About the Catechism of Pius X and Baptism being supplied

Melissa, thank you for your question.  This is addressed in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, which has a section on the Catechism of Pius X, which we will include below (it's short).  The simple answer is that the Catechism which people attribute to Pius X is not infallible and actually contains heresy (as shown below) – it teaches salvation “outside” the Church – and it wasn't written by St. Pius X.  Furthermore, the infallible Council of Trent (also quoted below) teaches (without any exceptions given) that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, which means that it cannot be supplied. The Catechism attributed to St. Pius X

Almost everyone today is, unfortunately, a liar

Excellent point.  You are exactly right.  We’ve said the same thing ourselves many times.  Almost everyone today is, unfortunately, a liar.  Many traditionalists are also liars, in one way or another.  For example, when you prove to that person that Pius IX only said that the teaching of theologians is binding when it is “universal and constant” on a matter, and that baptism of desire doesn't qualify because it was rejected by doctors of the Church, he simply lies when he continues to use it as an argument in favor of baptism of desire.  That’s how simple it is.

(more…)

John Lane Exposed

Some have sent us e-mails about a new sedevacantist blog.  We want to make it very clear to our readers that the people who run this blog are adamantly in favor of “baptism of desire” and groups which believe that souls can be saved false religions, such as the SSPV and CMRI.  It’s a pro salvation-for-non-Catholics blog, whether they want to admit it or not.  So while the organizers may allow a few comments from individuals who don’t believe in baptism of desire, the blog is dominated by individuals who won’t even look at the arguments against baptism of desire, and aren’t bothered by the fact that the priests they consider Catholic believe that Jews and Muslims can be united to the Church while in false religions. 

(more…)

Can one give Catholic burial to Non-Catholic parents?

Thanks for your questions.  1) If one’s parents die as rejecters of the Faith, then one cannot arrange a Catholic burial for them. One should arrange for them to have a simple burial, but without any ceremonies. 2) If one’s relative obstinately rejects the traditional Faith or any dogma, then one should not financially support his schooling.  If he’s over 18 then one should send him out of the home to be on his own.

Catholic teachings sent to ‘Fr.’ Ray Ryland

Baby defecates on Novus Ordo ‘altar’ during ‘ceremony’

Very bizarre stuff… thanks for the information.

Novus Ordo ‘priest’ gives out McDonald’s Happy Meal during ‘Mass’

Always something new at the Novus Ordo… thanks for the information. 

Is the apostasy really this obvious?

Yes, the points are quite clear.  It really is simple for people to find out what’s going on, with one condition.  It takes people with sincerity, honesty and interest to accept the truth once they’re presented, for instance, with the facts covered in our material.  To your point about how simple it is (or isn’t, rather, for some), in the recent issue of the false traditionalist newspaper, The Remnant, readers were all upset by the fact that Bishop Tissier De Mallerais said that Benedict XVI has taught heresies.  Readers were writing in with complaints, attempted refutations of the accusations, diatribes about how this cannot be, etc.  We must ask: are these people, who consider themselves “traditionalists,” brain-dead?  Or are they soul-dead?  They’re shocked and appalled by the assertion that Benedict XVI has taught heresies, when the very newspaper they’re writing to recently pointed out in its Joint Declaration with CFN that Benedict XVI rejects the conversion of Protestants!  (more…)

‘Revelation’ to Mutter Vogel in the Pieta prayer booklet is False

Yes, we’ve read the alleged “revelation” about never criticizing a priest in the blue Pieta prayer booklet.  It’s utterly false.  Our Lord or Our Lady would never say such a thing; in fact, it’s exactly what the devil wants people to believe, and the perfect false doctrine to keep the unquestioning masses following the non-Catholic Novus Ordo “priests,” and mired in the darkness of the post-Vatican II apostasy.  The whole Tradition of the Church teaches that Catholics can, and sometimes must, rebuke or criticize priests. This is true today more than ever before.  The Pieta prayer booklet has some good things in it, but some definitely false things, such as this “revelation” to Mutter Vogel.  The booklet also asserts that John XXIII prayed the 15-decade Rosary each day, which we don’t believe for a second. It also contains the St. Bridget prayers, and lists many promises which it asserts are attached to the recitation of those prayers.  While these prayers contain nothing wrong in them, according to what we’ve read the promises have never been approved or confirmed.  Unfortunately, many people we know have diverted from the full Rosary to pray these rather lengthy St. Bridget prayers instead.  People should be aware that the extraordinary promises which the Pieta booklet says are given for the recitation of the St. Bridget prayers have never been approved or confirmed by the Church.

“Bishop” Foley listens to modern evil music (rock, rap, etc.)

Thank you very much for the information about the “Bishop” who listens to, and encourages others to listen to, evil heavy metal, rock and rap music.  Your e-mail shows us again that the Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion is truly a new religion devoid of Catholic Faith and holiness.  It’s always good to know what kind of things are going on at the Novus Ordo churches (if one can find out about them without partaking in them), for all of this apostasy at the local level serves to prove that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church.  However, we must tell you in charity that you cannot be going to the Novus Ordo “Mass” or “Confirmation” ceremony, since they aren’t valid.  One must avoid them under pain of grave sin, and actually confess (to a validly ordained traditional priest) that one attended a non-Catholic service (for however long one was going) before one receives Communion at a Traditional Mass.  If you need more information or convincing on this point, please check out our video on the New Mass.

