What About Bishop Tom S.?

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

Click here for important update on Bishop Tom -7/16/05- VINDICATED-  OUR ANALYSIS OF BISHOP TOM, THOUGH REJECTED AND CRITICIZED AS UNCHARITABLE BY SOME, PROVED TO BE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

Dear Brothers,

I have read your articles with great interest!  I would like to know more about Father Dennis M… and Bishop Thom S….  Both groups uphold the teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.  What is your opinion of them?  Is a Catholic safe to approach them for the Sacraments?  In Jesus and Mary, -A. Y.

Introductory Note: 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.’ (II John 10).”

Charity is not tolerating heresy, sowing confusion or failing to denounce evil.  St. John himself, the Apostle of love, wouldn’t even let a heretic into his house.  So those who claim that the treatment of Bishop Tom in the following article is uncharitable simply cannot perceive evil; they don’t love the Faith and they don’t know what true charity is.  What is said below is not based on one instance or two.  It based on years worth of considering the issue, personal experience and obstinate activity that leads one to an undeniable conclusion.  What is said below must be brought out because it is true and because false pastors who demonstrate obstinate bad will and mislead Catholics must be exposed.

 BISHOP TOM WENT FROM BEING A LAYMAN TO A BISHOP WITHIN A FEW DAYS, ALL AT THE HANDS OF A NON-CATHOLIC

Bishop Tom is an independent Bishop who claims to be a Traditional Catholic.   He received ordination (presumably validly in the traditional rite) from a non-Catholic schismatic, and then was made a Bishop by the same schismatic.  Tom was made a Bishop within a few days after his ordination by the non-Catholic Bishop.  This means that, in a few days, Tom went from being a layman to a Bishop – all at the hands of a non-Catholic schismatic who doesn’t even profess to be Roman Catholic.

BISHOP TOM HAS, SADLY, SHOWN AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT HIS WORD AND BELIEFS MEAN NOTHING

When we first got in contact with Bishop Tom, he sounded like a very strong Catholic.  He told us that he was fully in agreement that the Vatican II imposters were in fact Antipopes.  He spoke adamantly against the SSPX and other heretical groups.  I distinctly recall him telling me over the telephone that we must pull people out of the Vatican II schism and that the SSPX bishops were schismatics for their non-sedevacantist position.  Yet, to our dismay, we quickly discovered that Tom’s word means basically nothing, and that he is unfortunately a complete phony.  Shortly after the time I spoke with him (when Tom claimed to be a strong Sedevacantist), Bishop Tom held a Conference with the non-sedevacantist “Fr.” Gregory Hesse.  Why would Bishop Tom hold a Conference with Gregory Hesse when Gregory Hesse had consistently attacked the position of Sedevacantism –the position that Bishop Tom claimed to espouse?  The answer is because Tom is, unfortunately, a phony who doesn’t stand for the truth.  In his talk at the Conference, “Fr.” Gregory Hesse even denounced Sedevacantism (the position of Bishop Tom) and Bishop Tom said that God was speaking through Hesse!  During the same Conference which featured Bishop Tom and Gregory Hesse, Bishop Tom specifically mentioned the Bishops of the SSPX in a positive way as if they were true Catholics.  This was well after he told me categorically that he felt that the SSPX was schismatic.  This proved that Bishop Tom was a complete phony. On top of all of this, Bishop Tom, who claimed to be totally against the New Rite of Ordination allowed Gregory Hesse (a “priest” “ordained” in the New Rite) to offer “Mass” for his people at his chapel!  To our dismay, we were figuring out that Bishop Tom is a phony who stands for basically nothing.

