By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
INTROA few of our readers are probably familiar with Dr. Tom Droleskey. We believe that some of the arguments and research on our website were helpful in his recent change to the sedevacantist position. Some time back we also sent him a package with the hope that he would accept the correct positions a Catholic must take in this time of apostasy. Seeing that Mr. Droleskey persisted in publicly endorsing bishops and priests who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, on July 9, 2007 I wrote him an e-mail attempting to charitably inform him of the serious problem with the priests and bishops he was promoting. He was probably already aware of their stance. The personal letter was sent, however, to make sure that he was cognizant of the problem. If Droleskey had responded in a way that manifested his agreement with Catholic truth, we would have been more than happy to keep my letter to him private. However, since he responded with a letter demonstrating his commitment to heresy and to the promotion of heretics, it is necessary to warn any readers who are familiar with him that he is, unfortunately, an obstinate and bad willed heretic. He is a complete phony and I was dismayed to discover how heretical he actually is. I thought that he would at least reject the heresy of Fr. Denis Fahey, that Jews who reject Jesus Christ can be in the state of grace; but he didn’t. What follows is my first letter to him, then his formal e-mail response (exactly as he sent it), and then my response to his letter.
MY FIRST LETTER TO TOM DROLESKEY ABOUT HIS SUPPORT OF BISHOPS AND PRIESTS WHO DENY THE SALVATION DOGMAJuly 9, 2007 Dear Dr. Tom Droleskey: Hello, my name is Bro. Peter Dimond. You’re probably familiar with our website and some of the materials we have produced. We were glad to hear that some time back you changed your view on the Conciliar Church and now publicly support the sedevacantist position. I’m writing to you because I’ve noticed that you publicly support and endorse independent bishops such as Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI, Bishop Dolan (who is affiliated with Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn) and Bishop McKenna. Are you not aware that all of these bishops – as well as the priests with whom they are affiliated – hold that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith and without belief in the Trinity and Incarnation? That’s simply a fact, Dr. Droleskey. They all hold that “baptism of desire” not only applies to unbaptized catechumens (which in itself is wrong, as we have proven), but that it can apply to members of false religions who don’t even believe in Jesus Christ. Below is a radio program we did recently in which we quote extensively from a sermon given by Bishop Daniel Dolan. You really should listen to it. In it you will hear that Bishop Dolan not only attacks the necessity of baptism and the Catholic Faith for salvation, but heretically states that we don’t know and don’t judge whether those who die as non-Catholics are saved. This is, of course, contrary to the defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Bishop Dolan is thus a public heretic against the Church’s infallible teaching on salvation, and he attacks those who adhere to it with a tenacity that can only be described as diabolical. Please also consult the heretical quotes I’ve appended to this e-mail from Bishop Sanborn and from Bishop Robert McKenna in the CMRI’s official magazine. July 3, 2007 Radio Program [1 hr. and 4 min. – discusses at length and quotes from an extremely revealing sermon by Bishop Dolan on baptism, salvation, Fr. Feeney and “Feeneyites.” Hear his own heretical words. Hear a true heretic in action. This is a must-listen if you are familiar with this bishop. This program also discusses other things.] What I’m saying to you in charity, Dr. Droleskey, is that even though you think you have found some comfort and structure with these sedevacantist priests and bishops, the fact is they are not truly Catholic. They are, sad to say, rejecters of the Church’s infallible teaching at the Council of Florence (Denz. 714) that all who die as pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics go to Hell. This dogma is actually rejected by almost all “traditionalist” priests today. You cannot preserve the Catholic Faith or save your soul while promoting and affiliating yourself with such heretics. Those who obstinately promote or affiliate themselves with such heretics will lose their souls. These heretics not only deny the Church’s teaching on salvation, but publicly attack those who defend it. Since you are publicly presenting yourself as a teacher of the traditional Catholic Faith, you have an especially strict obligation to defend the truths of the Catholic Faith. On Judgment Day, none of these individuals will be there to defend you. You will questioned by Jesus Christ whether you stood for the fullness of His truth and – in case you weren’t aware until now – I’m making you