Pius XII And Heresy - Was He A Heretic?

His entire line of argumentation is a straw man – that is, attributing to another a position he doesn’t actually hold. We don’t believe that someone who is a heretic in his fallible capacity remains the pope. We don’t say that. Since they cannot refute the position, they must use straw-man argumentation. No heretic can remain the pope, even if he only teaches the heresy in his fallible capacity. (A true pope could never teach heresy in an infallible capacity, of course.)

The point is that there isn’t sufficient evidence to definitely conclude that Pius XII was a heretic, rather than someone who was a terribly weak pope who made doctrinal errors. That’s because the errors which Pius XII taught were not specific propositions which have been explicitly condemned by the Magisterium by name. Rather, they are proven to be false and incompatible with Catholic teaching by the positive dogmatic statements on related subjects. As a result, these errors become heresies once one puts together (or can be shown to be directly obstinate against) all of the positive dogmatic evidence which contradicts them. That doesn’t mean that someone doesn’t sin for promoting them and neglecting to more carefully consult Catholic teaching. It is simply to point out that there is a difference, from the standpoint of manifest heresy, between the promotion of such an error and the promotion of something that has been explicitly and notoriously condemned by name in a dogmatic decree (e.g., Justification by faith alone).

In fact, notice that in the following decree of the Council of Constance, there is a distinction between propositions that are offensive to Catholic teaching, etc. and those which are notoriously heretical. They are “notoriously heretical” because they have previously been condemned by the Magisterium by name, in a manner which should be obvious to all. This proves that notoriety is not simply reserved for how one promotes a falsehood, but also THE SPECIFIC FALSEHOOD ITSELF (i.e., how clearly and obviously has it been condemned by the Church). This coincides precisely with what we’ve said about certain undeclared heretical priests. We’ve pointed out (correctly) that how notorious they are is not only dependent upon how they promote something, but also dependent upon the content of the falsehood they embrace.

Council of Constance, Sess. 15, July 6, 1415, Sentence against John Huss: “This most holy Synod of Constance therefore declares and defines that the articles listed below, which have been found on examination, by many masters in sacred scripture, to be contained in his books and pamphlets written in his own hand, and which the same John Huss at a public hearing, before the fathers and prelates of this sacred council, has confessed to be contained in his books and pamphlets, are not Catholic and should not be taught to be such but rather many of them are erroneous, others scandalous, others offensive to the ears of the devout, many of them are rash and seditious, and some of them are notoriously heretical and have long ago been rejected and condemned by holy fathers and by general councils, and it strictly forbids them to be preached, taught or in any way approved.”

MORE ON PIUS XII AND HERESY

There are numerous errors in your very dishonest, illogical and inaccurate e-mail. Since people such as yourself have already been refuted in audios, etc., I’m not going to spend a lot of time with you. I will quickly refute your main errors, however. To your first lie:

No, it's not a lie. You are the heretical and contradictory liar, as I will show.  We are talking here about the idea of explicit baptism of desire. The theory of explicit baptism of desire is a horrible error. We have pointed this out more than anyone. This horrible error becomes a heresy once one sees all of the positive dogmatic evidence which contradicts it. However, this idea (i.e., explicit baptism of desire) hasn’t been condemned by name. Someone could be confused about the issue or hold it in good faith until all of the dogmatic evidence is pointed out to him and the objections raised in its favor are refuted. To obstinately express belief in it after that time is to demonstrate bad will and to depart from the faith. Therefore, explicit baptism of desire is proven to be incompatible with Catholic teaching by the positive evidence.  For you to say that it has been explicitly condemned by name is dishonest. So, what we’ve already written refutes you.

Moreover, you condemn yourself in your own e-mail.  That’s because if you really believe what you write, you would have to say that Pius XII was definitely a heretic and therefore an antipope.  Instead, you say that you don't know if he was a heretic:

You are condemned by your own words. Your whole e-mail purports to show that he was a heretic. You thus prove yourself to be a contradictory liar. You aren’t even convinced that he was a heretic! That means that you don't really believe what you write.  Get out of here, you phony. Don’t act like you believe something that you don’t. Moreover, if anyone who affirms explicit baptism of desire even once is ipso facto to be considered a heretic, then that means you would have to say that St. Alphonsus and St. Robert were heretics. There is no way around that argument. They believed in explicit baptism of desire. They were dead wrong, of course; and to obstinately hold their erroneous position in the face of all the dogmatic evidence does show bad will. However, it is not ipso facto a proof of manifest heresy. If you don't admit that they and everyone who expresses belief in it even once is to be considered a heretic, then you condemn yourself again.  If you do, then you further prove yourself to be a non-Catholic; for in that case you must condemn the Catholic Church itself for canonizing those you deem to have been manifest heretics. By the way, have some courage and put your real full name.