BISHOP TOM HAS CLAIMED TO BE SEDEVACANTIST FOR YEARS BUT DOES NOT ENFORCE THE FAITH AT HIS CHAPEL

Before and after the Conference with Hesse, Bishop Tom claimed to be a Sedevacantist, though his policy was not to speak publicly and specifically to his people about this from the pulpit.  That is to say, Bishop Tom never clearly told the people at his chapel that this was his position and that it must be the position of all the people at his Chapel.  He either: 1) was too cowardly to stand for the truth because he feared the reaction of the people; or 2) he didn’t think that the issue of the Vatican II apostasy was important enough to warrant a specific discussion about exactly what Catholics must think of it to receive the sacraments.  So, his policy was – and is to this day – to allow people to come to Communion who may be Sedevacantists and who may not be.  He doesn’t know what they believe since he doesn’t specifically instruct them on what they must hold to come to Communion.  As he told me himself, he tells them that they “must be Catholics in the state of grace,” which even John Kerry would consider himself to be. Sorry, but that is not good enough.  Bishop Tom’s policy is not that of a true Catholic.  A true Catholic, and especially a priest and a Bishop, must specifically instruct Catholics on what they must hold in this time of apostasy.  Those who refuse to accept it must be cleaned out of the Chapel to preserve the unity of the Faith.  “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.” (Eph. 4:5)  A good example of this is when we met a person outside a chapel who told us that he believes that “all religions are important” – utter apostasy.  People like this go right to Communion unless the priest specifically instructs people on what they must not hold.

BISHOP TOM’S PARISHIONERS DENY THE SALVATION DOGMA

The heretical nature of Tom’s policy was shown just a few months ago when we got a call from one of Bishop Tom’s parishioners.  This woman has been attending Bishop Tom’s Mass for years.  She is a very loyal parishioner of Tom’s; and she is also familiar with our material.  In fact, our material was heavily responsible for her being a traditionalist.  But now she won’t even look at our material because her “Bishop” Tom won’t give her permission! In my conversation with this woman, I discovered that she believes that there are exceptions to Outside the Church There is No Salvation (heresy) and she holds that Fr. Feeney was condemned by the Church.  [Now, to avoid any confusion I must point out that it is certainly possible that even with a priest who is preaching the Faith (and even if he got all of his parishioners to sign a statement of Faith), there may still be some who dishonestly stay at the chapel and remain heretics.  So, I am not asserting that just because one heretic was discovered at his chapel Bishop Tom is at fault.] But in this case, the woman’s denial of the salvation dogma is evidence of Bishop Tom’s heretical negligence because Bishop Tom admittedly doesn’t discuss specifically what one must hold on salvation and Sedevacantism from the pulpit.  Hence, this woman’s heresy and reception of Communion at his chapel is, in this case, evidence of the bad fruit of his heretical policy.  Bishop Tom is saying nothing at his church to disabuse her of her heretical position.  And what’s most revealing about this is that Bishop Tom recently changed his position on the salvation dogma: he would now claim to hold the position that only baptized Catholics can be saved.  Nevertheless, this woman didn’t even know that Bishop Tom’s position had changed.  She didn’t know it because Tom doesn’t instruct the people at his chapel in these issues; and he allows heretics to commune with him at his chapel on his watch.  Thus, Bishop Tom doesn’t preserve the unity of the Faith.  He does not uphold the teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (more on this soon).

BISHOP TOM’S STUNNING HYPOCRISY AND BAD WILL

Bishop Tom also has a severe dislike for us because we have brought his failure to be consistent and stand for the truth to his attention.  In response, he attacks us and implies that we are schismatics for not working with him.  In fact, in one response to us, which truly revealed his utter dishonesty, hypocrisy and bad will, Tom actually implied that we are excommunicated for teaching the Faith without the permission of a Bishop!  This shows Tom’s hypocrisy and bad will because Bishop Tom FULLY AGREES that Catholics have a right and a duty in necessity to teach the Faith in this time, even without the normal Episcopal imprimaturs on books.  These are merely ecclesiastical laws which don’t bind in this situation. As we will see from the following e-mail, we are dealing with a deeper level of insincerity in Bishop Tom.  Below is what he actually wrote to us in an e-mail.  And what is most disappointing about this is not that the phony Bishop Tom could make this charge, but that Fr. M. (whom he works with) tacitly agreed with it!

