Doesn't the problem just get moved back a step? 

 

OUR QUICK REFUTATION OF EASTERN ORTHODOXY

 

MHFM: Regarding your first question, the answer is here:

 

When the Council of Constance (reckoned in part or whole the Sixteenth General, 1414-1417)… had deposed [Antipope] John, it entered into negotiations with Gregory, who conveyed to it his willingness to abdicate provided he was allowed formally to convoke the assembled prelates and dignitaries afresh as a general council; as pope he could not recognize one called by John.  This procedure was accepted, and at the 14th solemn session, on 4 July 1415, his cardinal John Dominici read out his bull convoking the council, whereupon Carlo Malatesta [Pope Gregory XII] announced his resignation.  The two college of cardinals were united, Gregory’s acts in his pontificate were ratified…”[43][i]

 

The valid election of Martin V followed Pope Gregory XII’s resignation and his valid convocation of Constance.

 

You write:>>>Nicea is valid because of its self-attestation to the traditional Faith which, as the Fathers often say, is in line with "the tradition of the Holy and orthodox fathers." At some point we must admit the certainty of the individual as to what is orthodox.  If the individual can have certainty, then its not merely a matter of knowing which is the valid pope, since we know there have been numerous antipopes and numerous false councils.>>>

                                                                                                                   

There is a very logical framework which enables one to distinguish true popes from antipopes, as I will explain.  There is no such logical framework in Eastern Orthodoxy for distinguishing between a true council and a false council, or true dogma from heresy.

 

Jesus Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter (Mt. 16), and gave him jurisdiction over his flock (John 21:15-17).  St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his followers (i.e., the members of the Church in Rome) elected his successor, or he appointed his own successor as the Bishop of Rome and head of the universal Church.  This process continued through the ages, with the pope being able to change the process of election (such as by instituting a college of cardinals) if he so decided, since the pope has supreme authority in the Church from Christ (Mt. 16).  All individuals not elected in this fashion (e.g., one who was elected after the Bishop of Rome had already been chosen in the tradition thus described, or one who was appointed by an outside source, such as an emperor, after the pope had already been chosen, or one who was elected as a non-member of the community, such as a manifest heretic) wouldn’t be a true pope, but logically an antipope.  This logical framework holds true for all of history, and has allowed one to see which are the true popes and which are not – even if at some of the most difficult periods of Church history, such as the Great Western Schism, ascertaining the facts to correctly apply these principles was difficult enough that some mistakes were made by certain individuals. 

 

I have thus described the consistent, logical framework of the succession of the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus Christ to the popes down through the ages.  This shows that the Catholic Faith is consistent.  (The authority given to St. Peter and his successors is the backing of the dogmatic councils; this is the authority which anathematizes those who deny the dogmatic councils’ teaching.)

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome, cannot even put forward a framework by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 

Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox” this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 

Jay, Eastern Orthodoxy cannot logically hold any council to be dogmatic and binding, as you will see if you honestly and deeply think about it.  In E. Orthodoxy there is nothing which backs the anathemas of Ephesus or another council other than the word of bishops, who are equal to other bishops who many times taught the opposite.  Eastern “Orthodoxy” is an illogical farce, which rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and the fathers on the Papal Primacy, and which causes those who accept it to truly wind up believing in no dogma at all.  That’s why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith.  I guess the fact that E. Orthodoxy doesn’t – and cannot – really believe in any dogmatic councils (as shown above) is why it’s so appealing to so many: it’s provides the comfort of Protestantism, yet the appearance of ancient tradition, at the same time the feel of liturgical piety, with the illusion of hierarchical authority.

 

By the way, I think we agree that the post-Vatican II sect is a huge manifestation of evil at the very least, a Counter Church of the Devil.  Well, the post-Vatican II sect loves Eastern Orthodoxy; that should tell you something.  If E. Orthodoxy were true, the post-Vatican II antipopes would hate it.  The post-Vatican II antipopes, whose mission from the Devil is to embrace all the major breaches of God’s truth in history (the pagan religions, the Islamic religion, the heretical sects and the E. Orthodox schism) reaches out to and wants to unite with E. Orthodoxy (and Protestantism) because the Devil knows that E. Orthodoxy was one of those major movements of rejection of God’s truth by which he has ensnared millions of souls.

 

I don’t have the time to address your other questions now; nor do I know if I want to make the time, simply because those who are not convinced by such obvious points about the illogical nature of E. Orthodoxy, as well as the clear teaching of Scripture, sadly will probably not be convinced by a thousand proofs.  I would recommend that you pray the 15 decade Rosary each day – by the way, the miracle at Fatima also testifies to the Catholic Faith and she spoke there of the pope and his authority – and read the book Upon This Rock by Steve Ray (a Modernist, but who nevertheless marshals evidence from the early Church destroying E. Orthodox and Protestant lies against the Primacy). 

 

Matthew 16:17-18-“And I say to thee: That thou are Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

 

     Our Lord made St. Peter the first Pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the Universal Church of Christ. 

 

John 21:15-17-“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?  He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith to him: Feed my lambs.  He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith to him: Feed my lambs.  He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?  Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee.  He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

 

St. Irenaus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But inasmuch as it would be very tedious in a book like this to rehearse the lines of succession in every church, we will put to confusion all those who, either from waywardness or conceit or blindness or obstinacy combine together against the truth, by pointing to the tradition, derived from the Apostles, of that great and illustrious Church founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the faith declared to mankind and handed down to our own time through its bishops in their succession. For with this Church, because of its more powerful leadership, every church, that is to say, the faithful from everywhere, must needs agree, and in it the tradition that springs from the Apostles has been continuously preserved by men from everywhere....”

 

New Video available online

 

MHFM: On Sept. 19, 1846, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared in La Salette, France, and foretold that:

 

Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist… the Church will be in eclipse.” 

 

We’re happy to announce that you can now watch our video, John Paul II preached the Gospel of the Antichrist: that every man is God, online for free.  To watch the video, Click here and scroll down and you will see John Paul II preached the Gospel of the Antichrist  We truly hope many will watch this video, for it absolutely proves that John Paul II preached that every man is Jesus Christ right in the Vatican.  It proves that John Paul II preached precisely what St. John describes in the Bible as the doctrine of Antichrist.  This video proves, without any doubt, that John Paul II represented the fulfillment of Our Lady of La Salette’s prophecy, that Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist.  (Note: Paul VI and Benedict XVI also represent Antichrist in the Vatican; the former because he attempted to kill Christ in the Mass, and the latter because he teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the Messiah.)  This video proves that John Paul II’s distinguishing teaching was the exact doctrine of Antichrist, the substitution of man for God.

 

Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus, Oct. 4, 1903: “While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God.”

 

We implore skeptics to take a look at the incredible evidence contained in this video, to watch the entire thing, for it truly provides proof that John Paul II was preaching the doctrine of Antichrist in the Vatican, in fulfillment of Our Lady’s prophecy at La Salette.  For those who come to recognize what John Paul II was preaching deliberately and with full knowledge, it will illuminate their entire outlook on the post-Vatican II apostasy and what we’re dealing with in the post-Vatican II antipopes. 

 

Years ago, when we originally read John Paul II’s first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, we noticed that John Paul II was subtly indicating that man is God. 

 

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.”

 

He says here that Christianity and the Gospel (the religion of Jesus Christ) are actually the amazement at man – a clear antichrist substitution.  He also says in this encyclical that man must attribute the Incarnation to himself in order to understand himself.

 

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 10): “The man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly he must ‘appropriate’ and assimilate the whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order to find himself.”

 

However, the full impact of John Paul II’s message didn’t hit us until we read the homily quoted below from John Paul II on Christ’s dialogue with the Pharisees in John 8.  Since we were familiar with the scripture that John Paul II was talking about, this was the point when it really hit us and it really clicked: we saw in its fullness exactly what John Paul II was really about.

 

John 8:23-“And he (Jesus) said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above.  You are of this world, I am not of this world.  Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins.  For if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.” 

 

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, March 30, 1982: “Looking at himself, man discovers also – as Christ says in the dialogue with the Pharisees [John 8]– what is ‘from below’ and what is ‘from above.’  Man discovers within himself (this is a constant experience) the man ‘from below’ and the man ‘from above’ not two men, but almost two dimensions of the same man, the man that is each one of us: of you, he, she.” (L’Osservatore Romano, May 10, 1982, p. 6.)

 

When we read this, we saw clearly that John Paul II wasn’t merely a heretic filled with the evil spirit of modern humanism and a false exaltation of man, but rather that John Paul II was deliberately and clearly, with a full knowledge of what he was doing, teaching that man is Jesus Christ Himself.  And then we began seeing it all over his writings, with reference to every aspect of the Faith, sometimes in bold ways and sometimes in more subtle ways. 

 

Further, having a familiarity with the heresy of Nestorius – Nestorius was the 5th century heretic who divided Christ by a perverse view of the Incarnation – we noticed the incredible similarity between Nestorius’s perversion of the Incarnation and John Paul II’s.  We also knew that Pope Pius XI described Nestorius’s heresy as the dissolving of Jesus (quoted in the video), the very thing that St. John says is the doctrine of Antichrist (1 John 4:2-3).  We then noticed that John Paul II’s teaching on the Incarnation was the very same heresy of Nestorius (the dissolving of Jesus), but John Paul II applied it to each man. 

 

Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical on the Holy Ghost (# 50), May 18, 1986: “The Word became flesh.’  The Incarnation of God the Son signifies the taking up into unity with God not only of human nature, but in this human nature, in a sense, everything that is ‘flesh’: the whole of humanity ...”

 

This means that the Son of God became the whole of humanity.  We then noticed the incredible fact that, according to Catholic teaching, Nestorius’s doctrine of Antichrist (his dividing of Christ) brought in the worship of two Christs and the worship of man.

 

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “The holy synod of Ephesus… has pronounced sentence against the heresy of Nestorius… and all those who might later… adopt the same opinions as he held… They express these falsehoods against the true dogmas of the Church, OFFERING WORSHIP TO TWO SONS, trying to divide that which cannot be divided, AND INTRODUCING TO BOTH HEAVEN AND EARTH THE OFFENCE OF THE WORSHIP OF MAN.  But the sacred band of heavenly spirits worship along with us only one lord Jesus Christ.”

 

This fascinating quote describes the result of Nestorius’s heresy.  Nestorius’s dissolving of Jesus resulted in the worship of man!  John Paul II teaches that the Son of God became each man in the Incarnation (i.e., he was dissolved into everyone), and therefore the Gospel is the deep amazement at everyone!  The next quote from John Paul II shows how he applied this in a cause and effect relationship.

 

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, Jan. 25, 1984: “Christ, the Son of God, by becoming flesh, assumes the humanity of every manAt this point he becomes united with every personIn the Encyclical Redemptor Hominis I wrote that ‘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.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 30, 1984, p. 3.)

 

Notice that, according to John Paul II, the Gospel being the amazement at man flows from his teaching that the Son of God became every man in the Incarnation, just as Nestorius’s dissolving of Jesus resulted in the worship of man.  It was thus clear that John Paul II taught Nestorianism, the very doctrine of Antichrist (according to Pius XI), applied to each man; and this is why his teaching results in the worship of multiple Christs and the worship of man. 

 

John Paul II’s teaching was a prophetic fulfillment of what Sacred Scripture pinpointed as the doctrine of Antichrist 2000 years ago.  Watch the video, and see the evidence and the undeniable proof that John Paul II preached that man is the way, the truth, and the life, that man is the crucified Christ, that man is the resurrected Christ, that man is the Christ of Mt. 16:16, that man is the Christ child born on Christmas, etc., etc., etc.  See for yourself what the post-Vatican II apostasy is really all about.

 

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 10, 1989: “… make straight the way of the Lord and of man, WHICH is the path of the Church.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 22, 1990, p. 6.)

 

Quote against Invincible Ignorance

 

MHFM: Below is a very interesting quote from a famous 16th century Dominican theologian, Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., who summed up the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the fact that those who die in ignorance of the Gospel are lost for their mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of disbelief in the Gospel (since they’ve never heard it).  Here is how he explained it:

 

When we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith.  For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief.  As St. Thomas says, however, if they do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.” (De Indis et de Iure Belli Relectiones, ed. E. Nys, tr. J.P. Bates (The Classics of International Law), Washinton, 1917, p. 142. )

 

This quote will be one of the new parts to the 2nd edition of Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.

 

Sr. Lucy and Fuentes

 

Dear Brothers,

I am a longtime student of Fatima and agree with the idea of there being an impostor Sr. Lucia.  Where does that leave the famous 1957 quote about the efficacy of the Rosary in our times?  Although I have personally experienced the power of the Rosary, wouldn't the Sr. Lucia who uttered these words have been the fake Sr. Lucia?  There are many who think the genuine Sr. Lucia died as long ago as the 1940s.

I would like to know your opinion.

Thank you!

L.M.

 

MHFM:  Thanks for the question.  This was addressed in the article on Sr. Lucy.  It fits with the evidence that they made the move to remove Sr. Lucy and implant the false Sr. Lucy just after her interview with Fr. Fuentes.  After that she was silenced and they began issuing false statements in her name.  Here is the portion on this in the article we have The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the Impostor Sr. Lucy.

 

First of all, we know that there was a conspiracy involving Sr. Lucy starting in 1959.  In 1957, Sr. Lucy gave her famous interview to Fr. Augustin Fuentes, postulator of the cause of Beatification for Jacinta and Francisco.  In this interview, Sr. Lucy said that she had determined that we are in the last times, and that there are punishments in store for the world.  Sr. Lucy also said not to wait for the hierarchy for the call to penance.  Following the interview, in 1959 the Diocese of Coimbra issued a note.  This note declared that Fr. Fuentes fabricated basically all the statements attributed to Lucy in the interview not dealing specifically with Jacinta and Francisco.  Included in this note was a statement allegedly from Sr. Lucy, in which she supposedly declared that Fr. Fuentes’ claims were not truthful.  Here is a portion of the note:

 

Note from the Diocese of Coimbra, July 2, 1959, on the Fuentes interview: “Father Augustin Fuentes, postulator of the cause of beatification for the seers of Fatima… visited Sister Lucy at the Carmel of Coimbra and spoke to her exclusively about things concerning the process in question.  But after returning to Mexico…this priest allowed himself to make sensational declarations of an apocalyptic, eschatological and prophetic character, which he declares that he heard from Sister Lucy’s very lips.  Given the gravity of such statements, the chancery of Coimbra believed it its duty to order a rigorous investigation on the authenticity of such news… but also with regard to things reported as having been said by Sister Lucy, the Diocese of Coimbra has decided to publish these words of Sister Lucy, given in answer to questions put by one who has the right to do so.

     [Sr. Lucy]: ‘Father Fuentes spoke to me in his capacity as Postulator for the causes of beatification of the servants of God, Jacinta and Francisco Marto.  We spoke solely on things connected with this subject; therefore, whatever else he refers to is neither exact nor true.  I am sorry about it, for I do not understand what good can be done for souls when it is not based on God, Who is the Truth.  I know nothing, and could therefore say nothing, about such punishments, which are falsely attributed to me.’ 

     The chancery of Coimbra is in a position to declare that since up to the present Sister Lucy has said everything she believed it her duty to say about Fatima, she has said nothing new and consequently has authorized nobody, at least since February 1955, to publish anything new that might be attributed to her on the subject of Fatima.’” (WTAF, Vol. 3, pp. 550-551)

 

Most “traditionalists” hold the Fuentes interview to be authentic, and this statement from the Diocese of Coimbra, in which Sr. Lucy supposedly disavows much of the Fuentes interview, to be a lie.  Thus, we are dealing with a conspiracy surrounding Sr. Lucy as early as 1959 – the diocese attributing and publishing false statements in Sr. Lucy’s name to disavow important warnings for the world.  At the same time, it was conveniently declared that Sr. Lucy “has said everything she believed it her duty to say about Fatima”; in other words, Sr. Lucy has nothing more to say about Fatima.  Frere Michel also notes that after the Fuentes interview it became increasingly difficult to get access to Sr. Lucy; she became “invisible.”

 

Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 3, pp. 748-749: “From then on [after the Fuentes interview and diocesan note disavowing it], she was bound to a much more rigorous silence on everything concerning Fatima, and especially the great themes of the Secret… As we have seen, in its note of July 2, 1959, the chancery of Coimbra declared authoritatively that ‘Sister Lucy has nothing more to say on Fatima’!  It also became increasingly difficult to see her, and for years no more of her writings were published.  Her testimony was becoming bothersome.  In 1962, Maria de Freitas remarked that ‘more and more, visits to Sister Lucy are forbidden; more and more she is becoming invisible.’”

 

Likes website

 

Hello Brother Michael Dimond and Peter Dimond,

 

Your website never stops amazing me and enlighten me, about all the evil that this world and our true faith is up against. My God have mercy on us all.

 

Joseph

 

Comment on Creation video

 

Dear Bother Dimond,

 

Thank you very much for the creation and miracles cd. I firmly believe it is the most important one of our time. I will send for one or more and other materials soon.It will be worth every penny. keep up the good work and fight for our faith!

 

Dennis Smith

Bayville, N.J.  

 

St. Joan of Arc didn’t mess around

 

MHFM: In 1429 St. Joan of Arc was busy fighting the English, who were trying to take over France and make it part of the English kingdom.  At the same time in Bohemia, the Hussites (followers of the heretic John Hus) were stirring up major civil unrest, destroying churches, monasteries and holy images.  Here is what St. Joan of Arc dictated to be written to the Hussites:

 

“I would have long since visited you with my avenging arm if I were not occupied with the English war.  But if I do not soon learn that you have amended your ways and returned to the bosom of the Church, perhaps I will leave the English and turn against you to exterminate this frightful superstition with the sword and end either your heresy or your lives.  If you return to the light, if you enter the bosom of the Catholic faith, send me your ambassadors.  But if you persist in your resistance… expect to see me, with the strongest human and divine power, to pay you in your own coin.” (Gies, Joan of Arc, p. 135)

 

Baptizing a baby

 

This afternoon I am going to discuss the Baptism of my granddaughter with a priest of the Saint Pius X. My intentions are to convince him to baptise her even though I and none of my family are members of his congregation. In speaking to him to arrange this meeting, I told him either he or I myself would baptise my granddaughter. He told me to read my catechism before attempting to baptise her.

 

 My question is, if he will not baptise her, am I correct in baptising her myself rather than taking her to a priest in the Novus Ordo church?  

 

MHFM: You shouldn't take her to the Novus Ordo priest or the SSPX priest.  You should baptize her yourself.  You know that a Catholic can never go to the New Mass, I hope.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denz. 696)

 

An objector writes in

 

Peace,

 

I don't agree with you on the Validity of the New Mass nor that the past or present Pope are antiPopes.  The succession of St. Peter has not stopped for the Holy Scriptures say that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  If we have no Pope to lead the Church then the gates of hell have prevailed.  God forbid.  I like to point out that during the Protestant Revolt against the Church in the middle ages they also refused the Papacy along with many other truths of the Catholic faith.  I also know that we did had two men who claimed the Papacy during the middle ages which eventually was resolved.  However to say that the  past or present Pope are false or antiPopes is totally ludicrous.  Who has been leading the Church for all the past decades if not the successor of St. Peter.  I know there are abuses in the New Mass throughout the world which I pray will stop soon but to say that it is invalid is condemning millions upon millions of Catholic apostasy and heresy.  Could you say with certain and without doubt in your mind that all these people are not going to be saved  if they don't find a Traditional Catholic Church.  How many people do you think can find a Traditional Catholic Church throughout the world.  Remember there are millions if not billions of Catholics.  Do you believe that the Lord will permit such loss within his Holy Church?  I think not.  Scandal come and go but Satan will not prevail I assure you.  I am one of those people who believes in the succession of St. Peter up to the present day.  I believe in the Mass Old and New.  I love the Traditional Catholic Mass I attend each Sunday.  I don't condemn the people which go to the New Mass for I am one of those people once in awhile when I can't attend the Traditional one.  I am a strong Catholic and God willing I will always remain one. 

 

Praised be Gesu' and Maria,

DOM     

MHFM: We’re sorry, but you are very wrong.  The Catholic Church teaches that heretics cannot be popes, as our material proves.  You remain oblivious to the fact that the Vatican II antipopes praise Protestantism and Luther and hold that the Papacy is meaningless.  That is precisely why they are not popes.  In Oct. 1983, John Paul II, speaking of Martin Luther, stated: “Our world even today experiences his great impact on history.”[44]  And on June 14, 1984, John Paul II praised Calvin as one who was trying to “make the Church more faithful to the will of the Lord.”[45]  To patronize, support and defend heretics is to be a heretic.  To praise the worst heretics in Church history, such as Luther and Calvin, is beyond heresy.

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical, May 8, 1844:

“But later even more care was required when the Lutherans and Calvinists dared to oppose the changeless doctrine of the faith with an almost incredible variety of errors.  They left no means untried to deceive the faithful with perverse explanations of the sacred books...”[46]

 

John Paul II also praised the notorious heretics Zwingli and Hus.  He even went so far as to say that John Hus, who was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Constance, was a man of “infallible personal integrity”![47] You are not a defender of the Papacy, but a defender of those who deny the Papacy and those who defend Protestantism from the charge of heresy.

 

Benedict XVI, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “… Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

 

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198: “…On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870…  As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism … none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

 

There is nothing contrary to the teaching of the Church or the promises of Christ in saying that we are going through an extended period without a pope.  In fact, this situation of a remnant Church blocked out of the view of most is precisely what is predicted in scripture.  Yes, you feel comfortable because the one you are following is sitting in the Temple of God for all to see.  Yes, he is sitting in the Temple of God alright, just like it’s predicted that the Antichrist and the abomination of desolation will (Mt. 24;15; 2 Thess. 2:3-4).

 

The New Mass is definitely invalid because it lacks the very words which the popes themselves authoritatively declared necessary for validity!  Wake up from your bad willed spiritual stupor, which causes you to immediately reject positions uncomfortable to you rather than looking at the facts upon which those positions are based.

 

 “Priests” for man?

 

"Conservative" Novus Ordo media has become little more than an organ for the  neoconservative (warmongering) cabal within the Republican Party, just as "liberal" Novus Ordo institutions became instrumentalized by political causes in the 1960s and 1970s.  Also, these "conservatives" in the NO continue to reinforce John Paul the Second's worship of the human being.

Frank Pavone, head of "Priests for Life" is going to sponsor "funeral services" for an aborted baby.  While the baby did have a soul, according to Catholic teaching she did not receive baptism so died with Original Sin on her soul.  What Frank Pavone is doing is "worship of man".

Matthew F.

 

MHFM:  Thanks for that information; we weren’t aware of that.  You are correct that it’s about the worship of man.  Even in the fight against abortion waged by “conservative” members of the Vatican II sect, the issues of the faith are largely ignored or under-emphasized.  It’s all about the violation of man’s dignity, not the fact that a soul is being deprived of salvation (which they don’t believe) or that the woman having the abortion is committing mortal sin.  It’s sad to hear because Frank Pavone does a lot of good things; we hope he comes around to the true Catholic Faith.

 

Send in a question

 

MHFM: If you would like us to address a particular question during our radio program, e-mail it to us at mhfm1@aol.com.  We can also take calls during the program at 1-800-275-1126.

 

Fr. Gobbi on us

 

Subject:

Fr.  Gobbi Has You In His Cross Hairs

 

Dear Brothers: I had no idea Fr. Gobbi was Still around; this was a story [I read on a website]. 


Fr. Gobbi: “I have been made aware that some fringe groups are attacking the Holy Father by means of their writings, tapes, DVD’s, etc. Please, do not let yourselves be deceived by their diatribes. They want people to believe that he is a false pope; he is not! He was duly elected by the College of Cardinals, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Our second commitment as members of the MMP is to love, pray for and defend him. Following the retreat, the American and Canadian delegations spent a few days in Rome. After having attended two of his general audiences and listening to his reflections during the Sunday Angelus, I truly believe that Pope Benedict XVI is another great gift to the Church.”

During the retreat, Fr. Gobbi also reaffirmed his confidence in having Benedict XVI as our Pope to guide us through these difficult times for the Church and the entire world. Please continue to support him with your prayers and sacrifices

 

MHFM: Fr. Gobbi is clearly referring to us, since there is no other organization (of which we’re aware) that produces DVDs on why Benedict XVI is an antipope.  For those who don’t know, Fr. Gobbi is the famous priest who built up quite a following in the past few decades by claiming locutions from Heaven.  Integral to Gobbi’s message was the claim that he was told that John Paul was hand-picked by God the Father to lead the Church, and that John Paul II was “Mary’s pope.”  Of course, those with the true Faith who are familiar with the facts of John Paul II’s complete apostasy immediately recognize that such a claim is utterly ridiculous and just the opposite of the truth.  The fact that Gobbi promoted John Paul II as good alone proves that Fr. Gobbi wasn’t getting messages from Heaven, but messages from the Devil purporting to be messages from Heaven.  He was an instrument of the Devil to keep people spiritually deceived in this time of apostasy; and with many he was very successful.  His false locutions were precisely among those about which Our Lord warned in Matthew 24, when he said:

 

Matthew 24:24-26 “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.  Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.  If therefore they shall say to you: Behold, he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets [editor: appearing in someone’s room], believe it not.”

 

One of us personally conversed with a gentleman who said that he experienced a preternatural event at one of Fr. Gobbi’s talks.  We are talking about serious demonic activity here, which God allows in the last days to spiritually deceive those who receive not the love of the truth [that is, the acceptance of dogmas and the hatred of heresy, such as false ecumenism]. 

 

2 Thessalonians Chapter 2  Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying.  That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”

 

In addition to his satanic message that John Paul II was “Mary’s pope,” Gobbi’s prophecies have been proven to be false.  For instance, he said that the triumph of Our Lady (which, in his view, is some sort of universal restoration) would happen before the year 2000.  It did not. 

 

Emotional upon hearing the truth

 

After viewing your DVD on The Heresies of Benedict and of the "new order" church, I have cried all day. Where have I been and how can I just sit here and do nothing about the way Our Lord Jesus THE Christ is being insulted and demeaned.I plan to first educate myself with the Truth,and then I can with God's help educate my loved ones and those who really and trully love The Lord and did not realize this was taking place. I am trully frightened because as a Bible Catholic (I have studied the Bible for 22 years under several teachers) I know that Jesus Christ IS THE way THE Truth and THE Life, and He warned us that many false prophets would arise,but I NEVER thought that it would go as far… And then as a Catholic there is the "obedience thing", I was taught to obey. But in my heart I do know that I hear that we can't conform to the world, and that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, the Word does not change to become "politically correct". Who are we trying to please? God or man. The mystery of our faith that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, how could anybody doubt that, and the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is the altar (not table) and that is one of our greatest sacraments, when we celebrate the actual death and crucifixion of our Lord.. Anyway please could you direct, guide me, I live 40 miles south of the city of Miami,in Florida… Thank you very much, from your sister in Christ Jesus,

 

Lourdes V. Manning

 

Good point on V-2 sect’s idolatry

 

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

 

I just finished reading the updates on the email exchange portion of your website.  It brought something to mind.  The story in Daniel chapter 3, about Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago.  There is quite a parallel with what is going on today.  When you read the story you will notice that King Nabuchodonosor never told the people to stop worshiping their gods or God; he only ordered them, at the sound of the bell, to acknowledge and adore the false god.  The same is happening today, the novus ordo church isn't telling anyone to give up the worship of their god, (so they think) but they must accept all the false gods/religions as well. How slick is the devil, as he tells everyone, have your God, but accept everyone else's too.  And as the people follow, they deny the One True God, when they accept the false gods/religions. Sidrach, Misach and Abdenago knew that if they were to obey the order, they would have denied God and apostatized from the faith.  If only people today had the faith to see it. 

 

Paul Smith

 

MHFM:  Yes, that’s a very good point.  People don’t realize that what the Vatican II antipopes and heresies have done is – without even bringing the “gods” of the heathens into the temple itself – they have caused the people (who imbibe the new religion) to fall into an effective worship of the gods of the heathens by an acceptance of their false religions (and therefore the false gods they worship).  So, for those who imbibe the new religion, it’s as if they have brought the idols of the heathens into the temple to be worshipped alongside the true God – without even literally having done so.  If people really saw things the way they are and the way that God sees them, they would realize that this what the Vatican II antipopes have done: they have put the worship of false gods alongside the worship of the true God.  That was their mission from Satan.  We see this, for instance, in these quotes:

 

Paul VI, Address, Aug. 24, 1974: “Religious and cultural differences in India, as you have said, are honored and respected… We are pleased to see that this mutual honor and esteem is practiced…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 12, 1974, p. 2.)

 

Paul VI says that religious differences are honored in India and that he is pleased to see this.  This means that he honors the worship of false gods.

 

Paul VI, Address to Dalai Lama, Sept. 30, 1973: “We are happy to welcome Your Holiness today… You come to us from Asia, the cradle of ancient religions and human traditions which are rightly held in deep veneration.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 11, 1973, p. 4.)

 

People should think about this statement.  Paul VI tells us that it is right to hold false religions which worship false gods in deep veneration.  This means that it’s right to venerate false gods!  Thus, Paul VI worshipped the false gods of these religions, and he was encouraging others to worship them as well by respecting such idolatry.

 

Paul VI, Message to Pagan Shinto Priests, March 3, 1976: “We know the fame of your temple, and the wisdom that is represented so vividly by the images contained therein.” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1976, p. 12.)

 

This may be the most evil, revealing and heretical statement that the apostate Paul VI ever uttered.  He is praising the wisdom contained in the images in the pagan Shinto temple; in other words, he is praising the idols of the Shintoists themselves!

 

Likes the stuff

 

Dear Brother Michael Dimond,

 

God bless you for your labors for the True Faith, for our Lord and Holy Mother and the salvation of souls. May THEIR reign come!! Daily there are signs there will be almost no souls left faithful, without the Lord's mercy none would remain. Thank you for last week's heresy of the week on Bro. Roger again stating the Truth. Also, I read your book on Padre Pio daily, it is the best summation of his life, thank you!!  May you be blessed in a special way this feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary, and every day,

 

In Her Immaculate Heart,

Louise

 

On Mother Teresa’s apostasy

 

Dear Brothers

 

The piece about Mother Teresa reminds me of martyrs who were asked to offer just a pinch of incense to the gods and their lives would be spared and they could worship as they pleased.  They died rather than acknowledge a pagan religion. That's what Catholicism is about; it's about dying for the faith if necessary to preserve good example and save souls. 

 

P. Moulder

Pensacola FL

 

MHFM: Yes, that’s exactly right.  False ecumenism is so evil not only because it rejects the true God, but also because it mocks and renders meaningless the countless sufferings of Catholics not to become pagans or Muslims or Lutherans or Anglicans, etc. etc.  The Vatican II sect covers them all – praises paganism, Islam, heretical and schismatic sects, mocking all the saints and martyrs – and is thus the mother of all the (spiritual) fornications.

 

Apocalypse 17:5- "And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth."

 

On videos and saints

 

Hello,

 

I have enjoyed watching your online videos.  I suppose my favorite is the "Creation and Miracles, Past and Present." The point about the earth being only around 5,000 years old is major.  If our world is only 5,000 years old, it would make a person's life feel a lot more significant than if the earth is millions and millions of years old.  The theory of evolution is a depressing topic.

 

Anyway, in your "Creation" video, Padre Pio is featured, a favorite saint of mine… Are there some saints in the church that could not really be saints?  There have been some questions about the sainthood of Elizabeth Seton.  Some have stated that there was a heavy lobby in Rome to make her a saint because she was an American, and one of the necessary miracles was dispensed with in order to make her a saint.  Is this true?  I was converted to Catholicism in the mid-80's by in older, more traditional Catholic priest, and he gave Elizabeth Seton as my saint.  I've never really cared for that saint.

 

I've listened to the recorded versions of your 2 radio broadcasts... I think they have gone well and wish you the best in the future.

 

Sincerely,

Dona Beall

 

MHFM: Dona, thank you for your comments. Elizabeth Anne Seton was "canonized" by Antipope Paul VI in 1975.  He obviously had no authority to canonize, since he was an antipope.  This does not mean that Elizabeth Anne Seton is not in Heaven or wouldn't be worthy of canonization by a true pope; it simply means that, as of yet, she has never been canonized and therefore we cannot say infallibly that she is to be numbered among the saints.

 

Enemies in thy own house

 

MHFM: Our Lord tells us in Matthew 10 that one’s enemies will be those of one’s own house.  We see this clearly in the case of St. Thomas Aquinas.  His family was so opposed to his decision to pursue a vocation that they locked him up in a castle, and sent him a prostitute in the hope that it would destroy his vocation:

 

“…Thomas was abducted by his brother Rinaldo… and taken to the second family castle… Thomas… vehemently resisted attempts to tear the Dominican habit from his back, and in a famous episode which probably occurred on the night of his capture or the following night, drove away with a firebrand a prostitute who had been sent to his room to seduce him from his vocation.” (Carroll, The Glory of Christendom, Vol. 3, p. 260.)

 

Having trouble with EENS

 

I am wondering your opinion on the following. Regarding the dogma: "Outside the Church there is no salvation..."

 

I believe that the Church proclaims such a Dogma accurately and absolutely in regards to the ordinary means of salvation.  I do not believe that the Church is hereby denying God the use of extraordinary means to save any soul He so desires.  Now, that being said - I believe we must work under the assumption that all who die appearently outside the church will be damned - and thereby we must work very hard to convert all men.

 

God uses extraordinary means in nature at times (miracles), what would exclude God from using an extraordinary means of grace to save any soul He so desires? The reason that i believe this is because the Church has never officially declared anyone to be in helln (at least that i know of).  If there was no possiblity for certain individuals to have been saved - why not declare them to be in hell?  Is this way off base from your understanding of Catholic teaching? Thank you for your time

 

MHFM: Yes, it is way off base.  The Church declares that all who die as non-Catholics go to Hell.  You have a problem at this time believing that dogmas are truths accepted on the authority of God the revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.  If God saved people outside the Church sometimes, He never would have allowed His Church to repeatedly define as an infallible dogma that NO ONE AT ALL is saved without the Catholic Faith.  He cannot lie or deceive.  Please focus on the bolded portion below:

 

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 deceivedBut 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.”

 

Comments on show and salvation

 

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

I am presently listening to your second radio show, so I don't know yet if you have mentioned that the idea that people can be saved so long as they are "good" and do the "best" they can to follow the will of God is actually condemned on 2 points: First, it gives the implication of salvation based on "works" WITHOUT the true faith, which is condemned; and secondly that God wouldn't actually lead someone of good will to the Truth, which is also condemned by the Church. As a matter of fact, this secondary idea that one who is of good will could possibly NOT come to the True Faith would make Jesus Christ a liar specifically when He said "Knock and the door shall be opened, etc..." Obviously the fault is with the person, NOT God.

Also, the man who called in who supported the SSPV (his name was Scott I think), and believed in BOD based on what St. Alphonsus said as if he were infallible, it could have been asked of him if he rejected the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary because St. Thomas wrote against it before it was infallibly declared a dogma. Certainly we can say today that St. Thomas certainly would admit today that he was wrong on that issue, and he is a saint in heaven also.

Great radio shows!

Bridget

 

Pius IX and salvation

 

Greetings Brother Michael and Peter Dimond,

 

    I am a sedevacantist and do uphold the absolute necessity of water baptism for both justification and salvation. Also, I affirm Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.  I have a friend who is sedevacantist, but who unfortunately believes invincible ignorance is salvific.  I tried to straighten him out about his error of thinking invincible ignorance is salvific, but I was unsuccessful.  He brought up the following quote ... Pope Pius IX   (1846-1878)

 

I  do have a few questions for you please.  One, is the above quote infallible? Two, given that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a defined dogma of the faith, what is the above quote actually saying about the status of the invincibly ignorant? Any help in clarifying this matter would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you and take care.

 

MHFM:  Thank you for your question.  This is addressed in our book on salvation, and it was specifically addressed in the radio program we just did.  We hope to have that show in our archive online soon.  I would encourage you to listen to it, since it answers this question in detail and many others issues relevant to this topic.

 

Reader corroboration on SSPV

 

Dear Dimond Brothers:

 

I have been attending St. Pius V Masses and did not believe you when you stated they denied the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation," that is, until I read their 2005 fall issue of the Roman Catholic Magazine which featured a question/answer format regarding Catholic doctrine.  They clearly teach that anyone who is disposed to trying to obey God, is invincibly ignorant of the true Church, and follows the good intentions of their consciences actually desire to be within the Catholic Church unconsciously, and are therefore actually a part of the Catholic Church and can attain to salvation with supernatural helps

 

PS

 

MHFM:  Thanks for that information.  It’s necessary that you stop going there, since they condemn those who hold the true Catholic position. And here’s the quote to which we referred in our second radio program, which enunciates their heretical position on Outside the Church There is No Salvation:

 

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

 

About validity of a baptism?

 

Dear Bro. Diamond,

     If one adds "Amen" after "I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is the baptism valid or by saying "Amen" does that make it invalid.

God love you,

Judith

 

MHFM:  Thanks for the question.  No, adding “amen,” which means “truly,” does not affect the validity of the baptism.  It does not change the meaning of the essential form.

 

Really likes book

 

The Padre Pio book you sent is amazing.  If a priest yelled at penitents like that today they would haul them off to the boondocks but souls would be saved before they got caught.  :-)   I'm ordering many copies. I'm glad you didn't emphasize the healings.  I have a big book of those which I never finished because it became too boring.  This is soul-saving stuff.  I can hear Padre Pio yelling at me now to do better and to do right.  I hope he keeps it up.  My mother quit yelling when NewChurch ideas entered her head and my youngest sister had a very rough time of it.  I didn't do so well with my own children either. 

 

God Bless

 

Pauline Moulder

Pensacola, Florida

 

Comments from India

 

Dear Bro. Michael:

After reading much about Traditional Latin Mass from "Traditionalist" websites, most of us youths were gearing ourselves to obtain an indult mass for our local parish too. We had not cared much about the Pope as to what he does or say as long as he go on giving indult to the Latin Mass. We were thinking of encouraging others to do the same too. Enter your website and its all shattered ! Yes, you're right. Our intentions were wrong. Being a Catholic takes more than restoring the Holy Mass. Why should we be just a subset of a polygamous leader whose harem is filled with infidel concubines? These V2 maniacs will try to propagate and accomodate every garbage in this world until one day all the indultians will find themselves just "one out of many" and that the Roman Rite is not the official Rite of the Church anymore or that the Holy See is just another interfaith Fatima of today. By the way they go on suporting these heretics as "popes", someday they'll end up saying the creed as:"I believe in Catholicism, Protestanism, Buddhism, & Judaism; the holy prophet Mohammed ... the communion of all worshippers ..." (Checkout
www.sistersofembracement.org). Subjecting to the right successor of St. Peter comes first… Thanks for your enlightening articles. May God be with you,

            - Dennis Gabil Momin
                             Meghalaya, India

 

The New Confirmation

 

Dear Bros Dimonds,

 

I went through RCIA and was confirmed into the Catholic Church Easter of 2001 by a Novus Ordo priest.  Did I receive any of the graces associated with this sacrament? 

 

          Thank-you. Sincerely, Michael

 

MHFM: The short answer to your question is no.  Since the new confirmation cannot be considered valid (see below), you did not receive the graces associated with this sacrament.  The New Order of Confirmation was promulgated on Aug. 15, 1971.  The form and the matter of the sacrament have been changed.

 

The traditional form for the sacrament of confirmation is:

 

“I sign you with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm you with the Chrism of salvation.  In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.”

 

The new form in the New Rite for the sacrament of confirmation:

 

“N., receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”

 

As one can see the traditional form of Confirmation has been fundamentally changed.  The new form actually uses a form that is used in the Eastern Rite.  Why would Paul VI replace the traditional form in the Roman Rite with the form of the Eastern Rite?  We will see the significance of this change when we look at the matter of Confirmation, which has also been changed.  Most theologians traditionally regard the imposition of hands and the signing and anointing of the forehead as the proximate matter of Confirmation, and the chrism of olive oil and balm consecrated by the bishop as the remote matter.  In Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation, the imposition of hands has been abolished, and other vegetable oils may replace olive oil, and any spice may be used instead of balm!

 

In the New Testament, the imposition of hands was always present in confirmation (see Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6).  But there is no imposition of hands in the New Rite of Confirmation.  It has been abolished.  This alone renders Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation highly doubtful.  Further, in the Eastern Rite of Confirmation, when the form is pronounced the bishop, he imposes his hands, thus completing by his action the words of the form.  In the new rite, however, even though the Eastern Rite form is used, the words are not completed by the action of imposition of hands, as in the Eastern Rite, thus rendering it highly doubtful.  

 

Conclusion:  All the changes considered, the validity of the new Confirmation is highly doubtful. 

 

The New Rite of Baptism?

 

Dear Brothers,

I was baptized during the period of time when many of Paul VI's changes were taking place and I'm concerned about the validity of my baptism. I know the Episcopal rite of consecration was changed on June 18, 1968 and put into effect (I believe) on April 1, 1969, but when was the rite of baptism changed?

 

David

 

MHFM: The New Order of Baptism was promulgated by Paul VI on May 15, 1969.  The essential form remains valid (unless the Novus Ordo “priest” decided to change it on his own); and, since anyone can validly baptize, those baptized with it would be considered validly baptized.  But the removal of things around the essential form by Paul VI – while not destroying validity – serves to further confirm his revolutionary agenda.  The questions “do you renounce Satan?” and “Do you believe…?” are now directed toward the “parents and godparents”; they are no longer directed toward the candidate for baptism.  In the new rite, the candidate for baptism is not even asked if he believes.

 

Also, a newly baptized child no longer receives a white garment – it is only mentioned symbolically.  The candidate for baptism is no longer required to make a baptismal vow.  In addition, all the exorcisms of the devil are omitted in the Paul VI’s new rite of Baptism!  Why would one remove the exorcism prayers?  Although Satan is mentioned in the texts, he is not banished. 

 

Conclusion: As long as the person baptizing in the Novus Ordo Church pours water (hitting the forehead) and uses the essential form – “I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” – with the intention to do what the Church does, then the baptism is valid, despite these other problems in the surrounding rite.  But these changes to the rite of Baptism, although not essential to validity, serve to reveal the true character and intentions of the men who have implemented the Vatican II revolution.

 

Wife N.O.

 

….what if my wife does not want to attend the traditional church you recommend and she wants to stay at the novus ordo?


thank you,

David D

 

MHFM:  You simply must tell your wife that she cannot go to the Novus Ordo (the New Mass).  A major problem today – and we hear all the time from people who ask questions very similar to yours (concerning a spouse who opposes them in their pursuit of salvation and truth) – is that so many make the devastating mistake of marrying a man or a woman who doesn’t care about the Faith.  People don’t think too much about that when they get married, but it often turns out to be a life-long mistake.

 

Evidence

 

Dear Bros. Dimond,

Please help. I am by no means a theologian. I am just a regular working stiff catholic who is trying to do the right thing. You have some compelling evidence on your website that is really confusing me.  In my heart I believe that what you are proclaiming is true, however, my mind still tells me that false prophets will try to bring you away from the church.  By not attending mass, am I not being pulled away from the church?  Even though the mass is not "valid", isnt the church the place where we worship God. Isnt it better to attend and worship God, than not attend at all?  I live in a rural area in a very small parish.  Attending a traditional mass is out of the question here as there are no traditional masses within 100 miles of me. Please show me some evidence that saying the Rosary at home instead of attending mass is acceptable by the
church.

Thank you ,
Bob

 

MHFM: The evidence that you cannot attend the New Mass and must stay home (if there isn’t an acceptable traditional option) is contained in the dogmatic teaching on the form of consecration from the Council of Florence, Pope St. Pius V, etc.  It is also contained in the teaching that “all” in the consecration cannot suffice for validity, and that it is a grave sin to approach doubtful sacraments.  It is also contained in the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that one cannot partake in non-Catholic worship, and the New Mass is a non-Catholic service which was invented by heretics and with the help of Protestant ministers.  It was intended to Protestantize Catholic worship, and includes condemned practices such as altar girls.  To a sincere person who considers this evidence, it becomes clear that one cannot attend the New Mass under pain of mortal sin.  You are not worshipping God truly by going to the New Mass, and you are not receiving Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.

 

Sr. Lucy

 

Your conspiracy theory concerning Sister Lucia of Fatima was fascinating reading, and important to you, since your whole doctrine about the Church (or non-Church as the case may be) hinges on your theory that she was murdered or made to disappear or whatever you may have believed to have happened to her. Of course, if you're wrong, your doctrine is invalid. But, as you know more about these things than I, I will leave the last word on the subject to you.                                                         

Jeff

 

MHFM: You have seriously misstated things here.  Our “doctrine” doesn’t hinge upon Sr. Lucy of Fatima or any other individual.  

 

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.”

 

The fact that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church is a provable fact from many dogmatic teachings and the undeniable heresies and false doctrines which the Vatican II sect teaches.  It’s insulting to the importance and the authority of these dogmas, as well as the significance of the heresies of the Vatican II sect, to describe things the way you have.  One could argue that for Fatima to make sense to those who hold our positions it would make sense that there was a false Sr. Lucy, I would agree.  But that would also be true of all who reject the Vatican’s version of the Third Secret, and hold that John Paul II didn’t sufficiently consecrate Russia – which includes about 100% of traditionally-minded professing Catholics.  They would all have to agree with us that the post-Vatican II Sr. Lucy was a fraud, if Fatima is to make sense to their position (a position which rejects the post-Vatican II Sr. Lucy’s testimony that the Third Secret was revealed and that Russia was consecrated successfully by John Paul II, etc.)  Further, it’s not a mere conspiracy theory that there was a fake Sr. Lucy.  There is photographic evidence and undeniable evidence from the false Lucy’s testimony on matters pertaining to Fatima.  This testimony proves she couldn’t have been the real one.

 

Likes Padre Pio book

 

Dear Bro. Michael,

 

This book on Padre Pio was the greatest book about his life that I have ever read.  I enjoyed it so much.

 

Thank you.

 

Mary Ciaccio

 

King of Prussia, PA

 

Calling someone a moron?

 

Dear Brother's Dimond's

 

I listened to your radio program on Coast-to-Coast and I was very impressed with everything you said: UNTIL you lost your dignity when speaking on the phone with a man called JC, when you called him a MORON. Is this Catholic behaviour? Is this what we should expect of a holy monk? I am very disappointed in you. Uncommitted and ignorant people listening to that would think Catholics are rude, which we are not.

 

God bless you all

Alan Vincent

 

---

Calling someone a moron is to call someone a fool.  That’s a sin. Our Lord said call no man fool (Mt. 5:22).

 

MHFM: A number of people complained about calling the heretic JC a moron (fool).  All who complained about this are very mistaken.  That particular heretic, who called in on a national radio program to level false accusations and scandalize millions, absolutely deserved to be called a moron – especially after accusing someone else of being a moron.  Those who demonstrate a profound level of bad will or hypocrisy can certainly – and sometimes should – be denounced as fools.  Both St. Peter Damian and St. Alphonsus call those who commit sins of impurity “fools.”

 

St. Alphonsus on the damnation of the impure: "Continue, O fool, says St. Peter Damian (speaking to the unchaste), continue to gratify the flesh; for the day will come in which thy impurities will become as pitch in thy entrails, to increase and aggravate the torments of the flame which will burn thee in hell: 'The day will come, yea rather the night, when thy lust shall be turned into pitch, to feed in thy bowels the everlasting fire." (Preparation for Death, abridged version, p. 117)

 

Our Lord also says call no man “Father,” but (as Catholics know) that doesn’t mean that we can never call someone “Father.”  What Our Lord condemns in Matthew 5:22 is denouncing someone as a fool solely to insult his intelligence: For instance, someone who is trying understand something and you denounce him as a fool.  That is truly a despicable sin and a tremendous violation of charity.  But a public heretic who demonstrates profound bad will and accuses others of being fools (morons), and who wants to attack the true religion in an outrageous fashion on national radio, has certainly become a fool (not because of some natural defect of intelligence on his part) but solely because of his ill will.  Therefore, he needs to be told that “moron” is exactly what he is. [A “moron,” by the way, is precisely “a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment” (www.dictionary.com).  I think we can agree that applies to JC.]

 

This is why Sacred Scripture says that those who don’t believe in God (i.e. who demonstrate profound bad will) are fools:

 

Psalm 13:1- The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God…”

 

This is why Sacred Scripture, speaking of the perverse, says:

 

Ecclesiastes 1:15- “The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite.”

 

That’s why the New Testament also refers to someone who demonstrates bad will in regard to his eternal salvation as a “fool.”

 

Luke 12:20- “But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee: and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?”

 

Calling someone a moron isn’t nearly as offensive or “insulting to his dignity” as calling someone “the first-born of Satan,” we think you would agree?  Yet, the saints recognized that labeling certain heretics such things is not only permissible, but sometimes necessary.

 

St. Ireneaus, Against Heresies: “Once he [St. Polycarp] was met by Marcion, who said to him, ‘Do you recognize me?’ and Polycarp replied, ‘I recognize you as the firstborn of Satan!’” (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:212)

 

The public heretic JC is a moron and a fool because he is a bad willed heretic – and since he is going to publicly accuse others of being such he needs to be told that he is actually such. What we don’t need today are spiritual wimps, who cry out every time the full “dignity” of antichrist heretics is not respected.  Such people accomplish nothing for God.  We don’t need people who are more concerned with making sure evil men are respected than that evil men are denounced.  We need those who love the Lord and therefore hate evil. 

 

Psalm 96:10 - "You that love the Lord, hate evil..."

 

 

Tan Books?

 

I was reading your web site, and read that you recommended the St. Louis De Montfort on the Rosary from Tan Books.  However, you stated that you dont recommend many of the Tan books.  Do you have a list of the books that should not be read from Tan?

 

Thanks!!!

 

Joe

 

MHFM: They have much beneficial material; however, some of their books promote the heresy that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith.  This heretical idea was a big problem before Vatican II, as our material proves.  As far as we know, Tan also sells a few books which promote the sinful birth control practice of NFP.  But these are small in number, so it shouldn’t be a problem for strong Catholics who are convinced of the true positions.

 

Mass in England?

