A reader asks about a “traditionalist” Father Lovett from New Jersey

Thanks for the information.  We will share this with our readers.  One of the master-strokes of the devil in these days has been to move shady and scandalous figures into the traditionalist clergy to attempt to disgrace the true Faith – so that people of weak Faith will get disenchanted and either run back to the Novus Ordo apostasy or give up altogether.  One can think of many of similar heretics whom the devil is using. 

An Eastern Schismatic writes in

Alexandru, let me ask you a question: is a Christian, according to you, bound to believe in the declarations of the Council of Nicaea, so that if he would refuse he would cease to be a Christian?

If so, why is he bound to believe in its declarations? If you say that it is because "the Church accepted it," please tell me what specific criteria determines that “the Church accepted it,” and by what criteria do you say that the Church did not accept the many other Councils that were held with Bishops in the first millennium?

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond

The Eastern Schismatic never responded, simply because the Eastern Schismatics have no response.

If the Popes don’t possess supreme authority in the Church – which is something clearly instituted by Christ in St. Peter (see Mt. 16:18-20; John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32) – but the Bishop of Rome is simply a Bishop who is “first among equals” with all the other Bishops in the Church (as the schismatics say), then there is no way to differentiate between the true Councils and the many robbers’ synods of the early Church. This is because there were many false and heretical Councils in the early Church which were approved by a similar number of Bishops as were present at, for instance, the First Council of Constantinople. The notoriously false Council of Ephesus II, which most Eastern Schismatics would reject, had about as many Bishops as the First Council of Constantinople (which the “Orthodox” schismatics would demand that people accept). What is the difference between the two? If the Papal confirmation is not the essential characteristic, then how can one say that the Church absolutely accepted Constantinople I and absolutely rejected Ephesus II? The answer is that the schismatic cannot say so definitively; but the Catholic can. The Catholic knows that the difference between the two is the Papal confirmation, but the Eastern Schismatics cannot logically say that a Christian must absolutely believe in Constantinople I, but not in Ephesus II, since they were both approved by Bishops.

It is true to say that the Eastern Schismatics, such as Alexandru, cannot logically and consistently assert that THE EARLY GENERAL COUNCILS ARE DOGMAS THAT MUST BE ACCEPTED (even though they would try to claim otherwise); for if a “Christian” decides that he will follow Ephesus II instead – and the bishops who approved it – there is nothing the Eastern Schismatic could say to refute him, since it is just one Bishop against another without any Bishop possessing supreme authority in the Church. This simply shows us that, besides rejecting what Christ clearly instituted in St. Peter, Eastern “Orthodoxy” is completely illogical and self-refuting.

Important e-exchange on the authority of Vatican II for those who accept the Vatican II Antipopes

[Before I comment on your letter, I want to make it clear for those who may be new to these issues that we are not defending the Second Vatican Council.  Vatican II was a totally heretical, wicked, false, invalid Council which endorsed false religions such as Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism and taught many other heresies against the Catholic Faith.  What we are discussing and pointing out here, however, is that one cannot reject that false Council (as every Catholic should) while he accepts as a true Pope the man who imposed it, Paul VI.  Either one accepts Paul VI and Vatican II or rejects them both.  So here we are discussing the ways by which “traditionalists” attempt to be able to reject Vatican II and its heresies while accepting the complete apostate Antipope Paul VI as a Pope.] Regarding your first point, that John XXIII’s statement at the opening speech of Vatican II proves that it is not infallible, this is simply not true.  John XXIII did not say in his opening speech at the Council that Vatican II was to be a pastoral council.  Here is what John XXIII actually said:

John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancient deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.  And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.”

What do you think about the people who still say that John Paul II is a Catholic and not a heretic after seeing all the evidence?

