| Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | “Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
| Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed | Steps To Convert | Outside The Church There Is No Salvation | E-Exchanges | The Holy Rosary | Padre Pio | Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups | Help Save Souls: Donate |  |
This section of our website (which is updated daily) contains some less formal – and short – e-mail exchanges that we’ve had which we feel may be of value to our readers. We will include those portions of the exchanges we deem relevant and valuable. We often add bolding and underlining which are not necessarily that of the other party. This section also frequently includes, not only e-exchanges we have, but also our notes, updates and comments. Section containing some important recent posts. E-Exchange Archives.
It is a pity that the Salvation issue so divides the Traditionalist movement, especially, if not exclusively, in the USA. The Church has never complicated matters for It's children. There really should be no problem, notwithstanding what certain " Patristic Fathers " may or may not have said on this issue.
We have the Sacrament of Baptism whose matter is water and whose form is : I baptise you in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This really should be the end of the controversy.
I am perplexed why the bulk of Traditional priests seek to find their way around the Sacrament of Baptism. One of the reasons coud be that they are closet ecumaniacs.
Keep the Faith!
Stephen Francis
Yes, we fully agree. It’s so simple: unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). If people cogitate on exactly what these salvation heretics are arguing for (in arguing that people don’t need baptism and that members of false religions can be united to the Church) and what they accomplish in arguing for it – namely, nothing except to confirm people outside the Church and discourage people from converting and being baptized – and consider the fruits of their heresy, which are simply awful (rampant religious indifferentism), one can clearly see that the furor created by those tenaciously arguing for “baptism of desire” and salvation for non-Catholics is evil. (more…)
St. Bernadette Soubirous, who was favored with seeing Our Lady at Lourdes, France, grew up in extreme poverty. Her home was a dungeon-like former prison. Some of the people in town were so poor that they had almost nothing to eat:
“One day [Mlle Estrade relates] I was saying my prayers about two o’clock in the afternoon in front of Our Lady’s altar in the parish church; I thought I was alone until I heard some chairs move. I turned round and caught sight of a child of five or six years in very poor clothes. His face was pleasing but quite emaciated, showing plainly that the child was under-nourished. I resumed my prayers, and the child continued his maneuvers. With a very sharp ‘Hush’ I ordered him to keep quiet. The child tried hard, but in spite of all the precautions he took to avoid making a noise, he did not succeed. I watched him closely and noticed that he was bending down and scraping the flagstones and then putting his hand in his mouth. He was actually eating the wax which had fallen from the candles during a funeral service.
‘Is that wax you’re eating?’ I asked him.
He nodded his head.
‘You must be very hungry!... Wouldn’t you rather eat something else?’
Several nods of the head again gave me the answer ‘Yes.’.
I left the church at once with the poor child, now my friend. For quite a long time at my invitation he came very day to visit us, and was like a boarder.” (Abbe Francois Trochu, St. Bernadette Soubirous, Tan Books, pp. 20-21)
Let’s be thankful for what we have, and say an extra prayer for the conversion of some sinner headed for eternal hunger in Hell.
“Bernadette divided her time as her fancy dictated between work, play and saying her rosary. The latter was a cheap twopenny rosary, with black beads threaded on a string, which her mother had given her. Her pleasures were as simple as her soul.” (Abbe Francois Trochu, St. Bernadette Soubirous, p. 29)
Dear Brothers Dimond,
Your work compels me to say that You are truly worthy of Your respective names. Seen as a whole it is strikingly obvious that this work of yours bases itself on the unfailing Faith of Peter troughout the centuries and on the uncompromising zeal for God and His holy Truth of St. Michael the Archangel. For the past two years Your writings have for me been a daily spiritual refreshment in this Hour of darkness that we are in. I want to be as brief as possible so I have one question for You. It has to do with the much mentioned Sess.6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent that the dogma deniers use in favor of the so called ''baptism of desire'' which You refute in Your book. In it You also give an answer why the Council mentions desire for baptism along with water being necessary for Justification. Can it be that with the mention of desire in that canon the Council also solemnly condemned the practise of forced baptism wich unfortunately did occur (although rarely). Maybe the question is off the mark or I have missed something that you have already written on but what does the Church say of such people who have recieved the Sacrament but against their will/desire. Is it considered valid. It would seem they are not justified although they recived the water of baptism. Thank You in advance and may Our Lord bless You.