 

Dear Brother Michael,

Please be so kind as to tell me where I might find a 'true' Catholic church in London, England. Currently I go to Westminster Cathedral, the seat of   Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor. Is he a heretic?  Your site is very interesting. Many thanks,

RT Mulchrone

 

MHFM:  Thanks for the e-mail.  “Cardinal” Cormac Murphy O’Connor is a heretic.  He is a leader in the post-Vatican II sect.  He publicly endorses the heresies of Vatican II, such as false ecumenism, etc.  He also accepts the New Mass.  He is a validly ordained priest (having been ordained in 1956), but cannot be considered a valid bishop (having been ordained in 1977, after Paul VI’s new rite was instituted), nor a Catholic one.  We don’t have the specific locations of Masses in England, but we have given you the e-mail address of someone who does know where the traditional Mass is offered in England.  Using those guidelines, people have to apply them to their specific options.  These guidelines include, of course, the fact that no one can go to the New Mass – but only a traditional Rite.  No one can financially support any priest or “bishop” professing communion with Antipope Benedict XVI and the Vatican II sect.  And one should not even attend the traditional rite of a priest or bishop who is notorious or imposing about his heretical position.  But if there is a valid priest celebrating a traditional rite who is not notorious or imposing about his heretical position then we believe you may go (you don’t have to), without supporting him.

 

Attending “Catholic” college

 

Dear Brother Diamond,

First, thank you for speaking to the world about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...my family is relistening to a tape we made of Coast A.M. of your interview.  I hope you are invited back!!!!

I would like to know what you think of someone attending Fordham Univ. in N.Y.  My 22 year old son may be transferring there as a Sophomore.  I e-mailed him the link to the "Jesuit" pagan "sculpture" in Canada from your site.  Maybe he should read Fr. Malachi Martin's book "The Jesuits".  What do you think?  He does come to the traditional Mass at times, but not regularly, and does not receive the Sacraments!  Please pray for him.  His name is Jonah.    Thanks,

Janet Anderton

 

MHFM: Thank you for your question.  First, he shouldn’t bother reading Malachi Martin’s books.  Malachi Martin mixed truth with error and misled many.  He said that Buddhists could be saved without the Catholic Faith and that John Paul II never uttered a heresy. 

 

Second, our feelings about young men and women attending colleges and universities is this: normally speaking (there may be rare exceptions, of course) since the campuses of these colleges and universities are cesspools of iniquity – and living in the dorms surrounded by the pagans and non-Catholics who make mortal sin a way of life at such colleges and universities would be an almost-constant occasion of sin (with others constantly goading one to partake in such party-type activity) – it would be a tragic spiritual mistake for most young men and women to subject themselves to such a situation by living in the dorms at these colleges and universities.  Almost 100% of them would fail in such an environment and fall into mortal sin, no matter how much they protest that they wouldn’t.  To preserve a person’s soul from such snares (and preserving the soul is the most important thing to be considered – Mt. 16:26), to attend such a college or university a person should either live at home and commute (that way he would be away from the mortally sinful party-lifestyle) or rent an apartment and live by himself so that he doesn’t have to live and constantly be around non-Catholics who are frequently committing mortal sins and/or encouraging him to do so (e.g. by inviting him to parties, etc.). 

 

“Catholic” Fordham University, since it’s Catholic in name only, would be considered just like any secular/pagan university.  Hence, we believe one could attend provided that one doesn’t take religion classes or live amidst the sinful surroundings, but can be separate in some way by commuting or having one’s own place away from the others.

 

Some reaction to our new radio program

 

Dear Brothers Michael & Peter,

 

Just happened to turn on the computer last night and  found that you were doing a radio show.  I listened to the whole show.  Great Job!!!!

 

                                                                                        Rose Beckerich

 

---

 

Dear Brothers Dimond:

I was able to tape Most of it...(Computer wouldn't start up at first).  You Definitly did an excellent job of presenting in a clear way just what we are up against.  Am making copies for my friends.  I, too, am very interested in what you have to say about this Divine Mercy thing.  Will be looking forward to your posting on that.   Thank you so much for everything you do,

May God Bless you abundantly,

Carol

---

 

Hello Bro.Michael,


I did listen to your program,had a problem with the buffering,but,you have already explained the problem. I enjoy being able to listen to the audios, is it possible to place your radio program in that category of tapes to listen to,the radio program would be able to be listened to for a week until the next radio program for those who aren't able to listen the day of the program.  God Bless You.You are doing amazing work.


Paula

 

---

 

Greetings to The Most holy Family Monastery:

Your radio show was much like the web site: terse, blunt, to the point and accurate.  Excellent delineation of The Great Apostasy, The Second Vatican Council-its many lies and a good discussion about Fatima and The third Secret; of course we are looking forward to more in the future.  It is a fact that we are drowning in lost souls looking for their Church once more... Many are so confused and have hearts of steel on account of it-some are embittered.  They are all around me and at times it is overwhelming.  But I love to pray for the increase of the virtue of hope...

 

In Christ, Jesus

Michael Howard Pierce

---

 

Dear Brothers,

 

Thank you for the excellent radio program!!!

 

[pm]

---

 

You brought up many interesting points. I am not a scholar and rely on my memory of the Latin Church and now deceased relatives to clearly see Rome is as you say, heretical. Hopefully you will be archiving this program on your web site as I can think of a few people who need to listen.

 

Robert Bowlby

 

Copy of program?

 

Dear Brother Peter and Brother Michael.

 

Is your radio show from today going to be archived at your website, so that those who can't listen to it live can still hear it?  Will you be recording it to cassettes or CD's to make available to people?

 

---

 

Will Tuesday's show be archived?  I would like to hear it but will be away from the computer that evening.

 

MHFM: We will have a copy of the program, which we will probably make available. 

 

Radio Show question

 

Dear Brothers,

Will your radio show be accessible to people running the Mac OS X operating system on Macs and Powerbooks (i.e. those who don't have a Windows-based PC)? I'm asking because I have a PowerBook running the Mac OS X operating system and when I clicked on the radio program link on your homepage I received the following message: Safari can’t open “mms://wms7.streamhoster.com/lv_mhfm1” because Mac OS X doesn’t recognize Internet addresses starting with “mms:”  Safari is the Apple/Mac browser that the Mac operating system uses. Please advise if there's any workaround so that I can hear your program.

Thank you for your time.

David

 

MHFM:  Thanks for the question.  Your question is answered here:

 

Radio Show Technical Notes

 

Divine Mercy devotion?

 

Brother Diamond...just wanted to ask you a question...What do you think about Divine Mercy? I listened to you on the talk show the night that you were on...what an impression you left on me..some people don't like to hear what you said...but you told it like it is...

 

   I would appreciate a response as to what you think about Divine Mercy...E mail me back when you have time and thanks for your help...The real GOD BLESS!

 

                               Bobby Parkinson

 

MHFM:  Thanks for your question.  We have received this question many times.  We have a detailed answer to this question which we will be posting this week.

 

Likes audio downloads

 

Dear Brother Dimond,  I would like to thank you for all the information on your web site. Being a Vatican II baby, I haven't had much of an education in the true Catholic faith, so at the age of 49 I'm trying to learn it now. Your site is invaluable to me and I'm sure many, many others like myself.  I particularly like the section you have with some of your videos and audio downloads. What a great idea! I'm downloading them now and will listen to them on my MP3 player…

 

Scott Labash

 

Adding insult to apostasy

 

MHFM: Some of our readers might recall that in 2000 John Paul II attended the Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria.  As part of this act of apostasy, John Paul II took off his shoes before entering the mosque.  Well, the “Omayyad” caliphate (a line of Muslim rulers), after which that particular mosque he attended is named, was a line of Muslims rulers that was hugely involved in waging war on Catholic Spain in the 700-year war of Muslims vs. Christians in Spain. 

 

“Abdurrahman the last survivor of the Omayyads had become the ruler of Muslim Spain about the time that Fruela became the ruler of Christian Spain; by 759 the two kings clashed in Galicia.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 298.)

 

The fact that the mosque he attended was named after a group that is so representative of anti-Christianity just adds insult to his apostasy.  The blood of all the faithful Catholics who died fighting the Omayyads for the very survival of Christian Spain cries out against him.

 

Apocalypse 17:6- "And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered when I had seen her…"

 

You can see pictures of John Paul II in the Omayyad Mosque here:

 

John Paul II's Apostasy with the Muslims Photo Gallery

 

 

Third Secret

 

Dear Brothers,

 

Where in Portugal is the dogma of Faith being preserved and by whom? I am referring to what the Blessed Mother told Sister Lucia in Fatima.  I surmise that the Blessed Mother is stating that it is the country, as a whole, that will be preserving the Catholic Faith until, I assume, Christ's Second Coming .. can you offer an explanation?

 

Thanks,

 

LML

 

MHFM: Since we don’t have the complete sentence, we cannot say for sure, but it could be: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved in a faithful remnant…”  Or: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved until the Great Apostasy…” 

 

About Consecration to Mary

 

Dear Brothers Dimond

I wish to make a Consecration of myself to Mary, following the St Louis de Montfort method.  However, I note that on the day of Consecration we are supposed to receive Holy Communion and make the Act after this, as well as make an offering such as light a candle to Our Lady in Church.  In these times of apostasy, I am unable to attend a Catholic Mass (only the Indult is available), and I would appreciate your advice on how a person should make the Consecration in these circumstances of not being able to receive Holy Communion or visit a Catholic Church that is not connected with the counterfeit Catholic Church.

Best wishes

Gerard

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  There is no obligation to make the Consecration to Mary before a priest or in a church, especially today.  You should make it in your home.

 

The price of the Shroud

 

MHFM: Not very long after the birth of the false religion of Islam, the militant Muslims had overtaken Christian Armenia.  In the 10th century the Byzantine Emperor Romanus Lecapenus took up the cause of the resisting Christian Armenians and gave them his best general, John Gourgen [a.k.a. Courcouas], to aid them.  Courcouas was tremendously successful in retaking Armenia from the Muslims.

 

“In the spring of 943 Courcouas reached the walls of the still Christian, but long Muslim-ruled city of Edessa, where the Holy Shroud of Christ (then called the ‘Mandylion’)… was preserved in a sanctuary in the domed cathedral, famed throughout the East for its beauty… To the Muslim rulers of Edessa John Courcouas, the conqueror who was carrying all before him, stated his terms: They could keep the city, intact and undamaged – and he would pledge that the Byzantine empire would never attack Edessa again.  He would release to them two hundred of their highest ranking captives in his hands.  He would pay them 12,000 silver crowns.  All this was his price – for the Shroud.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 414.)

 

The Muslims finally agreed to give up the Shroud (now known as the Shroud of Turin).

 

Profound Change

 

The information you have provided on your website has changed me profoundly.

Sincerely
Patrick Sweeney

Finland

 

The Last Gospel

 

In the Last Gospel of the Mass from St. John we read:

 

"But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

 

What does the bold faced quotations mean - what does it refer to? Does "born" refer to baptism. It seems pretty clear to me, but I may not be understanding it clearly. Could you give me a take on what it might mean? I read it  every Sunday at Mass and wonder it's meaning.

 

Thanks!

Dede

 

MHFM: Thanks for the question.  Yes, we have an opinion about this verse.  This was actually mentioned in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation (section 22).  While we cannot say infallibly what this particular verse means since the Church has never issued any infallible declaration on this specific verse, here is what is said about it in the book.  We think the correct conclusion is pretty obvious:

 

John 1:12-13-“But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become the sons of God: to them that believe in His name: WHO ARE BORN, NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.”

 

     The context of the passage is dealing with “becoming the sons of God,” that which St. Paul called “adoption of sons” (Rom. 8:15).  This is the theological and scriptural term for Justification, the state of sanctifying grace (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4).  The term signifies the transition from being a child of Adam (the state of original sin) to becoming an adopted son of God (the state of sanctifying grace).  Pope St. Leo the Great, in fact, confirms that this passage of St. John’s Gospel is talking about becoming a son of God by the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 63: On the Passion (+ c. 460 A.D.): “… from the birth of baptism an unending multitude are born to God, of whom it is said: Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn. 1:15).” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 151.)

 

     So as God, through St. John, is describing man’s being “born again” to the state of grace in Baptism, He speaks of those who are born, “NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD”!  The “will of the flesh” is desire.  The “will of man” is desire.  “Blood” is blood.  In my opinion, what God is saying here in this very verse is that in order to become a son of God – in order to be justified – it does not suffice to be born again of blood or desire (i.e., baptism of blood or desire).  One must be born again of God.  The only way to be born again of God is to be baptized with water in the name of God: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt. 28:19).

 

Coast to Coast question

 

Hello Bros. Dimond!

Is there any way of getting a hold of your interview (Coast to Coast - 7/10/06) with out having to subscribe to their website?  I'd much  rather give you the money, rather than Coast to Coast.  Thanks!  God 
bless.

Andrew Leyva
Tucson
, Arizona

 

MHFM: You don’t have to subscribe to their website, but you would have to purchase it from them.  Coast to Coast has the rights to it.

 

Comment

 

Excellent post on "Jesus is God".

Sincerely,
Patrick Walsh

Patrick Walsh J+M+J

 

Can one attend a Creation lecture by a Protestant?

 

Dear Br Dimond.

 

A protestant invites me to attend a lecture on creation by another protestant this Friday. It's not in any protestant temple and there's no religious service. If there's no praying together, can I attend it? Thanks

 

MHFM: Yes, we don’t see any reason why you couldn’t go unless attacking the Catholic Faith is somehow an integral part of his presentation on Creation (which we highly doubt).  You should at least try to convert the Protestant who invited you, of course, if you haven’t done so already.

 

Where does it say Jesus is God?

 

Could you please explain a couple of things for me.  Where in the bible does it say that Jesus is God in a human form.  Everywhere I look it says Jesus is the son of God... Thank you for your time I look forward to your reply.

 

Gary

 

MHFM:  The “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and the Unitarians deny that Our Lord is God.  But there are many passages in the Bible which show that Our Lord is God.  The first few that come to mind are:

 

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1.)

 

“Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord, and my God” (John 20:28).

 

“Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am” (John 8:58).

 

“I am” is the very name that God gave to Himself when He appeared to Moses in the burning bush to indicate that He is the eternal, uncreated supreme being.  When Our Lord said this of Himself, He was clearly indicating that He is God.  This is why the Jews “took up stones” to kill him (John 8:59).  The prophecy of Isaias 9:6, which is clearly about Our Lord, also proves that He is God:

 

“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." (Isaias 9:6)

 

One of our personal favorites on this point, but which is often overlooked, is Acts 3:15.  Referring to how the Jews preferred the murdered Barabbas to Our Lord and had Him crucified, St. Peter says:

 

“But the author of life you killed…” (Acts 3:15)

 

The author of life is God.  Thus, Our Lord is God.  There are many other passages, such as Apocalypse chapter 1:

 

“And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man… And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead.  And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not.  I am the First and the Last, and behold I am living forever and ever…” (Apoc. 1)

 

Some people are unaware that God describes Himself as “the first and the last” in the Old Testament.

 

“I the Lord, I am the first and the last” (Isaias 41:4).

 

There are many other passages we could bring up, but the fact that Our Lord is God is also proven by what is called “implicit Christology.”  This means that the manner in which Our Lord spoke showed that He is God.

 

You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.  But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

 

Notice that Our Lord, commenting on the words and commandment of God Himself in Exodus 20:14, clearly puts His own declaration on the same level: You have heard that God has said, BUT I SAY, says Our Lord.  This way of speaking shows that He is God.  The fact that Our Lord is God and man (one Divine Person with two natures) was held by the earliest fathers of the Church and is a truth which must be held by all who want to be saved and possess the true Faith:

 

From AD 108, St. Ignatius to the church at Ephesus: "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her who has been blessed in greatness through the fulness of God the Father, ordained before time to be always resulting in permanent glory, unchangeably united and chosen in true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ, our God, to the church which is in Ephesus of Asia, worthy of felicitation: abundant greetings in Jesus Christ and in blameless joy." (Ephesians 1)

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped.  Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.

     “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

 

A new internet-radio program

 

MHFM: We’re very happy to announce that we will be starting a new internet-radio program in just a matter of weeks.  People will be able to listen online by clicking a link on our website.  We hope that this new program will be up and running within a few weeks.  Stay tuned…

 

2nd edition of book

 

MHFM: Our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation is going to be printed in its 2nd edition in the coming weeks, since we’re almost completely out of the first edition.  Some very interesting points have been (and are being) added to the 2nd edition.  In the coming days, we will probably be posting some of the points and quotes that will be new to the 2nd edition.

 

Third Secret question

 

I heard Brother Michael's interview on Coast to Coast.  I cannot believe they let that lunatic JC yell and scream away on the airways.  Anyway, I do have a serious question: If the 3rd secret given at Fatima by Our Lady was never revealed or made public, how do we (or how does Brother Michael) know what it contained?

Thank you!

Susanna Szilard

 

MHFM: Thank you for your question.  While we don’t know infallibly, we can say almost with certainty (based on a number of things) that the Third Secret concerns apostasy from the Catholic Faith by people who purport to hold positions of authority in Rome.  First, the very words which come just before the undisclosed Third Secret are: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved… etc. [Third Secret].”  Since these are the last words before the Third Secret, they imply that the Third Secret deals with the dogma of Faith not being preserved.  Second, people who have commented on the Third Secret, including high-ranking members of the Vatican II sect – who purport to have read the Third Secret or to have acquired intimate knowledge of its contents (including Joseph Ratzinger, “Cardinal” Ciappi) – reveal that it has to do with the loss of the Faith.  

 

"In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."

(Mario L. Ciappi, “cardinal” and household theologian to John Paul II, quoted in The Devil's Final Battle, p. 33)

 

Third, Our Lady said it would be clearer in 1960, and this was just after Vatican II was called – the very council which put into motion the major apostasy from the Faith we are all now living through.

 

Interesting supplement to H.O.W.

 

MHFM: In the Heresy of the Week, some comments are made about the Jewish domination of the media.  Those who doubt this fact simply need to do more research.  To give just a tiny example, here is a link to some of the most prominent anchors featured on the website of CNN – “the most trusted name in news.”

 

CNN's featured anchors

 

Pictured (from left to right and then down) are only four anchors that CNN chose to picture at the link above: Larry King, Paula Zahn, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper.

 

Larry King is a known Jew.  Paula Zahn is a Jew, who is married to Richard Cohen.  Wolf Blitzer is a well-known Jew, former correspondent for The Jerusalem Post.  We don’t know if Anderson Cooper is a Jew, but he may very well be.  So, three out of the four anchors (and possibly all four) that CNN chose to feature in this picture of its prominent anchors are Jewish!  Remember, Jews only constitute 2% of the American population.  And this is not even to include all of the Jewish correspondents featured on CNN, such as: Jeff Greenfield, Gary Tuchman, Sandy Berger, Rahm Emanuel, Andrea Koppel (whose father is Ted from ABC), Ben Franken, Candy Crowley, etc., etc., etc.  This doesn’t just hold true for CNN, of course, but basically all the networks.  The producers, directors, owners, etc. is where their power really lies.  The most trusted name in Jews…?

 

More from a heretic

 

MHFM: Many of our readers are familiar with some of our past articles which have refuted a certain Bob. S. – a defender of Vatican II and the New Mass.  Since he has been thoroughly refuted, there really hasn’t been much point in bringing him up again.  We do so now because he recently stated that souls can be saved in any religion.

 

Bob S., Q and A, August 2006, Question 1: “So it's not the religion of the Jew or Moslem or Protetant that will save him. If any Jew, Moslem or Protestant IS saved, it will be in spite of their "religion" or "faith-line" and it will only be because they have submitted, in part, to Catholic doctrine and practice. That's why even Protestants can be saved if they submit to the Catholic understanding of baptism.

 

“In addition, one of those Catholic "practices" is leading a moral and worshipful life. If, for example, a non-Catholic, by the laws of God written on his heart, obeys them to the best of his ability (without committing mortal sin), he at least has a chance of making it to heaven. This all comes under the teaching of "invincible ignorance" as taught by even the early Church, and reitereated specifically by Pius IX. It has nothing to do with whether he is "Protestant, Jew or Moslem." He could be of any religion, but as long as he worships and obeys God in invincible ignorance, he too can be saved. But if he, knowing that the Catholic Church is the true Church, deliberate refuses to join her, he will be condemned, whether he is Protestant, Jew or Moslem, or any religion. The big problem with EWTN's statement is that they imply that God will save them precisely because they are "Protestant, Jew or Moslem," and that is highly erroneous.”

 

This shows, once again, that Bob S. is not remotely a believer in Catholic Faith or dogma (such as Outside the Church There is No Salvation), but a manifest heretic.  His words are not only blatantly heretical (condemned by many popes, such as Eugene IV), but when he says “He [the person saved] could be of any religion,” his words are basically word for word condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.

 

Pope Pius IX- Syllabus of Modern Errors- Proposition 16, Dec. 8, 1854: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.”  Condemned

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:

“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:  “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.  They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.  Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).’”

 

About the obelisk in St. Peter’s

 

Dear Brother Michael,

 

God be praised for your message of truth!

 

I was able to hear the last hour of your guest appearance on Coast to Coast.  With a sincere and confident presentation, your message was compelling and something very new to me, although I admit I have had concerns about Vatican II from the beginning.  I am a convert, having been baptized only about two and half years ago, so I'm constantly learning new things, but something--even with my limited knowledge--has always disturbed me about many occurrences I have seen at local parishes, and now I know, thanks to your research and witness.  Since the spring I have been researching on the Internet about satanism, secret societies, government corruption, etc., and some of this has involved supposed "Catholics".  One of the interesting things--although thoroughly disgusting--are the satanic symbols and signs that are readily apparent in many places.  Take for example the obelisk in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican or the currency issued by the Vatican not that long ago with the 'all seeing eye' or 'the eye of horus' which is Lucifer.  Even on your video about the heresies of antipope John Paul II, I noticed that at time (approx.) 7:49 and 16:40 John Paul II can be seen "blessing" people with an upside down cross, which of course is satanic.  Also, at time 1:13:40, John Paul II is giving the el diablo hand sign.  You can easily find online pictures of John Paul II sitting on a chair with an upside down cross and also carrying his twisted crucifix, another satanic symbol.  Thank you for your effort--obviously by the grace and inspiration of God--to speak the truth about the conditions within the Church so that the faithful people are not deceived.  I hope you and your brothers at Most Holy Family Monastery will continue under God's protection.

 

Sincerely,

Kim

 

p.s. If you can, please put the Coast to Coast interview on your website. 

 

MHFM:  Thanks for the e-mail.  We have addressed this in a past Q and A.  There is an obelisk (a Masonic symbol) in the Vatican, but there is a Cross on top of it that was put there by Pope Sixtus V.  It symbolizes the Church’s victory over paganism/Freemasonry.  The many Protestant heretics who have attempted to use this against the Church fail to report (or are ignorant of) that important fact.  The heretic Ralph Epperson really went on about this in one of his videos, so we faxed him a copy of the picture of it with the Cross on top of it:

 

The Pope [Sixtus V] had a bronze cross placed on top of the obelisk bearing on its base the following inscription: ‘Behold the Cross of the Lord!  Depart ye hostile powers!  The Lion of the tribe of Juda hath prevailed!  Christ conquers, Christ is King, Christ is Emperor!  May Christ protect His people from all evil!” (Fr. John Laux, Church History, p. 488.)

 

Refuting baptism of blood

 

MHFM: An interesting point that was included in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, but which is sometimes forgotten, is what Pope Benedict XII defined.  Pope Benedict XII was the pope who reigned after Pope John XXII – the one who erroneously held that the elect don’t receive the Beatific Vision (i.e. behold God face to face) until after the General Judgment.  In defining the truth that the elect do receive the Beatific Vision, Pope Benedict XII makes reference to all the faithful who happen to be in Heaven, including all the “apostles, martyrs, confessors” who are there.  If there ever were a chance to define that some martyrs are in Heaven without Baptism (as the advocates of “baptism of blood” assert), this was the chance.  Instead, we read:

 

Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 1336, ex cathedra, on the souls of the just receiving the Beatific Vision: “By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare… the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them, in whom there was nothing to be purged… and the souls of children departing before the use of free will, reborn and baptized in the same baptism of Christ, when all have been baptized… have been, are, and will be in heaven…” (Denz. 530)

 

In defining that the elect (including the martyrs) in whom nothing is to be purged are in Heaven, Pope Benedict XII mentions three times that they have been baptized.  Obviously, no apostle, martyr, confessor, virgin, etc. could receive the Beatific Vision without having received Baptism, according to this infallible dogmatic definition.  No one can be saved without Baptism.  (God will get Baptism to any sincere person willing to be martyred for His Faith.)

 

Muppets in Alaska

 

MHFM: We recently received a call from a woman in Anchorage, Alaska who had been attending the New Mass (the Novus Ordo).  She was recommended to our website by a friend.  She is now convinced of the fullness of the Catholic Faith and has come up to speed on the evils of the New Mass and the post-Vatican II apostasy.  What we wanted to share with our readers is that this woman informed us that at her parish in Anchorage, the Novus Ordo “priest” Fr. Patrick Fletcher uses muppets at every 10:30 Sunday Mass for many months during the year.  “Fr. Kermit” and “Sr. Piggy” emerge from a box on the altar and carry on a dialogue in their distinctive voices in order to instruct the people.  Wow… just when one thinks that the Vatican II sect has reached the full depths of its sacrilegious aberrations and apostasy, there’s always something new.  It truly is a new religion.

 

It all makes sense

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery,

I live in the southern Utah/Las Vegas area… I've been looking for the true church for a while now wanting to be baptised.  When I initially looked into the Catholic church I found the obvious and most blatant heresies of ecumenism and inter-religous prayer to be appalling.  Until I read some articles by traditional Catholics and found your website, I hadn't been aware that many Catholics haven't accepted Vatican II.  Thank you for your time and effort.

Max G.

 

Chew on this defenders of Vatican II

 

MHFM: Since some have desperately attempted to defend Vatican II’s teaching that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God, we will offer some further brief thoughts on this matter in light of the definition of Islam.  We and others have made similar points before, but when one reads the definition of Islam it really should strike one how false and heretical this teaching of Vatican II is.  Catholics and Muslims don’t have the same God.

 

“Muhammad’s religion is called Islam, meaning submission to the will of God.  Its adherents are Muslims.  Their creed is utterly simple, stark and hard-lined as mountains against a desert sunset, proclaimed five times every day from the minarets in every Muslim city: la ilaha illa-l-Lah, Muhammadun rasulul-Lah (‘There is no God whatsoever but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of God.’)  Merely to pronounce this creed makes a man a Muslim.  Thereafter the penalty for apostasy is death, with no questions asked and no exceptions granted.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 217)

 

Let’s think about this: “There is no God whatsoever but Allah,” according to the Muslims.  And Muhammad is his messenger.  This means, therefore, that according to the Muslims the “God” for whom Muhammad is the messenger is the only God.  As they say, “There is no other God whatsoever” except the one for whom Muhammad was messenger.  Muhammad said that God had no Son (Koran, Surah XIX, “Mary”), and denied the Trinity.  Therefore, it is an undeniable fact that the Muslims worship no God “whatsoever” except the one who has no Son and is not a Trinity – the one for whom Muhammad spoke.  Vatican II worships the same “God.”

 

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium # 16:

“But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MUSLIMS are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD WHO WILL JUDGE MANKIND ON THE LAST DAY.”

 

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, worships a different God – the one and only true God – Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  In light of the definition of Islam (that Muslims worship no other “god” whatsoever except the one who has no Son and is not a Trinity), we can see that Vatican II’s teaching – that it worships the same “god” – is a denial of the Trinity and the Son of God.  There is absolutely no way to deny that the teaching of Vatican II is blatantly false and heretical.  The same wicked heresy is taught in John Paul II’s new catechism, and many other post-Vatican II documents.

 

Fake Sr. Lucy

 

A friend of mine sent me the tapes of Brother Dimond's radio interview Coast to Coast and I was fascinated! I try to be a traditional Catholic and I know all this Novus ordus "confusius" stuff is just that -confused!  I was fascinated by many things Brother Dimond had to say and how he stood up to some of the evil callers.  He said that Sister Lucy of Fatima died in 1960 and that this one who just died was a fake. What he said makes sense, does he have any more information about this-Sister Lucy dying in 1960?  Thank you.  I have been scanning your website and reading it-fascinating and seems to be true.

 

Sincerely,

Kathryn Rubio

Solon OHIO

 

MHFM: Thank you for your e-mail.  The issue of the fake Sr. Lucy (who posed as the real Sr. Lucy after 1960) is covered near the end of the article below.  That there was a fake Sr. Lucy starting in approximately 1960 is proven by 1) what the post-1960 “Sr. Lucy” said, did and endorsed in regard to the Message of Fatima, which blatantly contradicts the message of the real, pre-Vatican II Sr. Lucy; and 2) the photographic evidence.

 

The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia

and the Impostor Sr. Lucy

 

It always amazes and perturbs us when we read or hear from false traditionalists who scoff at the idea that there was a fake Sr. Lucy.  At the same time, most of these people reject the (phony and ridiculous) version of the Third Secret of Fatima which was released by the Vatican in 2000.  Are they awake?  They cannot have it both ways!  The post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucy” – the one they declare couldn’t have been an impostor – publicly stated (and indicated by gestures on television for all to see) that the Vatican’s version of the Third Secret, released in 2000, is the real Third Secret of Fatima.  Therefore, anyone who rejects (as he should) the phony and ridiculous version of the Third Secret of Fatima – which almost all “traditionalists” do, by the way – which was fraudulently released by the Vatican under John Paul II in 2000 must, if he possesses any logical consistency whatsoever, reject the post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucy” (who fully and publicly endorsed it) as an impostor; for the real Sr. Lucy, who was promised Heaven by Our Lady of Fatima and was fully aware of the contents of the real Third Secret would not, of course, endorse as true that which was a fraudulent message. 

 

Powerful Responses

 

My name is John.  I live in Washington State in Kitsap County.  I have been admittly a lukewarm born-again, baptized Christian believer for many years.  I often feared the many churches I went to in my past but did not know why.  Every church I had attended I felt compelled to leave it at some point -- It was as if my heart did not feel they were right in some mysterious way.  I believe in God, the Son (our Savior Jesus Christ) and the Holy Ghost.  I had been listening to Coast 2 Coast on AM 570 for about a week when I caught the show featuring Brother Michael Dimond late one night.  I was truly inspired by Brother Michael's strict devotion to the Catholic Religion despite all of what he'd talked about concerning its current state.  I was compelled me to listen further when he said the Catholic Religion was the one true Christian Religion.  After I finished listening to Brother Michael on Coast 2 Coast, I went to Most Holy Family Monastery.  My eyes were further opened about the Catholic Religion in its current state.  A couple weeks has passed and I've been returning to your website regularly.  I downloaded all your movies and watched with great interest.  I've become inspired as I believe God was communicating with me to climb down off this fence I've been sitting on and follow the narrow path that leads to Heaven.

 

    Bit by bit and website after website, I found why it is Catholicism in the one true Christian Religion (Jesus commanding Peter to start his church) and why Catholics prayed to Mary Holy Mother of Jesus (The Rosary given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan).  When reading about Padre Pio I became concerned about my past sins and any that were unforgiven.  Then coming to understand Purgatory through catechism readings, I find I want to make penance for my past sins and seek confession.  I am truly and fully inspired to turn from my sins and seek to become Catholic.  However, with Vatican II and the New Mass situation, I am inquiring where I may go to become Catholic and take the Rite of Christian classes?  If you know of any in my area, please let me know.  I will search on my own, but having your guidance here would be most valuable to my soul.  Thank You for your time and look forward to hearing from you.

 

May the Lord God be with you,

 

John

 

MHFM: John, you are definitely responding to the powerful graces that God is giving you to embrace the true Faith.  We would recommend that you pray the Rosary every day and, if you don't know how, we have the How to Pray the Rosary sheet which can help you.  Attached is a basic summary of the Catholic Catechism.  We look forward to hearing from you.

 

----

Thank you all, at Most Holy Family Monastery, for sending along the Catechism within your email to me, that is acceptable as being truly the Roman Catholic Catechism.  Also, I will go back to your website, and re-check your information for converts--I had already read through some of it, the other day.  And, I most certainly will be purchasing the DVD that you recommended, as well as any other DVD'S, and books, that you recommended on your website, as soon as I can!

 

Even though I still have yet to join the Roman Catholic Church, I have been attempting to inform a Catholic friend of mine all about this 'sedevacantism', and the heresy of Vatican II, trying to help her realize that the last real Pope was Pope Pius XII--but, she is misunderstanding me, and thinks that, somehow, now, I am just using this as some excuse not to finally convert!!  I gave her your website address, and she will be reading through what you have posted on there, as well as, hopefully, watching your terrifically informative videos [I've watched them, with my eyes just glued to the monitor--they are so terrific!]--so, that, through all of your information, the Lord can finally help her to realize the truth of what you've said concerning this terribly heretical current group of people, who adhere to the blasphemies in the teachings of Vatican II!! 

 

Most Sincerely Yours,

 

Christine Chiomento

Deepwater, New Jersey

 

MHFM: It's great to hear about your lively interest.  We hope you follow through and convert, which God definitely wants you to do.  We will pray for you.

 

Duty to recognize a pope

 

This is to address a question arising after having visited your web-site. Does canon law & the magisterium of the Church ( both Pre & Post Vatican II ) allow for the perfect liberty of a member of the Church (in rightful conscience) to believe that the Seat of Peter is vacant? Are their any circumstances where Sedevacantism is not permitted? Thank you for your reply.

Yours In Christ,
Marta Klein

 

MHFM:  Thank you for your question.  He who is elected as the Bishop of Rome – by the clergy of Rome in the first millennium, and by the College of Cardinals in the second millennium (or, in rare cases, by a pope appointing his successor) – must always be accepted as the pope unless there is clear evidence that the election was invalid or that the man “elected” is a manifest heretic (as taught by Pope Paul IV).  In the case of the Vatican II “popes,” they are undeniable manifest heretics and have presided over a new religion and a new gospel which contradicts what all the true popes have taught from St. Peter on.  It is definite, therefore, that they cannot be accepted as true popes based on the very teaching of the validly elected popes themselves.

 

Feeneyites?

 

Dear Brother Dimond's

 

My friend says to me that you are nothing but a bunch of Feeneyites. I don't believe it for a moment. I said to him "Well I like them." And as for Fr Feeney, I like him too, especially his book of poems "In Towns and Little Towns".   How can I explain to him that you are not Feeneyites?

 

God bless

Michael Vincent

 

MHFM: We are Catholics.  Do we agree with Fr. Feeney on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation?  Yes, because this is what the Catholic Church teaches.  You should ask your friends if they are salvation-for-members-of-false-religions-endorsing heretics. 

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

 

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

 

Unfortunately, your friends probably despise Fr. Feeney because they despise the dogma on salvation.  Perhaps the following will cause them to reconsider their assessment of Fr. Feeney: 

 

DID FR. FEENEY PREDICT THE LOSS OF THE POPE? – FROM OUR BOOK ON SALVATION

     Before I get into this point, I must remind the reader that we are not “Feeneyites” and that I had never heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney when I came to the same conclusion on the absolute necessity of water baptism based on the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.  We don’t agree with some of Fr. Feeney’s conclusions on Justification (we believe he was mistaken in good faith on these points).     

     In the following passages from Fr. Feeney’s book, Bread of Life—which is made up of Fr. Feeney’s sermons before Vatican II—he connects the eventual loss of the pope (i.e., what we have experienced with the reign of the Vatican II antipopes) to the denial of the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation. 

Fr. Leonard Feeney S.J., Bread of Life, pp. 32-33: We have Protestants in an arrangement-religion that never knows what to call itself from one week to another, that never knows what its new minister is going to tell it from chapter to chapter of Holy Scripture.  We have Unitarians who have no faith in the assured Jesus, getting more indefinite about what Christianity meant to say.  And, of course, we have Jews evading the Faith, running away from it, pretending they do not hear the name of Jesus – pretending Christmas is not the birth of Jesus Christ, and getting civic leaders to remove ‘Merry Christmas’ from in front of City Hall and to substitute for it ‘Seasons Greetings,’ because the word ‘Christ’ in ‘Christmas’ annoys them.  All this, horrible as it is, I am prepared to cope with.

     “But imagine a priest in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, ordained by the successors of the Apostles – dedicated to the Name and purpose and Blood and robes of Jesus – sitting at Harvard College week after week and listening to religion being lectured about in invisible terms.  And imagine their going back, then, to their people and telling them about the ‘soul of the Church,’ of ‘salvation outside the Church through sincerity’ – apart from the teachings and Sacraments of Jesus Christ; and calling this arrangement ‘Baptism of Desire’...  What kind of teaching is that? That is Christmas without the manger: Good Friday without any God bleeding; Easter Sunday without any Flesh and Blood coming out of the tomb. That is the Christian Faith without any Pope – the most visible religious leader in the World!”

 

Fr. Feeney, writing the above passage before the Second Vatican Council, predicted the eventual loss of the pope because of the great number of heretics within the structures of the Church who denied the necessity of the Church for salvation.  This is an amazing insight! 

     Fr. Feeney also notes that this heresy against the salvation dogma and the necessity of Baptism leads to “Good Friday without any God bleeding.”  Just take a look at the Novus Ordo churches to see if that has been fulfilled.  Fr. Feeney goes on to say in the same chapter:

Fr. Feeney S.J., Bread of Life, p. 42: “When the Vatican Council reconvenes, I humbly plead with our Holy Father, the Pope (Pius XII), that he will immediately gather his plenipotentiary powers of infallible pronouncement to clear up the wild confusion of visible orating (on the part of his priests and bishops) about an invisible Church – or else the gates of Hell will have all but prevailed against us.  The most visible ruler in the world, our Holy Father, in his white robe and white zuchetto, may as well take off his triple tiara and get down from his golden throne, and leave Christianity to the kind of committee arrangements to which it is committed in the present-day America, if we keep on preaching ‘Baptism of Desire.’”

 

     As can be seen on our video Vatican II: Council of Apostasy and on our website, this statement underlined above—the loss of the papal tiara—actually took place when Antipope Paul VI happily surrendered the papal tiara and papal pectoral cross to the representatives of the United Nations who in turn sold it to a Jewish merchant! 

 

     When Antipope Paul VI gave away the Papal Tiara, it was symbolic of the giving away of Papal authority (although he had none to give away since he was an antipope).   But it was symbolic of how the enemies of the Church, and the non-Catholic heretics, had been allowed to take over the Church’s physical structures and create a counterfeit, non-Catholic sect (the Vatican II sect).  This insight of Fr. Feeney on the Papal Tiara is so accurate that God must have put these words into his mouth.  But it just demonstrates again that once the necessity of the Church is denied the rest of the Faith becomes meaningless.  This is why those who think that the Mass issue is the main issue, and where the battle really lies, are mistaken.  The battle begins and is centered around this dogma, because once the necessity of the Catholic Faith is denied then everything else becomes meaningless.

 

On St. Hermenegild and Communion from heretics

 

St. Hermenegild was a 6th century martyr who was put to death for refusing to receive Holy Communion from his father’s Arian priest:

 

“During Eastertime the Arian father sent to his son a bishop of his sect, offering to receive him into his favor if he would receive Holy Communion from the hands of that pelate.  St. Hermenegild refused.  The father, enraged, sent soldiers to put him to death.  The barbarous order was executed in 586, and St. Hermenegild died rather than renounce his Faith.” (Lives of the Saints, Rev. Hugo Hoever, p. 150.)

 

Some have argued that – or wondered whether – this case proves that a Catholic can never receive Communion from a heretic, including a heretical priest who purports to be Catholic and is not notorious or imposing about his heresy.  If one digs into the history of St. Hermenegild’s case, the context of his refusal becomes clear, and so does the answer to our question.  St. Hermenegild was a Catholic convert who was at odds with his father.  His father, Leovigild, was a radical Arian heretic.  Leovigild was outraged upon learning of his son’s conversion to the Catholic Faith and was intent upon depriving Hermenegild of his kingdom and forcibly bringing him back to Arianism.  The two actually went to war, with Hermenegild being imprisoned:

 

“It is not questioned, even by those most scornful of the idea that after his conversion Hermenegild was primarily motivated by his faith, that Leovigild now demanded his son’s return to Arianism – and was firmly refused.  This known demand of 584 is further reason for believing that a similar demand had been made, rejected, and maintained from the time Leovigild first learned of his son’s conversion.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 195)

 

Thus, the case of Hermenegild was one where he was faced with notoriously heretical priests who were attempting to impose Arianism upon him – priests in league with his father who was trying to conquer the kingdom for Arianism.  If a heretical priest demands that you accept his heretical position to receive Communion from him, you could never receive Communion from him because that would be tantamount to a silent acceptance of his heretical position.  In Hermenegild’s case, reception of Holy Communion from the imposing Arian heretics would have been tantamount to an acceptance of Arianism and a denial of the Catholic Faith.  Every Catholic should have resisted it even to death.

 

The case of Hermenegild, therefore, is obviously very different from the question of whether – in this grave crisis and necessity in which there are few valid priests left – one may lawfully receive Communion from a “traditionalist” priest (who claims to accept all Catholic teachings and celebrates the traditional Mass), but holds some heresy, such as salvation for non-Catholics, and is not notorious or imposing about his heresy.  In this case, a Catholic may receive Communion and attend the traditional Mass of such a priest, as long as he doesn’t agree with him or support him at all. 

 

Cardinal de Lugo, who was a prominent theologian of the 17th century, who was often quoted by St. Alphonsus, addresses this very issue and indicates that the position we’ve just enunciated was the common teaching of theologians.

 

 “The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs or even in sacred and spiritual things.  It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error.  But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in the Catholic rite, etc.

 

But the opposite view [i.e. that attendance at such a Mass is lawful] is general [communis] and true, unless it should be illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge.  This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments.  It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes [i.e. Ad evitanda scandala] in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.

 

“So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places.” (Cardinal John de Lugo S.J. (1583-1660), Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio . According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Alphonsus regarded Cardinal de Lugo as second only to St. Thomas as a theologian.)

 

Notice that Cardinal de Lugo distinguishes between attending a heretical rite (which is never permitted) and attending a Catholic Mass or rite celebrated by an undeclared heretic (e.g. a priest of the SSPX who celebrates the Catholic rite and claims to be Catholic but is actually a heretic).  De Lugo is thus addressing the very issue which is confronting people today and which was posed in the question.  And what does he say?  He teaches that attendance at such a Mass is lawful and that this is the “general and true” position of Catholic theologians.  Please note that Cardinal de Lugo also points out that if circumstances are such that scandal or a denial of the Faith would necessarily arise (e.g., if the priest made an announcement that everyone who attends must agree with him, such as the priests of the SSPV have on the salvation issue), then you necessarily couldn’t go; or if the priest is notorious about his heresy, then you definitely shouldn’t go.

 

Positive Comments

 

I just listened to the Coast to Coast broadcast. You couldn't have been more eloquent and disciplined in your responses. You were absolutely dead on, and many people listening were shocked by such honesty. Outstanding… I have to say that the way that you were able to simply and clearly, yet powerfully defend Christ and the Deposit of Faith, whole and inviolate, was so well done, that it should definitely be noted with an underscore that you are living up to your name, Michael. You are a man, charged with this knowledge and have the duty to perform the ultimate charity in this life, which is to tell the truth of the Church, even unto death, and the way that you were able to articulate without a moments' hesitation from caller after caller has given me the impression that God was right there blessing you with the ability to be as wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove… Let me say, by the way, that I was completely blown away by the videos that you sell. I ordered every book, tape, VHS and DVD that you offer and was absolutely astounded by the material. I owe you a great deal for the clarity that I have received on matters of the faith, in an age that is so unbelievably full of deceit.

 

  PJP, USN

 

True Spouse book

 

Dear Brother Michael and Brother Peter, May the Holy Ghost guide you in your work promoting the One True Faith.

 

In the material you recently sent me was an article explaining the importance of spiritual reading. Brother Michael did such a good job extolling the merit of St. Alphonsus’ The True Spouse of Jesus Christ that I am eager to read it and give copies to family members.  Is this book still available from you?

 

Thank you for your work for the Church.

 

Jim Hoffman

 

MHFM: We’re currently out of it.  But you can obtain copies of this important and very powerful book from Tan Books (1-800-437-5876).

 

Young and interested

 

Greetings,

 

I'm Jocel de Souza and I came across your organisation by means of the DVDs prepared by you. Especially the ones prepared by Bro. Michael Dimond. And upon watching them, I've been left confused, troubled,amazed, etc. I've also had a large number of doubts that I wish to clarify. The most amazing DVD I've watched yet was Creation and Miracles: Past And Present. I'm Catholic for sure but some of the videos by you I've watched contradicts what I've thought about myself for all of my life. I can promise you if you have my doubts clarified and you indeed posess the truth I'll do whatever it takes to help you carry out your good work. Because I've searched for the truth my entire life and for some reason I feel that I could find it with you. So please keep in touch with me.

 

I live in Goa - India. And I'm 17 years of age. I hope you do not consider me too young to be involved in all of this.

 

Jocel de Souza

 

MHFM:  You are certainly not too young to be interested in these matters.  In fact, it’s true with many that if they don’t get interested and do what God wants when they are young they don’t ever get around to doing it.  We must all seize the opportunity now.  As far as having doubts clarified, the teachings of the Church we quote and upon which we base our positions speak for themselves.  The traditional dogmatic teachings of the Church admit of no doubt.

 

“Old Catholic” question

 

Hi:

 

I enjoyed your visit with George on C2C the other night. I agree with a lot of what you said. Is your Order part of the Roman Catholic Church or what is know as the Old Catholic Church which was once the See of Utrich?

 

Thanks

 

JB

 

MHFM: No, of course we’re not part of the “Old Catholic” sect.  The “Old Catholics” reject Papal Infallibility and the dogmatic decrees of Vatican I.  They are unfortunately heretics and schismatics.  We are Catholics and therefore accept the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, Vatican I, and all the true popes and dogmatic teachings of true popes throughout history.  Here are the strong words of Pope Pius IX about the “Old Catholics”:

 

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways.  We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."

 

Pope Pius IX solemnly declared that Catholics must regard those as schismatics and separated from the Church who belong to, adhere to and support the sect of the “Old Catholics.”

 

New Order form

 

We’ve just updated our order form with some incredible new prices.  You can still get the $8.00 DVD special, which includes 10 programs on 3 DVDs, plus 2 books, audios and magazines.  You can also now get any 15 DVDs (of the ones produced by MHFM) for $15.00 or any 20 videos (produced by us) for $20.00.  Also, check out the colorful new design on page 2 of our order form, which provides people with a collage of pictures which powerfully introduces them to what has happened since Vatican II.  Spread this order form to your friends and those un-informed.  If we are evangelistic people will respond. 

 

Order Form (PDF file) for incredible prices on our DVDs, videos, audios, etc.

 

About Thuc line

 

Brother Dimond: Thank you for being on the program Coast to Coast am. You are steadfast in your defense of the true catholic church. I am currently attending a Triditine Mass at a church in Orlando whose priest is ordained by a "Thuc Line Bishop". Do you consider the 'Thuc line' ordinations valid? Am I attending a legitimate Mass? Prayerfully awaiting your reply. Jack Bryant, Orlando, Florida.

 

MHFM: Yes, the Thuc line is valid.  The priests ordained in the traditional rite of ordination by Thuc bishops must be considered validly ordained.  There are no legitimate grounds upon which to question the validity.  However, since almost all of even the traditionalist priests hold some views not consistent with Catholic teaching – such as that non-Catholics can be saved, etc. – you almost certainly cannot support the priest, though you could receive the sacraments from him without supporting him, provided he is not imposing or notorious about his heresy.

 

Finally heard the truth

 

Hi, my name is mark and I've listened to the program coast2coast for years waiting for what i heard July 10. I need to speak to someone… i am not Catholic and was not raised in a religious family but he's always been there and i need to save me and my family

 

MHFM: Mark, that's great to hear.  Attached is a summary of the Catholic Catechism.  Also, near the bottom of our website there is a profession of Faith for converts from the Council of Trent.  You should read it and begin to familiarize yourself with it.  We would also recommend that you watch all the videos on our website.  Someone will be calling you with more information, and to answer your other questions.

 

The interesting 14th apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes

 

MHFM: In 1858, the Mother of God appeared 18 times to St. Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes, France.  The miraculous spring which resulted from those apparitions is famous all over the world.  On the day when St. Bernadette expected to receive the 14th visit from Our Lady, a crowd of thousands had gathered to watch as Our Lady appeared to St. Bernadette.  (The crowd of thousands couldn’t see Our Lady, but they had gathered because at past apparitions they had sensed the reality of the supernatural and had seen the appearance of the miraculous spring at Lourdes after the 9th apparition.)  On this particular morning, however, Our Lady didn’t appear to St. Bernadette.  Bernadette was disappointed, but later in the day she felt impelled to travel back to the grotto where Our Lady usually appeared to her.  Bernadette was only accompanied by a few people when she went back to the grotto (unlike in the morning), and she saw Our Lady again.  Later on Bernadette explained to her cousin Jeanne-Marie why Our Lady didn’t appear to her in the morning.  Jeanne-Marie relates their conversation:

 

Jeanne-Marie: “‘I have heard that you did not see the Lady this morning.  It’s possible that you will not see her tomorrow either.’  She answered me:  ‘But I did see her during the day.’  I asked her: ‘Why did you not see her this morning?’  She replied that the Lady had told her: ‘You did not see me this morning because there were some people there who wished to see what you look like in my presence, and they are unworthy of it: they spent the night at the grotto and they dishonored it.’” (Abbe Francois Trochu, St. Bernadette Soubirous, Tan Books, pp. 134-135)

 

What version of the Bible; important point on misinterpretation

 

Dear Brother Michael,

 

After hearing you on Coast to Coast a few nights ago, I have been compelled to re-think some things.  I have been struggling with my Catholic faith for most of my life. 1) Which version of the Bible do you consider the one to study and follow?

             

Sincerely,

Susie

 

MHFM: The Douay-Rheims bible is a good Catholic bible to have.  The Douay-Rheims with the Haydock Catholic Commentary is even better (it’s a big, red 3-volume set).  However, it’s not enough to just study the bible.  One must know the basic Catholic dogmas, and especially those which pertain to the current crisis.  As the bible teaches, there are many passages in Sacred Scripture which are hard to understand, and which people twist to their own damnation. 