“Where does one go to seek a valid annulment?”

Thanks for your question.  It’s important for people to remember that there is no such thing as “an annulment” of a consummated marriage, but only a declaration of nullity that a certain union never was a marriage to begin with if there is clear-cut evidence proving that a particular union was not validly contracted. 

Canon 1014, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Marriage enjoys the favor of law; therefore in doubt the validity of marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 1127.”

“If Benedict XVI is the not the pope, so what...”

Dan, thank you for your letter.  We would encourage you to read the rest of the book, since the quote from Mystici Corporis which you bring up is given on page 257 (as you said, you’ve only reached page 240).  It’s brought up in the context of addressing the St. Benedict Center’s claim that the first part of Pope Boniface VIII’s Bull Unam Sanctam – the part where it is taught that there is no salvation nor remission of sins outside the Church – is not infallible. The St. Benedict Center holds that an unbaptized catechumen is outside the Catholic Church (which is correct, since only Baptism makes one a member).  However, while they correctly profess that it is only through Baptism that one can be inside the Church, they hold that an unbaptized catechumen can have Justification (remission of sins and sanctifying grace) by his desire for baptism, while he is still outside the Church.  Thus, they hold that there can be remission of sins outside the Church, which contradicts Bull Unam Sanctam.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 40), June 29, 1943: “That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his predecessors have never ceased to repeat the same.”

May 13: Our Lady of Fatima and St. Robert Bellarmine

Saturday was May 13; it was the anniversary of Our Lady’s first appearance at Fatima to Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia on May 13, 1917.  May 13 is also the feast day of St. Robert Bellarmine, the Doctor of the Church who is most famous among traditionalists for his teaching that a manifest heretic would cease to be the Pope.   

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30.)

Although St. Robert wasn’t canonized until 1930 by Pope Pius XI, heaven obviously knew that St. Robert’s feast day would eventually occupy the day which would mark the anniversary of Our Lady’s first appearance at Fatima.  Why did heaven choose the feast of St. Robert Bellarmine to mark the beginning of Fatima?  Almost all “traditionalists” who have commented on the probable contents of the third secret of Fatima agree that it deals with apostasy from the Church, and apostasy among those who purport to hold high positions in the Catholic hierarchy.  Isn’t it interesting that for the first day of the message of Fatima – a message that, according to almost all traditionalist commentators, is intertwined with a warning about apostasy from the Faith among those who purport to hold high positions in the Catholic hierarchy – heaven chose it to be the feast of the saint who is most famous among traditionalists for his teaching that the occupant of the highest position of all, the Pope, would lose his office if he became a manifest heretic?!  Perhaps this should give the non-sedevacantists pause – pause to consider what heaven is perhaps telling them by this alone, namely, that the teaching of St. Robert on this point must be heeded, since it is true and rooted in defined dogma. 

(more…)

Can one go to the FSSP ‘Masses’?

Thanks for the e-mail.  No, a Catholic shouldn’t attend the Fraternity of St. Peter because their "priests" were ordained by "bishops" who were consecrated in the invalid New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.  Thus, their “priests” definitely should be avoided.

“The SSPX plays fast and loose with Canon law and theology to suit its position at any given time”

Can I pray the Rosary while driving? Can I listen to the radio?

Thank you for your e-mail.  We believe that one can and should pray the Rosary while one drives, even if the recollection during prayer is not perfect.  The prayer can still be powerful and efficacious; and, as you say, you spend a lot of time in your car and don’t want to waste it.

A Warning about Certain Heretical “Traditionalist” Priests and Chapels

As Catholics know, the New Mass is not an option for a true Catholic, since it is neither a valid nor a licit rite of the Catholic Church.  The only option for a Catholic for Mass and the Sacraments is the Traditional Latin Mass or Traditional Eastern Rite Liturgies (Uniate, not Orthodox, of course).  The problem, however, is that almost all of the priests celebrating these traditional and valid Masses hold to one or more heresies.  Almost all of them either 1) accept Benedict XVI as the Pope and his Bishops as the true hierarchy, or 2) deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation in its true meaning – that is, that all who die as non-Catholics are lost.  Many of them hold to other heresies as well.  That being the case, a Catholic cannot aid the propagation of heresy by financially supporting any of these priests, which includes almost all the priests celebrating these Traditional Masses. So the question is: can one attend the Masses of those priests celebrating valid traditional Masses who may hold to a heretical belief, as long as one doesn’t support the priest?  Our position is that if the priest does not notoriously impose the heresy upon those at his church, then a person can arguably go to his Mass just to receive the sacraments but without supporting him in any way.  (But there is no obligation to attend such a Mass, and each case must be evaluated individually).  However, if the priest notoriously imposes his false beliefs upon those at the church – or even privately tells you or someone else that he doesn’t regard as a Catholic one who believes as you do – then a Catholic must not attend such a Mass under any circumstances, because to do so would be to tacitly agree with the priest’s false belief.  It is also our position that if a priest is in favor of false ecumenism (i.e., the apostate movement to pray with false religions) – or believes that we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics – that one should not attend his Mass at all, besides not supporting him in any way.  (The list that follows is a list of priests whose Masses or sacraments a Catholic should have nothing to do with, besides not supporting them, since these priests have notoriously imposed their heresy upon those at their churches.  This list is by no means exhaustive, but just a beginning.) Dolan (Bishop) and Cekada (Fr. Anthony):

Bishop Dolan and Fr. Anthony Cekada are heretics who believe that souls can be saved in false religions and they publicly denounce “Feeneyites” (i.e., those who believe that only baptized Catholics can be saved) as guilty of mortal sin.  Since they notoriously impose their heresy, a Catholic should avoid these heretics’ Masses and not receive any sacraments from them.

