From the e-box: A hopeless and dishonest attempt to defend Antipope John Paul II and the New Mass

Heresy of the Week, Week of 1/9/04
By Bro. Peter Dimond
For more see: Heresies of the Week Relating to “Traditional” Issues and Persons

[To Most Holy Family Monastery] 1/3/04: “I recently received your tape on John Paul II, and listened to the numerous statements he has made with regards to the Catholic faith in his 25 years as Pope. I did watch the entire tape.  My opinion is as follows. Both the Catechism and the words of John Paul II indeed contradict some Catholic lessons that have been previously taught to Catholics.  The Catechism is not infallible, so any errors it contains do not change the Catholic faith.  As to John Paul II begin an ante Pope (sic). To begin with, only a future Pope can so judge him as a (sic) Ante Pope.  As to the issue of him being a material heretic, you have invented your own definition of material heretic. Because John Paul II has indeed taught many things which are Catholic, he is Catholic. If he errs as you interput it in his teaching, you still cannot prove it is HIS intention to err. And one must " prove intention " to declare and judge a person a heretic. The quotes you pull from Saint Robert Bellarmine and others are selective and not complete, so they distort what is meant. The fact remains, it is defined dogma ALL Catholics must remain subject to the Roman Pontiff and to suggest there is no Pontiff and has not been for 45 years, is not a truth  you can declare. If the idea you propose for people were true, then there are no valid priests in America….One item you selectively forget is that ALL priests in order to function must do so with permission from a superior. Independent priests are acting outside the bounds of the Church, and persons who receive the Sacraments from them, commit mortal sin each time... The Novus Ordo might not be what traditional Catholics want, but it remains valid. To deny that is to deny the Church…” J.G.

Comment: This ridiculous and heretical e-mail is typical of the putrid responses given by non-sedevacantists to the facts that sedevacantists bring forward.  It should be noted that I’ve spoken to the author of this e-mail more than once, so I know that he has demonstrated obstinacy and remarkable bad will in rejecting the truth which has been presented to him. I will not comment on everything that this man asserted, but I will note a few things.  1) The writer disregards the fact that John Paul II’s Catechism contains “errors” (actually heresies) by saying that it is not infallible.  But we have proven repeatedly that Antipope John Paul II invoked his “apostolic authority” to declare that the New Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the Faith.

Antipope John Paul II, Fidei Depositum, Oct. 11, 1992: “JOHN PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY, To my Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and to all the People of God…. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine… I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith.”

The Catechism cannot have multiple heresies and be a “sure norm for teaching the Faith.”  But since John Paul II has solemnly declared this by his “Apostolic authority” to the entire Church, we know that he doesn’t possess the “Apostolic Authority” which he claims to have.  Thus, Mr. G., either the Apostolic Authority of Peter has defected or John Paul II doesn’t have it – take your pick. (The fact that John Paul II enters Synagogues, Mosques, Buddhist Temples, Protestant churches and allows voodoo highpriests to preach from the pulpits of his churches should also give you a hint as to which pick is correct, Mr. G.) And the fact that Antipope John Paul II has solemnly promulgated the New Catechism is precisely why all the informed apologists for the Novus Ordo sect reference the New Catechism as the teaching of the Magisterium.  This I know because I’ve spoken to them.  They correctly conclude that [were JP2 the Pope] John Paul II has Magisterially ensured the New Catechism and those who reject it are rejecting the teaching of the Catholic Church.

2) In one of the most stupid statements I’ve ever heard, Mr. G. says that “because John Paul II says many things that are Catholic he is a Catholic.”  Sorry Mr. G., but it doesn’t work that way.  You should be ashamed to call yourself a Catholic when you assert such heretical nonsense purely out of a desire to defend the great harlot (the non-Catholic Vatican II sect) in which you obstinately want to remain.  And you have even been presented with the teaching of the Church disproving this assertion.  If everyone who said “some things that are Catholic” were a Catholic then the Protestants, Eastern Schismatics, Old Catholics would be Catholic; for they say many things that are Catholic.  In fact, the Protestants confess the two most essential components of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation), as defined by the Athanasian Creed, but still aren’t Catholic because they reject others.  But with this statement Mr. G. rejects the Catholic dogma that heretics cease to members of the Church and he denies the unity of Faith in the Church of Christ.

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 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.”

To further put to bed the heretical assertion of Mr. G., notice what Pope Pius IX declares about the Old Catholics, who “say many things that are Catholic” and even call themselves Catholics! 

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 2): “They [the ‘Old Catholics’] repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine…  But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme Magisterium.”

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways.  We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."

This demonstrates again that we must consider as schismatics and heretics individuals who reject Catholic dogma (such as Antipope John Paul II and his bishops), even though those individuals claim to be Catholic and have not been specifically excommunicated by name. 