To your next lie, you write:

We don’t say that Pius XI infallibly condemned it “in name.” He did not. We say that it’s proven to be incompatible with the infallible Catholic teaching on the primary purpose of the marriage act. Thus, you dishonestly misrepresent what we say. Please quote the passage where NFP is explicitly condemned by name. You cannot do so because it doesn’t exist. Rather, it’s proven to be wrong by the positive evidence, just as we said.

Regarding Pius XII and theistic evolution, we agree that it’s horrible, awful, atrocious. There are only two things which we believe save him from manifest heresy on this point (though not from mortal sin and grave error). Those are 1) the fact that it hasn’t been explicitly condemned in any dogmatic decree. It’s definitely false and certainly runs counter to the obvious teaching of Scripture and the whole history of Catholic thought. However, it is not proven to be heretical by virtue of a specific condemnation by a dogmatic decree. That holds significance for point #2.

2) The fact that Pius XII didn’t say that he believed in it. He said that it may be taught. Thus, one could arguably justify him from manifest heresy (though not from mortal sin and scandal) by arguing that, even though he personally didn’t believe in it, he labored under the false impression that he couldn’t forbid people to teach it if it hasn’t been condemned in a dogmatic decree. That’s the only thing that we believe saves him from manifest heresy on this point. In fact, if you read what he said about it, you can see in that very context that he forbids people from teaching only those things which he believes to have been clearly condemned by the teaching of dogmatic councils or by a specific statement of the papal magisterium.

To your next statement, which truly expresses your schismatic mentality, you write:

We’ve heard many unflattering things about Pope Pius XII. But hearing things, and having clear proof for them, are two different things. Hearing things about someone doesn’t allow us to conclude that a true pope is an antipope. The fact that you argue that it does reveals that you have a schismatic – not a Catholic – way of operating. You also ask: what would he have to do? I could give many examples. If he clearly taught (more than once, so that we know it wasn’t an editorial error) that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions, he would have to be considered a manifest heretic. But not only is that not the case, his official teaching in Mystici Corporis contradicts that heresy. It also contradicts any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism. One can effectively use it to disprove the baptism of desire crowd of apostates.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:   “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

With regard to Pius XII paving the way for Vatican II, that also doesn’t prove that he was without question a heretic. In his fallible capacity, a bad pope can attempt to hurt the Church. He can do this by omissions, bad reforms, and weak statements which don’t rise to the level of manifest heresy. That’s precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine speaks of a true pope who tries to destroy the Church. We quote this passage not because in itself it proves the true position; but rather because it lends further support to the correct Catholic understanding of this issue, which I have been articulating. Bellarmine is talking about a bad pope. He says that you may resist such a pope. In other words, there could be a true pope who tries to destroy the Church. He could do this in ways that don’t rise to the level of clear-cut manifest heresy.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

But when speaking of a clear-cut manifest heretic, St. Robert clearly says that such a one ceases to be the pope.

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

As an aside, countless false traditionalists cite the former passage but dishonestly do not cite the latter.

To your final error, you don’t understand the Honorius case. The councils which condemned him (e.g., Constantinople III) didn’t express any uncertainty. They didn’t condemn him because they believed he was “apparently” a heretic. Rather, they condemned him as an outright heretic because they believed he was an outright heretic. The confusion arose after the council – not within the actual statement of the council. In confirming the Third Council of Constantinople, Pope St. Leo II made a statement which some interpreted to mean that the condemnation of Honorius should only be accepted in the sense that he enabled heresy to flourish. However, that’s speculative. That’s why St. Francis De Sales was unsure whether Honorius was a heretic. The uncertainty concerning Honorius wasn’t expressed in the text of the council itself.