All the priests of the SSPV believe that souls can be saved in false religions and they publicly denounce “Feeneyites” (i.e., those who believe the dogma that only baptized Catholics can be saved).  Since they notoriously impose their heresy, a Catholic should avoid these heretics’ Masses and not receive any sacraments from them.

In the Fall of 2004, from the pulpit of the SSPX Chapel in Pittsburgh, PA, Fr. Gardner announced that: “If you are a sedevacantist [i.e., if you don’t accept John Paul II as Pope], just leave, you are not welcome here.  If anyone here is a Feeneyite [i.e., believes that only baptized Catholics can be saved], you are not welcome here.”  Since Fr. Gardner is a notorious heretic, who has imposed his heretical and schismatical views upon those who attend his Mass, Catholics should avoid this pestilential heretic and not receive any sacraments from him or attend his Mass.

Thank you for your response.  I had already gone (to Father Lovett's Mass) before hearing from you, but pretty much figured out he DOES have some wacky ideas.  I questioned him for nearly two hours.  Just a heads up for anyone interested in going to his Mass.  Here is a summary -

1)  He claims Christ has revealed that there is only to be a "general confession" and not auricular, although he "allows" auricular should the penitent desire to go.

2)  The "faithful" should give themselves their own penance as they see fit.

3)  The Mass is now to be brought into the home and NOT a church or chapel.

4)  When questioning him on how the best way to rear our children to help them decide a religious vocation (what I was getting at was where would they go for religious training) his answer was that "he trains priests" and as far as women go, women will be able to "do the Mass in their homes as it was meant to be."  I was outraged and asked him to clarify and he was VERY vague about it, but gave the example that if the Mass was to be held in the home and the woman is a widow, then she should have the means to perform the Mass herself.  He even suggested that St. Therese of the Little Flower was often quite distraught because she, too, wanted to be able to perform the Mass and could not.

5) My husband asked him repeatedly the name of his "organization" as he claims they ARE the TRUE Catholic Church Remnant, he just referred us "to the book" (This is my Beloved Son, hear Him)

6)  He believes the Chair of St. Peter is empty by MORTAL man, but claims Christ, Himself is now Pope until Peter II takes the chair.

7)  He believes that after John XXIII a "Pope Clement XV" took the chair and died in the 80's.

That's about it.  We left, never to return.  He said I was a "mixed up girl".  ;)

+JMJ+ Kelly

Bishop McKenna and Fr. Lemay believe that souls can be saved in false religions, and they refuse the sacraments to anyone who believes that only baptized Catholics can be saved.  Since they are notorious heretics who impose their heretical views upon those at their Masses, Catholics should avoid these pestilential heretics’ Masses and not receive any sacraments from them.

Fr. Neville is a sedevacantist priest who denies the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  After a person gave him a copy of our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, on Sunday, Nov. 14, 2004, Fr. Neville announced from the pulpit that: “If anyone does not believe in baptism of desire or believes that only those water baptized can be saved, do not come to Communion, as I will refuse you.”  Since Fr. Neville is a notorious heretic, who imposes his heretical and Christ-mocking position (see John 3:5) upon those who attend his church, Catholics should avoid this pestilential heretic and not receive any sacraments from him or attend his Mass.

Fr. Ockerse of the SSPX refers to sedevacantists as “cockroaches” and “stupid.”  He refers to what sedevacantists say as "stupidness" and to them as "spewing forth vomit.”  He also believs that souls can be saved in false religions, which is the official position of the SSPX.  Since Fr. Ockerse of the SSPX denounces the sedevacantists, a Catholic should avoid this heretic’s Mass and not receive any sacraments from him.  We have been informed that Fr. Ockerse’s position is shared by Fr. Angele and Fr. De Vriendt of the SSPX in Calgary.  Thus, they should be avoided as well.

Fr. Ontonello celebrates a Traditional Latin Mass in Santa Clara, California.  He throws out of his chapel people who even criticize the apostate John Paul II, let alone those who don’t believe that John Paul II is the Pope because he is a clear-cut apostate.   Since Ontonello is a notorious heretic who imposes his heresy, Catholics should avoid this heretic’s Mass and not receive any sacraments from him.

Dear Brothers,

Recently, three friends of mine, two Protestant and one Novus Ordo, have converted to the true Catholic Faith, accepting all the dogmas.  We have attempted to seek sacraments at the local SSPX mass which is offered in Nashville and Memphis, TN.  Fr. Gregory Post is who normally says mass there.  After giving some of your monastery's articles to the chapel owner/groundskeep a few weeks ago, my friends and I were instructed after the Easter Vigil Mass last night that no one may speak of any sedevacantist ideas on the chapel grounds.  Fr. Post then proceeded to go on a tirade and irrationally attack the sedevacantist position in public before several chapel attendees in the parking lot.  When defense was given, citing various magisterial sources, including pointing out that the SSPX position denies the "magisterium" of the "pope" they claim to follow, Fr. Post threatened to have me arrested if I ever showed up on the property again!  This was his response to my simple question in front of the crowd in the parking lot as to why he rejects Vatican II when Paul VI said it was dogmatic.