Vedran from Croatia
Thanks for the e-mail. You are correct: a forced baptism would be invalid. Desire is a necessary disposition for one above the age of reason to have in receiving baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180: "INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it…"
Hello, I talked to someone on the phone the other day at your location about copies of 202 heresies of Vatican II that I'd like to get some copies of. I went to your web site to check you out. Wow. I would love to sit down and ask you so many questions. To begin with I have just read the info about fr. gruner. That was an eye opener. Most of what I read fills in so many gaps and questions I have had for some time in the back of my mind. And of course I would first ask who was the last good pope?
And more importantly, you must feel awfully alone out there if all you say is true. And that narrow road to heaven must be even emptier than I previously thought. I feel I might be on that road, but my poor flesh keeps getting in the way. I try for an austere manner of life devouted to doing the will of God, but my worldly self likes to many comforts. I wish we lived close so I could visit and talk. No one else seems to be speaking God's language.
I would like to say the Liturgy of the hours but wonder if there is a pre-vatican II version of the liturgy available anywhere in the full four volumes leather. Any ideas where I might find one or is reading the new version better than not at all? God bless you in your work. steve reising
Thanks for the e-mail, Steve. The traditional divine office is available from out of print booksellers; however, we believe that it’s more important for laypeople to make sure they’re praying the full 15 decades of the Rosary each day. (more…)
Brothers Dimond,
I have been reading your website for the past several months, and your analysis of the present situation in the Church never cease to amaze. It really is all so simple, but I am quite sure that I and many others would never have been willing to admit it if you hadn't proven it all so irrefutably. I have read your book and watched a few of your videos, and they are bombshells! God bless you, Brothers.
Erik
Thanks for the interest and words of support.
Dear Brother Michael Dimond:
I have been reading material your Monastery has sent to me and am beginning for the first time to realize what has happened to the Catholic Church. Thank you for the material.
I read today on your web-site about EWTN and I spent one year in Hanceville in search of a Valid Mass. I was horrified at the way the Shrine was run by the Deacon Steltemeier and the sister of the nun who replaced Mother Angelica. They are not true cloistered nuns and the Deacon is chasing well intentioned nuns out of the Monastery who retired there mistakenly for the Mass. The Deacon chased an elderly man who spent all day in adoration because God forbid, he was accused of evangilizing pilgrims. I needed to vent to someone about this and you appear the only person in the world who is interested enough in the Catholic Faith to put things on the table.
The most interesting thing about your writings is that no one wants to discuss the facts. Thank you for your efforts!
Yours in Christ,
Richard A. Brennan
Thanks for your e-mail. It’s so very true that so few people want to face the facts, as you say – facts that are readily available for those who want them. Just consider, for instance, some of the heresies that we’ve covered in the last few weeks from Benedict XVI. He utters a major heresy almost weekly. A few weeks ago it was an inter-religious service with Jews, then one in a Lutheran church where indicated that heretics and schismatics have salvation and are part of the Church, then two major heresies on religious liberty. Those who are interested in seeing the truth can figure out what’s going on if they really want to. The problem is that they don’t want to face the facts, as you say. You don’t seem to be aware, however, that that the New Mass isn’t valid due to the change in the form of consecration – “many” to “all.” (Please see the articles on our site or the DVD which cover this.) It’s very important for you to familiarize yourself with this issue. Since the New Mass isn’t valid, one cannot participate in Novus Ordo “adoration” since Our Lord is not present there.
Dear Brother Dimond
I have just read your article on John Daly and I find it an excellent guide concerning his erroneous position. I too have noticed his exaggerated self importance and conceitedness in his writings, and the contradictions of his position which can only confuse those who read his writings on issues in sedevacantism. As someone who comes from the same Daly historical clan in Ireland as John Daly, I wish to say that I wholly endorse your position as accurate in this matter, as you puncture his waffle and inflated ego which leads him to his blindness on theological matters. I have read your carefully documented and researched book Outside the Catholic Church There is absolutely No Salvation, and your arguments have been honestly put forward and carefully supported from Holy scripture and Magisterial Statements. The case you have made is compelling and I am awaiting a serious refutation of your arguments against Baptism of Desire and Blood. You are right to point out that John Daly is contradictory and weak in his posturings and attacks against you, which boils down to nothing more than personal enmity and a lax treatment and understanding of Holy scripture and Magisterial documents.