 

2 Peter 3:15-16 – “…also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

 

This is why Christ instituted a Church, so that its official teaching could clarify and infallibly define those disputed, critical or more difficult questions.  What’s fascinating about this passage in particular is that in it St. Peter (the first Catholic pope) is telling us and emphasizing that heretics twist the writings of St. Paul to their own destruction!  Again, in the bible itself the first pope is warning us about people perverting the teaching of St. Paul.  Well, it is the very epistles of St. Paul that the Protestants most perverted and misused to introduce and spread their heretical teachings, such as faith alone, etc.!  It was to St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans (chapter 3, verse 28) that Martin Luther (the first Protestant) outrageously added the word “alone” to make it say justification by faith alone, when it doesn’t teach anything of the sort. (The passage simply teaches that the works of the Old Law, such as circumcision, etc. cannot justify).  Thus, 2 Peter 3:15-16 is subtly prophetic: in it the first Catholic pope gives a warning to the world about the future tactics that will be employed by Protestants to pervert the teaching of St. Paul to people’s destruction.  In a future E-Exchange, we will discuss this in more detail.

 

Question about Fraternity of St. Peter

 

Hello.   I live in a little tiny town within the Diocese of Phoenix. Several months ago, priests from the Order of St. Peter began coming and saying the Traditional Latin Mass at our little church that the former priest in the area closed.  What can you tell me about the Order of St. Peter?  Thank you.

 

Roberta Westcott  Clarkdale, AZ

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  A Catholic cannot attend their Masses because their "bishops" are ordained in the invalid new rite of episcopal consecration.  Thus, their "priests" are doubtfully ordained.  The FSSP also accepts the post-Vatican II apostasy, false ecumenism, the New Mass (even though they don't celebrate it themselves, they think people can go) and salvation outside the Church.  Please watch our video on the New Mass online; the FSSP is mentioned in it.

 

Excited about the truth

 

Thank you so much for your reply!  Yesterday I felt like I was clinging to my last thread of hope, and today I feel as if a door has been opened wide for me to step through.  I plan to spend time every day studying your web site…  And I will take your advice and pray the Rosary daily. 

I am so thankful that I happened to hear Brother Michael Dimond on Coast to Coast A.M.  I normally turn the radio on at night because it helps me sleep, but the night of Brother Dimond's interview I didn't sleep a wink.  As I said in my first email, I have felt drawn to the Catholic Church for most of my life, but never made the step towards conversion.  One reason for this reluctance was the erosion of the tradition of the Church in Rome, which was evident even to someone with very little knowledge of the Catholic Doctrine. I was amazed to hear that some of the things that made it impossible for me to believe in the Catholic Church (what I thought was the Catholic Church, rather) are the very same things that make this Vatican II church a fraud.  Perhaps I'm flattering myself, or making excuses for my procrastination, but I'd like to think that Jesus was keeping me safe from the false church in Rome by keeping doubt alive in my mind.  I prayed to have my doubts removed, but they persisted.  Listening to Brother Dimond, I knew in my heart that he was speaking the truth.  I no longer doubt the true Church, but I still have doubts about myself.  With prayer and time I believe I can overcome this, and ask God to accept me into his Church.

I apologize for rambling on like this.  I'm just filled with excitement about this new turn of events, and so thankful that you've helped me find my way to the right path.  Now I will set my mind towards following that path and honoring God and all that is His.

Thank you so much!

Kerry

 

On EWTN

 

Dear Bro. Dimond,

 

What is your take on this television network? Is there concern for my soul? I watch it but lately I sense no peace with viewing programs. I do not know what it is. Something is not there anymore. I am also interested in obtaing your offer made on Coast to Coast am.

Please advise. Thank you.

 

MHFM: Terri, we have an article on EWTN on our website.  In short, they accept the New Mass and the post-Vatican II religious indifferentism.  Thus, while they certainly have a few good programs, they are very much part of the post-Vatican II apostasy.  They accept salvation outside the Church, etc.  They are not truly Catholic, but very heretical.  You can obtain the $8.00 DVD special by sending us a check or calling with a credit card, and we hope you do since it contains very important information.

 

A marriage/annulment question

 

Hello Brother Dimond:

My husband and I heard you on Coast to Coast a couple of days ago and loved everything that you said.  We spent the entire day and evening yesterday watching the dvds on your website and reading the information there.  Everything you've said makes perfect sense to us and we both feel that you have come to us at a time in our lives when we were at a crossroads spiritually.

So here is our main question:  We have been married for five years and have a six year old daughter together.  My husband was born and raised a Catholic in the pre-Vatican II Church, and I converted to Catholicism from the Methodist Church after Vatican II.  We were both married previously in the Catholic Church and then divorced.  We married each other in a civil ceremony without obtaining annulments.  At the time, we did not think about the religious ramifications of what we were doing.  However, after listening to you (especially the dvd on Hell), we are now thinking quite a bit about it.  So the question is, what do we do now?  We obviously do not want to go to Hell.  Is an annulment still an option?  If so, what do we do in the meantime while we are waiting for the process to complete? 

 

…You and your fellow Brothers are in our prayers as you continue this wonderful work.  We look forward to your response.

 

MHFM: Thank you for your e-mail.  It's great to hear about your interest, and God is definitely giving you graces to act upon this information.  We would encourage you to pray the Rosary each day if you are not doing so now.  Now to your important question.  If your husband was born and raised a Catholic and was previously married by a priest to another person baptized as a Catholic, then he was validly married to that person.  Thus, he wouldn't be free to marry again if that person is still alive (unless that person whom he married was already married, but we'll assume that's not the case).

 

In your case, you were a Methodist.  If you were married to another baptized Protestant then you were married validly and wouldn't be free to marry unless that person is dead.  If these facts are correct, then you and he are both married to others and obviously cannot live as married people together; for that would be an adulterous situation.  I know that this is probably hard to accept, but there is no other answer to give since it is the truth (assuming the above facts about your past marriages are correct).  We hope that you will act on the grace to do the right thing.  We have enclosed at the end some points about what a true annulment actually means so that you have a better understanding of it, and why it wouldn’t apply to your situation (assuming the facts as summarized here are correct).

 

According to Catholic dogma, the essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility.  A marriage validly contracted and consummated is binding until death separates the spouses.  There is no such thing as the annulment of a consummated sacramental marriage.  The expression is sometimes used inaccurately for the declaration of nullity of a union reputed to be a marriage but which upon examination is proved not to have been such.”  It’s important for us to understand that there is no such thing as “an annulment” of a consummated marriage, but only a declaration of nullity that a certain union never was a marriage to begin with if there is clear-cut evidence proving that a particular union was not validly contracted. 

 

With this in mind, it’s easy to see why “annulments” (that is, declarations that certain unions were not actually marriages) were traditionally given very rarely.  Such cases are extremely difficult to prove, and if there’s a doubt about whether a particular union was a validly contracted marriage the Church presumes the validity of the marriage.

 

Canon 1014, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Marriage enjoys the favor of law; therefore in doubt the validity of marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 1127.”

 

A good example of “an annulment” that could be given on solid grounds would be if a woman were to “marry” (through no fault of her own) a man whom she later discovered had been a validly ordained priest.  Since priests cannot enter into matrimony (canon 1972), the union between this priest and the woman was not a valid marriage.  She would be given a decree of nullity that she was never married.  She would be free to marry another person.

 

Another obvious example for an “annulment” would be if the person you “married” turned out to have been married before, but he hid this information from you.  A more subtle and anachronistic example would be if a woman married a slave whom she actually thought was a free man, but was not.  A declaration of nullity would be given, since that particular error about the person one is marrying is so grave that it renders the marriage invalid (canon 1083.2).

 

In all of these cases, the reason must be grave and the evidence that there never was a valid marriage must be clear.  That’s why only 338 annulments were granted in 1968 in the U.S., when the pre-Vatican II teaching on marriage was still enforced for the most part.  However, with the explosion of the post-Vatican II apostasy, the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage has been thrown out the window along with the other dogmas.  From 1984 to 1994 the Vatican II Church in the U.S. granted just under 59,000 annually, even though the number of Catholic marriages has fallen one third since 1965!  The Vatican II sect grants an annulment to almost anyone who wants one.

 

No Mass, what to do?

 

Brother Dimond,

 

I just listened to your show on Coast to Coast, and I couldn't agree with you more!  As a cradle Catholic, I've noticed some things about the Mass, and have begun to do some research into the Vatican that disturb me greatly.  For the past few years, I've had this feeling that my religion both, has been, and is currently, being compromised by human direction instead of God's.  And you summed up this "feeling" perfectly on the show tonight!!!  And for that, I commend you.

 

The only question I have for you is..................what is your advice for continuing to practice our faith correctly?  I'm most concerned with the Mass.  Is our Mass still valid?  I'm not old enough to remember Mass prior to Vatican II, but I've seen changes in it just in my lifetime that I don't agree with.  If it isn't valid, what am I supposed to do?

 

Sincerely in Christ,

 

Mark

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  The Third Commandment (Keep holy the Sabbath) is God’s law.  Attending Mass on Sunday and Holy Days is the Church’s law, which is only obligatory if the Church provides you with a true Mass and a truly Catholic priest within a reasonable distance.  There is no obligation to attend a false Mass; in fact, there is a positive obligation under pain of mortal sin to not attend the New Mass, since one cannot approach a doubtful or invalid sacrament.

 

If you are committed to not attend the New Mass and you hold all the dogmas, there might be a place for you to attend the true Mass depending on where you live (please let us know), but if not you just stay home on Sunday and sanctify the day by praying your rosary.  Many of these questions are answered on the website, and I would strongly encourage you to get our DVD special since these issues are covered in great detail.

 

Responding to a Protestant pastor

Dear Brother Micheal Diamond,

Let me first identify myself as a Southern Baptist pastor. My wife and I were traveling back home as we returned from our vacation.  We were scanning the radio dial and my wife found the "Dr. Laura Show" and she listened until the show ended and the "Coast to Coast" show was introduced.  The topic of discussion was presented and we decided to listen.  I want to commend your ability to articulate your view and even though you maybe got a little agitated with the person called "JC" you were very forthright and sought to give biblical answers and not quoting other men as the source of your authority.  (Just a note it is better as the Proverbs states not to answer a fool - this JC person's ranting and raving were not worthy of a comment.)  From your answers and from your web site it is clear that your movement is a reformation attempt within the Roman Catholic Church.  Even though we will disagree with the interpretation of scripture on many points I do wholeheartedly agree that it is clear from scripture that the divisions within the Body of Christ do not reflect the clear theme of unity that Jesus' teaching and prayer in John 14-17 point. 

As you would imagine I do agree with some of your "heresy" evaluations and feel that it is not only the contemporary expressions of the Roman Catholic Church that is missing the mark but much, much earlier that the wisdom of man began to supersede that wisdom of God in the Catholic Church. (Just to be completely honest here I feel that this is also true in every Christian denomination at some point, Southern Baptists are not an exception on this either.  I do personally believe as one woman stated on the air that heaven will not be made up of Catholic or Baptist or ... but of all of the redeemed throughout the ages.  Again, we will disagree what it takes to be considered "redeemed" but your very bold proclamation of the narrow road was absolutely correct.)  I know based upon your conversations last night that you could not call me a brother in the Lord.  But I wanted to thank you for your pointing the listening audience to make sure that what they believe is not a man made religion with a man made God, but to go the Bible and submit to its authority for the only infallible source of spiritual truth.

Most sincerely,

M. Keith Williams
Pastor
Santa Maria, CA

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

 

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

 

As we can see, the Bible itself teaches that there is an oral tradition which must be heeded as well as the written word (Scripture).  This refutes the Protestant heresy of "sola scriptura" (Scripture Alone).  As the only true Christian Church, the Catholic Church has always taught that there are two sources of Christ's revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition - in contradistinction to the man-made Protestant religions which teach, in direct contradiction of Scripture, that only Scripture must be heeded and not Tradition or the Church (Matthew 18:17, etc.).

 

The fact of the matter is that the whole controversy is really very simple.  Any honest person who claims to believe in Jesus Christ should come to the immediate conclusion: since Christ founded a Church upon St. Peter (Mt. 16:18-20), and since only the Catholic Church (with a line of popes all the way from St. Peter) has been visible since Christ's time, that means that only the Catholic Church could be the true Church of Christ to which I must belong in order to be a true Christian.  All of the others are way too late to even be considered; they are all man-made break-offs of the original Christian Church (i.e., the Catholic Church).  This simple point should hit the hearts of all, and if it doesn't then there is a problem with that person.  The problem is bad will. 

 

The simple fact that the Catholic Church is the original Church should cause all to see the truth of the Catholic Church without even examining all of the other Biblical evidence which proves that the Catholic Church is the true Christian Church.

 

About forcing people to convert

 

Hello.  I was listening to Brother Michael on"Coast to Coast am"  last night and wanted very much to

ask a question.  Brother said that the church proseletyzes for the purpose of saving souls.  That this

is a charitable thing to do.  All well and good.  However, what is the take on the Catholic Church using a heavy handed approach to converting indigenous peoples to the catholic  faith - especially when it involves cruel means to do so.  Is this charitable?  I am thinking mostly of converting the Indians of Latin America.  There was unconscionable brutality and coersion used - torture and killings.  Yet out of this came the spreading of the faith throughout South America.  Please comment.

 

Thank you.

Marilyn Carlson

 

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

 

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

 

On Padre Pio

 

Dear Brothers in Christ,
Can anyone tell me for a certainy, whether or not Padre Pio of Pietrelcino ever said the Novus Ordo Mass? Also, what date in 1968 was the Novus Ordo universally required of priests?...Padre Pio having died in September '68.Thank you for your reply,

 

MHFM: Thank you for your question.  Padre Pio died on September 23, 1968.  The New Mass wasn’t promulgated until April 3, 1969.  Padre Pio didn’t celebrate the New Mass.

 

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

 

On CMRI

 

Dear Most Family Monastery,

   I enjoy your articles on the Catholic faith.  I was born and raised in the v-2 catholic church.  One year ago my husband and I were blessed with suddenly understanding the truth of the true Catholic Church.  We attend Latin Mass in our area that has nothing to do with the V2 church.  However by the comments you have in your articles I sense some problem you must see with the CMRI order. Which is the traditional order that we have available to us in our area.  Can you inform me if there is a problem that I am not aware of.   The CMRI order have been so life giving and keep to the traditions of the Catholic Church.  I feel I am confused.  Please respond.

 

With you in prayer.

Nan Kopina

 

MHFM:  We know it can be somewhat overwhelming for people who are first discovering traditional Catholicism to then hear that the priests who introduced them to such truth – the traditional Mass, the rejection of Vatican II, etc. – are themselves denying aspects of the Faith.  It’s an unfortunate situation, but it’s true.  It’s part of the spiritual test that God has allowed this world to go through.  People must have a strong faith anchored to Him, the Church itself and her authoritative teachings, or else they will be swept away in desolation and confusion upon discovering that so many of those they thought were traditional are, in fact, heretical. 

 

The priests of the CMRI, like the priests of the SSPX and SSPV, certainly do some good.  They promote and offer the traditional Mass; they reject Vatican II and the major aspects of the new religion.  However, the sad fact is that their priests don’t have the Catholic Faith.  It’s simply a fact that they believe that non-Catholics – including Jews who reject Christ – can be saved by being “united” to the Church by “baptism of desire” without faith in Christ or baptism.  This has been confirmed in conversations with them – even their nuns hold the same! – and is clear from their articles (see below).  Thus, they reject what they know the Church and Sacred Scripture to have taught about the necessity of Christ and His Church for salvation.  The fact that they believe it’s possible for members of false religions to be saved, including Jews who reject Christ, means that they cannot hold for certain that any non-Catholic is excluded from salvation.  Consider the implications of this and how it would impact their everyday dealings with spiritual affairs.  Since they cannot say that any person who dies as a non-Catholic is definitely excluded from salvation, they believe it’s possible for a soul to be saved in any religion.  This destroys their entire faith in the necessity of Jesus Christ Himself and affects their entire outlook on the spiritual world.  It shows that they have no real faith in God’s revelation whatsoever.  Proof for this:

 

In the Winter 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary (the CMRI’s publication), the CMRI ran an article called “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.”  In the Winter of 1996, The Reign of Mary (publication of the CMRI) featured another heretical article called “The Boston Snare,” by Bishop Robert McKenna.  Bishop McKenna believes that souls who die as non-Catholics can be saved; he also believes that it is not heretical to believe that Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace, as confirmed in an exchange of letters that we had with him in the Spring of 2004.  Ironically, Bishop McKenna’s thesis in the article is that this “heresy” of denying “baptism of desire” and “invincible ignorance” was the Devil’s snare which was sown in Boston, when the truth is actually just the opposite.  Let’s look at an excerpt from his article.

 

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

 

In a desperate attempt to defend his heretical version of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, McKenna admittedly must change the understanding of the dogmatic formula proclaimed by the popes.  He tells us that the “true” meaning of the dogma is that only those who are “knowingly” outside the Church cannot be saved.  This is absurd, for none of the dogmatic definitions declared this.  They declared just the opposite. 

 

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

                                                                       

(By the way, when McKenna says “knowingly” he means those who know of the Church and are convinced of its divine institution; for he believes that Jews who know of the Church, but still refuse to enter because they are not convinced of Christ, could be saved even though they know of the Church and reject it.)  McKenna (in the CMRI publication) denies the infallibility of a dogmatic definition by belittling it to nothing more than “a solemn and material warning” for non-Catholics.  In this we see how his heresy has corrupted his faith in a dogma – it has gone from an infallibly stamped communication of divine truth to nothing more than a fallible human warning or admonition.

 

The CMRI also vigorously promotes and defends the birth control practice of Natural Family Planning.  Their lack of faith is further displayed by the fact that they don’t hold the sedevacantist position to be something that must be embraced.  At some of their chapels, in fact (as we’ve been informed), the priest never speaks about the issue or explains why Catholics must hold it.  (This is because they are faithless and spiritually weak.)  In that sense, they are sedevacantist in name only or in opinion only, since the people receiving Communion there may totally reject the position or never even hear about it from the CMRI priest.  Considering all of this, one must say that the CMRI is a heretical group which no Catholic aware of these facts should support under pain of promoting heresy.

 

On Death DVD

 

RE: dvd Journey into Hell: I want to tell you how much I use the dvd.  It really is a good reminder and something to think about.  Having read St. Alphonsus book Preperation for Death several times, the dvd brings into focus the pictures St. Alphonsus was drawing in words.  It would be wonderful to have more dvd's like this one on other topics to use during the day while I work and sew to help keep my mind on things of importance and prayer.  It never gets old, anyway for me it does not.  Thank you for making this dvd.

 

Mary Ann Davis

 

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

 

Interesting point relating to adulterers

 

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

 

Canon 1129- “1.  Because of the adultery of a spouse, the other spouse, the bond remaining, has the right of dissolving, even in perpetuity, the communion of life, unless he consented to the crime, or gave cause for it, or otherwise expressly or tacitly condoned it, or indeed himself committed the same crime.

     2.  Tacit condonation is considered [to have occurred] if the innocent spouse, after being made certain of the crime of adultery, freely engages in marital affection with the other spouse; but it is presumed unless, within six months, he expels or abandons the adulterous spouse, or makes legitimate accusation against the other.”

 

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

 

On the New Mass

 

Since it has only been about three (3) weeks since I found your Web Site I hadn't realized the utter catastrophy the Church is actually
going through now. I can't find an Orthodox Church listed any where in this part of Alaska and so I haven't attended 'Mass' for the last two Sundays. This is my question though: There is a priest from Poland who sometimes comes to our Parish to say 'Mass' and when he is saying the words of consecration he uses the wording, "for many" , not, "for all". Am I allowed to attend his Novus Ordo Mass since he uses this wording? I am starving for for Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament, and I find myself quite often praying that I am doing the right thing by NOT going to the Novus Ordo Mass. Your reasoning is impeccable and I believe Dogmas are irrefutable, all of which leads me to believe me that Pope Pius XII was the last valid Pope. But I can't really free myself from the feeling that I may be offending God.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  No, you definitely cannot go since the removal of “many” from the consecration is not the only problem.  The removal of “mysterium fidei” (the mystery of faith) also causes a doubt about the validity. 

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
"The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202, in response to a question about the form of the Eucharist and the inclusion of "mysterium fidei" (found in Denz. 414-415): "You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed... In the Canon of the Mass that expression, "mysterium fidei," is found interposed among His words... Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed... Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as they are found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them."

Second, the Polish priest is probably ordained in the new rite of ordination; if so, he’s not even a priest.  Third, supposing for a second that the Polish priest is validly ordained and celebrating a New Mass that is valid because it includes the entire form, you still couldn't attend because the New Mass is a non-Catholic service.  Regarding your concern about offending God, you would be offending God if you go to the New Mass.  People need to remember that the third commandment is to keep holy the Sabbath, and it’s the Church’s law to hear Mass on Sundays and holy days; but this Church law only obliges you if the Church provides you with a fully Catholic church in your area. 

 

Reader’s comments on salvation denial

 

It is a pity that the Salvation issue so divides the Traditionalist movement, especially, if not exclusively, in the USA. The Church has never complicated matters for It's children. There really should be no problem, notwithstanding what certain " Patristic Fathers " may or may not have said on this issue.

We have the Sacrament of Baptism whose matter is water and whose form is : I baptise you in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This really should be the end of the controversy.

I am perplexed why the bulk of Traditional priests seek to find their way around the Sacrament of Baptism. One of the reasons coud be that they are closet ecumaniacs.

Keep the Faith!
Stephen Francis

 

MHFM: Yes, we fully agree.  It’s so simple: unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).  If people cogitate on exactly what these salvation heretics are arguing for (in arguing that people don’t need baptism and that members of false religions can be united to the Church) and what they accomplish in arguing for it – namely, nothing except to confirm people outside the Church and discourage people from converting and being baptized – and consider the fruits of their heresy, which are simply awful (rampant religious indifferentism), one can clearly see that the furor created by those tenaciously arguing for “baptism of desire” and salvation for non-Catholics is evil. 

 

Regarding why they cannot see (we’re referring here to those who believe that members of false religions, etc. can be united to the Church by “baptism of desire”), we don’t think it’s because they’re closet ecumenists, but because they don’t have true supernatural faith to believe what God has revealed until they see the justice in it.  That’s how most people work: they won’t believe until they understand, when those with real faith act in just the opposite fashion: they believe in order to understand:

 

St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.  For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.”

 

Through ill will the heretics refuse to trust God’s judgment because they cannot see the justice in it or understand it in their own puny and prideful idea of how things work, should be and are.  They say: “how can God condemn such a person to Hell; he’s so good...” when Almighty God knows all things and knows much better than they do who is actually good, so that if He reveals something to His Church it must be true!  That’s the problem with these people: they refuse to accept God’s thoughts because they don’t conform to their thoughts, rather than conforming their thoughts to God’s thoughts.

 

Isaias 55:8-9- “For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.”

 

Let’s be thankful

 

MHFM: St. Bernadette Soubirous, who was favored with seeing Our Lady at Lourdes, France, grew up in extreme poverty.  Her home was a dungeon-like former prison.  Some of the people in town were so poor that they had almost nothing to eat:

 

One day [Mlle Estrade relates] I was saying my prayers about two o’clock in the afternoon in front of Our Lady’s altar in the parish church; I thought I was alone until I heard some chairs move.  I turned round and caught sight of a child of five or six years in very poor clothes.  His face was pleasing but quite emaciated, showing plainly that the child was under-nourished.  I resumed my prayers, and the child continued his maneuvers.  With a very sharp ‘Hush’ I ordered him to keep quiet.  The child tried hard, but in spite of all the precautions he took to avoid making a noise, he did not succeed.  I watched him closely and noticed that he was bending down and scraping the flagstones and then putting his hand in his mouth.  He was actually eating the wax which had fallen from the candles during a funeral service.

 ‘Is that wax you’re eating?’ I asked him.

He nodded his head.

‘You must be very hungry!... Wouldn’t you rather eat something else?’

Several nods of the head again gave me the answer ‘Yes.’.

I left the church at once with the poor child, now my friend.  For quite a long time at my invitation he came very day to visit us, and was like a boarder.” (Abbe Francois Trochu, St. Bernadette Soubirous, Tan Books, pp. 20-21)

 

Let’s be thankful for what we have, and say an extra prayer for the conversion of some sinner headed for eternal hunger in Hell.  

 

“Bernadette divided her time as her fancy dictated between work, play and saying her rosary.  The latter was a cheap twopenny rosary, with black beads threaded on a string, which her mother had given her.  Her pleasures were as simple as her soul.” (Abbe Francois Trochu, St. Bernadette Soubirous, p. 29)

 

On desire for baptism

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

 

Your work compels me to say that You are truly worthy of Your respective names. Seen as a whole it is strikingly obvious that this work of yours bases itself on the unfailing Faith of Peter troughout the centuries and on the uncompromising zeal for God and His holy Truth of  St. Michael the Archangel. For the past two years Your writings have for me been a daily spiritual refreshment in this Hour of darkness that we are in. I want to be as brief as possible so I have one question for You. It has to do with the much mentioned Sess.6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent that the dogma deniers use in favor of the so called ''baptism of desire'' which You refute in Your book. In it You also give an answer why the Council mentions desire for baptism along with water being necessary for Justification. Can it be that with the mention of desire in that canon the Council also solemnly condemned the practise of forced baptism wich unfortunately did occur (although rarely). Maybe the question is off the mark or I have missed something that you have already written on but what does the Church say of such people who have recieved the Sacrament but against their will/desire. Is it considered valid. It would seem they are not justified although they recived the water of baptism.  Thank You in advance and may Our Lord bless You.

 
Vedran from Croatia

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  You are correct: a forced baptism would be invalid.  Desire is a necessary disposition for one above the age of reason to have in receiving baptism.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180:

"INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it…" 

 

Pre-V2 prayers and a must for Catholics

 

Hello,   I talked to someone on the phone the other day at your location about copies of 202 heresies of Vatican II that I'd like to get some copies of.  I went to your web site to check you out.  Wow.    I would love to sit down and ask you so many questions.   To begin with I have just read the info about fr. gruner.  That was an eye opener.  Most of what I read fills in so many gaps and questions I have had for some time in the back of my mind.  And of course I would first ask who was the last good pope?

And more importantly, you must feel awfully alone out there if all you say is true.  And that narrow road to heaven must be even emptier than I previously thought.  I feel I might be on that road, but my poor flesh keeps getting in the way.  I try for an austere manner of life devouted to doing the will of God, but my worldly self likes to many comforts.  I wish we lived close so I could visit and talk.  No one else seems to be speaking God's language.

    I would like to say the Liturgy of the hours but wonder if there is a pre-vatican II version of the liturgy available anywhere in the full four volumes leather.  Any ideas where I might find one or is reading the new version better than not at all?  God bless you in your work. steve reising

 

MHFM:  Thanks for the e-mail, Steve.  The traditional divine office is available from out of print booksellers; however, we believe that it’s more important for laypeople to make sure they’re praying the full 15 decades of the Rosary each day.  Further, if any Catholics haven’t read True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis De Montfort (available from Tan Books) or haven’t made the consecration to Mary which he prescribes – or if you made it a long time ago and haven’t renewed it – get the book and make or renew the consecration to Mary which he sets forth.

 

St. Louis De Montfort (+1710): “….there are some very sanctifying interior practices for those whom the Holy Ghost calls to high perfection.  These may be expressed in four words: to do all things by Mary, with Mary, in Mary and for Mary; so that we may do them all the more perfectly by Jesus, with Jesus, in Jesus and for Jesus.” (True Devotion to Mary #257)

 

St. Louis De Montfort (+ c. 1710): “By this practice [the True Devotion to Mary which he teaches], faithfully observed, you will give Jesus more glory in a month than by any other practice, however difficult, in many years…” (True Devotion to Mary #222)

 

St. Louis De Montfort (+1710): “Blessed Alan de la Roche who was so deeply devoted to the Blessed Virgin had many revelations from her and we know that he confirmed the truth of these revelations by a solemn oath.  Three of them stand out with special emphasis: the first, that if people fail to say the Hail Mary (the Angelic Salutation which has saved the world) out of carelessness, or because they are lukewarm, or because they hate it, this is a sign that they will probably and indeed shortly be condemned to eternal punishment.” (Secret of the Rosary, p. 45)

 

If you are looking for additional prayers, the Stations of the Cross are something to consider; and we should all have devotion to certain saints, of course, whom we should pray to and invoke each day.

 

Likes the website and videos

 

Brothers Dimond,

I have been reading your website for the past several months, and your analysis of the present situation in the Church never cease to
amaze. It really is all so simple, but I am quite sure that I and many others would never have been willing to admit it if you hadn't proven it
all so irrefutably. I have read your book and watched a few of your videos, and they are bombshells! God bless you, Brothers.

Erik

 

MHFM:  Thanks for the interest and words of support.

 

On EWTN

 

Dear Brother Michael Dimond:

 

I have been reading material your Monastery has sent to me and am beginning for the first time to realize what has happened to the Catholic Church. Thank you for the material.

 

I read today on your web-site about EWTN and I spent one year in Hanceville in search of a Valid Mass. I was horrified at the way the Shrine was run by the Deacon Steltemeier and the sister of the nun who replaced Mother Angelica. They are not true cloistered nuns and the Deacon is chasing well intentioned nuns out of the Monastery who retired there mistakenly for the Mass. The Deacon chased an elderly man who spent all day in adoration because God forbid, he was accused of evangilizing pilgrims. I needed to vent to someone about this and you appear the only person in the world who is interested enough in the Catholic Faith to put things on the table.

 

The most interesting thing about your writings is that no one wants to discuss the facts. Thank you for your efforts!

 

Yours in Christ,

 

Richard A. Brennan

 

MHFM:  Thanks for your e-mail.  It’s so very true that so few people want to face the facts, as you say – facts that are readily available for those who want them.  Just consider, for instance, some of the heresies that we’ve covered in the last few weeks from Benedict XVI.  He utters a major heresy almost weekly.  A few weeks ago it was an inter-religious service with Jews, then one in a Lutheran church where indicated that heretics and schismatics have salvation and are part of the Church, then two major heresies on religious liberty.  Those who are interested in seeing the truth can figure out what’s going on if they really want to.  The problem is that they don’t want to face the facts, as you say.

 

You don’t seem to be aware, however, that that the New Mass isn’t valid due to the change in the form of consecration – “many” to “all.”  (Please see the articles on our site or the DVD which cover this.)  It’s very important for you to familiarize yourself with this issue.  Since the New Mass isn’t valid, one cannot participate in Novus Ordo “adoration” since Our Lord is not present there.

 

Comment on recent article

 

Dear Brother Dimond

I have just read your article on John Daly and I find it an excellent guide concerning his erroneous position.  I too have noticed his exaggerated self importance and conceitedness in his writings, and the contradictions of his position which can only confuse those who read his writings on issues in sedevacantism.  As someone who comes from the same Daly historical clan in Ireland as John Daly, I wish to say that I wholly endorse your position as accurate in this matter, as you
puncture his waffle and inflated ego which leads him to his blindness on theological matters.  I have read your carefully documented and researched book Outside the Catholic Church There is absolutely No Salvation, and your arguments have been honestly put forward and carefully supported from Holy scripture and Magisterial Statements. The case you have made is compelling and I am awaiting a serious refutation of your arguments against Baptism of Desire and Blood.  You
are right to point out that John Daly is contradictory and weak in his posturings and attacks against you, which boils down to nothing more than personal enmity and a lax treatment and understanding of Holy scripture and Magisterial documents.

I am disgusted that all charity is forgotten when it comes to attacking your work and position on the crisis in the Church, and you have shown how hypocritical such people are.

God Bless you in your ministry and please continue to speak the truth of our Catholic Faith, as so few do so nowadays because of a human respect so that instead injury and offences are heaped on Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Yours sincerely

Dr Gerard Daly

 

New article on J.D.

 

MHFM: For those it may concern, we have a new article

 

Some words on the illogical heretic John Daly

 

This has been added to our Beware Section.

 

The important ramifications of Vatican II’s theological note – refuting the SSPX and others

 

MHFM: We’ve repeatedly pointed out that Antipope Paul VI made the heretical teaching of Vatican II binding by his solemn confirmation of each of its documents – a fact which proves that he was not, and could not have been, a true pope.

 

EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF V-2 ENDS WITH THESE WORDS (OR WORDS BASICALLY IDENTICAL TO THESE):

 

“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.” (Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 366, etc.)

 

However, those who want to be able to reject Vatican II (or portions of it) while accepting Paul VI as a valid pope – a rather large group of “traditionalists” – will frequently make reference to a theological note that was attached to the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium.  They think this clarification proves that Paul VI didn’t promulgate Vatican II infallibly or authoritatively.  The SSPX’s official website attempts to use this note attached to Lumen Gentium as an argument to prove their point, but the fact is that not only does this argument not hold up under scrutiny, but the note proves just the opposite. 

 

Here is the crucial portion of the theological note that was attached to the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium:

 

“Taking into account conciliar custom and the pastoral aim of the present council, this holy synod defines as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it openly declares to be such.  THE OTHER MATTERS WHICH THE SYNOD [VATICAN II] PUTS FORWARD AS THE TEACHING OF THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE FAITHFUL SHOULD ACCEPT AND EMBRACE ACCORDING TO THE MIND OF THE SYNOD ITSELF, WHICH IS CLEAR EITHER FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OR THE WAY IT IS SAID, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 898.)

 

First, this note is not even part of the actual text of the document Lumen Gentium; it’s an appendix to the text of Lumen Gentium. (Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 97.)

Second, this note is attached only to Lumen Gentium, not the rest of the documents.  In other words, even if this theological note did “save” Paul VI’s promulgation of the heresies in Lumen Gentium (which it didn’t), it still did not “save” his promulgation of the rest of the Vatican II heresies.

 

Third, if one reads the above note one can see that it declares that the subject matter, or the way something is said within Vatican II, identifies that Vatican II is enacting the supreme Magisterium of the Church, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation – that is to say, as the Church in the past has enacted the supreme Magisterium.  Paul VI’s declaration at the end of every Vatican II document (quoted above) definitely indicates, by “the way it is said,” “in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation” (that is, paralleling past dogmatic decrees), that he is enacting the supreme Magisterium (if he had been a pope).  Therefore, this theological clarification attached to the document Lumen Gentium does not diminish or negate the solemn language of Paul VI found at the end of every Vatican II document.  Rather, his language at the end of every Vatican II document fulfills the requirements of the theological note.

 

Fourth, and most importantly, those defenders of Paul VI who attempt to use this note in order to “save” all of the documents of Vatican II from compromising Papal infallibility don’t pay much attention to what it actually said.  The note clearly stated that “the other matters which the synod (Vatican II) puts forward as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way it is said, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation.” 

 

This is a very important point!  There are numerous instances in Vatican II where Vatican II is setting forth what it believes to be the teaching of the supreme Magisterium, which “each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way it is said…”  For instance, in its heretical Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), Vatican II says this:

 

Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (#9): “The statements made by this Vatican synod on the right to religious freedom have their basis in the dignity of the person, the demands of which have come to be more fully known to human reason from the experience of centuries.  But this teaching on freedom also has its roots in divine revelation, and is for that reason to be held all the more sacred by Christians.

 

Here Vatican II explicitly indicates that its heretical teaching of religious liberty is rooted in divine revelation and is to be held sacred by Christians.  This clearly fulfills the requirements of the theological note for a teaching that “each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the (Vatican II) synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way it is said…” And there is more:

 

Dignitatis Humanae (#12): “Hence the Church is being faithful to the truth of the Gospel and is following the way of Christ and the apostles, when it sees the principle of religious freedom as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it.  Throughout the centuries it has guarded and handed on the teaching received from the master and the apostles.”

 

Notice, Vatican II explicitly indicates that its heretical teaching on religious liberty is: 1) faithful to the truth of the Gospel; 2) follows the way of Christ and the apostles; and 3) is in accord with the revelation of God!   We remind the reader again of the wording of the theological note, which stated that “the other matters which the (Vatican II) synod puts forward as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way it is said, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation.” 

 

Therefore, according to the theological note itself, those who accept Paul VI as a pope are bound to accept Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church!  The theological note binds them to accept Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty as: 1) faithful to the truth of the Gospel; 2) following the way of Christ and the apostles; and 3) in accord with the revelation of God because this is “the mind of the synod itself (Vatican II), which is clear from the subject matter or the way it is said…”  It’s very simple: those who believe that Antipope Paul VI was the pope are bound to the heretical document on religious liberty.

 

To summarize all of the points made so far: 1) the theological note attached to Lumen Gentium was not appended to every document; 2) the theological note attached to Lumen Gentium does not diminish or negate the solemn language of Paul VI at the end of every Vatican II document; 3) even if the theological note did apply to every document and somehow did make Paul VI’s solemn language at the end of each document non-binding (which it most certainly doesn’t), the theological note by itself still proves that various teachings in Vatican II – such as its heretical teaching on religious liberty - are infallible and binding because of the way that Vatican II presents its teaching on these matters.  Thus, no matter which way one tries to escape the reality that Antipope Paul VI could not have been a true pope and at the same time promulgate Vatican II, he fails.  For more on this issue, see our article: Was Vatican II infallible?

 

The power of prayer

 

MHFM: Isabel the Catholic Queen of Spain (15th century), prior to becoming Queen, had to fight for her crown with political schemers who tried to set up rivals to usurp her authority.  She also had to ward off many attempts by other political schemers to arrange marriages for her which she didn’t want.  When such a marriage with an older hoodlum named Giron had been arranged, and there was no way out of it, Isabel prayed that either she or he would die.

 

This time there was no way for Isabel to divide her enemies.  Even the Pope had decided against her.  Giron would arrive in less than a month.  He had proclaimed his intention to marry her immediately.  She was trapped…. Marriage to Pedro Giron, lecher and despoiler, as totally opposite to Isabel as any human being could be, was beyond bearing…. What does a Christian do in such a situation?  He – or she – prays.  And Isabel did pray, as she had prayed never before… ‘Either let him die, or let me die… Either let him die, or let me die…’ Giron was on the march.  By April 13, at the head of his mighty host, he had reached El Berrueco… North from El Berrueco rode Giron with his men, into the Sierra Morena, the Dark Mountains…. Across the plain, its grapevines spreading their leaves to the spring sun, until they came to its end at the Sierra de la Virgen, the Mountains of the Blessed Virgin Mary… And there they noticed that Pedro Giron, Master of Calatrava, was swaying in his saddle.  They helped him down from his horse.  Fever was flaring through his body.  His throat was burning and filling with alien matter.  He called for water, but he could not drink.  The next day he grew worse; the next, worse still.  Choking, strangling, cursing God with his last breath because He had not let him live to claim his virgin bride, on the third day Pedro Giron died.

      For Jesus Christ is the King of Kings, and the earth is the Lord’s; and prayers to Him are heard.  As Isabel the Catholic had always known, and would never forget.” (Isabel of Spain: The Catholic Queen, p. 31.)

 

On baptism and the newspaper editor’s accident

 

Dear Brother Dimond's

 

I have a few questions for you.

 

I think you are wrong about water baptism. In your E-Exchanges, you quote Pope Clement V as saying that he believes water baptism to be: "...commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children". Can't you see that the word "commonly" allows room for uncommon situations where baptism of blood and baptism of desire come into play? How do you explain his use of this word?

 

In an earlier E-Exchange, you say some very unkind things about the publishers of Four Marks. You claim that God punished them by causing them to be involved in a smashup. How do you know this?...

 

Michael Vincent

 

MHFM: The use of “commonly” in the quote below clearly refers to the fact that the one baptism of water is the remedy of salvation common to both adults and children; in other words, it’s not just for adults or just for children.  We’re glad that you reminded us of this, for this fact strengthens the point.  There are those who, quoting St. Thomas, argue that baptism of desire is a remedy (i.e. can be a substitute) in the case of adults, but not in the case of children.  The Council of Vienne could have very easily said that, but it didn’t.  No, it stated that the one water baptism is the common remedy of salvation for adults as well as children. 

 

Further, if the Church ever had an opportunity to pronounce on the doctrine of the “three baptisms,” it was surely at the Council of Vienne.  If the Catholic Church teaches “three baptisms,” as they say, why didn’t the Council define these “three baptisms” in this context, rather than declaring the opposite: that there is only one baptism of water?  It’s because there aren’t “three baptisms of blood, water and desire,” but only one baptism of water, as this dogmatic Council (not some fallible text or theologian) defined.

 

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:  “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

 

Regarding the crash of the editor of Four Marks, of course we’re not asserting that everyone who suffers an accident is punished by God.  But in this case it’s our strong opinion that she and her husband were clearly punished by God.  Remember that this “stray deer” (which caused the accident) killed her husband at age 54, left her seriously injured, and caused the publication to be delayed (maybe permanently) at the very time when they were preparing it to launch an attack on the necessity of baptism and the Catholic Faith, which would have probably done much damage and caused more confusion with many because it would have been endorsed by some sedevacantists.  Is it just a coincidence?  We don’t think so.

 

God was obviously outraged not only by their planned attack on His dogma of the necessity of water baptism for salvation, but also by the fact that they were going to attack the necessity of water baptism while, at the same time, they have on their staff individuals such as Rama Coomaraswamy and Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt!  Consider this astounding hypocrisy.  Coomaraswamy has bluntly stated in his writings that many pagans can be saved, and Vaillancourt quotes approvingly from a priest who teaches that there is salvation “outside” the Church. 

 

So, the editor of Four Marks has no problem with presenting the views of these people to Catholics, but such a problem with the necessity of water baptism that she considers it a heresy to be extirpated!  Considering this fact one can obviously see why she was punished by God. 

 

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

 

Moreover, we cannot fail to mention the devilish malice of the obstinate baptism of desire supporters and salvation heretics.  Some of them absolutely hate and attack what we’re doing.  Why?  It’s because we hold that men must be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost to be saved, as the Church has declared.  Oh no, they wouldn’t want anyone going around preaching “that wicked heresy” according to which all men must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost.  These people are demonic.

 

Comments on articles

 

MHFM: Our material has recently been mentioned in some articles by various groups.  We’re involved with some projects at this time, but we hope to post some comments on those articles and items soon.

 

A religious awakening

 

Dear Brother Michael And Brother Peter,

 

Please help me. My name is D.F. I'm a cradle Catholic, although from about 1966 to 1998 I was living on the wrong side of both the civil law as well as the rule of my beloved Catholic Faith…. I moved to… Alaska, in February of 2004. I then ran across your web site approximately one (1) week ago, reading and downloading a great deal of what is, for me your devastatingly accurate and personally vindicating presentation of what actually happened to the Church I had abandoned so long ago. I had tried so very hard to internalize what was presented to me as the valid way of life for a member of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Out of a sense of humility I asked myself how I, for so long a sinner of such great magnitude, dared to question the changes which had come to my 'Church' from Rome ; from the various 'Popes' who guided Her and to whom I was obliged obedience.

Dear… Brothers Dimond, PLEASE pray for me. Your arguments against the post Vatican II Church are irrefutable, at least to a man not Blessed with your knowledge and insight, your gift of discernment. But I beg you to try and imagine my bewilderment, my sense of betrayal since it is this very impostor 'Church' which has allowed me to receive, or so I thought, my now greatest love, Our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the Most Blessed Sacrament. I find myself remembering the words of the late Bishop Sheen, "Truth is truth. If it was true then it is true now, lest it never was." The "ex cathedra" statements of the Popes you quote are without doubt absolutely unambiguous.

 

                                          Yours in Christ Jesus, and Him Crucified,

D.F.

On Can. 5 of Trent on baptism

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

What is denied brother Dimond is your interpretation of defined doctrines.

Pope Paul III does NOT say "water" Baptism--in this quote you provide, this is your "added" interpretation to this quote

The Church throughout 2000 years HAS allowed for other "forms" of Baptism such as of blood (martyrdom), the "conditional" baptism of converts (the Church recognizing that one can ONLY be baptized once), and of course Baptism of desire--which leaves GOD and not you--as the final Judge and Jury of one's soul at their physical death or in FINAL Judgment at the end of time--whichever comes first.

 

Genbj

 

MHFM: Yes, Pope Paul III does refer to water baptism in that quote.  We’ve mentioned this before, but some people don’t seem pay attention to the point.  The above canon is a canon on the Sacrament of Baptism (Canones de sacramento baptismi).  We repeat: it’s a canon on the Sacrament of Baptism.  The so-called “baptism of desire” is not, even according to those who believe in it, a sacrament:

 

Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, baptism of desire advocate, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament; it does not have the exterior sign required in the sacraments.  The theologians, following St. Thomas… call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the grace of baptism… yet it does not produce the sacramental character.”

 

Since only water baptism is the sacrament, Pope Paul III does define that water baptism is necessary for salvation without exception by defining that the sacrament is necessary for salvation without exception.  This refutes what you stated above.

 

To your second point, that the Catholic Church has allowed other forms of baptism, that is simply not true.  Certain men have fallibly theorized such, but the Catholic Church hasn’t taught it.  In fact, your statement that there are other forms of baptism contradicts the defined teaching of the Catholic Church that there is only one form of baptism, which is celebrated in water.

 

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:  “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

 

Interesting update on a new heretical newspaper

 

MHFM: A few of our readers have asked us about a new sedevacantist newspaper called Four Marks.  This newspaper is run by a woman and a block of heretical contributors who are adamant supporters of baptism of desire and groups which believe that souls can be saved in false religions (or accept as Catholic those who do).  A reader of ours wrote to K. Plumb, the editor of this newspaper, to ask her about the salvation issue and our material.  On May 30, this reader forwarded Plumb’s reply to us, which included:

 

“Br. Dimond hasn’t contacted me, and although I am impressed by his efforts and knowledge, it is much like a Baptist who knows his chapter and verse, but not what the Bible says.”

 

So, a few weeks ago the editor of Four Marks compared one of us to a Baptist for our adherence to the necessity of the Catholic Faith and water baptism for salvation.  She also indicated in the same e-mail that “another article planned on this topic [the baptism of desire issue] (by another writer) is scheduled for the July issue.  There are other articles on this same topic that we may reprint. That is being discussed.”  So, she was planning on printing another attack on baptism by one of her stable of heretical writers in July, which almost surely would have included the typical distortions, half-truths, omissions, etc., etc. that characterize the works of the salvation heretics.

 

Well, K. Plumb won’t be printing that attack on baptism in the July issue.  She and her husband were just involved in a serious car accident, which left her with broken bones and her husband on life support.  According to the family, “there will, undoubtedly, be a delay on the paper.”  Hopefully it’s a permanent delay.  Is it just a coincidence that this very serious car accident occurred just prior to the publication of the July issue, in which she planned to again attack the necessity of baptism and further spread the snare of salvation heresy?  We think not.  People need to realize that God detests such phonies and what they do.  God desires their conversion, but those heretics who think they are traditional Catholics while they attack the necessity of baptism and Fr. Feeney, and while they endorse all kinds of groups which believe in salvation for members of non-Catholic religions, are phony abominations.  And that’s exactly the kind of heretic that runs and contributes to this new heretical newspaper, which Catholics should shun if it ever gets back up and running. 

 

Interesting tidbit on the French Revolution

 

MHFM:  Many Catholics are aware that on June 17, 1689, Our Lord revealed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque that He wanted the King of France, Louis XIV, to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  The Kings of France delayed, and did not obey.  100 years later to the day, on June 17, 1789, King Louis XVI was stripped of his legislative authority by the upstart Third Estate, and four years later the soldiers of the French Revolution executed the King of France (Louis XVI) as if he were a criminal.

 

What’s very interesting is that after the monarchy had been overthrown by the incredibly dark forces of the French Revolution, which culminated with the execution of thousands of Catholics and the official abolition of Christianity in France – a horrible punishment which God allowed because the Kings of France had refused to honor His Sacred Heart – the sinister leaders of the French Revolution found themselves honoring a different heart.  Jean-Paul Marat was one of the most loathsome figures of the French Revolution.  He was one of the most anti-catholic and fiercest advocates of terror, who stirred the revolutionaries up to violence in his newspaper The Friend of the People.  In Marat’s newspaper, one would frequently read such things as: “… split the tongues of the priests who have preached servitude.”  At one point during the French Revolution, Marat was stabbed to death by Charlotte Corday.  He became the “martyr” for the Revolution.  After Marat’s death:

 

“On July 16 an immense and blasphemous public funeral was held for Marat.  A huge procession followed his already decomposing body, with many chanting ‘O heart of Jesus; O sacred heart of Marat!’… his heart was cut out and placed in a porphyry urn suspended from the ceiling of the Club.  During the rest of the Terror, every meeting of the Codeliers Club was held under Marat’s heart.” (Warren H. Carroll, The Guillotine and The Cross, Christendom Press, p. 121.) 

 

It’s extremely interesting that the wicked leaders of the French Revolution honored and held their meetings under the heart of Marat.  The demonic symbolism and substitution should be obvious: since the heart of Jesus was rejected by the leadership of France, God allowed Catholic France to be overtaken by one of the wickedest movements the modern world has ever known, which abolished the Catholic Faith and replaced the honor due to His heart with honor to the heart of the execrable Marat. 

 

Clearing up some confusion about religious liberty and Vatican II

 

Does his argument and website link hold water?

 

James

 

[Another person’s attempted response to the claim that Vatican II taught heresy on religious liberty]:

 

The Vatican Council declares that the human person has the right to religious freedom.  Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others.  The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.  This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right. 

 

It then goes on to talk about free will and the seeking of religious truth.

 

To combat this, the website author, uses Pius IX's Quanta Cura from 1864.  Pius IX's encyclical was written to condemn the abuses of the times such as pantheism, naturalism, and civil authorities rights in persons lives.

 

The quote used on the website is taken out of the context.  Pius IX is talking about individual freedom being used as an excuse for sinful activity.  The Vatican 2 document is talking about the natural right to religious freedom.  I know this sounds like my opinion, but the only way to know for real is to read the two documents in their entirety and the commentaries on them.

 

MHFM:  Thanks for your question.  Defenders of Vatican II have bent over backwards to attempt to reconcile its teaching with traditional Catholic teaching.  As is the case with many issues, such as creation vs. evolution, etc. individuals attempt to confuse matters by distorting issues.  For instance, a subtle distortion of a fossil can create an entire line of false belief in evolution.  The same is true with this issue of religious liberty.  It is true to say that unless a person understands the issue of religious liberty and its details he or she can be misled by these – sometimes subtle – distortions.  Let’s take a look at one of them. 

