Pope Benedict XV on the Redemption

No, the radical schismatics are wrong again. First, we must again make it clear that we are talking about Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), not Antipope Benedict XVI.

In the quote above, Pope Benedict XV definitely committed an error of articulation about the Redemption; for not all receive the benefits or merits of Christ’s death (as Trent defines). However, Pope Benedict XV’s statement is not teaching universal salvation; it’s not remotely comparable to John Paul II’s clear utterances of universal salvation; and it’s definitely not proof of manifest heresy. It’s simply an error which, if expressed obstinately and in direct defiance of the precise words of Trent, would be heresy. However, as it stands and considered in context, it’s simply an error of articulation and a demonstration of a less-than-perfect familiarity with the precise language of the Council of Trent.

Let’s begin by refuting the idea that Pope Benedict XV is teaching universal salvation in the citation above. If we look at the whole encyclical, we see that Pope Benedict XV makes it quite clear that he’s not teaching universal salvation; for in the very same document (and thus in the same extended context) he repeats the Athanasian Creed: that no man is saved without the Catholic faith.

Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum #24, Nov. 1, 1914: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”

In the very same encyclical, he clearly teaches that no one is saved without the Catholic faith. In John Paul II’s many utterances of universal salvation (or anywhere else for that matter), he never once said the equivalent.

So what is Pope Benedict XV saying when he declares that “the whole of mankind was freed from the slavery of sin by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ as their ransom”? The answer is that he is speaking of the propitiatory nature of the Redemption. It’s a dogma that Jesus Christ’s Redemption destroyed or atoned or satisfied or made up for man’s sins – the sins of every man of all time.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, THROUGH HIS DEATH ALONE LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost with all succession…” (Denz. 711)

Jesus destroyed every man’s sins in terms of a propitiation or atonement, so that every sin that would be forgiven was already forgiven by Jesus Christ and what He did on the Cross.

Errors of Cornelius Jansen # 4: “It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.” – Condemned as false and heretical by Pope Innocent X, Cum occasione, May 31, 1658

When a man believes, is baptized and justified, it’s the merit of Christ’s Passion that is imparted or applied to Him; for Christ made up for and destroyed the sins of every man on the Cross.

According to the radical schismatics, the Bible must have been teaching heresy when it taught:

1 Timothy 2:6- “ [Jesus Christ] Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.”

Moreover, St. John the Baptist and St. John the Apostle must have been teaching heresy (according to the aforementioned schismatics) when they declared:

John 1:29- “… Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.”

Christ takes away the sin of the world – the whole world. He freed mankind from sin, but not all receive the benefits of that Redemption. To put it another way, the fruits of the Redemption are not individually realized or actualized in all men. Only those who are incorporated into Christ receive the merits of the Passion.

Pope Benedict XV was simply stating the first part of the truth, that Christ’s Redemption applied to all and thus made up for (in the sense of propitiation) the sins of the whole world. His statement that no one is excluded from the benefits of the Redemption is simply an erroneous and imperfect attempt at articulating the truth that no one was excluded from what Christ did in terms of a propitiation or atonement. Jesus Christ’s Redemption applied to the whole world.

Throughout history, the terminology that some Catholics (not the Church itself) have used in expressing the two aspects of the Redemption – 1, that Christ forgave all men’s sins in terms of propitiation; and 2, not all receive the application of this forgiveness – has often been confusing and contradictory. For example, the regional council below (which was not infallible) equated being redeemed with being justified. Hence, it taught that not all men were redeemed.

Council of Quiersy, 853, Chap. 4.- “Christ Jesus our Lord, as no man who is or has been or ever will be whose nature will not have been assumed in Him, so there is, has been, or will be no man, for whom He has not suffered– although not all will be saved by the mystery of His passion. But because all are not redeemed by the mystery of His passion, He does not regard the greatness and the fullness of the price, but He regards the part of the unfaithful ones and those not believing in faith those things which He has worked through love[ Gal. 5:6], because the drink of human safety, which has been prepared by our infirmity and by divine strength, has indeed in itself that it may be beneficial to all; but if it is not drunk, it does not heal. (Denz. 319)