I believe that those who have seen all the evidence against John Paul II – for instance, the Assisi abominations; his teaching that we shouldn’t convert Schismatics; his Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification; his desire to promote Islam and Islamic culture; his acceptance of all religions as more or less good; his teaching that all men are saved; his teaching that the Holy Ghost is responsible for non-Christian religions; his teaching that there are Saints and Martyrs in non-Catholic religions; his teaching that non-Catholics can receive Holy Communion; etc., all of which are covered in our video Why Antipope John Paul II Cannot Be the Pope – and still say that he is a Catholic and not a heretic, are committing a sin about as bad as worshipping Satan.

Did Padre Pio say that one day John Paul II would be Pope?

We had heard the same thing, but the answer to your question is No. Padre Pio never told John Paul II that he would be Pope. In an article in Inside the Vatican, John Paul II was asked about this and admitted that Padre Pio never told him this. But the myth was spread all around nevertheless. But Padre Pio did throw John Paul II out of the Confessional during his visit to San Giovanni Rotondo in 1947.

Antonio Pandiscia is the official biographer of Padre Pio and he was the only man allowed to interview him more than once. He said: “The current Pope [sic] went to San Giovanni Rotondo for the first time in 1947 shortly after his ordination. A witness, who has since passed away, told me that Padre Pio was brusque with the young Polish priest on that occasion. I think he could not accept the fact that the young Wojtyla (John Paul II) had worked in the theatre before becoming a priest.” (Inside the Vatican, August/September, 1996, p. 12.)

When was the New Rite of Ordination introduced?

It was introduced June 18, 1968.

What about “The Da Vinci Code”?

Jesus didn't have any sin.  And you shouldn't read books that attack Our Lord.  That is a very bad occasion of sin.  These books are written by Satan, and those who entertain such demonic attacks on the true God allow Satan into their souls to destroy their faith.  That is why those who read nonsense like The Davinci Code or some other Satanic garbage, unless it is with the very unusual task of an expert reading it solely to expose it, offend Our Lord gravely and show they don't really believe in Him.

Bob Sungenis on baptism of desire and misquoting the Council of Trent

Mr. Sungenis’ statement here is nonsense. One example is sufficient to explode it.

A Sacrament cannot take place without matter or form.

This is a true statement which means that both matter and form are necessary for a sacrament. If we substitute “except through” for “without” we see that the meaning is changed and the statement is rendered false.

A Sacrament cannot take place except through matter or form.

This is a false statement which indicates that either matter or form is sufficient for a sacrament. It means something different from the statement above. Thus, “except through” does not always mean the same thing as “without.”

I continue with Mr. Sungenis’ response:

Sungenis’ comment here doesn’t make sense. He has confused the entire subject of Sess. 6, Chap. 4, which is what cannot be missing in Justification, and confused it with what is necessary for baptism. Baptism of desire has never been taught by the Catholic Church.

Those who deny baptism of desire will not suffer terrible consequences. No, Mr. Sungenis, your denial of the defined dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation has brought down on your head terrible consequences.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”

Your consistent and deliberate misquoting of the Council of Trent has brought down on your head mortal sin.

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

God made sure that the words “as it is written” were included in that very sentence to ensure that the Council was not teaching baptism of desire by its wording in that passage. The passage thus teaches – as it is written – unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And if what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptum est)! But this is absurd, of course. Those who obstinately insist that this passage teaches baptism of desire are simply wrong and are contradicting the very words given in the passage about John 3:5. The inclusion of “AS IT IS WRITTEN, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)” shows the perfect harmony of that passage in Trent with all of the other passages in Trent and other Councils which affirm the absolute necessity of water baptism with no exceptions.

The New Mass and the Luminous Mysteries

We're very glad to hear that you found the website.  The New Mass is not valid, because it has a changed form of Consecration.  A Catholic must not attend it under any circumstances.  The article near the top of the website explains why the New Mass cannot be valid. Also, no Catholic should pray the Luminous Mysteries because they were added by Antipope John Paul II, who is not a valid Pope. If you have more questions, let us know.

Who are the faithful Catholics left in the world? Is pride enough to send one to Hell?