Bishop Tom to us via Fr. M.:>>>>Who has granted them [the Dimond Brothers]… the power to teach, preach or publish, which according to the Councils of Trent and Lateran V, as well as Canon Law, sentences them to excommunication reserved to the Holy See.>>>

Here was my response to this outrageous hypocrisy:

Bro. Peter Dimond to Bishop Tom: “First, I must say that when one considers this question carefully one easily picks up the hypocrisy at the heart of it.  This is because Canon Law forbids not only laymen from preaching the Faith, but anyone without a mission from a legitimate Superior (Canon 1328).  Specific mention is also made that religious (1385.3) and secular clerics (1386) are forbidden to publish materials teaching the Faith without permission of their Superiors or Ordinaries.  Thus, you and Fr. M… would be in violation of these canons as much as anyone.  So, for one to take your charge seriously is to acknowledge your own excommunication and see your own condemnation in your words.  It’s astounding to me that you, Bishop Tom, who are in direct violation of numerous canon laws which I will list, presume to bind this canon to others – a canon that clearly doesn’t apply in this state of necessity and which you also would be in violation of.  I also find it outrageous that you, Fr. M…, can present this question to us from Bishop [Tom]… as if we are excommunicated for teaching the Faith and not offer any objection to such a false assertion, as you know very well that it is totally without merit and runs contrary to the whole tenor of your position (e.g. “How the Church functions in a time of Crisis”).  Frankly, Fr. M…, this is quite hypocritical on your part to imply that we are excommunicated for teaching the Catholic Faith in this crisis, which you know is not true, but is what you clearly imply by presenting this ridiculous question without offering any objection to [Bishop Tom] about it… … since you bring up the matter of ecclesiastical laws and attempt to criticize us in this regard, let’s look at the facts. It is true to say that your Episcopal Consecration at the hands of a notorious schismatic a day or two after getting Ordained by the same schismatic is probably the most scandalous and irregular of any in the traditional movement.

Canon 2372- “They incur upon the fact a suspension from divine things, reserved to the Apostolic See, who presume to receive orders from one excommunicated or suspended or interdicted after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic; but whoever in good faith was ordained by such a one as these lacks the exercise of the orders thus received until he is dispensed.”

According to Canon 2372, you [Bishop Tom] are suspended from divine things and lack the exercise of your orders; i.e., you are for all practical persons to be considered a layman.  You will surely respond by saying that in this state of emergency such a prohibition doesn’t apply.  Then why do you imply that we are excommunicated for teaching the Faith?  With what measure you give to others, it shall be given to you.  Are you totally blinded to your stunning hypocrisy?

Canon 2365- “A presbyter who does not have, either by law or by concession of the Roman Pontiff, faculty to administer the sacrament of confirmation but who dares to administer it is suspended….”

I could list other canons, but I think my point is clear.

In this exchange, we can see the utter dishonesty and hypocrisy of Bishop Tom, as well as (unfortunately) the hypocrisy of Fr. Denis M. for participating in and not condemning Tom’s action.  Fr. M. offered no objection to such an outrageous and hypocritical charge on the part of Bishop Tom when he sent the e-mail to us, which condemns them both out of their own mouth; nor did he condemn the phony Tom afterwards.  Fr. M. continues to work with this total phony and promote his website, which indicates that he shares his views.

BISHOP TOM PROMOTES AS “TRADITIONAL APOLOGISTS” THOSE WHO REJECT THE FAITH AND HIS POSITIONS

On his website, Bishop Tom has a Photo Gallery.  In the Photo Gallery, he has a picture of himself with “Fr.” Gregory Hesse.  Remember, this is the same Gregory Hesse who, as stated above, is not a validly ordained priest (“ordained” in the New Rite of Paul VI) and who attacks Sedevacantism.  And remember, Bishop Tom claims to be a Sedevacantist and claims to hold that the New Rite of Paul VI is not valid!  “Fr. Hesse” also said that Fr. Feeney may have been a heretic.  Yet, he is pictured and mentioned as “Rev.” on Tom’s website! On his website, Bishop Tom also has a picture of himself with Atila Guimaraes and Marian Horvat, who sell a pamphlet denouncing Sedevacantism and hold that non-Catholics can be saved.  Bishop Tom calls them “traditional apologists.”  The picture also seems to indicate that he gave the Sacraments to these heretics.  All of this shows that Bishop Tom is an insincere phony and a heretic. On his website, Bishop Tom also has a completely unnecessary mention of Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt.  Fr. Vaillancourt teaches in his book that there is salvation “outside” the Catholic Church; and he condemns those who reject baptism of desire.  Yet, there is a completely unnecessary mention of Fr. Vaillancourt on Bishop Tom’s website.  Bishop Tom is a heretic who promotes heretics and stands for nothing. When I pointed out to Tom the problem with promoting such heretics on his site, he didn’t agree.  But then he added a note of sorts that said: “NOTE: THIS IS A "PHOTO GALLERY," AND THEREFORE NOT A "COMPENDIUM OF THOSE WHOSE THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS ARE SHARED BY THE MEMBERS OF …," OBVIOUSLY.”  But his heretical mentality was already shown when he posted the pictures without any clarification; and it was shown when he adamantly disagreed with us that there is any problem with promoting such men after we pointed it out to him.  Further, his note is not sufficient because he presents Gregory Hesse as a validly ordained priest and doesn’t state that he doesn’t regard these people as Catholics.  His true colors as a compromising, liberal phony are clear.