I am disgusted that all charity is forgotten when it comes to attacking your work and position on the crisis in the Church, and you have shown how hypocritical such people are.
God Bless you in your ministry and please continue to speak the truth of our Catholic Faith, as so few do so nowadays because of a human respect so that instead injury and offences are heaped on Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Yours sincerely
Dr Gerard Daly
We’ve repeatedly pointed out that Antipope Paul VI made the heretical teaching of Vatican II binding by his solemn confirmation of each of its documents – a fact which proves that he was not, and could not have been, a true pope.
EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF V-2 ENDS WITH THESE WORDS (OR WORDS BASICALLY IDENTICAL TO THESE):
“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”(Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 366, etc.)
However, those who want to be able to reject Vatican II (or portions of it) while accepting Paul VI as a valid pope – a rather large group of “traditionalists” – will frequently make reference to a theological note that was attached to the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. They think this clarification proves that Paul VI didn’t promulgate Vatican II infallibly or authoritatively. The SSPX’s official website attempts to use this note attached to Lumen Gentium as an argument to prove their point, but the fact is that not only does this argument not hold up under scrutiny, but the note proves just the opposite.
Isabel the Catholic Queen of Spain (15th century), prior to becoming Queen, had to fight for her crown with political schemers who tried to set up rivals to usurp her authority. She also had to ward off many attempts by other political schemers to arrange marriages for her which she didn’t want. When such a marriage with an older hoodlum named Giron had been arranged, and there was no way out of it, Isabel prayed that either she or he would die.
“This time there was no way for Isabel to divide her enemies. Even the Pope had decided against her. Giron would arrive in less than a month. He had proclaimed his intention to marry her immediately. She was trapped…. Marriage to Pedro Giron, lecher and despoiler, as totally opposite to Isabel as any human being could be, was beyond bearing…. What does a Christian do in such a situation? He – or she – prays. And Isabel did pray, as she had prayed never before… ‘Either let him die, or let me die… Either let him die, or let me die…’ Giron was on the march. By April 13, at the head of his mighty host, he had reached El Berrueco… North from El Berrueco rode Giron with his men, into the Sierra Morena, the Dark Mountains…. Across the plain, its grapevines spreading their leaves to the spring sun, until they came to its end at the Sierra de la Virgen, the Mountains of the Blessed Virgin Mary… And there they noticed that Pedro Giron, Master of Calatrava, was swaying in his saddle. They helped him down from his horse. Fever was flaring through his body. His throat was burning and filling with alien matter. He called for water, but he could not drink. The next day he grew worse; the next, worse still. Choking, strangling, cursing God with his last breath because He had not let him live to claim his virgin bride, on the third day Pedro Giron died.
For Jesus Christ is the King of Kings, and the earth is the Lord’s; and prayers to Him are heard. As Isabel the Catholic had always known, and would never forget.” (Isabel of Spain: The Catholic Queen, p. 31.)
Dear Brother Dimond's
I have a few questions for you.
I think you are wrong about water baptism. In your E-Exchanges, you quote Pope Clement V as saying that he believes water baptism to be: "...commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children". Can't you see that the word "commonly" allows room for uncommon situations where baptism of blood and baptism of desire come into play? How do you explain his use of this word?
In an earlier E-Exchange, you say some very unkind things about the publishers of Four Marks. You claim that God punished them by causing them to be involved in a smashup. How do you know this?...
Michael Vincent
The use of “commonly” in the quote below clearly refers to the fact that the one baptism of water is the remedy of salvation common to both adults and children; in other words, it’s not just for adults or just for children. We’re glad that you reminded us of this, for this fact strengthens the point. There are those who, quoting St. Thomas, argue that baptism of desire is a remedy (i.e. can be a substitute) in the case of adults, but not in the case of children. The Council of Vienne could have very easily said that, but it didn’t. No, it stated that the one water baptism is the common remedy of salvation for adults as well as children. (more…)
Dear Brother Michael And Brother Peter,
Please help me. My name is D.F. I'm a cradle Catholic, although from about 1966 to 1998 I was living on the wrong side of both the civil law as well as the rule of my beloved Catholic Faith…. I moved to… Alaska, in February of 2004. I then ran across your web site approximately one (1) week ago, reading and downloading a great deal of what is, for me your devastatingly accurate and personally vindicating presentation of what actually happened to the Church I had abandoned so long ago. I had tried so very hard to internalize what was presented to me as the valid way of life for a member of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Out of a sense of humility I asked myself how I, for so long a sinner of such great magnitude, dared to question the changes which had come to my 'Church' from Rome ; from the various 'Popes' who guided Her and to whom I was obliged obedience.