I wanted to let you know so that you could add him to your list of false traditional priests that publicly seek to impose heresy.  At the same time, however, my friends that are new converts were able, I hope, to see the irrational, and heretical nature of the SSPX position.

Sincerely, J. D.

MHFM: Thank you, since Fr. Post is an imposing heretic he should be completely avoided.

Formerly of the SSPX, we’ve been informed that this “traditionalist” priest has spoken about the need to "obey the hierarchy" and gave a sermon on "ugly traditionalists" who think they're better than other Catholics (Novus Ordo followers).  Since he is imposing his heresy, no Catholic should attend his Mass.

Fr. Ronald Ringrose is a complete heretic who publicly denounces “Feeneyites” (i.e., those who believe the dogma that only baptized Catholics can be saved).  Thus, he mocks Church dogma.  Since Fr. Ringrose notoriously imposes his heresy upon those at his chapel, a Catholic should avoid this pestilential heretic’s Mass and not receive any sacraments from him.  Fr. Ringrose also publicly denounces sedevacantism.

Bishop Sanborn believes that souls can be saved in false religions, and he kicks out of his church anyone who doesn’t believe in “baptism of desire.”  Bishop Sanborn believes that non-Catholics, including Jews and pagans, can be saved by “invincible ignorance” and baptism of desire.  Since Sanborn is a notorious heretic who imposes his heresy upon those at his Mass, Catholics should avoid this pestilential heretic’s Mass and not receive any sacraments from him.

Fr. Ward of the SSPX tells sedevacantists that they are not welcome at his chapel.  Since Fr. Ward is a notorious heretic who imposes his heresy, Catholics should avoid this pestilential heretic and not receive any sacraments from him or attend his Mass.

Gruner’s statement in 2005 about the death of John Paul II

We just stumbled upon the statement of “Fr.” Nicholas Gruner’s “Fatima Center” following the death of John Paul II in 2005.  In summary of John Paul II’s life – remember, John Paul II was the biggest and most radical proponent of false ecumenism and false/demonic religions from allegedly inside the “Catholic Church” that the world has ever seen – the statement: 1) offers prayers for the repose of this manifest heretic’s soul; 2) praises him for his visits to Fatima; 3) praises him for his “beatification” of Jacinta and Francisco; 4) praises him for his stand against Communism, his defense of the aged and unborn, and his consecration of the world; and 5) “notes reluctantly” that John Paul II didn’t fulfill the command of Our Lady completely and precisely.  The statement offers no criticism whatsoever of John Paul II’s heretical teachings, his numerous scandalous and notorious acts of false ecumenism, such as Assisi, kissing the Koran, etc., etc., etc.  It doesn’t even offer a pathetically weak statement, such as: “though the Fatima Center did not agree with John Paul II’s promotion of ecumenism, such as the Assisi event, which contradicts Tradition.”  No… nothing at all!  Does anyone fail to see how evil this is?  Does anyone fail to see that this man is a total Christ-denier?  We bring this up to show our readers again how evil Nicholas Gruner is, for we were just recently contacted by another person who was resisting sedevacantism because he was “following Gruner’s line.”  It’s not an understatement to say that he is totally evil.  He has sold his soul out, and sold Christ out.  He’s an apostate.

(more…)

“Two Sister Lucys of Fatima” - We were the first organization to come out with the facts that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy.

We were definitely the first organization to come out with the facts that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy.  We had been referring to the false Sr. Lucy as an impostor for years on our website, and publicly stated that the Vatican’s Lucy is an impostor in issue #5 of our magazine, which was published years ago.  Our recent article was simply the detailed treatment containing all the facts and points about an issue we’d been saying things about for years.

While the website to which you refer says that they haven’t yet “read” our analysis – that’s an interesting way of putting it considering that one can get the gist of what was being said without “reading” the entire thing but by looking quickly at the pictures – they didn’t deny that they were familiar with the article or that their idea to publish their own article came after hearing about or browsing through our exposé.  It’s almost certain that they were familiar with our article because a website which links to their articles and our articles had a major link with pictures to our treatment of the issue.  They may have browsed it without “reading” the entire thing.  And once they saw that this idea was now circulating due to our having “broken the story,” they then had the courage to do their own article seeing that others were already beginning to accept the idea on a wide scale.  That’s a key point: many people who don’t love God first and don’t stand for the truth will come out with things – even things they may have privately known were true for some time – only once the idea has already gained some popular support thanks to the stand of others, so that they can latch on to the now-popular bandwagon.

For until very recently the website to which you refer was one of the promoters of the false idea that the phony Lucy was the true Lucy, consistently referring to her as Sr. Lucy without ever issuing a clarification.  What changed in the past few months that they suddenly “discovered” this possibility?  In our opinion, it was obviously the publication of our article and the popular support for the idea that resulted from it in traditionalist circles.  Nevertheless, it’s good that others are now exposing this.  More research from various parties will undoubtedly discover more angles from which to expose and reveal the fraud, as well as circulating this piece of truth to more people.

However, the point is that there are probably many, many false traditionalists who have privately speculated that the Vatican’s “Sr. Lucy” was a false Lucy – since her statements and positions so obviously cannot be reconciled with the true Lucy – but never had the courage to come out with their views or even suggest it because of the fear of other people: not receiving much or any support or being denounced by them.  That’s unfortunately the case with many: only until there appears to be enough support for an idea will they come out with it even if they know it’s true.  And that’s why we now see other websites coming out about the false Lucy after our article blazed the trail.