BISHOP TOM AND FR. DENNIS M. BOTH PRAY FOR THOSE WHO DIE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

When Fr. Paul Wickens died last year, both Bishop Tom and Fr. M. prayed for and requested prayers for this deceased heretic.  Fr. Wickens was a promoter of the heretical SSPX; he rejected the Sedevacantist position for years; he promoted Natural Family Planning; and he willed his church to the apostate Archdiocese of the Vatican II sect!  Nevertheless, both Bishop Tom and Fr. M. prayed for the soul of this deceased heretic as if he can be considered faithfully departed; and, on top of that, neither one (at least in e-mails that I saw in which they requested such prayers) mentioned to their flock that Wickens was a heretic or even that he held heretical positions.  They gave their flock the impression that Wickens can be regarded as a Catholic; and thus that one can be regarded as a Catholic while… supporting the SSPX, willing his church to the diocese, etc.  As a Catholic, I fully acknowledge that anyone, including Fr. Wickens, could convert to the true Faith on his deathbed; but unless there is evidence of such conversion or adherence to the true Faith in the external forum, such a one is presumed to have died as he lived (as a heretic) and cannot be prayed for.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Gregory says (Moral xxxiv. 19): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and has angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers before they are summoned to the presence of the Judge.”

To pray for one who gave no evidence of conversion or adherence to authentic Catholic truth – but rather, in the case of Wickens, a man who gave evidence of rejection of the Faith by willing a church to heretics as one of his last acts – is to tear asunder the unity of Faith and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  Fr. Dennis M. did so after I specifically mentioned it to him. In fact, Fr. Denis M. revealed to us that he spent time with Fr. Wickens shortly before Wickens’ death.  Fr. M. admitted that he didn’t specifically bring up with Wickens the Sedevacantist issue or his support the SSPX.  It is obvious, therefore, that Fr. M. doesn’t believe that these issues are integral to one’s salvation, which is probably why he shares a similar policy to the heretic Bishop Tom of not addressing these issues with specificity at his chapel. In fact, when the non-Catholic schismatic Bishop Simmons died – the man who ordained and Consecrated Bishop Tom – Bishop Tom said “Rest in Peace.”  I asked Bishop Tom if this non-Catholic Bishop converted to the Catholic Faith before his death.  Bishop Tom responded that he had no evidence of this at all.  Thus, Tom again prayed for one who must be considered as having died a non-Catholic.  Bishop Tom believes that those who die as notorious non-Catholics can have eternal rest.  He shows again that doesn’t believe that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.

BISHOP TOM SAYS THAT IT’S A “GRAVE ERROR” TO CONSIGN ANTIPOPE JOHN PAUL II TO THE FLAMES!

When Antipope John Paul II died, Bishop Tom sent out a public letter which reveals what kind of a liberal, heretical and schismatical phony he actually is.  He writes:

“This day Karol Wojtyla, usurper of the Papal Throne, has passed to his own personal judgment. This day he stands before the Divine Tribunal and must make an accounting of his life and ministry.Over the past several days I prayed for his soul – I prayed that he could repent of his error and heresy and offer up his tremendous suffering for misleading so many millions of souls. Would even that be enough to save his soul? I am content in knowing that it is not for me to know – it is not for anyone to know. There are those who have already canonized him, a grave error; and there are those who have consigned him to the flames, another grave error. Rather, the true Catholic prays that God will have mercy on his soul, and those of all sinners, heretics, and schismatics.”