Dear… Brothers Dimond, PLEASE pray for me. Your arguments against the post Vatican II Church are irrefutable, at least to a man not Blessed with your knowledge and insight, your gift of discernment. But I beg you to try and imagine my bewilderment, my sense of betrayal since it is this very impostor 'Church' which has allowed me to receive, or so I thought, my now greatest love, Our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the Most Blessed Sacrament. I find myself remembering the words of the late Bishop Sheen, "Truth is truth. If it was true then it is true now, lest it never was." The "ex cathedra" statements of the Popes you quote are without doubt absolutely unambiguous.
Yours in Christ Jesus, and Him Crucified,
D.F.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
What is denied brother Dimond is your interpretation of defined doctrines.
Pope Paul III does NOT say "water" Baptism--in this quote you provide, this is your "added" interpretation to this quote
The Church throughout 2000 years HAS allowed for other "forms" of Baptism such as of blood (martyrdom), the "conditional" baptism of converts (the Church recognizing that one can ONLY be baptized once), and of course Baptism of desire--which leaves GOD and not you--as the final Judge and Jury of one's soul at their physical death or in FINAL Judgment at the end of time--whichever comes first.Genbj
Yes, Pope Paul III does refer to water baptism in that quote. We’ve mentioned this before, but some people don’t seem pay attention to the point. The above canon is a canon on the Sacrament of Baptism (Canones de sacramento baptismi). We repeat: it’s a canon on the Sacrament of Baptism. The so-called “baptism of desire” is not, even according to those who believe in it, a sacrament:
Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, baptism of desire advocate, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament; it does not have the exterior sign required in the sacraments. The theologians, following St. Thomas… call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the grace of baptism… yet it does not produce the sacramental character.”Since only water baptism is the sacrament, Pope Paul III does define that water baptism is necessary for salvation without exception by defining that the sacrament is necessary for salvation without exception. This refutes what you stated above. (more…)
A few of our readers have asked us about a new sedevacantist newspaper called Four Marks. This newspaper is run by a woman and a block of heretical contributors who are adamant supporters of baptism of desire and groups which believe that souls can be saved in false religions (or accept as Catholic those who do). A reader of ours wrote to K. Plumb, the editor of this newspaper, to ask her about the salvation issue and our material. On May 30, this reader forwarded Plumb’s reply to us, which included:
“Br. Dimond hasn’t contacted me, and although I am impressed by his efforts and knowledge, it is much like a Baptist who knows his chapter and verse, but not what the Bible says.”
So, a few weeks ago the editor of Four Marks compared one of us to a Baptist for our adherence to the necessity of the Catholic Faith and water baptism for salvation. She also indicated in the same e-mail that “another article planned on this topic [the baptism of desire issue] (by another writer) is scheduled for the July issue. There are other articles on this same topic that we may reprint. That is being discussed.” So, she was planning on printing another attack on baptism by one of her stable of heretical writers in July, which almost surely would have included the typical distortions, half-truths, omissions, etc., etc. that characterize the works of the salvation heretics.
Many Catholics are aware that on June 17, 1689, Our Lord revealed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque that He wanted the King of France, Louis XIV, to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Kings of France delayed, and did not obey. 100 years later to the day, on June 17, 1789, King Louis XVI was stripped of his legislative authority by the upstart Third Estate, and four years later the soldiers of the French Revolution executed the King of France (Louis XVI) as if he were a criminal.
Does his argument and website link hold water?
James
[Another person’s attempted response to the claim that Vatican II taught heresy on religious liberty]:
The Vatican Council declares that the human person has the right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others. The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right.
It then goes on to talk about free will and the seeking of religious truth.