On a related matter, the website to which you refer almost certainly doubts that the Vatican II “Popes” are true Popes, but never says so publicly.  As quoted in one of our newsletters, a few years ago one of us had a conversation about sedevacantism with Atila Guimaraes (an editor of the site):

Bro. Peter Dimond: “I had a telephone conversation recently with Atila Sinke Guimaraes.  In our conversation, I was  surprised to learn that Mr. Guimaraes has doubts about Antipope John Paul II's validity as a Pope. He told me this himself. Surprised by this, I asked why he does not communicate these doubts in his writings, and he responded by saying that he does point this out in his writings! I quickly answered by saying, never - to my knowledge - have you explicitly stated that Antipope John Paul II is not or might not be a true Pope. He responded with the words: "You must take into account the psychology of the people." In Guimaraes' mind, providing some evidence of how Antipope John Paul II has contradicted past Magisterial teaching is showing the people that he is “doubtful” (whatever that means) without saying so explicitly. This may be why his books - such as Quo Vadis Petre? - so weakly denounce the blasphemies of Antipope John Paul II. It is clear that Mr. Guimaraes is doing nothing but bringing a watered-down message to his readers which he thinks will be more acceptable. This is heretical, dishonest and quite despicable.”

So, even though he thought that John Paul II might not be Pope (and probably thinks the same about Benedict XVI), he never comes out with it because of “the psychology of the people”!  That’s why their website has never denounced John Paul II or Benedict XVI as heretics, even though it’s constantly showing how they deny Catholic teaching!  In fact, their organization specifically denies that they are heretics at all!  But if a group such as The Remnant or Catholic Family News were to take the sedevacantist position, then you would probably see the website to which you refer (as well as many others like it) go sedevacantist at that point; for, in that case, there would then exist enough popular support for the position to take it publicly.  It’s sad, but that’s the way it is.  People such as that are very deceived: they think they will be rewarded for their efforts, publications, etc. which do contain some truth, but God knows that they are hiding other aspects of important truth or that they wouldn’t take the stands they’re even taking if others didn’t do so.  So, while they think they’re pleasing to God because of all the activity in which they are engaged allegedly for Him, they are actually rejected by Him and will receive no reward, for it’s not how much one does but the purity of intention with which one does it:

St. Alphonsus, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, p. 597: “In the estimation of men, the value of an act increases in proportion to the time spent in its performance; but before God the value of an act increases in proportion to the purity of intention with which it is performed.”

So, to summarize, it’s a good step that this website is now slightly exposing the false Sr. Lucy; but if they really stand for truth let’s see them be honest and denounce the Vatican II Antipopes for the manifest heretics they are.

Have the eastern rite ordinations/consecrations changed?

No, the Eastern Rites haven’t changed their liturgies or their rites of ordination.  If the priests were ordained in the Eastern Rites, then they are validly ordained. (more…)

Traditionalist-sedevacantist priest, Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, denies the salvation dogma

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

Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 18, quoting from Fr. Tanquery with approval: “Necessity of means, however, is not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one.  In certain particular circumstances, for example, in the case of the invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership in the Church can be supplied by the desire for this membership.  It is not necessary that this be explicitly present; it can be included in a willingness and readiness to fulfill the will of God.  In this way those who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 124, 126: “The teaching that the dogma of the necessity of the Church for salvation admits of exceptions is, in the last analysis, a denial of the dogma as it has been stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’ Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.” (Denz. 430)

Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 17: “Are there any more ‘good faith’ pagans in existence?  Is it possible for the Communists of China or the faithful adherents of Buddhism and Mohammedism of the Near and Far East to either have never heard the Gospel, or else had the Gospel presented to them in an erroneous light?... Can the Chinese Communist, or the Indian Buddhist or the Pakistani Muslim be included in such a consideration [of invincible ignorance]?  Only God knows, and it is not up to me to decide for Him.  I write here merely to uphold the dogmatic principle of the possibility of such cases today, without admitting that all, or even a significant number of those who are in such circumstances will achieve salvation through justification.” (Catholic Research Institute, 2000)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Denz. 714) Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

Question about dealing with heretics who defend John Paul II

Thank you for your question.  First of all, John Paul II wasn’t a Pope.  He was a non-Catholic Antipope; he shouldn’t be referred to as “Pope.” (more…)

Why would you say that “Fr.” Gruner is a schismatic?

MUST-SEE VIDEO ON GRUNER:

“Fr.” Nicholas Gruner Dies Of A Heart Attack – What Catholics Should Think Of Him

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

Why would you say that Fr. Gruner is a schismatic? Just wondering. I think he is a good Priest.

-Sydney

First of all, it should be pointed out that “Fr.” Gruner was ordained in 1976, after Paul VI’s dubious New Rite of Ordination was introduced.  Nicholas Gruner’s good friend, “Fr.” Paul Leonard Kramer, told me himself that he, Nicholas Gruner and “Fr.” Gregory Hesse were all ordained in the New Rite.  Thus, none of them can be considered valid priests.