This regional council correctly stated that there was no man for whom Christ did not suffer. However, since it defined Redemption as actually receiving justification, it stated that not all men were redeemed. The popes, on the other hand, didn’t define that being redeemed strictly meant receiving the merits of the Passion. To them, the Redemption referred to the propitiation (the atonement or appeasement) that Christ made on the Cross for the sins of every man. As a result, they taught that all men were redeemed because all men’s sins were included in the atonement of the Cross. At the same time, they made it clear that not all receive the individual application of those merits which were won by Christ unless they cooperate with grace. That distinction, that being redeemed doesn’t necessarily mean being justified, is why Pope Alexander VII refers to Christ as the Redeemer of the human race – i.e., of all men.

Pope Alexander VII, Sollicitudo omnium eccl., Dec. 8, 1661: “… Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of our human race…” (Denz. 1100)

So, in summary, Pope Benedict XV’s words (in #1 of Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum) are simply an inaccurate articulation of the truth about the Redemption. They are not formally heretical. He was attempting to express the truth, but did it inaccurately. People don’t really expect the popes to have every line of Trent memorized, do they? As we’ve shown many times, popes can say things that are erroneous when discussing theological matters without it constituting heresy.

Some people argue that Pope Benedict XV’s words are equivalent to the following heresy of Antipope John Paul II. They are quite wrong. Let’s take a look.

John Paul II, Homily, June 6, 1985: “The Eucharist is the sacrament of the covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the covenant which is eternal. This is the covenant which embraces all. This Blood reaches all and saves all.”

This statement, unlike Pope Benedict XV’s erroneous statement on the universality of the Redemption, is definitely a heretical utterance of universal salvation. First, John Paul II specifically says that Christ’s Blood reaches and saves all. Salvation is almost always associated with actually being saved or justified, not the potential of being saved or justified. Furthermore, in the same context, John Paul II speaks of the New Covenant. In this very context, he declares that all are part of this covenant. He’s referring to the new (and everlasting) covenant, which Jesus mentioned when instituting the Eucharist in His blood (Mt. 26:28). This covenant is the Church; it represents actual union with Christ. This covenant does not embrace all, as dogmatic definitions on the very words of Christ’s blood (and the covenant it signifies) confirm.

In addition, John Paul II consistently taught that all men are saved. There are many examples of that in this file: The Heresies of John Paul II – a comprehensive presentation. Two such examples are given below. So his statement above, that the Blood of Christ saves all, etc., is perfectly in line with his other teaching. It doesn’t stand out in contrast – as is the case with Pope Benedict XV’s words – with some statement (in the very same document) that no man is saved without the Catholic faith.

John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978: “Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become man; and therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of Grace.”

John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979: “We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery.”

John Paul II says that all men participate in “the divine life.” The “divine life” refers to the state of grace. That means that all men are justified. In the second quote, John Paul II says that Christ is united to every man “forever.” That clearly indicates that all are saved.

So, in wrongly concluding that Pope Benedict XV was teaching universal salvation and heresy by his imperfect articulation of the universality of the Redemption – and that he was therefore an antipope – the radical schismatics have come up with another schismatic error which further confirms that they are truly outside the Church.

Pope Benedict XV on the Unity of the Church

First, we should make it clear that we’re talking here about Pope Benedict XV (who reigned from 1914-1922), not Antipope Benedict XVI.

The quote above is not proof of manifest heresy for several reasons. I will demonstrate this by a number of points. The primary reason is that there are two ways of considering the unity of the Church. This needs to be explained. 1) There is the external, core unity of the Church, by which all who have this unity of faith and sacraments are united in a single body. This unity is indivisible and unbreakable. It cannot be lacking.

However, there is also the internal unity or cohesion of the Church among the members who are within the core unity.

Allow me to draw an analogy which hopefully helps illustrate the point. After that, I will quote a father of the Church and a dogmatic council to confirm the point.

Imagine that a sphere represents the Church, and that all atoms within this sphere represent the Church members. The outer surface of the sphere (the circular edge) represents the external core unity of faith and sacraments in the Catholic Church. This is indivisible. All who violate the Catholic unity of faith and government separate themselves and are expelled completely from the sphere. They no longer reside within, but are now outside the sphere.