aware of the heresies promoted by these groups. I must say – even though I hope I’m wrong – that I’m afraid you might dismiss this e-mail. I fear that since you have come to the sedevacantist position (and finally started to tell some of the truth about what is really happening in Rome) you feel quite confident about what you’re doing and some of the people you have surrounded yourself with. But I remind you: just as when you were a full-fledged supporter of the Vatican II Church, and admitted to lying about some of John Paul II’s activity in order to please people, but were too blinded to see the mortal sin in which you thus involved yourself, if your reaction is to confidently reject these points, then you are demonstrating a similar level of blindness. In the past, you probably thought that you were safe on the side of truth, and in good hands on the side of God, while you were among the defenders of the Conciliar Church. I think that you now admit that you were gravely mistaken. If your reaction to these points is to reject them, I say that you are once again gravely mistaken and that God’s demand that you, I and everyone else stand purely for His truth is much graver than you realize. The question you have to ask yourself is not: how many of your friends agree with the points above? The question is not: were I to take such a stand, how unpopular might I become with those who now admire me or like what I’m doing? The question is: are these points above, which expose the heretical teaching of the aforementioned bishops, true? The answer is yes. They are irrefutable. Thus, a person’s responsibility in light of these facts, if he wants to maintain the Catholic Faith and save his soul, is clear. He cannot affiliate himself with or promote these heretical priests and bishops, or else he will be committing a mortal sin and will be denying the Catholic Faith. I’ve written this to you in charity because I care about your soul and I like some of what you have said. However, the choice whether a person will, with a pure intention, stand uncompromisingly for Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith is a choice that each one has to make. It’s a choice between serving God or serving men. It’s a choice between Heaven and Hell. It’s a choice between God and the Devil. Hopefully these points will ring true with you and you will see that they are grounded in truth. We would be interested in any reply that you might have to this e-mail (Appendix is below). Sincerely, Bro. Peter Dimond www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com
Bishop Donald Sanborn, Sacerdotium V, p. 24: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ. The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error.” Bishop Robert McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The doctrine, then, of no salvation outside the Church is to be understood in the sense of knowingly outside the Church… But, they may object, if such be the sense of the dogma in question, why is the word ‘knowingly’ not part of the formula, ‘Outside the Church no salvation’? For the simple reason that the addition is unnecessary. How could anyone know of the dogma and not be knowingly outside the Church? The ‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine intended for the instruction of Catholics, since it is but a logical consequence of the Church’s claim to be the true Church, but rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the benefit of those outside the one ark of salvation.”Bishop McKenna also wrote to us that it’s not heretical to hold that Jews who reject Jesus Christ can be saved.
Bishop Robert McKenna, to Bro. Peter Dimond, Nov. 25, 2004: “2. I answer your ‘one simple question’ regarding Fr. Denis Fahey’s saying, ‘The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.’ “Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jewish Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.’ I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says…”There you have it. Fr. Fahey taught that a Jew who rejects Our Lord can be in the state of grace (and therefore be saved). Bishop McKenna acknowledges this and fully agrees with it and states explicitly that “Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire.” This is as heretical as it gets. All the priests (and a nun) of CMRI with whom I have spoken have indicated non-Catholics, including Jews who reject Christ, can be saved. This is what they believe. -----------------
TOM DROLESKEY’S FORMAL RESPONSE TO MY LETTER