1. The faithful Catholics left in the world are those who maintain the true Faith.  2. I don't know the number of those. 3. If pride is grave then it will lead to mortal sins which will put a person in hell. And “pride is the beginning of all sin” (Ecclus. 10:15). Pride causes man not to pray as much, not to fear sin, not to listen to what they should or to whom they should, not learn what they need to know. Pride causes people to dismiss truth or people speaking the truth by finding fault with petty things. We’ve dealt with many people who, though they don’t have haughty personalities, admit that they commit mortal sins and yet they are still critical of others’ spiritual lives. Frankly, if they commit any mortal sin then they shouldn’t be criticizing anybody. But they cannot see their decrepit state because they are filled with pride: “…knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Apoc. 3:17) They don’t fear to offend God by their mortal sins because they are filled with pride.

Reconciling the salvation issue with the general and particular, objective/subjective?

Thanks for the interest. But the proposition (if applied to dogmatic truths) is actually heretical. The idea that a dogma can have a reality that contradicts the truth declared infallibly is directly contrary to truth. It would, therefore, render the truth false.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned

There are no exceptions to a dogma – unlike ecclesiastical or canon law – because a dogma is an unchangeable truth. If the proposition you described were viable, then one would have to admit that a Catholic can believe that certain Jews who reject Christ can be saved, because, in the general order, they must accept Him; but in the particular order some can reject Him in good faith. But that is totally heretical.

Also, along the same lines, one could believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate in the general order; but, in the particular order, He may appear to some as the Dalai Lama or as other men. If the proposition described above is viable, then so is this. But this is obviously heretical.

Has The Catholic Hierarchy Died?

The hierarchy can be defined in two ways: the jurisdictional hierarchy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Only those who have ordinary jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdiction which is attached to an office) constitute the jurisdictional hierarchy. All valid Catholic priests, on the other hand, constitute the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It is possible that as long as the ecclesiastical hierarchy remains the hierarchy exists.

However, the non-sedevacantists who raise this objection cannot point to one real Catholic Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. Who are they going to point to? "Bishop" Bruskewitz, who thinks that not converting schismatics is not heretical? "Cardinal" Mahony? "Cardinal" Keeler?

The fact is that if there must be one Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction somewhere (which is something that has not been proven), then he is somewhere. But it does not change the fact that John Paul II and his apostate Bishops are not Catholic and therefore not part of the hierarchy. Against a fact there is no argument; and against this fact there is no argument.

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church: “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits. The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

Is the Roman Martyrology infallible?

First, I want to say that all of these issues are dealt with in-depth in the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation. There are separate sections on these issues. Also, I’m glad you brought up the case of St. Alban, since this is a prime example of how the errors of baptism of desire and blood have been spread. The many historical accounts in the Roman Martyrology are not necessarily infallible and binding upon Catholics. That is why they have been revised several times, and it is why clear errors have been found in them.

Donald Attwater, ACatholic Dictionary, p. 310: “An historical statement in the ‘Martyrology’ as such has no authority… A number of entries in the Roman Martyrology are found to be unsatisfactory when so tested.”

ST. ALBAN AND HIS CONVERTED GUARD

St. Alban was the protomartyr of England (303 A.D.) The account of his martyrdom is particularly interesting and instructive on this topic. On the way to his martyrdom, one of the guards who led him to execution was converted to Christ. The Roman Martyrology (a fallible document), as well as Butler’s Lives of the Saints, says that the guard was “baptized in his own blood.” St. Bede the Venerable, a Church historian, says that the guard’s martyrdom occurred without “the purification of Baptism.” But watch this: in recounting the story of the martyrdoms of St. Alban and his guard, St. Bede and Butler’s lives of the Saints reveal a very important point.

St. Bede: “As he reached the summit, holy Alban asked God to give him (Alban) water, and at once a perennial spring bubbled up at his feet…” Butler: “The sudden conversion of the headsmen occasioned a delay in the execution. In the meantime the holy confessor (Alban), with the crowd, went up the hill… There Alban falling on his knees, at his prayer a fountain sprung up, with water whereof he refreshed his thirst… Together with St. Alban, the soldier, who had refused to imbrue (stain) his hands in his blood, and had declared himself a Christian, was also beheaded, being baptized in his own blood.”