To combat this, the website author, uses Pius IX's Quanta Cura from 1864. Pius IX's encyclical was written to condemn the abuses of the times such as pantheism, naturalism, and civil authorities rights in persons lives.
The quote used on the website is taken out of the context. Pius IX is talking about individual freedom being used as an excuse for sinful activity. The Vatican 2 document is talking about the natural right to religious freedom. I know this sounds like my opinion, but the only way to know for real is to read the two documents in their entirety and the commentaries on them.
Thanks for your question. Defenders of Vatican II have bent over backwards to attempt to reconcile its teaching with traditional Catholic teaching. As is the case with many issues, such as creation vs. evolution, etc. individuals attempt to confuse matters by distorting issues. For instance, a subtle distortion of a fossil can create an entire line of false belief in evolution. The same is true with this issue of religious liberty. It is true to say that unless a person understands the issue of religious liberty and its details he or she can be misled by these – sometimes subtle – distortions. Let’s take a look at one of them. (more…)
Dear Holy Family Monastery,
For some time know I have been reading the articles on your site as well as some others like yours, and by way of their message as well as the guidance of my father, I've come to the realization, by Divine grace, that I must convert to the TRUE Roman Catholic Church. However, I have found that this is not a move that can be made by one's self, or easily for that matter. Allow me to give you some back ground (in hopefully the not-so-long-winded-fashion). I have been raised Baptist/Protestant my entire life, by my mother. Most of that time I hated church and anything that had to do with it. However there was always a side of me that was too afraid to go to far with my dislike for the "church" I was attending. I later was sent to a school, along with my siblings, were the [protestant] doctrine of Reconstructionism, headed by a protestant theologian named Rousses John Rushdooney, was taught. It was a very militant form of Protestantism. Not at all what I was used to. During that time we studied and held high the works and protests of Luther, Rushdooney, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and oh yes, Mary was just a tool for God's grand design and nothing else. If I have made you cringe by now, I'm sorry, I'm almost done.
After finally graduating from high school and being out for a year or so, I joined the Navy. To make a long story short… I have always been obsessed with the truth and by God's good grace has made me thirst after it in all areas of life. Therefore I thirst after Him. After being in the military for about a year, my dad, who has been Catholic his whole life, finally decided that he needed to talk to me about my faith. It was at the time that my real thirst for the truth was put to the test. And by God's good grace I passed. My dad slowly introduced me and my brother to several articles. Little things first, then came the Freemason info, Opus Dei info, then the Zionist info, then the Kaballah info, and then the Sedevacantists (True Catholics) view point, and the Vatican II error info,...
In Christ, C.P. (USN)
…One principle I’ve emphasized is that no one’s opinion, however soundly based, can be raised to the level of doctrine. And, no matter how certain we are, the question of the status of Benedict XVI is still an opinion, i.e., has not been ruled upon by the Holy See (as the Holy See is in Eclipse)…
Jim Condit Jr.
No, the fact that a heretic cannot be a Pope is a dogmatic fact, a fact inextricably bound up with the dogma that there is only one Faith in the Church and that heretics are not members. The fact that Benedict XVI is a heretic is also certain since, as we’ve proven, Benedict XVI doesn’t believe that Christ even has to be seen as the Messiah. He also holds that Protestants and schismatics don’t need to be converted. These are not opinions; these are facts. Thus, it’s a fact that Benedict XVI is not the Pope, a conclusion that becomes binding upon all who come across the facts that 1) heretics cannot be Popes; and 2) Benedict XVI believes the aforementioned things (among many others), while possessing a tremendous familiarity with the teachings he rejects. (more…)
I recently read your article against the Society os St. Pius V. I found the statement that "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation" very disturbing. This would mean that someone who has been secluded from the faith all their life would be denied heaven through no fault of his own. But this contradicts God's justice. Would He really condemn a person to eternal damnation without giving him a chance? Surely no just God could do such a thing. I would like you to consider this before you slanderize us further.