July 10, 2007 Dear Brother Peter Dimond, With respect to the note you sent to me on Monday, July 9, 2007, I must respond by saying that the prelates you believe to be heretics have studied Catholic doctrine formally for many years. They are sure guides to the salvation of the souls they serve with such tireless zeal. You also name Father Denis Fahey, C. S. Sp, the great defender of the Social Reign of Christ the King, as a heretic. The late Father Leonard Feeney, if memory serves me correctly, applied this label to Father Vincent McNabb, O.P. Why is it the case, therefore, that neither Father Fahey or Father McNabb called to the Holy Office of the Inquisition to defend what you term to be their defections from the Catholic Faith. Both of these priests lived at a time when there was ca ompetent ecclesiastical authority to censure them if they had defected from the Faith. Father Feeney was so called to the Holy Office of the Inquistion, headed by Pope Pius XII at the time. Did the competent ecclesiastical authorities of the Catholic Church permit Fathers Fahey and McNabb to persist in what you term to be “heresy” throughout their priesthoods? It is, therefore, a little presumptuous to conclude that men who were never once censured during their lives are in error while the man who was called to the Holy Office of the Inquistion (and refused to go after repeated requests) is considered to have had the sole and correct interpretation of the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Bishops Dolan, Sanborn, Pivarunas, Kelly, and McKenna, each of whom is teaching the Catholic doctrine that was taught by Fathers McNabb and Fahey without being censured, are great champions of the Faith in this era of conciliar apostasy and betrayal. None of us is assured of his salvation, which we must work out in fear and trembling each day of our lives. We must persevere in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and to the Mother of God, making acts of reparation for our sins and those of the whole world to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. None of us knows how much our least venial sins caused Our Lord to suffer during His Passion and Death or with force they helped to pierce Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with the last four of the Swords of Sorrow that had been prophesied by the aged Simeon at her Purification. We should be concentrating on making reparation for our own sins rather than labeling as heretics those who are merely teaching the doctrine of the Catholic Church for which no one has ever been sanctioned by her magisterial authority. The intentions of all hearts and the circumstances of all lives will be made manifest only on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead. While it is one thing to remonstrate with others when one believes it is necessary to do, it is quite another to assert with certainty that he can know the fate of another’s soul before or after death. The interior dispositions of a soul are known only God. Those who assert their own “omniscience” on matters concerning the internal forum of the souls of others may be in for quite a surprise or two on the Last Day. Sincerely yours in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, Thomas A. Droleskey
MY RESPONSE TO TOM DROLESKEY’S LETTERJuly 11, 2007 To Dr. Tom Droleskey: I was quite disappointed to read your response to my letter. I thought there was a significant chance that you would be opposed to the blatant heresy taught by the men I named in my letter. I thought you would probably be in agreement that Fr. Fahey’s blatantly heretical statement (that Jews who reject Jesus Christ might be in the state of grace) is contrary to the dogma solemnly defined twice by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence (quoted below). Instead, it’s clear from your “formal” response, as well as numerous “informal” responses to me, that you fully agree with the heresy taught by Fr. Fahey and held by the aforementioned heretical bishops. You agree with them that members of non-Catholic religions can be saved, including possibly a Jew who rejects Jesus Christ. This is a heresy which has been condemned by the Catholic Church. Frankly, your letter demonstrates that you don’t have a whiff of belief in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, especially the explicit declaration of Pope Eugene IV that no pagan, Jew, heretic or schismatic can be saved. It also demonstrates, as a consequence, that you have no real belief in Papal Infallibility, despite whatever claims you might make to the contrary. For it is a fact that you, in direct opposition to the clear declaration of Pope Eugene IV in an infallible statement at a general council of the Catholic Church, hold that a Jew or a pagan might be saved. The “substance” of the argument in your formal response is encapsulated primarily in this paragraph. You write:
You also name Father Denis Fahey, C. S. Sp, the great defender of the Social Reign of Christ the King, as a heretic. The late Father Leonard Feeney, if memory serves me correctly, applied this label to Father Vincent McNabb, O.P. Why is it the case, therefore, that neither Father Fahey or Father McNabb called to the Holy Office of the Inquisition to defend what you term to be their defections from the Catholic Faith. Both of these priests lived at a time when there was ca ompetent ecclesiastical authority to censure them if they had defected from the Faith. Father Feeney was so called to the Holy Office of the Inquistion, headed by Pope Pius XII at the time. Did the competent ecclesiastical authorities of the Catholic Church permit Fathers Fahey and McNabb to persist in what you term to be “heresy” throughout their priesthoods?As I showed in my article, Examining the Theological Status of Geocentrism and Heliocentrism and the Devastating Problems this creates for Baptism of Desire Arguments – an article to which the leading baptism of desire advocates have given no response since it undeniably refutes their false position and arguments – decisions of the Holy Office which are approved merely in common form by a pope have not been considered to be infallible by popes. How then, as you imply, is the infallibility of the Church activated by the Holy Office’s FAILURE TO ACT against heretics? You are essentially arguing that the Holy Office’s failure to condemn Fahey is proof of his doctrinal probity. On the contrary, the fact that the Holy Office remained unaware or inactive in the face of the blatant heresy taught by Fr. Fahey – i.e., Fahey’s Gospel-rejecting teaching that Jews who reject Christ can have supernatural life – does not in the least prove that his blatantly heretical doctrine is sound. It only proves that either the members of the Holy Office were unaware of his heresy or that they didn’t consider it to be heresy. In the latter case, they were heretics themselves. Yes, I realize that it must be extremely hard for someone like yourself (who doesn’t even believe in the Church’s infallible teaching that one must have the Catholic Faith to be saved) to believe that a pre-Vatican II member of the Holy Office was a heretic. So perhaps this consideration will shake your confidence: are you so naive to think that the pack of heretics who went along with the Vatican II documents became heretical and apostate overnight? Of course they didn’t. The religious indifferentism which won out at Vatican II did not come into existence ex nihilo at St. Peter’s Basilica in 1962. It was the result of decades of gradual evaporation of faith in the necessity of the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ for salvation. It was primarily the result of the denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, by faith-destroying “explanations” of its meaning by people like Fahey, whose heresy has been inherited by people like yourself and the bishops and priests you support. If a Jew or Buddhist or a Muslim can be saved without the Catholic Faith, then the Church’s dogma on salvation has no meaning. It is meaningless literally and in every sense of that word! And if that dogma doesn’t mean what it has declared, as you, Cekada, Dolan, Kelly, McKenna, Sanborn, etc. believe, then there is no reason to believe in any other dogma. They are all without meaning – truly meaningless. Hence, it was in the decades before Vatican II, when the majority of clerics started to believe (as you do) that the Church’s teaching on salvation is meaningless, that they were ready for Vatican II. You write:
It is, therefore, a little presumptuous to conclude that men who were never once censured during their lives are in error while the man who was called to the Holy Office of the Inquistion (and refused to go after repeated requests) is considered to have had the sole and correct interpretation of the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Bishops Dolan, Sanborn, Pivarunas, Kelly, and McKenna, each of whom is teaching the Catholic doctrine that was taught by Fathers McNabb and Fahey without being censured, are great champions of the Faith in this era of conciliar apostasy and betrayal.It’s only presumptuous to a person like yourself, a person who has no real faith in the dogmatic teaching of the Church. Those who do possess real faith in Papal Infallibility know that it matters not if even an angel were to come (see Gal. 1-:8-9) preaching that Jews who reject Christ can be saved. Such a one would have to be rejected as an anathematized heretic for contradicting the clear teaching of the Council of Florence. My book covers this issue in much more depth, and it refutes all the arguments brought forward by the men you currently promote, but what is said in this e-mail suffices to establish that you are unfortunately in heresy. In conclusion, it’s sad to say that you are definitely a heretic who doesn’t have the faith of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all who die as pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics are lost. You do not. You reject that teaching and you even promote those who attack it. Against this teaching of the Catholic Church, you hold that Jews and other non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Since you reject God’s revelation to His Church, all of your other devotions are meaningless. They will gain you no merit whatsoever, should your persist in this heresy. In fact, they constitute a lot of phoniness when one considers that they emanate from a person who cannot even submit his mind to what God has revealed through His Church.
PEOPLE MUST TAKE SIDES!
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.