The reader may be confused at this point, and rightly so, so let me explain. We have two (fallible) accounts of the martyrdom of St. Alban and his guard, from St. Bede and Bulter’s Lives of the Saints. They both record that just before the martyrdom of St. Alban and his guard, St. Alban prayed for “water” which he miraculously received! St. Bede then goes on to say that the guard died unbaptized! Butler’s says that the water was merely to “refresh” Alban’s thirst! With all due respect to St. Bede and the good things in Butler’s, how obvious does it have to be? A Saint, who had a few minutes to live and who had a convert wanting to enter the Church of Christ, would not call for miraculous water in order to “refresh his thirst”! He obviously called for the miraculous water to baptize the converted guard, and God provided it for the sincere convert, since “unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” This is a prime example of how the errors of baptism of blood and desire have been perpetuated – by passing down the fallible conclusions of fallible men, for instance, by passing down the ridiculous conclusion that the guard died unbaptized when these very accounts admit of the presence of miraculously received water! And this example of St. Alban and his guard, which actually shows the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, is frequently and falsely used against the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism.

It is also interesting to consider how much “faith” obstinate baptism of desire advocates have in the fallible accounts and conclusions of historians – such as the obviously ridiculous conclusion of Fr. Butler that the guard died unbaptized when he admits that St. Alban received miraculous water! – while they dismiss the infallible defined dogmatic statements. The fact of the matter is that they don’t really have faith in these accounts, but emphasize them because they like what they say: that people don’t need baptism.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

This means that Our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration that no man can be saved without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost is a literal dogma of the Catholic Faith.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, 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.”

I’m just wondering, do you believe that baptism of desire applies only to people who desire baptism and believe in Christ, or do you believe that people who don’t even desire baptism or believe in Christ (such as certain Jews, Buddhists, Muslims) could be united to the Church and saved?

“What is your opinion on Geocentrism?”

1. In short, this “Sister Lucia” is not the real one. She has repeatedly stated that she agrees that the Third Secret has been revealed, and that she is in line with the Vatican’s present position on Fatima. The attempts by Gruner, etc. to state that this is not what “Sister Lucia” really believes simply don’t square with reality. They fly in the face of many interviews with this “Sister Lucia,” but most devastatingly the televised 2000 “beatification” of Jacinta and Francisco. There, this “Sister Lucia” showed anyone who was watching that she fully endorses the Vatican’s present position on Fatima. She is an impostor; and the real Sister Lucia is most surely dead. (This “Sister Lucia” definitely doesn’t look like a woman who is 98 years old, either!)

The reason she is silenced much of the time is because if she weren’t she would be quickly detected as a fraud; it is not because she would tell the Nicholas Gruner line on Fatima. The fact that this “Sister Lucia” accepts the false Vatican II religion and the New Mass also shows her to be a fraud.

2. We don’t have a fully formed opinion on Geocentrism and we haven’t written anything on the subject. We are open to facts in this regard.

Regarding no financial support for the Byzantine church

Yes, financial support must be withheld from any priest who adheres to heresy. And all of the Eastern Rite priests who accept Benedict XVI cannot be supported because they are adhering to a heretical position which accepts the Vatican II sect. A Catholic cannot support a heretic or one who endorses or promotes heresy.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics."

One cannot ever compromise the Faith by supporting those who don’t hold it simply because they have a valid Mass. The Divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a valid Mass, but the Eastern “Orthodox” Schismatics have a valid Mass, too. It doesn’t matter if their entire church shuts down, a Catholic cannot support a priest who adheres to heresy because THE FAITH COMES BEFORE THE MASS. If one can support the Eastern Rite priests or the SSPX or the CMRI or another heretical group of priests, then all of these issues are completely meaningless. That is why those who are aware of this information and continue to donate to heretical groups, such as the Byzantine priests or the SSPX or the SSPV or the CMRI, etc. are committing grave sin and putting themselves on the road to damnation. Actions speak louder than words. One can say that he doesn’t agree that Benedict XVI is the Pope, or that he doesn’t accept Vatican II, but when one donates to a priest who holds those position his actions prove that he supports both of those things.