In His name,
S. E.
We just received this e-mail. Our readers will recall that a few e-exchanges ago we wrote:
“We cannot tell you how many times we’ve spoken with “traditionalists” who have denied that their priest (SSPX or SSPV or CMRI or some other) believes that non-Catholics can be saved, indicating that such an assertion is utterly ridiculous and unthinkable since no traditionalist would believe that, just before that very same person argued that non-Catholics can be saved in the same conversation!”Well, this e-mail we received above is a case in point. Notice that S.E. first indicates that he doesn’t accept the dogma by saying that he cannot see how "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation" is compatible with God’s justice. He thus holds with the SSPV that non-Catholics can be saved and rejects what the Church has infallibly defined. He then says, “I would like you to consider this before you slanderize us further.” Wait a second! Slander is calumny – a false statement about someone else. Does the reader see the lie he just uttered? Remember, S.E. admitted that what we said in our article about the SSPV is true by admitting that he also doesn’t see how there could be no salvation outside the Church. He then proceeds to accuse us of “slandering” him and the SSPV, as if they don’t believe what we said they believe in the article – when he just admitted that they do a few lines up! The bad will and the dishonesty is staggering.
As our order form indicates, we’re selling a book entitled In the Beginning – Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Dr. Walt Brown. This book refutes the theory of evolution from all aspects of science and scientifically shows how the Biblical Flood occurred. To give our readers a taste of what this book covers, here’s a link to a picture of the bulge in the earth that is formed by the Mid-Oceanic ridge.
Dear Brothers Michael and Peter:
I recently came across an article… [which] stated that Pope St. Pius X in his catechism was asked if the absence of Baptism could be supplied in any other way and the answer was in fact in favor of baptism of desire. I was just confused on this and was wondering what you had to say about it.
17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Sincerely,
Melissa
Melissa, thank you for your question. This is addressed in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, which has a section on the Catechism of Pius X, which we will include below (it's short). The simple answer is that the Catechism which people attribute to Pius X is not infallible and actually contains heresy (as shown below) – it teaches salvation “outside” the Church – and it wasn't written by St. Pius X. Furthermore, the infallible Council of Trent (also quoted below) teaches (without any exceptions given) that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, which means that it cannot be supplied. The Catechism attributed to St. Pius X
Dear Brothers,
Thanks for the John Lane bio. As soon as I joined the forum I began discussing BOD and presented many of the arguments against it, along with a friend of mine named Eduardo. Mr. Lane said we would be banned unless we could show the so called "Tuas Libentur" to be false (which he was totally distorting and misuing). When material was posted from your book that clearly refuted it, he called us "scruffs" (whatever that means) and absolutely forbade any discussion of BOD, with no coherent response on the issue of "Tuas Libentur." I was furthered troubled by his posts that clearly extolled Gruner and other false traditionalists. This just goes to show that the chief sin in regard to these issues is really bad will, as Fr. Feeney said. The level of outright and constant dishonesty among so-called "traditionalists" is literally staggering.
Sincerely, Jay Dyer
Excellent point. You are exactly right. We’ve said the same thing ourselves many times. Almost everyone today is, unfortunately, a liar. Many traditionalists are also liars, in one way or another. For example, when you prove to that person that Pius IX only said that the teaching of theologians is binding when it is “universal and constant” on a matter, and that baptism of desire doesn't qualify because it was rejected by doctors of the Church, he simply lies when he continues to use it as an argument in favor of baptism of desire. That’s how simple it is.
Some have sent us e-mails about a new sedevacantist blog. We want to make it very clear to our readers that the people who run this blog are adamantly in favor of “baptism of desire” and groups which believe that souls can be saved false religions, such as the SSPV and CMRI. It’s a pro salvation-for-non-Catholics blog, whether they want to admit it or not. So while the organizers may allow a few comments from individuals who don’t believe in baptism of desire, the blog is dominated by individuals who won’t even look at the arguments against baptism of desire, and aren’t bothered by the fact that the priests they consider Catholic believe that Jews and Muslims can be united to the Church while in false religions.
Dear most holy family monastery
Thanks for being there. pls kindly answer these questions that keep bothering me as a sedevacantist traditional catholic:
1.since catholics cannot commune with members of v2 or other heretics, what iam i to do at the burrial of my parents when they die before converting to the true faith but persisted in v2 church? how iam i supposed to pay my respect to them as a responsible catholic child especially if the responsibility of their decent burrial falls on me?
2.i dont know what to do if a younger relation of mine staying with me should enjoy my financial sponsorship in school if he chooses to be a heretic even after taking considerable time to explain the true faith to him.should i send him away or continue to assist him finacially because of our blood relation?