However, among the atoms within the sphere (i.e., the Church members), they can be closer to or farther apart from the other atoms (the other members) depending upon how closely united they are in judgment, will and motive. Hence, one could pray for unity or a greater unity among the atoms (or members) who are already within the core unity; so that they cease squabbling over unnecessary matters, so that they are more united in their spiritual pursuits, etc. For that reason, it can be legitimate speak of a need for greater unity in the Church only if one is doing so in the context of those Church members who are already within and not divided in faith. In fact, that’s exactly what we see in the case of St. Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1:10:

1 Corinthians 1:10- “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.”

St. John Chrysostom explains that St. Paul was not talking about differences of faith that arose, but differences of judgment and sentiment:

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on 1 Cor. 1:10- “There is also such a thing as harmony of opinions, where there is not yet harmony of sentiment; for instance, when having the same faith we are not joined together in love: for thus, in the opinions we are one, (for we think the same things,) but in sentiment not so. And such was the case at that time; this person choosing one, and that, another. For this reason he [St. Paul] saith that it is necessary to agree both in ‘mind’ and in ‘judgment.’ For it was not from any difference in faith that the schisms arose, but from the division of their judgment through human contentiousness.” (NPNF1, Vol. 12, p. 11.)

We see that the members within the unity could be lacking in a certain degree of unity among themselves, as St. Paul and St. John Chrysostom confirm. This can arise from a difference in judgment and sentiment. Now, if this difference in judgment and sentiment reaches a certain level, it can and does result in actual schism which separates one from the sphere (the Church); but there can be lesser divisions in judgment and sentiment that don’t separate one from the Church. A case in point is the Great Western Schism and St. Vincent Ferrer. People were divided in judgment and sentiment on the issue of who the lawful pastors were, but those who were not obstinate (e.g., St. Vincent) were still within the sphere (the Church). A definitive proof for the point I’m making comes from the Fifth Lateran Council.

This council makes it clear that everyone who denies the faith is outside the Church, and that the Church is one in faith. However, it also speaks of a need for unity in the Church in terms of a greater agreement among those who are within the essential unity.

Here are just two quotes from the Fifth Lateran Council which clearly teach and reaffirm the dogma that the Church is one, and that it is completely united in its essential core unity of faith and government.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 1512-1517, on the abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction: “… the person who abandons the teaching of the Roman Pontiff cannot be within the Church…” (D.E.C., Vol. 1, p. 640.)

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 1512-1517: “… the holy Church of God, which by divine providence we preside over and which is indeed one, preaches and worships one God and firmly and sincerely professes one faith.” (D.E.C., Vol. 1, p. 636.)

However, we see that the council also speaks of a need for unity among those within the core unity.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 1512-1517: “Recently, in order that the Church, our spouse, might be kept in a holy union and use might be made by Christ’s faithful of the sacred canons issued by the Roman Pontiffs and general councils…” (D.E.C., Vol. 1, p. 638.)

Here we see that it’s speaking of the internal unity of those who are already “Christ’s faithful.” This quote is very similar to the one cited above from Pope Benedict XV. Here’s another quote from the Fifth Lateran Council.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 1512-1517: “Fostering everywhere the peace and mutual love so much commended by our Redeemer, let them not rend the seamless robe of Christ and let them refrain from any scandalous detraction of bishops, prelates and other superiors and of their state of life.” (D.E.C., Vol. 1, p. 637.)

Once again we see the pope and the council clearly speaking of a need for unity in the Church in terms of a greater mutual love and peace among the members who already hold the core unity of faith.

This should clearly show that Pope Benedict XV’s statement is not proof that he was a manifest heretic. Those who are asserting this are completely wrong. This is not to suggest that Benedict XV was necessarily a good or strong pope, or that he shouldn’t have been more precise or careful in his words. It is simply to point out that his statement is not proof that he was a manifest heretic. His statement is not comparable to the heretical teaching of Vatican II on the need for the “restoration of Church unity” because Vatican II clearly and explicitly says this with reference to people who are divided in essential faith and government (Protestants, etc.). That is blatantly heretical. Vatican II is not talking about the internal cohesion of those within the unity of faith, but rather that the core external unity of the Church is lacking because some people don’t accept the full Catholic faith or the Roman Pontiff. That is totally different.