John Paul II was one of the worst heretics ever – in our view, he was the worst ever.  So, what does Bishop Tom say about indisputably one of the worst heretics and apostates to have ever lived?  He says that it is a “grave error” to say that he is in the eternal flames!  And Tom says that Catholics should pray for his soul!  Now, what kind of faithless heretic would say something like that?  Only a faithless heretic who doesn’t believe that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation and rejects that all who die as non-Catholics go to the eternal flames.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives….”

A real Catholic says that John Paul II’s countless acts of heresy and apostasy merited for him what all those who die as heretics suffer: eternal flames.  And since there is no evidence of his conversion and repudiation of his manifest apostasy, he is considered to have died as he lived (as a non-Catholic); and a true Catholic cannot pray for his soul, which is considered damned in the eternal flames of Hell.  Read the Saints of the Church:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Gregory says (Moral xxxiv. 19): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and has angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers before they are summoned to the presence of the Judge.” St. Francis Xavier, Nov. 5, 1549: “The corsair who commanded our vessel died here at Cagoxima.  He did his work for us, on the whole, as we wished… He himself chose to die in his own superstitions; he did not even leave us the power of rewarding him by that kindness which we can after death do to other friends who die in the profession of the Christian faith, in commending their souls to God, since the poor fellow by his own hand cast his soul into hell, where there is no redemption.” (The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier by Henry James Coleridge, S.J.Originally published:London: Burns and Oates, 1874 Second Reprint, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 2004, Vol. 2, p. 281.)

BISHOP TOM PUBLICLY CONDEMNS AS SCHISMATICS THOSE WHO SAY WE ARE IN THE LAST DAYS!  HE ALSO QUOTES ANTIPOPE JOHN XXIII WITHOUT KNOWING IT

Tom writes: “This is also a time to publicly and clearly condemn those who clamour Antichrist and Perusia: these false prophets of doom and gloom have again been proven wrong. The nonsense of declaring Wojtyla the Antichrist and that we are in the end times has been proven completely false. Unless those who have “proclaimed” these errors retract and repent, they too must take an accounting of leading others into error and schism.”

First, since Bishop Tom is a phony with no supernatural Faith, he totally rejects the idea that we are in the last days of the world.  Now, let’s think about this:  Bishop Tom agrees that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958.  That is 47 years.  He also agrees that the New Mass is an invalid, non-Catholic service.  This means that he agrees that idolatry (worshipping an invalidly consecrated piece of bread) is occurring at almost every so-called “Catholic” church in the world today.  He also believes that the Vatican II sect is an apostate, false church which poses as the Catholic Church, but is not.  But even though he believes that all of this is occurring – a vacancy of the Chair of Peter for 47 years; idolatry in almost every “Catholic” church; and a false church posing as the true Church which has been reduced to a tiny remnant – he utterly rejects that these are the last days!  Does this make any sense whatsoever?  No.  On top of that, Tom not only rejects that we are in the last days, but he holds that those who say we are in the last days are schismatics who must repent. But there is another revealing point about Tom’s words above.  In examining his words carefully, one can see the wicked spirit which moves Bishop Tom.  Notice that Bishop Tom’s words are exactly what Antipope John XXIII, the Freemasonic Conspirator who called Vatican II, said at the opening speech of Vatican II, in ridicule of the Message of Fatima.

Antipope John XXIII, Opening Speech of Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “We feel that we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.”