 

Many of the defenders of Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty point out that the Catholic Church doesn’t force or coerce an unbeliever to be a Catholic, since belief is, by definition, a free act of the will.  This is very true. 

 

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

 

They say, therefore, that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty was simply a repetition of this truth that the Church doesn’t force an unbeliever to be Catholic.  This is what Patrick Madrid argued in his book, Pope Fiction. 

 

Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction, p. 277: “Notice the Declaration [on religious liberty] endorses not a general freedom to believe whatever you want, but rather, a freedom from being coerced into believing something.  In other words, no one is to be forced to submit to the Catholic Faith.”

 

A person who is familiar with Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty would probably detect the subtle distortion in the Madrid argument.  Yet, we can see how those who are unfamiliar with the issue might be taken in by such an argument.  The truth is, contrary to the claims of Patrick Madrid and others, Vatican II didn’t merely teach that the Catholic Church doesn’t force or coerce an unbeliever to be a Catholic.  If that’s all it taught on that point, it wouldn’t have been heretical (on that point). 

 

Rather, Vatican II taught that States don’t have the right to put down the public expression and propagation and practice of false religions (because the civil right to religious liberty should be universally recognized).  Again, we must understand the distinction between the two different issues which the dishonest defenders of Vatican II sometimes attempt to conflate: First issue) the Catholic Church doesn’t force or coerce a nonbeliever to believe, since belief is free – true; Second issue) the State cannot repress the public expression of these false religions – this is where Vatican II contradicts the Catholic Church on religious liberty.  The second issue is the key. 

 

The Catholic Church teaches infallibly that States can and must (unless the regime were threatened by doing it or it were not within its reasonable power or a greater evil would result) put down the public expression and propagation of false religions.  The contrary was condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.

 

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77:

“In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.

 

We can see that the idea that the State cannot exclude the other religions is condemned.  To understand this better let’s give an example: If a State were presented, for instance, with Muslims and Jews holding their religious services and celebrations in a public place (even if they were not disturbing the peace or infringing on any private property or upsetting the public order at all), the State could and should (according to Catholic teaching) repress these services and celebrations and send the Jews and Muslims home (or would arrest them, if the law were well established) since they scandalize others and could cause others to join these false religions.  The State would tell them their obligation to be Catholic before God and try to convert them by directing them to the Catholic priests, but it wouldn’t force them to do so.  This is an example of the clear distinction between 1) forcing one to be Catholic, something the Church condemns, since belief is free and 2) the State’s right to repress false religious activity, something the Church teaches.

 

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78:

“Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned.

 

But Vatican II teaches just the opposite.  Below we will quote a passage that is the clearest heresy of Vatican II on religious liberty.  This passage cuts through all of the heretics’ attempts to distort and confuse what the religious liberty issue is and what Vatican II taught about it – so use it whenever you are debating this issue.  (There are other subtle distortions on this issue of religious liberty which we may discuss in a future post).  But this passage below from Vatican II is utterly indefensible and cuts through all of their attempted distortions.  It is the clearest heresy of Vatican II on religious liberty, and probably the third clearest heresy in all of Vatican II.

 

Vatican II Document, Dignitatis humanae # 3:

So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens.  With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.”

 

Here Vatican II says that the State exceeds its authority if it dares to direct or prevent religious activity.  We just saw above that the Syllabus of errors condemned the idea that State cannot prevent the activity of other religions.  This proves that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty was clearly false and heretical. 

 

Possible convert

 

Dear Holy Family Monastery,

      For some time know I have been reading the articles on your site as well as some others like yours, and by way of their message as well as the guidance of my father, I've come to the realization, by Divine grace, that I must convert to the TRUE Roman Catholic Church. However, I have found that this is not a move that can be made by one's self, or easily for that matter.  Allow me to give you some back ground (in hopefully the not-so-long-winded-fashion). I have been raised Baptist/Protestant my entire life, by my mother. Most of that time I hated church and anything that had to do with it. However there was always a side of me that was too afraid to go to far with my dislike for the "church" I was attending. I later was sent to a school, along with my siblings, were the [protestant] doctrine of Reconstructionism, headed by a protestant theologian named Rousses John Rushdooney, was taught. It was a very militant form of Protestantism. Not at all what I was used to. During that time we studied and held high the works and protests of Luther, Rushdooney, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and oh yes, Mary was just a tool for God's grand design and nothing else. If I have made you cringe by now, I'm sorry, I'm almost done.

      After finally graduating from high school and being out for a year or so, I joined the Navy. To make a long story short… I have always been obsessed with the truth and by God's good grace has made me thirst after it in all areas of life. Therefore I thirst after Him. After being in the military for about a year, my dad, who has been Catholic his whole life, finally decided that he needed to talk to me about my faith. It was at the time that my real thirst for the truth was put to the test. And by God's good grace I passed. My dad slowly introduced me and my brother to several articles. Little things first, then came the Freemason info, Opus Dei info, then the Zionist info, then the Kaballah info, and then the Sedevacantists (True Catholics) view point, and the Vatican II error info,...

 

In Christ, C.P. (USN)

                                                                                                            

Benedict XVI not the Pope just an opinion?

 

…One principle I’ve emphasized is that no one’s opinion, however soundly based, can be raised to the level of doctrine. And, no matter how certain we are, the question of the status of Benedict XVI is still an opinion, i.e., has not been ruled upon by the Holy See (as the Holy See is in Eclipse)…

 

Jim Condit Jr.

 

MHFM: No, the fact that a heretic cannot be a Pope is a dogmatic fact, a fact inextricably bound up with the dogma that there is only one Faith in the Church and that heretics are not members.  The fact that Benedict XVI is a heretic is also certain since, as we’ve proven, Benedict XVI doesn’t believe that Christ even has to be seen as the Messiah.  He also holds that Protestants and schismatics don’t need to be converted.  These are not opinions; these are facts.  Thus, it’s a fact that Benedict XVI is not the Pope, a conclusion that becomes binding upon all who come across the facts that 1) heretics cannot be Popes; and 2) Benedict XVI believes the aforementioned things (among many others), while possessing a tremendous familiarity with the teachings he rejects.

 

If the position that Benedict XVI is not the Pope is just an opinion, as you say, then it’s also just an opinion that those who are pro-abortion are not Catholic.  But obviously it’s not merely an opinion that those who obstinately support abortion, such as John Kerry, are not Catholic; and obviously one would not be at liberty to hold John Kerry as a Catholic, even though this matter hasn’t been officially declared by the Holy See.  Likewise, it’s not just an opinion that one must believe in Christ and that non-Catholics need to be converted to be a Catholic.  Therefore, just as one is not at liberty to hold a clearly obstinate dogma denier such as John Kerry as a Catholic, one is not at liberty to hold that Benedict XVI (who denies even more dogmas) is a Catholic (and therefore the Pope).  There is no difference.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

 

A striking case in point about dishonest dogma deniers

 

I recently read your article against the Society os St. Pius V.  I found the statement that "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation" very disturbing.  This would mean that someone who has been secluded from the faith all their life would be denied heaven through no fault of his own.  But this contradicts God's justice.  Would He really condemn a person to eternal damnation without giving him a chance?  Surely no just God could do such a thing.  I would like you to consider this before you slanderize us further.

 

In His name,

 

S. E.

 

MHFM: We just received this e-mail.  Our readers will recall that a few e-exchanges ago we wrote: “We cannot tell you how many times we’ve spoken with “traditionalists” who have denied that their priest (SSPX or SSPV or CMRI or some other) believes that non-Catholics can be saved, indicating that such an assertion is utterly ridiculous and unthinkable since no traditionalist would believe that, just before that very same person argued that non-Catholics can be saved in the same conversation!”  Well, this e-mail we received above is a case in point.

 

Notice that S.E. first indicates that he doesn’t accept the dogma by saying that he cannot see how "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation" is compatible with God’s justice.  He thus holds with the SSPV that non-Catholics can be saved and rejects what the Church has infallibly defined. 

 

He then says, “I would like you to consider this before you slanderize us further.”  Wait a second!  Slander is calumny – a false statement about someone else.  Does the reader see the lie he just uttered?  Remember, S.E. admitted that what we said in our article about the SSPV is true by admitting that he also doesn’t see how there could be no salvation outside the Church.  He then proceeds to accuse us of “slandering” him and the SSPV, as if they don’t believe what we said they believe in the article – when he just admitted that they do a few lines up!  The bad will and the dishonesty is staggering.

 

Exciting truth about earth and the Biblical Flood

 

MHFM: As our order form indicates, we’re selling a book entitled In the Beginning – Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Dr. Walt Brown.  This book refutes the theory of evolution from all aspects of science and scientifically shows how the Biblical Flood occurred.  To give our readers a taste of what this book covers, here’s a link to a picture of the bulge in the earth that is formed by the Mid-Oceanic ridge.

 

Bulge in the earth formed by the Mid-Oceanic Ridge

 

The Mid-Oceanic Ridge, which is actually the world’s longest mountain range, wraps around the earth but is not generally known since most of it lies on the ocean floor.

 

Here’s an illustration of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge - notice the large portion in the center of the Atlantic Ocean

 

The Hydoplate Theory asserts in tremendous detail (to which this very brief attempted description doesn’t remotely do justice) that during the flood the “fountains of the great deep were broken up,” as the Bible says (Gen. 7:11), meaning that the crust of the earth was broken apart in what is now the area of the Atlantic Ocean, launching subterranean water violently into the air.

 

here’s a figure of the water shooting violently out of the subterranean chamber – SEE THE 2ND ONE DOWN

 

As this water continued to shoot out, the crack in the crust of the earth continued to spread and move and rip the crust of the earth, eventually encircling the earth to become what we now see as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge (second link above).  The waters violently shooting out of the broken crust caused the continental plates to drift apart and move away from the crack in the crust of the earth where the “fountains of the great deep” had broken, as we see here.

 

Birth of Mid-Atlantic Ridge –

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html

 

This drift of the plates away from the ridge ended with the violent compression event that squeezed up the earth’s major mountain ranges.  Moreover, consider ocean trenches.  Ocean trenches are depressions or ditches on the floor of the ocean.  Most ocean trenches are concentrated in the western Pacific, as we see in this diagram here.

 

  figure of ocean trenches which are concentrated in the western Pacific

 

Think of the earth as a globe (Isaias 40:22), rather than as a flat map, so that as inner portions of the globe are pushed out in certain areas, the opposite side is sucked in in certain areas. The western Pacific, where most ocean trenches are located, is almost exactly opposite the center of the Atlantic Ocean, in both longitude and latitude!  Ocean trenches were formed by the flood.

 

There is much more in the book which proves that the Biblical Flood is earth’s defining geological event – including the cause of almost all fossils, comets, coal, limestone, the jigsaw fit of the continents, etc., etc., etc. – but this should hopefully give the reader an idea of what the book is about.  The book is somewhat deep and technical at times, and will appeal primarily to those who have a deeper interest in these matters.

 

About the Catechism of Pius X and Baptism being supplied

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter:

 

I recently came across an article… [which] stated that Pope St. Pius X in his catechism was asked if the absence of Baptism could be supplied in any other way and the answer was in fact in favor of baptism of desire. I was just confused on this and was wondering what you had to say about it.

 

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

 

Sincerely,

Melissa

 

MHFM: Melissa, thank you for your question.  This is addressed in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, which has a section on the Catechism of Pius X, which we will include below (it's short).  The simple answer is that the Catechism which people attribute to Pius X is not infallible and actually contains heresy (as shown below) – it teaches salvation “outside” the Church – and it wasn't written by St. Pius X.  Furthermore, the infallible Council of Trent (also quoted below) teaches (without any exceptions given) that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, which means that it cannot be supplied.

 

THE CATECHISM ATTRIBUTED TO ST. PIUS X

The Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X repeats for us the same de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.

 

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 16: “Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?  A.  Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for Our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’”

 

So, contrary to popular belief, those who reject “baptism of desire” actually follow the teaching of the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X on the absolute necessity of water baptism.  They don’t follow, however, the teaching of this fallible Catechism when it proceeds to contradict this truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.

 

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 17: “Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?  A.  The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”

 

This again is a total contradiction to what is stated in Question 16.  It should be noted that this Catechism, while attributed to Pope St. Pius X, did not come from his pen and was not solemnly promulgated by him.  There is no Papal Bull from him promulgating the Catechism, so it’s just a fallible Catechism that went out during his reign and was given his name.  But, even if St. Pius X had himself authored the above words (which he didn’t), it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the points I’ve made.  This is because a Pope is only infallible when speaking Magisterially.  This Catechism is not infallible because it wasn’t promulgated solemnly from the Chair of Peter or even specifically by the Pope.  Further, this Catechism is proven not to be infallible by the fact that it teaches the abominable heresy that there is salvation “outside” the Church (as I will show)!

 

But I will first quote where the Catechism affirms the dogma.

 

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 27: “Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?  A.  No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.”

 

Here the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X reaffirms the defined dogma.  But it proceeds to deny this dogma just two questions later!

 

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?  A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”

 

Here we see this fallible Catechism word for word denying the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation!   It teaches that there can be salvation “outside” the Church, which directly denies the truth it taught to the people in question 27.  This statement is so heretical, in fact, that it would be repudiated even by most of the crafty heretics of our day, who know that they cannot say that people are saved “outside,” so they argue that non-Catholics are not “outside” but are “inside” somehow.  So even those crafty heretics who reject the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation would have to admit that the above statement is heretical!

 

Further, notice that the Catechism attributed to St. Pius X teaches the heresy that persons can be united to the “Soul” of the Church, but not the Body.  As proven already, the Catholic Church is a Mystical Body.  Those who are not part of the Body are no part at all.

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

 

This discussion on the Catechisms should demonstrate to the reader how the rampant denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of Water Baptism has been perpetuated through fallible texts with imprimaturs and why it has been imbibed today by almost all who profess to be Catholic.  It has been perpetuated by fallible documents and texts which contradict themselves, which contradict defined dogma, and which teach heresy, and which – all the while – elsewhere affirm the immutable truths of the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church and water baptism for salvation.  And this is why Catholics are bound to adhere to infallibly defined dogma, not fallible Catechisms or theologians.

 

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

 

Good point on bad will

 

Dear Brothers,

 

Thanks for the John Lane bio.  As soon as I joined the forum I began discussing BOD and presented many of the arguments against it, along with a friend of mine named Eduardo.  Mr. Lane said we would be banned unless we could show the so called "Tuas Libentur" to be false (which he was totally distorting and misuing).  When material was posted from your book that clearly refuted it, he called us "scruffs" (whatever that means) and absolutely forbade any discussion of BOD, with no coherent response on the issue of "Tuas Libentur."  I was furthered troubled by his posts that clearly extolled Gruner and other false traditionalists.  This just goes to show that the chief sin in regard to these issues is really bad will, as Fr. Feeney said.  The level of outright and constant dishonesty among so-called "traditionalists" is literally staggering.

   

Sincerely, Jay Dyer

 

MHFM:  Excellent point.  You are exactly right.  We’ve said the same thing ourselves many times.  Almost everyone today is, unfortunately, a liar.  Many, many traditionalists are also liars in one way or another.  So, when you prove to him that Pius IX only said that the teaching of theologians is binding when it is “universal and constant” on a matter, and that baptism of desire is clearly not such since it was rejected by Doctors of the Church, he simply lies when he continues to use it as an argument in favor of baptism of desire.  That’s how simple it is. 

 

Over the years, we’ve actually been stunned many times upon discovering how pervasive the bad will and dishonesty are.  We cannot tell you how many times we’ve spoken with “traditionalists” who have denied that their priest (SSPX or SSPV or CMRI or some other) believes that non-Catholics can be saved, indicating that such an assertion is utterly ridiculous and unthinkable since no traditionalist would believe that, just before that very same person argued that non-Catholics can be saved in the same conversation!  In other words, the person rejected the assertion as false by indicating that his/her priest would never hold such a heresy, while in the very same conversation the person argued in favor of that very heresy.  We actually had one person who liked and distributed our information tell us on the telephone that he didn’t believe that Jews could be saved, only to proceed to tell us that Jews could be saved, only then to proceed to tell us that he didn’t believe that Jews could be saved, only then to be proceed to argue that Jews can be saved.  He lied about what he believed approximately six times in one conversation… no joke.  Bad will is the biggest problem today. 

 

Proverbs 6:16-17- “Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue…”

 

In addition to dishonesty, the other major forms of bad will we’ve seen are people’s failure to oppose and hate evil by calling it what it is (e.g., denouncing heretics when needed) because of their love or fear of other men, and following men rather than God.

 

Update on a new blog and comments on baptism of desire issue

 

MHFM: Some have sent us e-mails about a new sedevacantist blog.  We want to make it very clear to our readers that the people who run this blog are adamantly in favor of “baptism of desire” and groups which believe that souls can be saved false religions, such as the SSPV and CMRI.  It’s a pro salvation-for-non-Catholics blog, whether they want to admit it or not.  So while the organizers may allow a few comments from individuals who don’t believe in baptism of desire, the blog is dominated by individuals who won’t even look at the arguments against baptism of desire, and aren’t bothered by the fact that the priests they consider Catholic believe that Jews and Muslims can be united to the Church while in false religions. 

 

One of the people in charge of the blog is John Lane, who is viciously in favor of baptism of desire and whom some wrongly consider to be a staunch sedevacantist.  We think it’s important for our readers to know that John Lane, while he claims to be a sedevacantist, is still a benefactor of the Society of St. Pius X (as confirmed in an e-mail exchange with one of us). This is amazing, actually; for he has claimed to be a staunch sedevacantist for a very long time now.  But he is so liberal and pathetically weak on the issue that after about a decade of purporting to be a leading sedevacantist, and criticizing the position of those who adhere to the Vatican II Antipopes, he still financially supports a group which recognizes those Antipopes and which, on top of it all, believes in salvation for Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc!  So, whenever he writes things against the SSPX’s position, he simply condemns himself out of his own mouth, since he financially assists them in their apostolate – an apostolate which not only isn’t sedevacantist, but attacks sedevacantism!  He also recently said that “Fr.” Gruner is “evidently of good will.”  Besides being a pathetic liberal who supports the SSPX, we have found Lane to be intellectually dishonest.  He accuses others of not answering questions when they do, and when confronted with points which refute his position he ignores them.  To show how viciously opposed to water baptism Lane is, he describes the position of those who don’t believe in baptism of desire as “heterodox belief.”  Meanwhile, he funds those in communion with Benedict XVI and who believe in salvation for members of false religions.  What a blinded heretic.  We figured we’d make our readers aware of this. 

 

On the blog with which he is affiliated, one discovers again that these baptism of desire advocates – if you can even call them that, since almost none of them even believe that one must desire baptism for salvation – are just followers of man.  Theirs is a religion of man, in which fallible theologians are the final word, not the infallible Chair of St. Peter.  They repeatedly bring up the argument that, according to Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter, Catholics are bound to follow the teaching of theologians on baptism of desire.  This, of course, is not true.  This is covered in detail in Section 19 of our book.  Pope Pius IX taught, rather, that Catholics are bound to the universal and constant teaching of theologians.

 

Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863: “For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant [universali et constanti] consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”

 

The requirement stipulated by Pope Pius IX that the theologians must be in “universal and constant agreement” for their teaching to be binding is ignored by the baptism of desire bloggers and by Fr. Cekada in an article.  Fr. Cekada says that Catholics are bound to follow the “common consensus” of theologians, which is false.  Cekada conveniently ignored the “universal and constant” part of the requirement.  If Cekada had faithfully applied the “universal and constant” part of it throughout his article, the attentive and sincere reader would easily have picked up the flaw in his feeble argumentation.  If something has been held by theologians “universally and constantly,” then it is clearly a matter that pertains to Catholic Faith which Catholics must accept. 

 

Is baptism of desire something that has been held by “universal and constant” agreement? Most certainly not, as our book takes the time to show.  For example:

 

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:

“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid.  For what is water without the cross of Christ?  A common element without any sacramental effect.  Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5]  Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

 

St. Gregory Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked.  This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them.  Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire.  Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it

     “If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism.  But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter?  I cannot see it.  If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory.  You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory.  Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”

 

St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:

“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”

 

Based on these facts alone, one can see right away that baptism of desire has not been held by “universal and constant agreement.”  Thus, the argument that baptism of desire advocates continually make from Pius IX and the “consent of theologians” is utterly refuted by these facts and can be thrown out the window.  Nevertheless, will they continue to use it?  Alas, they will.  Much more can be found in Section 19 of the book, but we will add that on the aforementioned blog, Lane, attempting to respond, quoted another part of Tuas Libenter:

 

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

 

“What ever happened to this quote?,” Lane asks.  The obvious response is, first, that Pius IX is speaking in the context of that which he already stipulated, namely, that the matter must be held by “universal and constant” agreement.  Second, in this quote Pius IX says the matter must be held by the “constant” consent of Catholics.  As we just saw, baptism of desire doesn’t fit into this category.  Thus, his argument is refuted.  In fact, it’s the teaching on the absolute necessity of water baptism WITHOUT EXCEPTION that fits into the category of a teaching held universally and constantly by Catholic theologians, even by those who sometimes contradicted it!  For instance, theologian Ludwig Ott is forced to admit the following based on the overwhelming testimony of Catholic Tradition and defined dogma.

 

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”

 

Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why Catholics don’t accept the false doctrine of “baptism of desire.”  This shows us that the teaching on the absolute necessity of water baptism is so universally taught by theologians that even those who contradict it, such as Dr. Ott (who believes in salvation outside the Church and baptism of desire), are forced to bear witness to it.  And please note: the issue to be considered in regard to Pius IX’s teaching is not whether fallible texts or theologians always remain consistent; rather, it’s the question of what is the universal and constant teaching of theologians on the necessity of baptism.  Here’s another testimony from two who believe in baptism of desire, yet are forced to bear witness to the universal and constant rule of Faith on the issue:

 

Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: “3.  BAPTISM IS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY TO SALVATION.  Hence children who die unbaptized cannot enter heaven.  Our Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (John 3:5).  He makes no exception, not even in the case of infants… Baptism is no less indispensable in the spiritual order than water in the natural order…”

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

 

Notice here that the Catechism of Trent is inculcating that the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation is the unanimous teaching of theologians.  As we can see, it’s not baptism of desire that is the unanimous teaching of theologians; it’s just the opposite: the absolute necessity of water baptism.  So, don’t be fooled by the baptism of desire bloggers who pervert the teaching of Tuas Libenter, and would have you believe in a religion of man which replaces the infallible Chair of St. Peter with the fallible teaching of men.  There is much more on this point in the book.

 

Various questions

 

Dear most holy family monastery

 

Thanks for being there.  pls kindly answer these questions that keep bothering me as a sedevacantist traditional catholic:

1.since catholics cannot commune with members of v2 or other heretics, what iam i to do at the burrial of my parents when they die before converting to the true faith but persisted in v2 church? how iam i supposed to pay my respect to them as  a responsible catholic child especially if the responsibility of their decent burrial falls on me?

2.i dont know what to do if a younger relation of mine staying with me should enjoy my financial sponsorship in school if he chooses to be a heretic even after taking considerable time to explain the true faith to him.should i send him away or continue to assist him finacially because of our blood relation?

 

MHFM: Thanks for your questions.  1) If one’s parents die as rejecters of the Faith, then one cannot arrange a Catholic burial for them. One should arrange for them to have a simple burial, but without any ceremonies.

 

2) If one’s relative obstinately rejects the traditional Faith or any dogma, then one should not financially support his schooling.  If he’s over 18 then one should send him out of the home to be on his own.

 

Comment on H.O.W.

 

Just wanted to encourage and remind you that I'm sure your sharing of proper and accurate Catholic teachings/Dogma do not always fall on deaf ears...

 

I couldn't help myself...  I cut and pasted your response to 'Fr. Ray Ryland' to the editor of 'This Rock' magazine...

 

In Christ,

 

Lida Lewis
 

More very bizarre stuff at N.O.

 

DEAR BROTHER PETER & BROTHER MICHAEL, After reading of the Novus Ordo "Bishop Foley" on your website, there is a Novus Ordo incident that occurred over a year ago.  I apologize for not writting sooner, but it was almost too bizarre to put in writting.  Nevertheless, this is it:  In January, 2005, my sister and her husband attended a Novus Ordo "Baptism" of their friends' baby at St. Thomas More Church in Pittsburgh, PA.  The "pastor" is "Father" Kenneth White (who, if I recall her saying, was the officiating "priest" that day).

 

The baby is a girl, and, there were about 5 other babies that day.  Right before the "Baptism" began, when everyone was sitting there, "Father" White told the mothers to strip the babies of all their clothes, even diapers. After "baptizing" them in the font, he proceeded to place each (naked) baby on the "altar" (table).  My sisters' friends' baby then proceeded to defecate on the "altar".  Someone I told this to said it sounds like a Satanic Ritual.  Keep up your good work,

 

                          Sincerely,

 

                          Nancy Battle

 

MHFM:  Very bizarre stuff… thanks for the information.

 

Novus Ordo unhappy meal

 

Brothers,


Just have to share this one with you. My sister is finally edging towards seeing the light. She related to me that she had just attended a Novus Ordo "1st Holy Communion" mass in which the priest celebrating produced a McDonald's Happy Meal and passed it out to the children. His comments were that the mass and eucharist was like a "happy meal" only "not as tasty"! Well, there you have it. The N.O. priesthood is nothing more than a protestant ministry in which these guys view the mass (not as a sacrifice) but as a "meal" that is "not quite as tasty" as one at McDonalds! What a sick message to send to children!!!  How painful it is to think of the corruption of these children.... yet, we must not view this as anything more than protestant celebration. They are not Catholic at all,,,, I hope she will begin to see the light now.... I have passed along to her your dvd on the N.O. mass... thanks for that dvd!

 

MHFM: Always something new at the Novus Ordo… thanks for the information. 

 

Is it that simple?

 

Dear Br. Diamond:


I also ordered your amazing Heresies of B16. I have also downloaded your written version of this from your web site. Is it really this obvious? Seriously is it? By this I mean the apostasy? It appears that you really don't even have to dig for this stuff. As for me my problem is that I am intellectualizing this stuff too much. I am ordering the book by Ratzinger that you quoted from so heavily. I live by Ronald Reagan's advice "trust but verify". Some of this stuff is so blatant now that you have pointed it out it is scary.  But I play mental games with myself on this. I am concerned about my being to rigid and legalistic but then I look at what he has written and I am stunned. But then I have to go back to what Jesus himself stated :"For if those days were not shortened that even the most elect would be deceived" Well I guess what I am trying to do is keep a perspective on things.

Terry

 

MHFM:  Yes, the points are quite clear.  It really is simple for people to find out what’s going on, with one condition.  It takes people with sincerity, honesty and interest to accept the truth once they’re presented, for instance, with the facts covered in our material.  To your point about how simple it is (or isn’t, rather, for some), in the recent issue of the false traditionalist newspaper, The Remnant, readers were all upset by the fact that Bishop Tissier De Mallerais said that Benedict XVI has taught heresies.  Readers were writing in with complaints, attempted refutations of the accusations, diatribes about how this cannot be, etc.  We must ask: are these people, who consider themselves “traditionalists,” brain-dead?  Or are they soul-dead?  They’re shocked and appalled by the assertion that Benedict XVI has taught heresies, when the very newspaper they’re writing to recently pointed out in its Joint Declaration with CFN that Benedict XVI rejects the conversion of Protestants! 

                                        

“...On the same day, Pope Benedict gave an address at an ecumenical meeting in which he spoke of ecumenism as a good thing that does not have as its goal a “return” of non-Catholics to the one true Church of Christ, thus undermining the infallible Catholic dogma, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”…” (Michael Matt and John Vennari, A Joint Statement from The Remnant and Catholic Family News on Rome and the SSPX)

 

Isn’t this heresy?  Of course it is.  Thus, if any of the readers of The Remnant who were complaining about the accusation of heresy against Benedict XVI were awake at all they know that Benedict XVI has taught heresies; they’re just not honest enough to admit the simple fact.  When Bishop Tissier De Mallerais said that Benedict XVI has taught heresies he was simply being honest on that point, though he failed to draw the appropriate conclusions and denounce Benedict XVI as a heretic.  In the false traditionalist movement and in the Vatican II sect people are so used to people not being honest and simply telling the hard truths, that they become appalled when people say things that they know, deep down, are true.  That’s why it has become, for many, a complicated thing to figure out what’s going on – so few honestly tell the truth.  But it really is simple.

 

About M. Vogel and not criticizing priests

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

        I don't know if you know about Mutter Vogel.  I just recently learned that he, or she (can't tell from the name) was someone who apparently in the early twentieth century received a revelation from Our Lord and He told her that we should not criticize priests no matter what they do or say.  Some traditionalists are using this to defend JP2 and B16.  They say we should not criticize them.  I know of at least two traditionalists who refer to it.  One of them uses it to defend JP2 and B16 and the other uses it to defend a certain heretical priest.  My argument against it is that how does one expect to do their duty to defend the Catholic faith if one does not criticize those who attack it?  Especially JP2 and B16!

 

AP

 

MHFM: Yes, we’ve read the alleged “revelation” about never criticizing a priest in the blue Pieta prayer booklet.  It’s utterly false.  Our Lord or Our Lady would never say such a thing; in fact, it’s exactly what the devil wants people to believe, and the perfect false doctrine to keep the unquestioning masses following the non-Catholic Novus Ordo “priests,” and mired in the darkness of the post-Vatican II apostasy.  The whole Tradition of the Church teaches that Catholics can, and sometimes must, rebuke or criticize priests. This is true today more than ever before.  St. Paul rebuked St. Peter himself (Galatians 2:11).  The Pieta prayer booklet has some good things in it, but some definitely false things, such as this “revelation” to Mutter Vogel.  The booklet also asserts that John XXIII prayed the 15-decade Rosary each day, which we don’t believe for a second.  It also contains the St. Bridget prayers, and lists many promises which it asserts are attached to the recitation of those prayers.  While these prayers contain nothing wrong in them, according to what we’ve read the promises have never been approved or confirmed.  Unfortunately, many people we know have diverted from the full Rosary to pray these rather lengthy St. Bridget prayers instead.  People should be aware that the extraordinary promises which the Pieta booklet says are given for the recitation of the St. Bridget prayers have never been approved or confirmed by the Church.

 

More nonsense from a N.O. “Bishop”

 

I attended a Confirmation last night in Birmingham, AL. This was the second time I had experienced "Bishop" Foley conduct this sacrament. He follows a set routine: after asking questions and making comments related to living "your faith", ensuing they not do the things Christ wouldn't want you to do (premarital sex, drugs, crime), do things Christ wants them to do, and then he begins his famous "young peoples' music" portion of the routine. Prior to the Mass he had asked each their favorite music and noted the responses. At this point he reports the results to the "community". Responses ranged from "metal to rap" and included "Notorious, 36 Mafia, Slipknot", and others. Amid the laughs and all around jovial attention focused on his performance, he states (as he obviously always does) that he goes out and buys some of the music and listens to it as he travels around the diocese. His comment that some of the music lyrics 'may not be good' were low but his comments of how the lyrics are good were the most impressionable to the "young people" and some adults. So, as he had instructed those to be confirmed to live their faith (above), he told them plainly that music which includes sex to the point of violence, drugs, killing, anarchy, profaning the name of God, etc. was acceptable. Later he and the "community" priest imposed hands on the confirmees and with outstretched arms blessed the group.

 

MHFM:  Thank you very much for the information about the “Bishop” who listens to, and encourages others to listen to, evil heavy metal, rock and rap music.  Your e-mail shows us again that the Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion is truly a new religion devoid of Catholic Faith and holiness.  It’s always good to know what kind of things are going on at the Novus Ordo churches (if one can find out about them without partaking in them), for all of this apostasy at the local level serves to prove that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church.  However, we must tell you in charity that you cannot be going to the Novus Ordo “Mass” or “Confirmation” ceremony, since they aren’t valid.  One must avoid them under pain of grave sin, and actually confess (to a validly ordained traditional priest) that one attended a non-Catholic service (for however long one was going) before one receives Communion at a Traditional Mass.  If you need more information or convincing on this point, please check out our video on the New Mass or, better yet, obtain or 10 DVD special for $9.00 which includes it. 

 

About annulments

 

Dear Brothers,

 

Since an annulment granted by the Vatican II religion is invalid, where does one go to seek a valid annulment?  Thank you for your attention and God bless you.

 

MHFM:  Thanks for your question.  It’s important for people to remember that there is no such thing as “an annulment” of a consummated marriage, but only a declaration of nullity that a certain union never was a marriage to begin with if there is clear-cut evidence proving that a particular union was not validly contracted. 

 

Canon 1014, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Marriage enjoys the favor of law; therefore in doubt the validity of marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 1127.”

 

Since there is no Catholic who can issue such a judgment at this time, one could only apply the principles to an obviously invalid marriage.  In other words, if two people go through the motions and apparently contract a marriage it must be considered valid and binding unless it’s a clear and obvious case that it wasn’t a valid marriage (such as that one of the parties was already validly married to someone else).

 

About the salvation dogma

 

I am reading your book "Outside the Caholic Church there is absolutely no salvation". I have read pages 194 thru 240; I thought your treatment of Fr Feeny was  very accurate but that you did not give him enough credit for making the stand and taking the blows. I thought the part on Pius XII was good too; all though you and St. Benedict Center both seem to miss a very important passage in Mystici Corporis that, I believe puts the whole issue to rest, clearly in favor of The Dogma (at least I'm not aware of it in any of the St. Benedict Center writings). Paragraph 40, the last sentence reads: That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter 'Unam Sanctam'; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. I know you know what Unam Sanctam says, so my point is Pius XII is giving unfettered  approval to Unam Sanctam and in so doing, the Dogma, and plants it in Mystici Corporis, in the middle of the 20th century and points out that Boniface's successors have never ceased to repeat the same. Meaning that every pope from Boniface VIII to Pius XII affirmed the Dogma. This alone should have been enough to silence Fr. Feeny's critics. But it did not work out that way then, but maybe it can help to do so now. 

I bought your book from Gerry M in San Jose, couple of months ago. He got a working over by some of the locals an the sede vacantist issue. In my mind who is or is not the pope will straighten its self out once the Dogma is believed again. If Benedict XVI is the not the pope, so what, I still have to save my soul. If he is the pope, so what, I still have to save my soul. Like you correctly point out in the book the issue is not the Mass; well it's not the pope either! 

Go with God,

Dan O'Connell

 

MHFM: Dan, thank you for your letter.  We would encourage you to read the rest of the book, since the quote from Mystici Corporis which you bring up is given on page 257 (as you said, you’ve only reached page 240).  It’s brought up in the context of addressing the St. Benedict Center’s claim that the first part of Pope Boniface VIII’s Bull Unam Sanctam – the part where it is taught that there is no salvation nor remission of sins outside the Church – is not infallible. The St. Benedict Center holds that an unbaptized catechumen is outside the Catholic Church (which is correct, since only Baptism makes one a member).  However, while they correctly profess that it is only through Baptism that one can be inside the Church, they hold that an unbaptized catechumen can have Justification (remission of sins and sanctifying grace) by his desire for baptism, while he is still outside the Church.  Thus, they hold that there can be remission of sins outside the Church, which contradicts Bull Unam Sanctam.

 

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN

 

The way they attempt to justify their position is by arguing that the part of the Bull quoted directly above is not infallible.  They argue that only the end of the Bull, the part about the absolute necessity of being entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff, is the only part that is infallible.  But this is contradicted by the quote below.

 

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 40), June 29, 1943: “That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his predecessors have never ceased to repeat the same.”

 

Pope Pius XII is referring to the part of Unam Sanctam which the defenders of the St. Benedict Center argue is not solemn (infallible), and he says that it is “solemn” (infallible).

 

Regarding not giving Fr. Feeney enough credit in the book, the book does give him quite a bit of credit.  However, the book points out that it’s not about Fr. Feeney; it’s about the dogmatic teaching of the Church.  Furthermore, any true Catholic priest should have taken the stand for the necessity of the Church that he did.  It’s the duty of a Catholic, and especially a priest, to stand uncompromisingly for the Faith.  One of the problems with the St. Benedict Center is that they are, unfortunately, just followers of Fr. Feeney, not of God.  In our opinion, that’s a large reason why they maintain allegiance to the manifestly heretical Vatican II sect.  In his day, Fr. Feeney had not yet reached the point where he rejected the Vatican II “Popes” as Antipopes – as almost no one did at that time.  Even though the evidence is now totally undeniable and clear, the St. Benedict Center won’t embrace it because Fr. Feeney didn’t do it first.  They are followers of man, not God.

 

Regarding your claim that we don’t have to worry about the “pope issue” as long as we believe in the dogma, you are mistaken.  One cannot profess a consistent belief in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, nor even present the Catholic Faith consistently to non-Catholics, if one doesn’t hold the sedevacantist position and completely reject the Novus Ordo Bishops as outside the Church.  Otherwise you are affirming as part of the Catholic Church a body of “Bishops” and a “Pope” who utterly reject this dogma which you say is key.  Thus, acceptance of sedevacantism is intimately bound up with a true profession of the dogma.  That’s why it’s absolutely true to say that the St. Benedict Centers (both of them) don’t even believe that Outside the Church There is No Salvation is a binding dogma of the Faith, for it is a fact that they hold that people can be inside the Church (such as the Novus Ordo Bishops and Vatican II Antipopes) while rejecting this dogma.  Hence, if you really believe in the dogma, then you will conclude that Benedict XVI and his apostate Bishops are outside the Church, just like the Protestants.

 

Some comments on the anniversary of Our Lady’s first appearance at Fatima

 

MHFM: Saturday was May 13; it was the anniversary of Our Lady’s first appearance at Fatima to Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia on May 13, 1917.  May 13 is also the feast day of St. Robert Bellarmine, the Doctor of the Church who is most famous among traditionalists for his teaching that a manifest heretic would cease to be the Pope.   

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "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.)

Although St. Robert wasn’t canonized until 1930 by Pope Pius XI, heaven obviously knew that St. Robert’s feast day would eventually occupy the day which would mark the anniversary of Our Lady’s first appearance at Fatima.  Why did heaven choose the feast of St. Robert Bellarmine to mark the beginning of Fatima?  Almost all “traditionalists” who have commented on the probable contents of the third secret of Fatima agree that it deals with apostasy from the Church, and apostasy among those who purport to hold high positions in the Catholic hierarchy.  Isn’t it interesting that for the first day of the message of Fatima – a message that, according to almost all traditionalist commentators, is intertwined with a warning about apostasy from the Faith among those who purport to hold high positions in the Catholic hierarchy – heaven chose it to be the feast of the saint who is most famous among traditionalists for his teaching that the occupant of the highest position of all, the Pope, would lose his office if he became a manifest heretic?!  Perhaps this should give the non-sedevacantists pause – pause to consider what heaven is perhaps telling them by this alone, namely, that the teaching of St. Robert on this point must be heeded, since it is true and rooted in defined dogma. 

 

Since May 13 just passed, it’s also fitting that we reproduce below William Thomas Walsh’s account of the first apparition of Our Lady at Fatima.

 

MAY 13, 1917: For just before them, on top of a small evergreen called the azinheira – it was about three feet high, and its glossy leaves had prickles on them, like cactus – they saw a ball of light.  And in the center of it stood a Lady.

     As Lucia describes her, she was “a Lady all of white, more brilliant than the sun dispensing light, clearer and more intense than a crystal cup full of crystalline water penetrated by the rays of the most glaring sun.”  Her face was indescribably beautiful, “not sad, not happy, but serious” – perhaps somewhat reproachful, though benign; her hands together in prayer at her breast, pointing up, with Rosary beads hanging down between the fingers of the right hand.  Even her garments seemed made solely of the same white light; a simple tunic falling to her feet, and over it a mantle from her head to the same length, its edge made of a fiercer light that seemed to glitter like gold.  Neither the hair nor the ears could be seen.  The features?  It was almost impossible to look steadily in the face; it dazzled, and hurt the eyes, and made one blink or look away.

     The children stood, fascinated, within the radiance that surrounded her for a distance of perhaps a meter and a half.

     “Don’t be afraid,” she said, in a low musical tone, never to be forgotten.   “I won’t hurt you!”

They felt no fear now, in fact, but only a great joy and peace.  It was the ‘lightning,’ really, that had frightened them before.  Lucia was self-possessed enough to ask a question:

     [Lucia]: “Where does Your Excellency come from?”

     “I am from heaven.”

     [Lucia]: “And what is it you want of me?”

     “I come to ask you to come here for six months in succession, on the thirteenth day at this same hour.  Then I will tell you who I am, and what I want.  And afterwards I will return here a seventh time.”

     [Lucia]: “And shall I go to heaven too?”

“Yes, you will.”

     [Lucia]: “And Jacinta?”

     “Also.”

[Lucia]: “And Francisco?”

     “Also.  But he will have to say many Rosaries!”

Heaven!  Lucia suddenly remembered two girls who had died recently.  They were friends of her family, and used to go to her house to learn weaving from her sister Maria.

[Lucia]: “Is Maria da Neves now in heaven?” she asked.

     “Yes, she is.”

[Lucia]: “And Amelia?”

     “She will be in Purgatory until the end of the world.

     “Do you wish to offer yourselves to God, to endure all the suffering that He may please to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and to ask for the conversion of sinners?”

[Lucia]: “Yes, we do.”

     “Then you will have much to suffer.  But the grace of God will be your comfort.”

As she spoke the words, “a grace de Deus,” [the grace of God] the Lady opened her lovely hands, and from the palms came two streams of light so intense that it not only enveloped the children with its radiance, but seemed to penetrate their breasts and to reach the most intimate parts of their hearts and souls, “making us see ourselves in God” – these are Lucia’s words – “more clearly in that light than in the best of mirrors.”  An irresistible impulse forced them to their knees and made them say, fervently: “O most holy Trinity, I adore You!  My God, my God, I love You in the Most Blessed Sacrament!”

     The Lady waited for them to finish this.  Then she said, “Say the Rosary every day, to obtain peace for the world, and the end of the war.”

     Immediately after this she began to rise serenely from the azinheira to glide away toward the east “until she disappeared in the immensity of the distance.” (Our Lady of Fatima, pp. 51-52)

 

A question and comments from Belarus

 

Dear Most Holy Family Monastery!

I am Denis Larionov, Dr. of History, Minsk (Belarus). I am a lecturer at Belarusian State University, History Dept. My specialization is Catholic social doctrine, Vatican II and its fruits, Church and globalization, Church and ecumenism, English-language historiography of post-Vatican II Catholic Church.

Searching for the information concerning my interests I found your beautiful, interesting, informative and thought-provoking web-site. In fact, I have decided to include one more theme into my lectures course - problems of post-Vatican II Popes and Sedevacantism.

On your site I found interesting Videos which can be seen online. I'd like to know whether it is possible to download them, because seeing them online is a bit too much expensive for the modem-connected internet. I would also like to know whether you publish any periodicals and books dedicated to the Church history and how they can be ordered.

Sincerely,
Denis Larionov.

 

MHFM: Thank you for your e-mail and it’s great to hear about your interest.  If you obtain a copy of our DVDs, you can play them on most computers.  Since you are outside of North America, the 7 DVD special (which includes 10 different programs) is $25.00 (price includes shipping).  It’s $9.00 inside the U.S.  I would strongly encourage you to obtain that special, especially since you mentioned a special interest in teaching in this area.  Regarding the books and periodicals which we have produced, it's $3.00 for all of those.  All the prices are on the Special Offers Order Form.  We have many articles on the internet, however, which are not yet in print.  May Our Lady of the Holy Rosary protect you. 

 

About FSSP

 

Dear Dimond Brothers: Some time ago I asked for some information about FSSP priest.  But we all get busy and things can be overlooked. Anyway I want to know if one can go to the FSSP Masses? I know they mix Novus Order host with true Host from valid Mass.  Is it best to stay clear of these priest?  I live about a three hour drive from a traditional Mass site and am 75 years of age.  Don't care to travel so far by myself.

Thanks for your time.  Really enjoy your web site and hope to make a gift to you soon. 

 

John


MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  No, a Catholic shouldn’t attend the Fraternity of St. Peter because their "priests" were ordained by "bishops" who were consecrated in the doubtful New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.  Thus, their “priests” definitely should be avoided.

 

Comment on recent SSPX Heresy of the Week

 

Congratulations on your latest Heresy of the Week article on the SSPX, and your comments on the interview with "Bishop" Tissier de Malleray.  I admire the courage with which you speak the truth and point out the contradictions and absurdity of the SSPX position of recognizing Benedict XVI as Pope while not being in communion with him.  I used to be involved with the SSPX (I was founder assistant editor of their Magazine in the UK entitled Mater Dei) but left it a few years ago, inter alia, because of its inconsistency on so many issues (e.g. the New Mass is "valid" but "evil", the 1962 Mass is OK if we say it, but nobody should attend the same Mass if it is an Indult Mass and so on). The SSPX plays fast and loose with Canon law and theology to suit its position at any given time.  I was disgusted with the obsequiousness and fawning of SSPXers towards their priests to the point of idolatry, where "obedience" to the priest included intrusion into many aspects of people's private lives.  I considered the SSPX to be more and more a cult.  I entirely agree with you therefore in ridiculing the toadying of the interviewer.  I also think that the SSPX is becoming its own church by granting annulments and having other "canonical commissions" which take more and more powers reserved to Rome upon itself.  The SSPX is absolutely unscrupulous in its selective or distortion of sources to support its position, as you have shown so well in your book Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation.  By speaking the truth, without fear or concern for flattery and human respect, you have my admiration as so few so-called Traditional Catholic websites speak the truth clearly as you do.  God Bless you and your ministry, and you have convinced me of the truth of the sedevacantist position.

Best wishes

Gerard

 

Question about the ratification of V-2 and more

 

Dear Brothers,

 

I have your video, Vat II Council of  Apostasy, in which you show the document whereby Paul VI infallibly (for his followers) ratified VAT II in 1965, including the decrees for the Novus Ordo.  Many of my older friends do not have TV video access, and I would like a print reference--in Denziger?-- so I can give them a written copy, as you don't  show this in any of your print material. 

 

Cecilia Buse

 

MHFM: The best place to go to see Paul VI’s ratification of every Vatican II document is The Documents of Vatican II by Walter M. Abbott.  It shows that:

 

EACH OF THE VATICAN II DOCUMENTS ENDS WITH THESE WORDS (OR WORDS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THESE):

 

“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

 

It also contains Paul VI’s Brief solemnly declaring the heretical Council closed, in which it is declared again that everything established at Vatican II is to be “religiously observed by all the faithful.”  Perhaps those who doubt this should order the book so they can see it for themselves, and realize that there is no way for them to accept the Vatican II “Popes” as true Popes if they (quite rightly) reject the heretical Vatican II Council.

 

Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:

“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US.  Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.  WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON.  Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

 

By the way, in his recent Conference in Denver (carried in the recent article in The Angelus), Bishop Fellay of the SSPX mentioned a very important point in this regard.  He admitted that, in his personal meeting with Antipope Benedict XVI, the Antipope made it very clear to him that the SSPX must accept Vatican II.

 

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Feb. 18, 2006: “Then he [Benedict XVI] went to the second level.  And he said that the second level is the acceptance of the Council...’… The Pope clearly indicated in the words he used during audience, that for him, it is impossible to accept someone in the Church, at least in his, let’s say, modern way of looking at the Church, who would not accept the Council.  He was very clear.  When I heard these words there, and especially one word afterwards, for me, the big fight we will have under this pontificate will be the fight about the Council.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 15.)

 

How many times does this have to be proven?  The false traditionalists need to give up their impossible position.

 

Question about Heresy of the Week

 

Brothers ,, since you decided to group the heresy of the week section I can't find anything anymore.. for example, I would like to copy last weeks heresy on Benedict because it was so bold and I can't find it now... where did it go? the archives only deal with JP2 and not benedict 16..... really want that one for my records.. PS - the heresy of week is a goldmine....

 

MHFM: All post-election heresies from Benedict XVI that were used in Heresy of the Week columns are found in the Heresies of Benedict XVI File… in the “post-election heresies” document.  Other past Heresies of the Week are found in either the Heresy of the Week Archive or the “Some of the Recent Articles” section or some other appropriate section of the website. 

 

Question about praying and the radio

 

I would like to thank you for all that you have done for me and my family through your videos and web site I try to read it every day. I have one question for you. I drive a lot for my job and sometimes I lesson to the radio but I also like to say the rosary, and while driving I cannot seem to stay focused on it. My mind starts to wander and I will start thinking of where I am going or other things when I realize what I am doing I go back to focusing on the rosary. My question is should I not be praying the rosary while driving, like I said I spend a lot of time in my car and I don't want to waste it. Thank you

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Heresy of the Month?

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

More about the Sr. Lucy controversy

 

Another website, Tradition in Action, recently came out with things suggesting that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy.  Did they get this from you?  Someone wrote to their website about this… here is their response:

 

Question.. Next, the first time I saw this “Two Sister Lucys” controversy was a few months ago on the Most Holy Family Monastery website. Did you pick up on this from them, or did they pick up on this from you, or did you both arrive at the analysis separately, or were you both tipped off from another source I am not aware of?

Finally, the “picture confusion” over Sister Lucy in the March 2006 issue of Inside the Vatican may have been a deliberate ploy. Once the “Two Sister Lucys” controversy was kicked off by www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com or someone else, it may have seemed advantageous to “new-Church” insiders like Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican to start using the “JFK assassination” strategy: once suppressed evidence starts coming to light – start as much confusion as possible about it so that most people throw up their hands and take a “we can’t know” attitude.

 

Answer… We still have not had the opportunity to read the analysis on The Most Holy Family Monastery website about Sister Lucy.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Question about E. Rites

 

Hello. I recently started reading about the controversies regarding novus ordo, and it led me to articles about Cardinal Siri, etc, and I don't know who to believe, since the sedevacantists don't always agree totally with one another. I do feel that you are probably correct, but then one faces the problem of which one of the various groups has the Charisma belonging to the one true Church. I hope that I phrased that correctly. One can only pray for guidance, but in the meantime, one must do what one can.  In any case, I read, on your website, that one can receive the sacraments from an eastern rite Priest, so long as (paraphrased) that Priest doesn't go out of his way to make points as to novus ordo, Pope (?) Benedict, etc.  Have the eastern rite ordinations/consecrations changed, ie been bastardized, or is it reasonable to believe that all eastern rite Priests and Bishops are indeed Priests and Bishops unless it should be shown to be otherwise?.