The only reason that a Catholic could attend the Masses of some of the heretical Eastern Rite priests, heretical SSPX priests and heretical CMRI priests, etc. is because there is no other option for most today in a necessity, and, if they are not supporting them as they shouldn’t be, they are not supporting their heretical beliefs in any way. But if the priest becomes notorious or imposing about his heresy (such as the SSPV has and certain SSPX and Eastern Rite priests have), then not only can one not support him, but one must not attend his Mass even to receive the sacraments from him. There is also no obligation to attend any church where the priest holds to heresy, so that if one doesn’t want to go just to receive the sacraments he doesn’t have to.

Please See This File for the updated Guidelines and Principles on this issue

Interesting Comment from a reader on the “or” as “and” issue

That is a very interesting point. And what is perhaps most significant in this regard is the infallible declaration that Trent makes that John 3:5 is to be understood “as it is written” which comes in the very same sentence.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this. That is why all of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5. For instance:

Fr. Francois Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 33: “Fr. Feeney’s greatest argument was that Our Lord’s words, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5) mean the absolute necessity of baptism of water with no exception whatsoever… The great question is, then, how did the Church explain these words of Our Lord?”

Fr. Laisney, a fierce baptism of desire advocate, is admitting here that John 3:5 cannot be understood as it is written if baptism of desire is true. He therefore holds that the true understanding of John 3:5 is that it does not apply literally to all men; that is, John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written. But how does the Catholic Church understand these words? What does the passage in Trent that we just discussed say? It says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”

The passage thus teaches – as it is written – unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. If what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices without being born again of water), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptum est)! But this is absurd, of course. The passage does not say that justification can take place by water or desire; it says justification cannot take place without water or desire, AS IT IS WRITTEN, unless a man is born again of water… Those who obstinately insist that this passage teaches baptism of desire are simply wrong and are contradicting the very words given in the passage about John 3:5. The inclusion of “AS IT IS WRITTEN,unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)” shows the true meaning and the perfect harmony of that passage in Trent with all of the other passages in Trent and other Councils which all affirm the absolute necessity of water baptism with no exceptions.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Was Lefebvre’s ordination by Bishop Lienart valid?

You are referring to the accusation that Bishop Lienart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre and consecrated him with two other Bishops, was a Freemason and therefore did not validly confer Orders upon Lefebvre – which subsequently caused all the priests ordained by Lefebvre to be invalid.

While some may be sincerely confused about this issue, it is not a tenable position. This is because when a minister uses the correct matter and form - that is, the traditional rite of ordination - he is presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. Lienart used the traditional rite of ordination in ordaining and consecrating Lefebvre.

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

Suspicion that Lienart was a Freemason is not sufficient to question his intention, since he used the traditional rite in ordaining Lefebvre. During the French Revolution the Bishop Talleyrand was a Freemason. He ordained many priests. There is no evidence that the Church re-ordained any of those men; on the contrary, they were accepted as valid. Further, it was discovered after his death that Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, Cardinal Rampolla, was a high-ranking Freemason. Surely Rampolla ordained priests, but there is no evidence that any of the men he ordained were conditionally re-ordained. If one can doubt the validity of the Lefebvre-line orders then one can go back in history and question almost anyone's orders.

What about Fr. Ronald Ringrose?

e were informed by a lady who attended that church that Fr. Ringrose gave a series of talks on baptism of desire, basically denouncing Feeneyism and anyone who holds it.  The fact that you saw pamphlets on baptism of desire corroborates that he has a major desire to promote it, and that he is clearly against those who don't accept it.  We don't believe anyone should attend his church since he has publicly denounced “Feeneyism” from the pulpit, but one could certainly call him up and ask him his position on the matter.