Regarding why Nicholas Gruner is a schismatic, it’s very simple.  Nicholas Gruner is not only a schismatic, but a heretic and an apostate.  Gruner knows that Joseph Ratzinger, Antipope Benedict XVI, signed the book which states that the Jews wait not in vain for the Messiah.  Yet, he holds a communion of faith with Ratzinger and accepts him as pope. (Remember, the Church is a communion of faith and government.)  Therefore, Nicholas Gruner holds communion and shares faith with those who deny that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.  Nicholas Gruner is an apostate.  His acceptance of the Vatican II apostates as Catholics proves that Nicholas Gruner has no faith whatsoever.  The same is true of all who are aware of Ratzinger’s total apostasy and still accept him as a Catholic.

Gruner also accepted Antipope John Paul II as a Catholic after seeing loads of his apostasy.  Gruner never once denounced him as a heretic, even though John Paul II promoted false religions, salvation outside the Church, and total apostasy again and again.  Nicholas Gruner is a phony apostate.

John Paul II also taught that we shouldn’t convert schismatics.  Nevertheless, Gruner accepted him as his fellow Catholic and leader.  This shows that Gruner is also a schismatic for holding communion with John Paul, who was a schismatic.  Gruner also had pictures of John Paul II in a positive way in his magazines for years and years, well after he was aware of John Paul II’s apostasy.  Don’t be deceived by the ostensible spirituality he claims to have or the spiritual truths he does emphasize.  The Devil uses people like this, who mix truth with error and give the appearance of ascetism, to lead people astray.  The heretic Arius – the originator of Arianism, which ravaged almost the entire Christian world – was effective in deceiving multitudes by his appearance of ascetism.  Arius effectively deceived large numbers of brides of Christ (female religious) by his appearance of asceticism and spirituality, and they became one of his most effective means of spreading his heresy. 

When a person mixes truth with apostasy or corrupts the truths of Christ, you know that his devotion is phony and insincere.  Nicholas Gruner is that kind of phony.  The truth is that he doesn’t have true devotion to Our Lady; if he did he would denounce apostates who deny that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and he would not accept them as Catholics.  He often cries in his talks.  Give me a break.  He can cry all he wants if he’s telling people the truth, thus showing that he really cares; but when he spills forth lies such as the following, he proves himself to be a big phony who is used by the Devil:

Nicholas Gruner, The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, “The Third Secret Release Raises More Questions”: “However, I want to make something perfectly clear here and now. I absolutely do not suggest that the Holy Father [John Paul II] would deliberately and knowingly suppress some portion of the Third Secret of his own free will. There would have to be some other explanation.”

If there are two texts of the Third Secret of Fatima (we reject this idea, but this is what Nicholas Gruner claims) and John Paul II read both texts, as Gruner admits, then obviously John Paul II knew that the public was defrauded of the other text and John Paul II therefore lied to the public!  So what Gruner says here is simply wicked dishonesty.

Here’s another evil quote from Gruner’s publication.  In the quote, it is denied that John Paul II is without Catholic faith; in other words, The Fatima Crusader is asserting that he does have the Catholic faith.

“Fr.” Paul Kramer, in The Fatima Crusader, Winter 2004, p. 32: “The Secret of Fatima tells us, Our Lady tells us, the Mother of God reveals that the great apostasy in the Church will begin from there, from the Vatican.  We can therefore surmise, and it has been prophesied down through the ages by the saints, that eventually Rome will be taken over by an Anti-pope, who will be entirely without Catholic faith, entirely heretical, unlike the present occupant of the See of Peter, who in his heart wishes to preserve and save the Church, but in his intellect, behaves as if he were the Church’s worst enemy, by promoting the very things which will lead to the destruction of the Church.”

“Rome will be taken over by an Anti-pope, who will be entirely without Catholic faith, entirely heretical…”  Hmmm?  Who could that possibly be?  Could it be the man who removes the crucifixes from Catholic churches and allows Voodoo high-priests to preach to the people?  Hmmm… could it be the man who declares that all men are saved and that the Holy Ghost is responsible for false religions of Satan?  Hmmm... the man who kisses the Koran and asks St. John the Baptist to protect Islam?  Could it be the man who praises Martin Luther, the United Nations and the Social Justice of Communist China?  How about the man who teaches that there are saints and martyrs in false religions, and that Holy Communion should be given to heretics?  How about the man who says that Masses are valid which have no words of Consecration?  Hmmm… the man who declares that Christianity is the deep amazement at each man and that man is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?  Could it possibly be the man who overturns the Council of Trent, gives donations and relics to non-Catholic sects, and prays with the Jews for the coming of the Messiah?

Do the people at The Fatima Crusader think that the Antipopes who will overtake Rome will carry signs saying: “I am a heretic!”  Do they think that they will announce to the people, “We are the satanic antipopes who are to come!”  Any sincere person aware of the facts can immediately recognize that Antipope John Paul II and Antipope Bendict XVI are “entirely without Catholic faith, entirely heretical…”  John Paul II denied the entire Catholic faith and approved of every false religion.  Ratzinger denies that Christ is the Messiah!  The statement by Paul Kramer in The Fatima Crusader, approved by Gruner, that Antipope John Paul II is not the heretical Antipope who is entirely without Catholic faith is evil.

Nicholas Gruner, The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, “The Third Secret Release Raises More Questions”: “We are supposed to believe that if the Pope is told not to mention Russia in the Consecration, then the “Magisterium” has spoken, and no one may suggest that the advice given to the Pope is wrong.”