In conclusion, we have repeatedly discussed why a traditional Catholic must be aware of the fact that Pius XII was not a strong pope. He was probably about as close to heresy as a pope could be without being a clear-cut manifest heretic. One of the reasons that many “traditionalists” are deceived is that they think they can just follow everything that emanated, even in a fallible capacity, during the reign of Pope Pius XII. We believe that a future true pope would probably (and should) condemn him for his omissions, weak statements and reforms. However, as it stands and for the reasons expressed in this and the previous response, a Catholic does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that he was definitely a manifest heretic and therefore an antipope.

Works of the Law, and Romans 4

First, we would have to object to a description of a Protestant as biblically astute. Many Protestants have a knowledge of certain verses, the biblical languages, biblical history, etc; but they remain in the dark concerning the most important and the most obvious teachings of the Bible. That is, they are oblivious to the teaching of the Bible on salvation, Christ’s Church, etc. Since they remain oblivious to things that are so obviously taught in the Bible – things which constitute its core message, such as that works and deeds are a part of determining whether man has salvation – they really don’t understand the Bible at all.

Second, his assertion that the context was not taken into consideration when discussing Romans 3:28 is completely untrue. It’s typical of some Protestants who will sadly never be convinced, no matter how much evidence you give them. Romans 3 begins with a discussion about circumcision: a work of the Old Law. This point was specifically made in our book, The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church. Hence, we can clearly see that the context is the works of the Old Law.

Romans 3:1- “What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision?”

For the rest of the chapter St. Paul speaks in that context. Before I get to your question about Romans 4, I will say that it’s not only Romans 3:1 and Galatians 2 which corroborate our point about St. Paul’s meaning of “the works of the law.” It’s also demonstrated by Galatians 5 and Philippians 3.

Galatians 5:3-6- “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

We can see that when referring to “the law,” he’s talking about the Old Law, not all human deeds.

Philippians 3:5-9- “[I] Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:”

Now, your friend brings up Abraham. He asks why St. Paul would mention Abraham if he was speaking of the Old Law. By asking this question, your friend leads us directly to another devastating refutation of his position.

(All of this is covered, by the way, in this article: Justification by Faith Alone and Eternal Security completely refuted by the Bible. Please go to the end and look at the section called: THE CASE OF ABRAHAM REFUTES PROTESTANT THEOLOGY – IT PROVES THAT JUSTIFICATION IS NOT A ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME ACT, BUT SOMETHING INCREASED AND MAINTAINED THROUGH OBEDIENCE… This section on Abraham was not in our book. That’s because it’s a more involved point and people really shouldn’t need it after all of the other evidence.)

St. Paul brings up Abraham in Romans 4, right after talking about how people are justified by faith apart from the works of the law (i.e., apart from the Old Law). He does this precisely to prove to these people that justification is not inextricably bound up with the Old Law, with circumcision, etc. St. Paul gives the example of how Abraham was justified by his faith in Genesis 15:6, which was before Abraham was circumcised in Genesis 17:

Romans 4:9-10- “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness [Gen. 15:6]. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.”

His point, therefore, is that if God can justify Abraham by faith before circumcision (as this example shows), then he can justify you, if you submit to the faith of Jesus and cast aside circumcision and the works of the (Old) Law. That’s the precise point he is making. That must be understood when one reads this chapter. His point is not that if you submit to Jesus and His faith, none of your human actions, deeds or sins will have anything to do with your justification! That is a gross perversion of his true meaning.

Thus, when Paul says the following in Romans 4:1-4…

Romans 4:1-4- “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”

… he is clearly speaking in the context of contrasting the Old Testament system of works with the power that God has to justify those who accept His faith outside of that system of Old Testament works. That is the precise subject and the context. He is not teaching that justification by faith in Christ is apart from all human actions and deeds.

But in James 2, the subject and the context are different. James 2 is concerned with teaching Christians that their faith in Christ is not enough. It’s about the Christian life and life in general, not about teaching people that the Old Testament system is not obligatory. One could truly say that in James 2 the subject is the same as the issue we’re talking about: the Protestant idea that man is justified by his faith in Jesus alone. And that idea is denounced as completely false. And that’s why in this chapter we read that Abraham was justified by works.

James 2:21-24- “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar [Genesis 22:10]? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

So we can see how the Protestants have totally misunderstood these passages of Scripture. In doing so, they have constructed a false religion and a false Gospel which completely contradict the whole message of Scripture. There is much more on Abraham in that section of the file I referenced. It covers how Abraham was justified more than once, which also refutes Protestant theology.

“By claiming that all who acknowledged Paul VI as the pope were heretics, you condemn Padre Pio” – WRONG!