What does MHFM believe on salvation and baptism issue?

You have correctly ascertained that we don’t agree with the Conciliar Church (the Vatican II/Novus Ordo sect).  The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, but a non-Catholic sect which rejects the Catholic Faith and Jesus Christ by endorsing heretical sects, schismatic sects, as well as idolatrous and pagan religions.  Regarding what we believe on the salvation issue, you are also correct that we don’t believe with the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI that it is not necessary to have the Catholic Faith for salvation.  We don’t believe, as they do, that certain Buddhists, Jews, Muslims or Hindus can be united to the Catholic Church.  We believe, profess and preach that all who die as non-Catholics will not be saved, as the Holy Roman Church believes, professes and preaches. (more…)

What is the Modernist definition of baptism of desire?

The modernists believe that baptism of desire saves people who belong to false religions and have never heard of Christ and don't desire baptism.  It is a sick joke that they actually call this abominable view "baptism of desire," since those Doctors of the Church who did believe in baptism of desire (i.e., for catechumens) would condemn their perverse heresy.  So, in short, baptism of desire today = salvation for non-Catholics without the Catholic Faith.  It is an abominable heresy. The whole history of the error of baptism of desire (and there is no such thing, even for catechumens) is discussed in depth in our book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, especially section 14.

Fascinating story from a reader about his experience at the Novus Ordo

Was the shooting of JP2 staged?; question about Sister Lucia?

No, there is no evidence that it was staged. We believe that it was the fulfillment of Apocalypse 13:4, where one head of the beast – each head is an Emperor over the seven-hilled city (Apoc. 17:9) – is wounded. It is interesting that the man who shot JP2, Ali Agca, publicly claimed to be Jesus Christ in Court after the event. This is interesting because if the entire assassination attempt was orchestrated by Satan on May 13, 1981 to build up JP2 (which it was), it makes sense that the man whom Satan used to pull it off, Ali Agca, was possessed with John Paul II’s Antichrist doctrine that every man is Jesus Christ. Regarding your question about Sister Lucia, it’s not clear when they moved the phony one in, but it was probably some time around 1960. But there is no statement from the real one ever questioning the validity of John XXIII.

Exchange with a woman who is having a problem with the idea of sedevacantism

[While this woman was harping on her understanding of fidelity to the Chair of Peter, I sensed from what she was saying that she rejected Vatican II and many of the official teachings of her “Popes”. So, to illustrate her inconsistency, I asked her the following question]:

Do you accept: Vatican II; that non-Catholics can receive Communion; and that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God? -Bro. Peter Dimond

Dear Bro Dimond: I don't accept the DOCUMENTS of Vatican II as being anything but a nice try by the devil to force an unholy course on the Church. For those who took the option and ran with it, it seems to me that God is allowing Vatican II to still do His Will by revealing hearts. But since nothing was doctrinal, the documents are meaningless, even though it has all had a devastating effect. I believe Vatican II was a true Council that went sour because it was hijacked by rebels. But God can and still will use it for good. Battle lines were drawn. Nuns who ripped off their habits and turned their convents into ashrams took one side and others are trying to stay firm on the other. It reminds me so much of what protestants do with the Bible misinterpret it and then bash everyone else over the head. But that doesn't mean the Bible isn't the Word of God. Those who seek His Truth with sincerity will have it. But the documents of Vatican II are not any that we have to concern ourselves with in the least, since they weren't doctrinal. Just a lot of work the enemies did to try to get a firmer foothold. It worked, but it won't hold. Non-Catholics receive Communion? No way! And why would they want to if everything is only about the Holy Spirit and me personally, and not the objective physical presence of Jesus? What freaks who would do that. Muslims worship a demonic being. Not a Triune God? How much trouble did Jesus go to to try to teach us that reality? So whoever they worship is not the same God. I've read the Koran. It is vile, nasty filth. And I've read about Mohammad. An exorcist might be able to confirm that he was probably possessed. I mean that in all seriousness. MF

Interesting comment from reader on certain false traditionalists

Yes, you are exactly right.