Thank you.
Chris Knepper

 

MHFM:  No, the Eastern Rites haven’t changed their liturgies or their rites of ordination.  If the priests were ordained in the Eastern Rites, then they are validly ordained.  You didn’t mention it in your e-mail, but it’s important to stress that if one can find such an Eastern Rite priest who is validly ordained and not notorious about his heresy, one could receive the sacraments from him but one cannot support him at all; for instance, nothing can be given in the collection basket.  That's critical.

 

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics."

 

Regarding your first point about not being sure whether the sedevacantist position is correct, we really suggest you get a copy of our new DVD/video “The Amazing Heresies of Benedict XVI” so that you can see all the evidence proving without any doubt that Benedict XVI is a non-Catholic Antipope.  One copy (in U.S.) is only $3.00, 16 for $22.00, or 25 for $30.00.

 

Question about dealing with heretics who defend JP2

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

 

God Bless You on during this Easter season!

 

I know that John Paul II was the worst pope in history, and an enemy of the Roman Catholic Church.  But, I have friends and relatives that believe that he was the best pope of all time.  Of course, they also refuse to believe that the Novus Ordo is a counterfeit church.

 

Now, they call me and tell me how excited they are that JPII is going to be a cannonized saint!!  How can I convince them that he can never be a saint?  I've tried to show them your videos, but they refuse to watch them.  Besides praying for them, is there anything else I can do to  convince them on how terrible a heretic JPII was?

 

Thank you so much for all your help.  Again, God Bless You!!!

 

MHFM: Thank you for your question.  First of all, John Paul II wasn’t a Pope.  He was a non-Catholic Antipope; he shouldn’t be referred to as “Pope.”

 

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

 

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

 

The Word of God instructs thus because a good willed person will be convinced after the first or second admonition.  If those admonitions have proven fruitless, then you have encountered a level of bad will that is such an impediment that no argument of yours can overcome it.  Hence, with people you’ve tried to reach a few times – who won’t even begin to examine the truth or have repeatedly rejected it – you just need to move on.  Many people, including those on the internet, waste their time with heretics they’ve repeatedly rebuked and who are never convinced.  They e-mail them again and again to no avail, while, at the same time, they are subjecting themselves to the dishonest and faithless arguments which are constantly e-mailed back.  Fighting with such obstinate heretics (i.e., those who have already been admonished multiple times) is fruitless and usually detrimental.  It can be very detrimental because conversing long enough with an obstinate and unbelieving heretic may cause (and has caused) some to doubt the truth themselves.  Listening long enough to unbelieving and heretical arguments may cause one to believe them.

 

SSPX priest imposes his heresy

 

Dear Brothers,

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

I wanted to let you know so that you could add him to your list of false traditional priests that publicly seek to impose heresy. 

At the same time, however, my friends that are new converts were able, I hope, to see the irrational, and heretical nature of the SSPX position.

Sincerely, Jay Dyer

 

MHFM: Thank you very much for the information, and your stand for the true Faith.  We will surely inform our readers about this, and that this priest should be avoided since he imposes his heretical position.  We’ve added him to our warning list in the Beware section.

 

The miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe

 

MHFM:  Many are familiar with the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  This miraculous image appeared on the tilma of Juan Diego shortly after he saw Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico in 1531.  When the image of Our Lady was miraculously imprinted on the cloth it became a large reason for the conversion of more than 5 million to the Catholic Faith.  When the people heard about and saw the image, “the whole city was shaken by the event and so the Lord Bishop transferred the beloved Image of the Girl from heaven to the main church.  She [the image] was taken from his private chapel to where everyone could see and wonder at her beloved figure.  People came to acknowledge the divine [miraculous/supernatural] character of the ayate [the tilma].” (Francis Anson, Guadalupe – What Her Eyes Say, p. 53)

 

Many are also familiar with the miraculous aspects of the eyes of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe.   A close examination of the eyes of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe has revealed many miraculous features, including a microscopic image of a bearded man that can be seen within the eye of Our Lady.  This is covered on our Creation and Miracles DVD.  But it gets even more incredible.  When a person looks at an image, the way that the eye works is that three different aspects of what one sees are contained in three different parts of the eye.  This law, which was discovered by Purkinje and Samson, is called the Samson-Purkinje law:

 

“The Polish Purkinje and the Frenchman Samson, independently discovered this law that carries their names.  Three images are formed in the human eye: one upright and brilliant in the anterior part of the cornea; a second one, seen deeper in the anterior part of the crystalline lens, is also upright but less brilliant; and the third one, in the posterior surface of the crystalline lens, is inverted, smaller, and with an immediate depth and brilliancy…” (Francis Anson, Guadalupe – What Her Eyes Say, p. 108)

 

Well, the microscopic image of the “bearded man” that can be seen within the eye of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe follows this law precisely:

 

“We are also talking of another impossible phenomenon: the image of the ‘bearded man’ appears three times in the eyes of the ayate [the tilma of Juan Diego], following the laws of Samson-Purkinje with mathematical precision.  One image, four millimeters high and one millimeter wide, upright and brilliant, seems to come out of the cloth; a second one, of the same size, the deepest one and the least brilliant, can be perfectly distinguished at the bottom of the eye; and a third one, hardly a millimeter high, is located halfway between the other two and is inverted and displaced toward the left, as it happens in a living human eye… but this is just a piece of cloth.” (Francis Anson, Guadalupe – What Her Eyes Say, p. 109)

 

Obviously, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not a painting.  It’s a miraculous image of Our Lady which God and Our Lady miraculously imprinted on Juan Diego’s tilma. 

 

The significance of the discovery of the bearded man in the eye of the image is that Our Lady was looking at the bearded man, Juan Diego, when the image was imprinted on the cloth.  That’s why his image appears three times in her eye just as it would in a living eye!  Other aspects of the eyes show that they are like living eyes.  It makes sense that heaven would leave the world with one miraculous and true image of Our Lord on a cloth (the Shroud of Turin) and one miraculous and true image of Our Lady on a cloth (the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe).

 

Here are some good pictures of Our Lady of Guadalupe

 

About working on Sunday M. Gibson

 

Good day Sir,

  I am Okwu Christopher-Mary an unworthy slave of our Lady who has just been delivered from the novus-ordo religion. Please I beg that you kindly add me to your e-mail list so as to keep my faith aglo always.  Thank you very much, and may Our Lady protect you in a special way in Her virginal mantle as you assist Her in the crushing of the proud head of the ancient serpent.  NB: Pls I need you candid advice on something. What am I to do if I get a job in an oil company and I'm requested to work in the oil field on a sunday.

 

                                                                               Yours in Jesus and Mary,

                                                                               Okwu, ChristopherMary

 

MHFM:  Thank you for your e-mail.  If keeping or holding a job requires one to work on Sunday, then it is permitted to do so.  If one can, one should request to have Sundays off; but if that isn’t possible – and working on Sunday is a necessity to keep the job – then it is permissible.

 

On M. Gibson

 

Brothers:

 

Mel Gibson says, in this article that his wife is in danger of hell, she is a member of the Church of England and he believed that outside the church there is no salvation.  Maybe you guys have got across to him!  He said it to a Australian new source.  Great work!  

 

Pray for me a sinner. 

 

Mike Knowles

 

MHFM: First of all, he calls his non-Catholic wife a saint, something one could never say about a non-Catholic.  It’s very common that those who deny the dogma sometimes affirm it, as even Msgr. Fenton says (below).  The unfortunate fact is that Mel Gibson clearly denied the dogma in his interview with Diane Sawyer:

 

From Mel Gibson’s interview with Diane Sawyer on PrimeTime:

 

DIANE SAWYER:    (Voice Over) So when we talked with

Gibson and his actors, we wondered, does his traditionalist view bar the door to Heaven for Jews, Protestants, Muslims?

 

MEL GIBSON: That’s not the case at all.  Absolutely not.  It is possible for people who are not even Christian to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s just easier for –and I have to say that because that’s what I believe.

 

DIANE SAWYER: (Off Camera) You have the nonstop ticket?

 

MEL GIBSON: Well, yeah, I’m saying it’s an easier ride where I am because it’s like –I have to believe that.

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 122-123: “These were the people who reduced the necessity of the Church for the attainment of salvation to a mere empty formula.  Of course, they had to use a formula, and they usually employed either the Latin expression ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus,’ or its English equivalent, ‘No salvation outside the Church.’  Since there is hardly another dogma which has been so constantly reasserted by the Church’s magisterium, no Catholic writer could possibly get around the fact that the truth expressed in this formula was an integral part of Catholic teaching.  Most of the men who wrote imperfectly on this subject were at least logical enough not to want to deny some statement which had been set forth by the official teachers of the Church.  Hence they adopted the expedient of holding the formula itself, and then explaining this formula in such a way as to make it appear to mean quite the opposite of what it says.  In their hands the expression ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ became a mere empty or vain formula, since they presented this statement as signifying, in effect, that there really is salvation outside the Church.”

 

An objection to quoting from Origen

 

St. Thomas Aquinas points out in both volumes of the Summa Theologica the numerous errors of Origen.  I see you have quoted him twice in the last week.  It seems imprudent to quote someone who has been shown to be suspected of, if not outright heresy at least extreme Gnostic tendencies. Please comment.

 

Paul  

 

MHFM: You say that it seems imprudent to quote from Origen. 

                           

Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris (#12), Aug. 4, 1879: “After him came Origen, who graced the chair of the school of Alexandria, and was most learned in the teachings of Greeks and Orientals.  He published many volumes, involving great labor, which were wonderfully adapted to explain the divine writings and illustrate the sacred dogmas; which, though, as they now stand, not altogether free from error, contain nevertheless a wealth of knowledge tending to the growth and advance of natural truths.”

 

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#7), Nov. 18, 1893: “In the Eastern Church, the greatest name of all is Origen – a man remarkable alike for penetration of genius and for persevering labor; from whose numerous works and his great Hexapla almost all have drawn that came after him.”

 

As we can see, your objection is unfounded.  Early Church fathers, such as Tertullian and Origen, even though they drifted into heresies later on in their lives, hold such a prominent place in the writings of the early Church fathers that they are often quoted by Catholic authorities.  If their teaching conflicts with a Catholic teaching, then it should not be promoted or quoted in a positive fashion.  But their other statements are often quoted because they represent a witness to the early Tradition for a particular point or belief. 

 

For instance, Origen (185-254) provides us with one of the best early quotes that we’ve seen proving the apostolic tradition of sacramental confession to a priest.

 

Origen (A.D. 185-254): “There were also evil thoughts in men, that were revealed for this purpose, that He might destroy them Who dies for us.  As long as they were hidden it was impossible wholly to destroy them.  Hence, we also, if we have sinned, must say: My injustice I have not concealed (Ps. Xxxi. 5).  For if we have made known our sins, not alone to God, but those who can heal our wounds and sins, our sins shall be wiped out.” (quoted in Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 166.)

 

Furthermore, if you object to quoting from anyone who errs in other parts of his writings, then you shouldn’t even reference St. Thomas, as you do; for St. Thomas also made errors.

 

Question about priests

 

Where will I go to Mass if the SSPX capitulates to the Novus Ordo? What about Bishop McKenna's independent chapel in Monroe , Ct??? Is he bona fide????

 

I attend the sspx chapel in Ct. but do not support them financially.

Thanks,

M.

 

MHFM: You definitely shouldn’t go to Bishop McKenna’s Mass, because he refuses to the sacraments to those who don’t accept “three baptisms.”  The fact is that, despite his claims, Bishop McKenna doesn’t even believe in “baptism of desire,” since he believes that Jews who reject Christ and Baptism can be saved, as we have documented on our website.  Bishop McKenna is a very wicked and faithless heretic. 

 

By the way, we’ve also been informed that Fr. Giardina of Alabama now refuses the sacraments to those who don’t believe in “baptism of desire.”  Giardina told a friend of ours that he wasn’t welcome on his property if he rejected baptism of desire.  Since Fr. Giardina is therefore an imposing heretic, who binds his false position on those attending his Mass, no one should attend his Mass or receive the sacraments from him at all.  Just like Bishop McKenna, Fr. Giardina also believes that Jews who reject Christ can be saved, as he told one of us on the telephone.

 

question about article

 

Dear Brothers Peter and Michael,

I have just read the article on the Consecration of Russia.  WOW.  I am literally stunned by the information therein.  DO YOU HAVE REPRINTS?  I have forwarded the article to everyone  who's Catholic on my computer address book, but would like about 10 for handing out.

Thank you.

Jean Pollock

MHFM: We don't have any printed copies of that article at this time.  It will be included in a book we will have available in a few months.  But in the meantime people will have to get it from the website.

 

It’s not just about sedevacantism

 

MHFM: There are quite a few of people out there who are enthusiastic about the sedevacantist issue and totally reject the Vatican II religion, but could care less about and/or don’t believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  And when we refer to really “believing” in the dogma, we mean a person who truly believes that all the pagans, Jews, Muslims, heretics and schismatics out there – including his neighbors and family members, if they fall into these categories – must absolutely become baptized Catholics to be saved.  Such a true believer therefore lives his life and looks at the world with this supernatural outlook.  He thus endeavors to bring such non-Catholic individuals whom God puts on his path into the Catholic Faith.

 

To illustrate the point, someone here received a call a few days ago from a woman who attends Bishop Sanborn’s chapel.  Speaking of Arab Protestants, this woman told a person here that these Arab Protestants were fine for salvation because they are baptized!  No matter that they aren’t Catholic and reject the Catholic Faith; she believes that they are going to heaven. She doesn’t believe in the dogma that all heretics, etc. will not be saved.  She doesn’t possess a real, interior belief in the truths of the Catholic Faith.  This is a woman who attends a “staunchly” sedevacantist chapel; but she’s not even Catholic, even though she thinks she’s a staunch traditional Catholic and a sedevacantist.  She doesn’t have the Catholic Faith, and will not save her soul as she is.  Sadly, this is the case with many others in the traditional movement.  It’s just a reminder that it’s not just about sedevacantism; if one doesn’t truly accept and really believe in the salvation dogma, one is not a true believer in Jesus Christ and His Church.  People such as this woman have a “faith” that is corrupt to the core, yet this corruption won’t show up on Sunday when they are seen “devoutly” assisting at the Traditional Mass.  

 

More on Mother Angelica

 

Dear Dimond Brothers
    I read your article about the EWTN book.  I would like to add that Mother Angelica had great admiration for Antipope John XXIII.  I heard her say on one of her episodes of EWTN live that "the Holy Ghost inspired him (John XXIII) to open up the Council (Vatican II).

AP

 

MHFM: Yes, what was mentioned in the article about Mother Angelica was just the tip of the iceberg as far as her apostasy goes.  That’s why those who are just a little bit familiar with it can see what an outrageous lie is being pushed in this new book on EWTN, that she was “counter-modernist.”  Mother Angelica was a major false prophet for the devil, whose network has been very important in neutralizing “conservative” members of the Novus Ordo to accept the Vatican II religion, which rejects Jesus Christ.  It’s interesting to note that Mother Angelica claimed visions along the way of establishing her network; no doubt these were more of the false signs and wonders spoken of in Scripture to deceive those who receive not the love of the truth.

 

Question on SSPX

 

[To MHFM] Doesn't this blow away the entire SSPX/Catholic Family News-Remnant position?

From Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ:"If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema" (Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3).

 

MHFM: The quote you bring forward from Vatican I directly blows away Benedict XVI, who has rejected the dogma you quote by questioning whether the Bishop of Rome even possesses supreme jurisdiction in the Church! 

 

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’.  It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west.  Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”

 

We would say that indirectly the quote from Vatican I also refutes the SSPX’s position.  We say only indirectly because they would claim that they are not denying the supreme jurisdiction of the Popes.  Nevertheless, they profess communion with a man who does.  What directly blows away the SSPX’s schismatic position is the definition of schism and the dogmatic definition on Papal Infallibility:

 

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

 

They obstinately refuse working communion with the people and Bishops they consider to be the Catholic Church.  This is schismatic.  They also deny Papal Infallibility by asserting that Canonizations and a solemnly approved universal Council of their “Church” contains errors on faith and morals.  They also recognize apostates and heretics as Catholics, which is heretical.  And they believe that souls can be saved in other religions, but that’s a separate issue.

 

Comment on article on EWTN book

 

Dear Brothers, this is another excellent article. I agree with you. I tossed my free book in the garbage.

God bless you.

 

Barbara

 

A question from a non-Catholic

 

I live in Oklahoma and stumbled across your website and watched a couple of your videos.  I am very interested in what I have seen thus far.  I grew up in a non-denomination church and I know very little about Catholicism.  For the past 10 years I have felt quite lost, however I have a very strong desire to find the truth.  Do you have a guide to Catholicism for those who know little about it?

ps.  Could you pray that I find the truth?

Thanks

 

MHFM:  Thank you for the contact.  Yes, we will pray that you come to see the truth of the Catholic Faith, and the necessity to embrace it.  Attached is a basic Catechism for you.  I would also recommend that you begin praying the Rosary every day.  We would be happy to send you one if you would like, as well as a How to Pray the Rosary sheet.  We also have a special DVD package which includes more than 8 different programs for only a few dollars.  It's critical for you to embrace the Catholic Faith, since it is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation.  If you have any more questions, please let us know.

 

On speaking in tongues

 

MHFM: As many of you know, the phenomenon of “speaking in tongues” is prevalent in the Charismatic Movement.  We’ve tried to inform those involved that the Charismatic Movement is not of God.  This is proven most easily by the Charismatic Movement’s promotion and acceptance of ecumenical and heretical teachings.  The extraordinary phenomena that often occur at these meetings – which sometimes include barking like dogs, rolling around on the floor in hysteria, making sounds like pigs, etc. – are not the gifts of the Holy Ghost.  However, some refuse to believe that the devil could actually be behind the extraordinary occurrences of “speaking in tongues” that they see at these charismatic meetings.  They should know that the early Church heretic Montanus also spoke in tongues. 

 

“Montanism was a growing problem… This man, Montanus, began to prophesy and to ‘speak in tongues.  He was soon followed by two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who left their husbands to devote themselves to his mission… Montanist preachers called upon their hearers to renounce marriage, to give up their worldly goods to their spiritual leaders… to seek martyrdom wherever possible, and to repudiate all civil obligations.  Though rejected by almost all the bishops, the Montanist call struck responsive chords all over Asia Minor; the whole church of Thyatira, for example, went over to them – Thyatira’s church which the Apostle John had warned, in his letter to the seven churches of Asia in the Book of the Apocalypse, to beware of a prophetess whose teaching led to immorality.” (Warren H. Carroll, The Founding of Christendom, Vol. 1, p. 464.)

 

This shows us again that speaking in tongues or what appears to be “speaking in tongues” can be from demonic sources; in the case of the heretical Charismatic Movement today, it is definitely from demonic sources.

 

A heretical “traditional” Bishop and more

 

A traditional bishop Oravec have sent me following article to convince me of rightness of doctrine of "baptism" of desire.
It is his condition, that I must accept this teaching in order to be allowed to receive Sacraments from him. And I urgently need some catholic bishop or priest, who don't recognize as valid novus ordo priesthood and "church", because my wife will go to novus ordo "mass" with my childern, if she has no other possibility. Should I inhibit her from bringing my childern to novus ordo "mass"??? Is following explanation right? Could I accept this exception of "baptism" of desire??? Why God could not save someone, who has catholic faith and desire for baptism, but died before he could receive this water baptism??? As st. Thomas Aquinas alone confirmed, that God could do this (save soul without water baptism), because His Power is not fixed only to the sacraments???

 

Josef

 

MHFM: One of us conversed with Bishop Oravec in the past, and the issue of salvation was specifically discussed.  He believes that souls can be saved in other religions.  That is a fact.  He is not a Catholic, but a complete heretic.  He couldn’t see how the damnation of all non-Catholics was compatible with the mercy of God.  He is a false shepherd who has no Faith; and since he is an imposing heretic who is binding his false teaching on you, you should absolutely not receive the sacraments from him at all. 

 

Regarding your children, yes you should use your authority in the house to forbid them from going to the Novus Ordo.  If your wife will attend the Novus Ordo when nothing else is available, then she is a not a true Catholic and doesn’t care about the Faith at all.  She just goes to whatever is convenient.  You should not pray with her until she becomes a true Catholic.

 

Regarding baptism of desire, the Church’s teaching on the absolute necessity of water baptism based on an absolute understanding of John 3:5 is clear. 

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

 

God bound men to salvation through water baptism; if He saved in another fashion, which He doesn’t, then He wouldn’t have revealed the truth on the necessity of Baptism to the Church.  You should read our book, if you have not, for a detailed discussion of all of these objections that people bring up.

 

But it’s interesting that we see again, as is almost always the case, that it’s not just about the wrong teaching of explicit baptism of desire (as was held by certain Saints) for this Bishop Oravec; there is much more at stake for him because he holds that souls can be saved in other religions. That is why people love, and are so intent on defending, the man-made teaching of baptism of desire.

 

Question about Escriva “Canonization”

 

Brothers: Where may I find the text used by JP II ( using apparently infallible language ) at the 'canonization' of Escriva?  It seems someone read  it to me shortly after the act and it used traditional language but I cannot remember the source where the complete text may be found.

  

Thankyou,  Mike

 

MHFM: Here it is:

 

Antipope John Paul II, Oct. 6, 2002, “Canonizing” Josemaria Escriva: “In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define Blessed Josemaria Escriva to be a Saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints.  In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” 

 

Why didn’t Fr. Feeney go to Rome?

 

I had a few questions....I re-read in the book "Absolutely No Salvation outside the Catholic Church" the pages prior to until after Fr. Feeney. Please don't take this as judging Fr. Feeney at all...but I was curious....do you know why he just didn't go to Rome, even though of course under canon law he didn't have to.  He didn't have anything to fear because he was completely protected by the dogma's set down by the Church.   So I was curious why he didn't just go.  I ask this question with complete respect. 

 

Also, if there were heretical things written with a valid bishops imprimatur, how do you know what books are good and which are bad?  Only prior to 1876?  Did Pope St. Pius X not know that heretical things were being printed during his time?  I am sure he couldn't have possibly seen every book that was written at the time.  Did I just answer my own question?

 

I read all of this about 6 months ago, but for some reason this time I actually understood what I was reading. 

 

I know you are extremely busy with your important work.  So you do not have to respond to such questions if you do not have the time!

 

May God Reward you for your work! 

 

God Bless you!

 

Teri Thurman

 

MHFM: I believe he didn’t go because when the authorities in Rome handling the matter refused to give him the reason for the summons, as required by canon law, they demonstrated that they weren’t trustworthy and operating in good faith.  And the reason that the authorities in Rome handling the case didn’t give him a reason is because they were too embarrassed to say: you are being summoned to Rome because you are preaching Outside the Church There is No Salvation and that only baptized Catholics can be saved!

 

It was on September 24, 1952 that Father Feeney addressed a long, detailed letter to Pius XII.  The letter went unanswered.  But one month later (in a letter dated Oct. 25, 1952) Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office summoned him to Rome.  On October 30, 1952, Father Feeney sent a reply to Pizzardo, requesting a statement of the charges against him – as required by Canon Law.  On Nov. 22, 1952, Pizzardo replied:

 

“Your letter of 30th October clearly shows that you are evading the issue… You are to come to Rome immediately where you will be informed of the charges lodged against you… If you do not present yourself… before the 31st December this act of disobedience will be made public with the canonical penalties… The Apostolic Delegate has been authorized to provide for the expenses of your journey.”

 

On Dec. 2, 1952, Father Feeney responded:

 

“Your Eminence seems to have misconstrued my motives in replying to your letter of October 25, 1952.  I had presumed that your first letter was to serve as a canonical citation to appear before Your Sacred Tribunal.  As a citation, however, it is fatally defective under the norms of Canon 1715 especially in that it did not inform me of the charges against me.  This canon requires that the citation contain at least a general statement of the charges.  Under the norms of Canon 1723 any proceedings based on a citation so substantially defective are subject to a complaint of nullity.”

 

This exchange of letters between Father Feeney and Pizzardo is very interesting and valuable for our discussion.  First of all, it shows that Father Feeney’s desire was to operate within the confines of the law, whereas Pizzardo and those at the Vatican showed a blatant disregard for law, even in the manner of summoning him to Rome.  Canon Law stipulates that a man summoned to Rome must be informed at least in general of the charges lodged against him, and Father Feeney cited the relevant canons.  Pizzardo and his cohorts consistently ignored these laws.  And that is why the subsequent penalty of excommunication leveled against Fr. Feeney for disobedience in not coming to Rome was “null and void.”

 

Comment on article about Joint Declaration of Schism by CFN and The Remnant

 

Brothers,

I just wanted to say that I believe your article "The Joint Declaration of Schism by Catholic Family News and The Remnant on the SSPX– and its major blasphemy against the Catholic Church" is one of the best revealing articles of the war that is happening against the True Catholic Church in our times.

And once again, I believe you shown more and more support for sedevacantism given by its opponents': CFN and the Remnant. It's beginning to seem that the more these editors write, the further they seem to evidently support that sedevacantism is not 'just an argument', but the only
plausible explanation for the current state of the Catholic Church.

God bless you and keep you! May Our Lady and St. Francis De Sales help your writings to enlighten the Faithful in all this confusion.

- Michael O.

 

MHFM: Thank you.  The schismatic position of these false traditionalists has gotten so bad that it’s beyond absurd at this point.  Simply put, men who would actually write an article which describes their “Pope’s” plan to “canonize” John Paul II as “the revolution is preparing to canonize its own” simply do not believe in the Catholic Church - period.  They have equated the authoritative and solemn “canonizations” by their “Pope” and what they deem to be the Catholic Church with the work of the revolution.  On a similar note, just recently Bishop Williamson said again that the Vatican doesn’t have the same religion as he does.  So, he rejects sedevacantism because he insists on professing communion with members of a different religion. 

 

The satanic Aztec culture

 

MHFM: Did you know that the Aztec culture in Mexico in the 15th and 16th centuries, which the Catholic conquistadors physically overthrew – and which the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe spiritually crushed – was arguably the wickedest culture in human history?

 

Many primitive peoples have practiced occasional human sacrifice and some have practiced cannibalism.  None has ever done so on a scale remotely approaching that of the Aztecs.  No one will ever know how many they sacrificed; but the law of the empire required a thousand sacrifices to the Aztec tribal god Huitzilopochtli in every town with a temple, every year; and there were 371 subject towns in the Aztec empire…

 

Every Aztec city and large town had a central square, from which a high pyramidal temple rose, and four gates opening upon four roads approaching the town in straight lines extending at least five miles, each ending at one side of the pyramid temple… Month after month, year after year, in temple after temple, the sacrificial victims came down the roads to the steps, climbed up the steps to the platform at the top, and there were bent backwards over large convex slabs of polished stone by a hook around the neck wielded by a priest with head and arms stained black, never-cut black hair all caked and matted with dried blood, and once-white garments soaked and stained with innumerable gouts of crimson.  An immense knife with a blade of midnight black volcanic glass rose and fell, cutting the victim open.  His heart was torn out while still beating and held up for all to see, while his ravaged body was kicked over the edge of the temple platform where it bounced and slithered in obscene contortions down the steps to the bottom a hundred feet below.  Later, the limbs of the body were eaten…

 

“The early Mexican historian Ixtlilxochitl estimated that one out of every five children in Mexico was sacrificed… An almost universal symbol in Mexican religion was the serpent.  Sacrifices were heralded by the prolonged beating of an immense drum made of skins of huge snakes, which could be heard two miles away.  Nowhere else in human history has Satan so formalized and institutionalized his worship with so many of his own actual titles and symbols.” (Warren H. Carroll, Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquest of Darkness, pp. 8-11)

 

Here is a description of the 1487 Aztec dedication of a new pyramid temple to their false god, Huitzilopochtli:

 

Tlacaelell decided that this central temple should be dedicated with the greatest mass sacrifice of his fifty-eight years of dominance in the Aztec empire.  As always, he had his way.  In R.C. Padden’s memorable description: ‘Well before daybreak of the opening day, legionnaires prepared victims, who were put in close single file down the steps of the great pyramid, through the city, out over the causeways, and as far as the eye could see.  For the average person viewing the spectacle from roof top, it would appear that the victims stretched in lines to the end of the earth.  The bulk of unfortunates were from hostile provinces and the swollen ranks of slavery.  On the pyramid’s summit, four slabs had been set up, one at the head of each staircase, for Tlacaellel and the three kings of the Triple Alliance, all of whom were to begin the affair as sacrificial priests.  All were in readiness; the lines of victims were strung out for miles, with great resevoirs at their ends, thousands of trapped humans milling about like cattle, awaiting their turn in the line that was about to move.  Suddenly, the brilliantly arrayed kings approached Huitzilopochtli’s [the false god’s] chapel and made reverent obeisance.  As they turned to join their aides at the four slabs, great snakeskin drums began to throb, announcing that the lines could now begin to move.

 

Relays of priests dispatched the victims.  As each group tired [of killing], others of the thousands who were to live below in the new temple stepped forward to relieve them and keep up the pace.  Years of practice had given them a skill and speed almost incredible.  Reliable evidence indicates that it took only fifteen seconds to kill each victim.  Blood and bodies cascaded in an endless stream down the temple steps.  Hearts were assembled in piles and skulls in endless racks.

   

“It went on four days and four nights.  More than eighty thousand men were killed.  Tlacaellel had commanded all the high nobility of Mexico to be present, watching from scented, rose-covered boxes; but eventually the bonds of custom and even of fear were burst by overwhelming horror, and most of the spectators fled, along with many people of the city.  Even those who could hide from the sight of what was happening were unable any longer to endure the stench.  But Tlacaellel [the leader of the Empire] at eighty-nine remained to the very end, watching the victims killed at fifteen seconds per man, until the last of the eighty thousand had their hearts torn out before his devouring eyes.” (Warren H. Carroll, Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquest of Darkness, pp. 8-11)

 

Perhaps this bit of history, more than any other, illustrates the truth of the Scriptural teaching that the gods of the heathen are actually devils.

 

Psalms 95:5- “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…”

            

1 Cor. 10:20- “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.  And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”

 

Can one attend the wedding or wedding reception of a Novus Ordo relative

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

 

My nephew is planning to get married this September.  Despite all my effort to convince him otherwise, he is planning to get married in the Novus-Ordo church.  I tried to convince him that it is not the true Roman Catholic religion, but a counterfeit church.  I showed him and my brother how sacriligious the Novus-Ordo is, but to no avail. My question is this: Am I allowed to attend the service, but not  to participate; or am I not allowed to attend it at all?  Also, what about the reception and dinner afterwards? Please respond as soon as you can.  You have been a tremendous help to me and others who desire the true Catholic faith. Thank you and God bless You!

 

Wayne C. Lang

 

MHFM:  Thanks for your question.  We did address this question in more detail in Question 62 of the Questions and Answers section, so we refer the readers there.  The short answer to your question is absolutely not.  A Catholic cannot attend the wedding or the wedding reception of a heretic.  The reason is that to attend such a wedding service or the reception is to honor and celebrate the marriage of a heretic.  It is to honor and celebrate a person or people getting married in the state of mortal sin, and in a fashion which displeases God and places them on the road to hell.

 

This issue involves the divine law:

 

2 Corinthians 6:14- “Bear not the yoke with unbelievers: For what participation hath justice with injustice?  Or what fellowship hath light with darkness… or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.’ (II John 10).”

 

This means that Catholics cannot have any interaction with heretics or unbelievers which gives them the impression that you accept them as good people or respect their false religion.  Attending the wedding or wedding reception of heretics certainly gives them the impression that you accept them or their activity as good.  Precisely, it is to honor their heretical activity.  But Catholic Faith obliges you to hold that their marriage as heretics or in a heretical fashion is something that is displeasing to God (even if it is a valid marriage). 

 

The only truly charitable approach is to calmly explain to your brother why you cannot attend his wedding or reception, emphasizing the necessity of his conversion to the traditional Catholic Faith.

 

The position of the SSPX on fasting during Lent

 

Since I have been a traditionalist (1978), I have always been under the assumption, that the rules of the lentin fast and abstinence should be followed according to the last revisions of Pope Pius XII, i.e. 1953 or 1957 and definetely NOT any new rules adhering to the changes of Vatican Council II.  I attend Mass at a SSPX on Long Island and the bulletin on Ash Wednesday stated the following:

 

“All catholics ages 14 and up are obliged to abstain from meat this Ash Wednesday.  And all catholics between ages of 18 and 59 are obliged to fast this Ash Wednesday.  New Code Canons 1251 & 1252.  All Catholics are encouraged, though no longer under pain of Mortal Sin, to keep the fast throughout the remainder of lent excepting Sundays.  The fast of Lent is no longer obligatory under pain of Sin except Ash Wednesday and Good Friday which still oblige under pain of mortal sin.

The obligation to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year still obliges under pain of venial sin.”

 

What does the reference to “new Code Canons….” Mean? - the Newchurch (since Vatican II) canons or the Old Church canons?  It sounds to me as though the SSPX has one foot in the Novus Ordo church and the other in Tradition.  What do I tell my children and grandchildren – who look to me for guidance in such matters??

 

Hoping to hear from you shortly and God Bless.

 

Joan Malone
 

MHFM: The canons to which you referred are from the new code.  The SSPX adheres to the new fasting rules promulgated by Antipope John Paul II in the new code of canon law (1983).  Thus, they hold that one is not bound to fast except on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday.  This is simply a by-product of their false position.

 

Many traditionalists don’t know that every day in Lent (except for Sundays) is an obligatory day of fast because they’ve been instructed by non-sedevacantist, independent “traditionalist” priests (such as the priests of the SSPX, etc.) who accept the new disciplinary laws of the Vatican II sect.

 

A picture worth a million textbooks

 

MHFM: As many of you know, the preposterous and monstrous “theory” of Evolution is taught as fact in all public schools.  This one picture of metamorphosis (with its accompanying explanation) alone refutes the folly of Evolution; it is truly a picture worth a million textbooks.  Scroll down to the bottom of the link to find the picture and the accompanying explanation:

 

Metamorphosis alone destroys Evolution

 

Question about fast days

 

If I'm not mistaken the only days of absolute fast during Lent are Ash Wednesday,  Good Friday, and Holy Saturday, and the Ember Days.  The other days are not obligatory, correct?

 

MHFM:  No, every day in Lent (except for Sundays) is a fast day.  See the Calendar on our mainpage for more details.

 

Is the Fatima article available for order?

 

Is the article, The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia, available in printed form to be ordered?

 

Roy

 

MHFM:  Not right now.  But it will be available in a book we hope to publish this summer.

 

The amazing way that God created water

 

MHFM: Unlike most liquids, water freezes from the top down.  If it did not act in this unusual way, all life on earth would eventually die:

 

Streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans freeze from the top down, because water reaches its maximum density at 39°F—seven degrees above its normal freezing point. As cold air further lowers the water’s temperature, water defies the behavior of most liquids and expands. This less dense water “floats” on top of the denser water. Eventually, it freezes into ice, which is even less dense.

 

We are fortunate that water behaves in this unusual way. If water continued to contract as it became colder and froze, as most substances do, ice would sink. Bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up. Surface water would quickly freeze, then sink. During the summer, the overlying liquid water would insulate the ice and delay its melting. Each winter more ice would collect at the bottom. This would first occur at polar latitudes, but over the years would spread toward the equator as surface ice reflected more of the Sun’s rays back into space, cooling the earth. Sea life would eventually cease. Evaporation and rain would diminish, turning the land into a cold, lifeless desert.” (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning – Compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood, p. 186, note 124.)

 

No visible head?, and an interesting quote

 

Hello Brother Dimond,

                     I would like to know what you have to say about all the anti-sedevacantists who use the argument that there cannot be a Church without a visible head (the Pope).

 

Al

 

MHFM:  Quite simply, the Church has been without a visible head hundreds of times.  The Church is without a visible head every time the Pope dies.  This situation has lasted for years. 

 

By the way, here is an interesting quote from the Lay Investiture crisis (1075-1122).  During this crisis, the evil King of Germany, Henry IV, instituted an Antipope (who was supported by many German Bishops).  Henry also appointed his own Bishops who were also subject to the Antipope.  The result was two Bishops in most dioceses and massive confusion.

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, 1910, “Investitures,” p. 86: “There was now much confusion on all sides…. Many dioceses had two occupants.  Both parties called their rivals perjurers and traitors…”

 

The point is that, while we are dealing with an unprecedented apostasy, the Church has seen confusing times before, including those in which the true hierarchy was not easily ascertainable.

 

Question about Fatima article

 

Bro. Peter Dimond:

 

I have read with interest your article, "The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the Impostor Sr. Lucy". I don't remember the article pointing this out (though, admittedly, I might have missed it), but the horrendous Stalin died on March 5, 1953--a mere 9 months after Pope Pius XII's consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart.

 

Though Khrushchev was an evil man, he was a considerable improvement over Stalin. Therefore, one could posit that the consecration made by Pius XII began to bear fruit in less than a year.

 

Sincerely,

Geof

 

MHFM: Yes, thank you, it was pointed out near the end of the fall of the satellites section:

 

---

And while the era of persecution officially culminated with the fall of the satellites (1989-1991) and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), the winds of change began much earlier than that.  The death of Stalin in 1953 was a good start.  Nikita Khrushchev actually denounced Stalin and allowed the publication of a book exposing the horrors of the Gulag labor camps:

 

“Speaking at a Moscow rally July 19, 1963… Khrushchev threw away his prepared text and made his most vehement recorded public assault on Stalin, calling him one of the worst tyrants in history, who had stayed in power only by ‘the headman’s axe.’…” (Warren H. Carroll, The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution, pp. 529-530)

 

“…[in 1962] Khrushchev authorized the publication of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s short novel, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, the first explicit account of the horrors of Stalin’s labor camps to be printed in the Soviet Union… This act of Khrushchev may well have been, from the vantage point of history, second in importance only to his own denunciation of Stalin.  For Solzhenityn’s was a voice no man and no system could silence, once it had been heard.” (Warren H. Carroll, The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution, p. 494)

 

“To many in the Party, Khrushchev’s permission for the publication of Solzhenitsyn’s book was a major error which rendered the follow-up writings inevitable and had potential for seriously endangering the regime.” (Warren H. Carroll, The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution, pp. 529-530)

 

Of course, Khrushchev was an evil Communist who threatened nuclear war with the U.S. (which never came to pass), told the world at the U.N. that “we will bury you,” and wanted to profit politically by the denunciation of Stalin.  But the fact the he could actually get away with denouncing Stalin and allowing the publication of a book exposing the Gulag showed how things were beginning to change inside the Soviet Union – how the era of persecution was coming to an end – which eventually led to the collapse of the regime in 1991.

 

Differing views on the Fatima article, a positive and negative (and our response)

 

1) Since reading your recent article on the conversion of Russia, I have decided to sever all relationships with the Fatima Crusaders. I have,for several years been purchasing Brown Scapulars at a very reasonable price from them and giving them to family and friends as well as wearing one myself. Do you know of any place where I can get Brown Scapulars at a reasonable cost ( about a dollar piece) ?   I'd like to thank you for the clarification on Sr. Lucy. I have always felt disturbed about her attending the new mass. It didn't make sense to me that a person who had seen the Blessed Mother could attend this abomination. Even religious obedience did not seem to justify participation in a pagan ceremony. As for Fr. Gruner I have suspected him of insincerity for some time. His tirades against the Vatican and belief in John Paul II as either a dupe or powerless didn't ring true. I am still looking for a true Catholic priest. Although I attend the St Pius X Latin mass in Ridgefield Conn., not contributing and not going to confession leaves me out in the cold when I most want to be a part of the real Catholic Church. Thank you again for all your good work in bringing out the truth. 

 

2) Dear Brother

 

This latest article is really just too much!  Our Lady promised what she promised with the consecration of Russia-

To try and say it was something else-that the word conversion was not CONVERSION but just that they would end up being "nice guys" that wouldn't hurt or persecute anyone anymore is ridiculous Our Lady has worked and can work greater miracles than this!  This was to be a sign for a greater worldwide conversion .....When Our Lady is pleased with the correct formula of consecration--even if it is with only 1 faithful bishop=- the world will know it These arguments are a waste of time and energy.  I was not going to waste my time in writing but this attack on the words of Our Lady of Fatima has really gone too very far…  Our Lady talks very literally for her poor ignorant children on the earth-she realizes that we need to be talked to in a simple and direct way.  She would not mislead us and give us false hope in a conversion that could not be seen-- a conversion of peace- HA- really and yet there has been no peace with Russia. You have some good information about Sr Lucia but all ends up being called into question with this disappointing explanation of "conversion of Russia" Well you can believe what you wish but I truly think you are only shooting yourself in the foot…. Your article gives way to despair

 

In Jesus and Mary

Kathy Heckenkamp

 

MHFM: No, the only thing that is ridiculous is your blindness.  It’s quite obvious – obvious, that is, to those who will take off the blinders and sincerely look at the facts – that Our Lady was not speaking of a religious conversion.  That is why Sr. Lucy said that the consecration of Russia means that: “The good Lord promises to end the persecution in Russia…”!!! (WTAF  Vol. 2, p. 465)  That is why Sr. Lucy said that the consecration of Russia will result in an “abbreviation of the tribulation,” not a conversion of the nation to the Catholic Faith.

 

Our Lord to Sr. Lucy, Oct. 22, 1940: “I will punish the nations for their crimes by means of war, famine and persecution of My Church and this will weigh especially upon My Vicar on earth.  His Holiness will obtain an abbreviation of these days of tribulation if he takes heed of My wishes by promulgating the Act of Consecration of the whole world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention of Russia.” (The Whole Truth About Fatima – abbreviated: WTAF, Vol. 2, p. 732)

 

What part of this don’t you understand? 

 

Even by just looking carefully at Our Lady’s words we can clearly see what she means.  She is not talking about the conversion of the nation to the Catholic Faith:

 

The war is going to end.  But if they do not stop offending God, another and worse war will begin in the reign of Pius XI. When you shall see a night illuminated by an unknown light, know that it is a great sign that God gives you that He is going to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, of hunger, and of persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father.  To prevent this I come to ask the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart and the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays.  If they listen to my requests, Russia will be converted and there will be peace.  If not she will scatter her errors through the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church.  The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph.  The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and it will be converted and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world.”

 

… “war… hunger… persecution of the Church…”  To prevent “this” Our Lady came to ask the consecration of Russia. What part of this don’t you understand? 

 

To those interested in truth, it makes sense.  But to those who want to desperately hang on to their myth because they would otherwise be forced to drastically re-assess their previous position on how the last days must play out (and possibly their entire position on the Vatican II apostasy), the facts will be ignored or attacked without foundation.  The same is true with everything.  You make an interesting statement in your e-mail. You write: “Your article gives way to despair.”  This reveals that one of the reasons you are so opposed to these facts is because you are fearful of what you would have to conclude about the present situation; in other words, you cannot handle the truth about the present apostasy, so you cannot handle the truth on this issue.

 

The fact that you would call it “ridiculous” is actually ridiculous, since (in addition to the other facts) it’s quite obvious that Our Lady’s words about Russia being converted parallel Proverbs 16:7 – where conversion is used to describe conversion of an enemy from its persecuting ways to peace (not to the true Faith).  This reveals a profound level of dishonesty on your part.

 

Proverbs 16:7- “When the ways of man shall please the Lord, He will convert even his enemies to peace.”

 

Our Lady: “If they listen to my requests, Russia will be converted and there will be peace.”

 

Moreover, your dismissal of these facts is also extremely selfish.  (That is one reason why many people will not see the truth on this issue; they are too selfish to really consider the plight of the people who lived in that era).  You totally belittle what the people in Russia were going through during that period, and dismiss Russia’s conversion from such monstrosities as basically irrelevant.  (To combat this tendency, that is why the article included many details on what was going on in Russia during that period.)  If you or your family were taken away to the Gulag or lived during the famine or suffered under Communist persecution, you would think quite differently, and perhaps the significance would then enlighten your selfish mind.  But you don’t delve deeply into their plight and that situation, because you are too selfish.  If it doesn’t affect you, it cannot be that significant.

 

The article was written for those who really want to find out truth.  That’s not everyone, and apparently not you.  That is why it is stated at the beginning of the article: Can you handle the truth on this issue?  There has been so much brainwashing on this issue that many will reject it before even considering the facts. 

 

While I’m not saying this issue is equivalent to rejecting the Gospel, I think it’s important to note again that the truth will always be rejected by many, no matter how convincing it is or who is presenting it.  As it is written of St. Paul’s disputations: “And some believed the things that were said; but some believed not” (Acts 28:24). 

 

Further, while it is pointed out in the article that this issue is not a matter of Catholic doctrine, and therefore one is not bound by Catholic Faith to any particular position on this issue, it’s important to note that to dismiss truth on any issue (science, politics, etc.), and obstinately cling to error opposed by facts, would be considered a sin before God (dishonesty), even if it is not a heresy.  We believe this is the case with those who dismiss all the facts on this issue, and insist that Our Lady definitely and absolutely meant that Russia would be converted to the Catholic Faith, when there is no proof for this position, and much to the contrary.

 

Question about the validity of traditional Bishop, and a note on the CMRI

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter,

I recently read a letter written by the late Bishop Moises Carmona-Rivera (who was consecrated by Bishop Thuc in 1981).  This letter is a defense of his episcopal consecration and leaves many questions open about his validity.  In the letter, he states, "....some said, without any foundation, that our consecrations were invalid because we were consecrated in the new rite..."  After this very ambiguous statement, he does not go on to say that he and Zamora were, in fact, consecrated in the old rite.  What does this mean?  Does this mean that he was consecrated in the new rite and he feels that it is valid, meaning that those of us who hold it to be invalid are judging so with "no foundation"?  Or, does he mean that these accusations were made with no foundation because, in fact, they were consecrated in the old rite? 

I am sorry for the tone of this question, but this is a major dilemma for my family.  If there is question about the validity of Carmona-Rivera due to the rite used in the ceremony, then my family is without a valid Mass anywhere nearby.

I would like to thank you for your help with this, as I know that you are very thorough with your research and will only report facts.  I am not interested in getting someone's "opinion" when the souls of my family and myself are at stake.  God bless you!

In JMJ,

Joseph Blagg

 

MHFM: No, in context Carmona is simply saying that some people, without any foundation at all, have claimed that he was consecrated in the new rite.  He goes on to say that others, more seriously, have claimed other things.  The implication is that any claim that he was ordained in the new rite is almost a joke.  Carmona was validly consecrated in the traditional rite.  Thus, the priest ordained through his line would be valid.  But we cannot vouch for such a priest’s doctrinal views, and there is a very strong chance that the priest denies the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation or supports NFP or something else.  Thus, you almost certainly couldn’t support him financially, though perhaps you could receive the sacraments from him if he is not notorious or imposing about his false views.

 

Also, we’ve been informed that certain CMRI priests have communicated to people that they don’t want those who don’t accept baptism of desire at their chapels.  Since those CMRI priests are imposing their false views, one should not receive the sacraments from them at all.  We don’t know if this is a universal development with CMRI priests, so one should check with the CMRI priest in their area about this.  (They don’t want people who believe in that “awful” teaching that all must be baptized to be saved, as Our Lord said, but they have no problem with the idea that Jews who reject Christ can be saved.  What abominable heretics.)

 

On responses to attacks on sedevacantism

 

I have been reading extensively on the Chaos of the Church.  I have been reading every anti-Sede article I have come accross from the Fatima Crusader, CFN, Mr. Sungenis, etc.  I have not seen a good argument.  Then I read your responses and you BLOW THEM AWAY!!!  I guess the truth does that to the untruth…

 

-Jaime Soria

 

A reader from UK tells his story and asks questions

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

 

I am sending to you an e-mail for the first time and I am happy to send it to you,in order to express my heartfelt thank to you for revealing the Truth of Holy Catholic Faith to   ignorant people like me.

 

I am a Unversity student from UK who began to concentarate serously on Catholic Faith very recently. Although born as a Catholic I did not practise it whole heartedly since I was 10,only practised it outwardly to appease my parents.I was an ardent supporter of Marxism and then I was intriguied by Liberalism.Believe me I am telling you the truth I was the greatest "fan" you could have  ever found for JP II.I was quite able to get along with his liberalistic and marxist convictions and I was used to by heart the homilies and speeches which he made. In our home there is still a framed photograph of JP II which hangs in our living room.I had his photograph in my study room at University Hall until YESTERDAY.

 

But when I went through your materials regarding Vatican II sect and its antipopes I could not deny those strong arguments and I completely in agreement with the sedevacantist position which deny the autority of Vatican II and its antipopes.You can imagine how hard was it for me to reject JP II who is an ardent pupil and defender of him and finally I did it.I REMOVED his potrait from my room.I know for sure that my parents still have him in the living room and I will reveal them the whole truth when I return home.

 

Dear Brothers I have basically two questions.I sincerely believe that you will send me your clarification at your earliest convinience.

 

1)As you sited in your article regarding Bishop Williamson,you quoted St.Alphonus Ligouri in which he(St.Alphonus) says that all canonizations made by pope are infallible and he is guided and helped in a special way by the Holy Ghost in the process of canonization.I accept it whole heartedly.But something coming from the "Traditionalist camp" disturbs me.They questions the canonization of St. Therese,the little flower o Jesus.They say that she explicitly believed that ALL can be saved without coming to Catholic Faith.That disturbs me very much.Please clarify me.

 

2)I was born in 1982 and you know that I must have been baptised by a novus ordo preist who are in complete union with Vatican II doctrine.So I am wondering  whether my baptism is valid, this is a question which torments me night and day.Please clarify me.

 

I am looking forward a quick reply from me.Clarfy me !!!!!!!

I need your help.

 

Yours in Christ,

Milan.

 

MHFM: Milan, that’s great to hear.  Concerning your questions: 1)  We have never seen any quotes from St. Therese stating that all men are saved, which is a horrible heresy.

 

2) The Church teaches that even heretics can validly baptize.  So, even a Novus Ordo priest can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter and form.  If you have some reasonable doubt about your baptism, however, you could get a friend to perform a conditional baptism.  The conditional form of baptism is given on our website. 