So, once again we see that the warped radical schismatics (who are wrong on the issue of receiving sacraments, etc.) have come up with another schismatic error to confirm that they are not Catholic but truly outside the Church. This argument that we have just refuted was also promoted by the clueless schismatic named Frank, whom we’ve refuted over and over again. They desire to throw the pre-Vatican II popes out of the Church because they think it helps them more consistently argue their false position on receiving sacraments. For they are unable to refute our argument that if you may not go to a less obvious undeclared heretic who is offering a traditional form of liturgy today, then one could not have lawfully gone to similar heretics before Vatican II. So if they argue that all the pre-Vatican II popes were antipopes, they think it makes it easier for them to defend their ridiculous position that there was basically nowhere to receive sacraments before Vatican II as well.

Quickly Proving that Islam is a False Religion

Contrary to what you state, we do know something about Islam.  And we can demonstrate, in just one minute, why it’s a false religion.  The true religion (which is the Catholic religion) cannot have blatant illogic at the heart of its teaching.  Islam has blatant illogic at its heart.  Islam considers Jesus to be a prophet, but it denies that He was God.  Islam says that God had no Son and it repudiates the Trinity.

The illogic is this: Jesus said and indicated that He was God many times (e.g., John 8:58).  On this point one can also consult: Where does the Bible teach that Jesus is God?  If He was not God (as Islam says), then He was a false prophet for claiming to be God when He was not.  According to Islam, he would logically – and we say this for the sake of argument for those who, God forbid, might accept Islam as true – have to be considered a blasphemer and a false prophet.  He could not logically be considered a prophet.  That proves that Islam is a false religion and that it has an official teaching which is blatantly false and illogical.  It proves it without even getting into the other false teachings of Islam which demonstrate that it’s a false religion which was inspired by the enemy of mankind to lead souls astray.

Jesus Christ was God, and the Catholic religion is the one true religion.   You need to convert to it and be baptized for salvation.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, 1434: “… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”[1]

Pope Callixtus III: “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet [Islam] in the East.”[2]

Some more reaction to Bro. Michael’s May 5 appearance on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell

“I’m 49 and trying to learn now the true Catholic faith”

John Paul II attended the Omayyad Mosque

Some of our readers might recall that in 2001 John Paul II attended the Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria.  As part of this act of apostasy, John Paul II took off his shoes before entering the mosque.  Well, the “Omayyad” caliphate (a line of Muslim rulers), after which that particular mosque he attended is named, was a line of Muslims rulers that was hugely involved in waging war on Catholic Spain in the 700-year war of Muslims vs. Christians in Spain.

“Abdurrahman the last survivor of the Omayyads had become the ruler of Muslim Spain about the time that Fruela became the ruler of Christian Spain; by 759 the two kings clashed in Galicia.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 298.)

Apocalypse 17:6- "And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.  And I wondered when I had seen her…"

John Paul II's Apostasy with the Muslims Photo Gallery

Where in Portugal is the dogma of Faith being preserved and by whom?

Since we don’t have the complete sentence, we cannot say for sure, but it could be:

“In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved in a faithful remnant…”

“In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved until the Great Apostasy…”

About Consecration to Mary

Thanks for the question. There is no obligation to make the Consecration to Mary before a priest or in a church, especially today. You should make it in your home.

The price of the Shroud

Not very long after the birth of the false religion of Islam, the militant Muslims had overtaken Christian Armenia. In the 10^th century the Byzantine Emperor Romanus Lecapenus took up the cause of the resisting Christian Armenians and gave them his best general, John Gourgen [a.k.a. Courcouas], to aid them. Courcouas was tremendously successful in retaking Armenia from the Muslims. (more…)

“Your website has changed me profoundly”

On the Last Gospel of the Mass from St. John

Thanks for the question. Yes, we have an opinion about this verse. This was actually mentioned in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation (section 22). While we cannot say infallibly what this particular verse means since the Church has never issued any infallible declaration on this specific verse, here is what is said about it in the book. We think the correct conclusion is pretty obvious:

John 1:12-13-“But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become the sons of God: to them that believe in His name: WHO ARE BORN, NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.”