Gruner here is implying that it’s not John Paul II who was primarily responsible for the failure to Consecrate Russia, but rather it’s the people around him who are primarily responsible.  In my view, he clearly made this statement because he didn’t want to offend the Novus Ordo heretics on his mailing list who wouldn’t like it if he placed the blame squarely on Antipope John Paul II.

Nicholas Gruner, The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, “The Third Secret Vision Explained”: [Regarding The Devil Draging Down the Clergy]:“Pope John Paul II goes further. He doesn’t suggest; he affirms it. So both Popes are pointing us to that chapter of the book of the Apocalypse of the Bible. Pope John Paul II goes further; it’s quite extraordinary what he says in his homily… He gives us a pointer. He quotes Chapter 12, verse 3 and 4, in which the verses he quotes is, “and the dragon,” meaning the devil, “drags down one third of the stars of Heaven.”

Nicholas Gruner, The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, “The Third Secret Raises More Questions”: “The Vatican Secretary of State clearly did not want to risk embarrassing Mr. Gorbachev, promoter of abortion around the world. It would spoil the illusion that we have entered the post-Fatima era of peace and brotherhood if some Catholic journalist were to stand up and make note of the fact that Gorbachev personifies the very culture of death the Pope has spent the past 20 years condemning.”

One “traditionalist” priest once correctly described The Fatima Crusader magazine as an evil mélange (mixture) of truth with error.  Yes indeed, The Fatima Crusader is an evil mélange of truth with error.  In one part of the magazine it correctly labels the apostasy at the Fatima Shrine as an “abomination,” while in the same issue it has two pictures of John Paul II, a quote from him on the Rosary, and tells us to “Follow his directive…” (p. 23).  So, while they declare the event in Fatima an “abomination,” and even “the abomination of desolation,” they promote in a positive light the man who is ultimately responsible for this abomination and whose interreligious actions of a similar nature at Assisi form the very basis and justification for the “abomination of desolation” in Fatima.  Thus, The Fatima Crusader mixes Our Lady of Fatima with apostasy; it condemns the abomination in Fatima while it promotes again and again the man ultimately responsible for it (Antipope John Paul II).  It finally mentions John Paul II as teaching a “heresy” in Winter 2004, while in the same issue it declares that John Paul II is not the heretical antipope who is entirely without Catholic faith.  It lures its readers in by some beautiful truth on spiritual matters and Our Lady, while at the same time it leads them right back to the very sources of the apostasy.

Nicholas Gruner is not a Catholic.  He’s in communion with the apostate Vatican II sect, which denies that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.  He’s loyal to Antipope Benedict XVI, who denies that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.  Gruner is an apostate; one really doesn’t need to say more.  Of course, no Catholic could donate a penny to him or his heretical magazine, The Fatima Crusader.

In addition to his deadly mixture of truth with error, one of the ways by which “Fr.” Gruner’s apostolate has become so influential is by propaganda.  Here are some of the things that you can find on the website of his apostolate: His website (Fatima.org) calls his magazine “Our Lady’s magazine.”  It states: “Click here to read more about Our Lady’s magazine…”!  Boy, who would want to disagree with or not support “Our Lady’s magazine” – the magazine of Our Lady herself!

He calls his Book Service “Our Lady’s Book Service”!  Wow, we wish we could have the privilege of being “Our Lady’s Book Service.”  He calls his radio program “Our Lady’s Radio Program”!  And – yes, you guessed it – he calls his Apostolate, not just a Fatima Apostolate, but “Our Lady’s Apostolate”!  His website states: “Shortly following the formation of Our Lady's Apostolate, Father Gruner began publishing the Fatima Crusader magazine. In 1980, Pope John Paul II directly encouraged Father Gruner in his Fatima work and the periodical has grown…”

Wow, he must be some “priest” to run “Our Lady’s Apostolate” – the Apostolate of Our Lady herself! – as well as her Radio Program, her magazine and her Book Service.  Does anyone fail to see how presumptuous – and arguably blasphemous – this is?  Oh, never mind… it’s okay… I almost forgot… Gruner is, according to his Apostolate (i.e. “Our Lady’s” Apostolate), “the Fatima Priest”!

In truth, this is simply propaganda from a false prophet, and that is why “Fr.” Gruner has had such an influence on what people think about Fatima and the present situation.  Propaganda is defined as “…organized scheme, for propagation of a doctrine or practice.”  To dub almost every aspect of his apostolate “Our Lady’s” is an organized scheme on the part of his apostolate to build itself up as the voice of Our Lady herself.

Besides being wickedly presumptuous, this propaganda brainwashes people just like the propaganda from the mainstream media.  When they hear this stuff over and over – this is “Our Lady’s apostolate” and “Our Lady’s magazine” and “Our Lady’s Book Service” – they are often brainwashed to follow everything he says on Fatima, support him vigorously (for who wouldn’t want to support Our Lady?) or consider Gruner to be Our Lady’s personal representative.  Since people are so gullible, it has been a major factor in how big his apostolate has become.  That is why his apostolate continues to use this type of propaganda so often.  It’s why so many have been brainwashed not to consider anything on this issue that doesn’t conform to “Fr.” Gruner’s views.

By the way, Gruner stated in one of his letters that he wants to send the book “Fatima Priest” (which is the story of his life) to every “bishop” in the world!  What a complete waste.  The book Fatima Priest, which is replete with pictures of Gruner from throughout his life including as a baby, which is basically all about him and what a hero he supposedly is, has been translated into various languages to spread the “Good News” of Nicholas Gruner around the world.