 

The stupidity of evolution

 

MHFM:  In this section of our website, from time to time we will be posting quotes or comments on topics that we feel our readers may find interesting or beneficial.  We particularly like the topic of Creationism, so here is an interesting quote about how Altruism destroys evolution:

 

“11. Altruism- Many animals, including humans, will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another – sometimes the life of another species.  Natural selection, which evolutionists say explains all individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic ‘individuals.’  How could risky behavior that benefits only another ever be inherited, because its possession tends to prevent the altruistic ‘individual’ from passing on its genes for altruism?  If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have completely eliminated unselfish behavior.  Furthermore, cheating and aggressiveness should have ‘weeded out’ cooperation.  Altruism contradicts evolution.” (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning – Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, p. 7.)

 

Some more feedback on new article

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

 

Wow!  What a bombshell!   Just finished reading your explosive new article concerning Fatima and the consecration of Russia, and I must say it leaves one a bit breathless.  It really seems to be the missing piece in the puzzle.  I am a genuine Roman Catholic, sedevacantist, etc. and of course, knew something was amiss concerning this whole subject.  Your thorough "sleuthing" seems to have solved the quandary.  I, too, am planning to reread  -- there is so just so much to digest.  Once again, I thank you with all my heart for your fabulous and incomparably important work.  God bless you!

 

Sincerely in Christ,

Margaret Moore

---

Dear Brother Dimond

Congratulations on an excellent article! Having studied this period of history, I am impressed by how your perspective explains a lot of how history developed during this time…

Best wishes

Gerard

 

----------

Excellent article.

 

Keith M.

--------

[Subject: Great article on the Fatima consecration]

Brothers,

 

I finished the article on the Fatima consecration.   I made a copy for Father [x] and another copy for people to read after mass. 

 

The information you present puts the novus ordo and false traditionalists in perspective.   The pictures of both the real and fake Sister Lucy are very convincing.

 

I wonder if Mr. Gruner will close up shop now?  :o) 

 

Robert

 

---

Dear Brothers, I read your article on Fatima with great interest. Very well done. I had given up on the explanations of N.Gruner long ago. What I'd like to know is how should we devotedly observe Fatima today?

Thank you and God bless you in your excellent work.

 

MHFM: The best way to observe Fatima today is to have a true devotion to the Holy Rosary (pray 15 decades each day if you can), and make St. Louis De Montfort’s consecration to the Blessed Virgin as described in his book, True Devotion to Mary.  If you have not read the book Our Lady of Fatima by William Thomas Walsh, you really should.  It’s one of the best books out there, and the best on the pure message of Fatima, in our view. 

 

Some early feedback on new article

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

  I must say that was a breathtaking article.  I will have to read it again there is so much to absorb.  To think people living in this country knew little or next to nothing about what was going on under Stalin and Lenin. Reading history sources like Barnes Review, I have learned a great deal about those times and places, but I did not piece it together the way you have.  It makes some of the things I read stand out in my mind and appear in a very different light.  I wish now I had not given away those magazines, and could go back and reread some of the things I want to remember.

 

That there was an imposter Sister Lucy was not hard to imagine with all the contradicting stories, (and I did imagine it for some time) but the way you put it all together it would be almost impossible not to see the idea of imposter as anything but a rational and logical means to their end.

 

The imperfect peace must be about over considering the Middle East and all the activity going on there and the rising tide of Islam over the whole world.  And the New Order Church is collapsing upon itself as more and more the truth of what it is becomes clearer for all to see.  Yet so few seem to see, or even want to see.

God Bless and keep up the good work.

Mary Ann Davis

--------

Dear Brother Peter,

 

Last night I discovered your newest article "The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the impostor Sr. Lucy."  I began to read, with fascination, facts that I certainly had not heard before.  I do recall a telephone conversation with Brother Michael several years ago which touched on the premature death of Sister Lucia.  How these revelations would turn the world upside down!

 

I hope to finish reading the piece today.  Thank you for this great piece of research that you have produced.

 

Judith Andrews

 

MHFM: Thanks, we’re glad you liked it.

 

reader sounds off on Catholic Family News

 

Brothers,

     I have been receiving CFN for years now and have progressively been getting sicker and sicker of the blasphemies levied against the Church. The only reason I maintained subscription was to keep up with the latest outrages. I now see I was wrong because I don't need them to fill me in with their convoluted blasphemous accusations against what they consider the Bride of Christ. Yes, I'm tired of them trashing the good name of all that is Catholic. According to that paper, the Church is so blemished with heresy and errors that it is a joke to call it Catholic. Yet, it's OK to throw perpetual rocks at this Church they call Catholic and at it's "pope"... Just don't say he's not pope!!! That's right... stone him, flog him, beat him senseless for destroying millions of souls and the faith of almost the entire Catholic world, disobey him, slander him, set up Churches and orders apart from him, mock him, resist him to his face BUT please please please don't say he's anything less than the "holy father" the "head" of Christ's Bride and Church, the Pope of the world! Chris Ferrara's latest pablem was so sickening that I refuse to renew any further subscriptions. Yes, funny how Mr. Ferrara NEVER mentions to his readers that there are sound reasons for sedevacantism based on INFALLIBLE teachings of Popes! Funny how he NEVER mentions anything about Paul IV's Bull which directs the laity specifically to reject anyone in office as warlock who would "deviate" from the faith! That Bull states that even if the laity are wrong about their conclusion, they are free to reach such a conclusion with impunity IF they (the laity) perceive the cleric to be a heretic. So, according to real Catholic teaching even if the sedevacantists are wrong (and they aren't) and Ratzinger is the pope they still by virtue of that Bull have every RIGHT to hold he is NOT pope and withdraw because Ratzinger has been shown without doubt to have "deviated" from the faith,,,,PERIOD. Enough of this garbage about us being schismatic, it is Mr. Ferrara who is schismatic and I hope you punch him back soon on this latest pile of puke!

 

MHFM: Well said… It’s the same thing with “Tradition in Action”; their continuous rants on how their “Pope” contradicts this Tradition and denies that teaching and mocks this dogma (all the while still asserting that he’s not even a heretic!) have grown tiresome – no, they have grown into blasphemies against the Church and the Papacy.  Really, someone should tell them and Catholic Family News: just be quiet until you’re ready to denounce him for the non-Catholic heretic he is.  Regarding Ferrara, his arguments have already been totally refuted; there is no sense in pounding on a corpse. (I mean, his “Pope” believes in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification and Ferrara thinks he’s a Catholic; what more does one have to say?)  Ferrara doesn’t address our arguments anyway; he sticks with fighting with his chosen opposition, Fr. Cekada, because Fr. Cekada does a pathetic job of producing heresies from Vatican II and Antipope Benedict XVI.  (The reason for this is that most of the heresies of Antipope Benedict XVI have something to do with the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, which Cekada also rejects).

 

a reader comes to the defense of John Paul II

 

first, no disrespect intended, but what is wrong with you people! John Paul was a great pope (yes POPE) not some heretic, all he was trying to do was bring a great many people together. it is my belief that most religions are the same, they all worship god, the polytheistic people all have 1 major god, with many lesser gods, which could be equal rank to an angel, and that one major is the god everyone else prays to, no one knows what god looks like so everyone has one form or another, but it is the same person, you need to open your minds and get a wider view of religion, like Paul II, further more I piety you, it is sad to think that you cant get along with the other people because of religion, what ever happened to the golden rule, you know "do unto others..." well this goes for people with a different religion too. well I hope you will take my words and really think about them, not just push them aside, and if you with to respond to me I encourage you to do so.

 

    Steven Bartha 

 

MHFM: There you have it: this reader thinks that polytheism (the worship of various false gods – in other words, idolatry) is the same as Catholicism, and he is coming to the defense of John Paul II.  Well yes, if you like idolatry, then I guess you would have to consider him John Paul the Great [Idolater].

 

But Jesus Christ teaches through His revelation that the gods of the heathen religions are demons, and that to put His one true religion on a par with the worship of demons, as John Paul II’s entire “Pontificate” did, is about as bad a sin and a heresy as one can commit.

 

Psalms 95:5- “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…”

 

1 Cor. 10:20- “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.  And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”

 

Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:

“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”

 

Why do you not believe in Jesus Christ?

 

A foreign reader declares his positions

 

Dear Bro. Michael Dimond,

Greetings and Christ's blessings for this year.  I am a Catholic doctor(endocrinologist/diabetologist) from Goa; currently working in the Middle East.

Its been some months since I have been strongly influenced by Traditional Catholicism.I was agnostic several years back and so I am familiar with comparative religion as well. I am not a scholar, but the wealth of writings about(against the Novus ordo) has made me come to the same belief that the validity of the Novus Ordo is at least doubtable...if it is not invalid... Unfortunately neither in India nor here do we have any Traditionalist groups.

I begin the New Year with some joy of having reached at the truth. Of course, I have suddenly become an orphan with no real Church or Mass to go to!! I have stopped going for the Mass altogether. I feel sadder for the rest of the Catholics who really do not know or do not want to know...the Church as we know it is just heading for destruction.. 

I have read many arguments against sedevacantism and it is really sad that those who write such excellent articles against the heresies of the post-conciliar church cannot reason when it comes to a matter as simple as this… I believe in things that many Traditionalists unfortunately don't: 1)Opposition to the evil practice of NFP. I consider it a serious heresy and sinful and part of Satan's deception.

2)I strongly believe in the absolute interpretation of the "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"(EENS) dogma...the way Fr.Feeney believed. I believe this is the fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church and any undermining of it or to say that " God is not bound by the Sacraments"....as a concession for the 'invincibley ignorant'.. ..would amount to at the worst denying the Incarnation and at the least denying the need for the Incarnation/Death and Resurrection to be known by humanity at all..the so called 'unknown Christ'..!! I believe that if God is not bound by the sacraments; then God had no reason to incarnate…


Greetings once again and God bless.

Dr Neil de Jesus Rangel. MD Medicine,.DM
Endocrinology.

Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain.

 

MHFM: It’s great to hear that you have the true Catholic Faith.  We will say a prayer for you.

 

Comment on the Heresy of the Week

 

Dear Brother Dimond:

 

I am writing this to express my admiration for your excellent defense of the Catholic doctrine in your weekly item "Heresy of the Week" of 2/4/06.

 

God bless you,

Jos Valkering

 

MHFM: Glad you liked it… the SBC really walked into that one with “No Pope? No Hope!”

 

On SBC newsletter

 

 

Dear Brothers,

Do you have a copy of Mancipia of January 2006. On page 4, No Pope? No Hope!.Are you inserested in replying. (Very Flimsy)

                           Thank you
                                  M.S.

 

MHFM:  Yes, thank you, it’s covered in the Heresy of the Week.

 

On Byzantine priests and the sacraments of the “Orthodox”

 

Dear Monastery,

 

I troubled you a few days ago with my questions.

 

I think I’ve found almost all I wanted on your site, which I’ve looked up through more thoroughly now.

 

So this is to thank you very much indeed because I doubt I would’ve understood what and how I should do and act when a liturgy is said by a heretical priest. And they are perhaps all of them up to Archbishop Huzar as they call Benedict XVI ‘pope’ during the service (one, I recall, had privately praised JPII for having visited an Islamic temple – not big deal, he’d said; another one had spoken in his homily two weeks ago how moved he’d been on the day of JPII’s burial – “such a great man” ). In addition, the main celebrant in my parish told me a few days ago that ‘orthodox’ ‘mysteries’ (sacraments) ‘are’ ‘valid’ – something I opposed and disagreed with. My reasoning is how they can be valid, if schismatics are beyond the Church whereby are not Christians. They are null, void and nothing.

 

O.k., thank you very much for your site and your hard work. It did help me to clear out clouds in front of the light of my Catholic faith. Although this is just a beginning for me.

 

God bless.

 

Yurij Vovkohon.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the interest.  The only thing I would mention is that it’s important to understand that heretics and schismatics can have a valid Mass and Eucharist, if they observe proper matter and form and have a valid priesthood.  “Orthodox” schismatics do have a valid Mass, since they have a valid priesthood and employ valid matter and form in their liturgy.  But being outside the Church, they do not profit from the reception of sacraments, but sin when receiving them; and since they are notorious heretics, no Catholic can receive sacraments from them.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does.  On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.  On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

 

Pope Pius IX, (+1862):“… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.” (Amantissimus # 3)

 

Opining on the SSPX’s possible “reconciliation” with the Vatican II sect

 

After viewing the activities of Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, it is our considered opinion that, in addition to the fact that the man has no real Faith, a major force driving him into full reconciliation with the Vatican II sect is his vanity.  We believe that he wants to go down in history as the one who “ended the schism,” and we believe this is why he is really pushing for this reconciliation.  Fellay’s tenure as Superior General of the SSPX comes to an end this year, so his only chance of getting the lion’s share of the credit for “ending the schism” will most certainly be gone by the end of the year. 

 

That is why he seems to be pushing for this reconciliation at all costs.  In fact, Fellay even seems to be weakening on his insistence that the Traditional Mass be made available to all:

 

Bishop Fellay, a recent article:” we don’t want to be a catholic group aside. We don’t ask for the old mass just for us, but for all. But maybe we have to go through this transitory status.” 

 

Notice, he now seems to be saying that he wants the Traditional Mass available to all, but that they may “have to go through this transitory status” anyway, as if he would reconcile even without the full permission for every priest to celebrate the Traditional Mass.

 

It’s our opinion that the SSPX will indeed break up (i.e., will suffer a major break-up) as a result of this “reconciliation.”  It will probably result from Bishop Williamson who, even though he is definitely a heretic and a schismatic, will refuse to go along.  In many ways, this break-up of the SSPX will be a very good thing, for it will cause the many followers of the heretical SSPX to reconsider their positions on these issues, rather than blindly following the blind leaders of the SSPX.

 

The “reconciliation” of the SSPX with the apostate Vatican II sect will require them to accept as Magisterial the heretical teaching of Vatican II. 

 

Fr. Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, p. 11: [on Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism]: “It is absolutely contrary to what was previously taught, to what the Holy Scripture says, and to what the Fathers of the Church, the theologians, the Councils and the Popes have always said.”

 

Fr. Schmidberger, who authored the SSPX’s pamphlet Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, which clearly points out numerous things contrary to the Faith in Vatican II, is also said to be behind the reconciliation, which will require him to accept Vatican II as Magisterial.  How can he do this when he has authored a pamphlet clearly pointing out the teachings contrary to dogma in Vatican II?  It’s because he believes that souls can be saved in other religions and has no real Faith.

 

Fr. Schmidberger (SSPX), Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error.”

 

About baptizing a baby and S.H.

 

Dear Brother Dimond:

 

My family and I are attending the ..  (SSPX) though we do not support it financially.  I am pregnant and due to give birth in the spring.  I recently found out that our prospective godparents (whom I thought to be Catholic) are faithless heretics.  I am talking about my own parents.  My father has made it clear on a couple of occassions that I should stop having babies (we have 5 children so far).  I know for a fact that the SSPX Church we attend will not baptize our new baby without godparents and I know of no one else that could fullfill that roll.  I am considering baptizing the new baby myself at home; is this really the right thing to do in an non life threatening situation?...

 

I was also wondering about the author Solange Hertz and what you think of her.  In one of her books, she indicated that it is better to stay home and say prayers, do spiritual reading, etc rather than attend the Mass of a heretic (even a heretic priest who calls himself traditionalist). 

 

God bless you and keep up the wonderful work.

 

Brenda R.

 

MHFM: Thank you for your question.  You should baptize the baby yourself, and not have the SSPX priest do it.  Regarding Solange Hertz, last time we checked she held that no one has the authority to say that the manifestly heretical non-Catholic Antipopes of the Vatican II sect are not true Popes.  Thus, her opinion on where one may or may not attend Mass isn’t worth much.  I believe she holds, or at least accepts as Catholic, the heretical position of The Remnant; otherwise they wouldn’t carry her articles and give her awards.  In fact, The Remnant was even selling – and still may be selling – a T-shirt that said “I love Solange Hertz”!  This is outrageous and scandalous and almost unbelievable. Just imagine a married traditional Catholic man walking around in an “I love Solange Hertz” T-shirt.  Check out the shirts here.  It’s scandalous and arguably idolatrous.  It reveals The Remnant’s spiritual blindness – their love of man in the place of God. 

 

Solange Hertz also does not hold the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, as she indicated in a telephone conversation with one of us.

 

A reader’s spiritual journey

 

Hello Bro. Michael,


Just want to say thanks for the great job you've been doing with your internet site…I just received your DVD sale package & I was impressed. I'll try to make this short. I was a fallen away Catholic for nearly 25 years. I had a strange dreamback in 1985 or so tha tconcerned an impending nuclear strike from Russia. The feeling of terror was amomg all the workers at my jobsite. This dream woke me up at 5 in the morning. About 5 hours later I was trying to dial in my usual radio station & then landed on a Veronica Lueken radio broadcast. She was talking about an emminant nuclear strike from Russia. I was really freaked out by this coincidence. First of all, I never remember dreams so this nightmare was unusual. Second , I never listen to religous radio. So this compelled
me to check these Baysiders out.

   Anyway I got sucked into this cult. I was impressed with the holiness of these people. This led me to read the Bible for the first time in my life. I was obsessed for about four months reading the bible. Then it hit me that Bayside was not of God. Its wierd that they supported John Paul II, but rejected theauthority of the local bishop who condemmed the Bayside group. I felt horrible that God would let me fall into this trap. On the other hand, I did get an intensive study course on what our Faith is all about. So I collected all my Bayside literature and demonically etched Polaroid photos, put them into a brown paper bag, & delivered it to the local parish priest. I said to Fr.Shierse " you guys got a problem!"  Fr. Shierse was nice enought to listen to my concerns. I was a raving lunatic trying to figure out the state of the Church and the world, but he was decent enought to spend some time going over my concerns.

   So a few years went by and I got very discouraged with the traditional Catholics. I realised that if nobody would take on Pope John Paul II's Assisi world prayer abombination, that the future of the Church looked pretty grim. As I remember, I think your Newsletter was the only source that would call a spade a spade. So anyway, I got tired of this lonesome burdon of seeing things in such a pessimistic outlook. I sort of went into a spiritual coma for about 10 years. This past year we had the Schiavo case, the Iraq torture pictures, the New Orleans NWO insanity, so these events rang the alarm bells again for me. I spent a lot of time in these last year of searching the internet for answers about the Faith and the world. I just stumbled upon your website about a month ago.

    So keep up the good work. You were great on that Creation DVD. I've been making copies and handing them
out…

 

God Bless You,

Michael Pawlikowski
Wilmington, Delaware

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.

 

MHFM material “spreading like wildfire” in Nigeria

 

Dear Brothers Peter and Michael Dimond,                  

 

Thanks for what you are doing. Greater thanks to Our Lord and Our Blessed Lady for bringing you to us. I am an Architect by profession in private practice here in Abuja, Nigeria. I came in contact with your monastery through my friend Francis Maria Ameh and was so overwhelmed that I called a group of like minded Traditional Catholics in my Parish…    We listened carefully to the tapes you sent to Bro Francis Maria Ameh and after series of Novenas to Our Lady of Perpetual Help, St. Joseph and the Infant Jesus, we have decided to form a group of Traditional Catholics here in Abuja under my unworthy leadership. This group is not subject to the Vatican II hierarchy.…

    The group has mandated me to request from you the following information… These are our immediate concerns because your video and audio tapes together with the book “OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SALVATION” which we down loaded from the Internet are spreading like wild fire here in Abuja and soon, many people may take side with us. It will require the services of a Priest to take care of such a great number.

Yours truly, in Jesus Mary and Joseph,

John Bosco Maria Tyozenda

 

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Pray for us

 

MHFM: Maybe our readers could say a prayer for this group.

 

A question about the Fatima prayer

 

I am a dedicated fan of your website and I access your site atleast 2-3 times a week.I am also a sedevacantist and have absolutely in the Novus Ordo "Robber Church". However whenever I pray the rosary one thing always  nags my mind and begs clarification,please guide me. After every decade we pray thus "Oh My Jesus have mercy on us and deliver us from the fires of hell,lead all souls to heaven especially those who are in most need of thy mercy" If we pray for all souls doesn't that include pagans,heretics,Hindus,Moslems etc.If this is so is it not in violation of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam nullam Salus". Is it possible that the above prayer is a subverted version of the Fatima message released by the Robber Church.  Please guide me?

God Bless

Jerome

 

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail.  No, the version you have is not a phony version of the prayer that Our Lady asked to be said after the decades of the Rosary.  It’s basically the correct version.  Some people say the version: “O my Jesus, pardon our sins, save us from the fire of hell, have mercy on the souls in Purgatory, especially the most abandoned.”  But Sr. Lucy affirmed categorically to William Thomas Walsh that this version of the prayer is not correct; this one is correct: “O my Jesus, pardon us, save us from the fire of hell, draw [or lead] all souls to heaven, especially those in most need [or most in need].”

 

And there is no violation of the dogma in praying for all souls to be converted, and therefore be led to heaven.  Everyone who is still alive has a chance to be saved.  And God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), even though that won’t happen, and all who die as non-Catholics will be lost. 

 

A reader drops a nice note

 

I wanted to thank you for everything you have done for God for the sake of helping save so many lost souls through God's grace.  Growing up I saw so many strange things happen in the so called "Catholic Church" and as a young child I noticed things that did not seem right (i.e. complete make over of a 100 year old church that use to have beautiful breath-taking art work on the ceiling and around the alter - was painted over with white paint; and beautiful ornate doors at the entrance were replaced with ugly manufactured glass doors that you would see in every other office building) at a young age I used to look up during mass and lose myself looking at all of the beautiful art of Mary and the angels and saints and then all of a sudden one day I was looking at nothing but white paint.  I asked my mother why they were doing these things and she often replied "I don't know."  I remember when I was in college I hit a rough spot in my life and I started to go to daily mass and one day a woman (the office manager for the school) concecrated (or so I thought) the host, because all the priests, they said, were on a retreat.  I went home and told my Mom and she couldn't believe it.   Well I grew up the rest of my life never having answers to any of these questions and once I started having children I finally had time to read, pray and research these questions on my own.  And through the grace of God and being concecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary I finally understood what you were saying.

My brother introduced your tapes to us in the early 90's and I couldn't believe what I was hearing and seeing.  Why was this so called Pope participating in false rituals?  But I didn't quite understand what it all meant but I kept it buried in my mind and until I started doing the research on my own and became concecrated to Our Lady and prayed the rosary every day I happened to run across your website again a couple of years ago and finally, everything clicked.   I was hearing the same things I heard in your video tapes over ten years earlier but nothing clicked until I prayed the rosary every day and asked for Mary's help to get me to the right place.  I started changing the way I live my life, and made some of the best confessions I've made in my life.  And I see things so crystal clear now, almost to the point where it scares me.  I'm so at peace.  I only pray that others who are being deceived will find the same peace that I've found.  You have been so helpful on this journey and I commend you for your services.  Without your information and guidance we wouldn't know how to filter through all this mess.

God bless and know that your hard work and long hours is doing much greater things that you think.

Rosie Nendick

 

MHFM: Thanks for the words of support.

 

Seeking catechesis

 

Praised be Jesus Christ! I am wondering if you could direct me to a priest who I may contact in order to find out where I may receive traditional Catechesis in preparation for the Sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and Holy Communion.

 

I briefly attended the RCIA program in the Novus Ordo Church but found that my faith was weakened as a result of the things being taught in the classes. Thus, I have been earnestly seeking a priest who adheres to traditional Faith and Morals and who offers valid Rites for the administration of the Sacraments in the greater… area.

 

Any information you may be able to provide would be most appreciated.

 

In Jesus and Mary,

 

K.D.

 

MHFM: K.D., thanks for the interest.  Yes, you don't want to go the RCIA program, since it is part of the new, non-Catholic Vatican II religion.  A Catholic must avoid the New Mass under pain of grave sin, since it is not a valid Mass.

 

Attached is a simplified version of the Traditional Catechism.  In our situation today, there are hardly any fully Catholic priests left.  There aren't any priests in your area that are 100% solid on the issues. There may be a place for you to attend the Traditional Mass, but you couldn't support the chapel because the priests hold certain positions that are not in line with the full truth.  If you call us someone here would be happy to answer your questions in more detail.

 

I would also strongly recommend that you obtain our 8 video/dvd special, which is now available for only $8.00.  It contains much material touching on a traditional catechesis of what is happening in our day.  I hope you pray the Rosary each day, and I would strongly encourage you to continue with that.  We are in a situation today where people, once they have obtained the traditional sources, need to be proactive in learning the traditional Faith.  In our day, one cannot rely on a priest teaching it to him.

 

A heretic objects

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

While I was at Mass last Sunday in Belding Michigan someone put a video on the windshield of my car. In fact, that same video was on the windshield of every car in the parking lot of the church. The label on the video promised to be shocking and suggested that I pray the rosary. I viewed the video, and I must say that I was shocked.

Living in a predominantly Evangelical Protestant area of the country we Catholics are used to being challenged by biblical fundamentalist. The Holy Scripture is taken out of context, recited chapter and verse in an effort to show us the error of our ways. The mostly well meaning people build their case by assembling bits and pieces of biblical verse to suit their needs, to reveal their truth as they interpret it.

I was shocked to see you employ the same techniques as my fundamentalist Evangelical acquaintances. To assemble bits and peaces of Papal Encyclicals, various Council Documents, Catholic Catechism, and Holy Scripture written over thousands of years to achieve your personal agenda was shocking indeed. Somehow, you seem like unlikely candidates to have fallen prey to this trickery.

God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. In the end, salvation is His to give. You have inspired me to pray the rosary I pray it for you. Should your assertion be true that salvation is found only in the Catholic Church, you will need the prayers., because you are clearly outside it.

Tom Wood

 

MHFM: It’s all taken out of context… right… sure….That’s why you don’t even give one example of where this supposedly occurs.  You prove our point that people like you are not Catholic when you state: “Should your assertion be true that salvation is found only in the Catholic Church, you will need the prayers., because you are clearly outside it.”  You’re not even convinced that a dogma that has been defined by the Church more than seven times is true, and you’re telling me I’m not a Catholic.  Begone, you blinded heretic.  Write us again when you finally believe in the infallibly defined dogmas of the Faith, and are ready to be honest.

A reader on the SSPX’s views and leaders

 

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter,

 

Lately, we've been reading alot about Biship Fellay and Father Schmidberger's possible deal with B16.  I don't know what all the fuss is about.  If the SSPX is teaching that one can have salvation outside the Church and baptism of desire, how far can they be from the silent apostasy that they accuse the Whore of Babylon in Modernist Rome?  What appreciable difference is there between their position and B16's universal salvation?  If only one could be saved outside the Church, then truly, the next logical step can only be universal salvation.  Was that what the enemies of the Church really had in mind?

 

On another note, the Jan 2006 Letter of Bishop Williamson, who makes the obnoxious remark about sedevacantism leading to liberalism.  Is this poor man for real?  My guess is that his statement was made to placate a certain group in his quest to be ll things to all men!

 

I would be interested in your reflection on both of these matters!

 

Thank you,

OLOROF

 

MHFM: Thank you for your comments and question, with which I basically agree.  In one sense there is a difference between the position of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. and the teaching of John Paul II/Benedict XVI on salvation.  But in another sense there is no difference.  The difference is that the heresy of John Paul II/Benedict XVI (that we shouldn’t even convert non-Catholics and/or that all men are saved) is worse than the heresy of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI.  The SSPX, SSPV, CMRI believe that one should be a Catholic and that it is the safer course to be a Catholic, even though they hold that one could still be saved if he dies as a non-Catholic.  In other words, they don’t hold that it’s truly necessary to be Catholic, but they hold that it’s the better thing to do if you want to maximize your chances (e.g., sort of like getting side-impact air bags in your automobile).

 

John Paul II, Benedict XVI, etc., however, hold that there is no necessity whatsoever to be Catholic, and that heretics and schismatics shouldn’t even be converted.  In that sense there is a difference. 

 

But in another sense there is no difference.  Both are heretical; both reduce the dogma to a meaningless formula; both are denials of the Catholic Faith and lead souls to hell.  Further, the position of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI is a universalist position in this sense: they don’t believe that all souls are saved in every religion, but THEY DO BELIEVE THAT IT’S POSSIBLE FOR SOME SOULS TO BE SAVED IN ANY RELIGION.  

 

We see this clearly in the quote below from Bishop Marcel Lefebvre.

 

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.  There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.  It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

 

Notice the “etc.”  The word “etc.” means “and the rest, and so on”!  Bishop Lefebvre is saying that there are many other religions in which people can be saved!  It is a fact that Lefebvre held that souls could be saved in ANY RELIGION.  This is evil.  But it’s only the logical result of their heresy: anyone who believes that certain souls can be saved as Jews or Muslims actually believes that it’s possible for someone to be saved in any religion, for there is no religion in which he can state categorically that all who die are lost.  And once you admit that certain souls can be saved in any religion, as the SSPX does, then you are only a short step away from universal salvation; for then you can never say that anyone who dies didn’t make it – every person could have been one of that number that is saved in another religion.

 

Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus (# 15), Nov. 9, 1846:
"Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial."

 

That is why several years ago a priest of the SSPX, Fr. Kenneth Novak (the current editor of The Angelus), stated publicly from the pulpit in North Carolina that one could pray for deceased non-Catholics, including Martin Luther.  The fact of the matter is that those who obstinately embrace the teaching of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI will end up having no Faith at all.

 

Regarding Williamson, his statement is cheap rhetoric with no substance.  It gives a neat little slogan to those who aren’t interested in the truth, so that they can run around saying that the liberals and the sedevacantists operate from the same principles.  The SSPX and Williamson hold that one can reject everything a Pope teaches.  For instance, the heresy that Muslims worship the one true God together with Catholics has been taught by the post-conciliar Antipopes in 1) Vatican II; 2) the New Catechism; 3) numerous encyclicals/apostolic letters; 4) many speeches, homilies, etc.  The same is true of the heresy that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Communion, religious liberty, etc., etc., etc.  Can a Pope teach something in all of those sources – i.e., in a universal Council plus an encyclical plus in speeches plus in a Catechism! – and it not constitute the teaching of the Magisterium?  Of course not.  The idea is absurd, but that’s the position of the SSPX.  And Williamson calls “liberal” those who hold the opposite.

 

A reader laments the current spiritual situation

 

Hello Brothers Dimond,

                      With the world moving further and further away from Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith, I find it very difficult to make friends or associate with certain kinds of people.  Almost everyone out there leads an immoral or unethical life.  Everywhere I turn and almost everyone I converse with at work and other places speaks of women, sex, etc.  I don't imagine myself being friends with such people because I adhere to my Catholic faith and try to refrain from unethical/immoral conduct.  Other than my parents, I hardly have anyone to call a friend or even to associate with.  I'm pretty much a loner.  My only sibling lives in another state with his wife and son.  I sometimes browse through chat rooms and online postings about people looking for friends and what I find is almost always displeasing.  Sometimes I think it's just best to give up  looking and just deal with being a loner.  I pray the Rosary everyday and try to hang in there but it's frustrating not having anyone to share thoughts with except my parents and a few close friends of theirs whom I see only once in awhile.  Do you have any advice?  I think it might be best for me to just carry this cross and avoid immoral people.  That way I won't gamble with my salvation.  I look forward to someday being saved and enjoying eternal happiness.

 

Al

 

MHFM: You’re not alone in feeling that you’re alone (no pun intended).  We’ve heard from many Catholics who have expressed similar sentiments.  One should use that opportunity to build his or her relationship with God, extra Rosaries, spiritual reading, etc.  It is actually in time by himself or herself that one finds the situation most conducive to spiritual advancement.  And if one has a strong prayer life, etc., it’s important to have a healthy recreation period each day.  Board games and sports are things we recommend.  (Chat rooms, in my opinion, are a waste of time, unless it’s a traditional Catholic one – and even then it still may be a waste of time.)

 

Regarding almost everyone you know being caught up in impurities, this is also a complaint that we’ve heard from others.  It’s quite obvious that, especially today, almost everyone out there is in bondage to sins of the flesh, and that the devil has accelerated his push in this area.  He is attacking extremely hard in this area, because he knows he can win almost everyone this way.  In fact, it seems that most people live only for this.  Back at the time of Fatima, Our Lady revealed to Jacinta that most souls are lost through such sins:

 

Frere Michel, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 2, p. 47: “… Jacinta had a question: ‘Sometimes, (Lucy recalls) she would ask: What sins do people commit to go to hell?...’ This question preoccupied Jacinta.  To warn souls, she wanted to know for what sins so many souls are damned.  She was not satisfied with Lucy’s answers, so she asked the Most Holy Virgin during the apparitions she had during her sickness… the response of Our Lady [was]: ‘The sins which lead the most souls to hell are sins of the flesh.’”

 

If that’s what Our Lady revealed near the beginning of the last century, one cannot even begin to think what Our Lady would say today.  And because so many are in bondage to sins of the flesh, that is why it’s very hard to get them interested in spiritual things. 

 

1 Corinthians 2:14- “But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.”

 

Comments on Schmidberger of the SSPX going to CT

 

Hello Brothers:

 

Schmidgerg is scheduled to attend SSPX chapel in Ridgefield , Ct this coming Sunday. After Mass we are to have a conference.  If what I have read… [about the SSPX going into full communion with apostate Rome]  is accurate, what question would you ask him at the conference????  Perhaps it would be beneficial for you to come and confront him personally. I would like some feedback... I already have plenty which I will write in a letter to him and hand him but a succinct question to expose his position and his malevolent intentions(if this is the case) in a public forum...

Any ideas?

 

Thanks,

Marie

 

MHFM: Connecticut is pretty far from here; plus, I don’t think that we would actually be welcome guests (to put it euphemistically) at the SSPX’s retreat house.  There are so many questions that one could ask Schmidberger.  If you are able to ask just one, perhaps you should ask him why he even claims to be Catholic when he rejects the solemn “Canonizations” of the man he deemed to be Pope?  That is to say, the SSPX rejects John Paul II’s “solemn Canonization” of Josemaria Escriva.  It was rejected publicly from both the Australian and American SSPX seminaries, by Fr. Peter Scott and Bishop Williamson respectively.

 

So then, Fr. Schmidberger, the people of the SSPX are also free to reject the Canonization of St. Therese of the Child Jesus by Pope Pius XI, are they not?

 

But frankly, we are of the opinion that one should not hear his talk.  Like Bishop Fellay and so many others in the SSPX, Schmidberger is a faithless man.  He is the author of the SSPX’s new booklet, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council.  On page 10, it states:

 

Fr. Schmidberger (SSPX), Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error.”

 

This is blatantly heretical.  The truth is exactly the opposite of what Schmidberger said: it is clear that the followers of other religions cannot be saved!

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:

“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

 

I also want to offer a few comments about the man leading the negotiations with apostate Rome, Bishop Fellay.  Just like Schmidberger and so many others, despite the appearances, Fellay is a very evil and faithless man.  If he had any love for Our Lord Jesus Christ or any Faith at all, he would be repulsed by the thought of entering into dialogue with the apostates in Rome.  He would be repulsed by the thought of putting himself under Antichrist, non-Catholic Rome.   

 

Fellay knows about Assisi, the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans, Benedict XVI’s worship at the Synagogue – the worst of the Vatican II apostasy – and it doesn’t cause him a problem to dialogue with a man whom he knows just went to the Synagogue and totally rejects Our Lord!  This proves that Fellay is, like so many others, a huge phony.   

 

Fellay is very important to the devil because he is guiding all of those souls who follow the SSPX into a full communion with Antichrist Rome, so that all those people won’t even be taught to resist the new religion.  He is currently leading all of those souls into a schismatical position, which rejects the solemn actions of what they think is “the Catholic Church.”  Fellay was also the one who, when the incredibly heretical Joint Declaration with the Lutherans was finalized in 1999, stated in a public letter to John Paul II (which was carried in the heretical publication, The Remnant): “Your [John Paul II’s] Magisterium is losing its credibility.”  This is totally heretical.  The Magisterium is necessarily infallible and cannot lose its credibility.

 

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, Dec. 31, 1929:

“Upon this magisterium Christ the Lord conferred immunity from error, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all.” (Denz. 2204)

 

Comment on the Why John Paul II Cannot be the Pope video

 

Hello,

I have been reading the articles on your site & have watched the video of the heresy of JP2.  I have to say, I was awake most of last night after that video…

 

Blessings to you,

G.G.

 

MHFM: We’re glad you watched the video.  Yes, the facts in that tape are such that if a person of good will watches carefully through the entire video he will be convinced that John Paul II was not the Pope.  And knowing the truth on this matter should not render a person diffident or discouraged, but happy to be enlightened of the truth on the matter.  Knowing what’s really happening is comforting and liberating (despite, of course, the sadness and desolation that sometimes accompanies a deep consideration of the current state of spiritual affairs).  This knowledge should make one feel zealous to go forward and share the truth with others, and fight for the true Catholic Faith in this time of almost universal apostasy.

 

A person’s reaction after seeing the truth that John Paul II was not the Pope (as well as Paul VI, Benedict XVI, etc.) should not be: “Oh, no, John Paul II was not the Pope!”  Rather, it should be: “Thank God this non-Catholic heretic was not the Pope!  And thank God Vatican II was not a Council of the Catholic Church!”

 

What about this Message?

 

I have been so adamantly against Natural Family Planning. Why did the Blessed Mother say this?

 

Since I have seen this all I thought to be true is so very confusing....

 

"The encyclical of Pope Paul VI on birth control is true and must be followed by mankind. There shall be no rationalization of sin.” - Our Lady of the Roses [Bayside], October 2, 1976

 

Can you please help me understand this?

Many blessings,

Michelle A.

 

MHFM: Michelle, the Bayside Messages are false, and not from God, but from the devil.  We will soon be posting a more complete exposé which proves this.

 

Francisco’s vision of a demon

 

MHFM: Our readers may find it interesting to know that Francisco had a vision of a demon on top of a rock – one separate from the July 13, 1917 vision.  Here is Lucy’s account:

 

 “One day we were looking for a place called the Pedreira, and as the sheep passed by, we climbed from one rock to another, trying to make our voice echo from the bottom of these great ravines.  Francisco, as usual, retired to the hollow of a rock.  After a long pause, we heard him crying, calling on Our Lady and invoking her. 

     “We were very disturbed, thinking something had happened to him.  We began to look for him, saying: ‘Where are you?’  ‘Here!  Here!’  But it still took us a little while to reach where he was.  We found him, finally, trembling with fear, still on his knees, very much shaken and incapable of getting up.  ‘What’s the matter with you?  What happened?’  In a voice half suffocated with fear, he told us: ‘One of those great big beasts from hell was just here, breathing fire.’” (quoted in The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 2, pp. 41-42)

 

What’s with this “sedevacantist” group in Puerto Rico?

 

Do you have any comments on this wacky “sedevacantist” group in Puerto Rico that just got excommunicated?  This group accepts John Paul II as a true Pope but not Benedict XVI, and it goes to the New Mass.

 

MHFM: During the “reign” of Antipope John Paul II, there were many false apparitions in various parts of the world.  One of the common characteristics of these false messages was not only that John Paul II was supposedly great and “Mary’s Pope,” but also that the one after him would be the Antipope.  These false messages prophesied that John Paul II would be the last true Pope.  This group in Puerto Rico is simply holding on to - and applying – these false messages from the devil.  That is why this group thinks that John Paul II was great and a valid Pope, but rejects Benedict XVI as an Antipope – something completely illogical and totally ridiculous, since John Paul II held the same heresies as Benedict XVI.  These false apparitions also told people that the New Mass is valid, while deploring the many abuses there.  (The devil knew that that was just the kind of thing that would trip up certain conservatives.)  That is why this phony group still goes to the New Mass, but opposes the abuses.  The devil was able to keep countless people going to the New Mass with similar messages in the false Bayside apparitions. 

 

To put it simply: this group in Puerto Rico is used by the devil to discredit the sedevacantist movement.  God has abandoned these people to spiritual blindness because they receive not the love of the truth (the traditional teachings of the Church) and follow apparitions instead (2 Thess. 2).  During the reign of Antipope John Paul II, this group would have been one of the biggest defenders of Antipope John Paul II and vigorously opposed to true sedevacantist arguments.  To include them with sedevacantists is a travesty of justice.  But these are the deceptions that God allows people to follow because they don’t love the truth.

 

Should females wear pants?

 

Are female trousers wrong? Are females permitted to wear pants?

 

MHFM: Our position is that females should not wear pants.  In our opinion, the only exceptions for this would be women who are, for instance, working by themselves and doing some unusual form of work that a dress makes extremely cumbersome.  Or, for example, another young woman asked us if she could play a recreational game of volleyball with her friends wearing a pair of long, baggy pants that basically look like a dress and are very modest.  She explained that she really couldn’t play the game wearing a dress.  We don’t see a problem with wearing such a pair of pants for the game.  And in areas where there is massive poverty and the children truly cannot afford a dress, obviously exceptions would be permitted.  But we do believe that women who wear pants and obstinately refuse to wear dresses simply because they don’t want to are putting their souls in jeopardy.  Padre Pio certainly thought so; he wouldn’t even hear the Confessions of women who didn’t wear long dresses, and he allegedly refused absolution to a woman who didn’t wear, but sold, female pants.  But many women, especially young women today, don’t know that Traditional Catholic women don’t wear pants.  It is our duty to inform them charitably.

 

An update on Msgr. Fenton’s book, The Catholic Church and Salvation

 

MHFM: After our post about Msgr. Fenton’s book, The Catholic Church and Salvation, some people wrote to us coming to the defense of this “stalwart” priest.  (I had not realized that Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton was such a “sacred cow” to the false traditionalists and sedevacantists who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.)  I have now read Fenton’s entire book.  Fr. Fenton’s book is a heretical mass of contradictions, which reduces the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation to a meaningless formula.  I hope to write a full review of The Catholic Church and Salvation at some point soon.

 

Some comments on Msgr. Fenton’s book, The Catholic Church and Salvation

 

MHFM: As noted in some of our recent e-exchanges, some of our readers were interested in comments on Msgr. Fenton’s 1958 book The Catholic Church and Salvation.  One baptism of desire defender who wrote to us called it a “masterful” treatment of the dogma.  Well, we just got our hands on a copy of this book.  I’ve only had a chance to read a few pages so far, but here is what Fenton (in truth, a pernicious heretic who corrupted and denied the dogma) says in the introduction to his book:

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. x (intro): “Any person who is at all familiar with what the great mass of religious and theological writings of our times have had to say about this dogma is quite well aware of the fact that, in an overwhelming majority of cases, these writings have been mainly, almost exclusively, concerned with proving and explaining how this dogma does not mean that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved.  This, of course, is perfectly true.  The ecclesiastical magisterium, in teaching and guarding this dogma, insists that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and at the same time likewise insists that people who die without ever becoming members of the Catholic Church can obtain the Beatific vision.”

 

“Masterful”?  Yes, masterfully illogical, heretical and diabolical.  Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton “insists that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and at the same time likewise insists that people who die without ever becoming members of the Catholic Church can obtain the Beatific vision.”  Could anything be more contradictory?  This is simply a lie of the devil.  Fr. Fenton rejected the dogma, and reduced it to a meaningless formula. 

 

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.”

 

If, as the illogical heretic Fr. Fenton asserts, the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church doesn’t mean that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved, then it has no meaning at all.  And getting most “Catholics” to believe exactly what Fenton does – that the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation means nothing at all – is exactly how the Great Apostasy occurred, and that is exactly what most so-called “Catholics” (who are actually heretics) believe today, including many “traditionalists.”  It was precisely heretics such as Fr. Fenton, who became common and almost universal just before Vatican II – asserting that there is no salvation outside the Church while insisting that “people who die without ever becoming members of the Catholic Church can obtain the Beatific vision” – who were the root cause of the Great Apostasy.

 

What about the Good Thief?

 

Dear Bros.Peter and Michael Dimond,

 

"Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise." Lk. 23:43. How do we explain this statement coming from our Lord Himself ?

 

God Bless you both,

 Michael

 

MHFM: Thank you for your question.  Here is the short section answering that from the book:

 

THE GOOD THIEF AND THE HOLY INNOCENTS

 

OBJECTION- What about the Good Thief and the Holy Innocents?

 

ANSWER- This was addressed already in the section on St. Augustine, but it will be repeated here for those who may be looking for it in this section of “Other Objections.”  The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

 

    In fact, when Our Lord said to the Good Thief, “This day you will be with Me in paradise,” Jesus was not referring to heaven, but actually to hell.  As Catholics know, no one entered heaven until after Our Lord did, after His Resurrection.  On the day of the Crucifixion, Christ descended into hell, as the Apostles’ Creed says.  He did not descend to the hell of the damned, but to the place in hell called the Limbo of the Fathers, the waiting place of the Just of the Old Testament, who could not enter heaven until after the Savior came.

 

2 Peter 3:18-19 “Christ also died once for our sins… In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison…”

 

     To further prove the point that the Good Thief did not go to heaven on the Day of the Crucifixion, there is the fact that on Easter Sunday, when Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord, He told her, “Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father.” 

 

John 20:17- “[On the Day of the Resurrection] Jesus saith to her; Mary.  She turning, saith to him; Rabboni, (that is to say, Master).  Jesus saith to her; Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father…”

 

     Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection.  It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 2 Peter 3:18-19.  Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament. 

 

Another question about salvation: more dishonesty from the SSPX

 

Br. Peter,

 

In his latest newsletter Fr Fullerton of the SSPX quotes Pope Pius XII from Mystici Corporis in which he allows for invincible ignorance, a good disposition of the soul, etc, as to the possibility of salvation outside the Church.  Can PPXII's teaching here be reconciled with those popes who have said (so I thought) that salvation outside the Church is not possible?

 

                                                                   TR Quinlan 

        

MHFM: Thank you for your question.  I also read the newsletter.  First of all, I must mention again that the SSPX –

as usual! – misquotes the Council of Trent.  Fr. Fullerton quotes the Council of Trent as saying that one cannot be justified “except through” water baptism or the desire for it.  This is a lie.  This is from the horrible mistranslation found in Denzinger.  Being dishonest heretics, the SSPX, the CMRI and many other groups consistently misquote it as well and don’t care to correct it.  Well, they won’t get away with this obstinate misrepresentation of a Council before the Judgment Seat of God.

 

The Council says that one cannot be justified without (sine) water baptism or the desire for it, just as if I said one cannot take a shower without water or the desire to take one (i.e., you need both) or a priest cannot effect a sacrament without matter or form.  The passage doesn’t say that one cannot be justified “except through” water baptism or the desire for it.  If the Council of Trent had said that justification cannot take place “except through” water baptism or the desire for it – or that justification can take place by water or desire – then BOD advocates would be right, since (in that case) it would be a positive statement indicating that one can happen by this or that.  But it doesn’t say that.  It says that justification cannot happen without  For them to consistently misquote this passage is mortally sinful and shows that they are completely dishonest.

 

And that is why the passage goes on to immediately declare, in the words which immediate follow, “as it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” – thus confirming that there are no exceptions to anyone being saved without water baptism, and that John 3:5 is to be understood by all exactly “as it is written” – totally contrary to the concept of baptism of desire, which affirms that John 3:5 is not to be understood as it is written!

 

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

 

The dishonesty of the SSPX in consistently misquoting this passage reminds me of Fr. Laisney of the SSPX, who uttered one of the most egregious lies ever by a traditionalist.  In his book, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, Fr. Laisney says that the Council of Florence “mentions” baptism of desire!

 

Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 47: “Moreover, the very Council of Florence, in the very same decree for the Jacobites (part of the bull Cantate Domino) mentions baptism of desire.”

 

This is a complete lie sold in almost every SSPX bookstore.  But how many people care?  How many people continue to throw their support to this heretical and utterly dishonest group?  The denial of this dogma is rooted in deception.  It is rooted in misquotes; distortion; the elevation of non-infallible sources to infallible status; etc.  This is how the devil has been able to deny the necessity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith, which is now thoroughly imbibed by almost every so-called “Catholic.”  This is how the devil, in a grand scheme, was able to bring about the great apostasy by denying that most crucial dogma of Faith. 

 

Regarding your question about the Pius XII quote in the newsletter, it is not a quote from Pius XII.  The quote to which you refer is not from Mystici Corporis, but from Protocol 122/49 (more deception).  It is important for the readers to know what Protocol 122/49 is.  There is also a section on it in the book, which we strongly encourage our readers to look at.  The letter is also called Suprema haec Sacra.  This fallible and non-binding letter was written on Aug. 8, 1949 by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani (a member of the Holy Office) to the heretical Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing.  Cushing, a B’nai Brith Man of the Year (who also called Outside the Church There is No Salvation “nonsense”) was very upset that Fr. Leonard Feeney was preaching that you must die a Catholic to be saved.  So Cushing wrote to the Holy Office which, by that time, was infected by modernist heretics who believed in salvation outside the Church.  Marchetti-Selvaggiani – one of those modernist heretics – wrote back, stating that one could be saved without being a member of the Church and if one is in invincible ignorance of the Faith.  In his letter, Marchetti-Selvaggiani tries to justify his heresy by referencing Pope Pius XII and Pope Pius IX and the Council of Trent, but none of those teachings say what he said (more distortion, deception, etc.)

 

Immediately after the publication this letter, The Worcester Telegram ran a typical headline:

 

VATICAN RULES AGAINST HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False

 

This letter assumed the status before the world of the official teaching of the Catholic Church, when it certainly was not.  The whole world therefore concluded that it is not necessary to be a Catholic.  If you want to know why basically no one who claims to be Catholic believes that the Church is necessary any more, you can thank this heretical letter, and its denunciation of Fr. Feeney.  This heretical, non-binding letter is adhered to by most of the “traditional” groups, including the SSPX, SSPV and the CMRI.  The letter was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis) but in The Pilot, the news organ for the Archdiocese of Boston.  It is not a binding or infallible teaching of the Church.  Here is just one passage from it:

 

Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing...

     “The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation.  Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.”

 

In these lines we detect a denial of the dogma as it was defined, and a departure from the understanding of the dogma that Holy Mother Church has once declared.  Compare the following dogmatic definition of Pope Eugene IV with these paragraphs from Protocol 122/49, especially the underlined portions.