The context of the passage is dealing with “becoming the sons of God,” that which St. Paul called “adoption of sons” (Rom. 8:15). This is the theological and scriptural term for Justification, the state of sanctifying grace (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4). The term signifies the transition from being a child of Adam (the state of original sin) to becoming an adopted son of God (the state of sanctifying grace). Pope St. Leo the Great, in fact, confirms that this passage of St. John’s Gospel is talking about becoming a son of God by the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 63: On the Passion (+ c. 460 A.D.): “… from the birth of baptism an unending multitude are born to God, of whom it is said: Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn. 1:15).” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 151.)

So as God, through St. John, is describing man’s being “born again” to the state of grace in Baptism, He speaks of those who are born, “NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD”! The “will of the flesh” is desire. The “will of man” is desire. “Blood” is blood. In my opinion, what God is saying here in this very verse is that in order to become a son of God – in order to be justified – it does not suffice to be born again of blood or desire (i.e., baptism of blood or desire). One must be born again of God. The only way to be born again of God is to be baptized with water in the name of God: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt. 28:19).

Can one attend a lecture on Creationism by a Protestant?

Yes, we don’t see any reason why you couldn’t go unless attacking the Catholic Faith is somehow an integral part of his presentation on Creation (which we highly doubt). You should at least try to convert the Protestant who invited you, of course, if you haven’t done so already.

What did the Third Secret of Fatima contain?

Thank you for your question. While we don’t know infallibly, we can say almost with certainty (based on a number of things) that the Third Secret concerns apostasy from the Catholic Faith by people who purport to hold positions of authority in Rome.

First, the very words which come just before the undisclosed Third Secret are: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved… etc. [Third Secret].” Since these are the last words before the Third Secret, they imply that the Third Secret deals with the dogma of Faith not being preserved. 

Second, people who have commented on the Third Secret, including high-ranking members of the Vatican II sect – who purport to have read the Third Secret or to have acquired intimate knowledge of its contents (including Joseph Ratzinger, “Cardinal” Ciappi) – reveal that it has to do with the loss of the Faith.

"In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." (Mario L. Ciappi, “cardinal” and household theologian to John Paul II, quoted in The Devil's Final Battle, p. 33)

Third, Our Lady said it would be clearer in 1960, and this was just after Vatican II was called – the very council which put into motion the major apostasy from the Faith we are all now living through.

The most trusted name in Jews…?

In the Heresy of the Week, some comments are made about the Jewish domination of the media. Those who doubt this fact simply need to do more research. To give just a tiny example, here is a link to some of the most prominent anchors featured on the website of CNN – “the most trusted name in news.”

CNN’s featured anchors

• Larry King is a known Jew.
• Paula Zahn is a Jew, who is married to Richard Cohen.
• Wolf Blitzer is a well-known Jew, former correspondent for The Jerusalem Post.
• We don’t know if Anderson Cooper is a Jew, but he may very well be.

• Jeff Greenfield,
• Gary Tuchman,
• Sandy Berger,
• Rahm Emanuel,
• Andrea Koppel (whose father is Ted from ABC),
• Ben Franken,
• Candy Crowley, etc., etc., etc.

“After viewing your DVD... I’ve cried all day”

Robert Sungenis stated that souls can be saved in any religion

Many of our readers are familiar with some of our past articles which have refuted a certain Bob. S. – a defender of Vatican II and the New Mass. Since he has been thoroughly refuted, there really hasn’t been much point in bringing him up again. We do so now because he recently stated that souls can be saved in any religion.

Bob S., Q and A, August 2006, Question 1: “So it's not the religion of the Jew or Moslem or Protetant that will save him. If any Jew, Moslem or Protestant IS saved, it will be in spite of their "religion" or "faith-line" and it will only be because they have submitted, in part, to Catholic doctrine and practice. That's why even Protestants can be saved if they submit to the Catholic understanding of baptism. “In addition, one of those Catholic "practices" is leading a moral and worshipful life. If, for example, a non-Catholic, by the laws of God written on his heart, obeys them to the best of his ability (without committing mortal sin), he at least has a chance of making it to heaven. This all comes under the teaching of "invincible ignorance" as taught by even the early Church, and reitereated specifically by Pius IX. It has nothing to do with whether he is "Protestant, Jew or Moslem." He could be of any religion, but as long as he worships and obeys God in invincible ignorance, he too can be saved. But if he, knowing that the Catholic Church is the true Church, deliberate refuses to join her, he will be condemned, whether he is Protestant, Jew or Moslem, or any religion. The big problem with EWTN's statement is that they imply that God will save them precisely because they are "Protestant, Jew or Moslem," and that is highly erroneous.”