Notice the incredible parallel between John XXIII’s words and Bishop Tom’s words.  They say the same thing, both in ridicule of those who say that we are in the last days.  Frankly, they are both moved by the same wicked and unbelieving spirit, which scoffs at those who say we are in the last days.  So without knowing it Bishop Tom is uttering the same words as the Freemasonic Antipope John XXIII, who ridiculed the Fatima children and the apocalyptic significance of their message. Furthermore, when Bishop Tom says that it is “nonsense” and schismatic to say that we are in the last days he is condemning Sister Lucia as a schismatic, who told Fr. Fuentes in 1957 that we are in the last days. Sister Lucia to Fr. Fuentes, 1957:

“Father, the Most Holy Virgin did not tell me that we are in the last times of the world but she made me understand this for three reasons.  The first reason is because she told me that the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin.  And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat.  Hence from now on we must choose sides.  Either we are for God or we are for the devil.  There is no other possibility…”

Sister Lucia also stated before Vatican II that the Third Secret is in the Gospel and in the Apocalypse; and she specifically mentioned chapters 8 to 13.  All of this shows us what “schismatic nonsense” his own views are. But Bishop Tom is also condemning as schismatic Pope St. Pius X, who said that he believed we were probably in the last days in 1903, and that the Son of Perdition may already be in the world.

Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi #4, Oct. 4, 1903: “When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the ‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3).”

All of this just shows us again what a wicked, faithless phony Bishop Tom is; he condemns those who say we are in the last days because he doesn’t like what they are bringing to his attention: the necessity of vigorously combating this apostasy.   In regard to Tom’s assertion that it is “nonsense” to say that John Paul II is the Antichrist, one can only say that a faithless, dishonest, insincere phony like Bishop Tom – who allows people “ordained” in the New Rite to say Mass for his people when he doesn’t even believe that the New Rite is valid – would certainly have trouble believing that John Paul II could be the Antichrist.  Those who are evil, such as Bishop Tom, cannot perceive it themselves, being mired in their own darkness.  Bishop Tom doesn’t have the Faith to perceive that John Paul II’s distinguishing teaching is exactly what St. John described as the distinguishing teaching of the Antichrist, as we proved; and he doesn’t have the Faith to perceive that “Rome has lost the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist,” as Our Lady of La Salette prophesied, as soon as the Vatican publicly endorsed that Jews don’t need Christ (which it has). Tom desires to belittle the evil and the significance of the Vatican II apostasy to justify his failure to combat it and instruct against it.  He admitted to us that mentioning John Paul II from the pulpit “once a year” is sufficient – and even then he doesn’t specifically explain why Catholics must hold that John Paul II was not the Pope to come to Communion.  Someone with this heretical outlook certainly is hoping to belittle the significance of the Vatican II sect. In response to some of our criticism that he doesn’t address these issues from the pulpit, Tom said that he was distributing our flyer on the heresies of Vatican II.  Well, we got a copy of the flyer from a person who was attending his chapel.  We discovered that he was distributing the flyer alright, but with our name and contact information removed.  It’s one thing to remove the name; but for him to give the impression that he is in support of our material when he is simultaneously removing our name from our flyer shows again that he is a phony.

BISHOP TOM PUBLICLY CALLED A HERETIC NAMED JOE S. “THE PROPHET” WHEN JOE S. WAS SUPPORTING HIM 

Tom publicly called a man named Joseph Saraceno “the prophet” at a Conference a few years ago.  At the time, Saraceno was attending and supporting Tom’s chapel.  Compare this fact with what Tom writes now:

Tom writes: “This is also a time to publicly and clearly condemn those who clamour Antichrist and Perusia: these false prophets of doom and gloom have again been proven wrong. The nonsense of declaring Wojtyla the Antichrist and that we are in the end times has been proven completely false. Unless those who have “proclaimed” these errors retract and repent, they too must take an accounting of leading others into error and schism.”

He says that these “false prophets of doom and gloom” have been proven wrong again, when he not long ago publicly endorsed this heretical false prophet Joseph Saraceno who said that we are in the last days! Here’s the key: when Saraceno was supporting Bishop Tom he called him “the prophet”; but now that Saraceno doesn’t go to his chapel Tom condemns him as a false prophet!  Saraceno definitely is a false prophet who thinks that he is one of the witnesses of the Apocalypse because he has put forth the invaluable (?) theory that Christ will return on Pentecost of some year.  Saraceno also denies the salvation dogma and is a heretic.  But the point is that Tom, who doesn’t believe that we are in the last days (and who totally condemns those who say that we are!), called this man “the prophet” when he was supporting his chapel.  Here is what Saraceno wrote to me when I asked him recently if Bishop Tom called him a “prophet.”