Basically everything you have written in your short e-mail is wrong. We do not say that everyone who believes that the Vatican II antipopes are true popes is ipso facto a heretic. We say that after a person becomes familiar with the heresies of the V-2 antipopes and doesn’t denounce them – and after one becomes familiar with the teaching on loss of papal office and continues to insist that they are popes – they become heretics. In addition, one who imbibes the Vatican II theology of ecumenism would become a heretic, even before he or she has seen any teaching on loss of office, etc. That’s because an acceptance of false religions is directly incompatible with true faith in Christ.

So, your first accusation is totally wrong and constitutes a misrepresentation of our position. It’s certainly the case that not everyone who considers the V-2 antipopes to be popes is ipso facto a heretic. That’s because it’s the duty of a Catholic to accept the man who purports to be the Bishop of Rome as the pope, until there is clear evidence of an invalid election or manifest heresy. Some radical schismatics have adopted the theologically absurd position that it’s impossible to be in the Church while recognizing an antipope (even if one hasn’t seen the heresies or the evidence to conclude otherwise), and this leads them into a whole range of ridiculous and outrageously schismatic errors.

Regarding the objection concerning St. Thomas, these are old and tired arguments that we have already refuted many times. If people spent the time reading our book on salvation, they would see that there is an entire section dedicated to this very objection. Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and refuting baptism of desire – book, audio program, articles. It’s found in Section 17, “Other Objections.” To disprove that very objection, we give an analogous example from Pope John IV and Honorius. Moreover, it’s addressed in our debates on baptism of desire:

File of Recent Audio Debates on “Baptism of Desire”

It’s addressed in this second one and in the fourth one.

Debate on baptism of desire with sedevacantist Ken [1 hr. 46 min. audio – Jan. 2009]

Furthermore, that particular false objection (which you raise concerning doctors of the Church, etc.) is best addressed, and frankly demolished, in our article on Geocentrism and “Baptism of Desire.” In this article, we show that a doctor of the Church and popes have considered something heretical which in fact later popes did not even consider necessarily wrong. If that’s the case, then a doctor of the Church (e.g., St. Thomas, etc.) can be unaware of (or confused about) a Church teaching or a dogmatic definition which disproves a certain position.

Examining the Theological Status of Geocentrism and Heliocentrism and the Devastating Problems this creates for Baptism of Desire Arguments *very important article which demolishes popular baptism of desire arguments, contains a new quote from a pope on geocentrism and much more

This article clearly shows that doctors of the Church and popes can make mistakes on matters that are dogmatic (or which they think are dogmatic) without being heretics. To quote one paragraph from the article: “… if heliocentrism has not been infallibly condemned by the Holy See, then numerous popes (e.g., Paul V and Urban VIII) and a Doctor of the Church (St. Robert Bellarmine) acted like it had been and thus were unaware of the true theological status of this issue. If they could have been completely wrong about the true theological status of this controversial point [one about which accusations of heresy were being launched], then certainly St. Alphonsus and others could have been as well concerning the dogmatic status of the absolute necessity of water baptism. Thus, either way our point is proven.”

To put it another way, baptism of desire is a theological error which becomes a heresy when it is carefully matched up with the dogmatic definitions on salvation. This is analogous to the minutiae (finer points) of the Incarnation, etc., such as the dogma that Christ has two wills. This false idea is, strictly speaking, a heresy; but it would only be only an error for some until they see the specific Church teaching against the false position.

In conclusion, your objection demonstrates a superficial knowledge of Church history and the teaching of the Magisterium, as if a doctor of the Church is always perfectly aware of the theological status of every Catholic truth. It’s an objection that sounds good, but crumbles when more facts are brought forward. Your false objection is regurgitated by countless bad willed false traditionalists who consider themselves knowledgeable and Catholic (but actually aren’t), including priests, bloggers and forum hosters who love “baptism of desire.” They are completely wrong and their position is refuted by the aforementioned facts. It’s distressing that these people won’t more carefully look at the information; for just a few days ago one radical schismatic wrote to us demanding an answer to this very objection. We pointed out to him that we’ve already addressed the issue, and he (in his pride and bad will) refused to believe it. He was convinced it was such an original objection that we could not have addressed and refuted it before.

[P.S. Your other false statements about Padre Pio were addressed in our audio: Answering Objections Against Padre Pio (42 min. audio discussion)]

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…)