 

The Dogma:

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:  “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier productive of eternal reward.  No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

We see that Protocol 122/49 (quoted above) is denying the necessity of incorporation into the ecclesiastici corporis, which is heresy.  It was necessary to be in the Church’s “bosom and unity” (Eugene IV), but now it is “not always required to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member” (Protocol 122/49).  The defined dogma of INCORPORATION and actually abiding in the ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) has been denied.  This is heresy!  The Protocol goes on to teach that you don’t need the Catholic Faith, and that you can be saved if you are in “invincible ignorance” of it – something contrary to the teaching of all the Doctors of the Church and the infallible definitions.

 

Were you on Jack Blood’s radio program?

 

MHFM,

 

Were you on Jack Blood yesterday (Dec. 1)?  If so, will you be posting a transcript on your site?... If you did appear on his show I am glad, there is not much exposure to real Catholicism on these secular NWO shows (Alex Jones, Blood, etc.) and a lot of the time downright anti-Catholicism.  I am looking forward to hearing what happened.

 

MHFM: Yes, both of us were on Jack Blood’s show about the real John Paul II.  We don’t have a transcript.  It went pretty well; we were able to make some of the main points briefly, but there are so many commercial breaks that it is very difficult to get into any depth.  You can only just cover the basics quickly.  We were glad to be able to do it, and hopefully it made the information available to people who haven’t heard it.

 

A question about a finer point of Pope Leo’s declaration on water baptism

 

Dear brothers


I have a question about baptism. I understand it is dogma that their is no remission of sins outside the catholic church and so no sacrament performed outside the church can remove sin. I also know that it has been dogmaticly defined that heretic baptisms are valid. So with this knowledge I would assume that a protestant baptism would leave the mark upon a person's soul but not remove sin. But Pope Leo the great dogmaticly stated that not one of the charateristics of baptism could be seperated from the other two. Which is why baptism of desire is not possible. So this means you either get all or nothing out of baptism. The sacrament is either complete or not recieved. This being said how can a baptism outside the Catholic Church be valid? Because a protestant could not get the indelible mark with out the removal of sin and Holy Ghost entering them also. But sin can not be removed outside the catholic church. Can you please explain this dogmatic paradox to me?

 

MHFM: Thank you for your question, which is a good one.  It involves a subtle, but important point.  Pope Leo the Great’s dogmatic teaching that the Spirit of Sanctification, the Blood of Redemption and the Water of Baptism are inseparable is on the topic of sanctification, not Baptism.  The three are inseparable in sanctification.  Notice that “sanctification by the Spirit” and purification from sin is what he is talking about.

 

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18).  Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith.  Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?  It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood.  And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.  For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood.  And the three are one.  (1 Jn. 5:4-8)  IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM.  THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE.  NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.

 

Therefore, Pope Leo is declaring on the topic of “sanctification,” that is, when a person is actually justified or purified from the state of sin, that all three must be present.  When a person is not sanctified, this doesn’t apply (since sanctification by the Spirit – and a person being testified as just before God – is the topic and the context).  Thus, this doesn’t apply to when a heretic is validly baptized and receives no sanctification. 

 

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Quia charitati, June 22, 601: “From the ancient institution of the Fathers we have learned that those who are baptized in the name of the Trinity, although amid heresy, whenever they return to holy Church, may be recalled to the bosom of their mother the Church either with the anointing of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or with a profession of faith alone…because the holy baptism, which they received among the heretics, at that time restores the power of cleansing in them when they have been united to the holy faith and the heart of the universal Church.” (Denz. 249)

 

In the case of heretics who are validly baptized, they receive a valid baptism, but are not justified.  It is when they return to the true faith (and remove the impediment of their heresy) that they receive the remission of sins, as Pope Gregory the Great teaches.  But at the moment when they return to the true faith and remove the impediment of their heresy and therefore receive the remission of sins, all three are present, as they must be: the spirit which justifies them, the Blood which washes their souls, and the water of baptism which they already received.  They cannot be sanctified/justified without having all three, which is just the opposite of the theory of baptism of desire.  Notice that Gregory the Great says that it is the holy baptism which they received which restores this power of justifying in the heretics when they return to the Church.  It is by virtue of the baptism already received that the Blood of Christ can operate to cleanse and the spirit to justify.  Whenever anyone is sanctified/justified from the state of original sin, they must have all three: the spirit of sanctification, the Blood of Redemption and the water of baptism.  These are the three witnesses which must be present to testify that a person is justified from sin.

 

Some comments on a fresh heresy from the Eternal Apostate Television Network

 

[from a few weeks back 10/28/05]

 

Good morning,

 

Turned on EWTN this morning. I find myself occasionally viewing the Novus Ordo service during this my decision process, i.e., what to do (relative to my Catholic Faith). I heard the "main celebrant" Fr. Francis state:

'...the Church never said other Christians will not receive salvation...those that say this are liars or misinformed...the Catholic Church is like a five course meal, if you want the whole meal, come to the Church..'

 

The day's homily is available online (I think next day). Perhaps you can use this statement, after you verify, as your "Heresy of the Week". This "doctrine" has gone, realtime, to untold numbers. If not included as a "Heresy" installment - send the poor fellow a copy of your "No Salvation" book.

 

Pray for me,

Gary Muehlbauer

 

MHFM: Thank you for your e-mail.  That’s quite a heresy.  I wonder if any of the EWTN supporters who heard or watched the sermon ever deeply considered its implications: what it means about their presence at church, their entire effort to attend “Mass,” etc.  I wonder if it hit any of them that this means that being a Catholic, praying the Rosary, going to Confession, etc. is pointless.

 

We certainly hope for the conversion of “Fr.” Francis, but we must say that he is too blinded by his apostasy to realize his foolishness.  He is too blinded to realize that he holds that his own “priesthood” – the entire EWTN Network – is a complete waste of time.  If you believe what EWTN and “Fr.” Francis do, you would have to be a complete idiot to be Catholic. You could just head down to the local Lutheran church, confess your faith in Jesus as Lord, and head on your way.

 

So don’t be fooled by externals.  Heretics have always had externals to one degree or another.  Don’t be fooled by those who claim to have some attachment to the Catholic Faith or Our Lord or Our Lady or the Saints, but reject a dogma.  Unless they accept the entire truth, they are phonies.  “Fr.” Francis sometimes speaks of bringing the young to Christ on his show “Life on the Rock.”  Sounds great and devoted, doesn’t it?  But then he publicly commented on and praised Benedict XVI’s Christ-denying visit to the Synagogue and endorsement of the Jewish religion.  He speaks of bringing the young to Christ when he believes that Christ is meaningless. 

 

Your e-mail shows us again that phonies mix an attachment to some things Catholic with a rejection of its truth.  They act as if they are devoted to God, and surely say some good and conservative things, but they are abominations in God’s sight. 

 

Since we’re speaking of phonies, mention must be made of “Fr.” John Corapi.  Those who have seen him know that Corapi gives talks as if he is devoted to Our Lord and the Catholic Faith – “thundering” against sin and defending the Eucharist in his melodramatic fashion.  He is an utter phony, for he holds that it is all meaningless.  He holds that you can be a Protestant who completely rejects Our Lady, the Papacy and the Eucharist, or even a Jew who completely rejects Christ. 

 

They are like “whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.  [They] outwardly appear righteous to men, but within are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” (Matthew 23:28)

 

I actually called “Fr.” Corapi’s secretary once, and I asked her: “Is it necessary to be a Catholic to be saved?”  She responded with the blunt answer: “No.”  I then said, “they why be a Catholic?”  She said: “Because it is the fullness of truth.”  I said: “But it’s not necessary.”  She agreed.  Behold the emptiness, the stupidity and the evil of the Vatican II religion.

 

A question and a comment

 

Dear Brothers,
             Congratulations on your superb job of exposing the errors of modernism and the phony traditionalists and of presenting authentic Catholic teaching.  I would like to know if you have any recomendations on any particular theology books.  I would like to study theology more deeply but I want to make sure that I read material that conforms to true Catholic theology.  In other words, no "revised" or "modernist" books.  I appreciate if you can assist me.

EP

 

MHFM: Thank you for your comment.  I would recommend obtaining a copy of Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic dogma.  It is the best reference book in English for the Church’s dogmatic pronouncements.  People have to keep in mind, however, that not every document in Denzinger is infallible.  It is a collection of documents from Popes and Councils, some from regional councils and some from dogmatic Councils – some from solemn Papal Bulls and some from Papal letters to a single Bishop.  For instance: excerpts from Pope Honorius’ two letters to Sergius (for which Honorius was later condemned) are contained in Denzinger; they are obviously not infallible.  That’s just something to keep in mind for those who have or obtain the book.

 

A comment on the material

 

Dear Brother Peter

I am writing to thank you for the special offer items which I have received.  I have started to watch the DVDs, and I am impressed by the high standard of scholarship and powerful arguments that you make.  I am glad that you profess the Catholic Faith without compromise.  I am studying the arguments in favour of sedevacantism, and you and Brother Michael Dimond have made the strongest case.

Please add my name to your mailing list…. I wish you every success.

Best wishes

Gerard

 

A Question on Mass Attendance from a traditionalist

 

Dear Brothers Peter and Michael.

 

I realize that you are very busy so I don't expect an answer to my e-mail right away but I would hope that you would respond to it at your convenience.

 

This is my situation, after 25 years or so I believe it was around 1985 I left the catholic church to find the truth. As I traveled through various Protestant denominations I found out that none of them had the truth, so  in 2003 I returned to what I thought was the Catholic Church, only to be disappointed that I couldn't distinguish it from the Protestant churches I had attended over the years. I tried to validate everything that I saw happening during the service but my conscience would not rest that something was definitely wrong here. So I began searching for a traditional church on line and eventually found a CMRI church near my home about 40 miles away. It is the only church in my area that says the Traditional Latin Mass.

 

However, I have read many of your articles and I am not sure what I should do about attending this church because you indicated that most of the priests believe that you can be saved outside the Catholic Church…

 

When I came to the CMRI church, the priest that was there at the time had me say the Profession Of Faith from the Council Of Trent. I went to confession also.

 

I feel so lost because if I can't go to this church then there aren't any churches available for me to go to.

 

I am planning to send for the book "Outside the Catholic Church Their is no Salvation" as well as some of your videos. Someone from the church I attend gave me your Crying in the Wilderness magazines ( all 4 of them).

 

I believe in the articles you mentioned that we can attend the Mass but not support the church in anyway. Is this correct? Or can I support it if the priest upholds to the outside the church there is no salvation?

 

I am not sure if I could spiritually survive not attending Mass at least on a weekly basis but it would be pointless to attend a Mass that wasn't valid either.

 

Well, this is my dilemma! I just want to make sure that I have peace with God and a place in heaven.

 

Sue

 

MHFM: Sue, unfortunately all of the CMRI priests believe that members of false religions can be united to the Church and saved without actual possession of the Catholic Faith.  So, you cannot financially support any of them under pain of mortal sin.  They also defend the sinful birth control practice of Natural Family Planning.   But if the priest is not notorious and imposing about these issues at the particular chapel you attend, then we are of the opinion that you could continue to go and receive the sacraments as long as you don’t support them in any way.  For more on this issue consult the section of our website “Where to go to Mass…”

 

We’re very glad to hear about your return to the true Catholic Faith, and your having been able to recognize the phoniness and Protestantism of the Vatican II sect.  Keep praying the Rosary and holding the Faith without compromise and things will work out for you.

 

More on Ferrara and the Ecumenism of the Return

 

Another website which linked to our article concerning: Benedict XVI rejects the ecumenism of the return – and Chris Ferrara omits to mention it, has issued a retraction of sorts stating that Chris Ferrara may not have deliberately omitted this astounding heresy from his article.  To avoid any confusion, we want to make it very clear that WE ISSUE NO RETRACTION WHATSOEVER, since no retraction is necessary. 

 

Ferrara claims that he didn’t know about the rejection of the “ecumenism of the return” in Benedict XVI’s speech.  We find this very difficult to believe, as we will explain.  Nevertheless, in our article, it was made clear that this is a possibility:

 

Benedict XVI Rejects the Ecumenism of the Return – and Chris Ferrara omits to mention it: “Is it possible that the version from which Ferrara was working didn’t include Benedict XVI’s bold heresy?  It’s possible, but highly doubtful.  Benedict XVI’s paragraph (not included by Ferrara) was carried in the official Vatican newspaper and in an internet version of the speech that I read.  If he did know about it, then he is utterly dishonest for not including it.  In that case, he obviously didn’t include it because it is so devastating to his anti-sedevacantist arguments.  Regardless of whether he knew about it, the heresy utterly destroys any claim that Benedict XVI is a Catholic or a Pope.  Let them print this in The Remnant and explain how their Antipope is actually a “Catholic Pope” while he tells the Protestants that they “absolutely” do not have to be Catholic.” 

 

We pointed out that, regardless of whether Ferrara omitted it deliberately or not, it was still omitted in his article, while he somehow managed to quote the paragraphs just before and just after this in the speech.  As we pointed out, regardless of whether the omission was deliberate or not, the point is the same: this is a man who is telling the world that the Vatican II Antipopes haven’t taught heresy, while God allows him to quote a speech from Benedict XVI and somehow not discover that there is a gigantic heresy (in the very same speech) which utterly refutes his entire claim.  Perhaps we should call it spiritual blindness in action: God allowing him to be utterly refuted by the very speech from which he is quoting, while Ferrara himself remains oblivious to it.

 

Further, we personally find Ferrara’s claim that he didn’t deliberately omit this astounding heresy very hard to believe.  Here’s why: there is a text on the internet (the chiesa text) which carries the speech of Benedict XVI to which we are referring.  The other website referred to the chiesa text in its clarification, perhaps because Ferrara directed this website to the chiesa text in an attempt to justify himself.

 

The chiesa text: a transcript of Benedict XVI’s speech with the ecumenism of the return part, and other parts, underlined.

 

Well, even in the chiesa text we can see that the ecumenism of the return rejection is certainly there.  Benedict XVI’s rejection of the ecumenism of the return is underlined in the chiesa text because Benedict XVI (manifest heretic that he is) felt compelled to add this astounding heresy to his speech “off the cuff.” 

 

So, is the chiesa text the text from which Ferrara was working?  If so, it proves that Ferrara did know that Benedict XVI rejected the ecumenism of the return, and deliberately chose not to include it because Benedict XVI added it off the cuff – which would serve, in that case, as a convenient excuse for Ferrara hiding it from the people!  If it was not the chiesa text, which text was Ferrara working from?  Who added the ellipsis (…) that replaces the astounding heresy, as Ferrara presents the quote in his article?

 

Regardless of what text Ferrara was working from or whether he knew about this heresy or not, the fact remains that Ferrara has been proven completely wrong.  Benedict XVI has been proven to be a manifest heretic. 

 

So, in summary, we issue no retraction, and we tell Chris Ferrara that he needs to issue a retraction of his claim that Benedict XVI hasn’t taught heresy now that he knows that Benedict XVI rejects the ecumenism of the return, just like Kasper.  Well, Mr. Ferrara… 

“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.  This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001)

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.  Other the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history.  Absolutely not!” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928:

“… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”

 

A prospective convert writes in

 

Dear brothers Dimond,

Hi, my name is vivian and i'm writing in to ask your advice on a certain issue that is bothering me. I am actually a protestant christian who is not yet baptized. Just recently i've been doing some research on the catholic church and is seeking to convert to what i now know as the post vatican 2 church. After knowing about it, i decided to find out more about the traditional catholic movement and came upon your website. The articles in it are really helpful although i haven't read all of them yet and i really admire your dedication in spreading the truth. I really wanted to be a traditional catholic and i wanted to ask is it possible for me to practise the catholic faith since i'm not baptized yet? and where can i get validly baptized?

 

Thanks in advance for helping me!!...

 

my address is… in Malaysia

 

MHFM: That's great to hear.  Attached is a summary of the Catholic Catechism.  I would read it and become familiar with its contents.  Before you would be baptized, you would have to be convinced of all the Catholic dogmas, including Outside the Church There is No Salvation - which includes rejecting Protestantism.

 

I would start praying the Rosary each day.  We can send you one if you don't have one, as well as a “How to Pray the Rosary” sheet.  I would also recommend that you order our 8 video/dvd special for $15.00, which includes things which I think will really aid your understanding of what is happening.

 

If you are convinced of all Catholic teachings and the traditional Faith, we can help you with getting baptized.  One is not a Christian until he or she is baptized.  We look forward to hearing from you, and we will keep you in our prayers.

 

A comment on the response to Ferrara

 

Your latest argument against Mr Ferrara (Heresy of the week) finally convinced me that there has been no pope on Saint Peter's See ever since the death of Pius XII. I have long remained reluctant to admit it entirely, not because I am a member of SPPX (for lack of other nearby possibilities of finding Catholic Masses and Sacraments), but only because the prospect looked too terrifying to be taken seriously… Well, I guess it has to be faced : 2 and 2 are 4 and "Let your 'yes' be a 'yes', your 'no' be a 'no' : everything else comes from the devil". Besides, such situations already happened in the past, which I KNEW, but refused to ADMIT !... Funny how the human mind works sometimes...

Thank you ever so much for your spiritual help, and God may bless you !

 

François Thouvenin
Strasbourg (France)

 

A comment on the Bob Sungenis article

 

Dearest Brothers Dimond,

 

B R A V O ! ! !   Just finished reading your response to Robert Sungenis on your website and I stood up and cheered. The clarion call of truth is so evident when seen in direct contradiction to the abominable heresies of the devil.  And thank you for the background on this man.  Very telling.  I certainly hope that many, many people are finding you on the internet.  Ah, I can only say God bless you with his choicest graces for this glorious work you are doing! 

 

Sincerely in Christ the King,

 

Margaret Moore

 

A reader from India writes in

 

Dear brother Peter,

           

Please keep on your mailing list for news with regard to novus ordo scandals.    

          

thanking you in J.m.j.

 May God bless you for pulling me out of heresy.

 Allan Simoes   Goa, India.

 

MHFM: Thanks for the interest.

 

A change of position from a reader on the salvation dogma

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

I hope you recall that we had an online conversation a few months ago about the topic "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation." I… maintained that those who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion have some hopes of acquiring salvation through the mercy of God; well, after reading your book online as well as various other documents, I have come to this conclusion: unless one dies a baptized Catholic in the state of grace, he shall suffer eternal damnation, no exceptions whatsoever, and to believe in this argument of "invincible ignorance" is to reject the Catholic Faith totally.

Thank you for enlightening me on this matter; please pray for me that my faith may grow.

God bless you and Mary keep you.

Adam Twardowski

 

MHFM:  That’s great to hear; yes, we will.

 

An interesting comment from a reader on the necessity of baptism

 

Bro Dimond,

 

Just a few weeks ago I received your package with the videos, tons of reading material, and your book "Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation". I want to thank you for all of your hard work in not only defending the faith, but in also teaching the faith to those (like myself) who have been led astray these past 40 years.  However, I have an interesting observation that I was thinking of while working my way through your book. You spend alot of time talking about the necessity of Baptism for salvation and also refuting the false theory of "Baptism of Desire". Well, a scripture that always troubled me came to mind. In The Acts of the Apostles chapter 8, we read about Philip and his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch. Specifically, after the Spirit told Philip to go to the man, and after Philip had preached Jesus to him, the eunuch said something which had always been astounding to me........in verse 36 the eunuch says, "See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?" The FIRST THING he asks for is to be baptized!!!!! That always confused me since Baptism today is seen more as a sign than a necessity, but after reviewing your research into what the Catholic Church has always said about the necessity of Baptism, it now makes perfect sense. Obviously, in Philip's preaching to the man, he undoubtedly told him of the necessity of Baptism; and of Our Lord's own words on the matter. If he hadn't, the eunuch never would have said those words. Also, in verse 37 (the very next verse), Philip confirms the Church's teaching (and also shoots down the heretical "Sola Fide" error) with the words, "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest." In other words, faith in Jesus Christ was obviously necessary for this man's salvation, but ALSO the sacrament.  Thankfully for the eunuch, he wasn't told "Your desire is enough", or "Just believe, you'll be fine". No, on the contrary, the minute the eunuch professed faith in Jesus Christ, he commanded the chariot they were riding in to stop and IMMEDIATELY baptized him (verse 38). Sounds like Philip thought Baptism was very important. 

 

Anyway, I just wanted to encourage you in your work and to tell you how much it is appreciated.

 

Yours in Christ,

Rich Bonomo       

 

The apostasy of Vatican II confirmed at the local level – an interesting article from a “Benedictine” Nun

 

MHFM: Many people argue that the teachings of Vatican II don’t contradict Catholic dogma in any way.  They strenuously assert that the Vatican II religion is in perfect continuity with the unchanging Catholic religion.  Some people call these individuals (who defend everything in Vatican II and the post-conciliar apostasy) neo-Catholics; we call them neo-apostates, since they attempt to explain away everything from kissing the Koran to allowing idol-worshippers to take over and pray to false gods at Assisi.  But one of the most interesting and clear ways of proving that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church is simply by looking at what its members believe at the local level.  The amount of stories from individuals who have actually been discouraged from becoming Catholic by members of the Novus Ordo Church, including Bishops, Vatican officials and RCIA teachers, seem almost endless; but if you ever want to be stirred to a holy indignation against the Vatican II apostasy, or if you ever want proof of what an abominable outrage the Vatican II sect is, or if you ever want to be convinced that it is a matter of heaven or hell to completely reject this false, non-Catholic sect falsely posing as the Catholic Church, then just call some Novus Ordo churches and ask them: “Do you accept the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation?  Is Islam a false religion?  Is Judaism a false religion? 

 

The responses that you will get will astound you and will confirm for you, if you are sincere, that the religion of these individuals (the Vatican II religion) is not the Catholic religion.  It will confirm for you, if you are sincere, that the entire Vatican II sect is apostate, since these individuals are simply putting into practice what is taught and exemplified by Vatican II concerning non-Christian religions.  Further, it will confirm for you, if you are sincere, that it is abominable that individuals such as the false traditionalists (Catholic Family News, The Remnant, etc.) will obstinately affirm that such apostates exist inside the Catholic Church.

 

In that vein, I was paging through the St. Anthony Messenger the other day and came across an article entitled Islam: What Every Catholic Should Know by Mary Margaret Funk, “O.S.B.”  (St. Anthony Messenger is one of the more prominent publications of the Vatican II sect.)  So here was an article by a supposed Benedictine Nun on Islam.  What did she say?

 

Mary Margaret Funk, “O.S.B.,” Islam: What Catholics Should Know, p. 36, St. Anthony Messenger, August, 2005: “Unlike Christians, who believe that Jesus was the Son of God and an indivisible part of God, Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet Mohammed (570-632) was a man and that he followed Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus as the last of the great prophets to receive divine revelation.”

 

While referring to Mohammed as “the Holy Prophet,” Mary Margaret didn’t think it necessary to mention to her “Catholic” readership that Mohammed was a false prophet and the originator of a false religion.  She continues:

 

Mary Margaret Funk, “O.S.B.,” Islam: What Catholics Should Know, St. Anthony Messenger, August, 2005, p. 36: “Mohammed tested the authenticity of his revelations with prayer and fasting.  It was two years before he went public with his profound religious experience.”

 

The impression that any reasonable reader of this article gets is that Mary Margaret holds that Mohammed’s false revelations were authentic or could be authentic (utter apostasy).

 

Mary Margaret Funk, “O.S.B.,” Islam: What Catholics Should Know, St. Anthony Messenger, August, 2005, p. 38: “I am struck by the absolute grasp of and reverence for the Quran communicated by the Muslims.  The name Allah, after all, is simply the Arabic word for God, the one God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”

 

Here we see that Mary Margaret bases her effusive praise for the false religion of Islam on the false teaching of Vatican II that Jews, Christians and Muslims supposedly worship the same God.  We see this very clearly illustrated in the next quote:

 

Mary Margaret Funk, “O.S.B.,” Islam: What Catholics Should Know, St. Anthony Messenger, August, 2005, p. 39: “When I was present for the Muslim salat, I felt as though I was at home with my nuns in Beech Grove, Indiana.  It was the same God, the same praise and the same bended knee.”

 

This is utter apostasy and pure religious indifferentism.  But it is all based precisely on the teaching of Vatican II on Muslims: 

 

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 3:

“The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect.  They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and mighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

 

Mary Margaret Funk continues:

 

Mary Margaret Funk, “O.S.B.,” Islam: What Catholics Should Know, St. Anthony Messenger, August, 2005, p. 39: “My community of 82 nuns carries me when my devotion is tepid and my inclination is capricious.  I see that same zeal among my Muslim friends.  The stopping for prayer is the norm allowing us to be God-conscious during the in-between times and to help God-consciousness become pervasive.  What then happens is that we return to ritual prayer thankful for this felt presence of God.”

 

Mary Margaret Funk is a member of Our Lady of Grace Monastery in Beech Grove, IN.  She is not a member of the Catholic Church.  She is a Christ-rejecter and an apostate who believes in salvation outside the Church and that false religions are not false.  She is the former prioress of her large religious community, and she is the executive director of Monastic Interreligious Dialogue.  But she is simply following the teaching of Vatican II and post-conciliar ecumenism.

 

How many stories such as this could be duplicated?  They could be duplicated without end, in every diocese under Antipope Benedict XVI and every single religious community in communion with him.  Have Mary Margaret Funk and millions of others misunderstood the teaching of Vatican II?   No, she has understood perfectly that Vatican II teaches that Muslims worship God truly in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.  Have Mary Margaret Funk and millions of others misunderstood the meaning of John Paul II’s attending of the Mosque, the Assisi event, the Buddhist Temple, the Lutheran Church and the Synagogue?  No, they have understood quite well that such actions are a validation of those false religions.  It is because they have followed the official teaching of Vatican II that they have come to apostasy as a result.

 

So, the neo-apostates (not “neo-Catholics”) need to stop mocking God.  Please cease telling us that Vatican II didn’t teach religious indifferentism or validate false religions.  And the false traditionalists need to stop mocking God and telling us that the multitude of apostates just like Sister Mary Funk (which includes Antipope Benedict XVI) are part of the Catholic Church.

 

Question about heresy in Fr. Denis Fahey’s writings

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

I was recently reading Fahey's MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST AND THE REORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY and came across a statement about Jews of good will being saved.  Were you aware of this error in his writing?  It took me completely by surprise! As always, we enjoy your thorough research, and have been greatly helped in our understanding of the Faith by your writings.

Sincerely,

Bruce Blommel Family

 

MHFM:  Yes, we were aware of this.  His heretical teaching that even Jews who reject Our Lord can be in the state of grace is covered in section 34 of our book.

 

Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953), p. 52: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants.  It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”

 

This is a denial of the fundamental truth of the Gospel (that it is necessary to believe in Christ for salvation) and a mockery of the dogma Outside the Church there is No Salvation.  Fr. Fahey was (unfortunately) a complete heretic.  It should also be kept in mind is that almost all “traditionalist” priests, such as Bishop McKenna, the CMRI, etc. agree with this or won’t condemn it as heretical.  If a person will not say that this statement is heretical then he is a heretic.  This is why the complete apostate Bishop McKenna wrote to us when we asked him about this and fully agreed with it:

Bishop McKenna to MHFM: “Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire.  I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants.  It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jewish Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.’ I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says…”

To assert that one can attain salvation while rejecting Jesus Christ is to say that one can attain salvation while rejecting salvation itself.  It is one of the worst heresies that one could utter.  These people are not even remotely Christian.

 

“And he said to them [the Jews]: You are from beneath, I am from above.  You are of this world, I am not of this world.  Therefore, I said to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.” (John 8:23-24)

 

“Amen, Amen, I say to you: he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber… I am the door.” (John 10:1, 9)

 

“Jesus saith to them: I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

 

“And when he [the Paraclete] is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment.  Of sin indeed: because they have not believed in me.” (John 15:8-9)

 

“For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth: every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.” (John 18:37)

 

 Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.

     But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

 

1 John 5:11-12: “And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life.  And this life is in his Son.  He that hath the Son, hath life.  He that hath not the Son, hath not life.

 

The fact of the matter is that most “traditionalists” who defend “baptism of desire” actually agree with Fr. Fahey (or won’t condemn his statement as heretical) and reject the fundamental truth of the Gospel – and attempt to justify the entire thing with “baptism of desire.”  So, while they are defending “baptism of desire,” they are blinded to the fact that, in the eyes of Our Lord, they aren’t even Christians.

 

The lies about “baptism of desire” continue, and coining a new phrase

 

…As for my belief in baptism of desire, I choose not to believe anything.  I merely accept without questioning the undiffering, unchanging position of the Saints, Doctors, and Popes of the Catholic Church, namely that if a person formally and explicitly desires to be a Catholic and perform all duties necessary to be one, for the love of Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Faith, this desire to be a Catholic and attain the singular adopted sonship that only the Catholic Church can grant can allow salvation to one that death meets before the opportunity for Baptism can be had.  This is the position of the Church from the beginning and through her entire history by every Pope, Doctor, and Saint without exception, along with the entire Catholic laity throughout history, and I would not presume to hold otherwise. 

 

I very much hope that these statements will help you abandon your position about the absolute and unconditional necessity for Water Baptism for salvation….

 

In Christ and Mary,

 

Grant

 

MHFM: Grant, this is simply nonsense.  It sounds like you’ve been reading the lying books of the SSPX on baptism of desire, which assert the same falsehood. 

 

Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau (SSPX), Baptism of Desire, p. 63: “This baptism of desire makes up for the want of sacramental baptism… The existence of this mode of salvation is a truth taught by the Magisterium of the Church and held from the first centuries by all the Fathers.  No Catholic theologian has contested it.”

 

Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX), Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 79, on Baptism of desire: “It is not only the common teaching, but unanimous teaching; it is not only since the early part of this millennium, but rather from the beginning of the Church…”

 

These are grievous lies and mortally sinful misrepresentations of Tradition.  To give just one example (a detailed discussion of the teaching of the fathers on this point is found in the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation), here is St. Gregory Nazianz clearly rejecting that which you claimed “every Pope, Doctor and Saint without exception” believed:

 

St. Gregory Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked.  This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them.  Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire.  Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it

     “If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism.  But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter?  I cannot see it.  If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory.  You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory.  Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”

 

So much for the claim that “the fathers are unanimous” and that every Saint and Doctor favored baptism of desire.  Do you wish to retract your statement?  When the priests of the SSPX, and individuals such as yourself, assert such they are stating exactly the opposite of the truth.  In fact, it is true that the entire early Church, including St. Augustine (the one who was on both sides of the issue at times) rejected the idea that catechumens could be saved by a desire for water baptism; but the dishonest defenders of baptism of desire won’t tell you that. 

 

In your e-mail you also claimed that St. John Chrysostom believed that baptism of blood replaced water baptism.  Another individual e-mailed us as about this as well.

 

St. John Chrysostom, Panegyric on St. Lucian, 4th Century AD:

“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a Baptism; for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is a taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul; and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood.”

 

What you and many others fail to realize is that St. John is here describing the martyrdom of a priest St. Lucian, a person already baptized.  He is not saying that martyrdom replaces baptism.  St. John Damascene describes it the same way:

 

St. John Damascene:

“These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers --- thus they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep... spotless and undefiled.  Whence some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism:  I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.”

 

But how many people have quoted the above from St. John Chrysostom and declared that he is teaching that people can be saved without baptism, when he is clearly not?  How many defenders of baptism of desire have misled people on this single point?  I’ve seen it in many articles and e-mails of those defending baptism of desire.  This is just one example of many that can be found in the avalanche of lies, distortions and misrepresentations that baptism of desire proponents pile up in defending this false teaching – this tradition of man that has never been taught by the Magisterium of the Church.

 

I must also reiterate that almost 100% of these people who defend baptism of desire don’t even believe that one needs to desire baptism or believe in Christ for salvation.  I specifically asked you about this, Grant, and you didn’t answer the question in your response, probably because you also hold the same heresy as the SSPX, SSPV, and CMRI. 

 

Since almost 100% of those who claim to believe in “baptism of desire” don’t even hold that one needs the desire for baptism or faith in Christ for salvation, I’m going to coin a new phrase to describe this position.  These people hold: BAPTISM WITHOUT WATER, DESIRE OR BLOOD.  This would apply to the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc., etc., etc.  They don’t believe in baptism of desire as taught by certain Saints (a definite error).  No, they believe in baptism without water, desire or blood; they believe in baptism by Judaism, Hinduism and Islam.

 

Archbishop Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”

 

The Catholic Church, however, only believes in one baptism OF WATER, not three: of desire, water and blood.

 

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:  “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

 

Here Pope Clement V defines as a dogma that ONE BAPTISM must be faithfully confessed by all, which is celebrated in water.  This statement is infallible and dogmatic.  This means that all Catholics must profess one baptism of water, not three baptisms: of water, blood and desire.  To confess “three baptisms,” and not one, is to contradict defined Catholic dogma.

 

[Note: this person included a whole series of arguments covering many pages in his e-mail, all of which are refuted in detail in the book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation. ]

 

A reader asks about a “traditionalist” Father Lovett from New Jersey

 

MHFM: You don't want to attend Fr. Lovett's Mass.  He has some wacky views, including, as we've been told, that Our Lady is part of the Trinity.  One should not attend his Mass [since he is a notorious heretic].

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


+JMJ+
Kelly

 

MHFM: Thanks for the information.  We will share this with our readers.  One of the master-strokes of the devil in these days has been to move shady and scandalous figures into the traditionalist clergy to attempt to disgrace the true Faith – so that people of weak Faith will get disenchanted and either run back to the Novus Ordo apostasy or give up altogether.  One can think of many of similar heretics whom the devil is using. 

 

An Eastern Schismatic writes in

 

I admire your zeal in presenting the heresies of the latter Popes on your Web page http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/.

However, this dedication would be put to a better cause if you'd take into consideration that the whole Papal Primacy (as defined by the Vatican Council I) is a heresy (actually one of the greatest heresies of the Roman Catholic Church)….

 

May the Lord have mercy on all of us,


An "Eastern Schismatic", Alexandru

 

MHFM: Alexandru, let me ask you a question: is a Christian, according to you, bound to believe in the declarations of the Council of Nicaea, so that if he would refuse he would cease to be a Christian?  

 

If so, why is he bound to believe in its declarations?  If you say that it is because "the Church accepted it," please tell me what specific criteria determines that “the Church accepted it,” and by what criteria do you say that the Church did not accept the many other Councils that were held with Bishops in the first millennium?  

 

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond

 

The Eastern Schismatic never responded, simply because the Eastern Schismatics have no response.  If the Popes don’t possess supreme authority in the Church – which is something clearly instituted by Christ in St. Peter (see Mt. 16:18-20; John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32) – but the Bishop of Rome is simply a Bishop who is “first among equals” with all the other Bishops in the Church (as the schismatics say), then there is no way to differentiate between the true Councils and the many robbers’ synods of the early Church.  This is because there were many false and heretical Councils in the early Church which were approved by a similar number of Bishops as were present at, for instance, the First Council of Constantinople.  The notoriously false Council of Ephesus II, which most Eastern Schismatics would reject, had about as many Bishops as the First Council of Constantinople (which the “Orthodox” schismatics would demand that people accept).  What is the difference between the two?  If the Papal confirmation is not the essential characteristic, then how can one say that the Church absolutely accepted Constantinople I and absolutely rejected Ephesus II?  The answer is that the schismatic cannot say so definitively; but the Catholic can.  The Catholic knows that the difference between the two is the Papal confirmation, but the Eastern Schismatics cannot logically say that a Christian must absolutely believe in Constantinople I, but not in Ephesus II, since they were both approved by Bishops. 

 

It is true to say that the Eastern Schismatics, such as Alexandru, cannot logically and consistently assert that THE EARLY GENERAL COUNCILS ARE DOGMAS THAT MUST BE ACCEPTED (even though they would try to claim otherwise); for if a “Christian” decides that he will follow Ephesus II instead – and the bishops who approved it – there is nothing the Eastern Schismatic could say to refute him, since it is just one Bishop against another without any Bishop possessing supreme authority in the Church.  This simply shows us that, besides rejecting what Christ clearly instituted in St. Peter, Eastern “Orthodoxy” is completely illogical and self-refuting. 

 

Important e-exchange on the authority of Vatican II for those who accept the Vatican II Antipopes

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

 

… I want to state that John XXIII and Paul VI, as well as their successors (we will leave the topic of their canonical legitimacy aside for a moment) never considered the Second Vatican Council to be “dogmatic” in nature; John XXIII made very clear in his opening address, which was written by then-Cardinal Montini, that the council was to be “pastoral” in nature, and that it was to avoid making any dogmatic definitions or definitive condemnations. The council would not be aided by the grace of infallibility, and so it would not be binding upon individual consciences. Therefore, a person can reject the Second Vatican Council and at the same time adhere to the authority of John XXIII and his successors without being a “schismatic.”  Therefore, I must disagree with your reasoning which states that those “Novus Ordo Catholics” who reject the Second Vatican Council are “schismatics” as they refuse the authority of those whom they consider to be Popes (if I understand your reasoning correctly). ..

 

Sincerely in Christ,

Adam Twardowski

 

MHFM:[Before I comment on your letter, I want to make it clear for those who may be new to these issues that we are not defending the Second Vatican Council.  Vatican II was a totally heretical, wicked, false, invalid Council which endorsed false religions such as Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism and taught many other heresies against the Catholic Faith.  What we are discussing and pointing out here, however, is that one cannot reject that false Council (as every Catholic should) while he accepts as a true Pope the man who imposed it, Paul VI.  Either one accepts Paul VI and Vatican II or rejects them both.  So here we are discussing the ways by which “traditionalists” attempt to be able to reject Vatican II and its heresies while accepting the complete apostate Antipope Paul VI as a Pope.]

 

Regarding your first point, that John XXIII’s statement at the opening speech of Vatican II proves that it is not infallible, this is simply not true.  John XXIII did not say in his opening speech at the Council that Vatican II was to be a pastoral council.  Here is what John XXIII actually said:

 

John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancient deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.  And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.”

 

Here we see that John XXIII did not say that Vatican II would be a pastoral council.  He said that it would reflect the Church’s Magisterium, which is predominantly pastoral in character.  So, despite the incredibly widespread myth, the truth is that John XXIII never even called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech.  By the way, even if John XXIII had called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech this wouldn’t mean that it is not infallible.  To describe something as pastoral does not mean ipso facto (by that very fact) that it’s not infallible.  This is proven by John XXIII himself in the above speech when he described the Magisterium as “pastoral,” and yet it’s de fide (of the faith) that the Magisterium is infallible.  Therefore, even if John XXIII did describe Vatican II as a pastoral council (which he did not) this would not prove that it is not infallible.

 

Most importantly, however, the fact that John XXIII did not actually call Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech at Vatican II does not actually matter.  This is because it was Paul VI who solemnly confirmed the heresies of Vatican II; and it is Paul VI’s confirmation (not John XXIII’s) which proves that Vatican II is binding upon those who accept him.

 

EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF V-2 ENDS WITH THESE WORDS:

 

“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

 

This is absolutely infallible and binding language.  There is no doubt about it.  And this is why your new “Pope,” as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated the following:

 

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, 1985, p. 28: “It is impossible (‘for a Catholic’) to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I.  Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the previous two councils.  And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism’, at least in its extreme forms.  It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II.  Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation.  And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”

 

This is a very important quotation that proves a very important point.  In fact, one almost couldn’t ask for a better quote confirming the conclusion of our article Was Vatican II infallible?.  Ratzinger is confirming that, if Antipope Paul VI was a Pope, Vatican II is an ecumenical Council that must be accepted just as Trent and Vatican I.  So, either you accept Vatican II and: its endorsement of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam; its teaching that non-Catholics can receive Communion; its heretical teaching on religious liberty; etc; or, as a Catholic must, you reject these heresies and correctly conclude that the obviously evil infiltrator - the ephod wearing Paul VI – was not a true Pope since he was a heretic at the time of the election.  It is completely illogical, anti-Catholic, anti-Magisterial and inconsistent for one, once he is aware of these facts, to insist that the Vatican II Antipopes are true Popes while he rejects the Council they have authoritatively imposed with the fullness of their “apostolic authority.”  That is why Ratzinger, in the same book, while addressing the position of Lefebvre (the position of the SSPX), correctly points out that it is illogical:

 

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger interviewed by Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report, 1985, p. 31: “[Messori, the interviewer, notes:] Although critical of the ‘left’, Ratzinger also exhibits an unmistakable severity toward the ‘right’, toward that integralist traditionalism quintessentially symbolized by the old Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  In reference to it, he [Ratzinger] told me: [Ratzinger’s answer] ‘I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II.  In fact in itself it is an illogical position.  The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy.  But why only the popes up to Pius XII and beyond?  Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?”

 

People need to stop the nonsense.  People need to stop asserting the false position (that people can reject Vatican II while accepting Paul VI), which contradicts Papal Infallibility and keeps people under the authority of invalid Antipopes. 

 

Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:

“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US.  Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.  WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON.  Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

 

Exchange on “Baptism of Blood”

 

Hello,

 

Of course, there are countless arguments and discussions and citations that both sides in the "Three Baptisms" (or, more accurately, the debate about the possibility of salvation for those who desire Baptism, either normally or to the extreme of being martyred for the Catholic Faith and their desire for Baptism) debate present, but I would like to get your specific comments on just this particular passage from the Roman Martyrology.  I have read all your citations on the subject, but want to know what your comments are just on this particular passage.  The copy I have is the 1749 edition.  This particular passage is in every edition of the Martyrology back to the edition of Gregory XIII:

 

"At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, St. Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored.  After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment.  With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood.  St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion..."

 

Both St. Bede and Fr. Alban Butler both give the same account and claim the Heavenly Reward for the unbaptized soldier, through his desire to be a Catholic and his martyrdom specifically for the Catholic Faith.  I grant that you might say that neither St. Bede or Fr. Alban Butler is authoritative in a doctrinal sense.  However, the Roman Martyrology is a compilation of diverse martyrologies that were remembered by virtually every monastic community for hundreds of years and were authoritatively prepared and promulgated as a complete text in 1584, by Pope Gregory XIII…

 

Comments? 

 

God Bless you,

 

Grant Landis 

 

MHFM:  First, I want to say that all of these issues are dealt with in-depth in the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.  There are separate sections on these issues.  Also, I’m glad you brought up the case of St. Alban, since this is a prime example of how the errors of baptism of desire and blood have been spread. The many historical accounts in the Roman Martyrology are not necessarily infallible and binding upon Catholics.  That is why they have been revised several times, and it is why clear errors have been found in them.

 

Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 310: “An historical statement in the ‘Martyrology’ as such has no authority… A number of entries in the Roman Martyrology are found to be unsatisfactory when so tested.”

 

ST. ALBAN AND HIS CONVERTED GUARD

 

St. Alban was the protomartyr of England (303 A.D.)  The account of his martyrdom is particularly interesting and instructive on this topic.  On the way to his martyrdom, one of the guards who led him to execution was converted to Christ.  The Roman Martyrology (a fallible document), as well as Butler’s Lives of the Saints, says that the guard was “baptized in his own blood.”  St. Bede the Venerable, a Church historian, says that the guard’s martyrdom occurred without “the purification of Baptism.”  But watch this: in recounting the story of the martyrdoms of St. Alban and his guard, St. Bede and Butler’s lives of the Saints reveal a very important point.

 

St. Bede: “As he reached the summit, holy Alban asked God to give him (Alban) water, and at once a perennial spring bubbled up at his feet…” Butler: “The sudden conversion of the headsmen occasioned a delay in the execution.  In the meantime the holy confessor (Alban), with the crowd, went up the hill… There Alban falling on his knees, at his prayer a fountain sprung up, with water whereof he refreshed his thirst… Together with St. Alban, the soldier, who had refused to imbrue (stain) his hands in his blood, and had declared himself a Christian, was also beheaded, being baptized in his own blood.”

 

The reader may be confused at this point, and rightly so, so let me explain.  We have two (fallible) accounts of the martyrdom of St. Alban and his guard, from St. Bede and Bulter’s Lives of the Saints.  They both record that just before the martyrdom of St. Alban and his guard, St. Alban prayed for “water” which he miraculously received!  St. Bede then goes on to say that the guard died unbaptized!  Butler’s says that the water was merely to “refresh” Alban’s thirst!   With all due respect to St. Bede and the good things in Butler’s, how obvious does it have to be?  A Saint, who had a few minutes to live and who had a convert wanting to enter the Church of Christ, would not call for miraculous water in order to “refresh his thirst”!  He obviously called for the miraculous water to baptize the converted guard, and God provided it for the sincere convert, since “unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”  This is a prime example of how the errors of baptism of blood and desire have been perpetuated – by passing down the fallible conclusions of fallible men, for instance, by passing down the ridiculous conclusion that the guard died unbaptized when these very accounts admit of the presence of miraculously received water!  And this example of St. Alban and his guard, which actually shows the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, is frequently and falsely used against the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

It is also interesting to consider how much “faith” obstinate baptism of desire advocates have in the fallible accounts and conclusions of historians – such as the obviously ridiculous conclusion of Fr. Butler that the guard died unbaptized when he admits that St. Alban received miraculous water! – while they dismiss the infallible defined dogmatic statements.  The fact of the matter is that they don’t really have faith in these accounts, but emphasize them because they like what they say: that people don’t need baptism.  

 

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

 

This means that Our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration that no man can be saved without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost is a literal dogma of the Catholic Faith.

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra:  If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”[48][66]

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

 

I’m just wondering, do you believe that baptism of desire applies only to people who desire baptism and believe in Christ, or do you believe that people who don’t even desire baptism or believe in Christ (such as certain Jews, Buddhists, Muslims) could be united to the Church and saved?

 

[possibly to be continued…]

 

Regarding no financial support for the Byzantine church

 

Thank you for your response. I found it both informative and disturbing. You advised that financial support of the Byzantine Church should be withheld. Would that be true of all the Eastern Catholic Churches? (Ukrainians, Melkites, Maronites, etc.) Should that happen these churches would all collapse and 'fade away'. Most important of all, do you consider The Divine liturgy of ST. John Chrysostom valid? The only changes made in the Eastern Catholic churches following Vatican II is that we have returned to our ancient traditions, purging any Latinizations.

 

Thank you.

Jack Bryant

Orlando, Florida

 

MHFM:  Yes, financial support must be withheld from any priest who adheres to heresy.  And all of the Eastern Rite priests who accept Benedict XVI cannot be supported because they are adhering to a heretical position which accepts the Vatican II sect.  A Catholic cannot support a heretic or one who endorses or promotes heresy.

 

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics."

 

One cannot ever compromise the Faith by supporting those who don’t hold it simply because they have a valid Mass.  The Divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a valid Mass, but the Eastern “Orthodox” Schismatics have a valid Mass, too.  It doesn’t matter if their entire church shuts down, a Catholic cannot support a priest who adheres to heresy because THE FAITH COMES BEFORE THE MASS.  If one can support the Eastern Rite priests or the SSPX or the CMRI or another heretical group of priests, then all of these issues are completely meaningless.  That is why those who are aware of this information and continue to donate to heretical groups, such as the Byzantine priests or the SSPX or the SSPV or the CMRI, etc. are committing grave sin and putting themselves on the road to damnation.  Actions speak louder than words.  One can say that he doesn’t agree that Benedict XVI is the Pope, or that he doesn’t accept Vatican II, but when one donates to a priest who holds those position his actions prove that he supports both of those things.

 

The only reason that a Catholic could attend the Masses of some of the heretical Eastern Rite priests, heretical SSPX priests and heretical CMRI priests, etc. is because there is no other option for most today in a necessity, and, if they are not supporting them as they shouldn’t be, they are not supporting their heretical beliefs in any way.  But if the priest becomes notorious or imposing about his heresy (such as the SSPV has and certain SSPX and Eastern Rite priests have), then not only can one not support him, but one must not attend his Mass even to receive the sacraments from him.  There is also no obligation to attend any church where the priest holds to heresy, so that if one doesn’t want to go just to receive the sacraments he doesn’t have to.

 

What do we believe on this salvation and baptism issue?

 

I've been looking around on the internet and stumbled onto your site but I am not sure what you believe in.  It seems that you don't agree with the novus ordo church, SSPV or the SSPX.  Also, you don't seem to believe in Baptism by desire which is contained in the Baltimore Catechism and was taught to every Catholic for generations.

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.

Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

 

MHFM:  You have correctly ascertained that we don’t agree with the Conciliar Church (the Vatican II/Novus Ordo sect).  The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, but a non-Catholic sect which rejects the Catholic Faith and Jesus Christ by endorsing heretical sects, schismatic sects, as well as idolatrous and pagan religions.  Regarding what we believe on the salvation issue, you are also correct that we don’t believe with the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI that it is not necessary to have the Catholic Faith for salvation.  We don’t believe, as they do, that certain Buddhists, Jews, Muslims or Hindus can be united to the Catholic Church.  We believe, profess and preach that all who die as non-Catholics will not be saved, as the Holy Roman Church believes, professes and preaches.

 

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.”

 

We believe the above dogma rather than the fallible – and heretical – Baltimore Catechism which represented the seeds of the Great Apostasy with its teaching that there is salvation outside the Church.

 

The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, Q. 321- “However, only baptism of water actually makes a person a member of the Church.  It (baptism of blood/desire) might be compared to a ladder up which one climbs into the Bark of Peter, as the Church is often called.  Baptism of blood or desire makes a person a member of the Church in desire.  These are the two lifelines trailing from the sides of the Church to save those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own.

 

Here we see this edition of the Baltimore Catechism teaching that: 1) Baptism of desire doesn’t make one a member of the Church; 2) Baptism of desire does make one a member of the Church in desire; 3) there is salvation outside the Church by baptism of desire and blood. The first two statements contradict each other, while the third is direct heresy against the dogma that Outside the Church no one at all is saved (Pope Innocent III, de fide).  Thus, this edition of the Baltimore Catechism’s explanation of “baptism of desire” is not only fallible, but directly heretical.

 

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

 

No, we don’t believe, but absolutely reject, the pre-Vatican II heresy that certain people can be saved outside the Church and without the Catholic Faith.  This heresy was taught by many priests and Bishops before Vatican II in fallible texts with imprimaturs, which laid the heretical foundation for the Great Apostasy.  For instance:

 

The Catechism Explained, Rev. Spirago and Rev. Clark, 1898: “If, however, a man, through no fault of his own, remains outside the Church, he may be saved if he lead a God-fearing life; for such a one is to all intents and purposes a member of the Catholic Church.”

