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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for the critical information and good counsel that has helped me return to Catholicism.
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,
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.”[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
The Only Heresy I see is you and your website
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reader on Cheating
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)
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.
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
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.”
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].
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,
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.”
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.
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.
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...
Yann de Grendel
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...........
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,
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 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.
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,
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.
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,
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!...
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.
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.
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.
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 know? Nevertheless 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…
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
All of your resources have provided me with the invaluable assistance in my regular evangelical work among the disbelieving and the deceived.
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.
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? …
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.
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.]
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!
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
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).”
MHFM: Actually, when you look at the two statements they mean exactly same thing.
WHOEVER ISN’T WITH HIM IS AGAINST HIM
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.
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.
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.
How can we know?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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,
MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail. This file will give you the steps to convert.
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.”
I have listened to some of your audios and read your website and feel most disturbed especially about fatima and Sr Lucy.
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
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.
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 Church… Wherefore 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:
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 anywhere… The 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.)
Is it a sin to attend a
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
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
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
- 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.
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
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-à-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 anywhere… The 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.
[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?
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.
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.
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.
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 perseverance… none 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.”
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,
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].
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.
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.
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.
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 all… They 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.”
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,
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].
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
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
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.
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!
The Duffy Family
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.
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.
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?
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.
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,
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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.)
"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,
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].
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.
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…
L.A. Novus Ordo
Thought you might find it interesting
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.
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]
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.
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.”)
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,
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
Embraces sedevacantist point of view
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,
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.)
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.
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).
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…
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!
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.
MHFM: There is certainly a lot of spit and other foul things in Hell, which is where you’re headed.
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.
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,
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
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,
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:
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???
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
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,
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.
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.
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.
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,
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
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,
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].
… 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)…
Masonic and False V-2 Church
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.)
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,
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.”
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?
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.” 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.” 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...”
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”!]
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:
(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.
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.
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…
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.
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
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…
Don’t care enough
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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.
[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.
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.
Chiang Mai University
Likes EENS book
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.
New Audio on Papacy – Section D of Part 2
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
…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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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,
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.
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
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.
“Catholic” Jew writes in
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
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
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,
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:
(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.
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.
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.”
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are many other important files. These are just a few.
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.
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
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,
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??
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."
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.
Laguna Woods, California
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?
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.
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 mer