Bro. Peter Dimond: … Yes it is true when he [Bishop Tom] quoted my booklet he publicly stated "The Prophet Joseph Saraceno states...." Now let me ask you, do you accept him as a Bishop?????  In Christ, the Prophet, Joseph

I know this is true because I heard Bishop Tom call this false prophet “the prophet” on audio tape.  This really shows us all about how much of a fraud Bishop Tom actually is.

CONCLUSION ABOUT BISHOP TOM AND FR. DENNIS M.

More could be said about Bishop Tom, and if we must say more in the future we will.  But the fact of the matter is that Bishop Tom doesn’t have the Catholic Faith.  Bishop Tom is a schismatic because he condemns those who say that we are in the last days.  He denies the salvation dogma by saying it is a “grave error” to declare that John Paul II must be considered lost to eternal hellfire.  He prays for those who die outside the Church and thus tears asunder the necessity of the Faith.  He allowed a “priest” ordained in the New Rite to offer “Mass” at his chapel when he doesn’t even accept the New Rite as valid.  He promotes heretics who reject his own positions, including Gregory Hesse, Fr. Vaillancourt, Atila Guimaraes and Marian Horvat, on his website.  He allows anyone to come to receive Communion at his chapel, including those who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the Sedevacantist position or even those who may go to the Novus Ordo.  He doesn’t tell people that they must reject the salvation heresies and the Vatican II Antipopes if they want to be Catholic and receive the sacraments.  Bishop Tom is a heretic.  This is not a question; this is a fact. Tom’s actions have shown him to be a complete phony and a false shepherd.  He is an example of why Bishops normally couldn’t be consecrated without a Papal Mandate, and why Popes tell us that it is better to have few priests than bad priests.  Now, we hold that a priest who is sincerely Catholic could be consecrated a Bishop without a Papal Mandate in a crisis such as this.  But the candidate must be sincere; he must have his glory in God and in the Catholic Faith; otherwise the evil spirit will take over and help construct a false sect. Bishop Tom went from being a layman to a Bishop within a few days, all at the hands of a non-Catholic.  He has shown again and again that his glory is not in God and the Catholic Faith, but in himself.  And while he denies the Catholic Faith and is definitely a heretic, he is enthralled by externals and his trappings as a “Bishop.”  He acts as if he is a lawfully appointed Bishop of the Catholic Church with authority to command people.  He wrote to us “My sons” as if he had authority over us; he dresses fully as if he were a legitimate Bishop with jurisdiction; he is called by the priests “His Lordship or His Excellency,” etc.  Since Bishop Tom received orders at the hands of a notorious non-Catholic, he is to be considered a layman according to the strict letter of canon law in normal circumstances.   Since he was raised to the Episcopate under such ignominious circumstances in this unusual crisis of the Faith, he should dress as a regular priest.  I believe that if he did become fully Catholic he could exercise his orders in this crisis, even though under normal circumstances he would lack the exercise of his orders; but he absolutely does not deserve the trappings of Bishop or to be called “His Excellency” even if he were fully Catholic, which he is not. Nevertheless, the priests working “under him” call him “His Lordship or His Excellency,” while this heretic is a total disgrace before God and makes a mockery of the Catholic Faith.  Bishop Tom is all about himself, as proven when he condemned as schismatics those who say we are in the last days.  This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever made in the traditional movement.  But he didn’t care about the accuracy of his ridiculous charge; he was primarily concerned with vindicating himself against others.   To the heretic Bishop Tom the words of Pope St. Pius X apply:

Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda Sane #30, March 12, 1904: “Of such apostles the Church has no need; they are not apostles of Jesus Christ Crucified but of themselves.”

No Catholic can give any financial support whatsoever to this false pastor, Bishop Tom, who is definitely a heretic who denies the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  He is also a schismatic for condemning those who hold that we are in the last days.  He is also a schismatic for acting as if he possesses some ruling authority in the Church, when he has none.  And because Bishop Tom condemns true Catholics as schismatics (and thus imposes heresy upon them), no Catholic should even receive the sacraments from him at all or attend his chapel at all. Related: What About Fr. Dennis M?