3)  Having no response to St. Robert Bellarmine’s clear teaching on how a public heretic would lose the Papacy, Mr. G. resorts to lying.  He says, “The quotes you pull from Saint Robert Bellarmine and others are selective and not complete, so they distort what is meant,” as if St. Robert Bellarmine did not actually teach what we claim he did.  This is definitely a lie on Mr. G.’s part; for he knows that he has no evidence whatsoever for this assertion.  And he has seen the evidence from St. Robert which proves his assertion false!  But he asserts this lie because it is an easy response to the facts he does not want to accept.  St. Robert Bellarmine could hardly have been more clear on this issue; he says three times in one chapter that manifest heretics (like Antipope John Paul II) cannot be the Pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

4) Mr. G. asserts, “And one must " prove intention " to declare and judge a person a heretic.” 

A person’s intentions are manifested by his actions and beliefs Mr. G., which is why St. Robert Bellarmine himself says (in reference to a claimant to the Papacy!) the following.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

Furthermore, as we’ve pointed out, Antipope John Paul II is not merely a manifest heretic.  He is a complete and raging apostate.  It is not possible for him to be a Catholic any more than a person who believes that there are many gods; for he does not possess the essential mysteries of faith which must be held by all those above the age of reason.  The issue of “material heresy” doesn’t even come into play with people who believe that all religions are true – they are just not Catholic – period.  But by your heretical attempt to defend him, Mr. G., you put yourself in communion with all the multitudes of Protestant heretics who have never been formally and specifically excommunicated by the Catholic Church, as I showed in “The Devastating Dilemma.”  You further affirm communion with a pack of bishops who are worse than the Arians, who reject the necessity of Jewish and Eastern Schismatic Conversion; reject Outside the Church There is No Salvation; sign statements of faith with almost every heretical sect under the sun; repudiate the Council of Trent; and accept Luther’s heresy of “faith alone,” just to name a few.

Thus, you and I are in two different churches.  I am in the Roman Catholic Church; you are in a non-Catholic church of heretics.

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 129: “Wherefore, since outside the Catholic Church there is nothing perfect, nothing undefiled… we are in no way likened with those who are divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no communion.”

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.”

5) Mr. G. says, “The Novus Ordo might not be what traditional Catholics want, but it remains valid. To deny that is to deny the Church…”  Hold on a second.  Mr. G. already told us that the New Catechism contains errors, even though it has been solemnly defined by his “Pope” John Paul II to be a “sure norm for teaching the faith” in virtue of his “apostolic authority.”  So how does he know that the New Mass is valid?  He can’t say that he knows based “on the authority of John Paul II,” for he has rejected that which John Paul II has ensured about the Catechism in virtue of his “apostolic authority.”  The reader should see the hypocrisy here.  How do the people under Antipope John Paul II feel so sure that the New Mass is valid when they reject the other things he has approved in an even more solemn way?  None of the Vatican II Antipopes have ever declared that the New Mass is valid in a way that is as solemn as the way in which Antipope John Paul II has approved the Catechism.  So, if one can’t accept his assurance about the Catechism then he or she better wake up and realize that Antipope John Paul II’s (or Antipope Paul VI’s) approval of the New Mass also means nothing. 

But Mr. G. affirms the validity of the New Mass because he knows that if it’s not valid then he is definitely in a non-Catholic counterfeit Church (which he is).  And it is very interesting to see how much the validity of the New Mass means to the false traditionalists who wish to remain united to the great harlot.  The false “traditionalists” who defend Vatican II and Antipope John Paul II are lightning quick to come to the defense of the validity of the New Mass because they realize that if the New Mass is not valid then the entire Vatican II sect is a deadly fraud, far more wicked and hateful to God than they ever imagined.  But contrary to the heretics who defend the New Mass and lead countless souls astray, the evidence that the New Mass does not confect the Eucharist is simply undeniable and irrefutable.

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
"The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

That these are the words of Consecration in the Roman Rite – which cannot be changed in a significant way and have been changed in the New Mass – was dogmatically defined by the Council of Florence already.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, "Cantate Domino": "However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect to THE FORM OF WORDS which the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's Body and Blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 581)

The New Mass changes these words in a significant way by changing “many” to “all.”   But some say, “didn’t Christ die for all men?”  The answer is yes He did, but He did not die for all men “UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.”  Most people skip over that important point: the proof that “all” in the New Mass signifies falsely is that fact that Christ did not shed His blood for all “unto [effective for] the remission of sins,” which is why even the Catechism of Trent explains that “all” was specifically not used by Our Lord.  Thus, by defending and/or attending the New Mass in light of these facts, Mr. G. commits “mortal sin each time” and encourages and/or participates in idolatry – worshipping an invalidly consecrated piece of bread.  Mr. G. has had the truth presented to him for a considerable period of time and has rejected it.  He also condemns true Traditional Catholics.  People wonder why many in the Novus Ordo are left in ignorance of what is happening; it is because most people don’t want the truth and reject it even when it is presented to them. 

For more see: Heresies of the Week Relating to “Traditional” Issues and Persons