 

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, Imprimatur 1954, p. 310: “The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept, but also of means, as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows… In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire for the same… In this manner also those who are in point of fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”

 

Both of these statements are boldly heretical – they word-for-word contradict a solemnly defined dogma – and they reduce the solemnly defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation to a meaningless formula.

 

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.”

 

No, we hold what the Church has dogmatically declared: that all who die without the Catholic Faith will be lost. 

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:  “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.  They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.  Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:

“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

 

Regarding the baptism issue, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that there are “three baptisms.”  It dogmatically teaches that there is only ONE BAPTISM OF WATER.  And WE BELIEVE, AS THE COUNCIL OF VIENNE DOGMATICALLY DEFINES, THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE BAPTISM OF WATER, not three.  The Catholic Church also teaches that unless a person receives this sacrament and is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot be saved.

 

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:  “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

 

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

 

Even the Baltimore Catechism affirms this truth, even though it doesn’t remain consistent with it throughout its teaching

 

The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, Q. 320- “Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men?  A.  Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”

 

The idea that any man can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism is false and contradicts Catholic teaching.  But the gross heresy that baptism of desire not only can save unbaptized catechumens who assent to Catholic teaching (an error held by certain saints), but persons who don’t even desire baptism or believe in Jesus Christ (frequently referred to as the “implicit baptism of desire”), was the root cause of the Great Apostasy.  The fact that this heresy on salvation for non-Catholics who don’t even desire baptism or believe in Christ was taught in many pre-Vatican II imprimatured texts, and therefore “to generations of Catholics” since approximately 1900, is exactly why Vatican II occurred and the present man who claims to be “Pope” is able to travel to a Synagogue and be accepted by most professing to be “Catholic.”  Those who cannot see that the root cause of the present apostasy from the Catholic Faith is the teaching that it’s possible for people who are not in fact Catholic to be saved are missing the point.  All of these issues are covered in detail in the book:  The Book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation

 

Fascinating story from a reader about his experience at the Novus Ordo

 

Dear Brothers Dimond, Last afternoon I viewed a video produced by you…It left me stunned and deeply moved. This morning I accessed your website for the first time and I am overwhelmed!!!

I am a Roman Catholic born in 1947 in a Buddhist country - SRI LANKA.  Christian population was 5% of the entire population - Roman Catholics further reduced in number.  I have lived in AUSTRALIA since 1972. As a youngster at St Peter's College Colombo we were taught Catholic Doctrine and some Apologetics by RC priests.  Back then around the late fifties and early sixties we were clearly taught the teaching of BAPTISM OF DESIRE.

We were NEVER taught "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation"...or to be honest, I can't recall being taught this. In the year 2000, while praying in the presence of The Blessed Sacrament in a Novus Ordo church, an inner/exterior/everywhere' voice quietly said to me "I am not here!!!" Not long after I felt privileged when I discovered the SSPX realising the previous 30 years of Daily Masses in the NEW Church were wasted! Now, your revelations on the SSPX give me new matter to ponder on and pray about.

I deeply appreciate the monumental GOD-FILLED work you have done. Please pray for my soul as indeed I shall pray for you.  May the Blessed and Most Holy Trinity Bless, guard and guide you with loving intercession from OUR Blessed Mother of GOD, MARY MOST HOLY

Yours sincerely

Peter de Niese
AUSTRALIA

 

Exchange with a woman who is having a problem with the idea of sedevacantism

 

Dear Bro. Dimond:

 

It basically boils down to, if we're not with Peter, where are we?  I don't mean we have to acclaim him and assume he'll be a good guy just because he is Peter. But there is only one barque… Is it a barque of multiple little popes?  Maybe that is why I'm having such a problem with sedevecantism.  It seems so much like protestantism.  Is it really a barque with no captain at all?  For 40 years?  Then we better quit the infighting if the situation is that bad and JUST PRAY.  Because the ordinary masses don't get to elect the successor of Peter… This is the best conclusion that I can come to: that the Church remains, but that the captains have been treasonous creeps for 40 years.  But God hasn't given us any others. So we will have to huddle together as best we can and worship as faithfully as we can, in dark corners perhaps;  there may be parts of the ship where, at this point, the faithful ones won't see a true priest for long periods. 

 

MF

 

MHFM: [While this woman was harping on her understanding of fidelity to the Chair of Peter, I sensed from what she was saying that she rejected Vatican II and many of the official teachings of her “Popes”.  So, to illustrate her inconsistency, I asked her the following question]:

 

Do you accept: Vatican II; that non-Catholics can receive Communion; and that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God?

 

-Bro. Peter Dimond

 

Dear Bro Dimond:

 

I don't accept the DOCUMENTS of Vatican II as being anything but a nice try by the devil to force an unholy course on the Church.  For those who took the option and ran with it, it seems to me that God is allowing Vatican II to still do His Will by revealing hearts.  But since nothing was doctrinal, the documents are meaningless, even though it has all had a devastating effect.  I believe Vatican II was a true Council that went sour because it was hijacked by rebels.  But God can and still will use it for good.  Battle lines were drawn.  Nuns who ripped off their habits and turned their convents into ashrams took one side and others are trying to stay firm on the other.  It reminds me so much of what protestants do with the Bible misinterpret it and then bash everyone else over the head.  But that doesn't mean the Bible isn't the Word of God.  Those who seek His Truth with sincerity will have it.  But the documents of Vatican II are not any that we have to concern ourselves with in the least, since they weren't doctrinal.  Just a lot of work the enemies did to try to get a firmer foothold.  It worked, but it won't hold.

 

Non-Catholics receive Communion?  No way!  And why would they want to if everything is only about the Holy Spirit and me personally, and not the objective physical presence of Jesus?  What freaks who would do that.

 

Muslims worship a demonic being.  Not a Triune God?  How much trouble did Jesus go to to try to teach us that reality?  So whoever they worship is not the same God.  I've read the Koran.  It is vile, nasty filth.  And I've read about Mohammad.  An exorcist might be able to confirm that he was probably possessed.  I mean that in all seriousness.

 

MF

 

MHFM:  Your response was similar to what I expected.  You cannot have it both ways.  If you accept these Antipopes as true Popes you must accept their authoritative teaching.  Otherwise, you reject Papal Infallibility.  Vatican II was solemnly and infallibly promulgated by Paul VI if he was a true Pope.  If Paul VI was a true Pope, it is a true ecumenical council to whose teaching you are bound.  This has been proven in the following article and by the quotes below.  Paul VI solemnly declared that Vatican II was to be "religiously observed" by all the faithful.

 

Was Vatican II infallible?

 

EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II ENDS WITH THESE WORDS SHOWING PAUL VI’S SOLEMN APPROVAL:

“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

 

Antipope Paul VI again declares that Vatican II is to be Religiously Observed

Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Vatican II Council closed, Dec. 8, 1965:

“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US.  Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.  WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON.  Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

 

But you reject Vatican II.  Thus, you reject the authoritative teaching of your "Pope."  You are proving our point that they are not true Popes.  You are a sedevacantist without admitting it.  But if you obstinately hold that they are true Popes – in the face of all the evidence – while you reject the teaching to which they bind you, you then reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility. 

 

You also mentioned that you absolutely reject the idea that non-Catholics can lawfully receive Communion and that Muslims and Catholics together worship the same God.  But the Vatican II "Popes" have authoritatively taught that non-Catholics can receive Communion and that Muslims and Catholics together worship God.  This was solemnly taught in Vatican II, the New Catechism promulgated by the “apostolic authority” of John Paul II, and in many encyclicals of the Vatican II Antipopes.  There is no doubt that if the Vatican II “Popes” are true Popes the Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion.  But this is impossible, since the Church has taught the opposite for 2000 years – and this is a matter inextricably bound up with Faith. 

 

Here is a table which illustrates what I’m talking about:

 

 

Non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion

Christ united Himself with each man in the Incarnation

Muslims and Catholics together worship the One True God

 

Encyclical

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 46), May 25, 1995:

“… Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church...”

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979:

“… by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man.”

 

Antipope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (# 47):

“…Muslims who, like us, believe in the just and merciful God.”

 

 

 

Authoritative Catechism

Antipope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 1401):

“… Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church…”

 

Antipope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 521):

“By his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man.”

 

Antipope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 841):

“… Muslimstogether with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

 

Antipope John Paul II, Fidei Depositum, Oct. 11, 1992:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrineI declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith.”

 

 

Vatican II Document

Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II document Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27:

“… the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church...”

 

Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes # 22:

For by His incarnation the Son of God united Himself in some way with every human being.”

 

Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II document Lumen Gentium # 16:

“… Muslims… profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day.”

 

 

Antipope Paul VI, at the end of every Vatican II document: “EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

 

If a Pope teaches something in encyclicals plus a Catechism plus many speeches plus a General Council solemnly promulgated by his predecessor then there is absolutely no doubt that such a teaching constitutes a teaching of the Catholic Magisterium.  Hence, if the Vatican II “Popes” are true Popes, then Muslims and Catholics have the same God and non-Catholics can lawfully receive Communion.  But you reject this completely.  You thus prove our point that the Vatican II Antipopes cannot be true occupants of the Chair of St. Peter, since every Catholic is forced to depart from and reject their official teachings.  The teaching of the Chair of Peter (e.g., the teaching of Paul IV) requires us to reject as invalid a heretic who is allegedly elected.  So, don’t tell me that he is the Pope while you reject his official teachings and the entire Faith of all the Bishops under him.  You are simply proving the point that they are not true Popes.

 

 

Interesting comment from reader on certain false traditionalists

 

Dear Dimond Brothers,

 

Currently I'm reading the The Devil's Final  Battle and as I read along I am reminded of how you label "Father" Paul Kramer and others as "false traditionalists."  I must say that you are quite right.  On pages 68 - 69, Paul Kramer addresses the dogma, Outside the Catholic Church There Is No Salvation.  It reads, "In fact, Kasper's statement scorns the thrice-defined infallible dogma that "outside the Church there is no salvation." (extra ecclesia nulla salus)  The actual wording of these three solemn, infallible (and therefore impossible to change) definitions that are binding on all Catholics (of whatever rank, including Cardinals and Popes) to believe, under pain of being automatically excommunicated (expelling themselves from the Catholic Church) are as follows"............

Here we can see that Paul Kramer admits that if a Pope dissents from the dogma, Outside the Catholic Church There Is No Salvation, he is excommunicated from the Catholic Church.  And Paul Kramer is well aware that JPll dissented from this dogma and yet he still accepted JPll as a true Pope.  The same is true concerning Benedict XVl.  Paul Kramer admits in his book that Cardinal Ratzinger  (who is the same person as Benedict XVl) also dissents from this dogma and yet Paul Kramer still accepts him as a true Pope. It seems to me that Paul Kramer, Nicholas Gruner, and all their collaboraters cannot bear the thought that a false pope could be reigning from Rome.  They are deceiving themselves and their readers about the true state of the papacy.

 

Alain P.
            

MHFM: Yes, you are exactly right.

 

The Vatican II heretic on St. Peter and Sedevacantism

 

…I believe your claim is that anyone guilty of heresy automatically loses ecclesial office, including and especially the Pope. A necessary consequence of this view, seems to me, is that this point of view therefore unravels the office of the Papacy from the very *beginning* with, you guessed it, Pope St. Peter himself.  Poor Pope Peter, the prince of the Twelve, he to whom Jesus gave the power of the Keys and called the Rock, was most definitely a heretic, according to the evidence we have. His astounding heresies number at least two, possibly three.

The two *obvious* examples of Pope Peter’s heresies are, first, his absolute and unequivocal denial of Jesus during Jesus’ arrest and trial. Second, Peter’s falling in with the “Judaizers” as described in Galatians. A possible third heresy, one which happens just after his being appointed the “Rock” by Jesus, is his denial of the fatal mission of Christ, a denial met with Jesus calling Peter “Satan.”  Now according to your view, such heresies would leave Peter devoid of his papacy. Therefore you must have an explanation as to why you *don’t* think Peter an antipope or a heretic. I’d like to hear it.

God bless,

Jim Russell

 

MHFM:  So, the position that a heretic loses the Papacy automatically “unravels the office of the Papacy from the very beginning.”  You seem quite sure of yourself, just as you were quite sure about the Joint Declaration on Justification.  You were so sure of yourself that you wrote the following because we hadn’t yet responded to your objections concerning St. Peter:

 

Dear Brother Dimond:

I didn't really think you could handle the question I posed about the "astounding heresies" of St. Peter himself; apparently you fear the truth, or at least the consequences of what you call the "truth." I will be searching for a reuptable Catholic publication that will be willing to publish an account of my experience of "dialoguing" with you, expecially the nature of the easy victory you've given me by ignoring my question about St. Peter, ironically your namesake, I presume.

I'm sorry if I've disturbed your peace by demonstrating how ludicrous your views really are by applying them to the first Pope, but consider it an opportunity for growth and conversion of heart. Right now your heart must be too hardened to reply to my questions about Peter, so I will have to be satisfied with the victory of the truth despite your silence. If you ever do decide to confront my question about Peter, please do let me know.

Until then, know that you will be in my prayers.

Jim Russell

 

You really walked into this one.  But that’s exactly what blinded heretics do.  If you knew the teaching of Vatican I thoroughly, you would know that Vatican I defined that ST. PETER DID NOT BECOME POPE UNTIL AFTER THE RESURRECTION:

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 1, 1870: “And upon Simon Peter alone Jesus after His resurrection conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold, saying: ‘Feed my lambs,’ ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:15].”

 

In Matthew 16:18-20, Our Lord told St. Peter that He will build His Church upon him; but Our Lord did not confer the supreme jurisdiction upon St. Peter until after the Resurrection with the words of John 21:15: ‘Feed my lambs…”  With one quotation from Catholic dogma your heretical mouth is stopped. 

 

Your only other objection in this regard would then be St. Paul’s rebuke of St. Peter in Galatians 2:11 for refusing to sit with the gentile converts who had not been circumcised.  This was an imprudent action, no doubt, which St. Peter corrected.  It was not heresy, but could have led to heresy if St. Peter had continued with it and expanded upon it.  The Haydock Commentary on this passage notes: “…the opinion of S. Augustine [on this passage] is commonly followed, that S. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence.”  All the Doctors of the Church are familiar with and/or have commented on this passage, including St. Robert Bellarmine, etc.  Yet, all of them who addressed the issue of a heretical “Pope” still agreed that a heretical “Pope” would cease to be Pope.  They saw nothing in Galatians 2:11 which contradicted that because there is nothing.  There are actions which clearly constitute heresy and apostasy, such as kissing the Koran (and thereby directly endorsing a false religion) or bowing one’s head with the Jews as they pray for the Coming of the Messiah (and thereby denying Christ) or conducting interfaith worship with pagans and idolaters – all committed by Antipope John Paul II.  But the action of St. Peter, while being imprudent and something that could lead to heresy if not changed, was not a clear-cut heretical or apostate action.

 

It’s sad to say, but it doesn’t matter what facts one brings forward, or what heresies one can quote from the Vatican II Antipopes to prove the point to you, you would reject it all because you are, at this time, dishonest to the core.  Your “Pope” rejects Jesus Christ: 

 

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.

 

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones, 1998, pp. 53-54: “I have ever more come to the realization that Judaism (which, strictly speaking, begins the end of the formation of the canon, that is, in the first century after Christ) and the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel’s Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazereth.  The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways.  For the most part, only after the Second World War did we begin to understand that the Jewish interpretation, too, in the time ‘after Christ’, of course possesses a theological mission of its own.”

 

Reader takes issue with our criticism of the heresy of the CMRI

 

I have just read your article "The Heretical CMRI" and I have to take issue with some of the points that you make in that article. I currently live in Newhall/Santa Clarita, CA and I attend mass at the Queen of Angels Chapel that you mention in your article.  My son just went through RCIA classes at the church with Father Dominic and I take great offense at your suggestion in the article that Father Dominic would say that "Jews can be saved" and then defend a lay person who stated such.  During the classes that my son went to I sat in and spoke at great length with Father Dominic about theology.  He was very adamant that those "outside the faith" CANNOT be saved.  I can then only surmised that the person that reported this to you either was a disgruntled Catholic or was a spy who made up such a lie to bear false witness against a very good priest in Father Dominic.

 

I think in any event that you owe not only Father Dominic an apology, but also the entire congregation of Queen of Angels as well.  I see that you list yourself as a "Brother" in your byline.  I find that very difficult to believe given what was said in your article.

 

Sincerely,

 

Julia Miller

Newhall CA

 

MHFM:  Julia, it is simply a fact that the CMRI believes that Jews can be saved.  Their priests may not state that publicly a lot, but that is what they believe.  (That is why two priests and a nun I spoke with all told me such.)  The CMRI believes that those who are “invincibly ignorant” of Christ can be saved.  This means that people who are in false, non-Catholic religions “through no fault of their own” can be saved, according to them.  This is heresy.  The CMRI holds that Outside the Church There is No Salvation only applies to those “knowingly” outside the Church (which is not what the Church defined), so that, according to them, certain Jews or Buddhists or Muslims can be united to the Church even though they don’t believe in Jesus Christ and the Trinity or even desire water baptism.  This is a heresy which denies the defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. Here is a quotation directly from their publication, written by the heretic Bishop McKenna.

 

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

 

The heretic Bishop McKenna goes so far with his heretical idea that not only does he believe that Jews, Buddhists, etc. can be saved who’ve never heard of Christ, but he even believes that Jews who reject Jesus Christ can be saved!  Here is what he wrote to me when I asked him if he agreed with Fr. Fahey’s teaching that Jews who reject Our Lord can be saved.

Bishop Robert McKenna, to Bro. Peter Dimond, Nov. 25, 2004: “2. I answer your ‘one simple question’ regarding Fr. Denis Fahey’s saying, ‘The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants.  It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.’

Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire.  I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants.  It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jewish Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.’ I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says…”

Here we see that Bishop McKenna, a good friend of the CMRI who writes for their publication, admits that he believes that Jews who reject Christ can be saved by “baptism of desire.”  He “could not agree more” with the blasphemous heresy of Fr. Denis Fahey.  The CMRI believes the same thing.  That is why they twice printed an article entitled “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.”  To finally prove it to you, I ask you to go to the CMRI priest and ask him yourself if the statement by Bishop McKenna and Fr. Fahey (quoted above), that Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace (and therefore be saved), is a heretical denial of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  You will see that the CMRI priest won’t call Bishop McKenna’s statement heretical because the CMRI believes the same thing.  That is why I received no response to the letter I sent to Fr. Puskorius many months ago asking him if he rejects Bishop McKenna’s statement as heretical.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:

“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

 

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 Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.

     But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

 

1 John 5:11-12: “And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life.  And this life is in his Son.  He that hath the Son, hath life.  He that hath not the Son, hath not life.

 

Yes, you guessed it: bad willed defender of Vatican II denies JD teaches Justification by “faith alone” even though we quoted it for him!

 

*******Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works." This is the annex to the official statement made by your Vatican II sect under John Paul II with the Lutheran sect.  Your sect is Protestant.*****

Wrong. You quote the “annex” document without ever considering the declaration text itself, which says: “The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith (my emphasis) in Christ.” And: “Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, (my emphasis) we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

And:  “Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith.” And: “According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide).” It is clear from the Declaration itself that the teaching know as “sola fide” is a *Lutheran*--not Catholic teaching. What both sides *agree* upon is that justification occurs by GRACE ALONE, not faith alone.  So, by robbing the Annex statement of all context, you feel you can make the wild claim that Pope John Paul II’s “sect” somehow altered centuries of Catholic teaching and now teaches the Lutheran doctrine of “sola fide” to 1 billion Catholics who never quite seemed to learn the new teaching? Nor did the world media ever comment on this incredible story. Nope. Don’t think so…

 

Jim Russell

 

MHFM: First, I must say that you are just a liar.   I quoted the very declaration from the Annex to the Joint Declaration which teaches Justification by “faith alone” on the Lutheran and the “Catholic” side.  What part of this don’t you understand?

 

Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works."

 

If anyone wants to see how much of a lie your claim that the “Catholic” side didn’t agree to Justification by “faith alone” is, he or she can simply click here Official Common Statement and Annex and then scroll down about ˝ page to the Annex, 2, C to see for himself or herself that your sect (which claims to be “Catholic”) officially declared Justification by “faith alone.” 

 

WE CAN ALL READ.  IT BLATANTLY TAUGHT JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE.  You are just a complete liar, as we can all see.  But, as we will see shortly, we don’t even need this quote to prove the point.

 

Second, to say that I don’t consider the whole text of the Joint Declaration is funny.  I’ve pointed out in I don’t know how many articles and columns that, in addition to the fact that the Annex teaches Justification by faith alone, the Joint Declaration itself declares that none of the LUTHERAN TEACHING in the JD is condemned by the Council of Trent.  (for a short article on this issue, go here: The Most Revealing and Major Heresies of the Week of John Paul II and the Vatican II Sect, and then down to 2/13/04.)

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, including Justification by “faith alone.” 

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

DOES EVERYONE FOLLOW?  I WILL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, MR. RUSSELL: THE…TEACHING…OF…THE…LUTHERAN…CHURCHES….PRESENTED…IN…THIS…DECLARATION…DOES…NOT…FALL…UNDER…THE…CONDEMNATIONS…FROM…THE…COUNCIL…OF…TRENT.  But the heresy of Justification by “faith alone” was condemned by the Council of Trent approximately 13 times. 

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)."

Thus, the statement in #41 of the JD means that the “Catholic” side agrees that all the dogmatic canons and decrees in Trent condemning faith alone are overturned, and that faith alone is no longer contrary to or condemned by Trent.  It is not possible for heresy to be any more formal than this.  So your sect holds that “faith alone,” the Lutheran heresy, is not condemned by Trent. THAT IS A FACT.  IF YOU DENY IT – AS YOU MOST PROBABLY WILL – YOU JUST MOCK GOD AND SHOW YOURSELF TO BE A COMPLETE LIAR AGAIN.

Third, you say that if this were true the media surely would have picked up on it.  The media did, of course.  When the Joint Declaration was published in 1999 there were hordes of articles and news reports declaring that “the Catholic Church” overturned its view on Justification. 

It’s also interesting to note that when I quoted the clear heresy of “faith alone” in the Annex to the Joint Declaration, you then directed me to the Joint Declaration itself, as if it “saved” everything.  This is clearly false, as we can see.  But what’s interesting is that in e-mails to the heretics Leon Suprenant and James Likoudis – both complete heretics and obstinate defenders of the Vatican II apostasy like yourself – they did just the opposite (see Suprenant’s Response in E-Mail Discussions)!  When I quoted the heresies for them in the Joint Declaration itself, they both directed me to the Annex to clarify everything!  This just shows that their – and your – whole defense of the Vatican II apostasy is based on false and easily refuted lies.  It shows the bad will and dishonest tactics of heretics such as yourself.  This kind of false and dishonest tactic – which attempts to prey upon people’s ignorance with statements that are completely untrue, such as that the “Annex” clarifies everything – will work with someone who is not familiar with the documents concerned.  But it won’t work with someone who is very familiar with the documents and knows that all three involved in the Joint Declaration teach blatant heresy.

So, in conclusion, even if we prescind completely from the teaching of Justification by faith alone that your sect officially made in the “Annex,” the Joint Declaration itself clearly identifies the Lutheran heresy and specifically says that it is not condemned by Trent.  Nothing could be more heretical.  But you will probably deny this, even though it is undeniable, because you are a liar and of bad will.  Sadly, one must say that you are a prime example of a person of bad will and why God sends people to hell for all eternity. 

Interesting Comment from a reader on the “or” as “and” issue

 

In re-reading your work on Baptism of desire I went to the law dictionary to look up the word "or".

 

Using Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia,   Third Revision 1914, we see:

 

"As a particle, 'or' is often construed 'and', and 'and' construed 'or', to further the intent of the parties.... So, 'break or enter' in a statute defining burglary, means 'break and enter'. (emphasis mine)

 

It goes on to talk about when "or" is used to indicate an alternative choice that its use is often bad because it causes uncertainty:

 

"Where an indictment is in the alternative, as forged or caused to be forged, it is bad for uncertainty."

 

Clearly the Council of Trent was using the word 'or' in its most precise, legal sense in order to further its intent in defining justification when it says that  justification cannot take place "...without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it". The Council of Trent is teaching us that to be justified we must be Baptized and desire Baptism - the Council of Trent is not offering us an alternative choice as you have pointed out so well!

 

Again thank you for your excellent research and presentation.

Best regards,
~Phil Pinheiro~

 

MHFM:  That is a very interesting point.  And what is perhaps most significant in this regard is the infallible declaration that Trent makes that John 3:5 is to be understood “as it is written” which comes in the very same sentence. 

 

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

 

There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies.  The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this.  That is why all of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.  For instance:

 

Fr. Francois Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 33: “Fr. Feeney’s greatest argument was that Our Lord’s words, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5) mean the absolute necessity of baptism of water with no exception whatsoever… The great question is, then, how did the Church explain these words of Our Lord?”

 

Fr. Laisney, a fierce baptism of desire advocate, is admitting here that John 3:5 cannot be understood as it is written if baptism of desire is true.  He therefore holds that the true understanding of John 3:5 is that it does not apply literally to all men; that is, John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written.  But how does the Catholic Church understand these words?  What does the passage in Trent that we just discussed say?  It says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”

 

The passage thus teaches – as it is written – unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  If what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices without being born again of water), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptum est)!  But this is absurd, of course.  The passage does not say that justification can take place by water or desire; it says justification cannot take place without water or desire, AS IT IS WRITTEN, unless a man is born again of waterThose who obstinately insist that this passage teaches baptism of desire are simply wrong and are contradicting the very words given in the passage about John 3:5.  The inclusion of “AS IT IS WRITTEN, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5) shows the true meaning and the perfect harmony of that passage in Trent with all of the other passages in Trent and other Councils which all affirm the absolute necessity of water baptism with no exceptions. 

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V:  “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2:  If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.

 

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

 

Exchange on no salvation outside the Church continued

 

You Feenyites say that God will furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided there is no hindrance on the person's part. For example, if someone is raised in another religious tradition or lives in a country that is not open to the Church and if the person uses natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, God would lead a person to believe, through internal inspiration or through the means of an angel, what has to be believed.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Effectively, the Feeneyites are saying that there are no *truly* misinformed or ignorant non-Catholics since, for them, God would reveal to them what has to be believed by supernatural means. Is this realistic?...

 

A. T.

 

MHFM: Ridiculous, eh?  Yes, ridiculous to a faithless heretic such as yourself.  You are obviously totally obstinate.  You are not  even remotely Catholic.  And you have no divine Faith in Jesus Christ’s truth whatsoever.  Since you cannot see the justice in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, you refuse to believe it.

 

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 deceivedBut 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.”

 

The fact that no one can be saved without knowing the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, and therefore that God will supernaturally reveal to those of good will what they must know, such as when He sent an angel to Cornelius in Acts 10:3, is “ridiculous” to someone who has no divine Faith in what Jesus Christ has revealed.  It is not ridiculous, however, to a Catholic who believes in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and therefore holds that knowing Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for all above reason.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.  St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance.  In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”

 

You call this “ridiculous” because, unlike Catholics, you don’t believe that, “… the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ… Nor is there salvation in any other.  For there is no other name, under heaven, given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).  Those who die in ignorance of the Gospel were left in ignorance because they were not of the truth.  They were not of good will.  That is the teaching of Catholic Tradition and Catholic dogma.

 

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

 

John 10:14: “I am the good shepherd, and I know mine, and mine know me.”

 

John 10:16: “And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.”

 

John 18:37: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth: every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.”

 

Exchange #2 with Vatican II defender continued

 

…Pope John Paul the Great was holier than you or I will ever likely be.....The kissing of a book does not make or UN-make Popes. Surely you understand that; surely your faith in the promises of Christ and the Magisterium’s protection by the Holy Spirit runs deeper than that?

***** Sir, again you are completely deceived.   You call what is Catholic “Protestant” while you are in communion with men who agree that Justification takes place by “faith alone” and that the Council of Trent no longer applies (Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, approved by John Paul II).*******

Maybe you are completely deceived. Who gets to decide? But, just for fun, why not produce for me a *direct* quote from a universal teaching of the Church that claims the Catholic Church teaches “sola fide”—I want to see the exact words that back up your claim above. I *know* the Joint Declaration to which you refer does not state that....

 

Can you show me *anywhere* in Church teaching where it specifically says that an individual can or should dissent from the *Magisterium’s* authority and that an individual is free to apply doctrines regarding offenses against the faith to the Magisterium itself?...

 

Jim Russell

 

MHFM:  Oh really?  So you “know” that the Joint Declaration doesn’t teach Justification by faith alone.  Read it and weep.  (You also blaspheme Jesus Christ by asserting that Antipope John Paul II was “John Paul the Great” after you’ve seen his apostasy.)

 

Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works."

 

This is the annex to the official statement made by your Vatican II sect under John Paul II with the Lutheran sect.  Your sect is Protestant.

 

Antipope John Paul II, Jan. 19, 2004, At a Meeting with Lutherans From Finland: “… I wish to express my gratitude for the ecumenical progress made between Catholics and Lutherans in the five years since the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification… It is my hope that Lutherans and Catholics will increasingly practice a spirituality of communion, which draws on those elements of ecclesial life which they already share and which will strengthen their fellowship in prayer and in witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 28, 2004, p. 4.)

 

So, what you claimed to “know” was completely wrong.  Perhaps you should realize that you are also wrong in other areas relating to this matter.  Regarding your second question, it doesn’t make any sense.  You are asking me to produce a Magisterial teaching that allows Catholics to reject the Magisterium.  A Catholic can never reject the Magisterium.  The Magisterium is the infallible, unerring teaching authority of the Catholic Church.  All teachings of the Magisterium must be accepted, since they are infallible. 

 

Pope Pius XI, “Divini Illius Magistri,” December 31, 1929:  Upon this magisterium Christ the Lord conferred immunity from error, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all.” (Denz. 2204)

 

Your contradictory question reveals your lack of understanding of what the Magisterium is: it is the infallible teaching authority of Christ’s Church exercised by a true Pope when speaking from the Chair of Peter solemnly or reiterating in his ordinary and universal teaching that which has always been held from Scripture or Tradition.  The defined teachings of the Magisterium are an unchangeable body, the deposit of Faith, such as those promulgated at the Council of Nicaea, Florence, Trent, etc.  Neither the persons of Bishops nor the teaching of Bishops constitute the teaching of the Magisterium, unless they are reiterating what has already been taught by the Magisterium.

 

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 1, 1311-1312:

“We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear.”

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832:

“Let those who devise such plans be aware that, according to the testimony of St. Leo, ‘the right to grant dispensation from the canons is given’ only to the Roman Pontiff.  He alone, and no private person, can decide anything ‘about the rules of the Church Fathers.’”

 

Pope Leo XIII, Officio sanctissimo #7, Dec. 22, 1887: “…the Roman Pontiff, whose sole right it is, by divine command and appointment to be the guardian of that doctrine, to hand it on and to judge truly concerning it.”

 

The fact that Bishops don’t represent or possess the infallible teaching of the Magisterium is proven by the fact that a General Council is worthless if not approved by the Pope.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless.”

 

So, your question, if it were posed in a way consistent with Catholic teaching, would be: Can you show me *anywhere* in Church teaching where it specifically says that an individual can reject as invalid, due to his manifest heresy, a man who is allegedly elected Pope by the College of Cardinals?  The answer is a resounding Yes.  There is an entire Papal Bull about it, called cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV. Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.  This Bull teaches that a heretic cannot be accepted as a valid Pope, even with the unanimous consent of the Cardinals.  This proves two points which directly refute you: 1) it proves that it is a real possibility for a heretic to be elected, otherwise Paul IV wouldn’t have issued the Bull.  2) It proves that individuals have the authority to recognize when such a claimant to the Papacy has defected into heresy, and therefore to reject him on that basis as invalid; otherwise the Bull, telling Catholics they can reject as invalid one who defects from the Faith, would be contrary to the Faith.

 

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

 (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

 

This is also why St. Robert Bellarmine teaches Catholics that a validly elected Pope who is a manifest heretic must be rejected as not the Pope.

 

 

-Bro. Peter Dimond

 

#3 An exchange on no salvation outside the Church

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

I would like to point out that the Catholic Church has always taught that those who, through no fault of their own, were never aware that salvation can only be achieved through the Catholic Church or who were never aware that the Catholic Church even exists (a fact common in many primitive tribes in, for example, Africa) can still attain salvation if they honestly seek the Truth their whole lives and try to live a good, moral life. However, this salvation comes not from the fruit of their own religion, but through the grace of the Catholic Church.

 

Surely God will never condemn a person who has never even heard of Jesus Christ.

 

 A. T.

 

MHFM:  No, the Catholic Church has never taught that.  The dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation has been solemnly defined at least seven times by Popes speaking from the Chair of St. Peter.  Each time the Church has infallibly defined that all who die without the Catholic Faith are lost without exception.  Never once were any exceptions mentioned about “invincible ignorance.”  It is just the opposite: all exceptions were always excluded.

 

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.

 

Dogmas must be believed as the Church “has once declared” (Vatican I).  To refuse to accept this definition as it was once declared is heresy.  In fact, it is the root heresy of the Great Apostasy.  The Church teaches that no one above reason can be saved while ignorant of the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, the Trinity and the Incarnation.  Yes, knowing Jesus Christ is that important. 

 

“Now this is life everlasting, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

 

That is why the great missionaries of the Church, such as St. Francis Xavier and St. Isaac Jogues, who preached in ignorant heathen cultures such as you described, knew that all who died before they could incorporate them into the Catholic Church through baptism and hearing the Gospel were lost.

 

St. Isaac Jogues: “… These savages, I must confess, unwillingly and reluctantly have thus far spared me, by the will of God, so that thus through me, although unworthy, they might be instructed, they might believe, and be baptized, as many of them as are preordained for eternal life.”

 

Could any statement from a Saint better refute the heresy of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant”?  St. Isaac knew that those ignorant heathen who did not come to know the Catholic Faith and get baptized simply were not preordained for eternal life. 

 

Romans 8:29-30- “For whom He foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son: that he might be the first-born amongst many brethren.  And whom he predestinated, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

 

As Catholics, of course, we don’t believe as the heretic John Calvin, who held a predestination according to which no matter what one does he is either predestined for heaven or hell.  That is a wicked heresy.  Rather, as Catholics we believe in the true understanding of predestination, which is expressed by St. Isaac Jogues and Romans 8 above.  This true understanding of predestination simply means that God’s foreknowledge from all eternity makes sure that those who are of good will and are sincere will be brought to the Catholic faith and come to know what they must – and that those who are not brought to the Catholic faith and don’t know what they must were not among the elect.  That is why the Bible teaches that the Gospel is hidden from those who are lost.

 

2 Corinthians 4:3: And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.” 

 

St. Francis Xavier, Dec. 31, 1543: “There is now in these parts [of India] a very large number of persons who have only one reason for not becoming Christians, and that is that there is no one to make them Christians.  It often comes into my mind to go round all the Universities of Europe, and especially that of Paris, crying out everywhere like a madman, and saying to all the learned men there whose learning is so much greater than their charity, ‘Ah! What a multitude of souls is through your fault shut out of heaven and falling into hell! They labor night and day in acquiring knowledge… but if they would spend as much time in that which is the fruit of all solid learning, and be as diligent in teaching the ignorant the things necessary to salvation, they would be far better prepared to give an account of themselves to our Lord when He shall say to them: ‘Give an account of thy stewardship.’”

 

Here we see that St. Francis Xavier is saying that these ignorant heathen in India would easily become Christians if there were someone to instruct them, and yet they are still going to go to hell if they don’t hear about the Faith.  This eliminates the idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” or salvation by “implicit baptism of desire.”  Why did he have such a conviction?  It is because he believed in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation the way the Church infallibly defined it.  So, in summary, the Catholic Church has never taught that souls ignorant of the Catholic Faith can be saved.  It has infallibly taught the opposite.  To hold that a soul can be saved above reason who is ignorant of the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith is heresy. 

 

#2 A Defender of Vatican II writes in

 

To MHFM: …the Second Vatican Council was a completely legitimate exercise of the Church's Magisterium. There is nothing false to be found in the documents of Vatican II. Nor does an individual Catholic have the *authority* to declare a Council of the Church invalid. I can guarantee you this: Even the PRE-Vatican II Magisterium taught that it was a grave error to place one's own opinion above the teaching of the Popes, Councils, and Bishops.

**** Even a careful reading of the New Testament will inform a person that the Vatican II religion is not Catholic.****

There is no such thing as the "Vatican II religion." The teachings of the Second Vatican Council are the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. One who "protests" againsts these teachings would rightly be called "protestant," which is probably the best description of the views espoused by your web site.

***** This is precisely why all the educated Protestants make a mockery out of John Paul II for his endorsement of false and pagan religions.  They can immediately see that the Vatican II “Popes” reject Christ as the only path to heaven.*****

Please cite *direct quotes* in which any modern Pope has stated what you've stated.

****  The problem with a person such as you described – and there are many like him out there – is that he doesn’t care enough to learn about the Catholic Faith and so is led astray through his own lack of interest.*****

You are mistaken. It can be easily demonstrated, through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, that your views are seriously deficient and lacking in fidelity to the Church founded by Christ as well as the authority of Christ Himself. And I would be willing to engage in serious discussion with you to accomplish just that.

For starters, can you show me *anywhere,* in the teachings of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, it is declared that an individual Catholic has the authority to declare another person to be a heretic? I look forward to your reply.

JR

 

MHFM: You lack even the courage to put your name.

 

-Bro. Peter Dimond

 

Please--surely we can do better than that. I didn't know who to address my post to, so I settled for initials. My name is Jim Russell. Pleased to meet you, Brother Dimond. Now that we've established that I have courage, and cordiality, could you please address the question I asked in my initial post? If you prefer to avoid the question, then just tell me where you would like to begin.

Sincerely,

Jim Russell

 

MHFM: Before I answer the question, please tell me if you regard John Kerry (the former presidential candidate who supports abortion) as a Catholic or a heretic?  He has not been excommunicated by your Bishops.

 

-Bro. Peter Dimond

 

Brother Dimond: I am assuming that your request means that, by answering your question, you will agree to answer mine. I accept.

Heresy is defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith." Are we on the same page with its definition? Assuming so, we must still ask the question, "who gets to decide--officially--what is heresy and what is not"?

But I will say that in my personal judgment, *which I submit to the authority of the Church's Magisterium*, Kerry's baptismal identity makes him Catholic in name, although his personally held beliefs are far from the authentic Catholic faith. Kerry's pro-abortion views, for example, are clearly anti-Catholic. The Magisterium has said so. Heresy, however, is an official term used in magisterial, authoritative declarations regarding the formal status of someone's relationship with the Church. *I* can't declare someone to be a "heretic" in any official sense at all. I don't think it makes sense for private individuals to label *other* private individuals as heretics when that is the prerogative of the Magisterium alone.

Kerry can and will be denied Communion in at least some dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church. The jurdicial penalty of excommunication would clarify his official status, but wouldn't necessarily make him a heretic, if, for example, he is officially declared instead to be an apostate or schismatic, etc. Heresy is a precise juridical term used officially in specific situations by those competent to officially declare what is heresy and what is not.

So, back to you and my question.

Jim Russell

 

Brother Dimond:

I'm beginning to think I've scared you off!  I'm assuming you're willing to continue discussion, correct?

Jim Russell

 

MHFM: No, that is quite far from the truth.   I'm involved with many things, many of which are of a more pressing priority than refuting a heretic who thinks that the apostate John Kerry is a Catholic.  After all, you did send your e-mail yesterday.  I was planning on responding to you when I had time, such as now.  

 

First, I must say that you are quite deceived.  You really believe that you are a Catholic, and you are trying to tell me what is Catholic teaching, while at the same you hold that the apostate John Kerry is a Catholic and you don't believe the Vatican II Antipopes endorse false religions. This means that you believe that one can obstinately support abortion and hold the Catholic Faith.  Sorry to say, but this is heresy.  I must say that you understand nothing at all about the unity of Faith in the Church, heresy, Magisterial teaching or how the Church views heretics.  Have you even read Pope Pius XI's 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos?  If not, you better since this encyclical condemns as apostasy the very ecumenism that is exemplified by the Vatican II Antipopes.

 

How about Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum of 1896?  Have you read the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Pope Pius IX?  I think you  better educate yourself on what the Catholic Church traditionally teaches because you think that you are a defender of the Catholic Faith when you are actually acting as its enemy - by defending the Vatican II apostasy.   You asked three different questions: 1) produce a quotation from the Vatican II Antipopes which endorses false religions; 2) produce a heresy in Vatican II; and 3) produce Catholic teaching which says that an individual can determine that another individual is a heretic.  I will answer one question at a time, so that these e-mails don't get too long.  After I answer them I will ask you a few questions.   

 

You write>>>>For starters, can you show me *anywhere,* in the teachings of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, it is declared that an individual Catholic has the authority to declare another person to be a heretic? I look forward to your reply.>>>

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

 

Here we see the teaching of the Catholic Church that individuals who recede from the teaching of the Magisterium must be considered outside the Church (e.g. heretics).  This is the teaching of all the ancient fathers, as Pope Leo XIII declares.  Below we also see St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, illustrating the same teaching that individuals can and must consider as heretics those who demonstrate a rejection of Catholic teaching.  He states that a Catholic condemns as heretics those who show themselves to be by their external works. 

 

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:

“… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

 

And this is traditional teaching of course, since only a tiny fraction of all the heretics who exist have traditionally been declared to be heretics by name.  For instance, Hans Kung and Billy Graham have never been declared to be heretics, but Catholics are obligated to consider them as such, since they obstinately reject Catholic teaching.  But you don’t understand this, since you don’t, as of yet, have the Catholic Faith.  So, I have answered your question. 

 

You also asked for me to produce a quotation from the Vatican II Antipopes which endorses false religions.  Well, here you go:

 

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 is total apostasy.  This is an endorsement of a false religion and a rejection of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.  I could quote many more, but this should suffice for this e-mail.  The Catholic Faith holds that Islam is an abomination which leads to damnation, as it rejects the True God and the Catholic Faith.  Antipope John Paul II asked for its protection.  He was an apostate who completely rejected the Catholic Faith.  That is why he also kissed the blasphemous Koran, etc., etc., etc., etc.

 

You write>>>>There is no such thing as the "Vatican II religion." The teachings of the Second Vatican Council are the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. One who "protests" againsts these teachings would rightly be called "protestant," which is probably the best description of the views espoused by your web site.>>>

 

Sir, again you are completely deceived.  You call what is Catholic “Protestant,” while you are in communion with men who agree that Justification takes place by “faith alone” and that the Council of Trent no longer applies (Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, approved by John Paul II).  But since you say this, would you agree that Benedict XVI promotes Protestantism by encouraging the formation of Protestant and non-Catholic Monasteries such as the Monastery of Taize?

 

The famous ecumenical Monastery of Taize is located in the south of Burgundy, France.  The Taize community “is made up of over a hundred brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant backgrounds, from more than twenty-five nations.” [Taize]

 

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 304: “For more than a decade, Taize has been, without a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical inspiration, emanating from a local center inspired by a particular ‘charism’.  Similar communities of faith and of shared living should be formed elsewhere in which the foregoing of a communal reception of the Eucharist would, without ceasing to be a hardship, become comprehensible and in which its necessity would be understood by a prayer community that cannot answer its own prayer but is, nevertheless, calmly certain it will be answered.”

 

He praises the non-Catholic Monastery of Taize; and he encourages similar communities to be formed, thus encouraging people to become non-Catholics.  Do you agree that this shows that Benedict XVI is a promoter of Protestantism?  If not, you show yourself to be an abominable hypocrite.

 

Last point: there are many heresies in Vatican II.  I will just cite one: its teaching that non-Catholics may lawfully receive the Holy Eucharist.  This is a rejection of Catholic teaching, which has always forbidden non-Catholics from receiving Communion.  This prohibition of the Church is rooted in the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-Catholics sin when receiving Holy Communion since they are outside the Church.  It cannot be changed.  Vatican II contradicted it and taught heresy.

 

Vatican II, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27:

“Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”

 

So, since you asked me three questions, I will ask you three: 1) have you read Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Mortalium Animos?  2) Do you admit that Benedict XVI promotes Protestantism by encouraging the formation of non-Catholic Monasteries?  3) Do you admit that Benedict XVI’s teaching that Catholics shouldn’t convert Protestants and schismatics is heresy (see below)?

 

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism.  The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.  On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.  On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the Church. While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the problem.  This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action.  That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it.  As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

I quoted the entire passage without a break so that people can see that this is not being taken out of context in any way.  Ratzinger specifically mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith (and accept Vatican I: “the full scope of the definition of 1870”).  He specifically rejects it as the way to unity.  This is totally heretical and it proves that he is a complete non-Catholic heretic.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928:

“… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”

 

-Bro. Peter Dimond

 

….possibly to be continued

 

#1 The Principal of St. Gertrude the Great writes an unsolicited e-mail attacking the dogma

 

[MHFM: Some people sometimes wonder why we have harsh words for certain heretics.  This exchange shows us why.  This person wrote in an unsolicited e-mail attacking us.  We discover why at the end of the exhange.]

 

To MHFM: Heretical Feenyite:

I didn't know degrees in theology were available from Cracker Jack! Just where and when did you get yours? Your website is an insult to the intelligence of a gnat. Quit masquerading as a Catholic and leading souls to hell.

 

MHFM: Dear Apostate who claims to be Catholic but doesn't even believe that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation:

 

You are just upset that we are exposing your heresy.  Why don't you just be a little bit honest and admit that you don't accept the defined dogma that all who die without the Catholic Faith are lost?  Stop pretending that you are a Catholic when we both know that you don't accept the Catholic Faith. 

 

Also, you are a despicable coward because you cannot even put you name. [Note: If people write us e-mails asking us questions and want to abbreviate their names that’s fine with us, but if they are going to send an attack they should have the courage to put their names.]

 

-Bro. Peter Dimond

 

To MHFM: HERETIC PETER DIMOND:

My name is as listed below. Sorry it wasn't in my original e-mail as it was an oversight. By the way, I  am the principal of St. Gertrude the Great School, West Chester,  Ohio. Now you can add me to your slanderous list!

I'm not upset, just sick of DIRT like you claiming the Catholic name and leading ignorant laymen astray.  You're no more a religious than I am the pope. Why don't YOU stop pretending to be Catholic!

Mark A. Lotarski

 

MHFM- Do you reject the following as heretical?  If not, you show yourself to be a heretic.

 

Bishop Donald Sanborn, Sacerdotium V, p. 24: “Wojtyla’s ecclesiology goes a step beyond Vatican II, a little step for man, but a great step for apostasy.  While the Council seems to draw the line of the Mystical Body  around those ‘who in faith look towards Jesus’ – whatever that means – Wojtyla [John Paul II] is ready to sign up the entire human race in the Mystical Body by the fact, as he says, that all are united to Christ by means of the Incarnation.  With this principle, the Novus Ordites are in ‘communion’ not only with the Anglicans and the Orthodox, but with everything: Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, spiritists, Jews, Great Thumb worshippers.  You name it; they are in communion with it.  Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ.  The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ.  If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry.  It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error.”

-Bro. Peter Dimond

 

Lotarski To MHFM: According to whom?

 

MHFM: Do you understand English?  I asked if it is heretical or not?  Yes or no?

 

Mark Lotarski: You know the position of the Roman Catholic Church, as it has been pointed out time and time again. I won't be drawn into a protracted debate with one who is of bad faith. I adhere to all Church doctrine with my entire being and don't adhere to is the twisted doctrine of heretics. In a nutshell, I agree with Bp. Sanborn. Please add me to your extensive list of heretics.

Be assured of my prayers for your conversion.

-Mark Lotarski

 

MHFM: So, we see why Mr. Lotarksi has such an evil animosity toward the dogma reiterated on our website.  It is because he agrees with the heretic Bishop Sanborn that pagans and idolaters can be saved without the Catholic Faith.  He is a complete heretic who rejects defined 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.”

 

1 Corinthians 6:9- “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God?  Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.”

 

By holding that pagans and idolaters can be united to the Catholic Church, the heretic Mr. Lotarski (like Sanborn and the rest)  DENIES THE DOGMA THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE FAITH IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.  HE MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE SUPERNATURAL MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH IN WHICH ALL HAVE ONE FAITH.

 

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

 

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why they attack and slander those who adhere to the dogma that the Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are necessary for salvation.  It is simply because they hate the supernatural dogma that all must belong to the one true Church for salvation, and that Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation.  The apostate Mr. Lotarski also surely believes with Sanborn, McKenna, etc. that even Jews who reject Christ can be saved. 

 

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

 



 

[2] L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 14, 1983, p. 9. 

[3] L’Osservatore Romano, July 9, 1985, p. 5.

[4] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 268.

[5] 30 Days Magazine, Issue No. 7-8, 1995, p. 19.

[6] Benedict XVI, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, Ignatius Press, pp. 87-88.

[7] http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word081205.htm#protestant

[8] St. Alphonsus Liguori, Preparation for Death, Tan Books, Abridged Version, p. 127.

[9] St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306.

[10] Denzinger 51-52e; Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 1 (The Founding of Christendom), p. 494; J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 25.

 

 

 

 

 

[16] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius Press, 1982, pp. 197-198.

[17] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.

[18] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 275.

 

 

 

 

 

[24] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 479.

[25] Von Pastor, History of the Popes, II, 346; quoted by Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, p. 571.

 

 

[28] Archbishop Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law, p. 43.

 

 

[31] Warren H. Carroll, The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution, pp. 224-225.

[32] Bart McDowell, Inside the Vatican, Washington D.C.: National Geographic Society, 1991, p. 193;  also can be seen in Time Magazine, Jan 4, 1963 issue; also quoted in The Bible, The Jews and the Death of Jesus, Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2004, p. 59.

[33] Denzinger 570b.

[34] L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.

 

 

[37] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.

[38] Denzinger 646.

[39] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 41.

[40][281] L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 11, 1973, p. 4.

[41] Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 8, p. 478.

[42] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1012.

 

[44][ L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 14, 1983, p. 9. 

[45] L’Osservatore Romano, July 9, 1985, p. 5.

[46] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 268.

[47] 30 Days Magazine, Issue No. 7-8, 1995, p. 19.