All of this explains why Gruner consistently promoted pictures of Antipope John Paul II in his magazine for years (in a positive light) after he was aware of John Paul II’s apostasy.  For Gruner, it wasn’t about telling people the truth; it was about keeping himself popular and seen as a hero with a somewhat mainstream “Catholic” audience – by promoting John Paul II and Fatima at the same time.  Only a very wicked man would not have denounced John Paul II once he became aware of his apostasy, and that’s exactly what Nicholas Gruner is.

A close examination of the eyes of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe

Many are familiar with the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  This miraculous image appeared on the tilma of Juan Diego shortly after he saw Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico in 1531.  When the image of Our Lady was miraculously imprinted on the cloth it became a large reason for the conversion of more than 5 million to the Catholic Faith.  When the people heard about and saw the image, “the whole city was shaken by the event and so the Lord Bishop transferred the beloved Image of the Girl from heaven to the main church.  She [the image] was taken from his private chapel to where everyone could see and wonder at her beloved figure.  People came to acknowledge the divine [miraculous/supernatural] character of the ayate [the tilma].” (Francis Anson, Guadalupe – What Her Eyes Say, p. 53)

What if a job requires one to work on Sunday?

Thank you for your e-mail.  If keeping or holding a job requires one to work on Sunday, then it is permitted to do so.  If one can, one should request to have Sundays off; but if that isn’t possible – and working on Sunday is a necessity to keep the job – then it is permissible.

Mel Gibson says his non-Catholic wife is a “saint”

First of all, he calls his non-Catholic wife a saint, something one could never say about a non-Catholic.  It’s very common that those who deny the dogma sometimes affirm it, as even Msgr. Fenton says (below).  The unfortunate fact is that Mel Gibson clearly denied the dogma in his interview with Diane Sawyer: (more…)

An objection to quoting from Origen

You say that it seems imprudent to quote from Origen. 

Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris (#12), Aug. 4, 1879: “After him came Origen, who graced the chair of the school of Alexandria, and was most learned in the teachings of Greeks and Orientals.  He published many volumes, involving great labor, which were wonderfully adapted to explain the divine writings and illustrate the sacred dogmas; which, though, as they now stand, not altogether free from error, contain nevertheless a wealth of knowledge tending to the growth and advance of natural truths.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#7), Nov. 18, 1893: “In the Eastern Church, the greatest name of all is Origen – a man remarkable alike for penetration of genius and for persevering labor; from whose numerous works and his great Hexapla almost all have drawn that came after him.”

“What about Bishop McKenna’s independent chapel?”

You definitely shouldn’t go to Bishop McKenna’s Mass, because he refuses to the sacraments to those who don’t accept “three baptisms.”  The fact is that, despite his claims, Bishop McKenna doesn’t even believe in “baptism of desire,” since he believes that Jews who reject Christ and Baptism can be saved, as we have documented on our website.  Bishop McKenna is a very wicked and faithless heretic.  By the way, we’ve also been informed that Fr. Giardina of Alabama now refuses the sacraments to those who don’t believe in “baptism of desire.”  Giardina told a friend of ours that he wasn’t welcome on his property if he rejected baptism of desire.  Since Fr. Giardina is therefore an imposing heretic, who binds his false position on those attending his Mass, no one should attend his Mass or receive the sacraments from him at all.  Just like Bishop McKenna, Fr. Giardina also believes that Jews who reject Christ can be saved, as he told one of us on the telephone. Related: Where To Receive Sacraments

“Just read the article on the Consecration of Russia. WOW.”

We don't have any printed copies of that article at this time.  It will be included in a book we will have available in a few months.  [Update: Book now available here] But in the meantime people will have to get it from the website. Related: The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the impostor Sr. Lucy

It’s not just about sedevacantism

There are quite a few of people out there who are enthusiastic about the sedevacantist issue and totally reject the Vatican II religion, but could care less about and/or don’t believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  And when we refer to really “believing” in the dogma, we mean a person who truly believes that all the pagans, Jews, Muslims, heretics and schismatics out there – including his neighbors and family members, if they fall into these categories – must absolutely become baptized Catholics to be saved.  Such a true believer therefore lives his life and looks at the world with this supernatural outlook.  He thus endeavors to bring such non-Catholic individuals whom God puts on his path into the Catholic Faith.

To illustrate the point, someone here received a call a few days ago from a woman who attends Bishop Sanborn’s chapel.  Speaking of Arab Protestants, this woman told a person here that these Arab Protestants were fine for salvation because they are baptized!  No matter that they aren’t Catholic and reject the Catholic Faith; she believes that they are going to heaven. She doesn’t believe in the dogma that all heretics, etc. will not be saved.  She doesn’t possess a real, interior belief in the truths of the Catholic Faith.  This is a woman who attends a “staunchly” sedevacantist chapel; but she’s not even Catholic, even though she thinks she’s a staunch traditional Catholic and a sedevacantist.  She doesn’t have the Catholic Faith, and will not save her soul as she is.  Sadly, this is the case with many others in the traditional movement.  It’s just a reminder that it’s not just about sedevacantism; if one doesn’t truly accept and really believe in the salvation dogma, one is not a true believer in Jesus Christ and His Church.  People such as this woman have a “faith” that is corrupt to the core, yet this corruption won’t show up on Sunday when they are seen “devoutly” assisting at the Traditional Mass.