Thanks for your questions. 1) If one’s parents die as rejecters of the Faith, then one cannot arrange a Catholic burial for them. One should arrange for them to have a simple burial, but without any ceremonies. 2) If one’s relative obstinately rejects the traditional Faith or any dogma, then one should not financially support his schooling. If he’s over 18 then one should send him out of the home to be on his own.
Just wanted to encourage and remind you that I'm sure your sharing of proper and accurate Catholic teachings/Dogma do not always fall on deaf ears...
I couldn't help myself... I cut and pasted your response to 'Fr. Ray Ryland' to the editor of 'This Rock' magazine...
In Christ,
Lida Lewis
DEAR BROTHER PETER & BROTHER MICHAEL, After reading of the Novus Ordo "Bishop Foley" on your website, there is a Novus Ordo incident that occurred over a year ago. I apologize for not writting sooner, but it was almost too bizarre to put in writting. Nevertheless, this is it: In January, 2005, my sister and her husband attended a Novus Ordo "Baptism" of their friends' baby at St. Thomas More Church in Pittsburgh, PA. The "pastor" is "Father" Kenneth White (who, if I recall her saying, was the officiating "priest" that day).
The baby is a girl, and, there were about 5 other babies that day. Right before the "Baptism" began, when everyone was sitting there, "Father" White told the mothers to strip the babies of all their clothes, even diapers. After "baptizing" them in the font, he proceeded to place each (naked) baby on the "altar" (table). My sisters' friends' baby then proceeded to defecate on the "altar". Someone I told this to said it sounds like a Satanic Ritual. Keep up your good work,
Sincerely,
Nancy Battle
Very bizarre stuff… thanks for the information.
Brothers,
Just have to share this one with you. My sister is finally edging towards seeing the light. She related to me that she had just attended a Novus Ordo "1st Holy Communion" mass in which the priest celebrating produced a McDonald's Happy Meal and passed it out to the children. His comments were that the mass and eucharist was like a "happy meal" only "not as tasty"! Well, there you have it. The N.O. priesthood is nothing more than a protestant ministry in which these guys view the mass (not as a sacrifice) but as a "meal" that is "not quite as tasty" as one at McDonalds! What a sick message to send to children!!! How painful it is to think of the corruption of these children.... yet, we must not view this as anything more than protestant celebration. They are not Catholic at all,,,, I hope she will begin to see the light now.... I have passed along to her your dvd on the N.O. mass... thanks for that dvd!
Always something new at the Novus Ordo… thanks for the information.
Dear Br. Diamond:
I also ordered your amazing Heresies of B16. I have also downloaded your written version of this from your web site. Is it really this obvious? Seriously is it? By this I mean the apostasy? It appears that you really don't even have to dig for this stuff. As for me my problem is that I am intellectualizing this stuff too much. I am ordering the book by Ratzinger that you quoted from so heavily. I live by Ronald Reagan's advice "trust but verify". Some of this stuff is so blatant now that you have pointed it out it is scary. But I play mental games with myself on this. I am concerned about my being to rigid and legalistic but then I look at what he has written and I am stunned. But then I have to go back to what Jesus himself stated :"For if those days were not shortened that even the most elect would be deceived" Well I guess what I am trying to do is keep a perspective on things.
Terry
Yes, the points are quite clear. It really is simple for people to find out what’s going on, with one condition. It takes people with sincerity, honesty and interest to accept the truth once they’re presented, for instance, with the facts covered in our material. To your point about how simple it is (or isn’t, rather, for some), in the recent issue of the false traditionalist newspaper, The Remnant, readers were all upset by the fact that Bishop Tissier De Mallerais said that Benedict XVI has taught heresies. Readers were writing in with complaints, attempted refutations of the accusations, diatribes about how this cannot be, etc. We must ask: are these people, who consider themselves “traditionalists,” brain-dead? Or are they soul-dead? They’re shocked and appalled by the assertion that Benedict XVI has taught heresies, when the very newspaper they’re writing to recently pointed out in its Joint Declaration with CFN that Benedict XVI rejects the conversion of Protestants! (more…)
Dear Brother Dimond,
I don't know if you know about Mutter Vogel. I just recently learned that he, or she (can't tell from the name) was someone who apparently in the early twentieth century received a revelation from Our Lord and He told her that we should not criticize priests no matter what they do or say. Some traditionalists are using this to defend JP2 and B16. They say we should not criticize them. I know of at least two traditionalists who refer to it. One of them uses it to defend JP2 and B16 and the other uses it to defend a certain heretical priest. My argument against it is that how does one expect to do their duty to defend the Catholic faith if one does not criticize those who attack it? Especially JP2 and B16!