Pope Pius IX- Syllabus of Modern Errors- Proposition 16, Dec. 8, 1854: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned 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.” Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).’”

The Vatican II Sect worships false gods alongside the true God

Yes, that’s a very good point. People don’t realize that what the Vatican II antipopes and heresies have done is – without even bringing the “gods” of the heathens into the temple itself – they have caused the people (who imbibe the new religion) to fall into an effective worship of the gods of the heathens by an acceptance of their false religions (and therefore the false gods they worship). So, for those who imbibe the new religion, it’s as if they have brought the idols of the heathens into the temple to be worshipped alongside the true God – without even literally having done so. If people really saw things the way they are and the way that God sees them, they would realize that this what the Vatican II antipopes have done: they have put the worship of false gods alongside the worship of the true God. That was their mission from Satan. We see this, for instance, in these quotes: (more…)

Muppet ‘mass’ in Anchorage, Alaska

We recently received a call from a woman in Anchorage, Alaska who had been attending the New Mass (the Novus Ordo). She was recommended to our website by a friend. She is now convinced of the fullness of the Catholic Faith and has come up to speed on the evils of the New Mass and the post-Vatican II apostasy. What we wanted to share with our readers is that this woman informed us that at her parish in Anchorage, the Novus Ordo “priest” Fr. Patrick Fletcher uses muppets at every 10:30 Sunday Mass for many months during the year. “Fr. Kermit” and “Sr. Piggy” emerge from a box on the altar and carry on a dialogue in their distinctive voices in order to instruct the people. Wow… just when one thinks that the Vatican II sect has reached the full depths of its sacrilegious aberrations and apostasy, there’s always something new. It truly is a new religion.

“I read your book on Padre Pio daily... the best summation of his life”

It all makes sense

Mother Teresa mocked all the saints and martyrs

Yes, that’s exactly right. False ecumenism is so evil not only because it rejects the true God, but also because it mocks and renders meaningless the countless sufferings of Catholics not to become pagans or Muslims or Lutherans or Anglicans, etc. etc. The Vatican II sect covers them all – praises paganism, Islam, heretical and schismatic sects, mocking all the saints and martyrs – and is thus the mother of all the (spiritual) fornications.

Apocalypse 17:5- "And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth."

Was Elizabeth Ann Seton validly canonized a ‘saint’?

Dona, thank you for your comments. Elizabeth Ann Seton was "canonized" by Antipope Paul VI in 1975.  He obviously had no authority to canonize, since he was an antipope.  This does not mean that Elizabeth Ann Seton is not in Heaven or wouldn't be worthy of canonization by a true pope; it simply means that, as of yet, she has never been canonized and therefore we cannot say infallibly that she is to be numbered among the saints.

Vatican II worships the same ‘God’ as Muslims

Since some have desperately attempted to defend Vatican II’s teaching that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God, we will offer some further brief thoughts on this matter in light of the definition of Islam.  We and others have made similar points before, but when one reads the definition of Islam it really should strike one how false and heretical this teaching of Vatican II is.  Catholics and Muslims don’t have the same God.

“Muhammad’s religion is called Islam, meaning submission to the will of God.  Its adherents are Muslims.  Their creed is utterly simple, stark and hard-lined as mountains against a desert sunset, proclaimed five times every day from the minarets in every Muslim city: la ilaha illa-l-Lah, Muhammadun rasulul-Lah (‘There is no God whatsoever but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of God.’)  Merely to pronounce this creed makes a man a Muslim.  Thereafter the penalty for apostasy is death, with no questions asked and no exceptions granted.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 217)

Let’s think about this: “There is no God whatsoever but Allah,” according to the Muslims.  And Muhammad is his messenger.  This means, therefore, that according to the Muslims the “God” for whom Muhammad is the messenger is the only God.  As they say, “There is no other God whatsoever” except the one for whom Muhammad was messenger.  Muhammad said that God had no Son (Koran, Surah XIX, “Mary”), and denied the Trinity.  Therefore, it is an undeniable fact that the Muslims worship no God “whatsoever” except the one who has no Son and is not a Trinity – the one for whom Muhammad spoke.  Vatican II worships the same “God.”