What about these Sisters of the “Missionaries of the Sacred Heart”?

Yes, I've spoken with one of those "Sisters."  Unfortunately, they are heretics who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  What they say on baptism of desire is completely false and is refuted in our book.  They also don't know what they are talking about regarding Jurisdiction.

They are hypocritical, for while they spew their false views regarding Jurisdiction, they are themselves independent and irregular according to normal status.  But I guess the "rules" don't apply when it comes to them, of course.

Reader takes issue with our criticism of the heresy of the CMRI

Julia, it is simply a fact that the CMRI believes that Jews can be saved.  Their priests may not state that publicly a lot, but that is what they believe.  (That is why two priests and a nun I spoke with all told me such.)  The CMRI believes that those who are “invincibly ignorant” of Christ can be saved.  This means that people who are in false, non-Catholic religions “through no fault of their own” can be saved, according to them.  This is heresy.  The CMRI holds that Outside the Church There is No Salvation only applies to those “knowingly” outside the Church (which is not what the Church defined), so that, according to them, certain Jews or Buddhists or Muslims can be united to the Church even though they don’t believe in Jesus Christ and the Trinity or even desire water baptism.  This is a heresy which denies the defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. Here is a quotation directly from their publication, written by the heretic Bishop McKenna. (more…)

Comparison with JPII and Alcimus of the Machabees

That is a very interesting point.

What are the “Infallible” statements which refute NFP?

Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.” Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Eugene IV’s definition was before the discovery of the New World

Thanks for your question. A failure to understand – or rather to believe – that dogmatic statements are unchangeable truths revealed by Christ seems to be a consistently problem today. It must be understood that the deposit of Faith ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #21: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.” - Condemned

Was Garabandal A True Marian Apparition?

Thanks for the support. To answer your questions:

1. A certain person claims that Padre Pio endorsed the Garabandal apparitions.  But the accounts of this aren't clear and, frankly, we don't believe the man's story.  Even if it were true that Padre Pio endorsed Garabandal, the fact that Padre Pio thought they were true wouldn't prove it to be so, of course.

We believe that Garabandal is definitely a false apparition. We believe this for a number of reasons.

First, according to a friend of ours who has studied it (we have not yet been able to), the message states: "the Pope will reconvene the Council and it will be a great event in the Church.” This means that Garabandal apparently refers to Vatican II as something that will be a "great event" in the Church and Paul VI as a "Pope" - both of which are totally false and, if stated in the message, prove without any doubt that Garabandal was a false apparition of the devil.

Second, all of the "seers" at Garabandal are in the Novus Ordo sect (a bad fruit) and none of them pursued religious vocations.  (Most of those who have visions such as this, like the real Sister Lucy of Fatima, pursue religious life). The original apparition occurred when they were stealing apples – not usually an activity that would be rewarded with a visit from the Mother of God, I would say.  The "seers" also walked backwards, something that is suggestive of Satanic influence. 

We believe that the purpose of the false apparitions of Garabandal was to focus people on the physical chastisement – a great warning, miracle, and ball of redemption – and direct people away from Satan's real attack, which concerns our Faith, not physical chastisements.  So, while people are waiting for what they think will be the "real" chastisement (what they expect to be a physical one) and remain in the false sect, the true chastisement (a spiritual one, the Vatican II sect) is already upon them and has (already) almost reached its consummation. 

2. The Traditional Holy Days of Obligation are : Circumcision (Jan. 1);  Ascension Thursday;  Assumption BVM (August 15);  All Saints' Day (November 1); Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8); Christmas (Dec. 25). 

3. One should not make a donation to a non-Catholic organization that specializes in corporal works of mercy.  One could donate clothes and possessions that one doesn't need, but not donations.  This is because, among other things, you don't know what the non-Catholic organization will do with the donation.