AP
Yes, we’ve read the alleged “revelation” about never criticizing a priest in the blue Pieta prayer booklet. It’s utterly false. Our Lord or Our Lady would never say such a thing; in fact, it’s exactly what the devil wants people to believe, and the perfect false doctrine to keep the unquestioning masses following the non-Catholic Novus Ordo “priests,” and mired in the darkness of the post-Vatican II apostasy. The whole Tradition of the Church teaches that Catholics can, and sometimes must, rebuke or criticize priests. This is true today more than ever before. The Pieta prayer booklet has some good things in it, but some definitely false things, such as this “revelation” to Mutter Vogel. The booklet also asserts that John XXIII prayed the 15-decade Rosary each day, which we don’t believe for a second. It also contains the St. Bridget prayers, and lists many promises which it asserts are attached to the recitation of those prayers. While these prayers contain nothing wrong in them, according to what we’ve read the promises have never been approved or confirmed. Unfortunately, many people we know have diverted from the full Rosary to pray these rather lengthy St. Bridget prayers instead. People should be aware that the extraordinary promises which the Pieta booklet says are given for the recitation of the St. Bridget prayers have never been approved or confirmed by the Church.
I attended a Confirmation last night in Birmingham, AL. This was the second time I had experienced "Bishop" Foley conduct this sacrament. He follows a set routine: after asking questions and making comments related to living "your faith", ensuing they not do the things Christ wouldn't want you to do (premarital sex, drugs, crime), do things Christ wants them to do, and then he begins his famous "young peoples' music" portion of the routine. Prior to the Mass he had asked each their favorite music and noted the responses. At this point he reports the results to the "community". Responses ranged from "metal to rap" and included "Notorious, 36 Mafia, Slipknot", and others. Amid the laughs and all around jovial attention focused on his performance, he states (as he obviously always does) that he goes out and buys some of the music and listens to it as he travels around the diocese. His comment that some of the music lyrics 'may not be good' were low but his comments of how the lyrics are good were the most impressionable to the "young people" and some adults. So, as he had instructed those to be confirmed to live their faith (above), he told them plainly that music which includes sex to the point of violence, drugs, killing, anarchy, profaning the name of God, etc. was acceptable. Later he and the "community" priest imposed hands on the confirmees and with outstretched arms blessed the group.
Thank you very much for the information about the “Bishop” who listens to, and encourages others to listen to, evil heavy metal, rock and rap music. Your e-mail shows us again that the Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion is truly a new religion devoid of Catholic Faith and holiness. It’s always good to know what kind of things are going on at the Novus Ordo churches (if one can find out about them without partaking in them), for all of this apostasy at the local level serves to prove that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. However, we must tell you in charity that you cannot be going to the Novus Ordo “Mass” or “Confirmation” ceremony, since they aren’t valid. One must avoid them under pain of grave sin, and actually confess (to a validly ordained traditional priest) that one attended a non-Catholic service (for however long one was going) before one receives Communion at a Traditional Mass. If you need more information or convincing on this point, please check out our video on the New Mass.
Dear Brothers,
Since an annulment granted by the Vatican II religion is invalid, where does one go to seek a valid annulment? Thank you for your attention and God bless you.
Thanks for your question. It’s important for people to remember that there is no such thing as “an annulment” of a consummated marriage, but only a declaration of nullity that a certain union never was a marriage to begin with if there is clear-cut evidence proving that a particular union was not validly contracted.
Canon 1014, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Marriage enjoys the favor of law; therefore in doubt the validity of marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 1127.”Since there is no Catholic who can issue such a judgment at this time, one could only apply the principles to an obviously invalid marriage. In other words, if two people go through the motions and apparently contract a marriage it must be considered valid and binding unless it’s a clear and obvious case that it wasn’t a valid marriage (such as that one of the parties was already validly married to someone else).
^
" />
" />
" />
" />
" />