(more…)

How St. Thomas Aquinas drove away a prostitute

Our Lord tells us in Matthew 10 that one’s enemies will be those of one’s own house. We see this clearly in the case of St. Thomas Aquinas. His family was so opposed to his decision to pursue a vocation that they locked him up in a castle, and sent him a prostitute in the hope that it would destroy his vocation:

“… Thomas was abducted by his brother Rinaldo… and taken to the second family castle… Thomas… vehemently resisted attempts to tear the Dominican habit from his back, and in a famous episode which probably occurred on the night of his capture or the following night, drove away with a firebrand a prostitute who had been sent to his room to seduce him from his vocation.” (Carroll, The Glory of Christendom, Vol. 3, p. 260.)

”Any more information about this-Sister Lucy dying in 1960?”

Thank you for your e-mail. The issue of the fake Sr. Lucy (who posed as the real Sr. Lucy after 1960) is covered near the end of the article below. That there was a fake Sr. Lucy starting in approximately 1960 is proven by 1) what the post-1960 “Sr. Lucy” said, did and endorsed in regard to the Message of Fatima, which blatantly contradicts the message of the real, pre-Vatican II Sr. Lucy; and 2) the photographic evidence.

The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the Impostor Sr. Lucy

God can neither deceive nor be deceived

Yes, it is way off base. The Church declares that all who die as non-Catholics go to Hell. You have a problem at this time believing that dogmas are truths accepted on the authority of God the revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. If God saved people outside the Church sometimes, He never would have allowed His Church to repeatedly define as an infallible dogma that NO ONE AT ALL is saved without the Catholic Faith. He cannot lie or deceive. Please focus on the bolded portion below:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by that very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is that supernatural virtue by which… we believe what He has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of human reason [author: that is, not because it seems correct to us], but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

“I found why Catholicism is the one true Christian Religion”

John, you are definitely responding to the powerful graces that God is giving you to embrace the true Faith. We would recommend that you pray the Rosary every day and, if you don't know how, we have the How to Pray the Rosary sheet which can help you. Attached is a basic summary of the Catholic Catechism. We look forward to hearing from you. (more…)

“I am presently listening to your second radio show”

When is it a Catholic’s duty to recognize a Pope?

Thank you for your question. He who is elected as the Bishop of Rome – by the clergy of Rome in the first millennium, and by the College of Cardinals in the second millennium (or, in rare cases, by a pope appointing his successor) – must always be accepted as the pope unless there is clear evidence that the election was invalid or that the man “elected” is a manifest heretic (as taught by Pope Paul IV). In the case of the Vatican II “popes,” they are undeniable manifest heretics and have presided over a new religion and a new gospel which contradicts what all the true popes have taught from St. Peter on. It is definite, therefore, that they cannot be accepted as true popes based on the very teaching of the validly elected popes themselves.

Question on Pope Pius IX and salvation dogma

Thank you for your question. This is addressed in our book on salvation, and it was specifically addressed in the radio program we just did. We hope to have that show in our archive online soon. I would encourage you to listen to it, since it answers this question in detail and many others issues relevant to this topic. Radio Program here: Sept. 9 Radio Program: An in-depth discussion of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the water baptism issue (click here to listen, about 2 hrs.) This show covers in detail the controversial issue of salvation. It goes through the dogmatic pronouncements on Outside the Church There is No Salvation, discusses the history of the “baptism of desire” idea, and shows how it was not the belief of the early Church. It covers and critiques some of the outrageous distortions present in the books promoting baptism of desire, such as those published by the SSPX. It discusses Fr. Feeney’s case and answers objections. This program is definitely worth listening to in order to get a fair and accurate picture of what the Church teaches on this extremely important dogma – so denied in our day.