| 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.
Good day Sir,
I am Okwu Christopher-Mary an unworthy slave of our Lady who has just been delivered from the novus-ordo religion. Please I beg that you kindly add me to your e-mail list so as to keep my faith aglo always. Thank you very much, and may Our Lady protect you in a special way in Her virginal mantle as you assist Her in the crushing of the proud head of the ancient serpent. NB: Pls I need you candid advice on something. What am I to do if I get a job in an oil company and I'm requested to work in the oil field on a sunday.
Yours in Jesus and Mary,
Okwu, ChristopherMary
Thank you for your e-mail. If keeping or holding a job requires one to work on Sunday, then it is permitted to do so. If one can, one should request to have Sundays off; but if that isn’t possible – and working on Sunday is a necessity to keep the job – then it is permissible.
Brothers:
Mel Gibson says, in this article that his wife is in danger of hell, she is a member of the Church of England and he believed that outside the church there is no salvation. Maybe you guys have got across to him! He said it to a Australian new source. Great work!
Pray for me a sinner.
Mike Knowles
First of all, he calls his non-Catholic wife a saint, something one could never say about a non-Catholic. It’s very common that those who deny the dogma sometimes affirm it, as even Msgr. Fenton says (below). The unfortunate fact is that Mel Gibson clearly denied the dogma in his interview with Diane Sawyer: (more…)
St. Thomas Aquinas points out in both volumes of the Summa Theologica the numerous errors of Origen. I see you have quoted him twice in the last week. It seems imprudent to quote someone who has been shown to be suspected of, if not outright heresy at least extreme Gnostic tendencies. Please comment.
Paul
You say that it seems imprudent to quote from Origen.
Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris (#12), Aug. 4, 1879: “After him came Origen, who graced the chair of the school of Alexandria, and was most learned in the teachings of Greeks and Orientals. He published many volumes, involving great labor, which were wonderfully adapted to explain the divine writings and illustrate the sacred dogmas; which, though, as they now stand, not altogether free from error, contain nevertheless a wealth of knowledge tending to the growth and advance of natural truths.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#7), Nov. 18, 1893: “In the Eastern Church, the greatest name of all is Origen – a man remarkable alike for penetration of genius and for persevering labor; from whose numerous works and his great Hexapla almost all have drawn that came after him.”As we can see, your objection is unfounded. Early Church fathers, such as Tertullian and Origen, even though they drifted into heresies later on in their lives, hold such a prominent place in the writings of the early Church fathers that they are often quoted by Catholic authorities. If their teaching conflicts with a Catholic teaching, then it should not be promoted or quoted in a positive fashion. But their other statements are often quoted because they represent a witness to the early Tradition for a particular point or belief. (more…)
Where will I go to Mass if the SSPX capitulates to the Novus Ordo? What about Bishop McKenna's independent chapel in Monroe , Ct??? Is he bona fide????
I attend the sspx chapel in Ct. but do not support them financially.
Thanks,
M.
You definitely shouldn’t go to Bishop McKenna’s Mass, because he refuses to the sacraments to those who don’t accept “three baptisms.” The fact is that, despite his claims, Bishop McKenna doesn’t even believe in “baptism of desire,” since he believes that Jews who reject Christ and Baptism can be saved, as we have documented on our website. Bishop McKenna is a very wicked and faithless heretic. By the way, we’ve also been informed that Fr. Giardina of Alabama now refuses the sacraments to those who don’t believe in “baptism of desire.” Giardina told a friend of ours that he wasn’t welcome on his property if he rejected baptism of desire. Since Fr. Giardina is therefore an imposing heretic, who binds his false position on those attending his Mass, no one should attend his Mass or receive the sacraments from him at all. Just like Bishop McKenna, Fr. Giardina also believes that Jews who reject Christ can be saved, as he told one of us on the telephone. Related: Where To Receive Sacraments
Dear Brothers Peter and Michael,
I have just read the article on the Consecration of Russia. WOW. I am literally stunned by the information therein. DO YOU HAVE REPRINTS? I have forwarded the article to everyone who's Catholic on my computer address book, but would like about 10 for handing out.
Thank you.
Jean Pollock
We don't have any printed copies of that article at this time. It will be included in a book we will have available in a few months. [Update: Book now available here] But in the meantime people will have to get it from the website. Related: The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the impostor Sr. Lucy
There are quite a few of people out there who are enthusiastic about the sedevacantist issue and totally reject the Vatican II religion, but could care less about and/or don’t believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. And when we refer to really “believing” in the dogma, we mean a person who truly believes that all the pagans, Jews, Muslims, heretics and schismatics out there – including his neighbors and family members, if they fall into these categories – must absolutely become baptized Catholics to be saved. Such a true believer therefore lives his life and looks at the world with this supernatural outlook. He thus endeavors to bring such non-Catholic individuals whom God puts on his path into the Catholic Faith.
To illustrate the point, someone here received a call a few days ago from a woman who attends Bishop Sanborn’s chapel. Speaking of Arab Protestants, this woman told a person here that these Arab Protestants were fine for salvation because they are baptized! No matter that they aren’t Catholic and reject the Catholic Faith; she believes that they are going to heaven. She doesn’t believe in the dogma that all heretics, etc. will not be saved. She doesn’t possess a real, interior belief in the truths of the Catholic Faith. This is a woman who attends a “staunchly” sedevacantist chapel; but she’s not even Catholic, even though she thinks she’s a staunch traditional Catholic and a sedevacantist. She doesn’t have the Catholic Faith, and will not save her soul as she is. Sadly, this is the case with many others in the traditional movement. It’s just a reminder that it’s not just about sedevacantism; if one doesn’t truly accept and really believe in the salvation dogma, one is not a true believer in Jesus Christ and His Church. People such as this woman have a “faith” that is corrupt to the core, yet this corruption won’t show up on Sunday when they are seen “devoutly” assisting at the Traditional Mass.
Dear Dimond Brothers
I read your article about the EWTN book. I would like to add that Mother Angelica had great admiration for Antipope John XXIII. I heard her say on one of her episodes of EWTN live that "the Holy Ghost inspired him (John XXIII) to open up the Council (Vatican II).
AP
Yes, what was mentioned in the article about Mother Angelica was just the tip of the iceberg as far as her apostasy goes. That’s why those who are just a little bit familiar with it can see what an outrageous lie is being pushed in this new book on EWTN, that she was “counter-modernist.” Mother Angelica was a major false prophet for the devil, whose network has been very important in neutralizing “conservative” members of the Novus Ordo to accept the Vatican II religion, which rejects Jesus Christ. It’s interesting to note that Mother Angelica claimed visions along the way of establishing her network; no doubt these were more of the false signs and wonders spoken of in Scripture to deceive those who receive not the love of the truth. Related: EWTN Exposed: EWTN and the Charismatic Movement
[To MHFM] Doesn't this blow away the entire SSPX/Catholic Family News-Remnant position?
From Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ:"If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema" (Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3).
The quote you bring forward from Vatican I directly blows away Benedict XVI, who has rejected the dogma you quote by questioning whether the Bishop of Rome even possesses supreme jurisdiction in the Church!
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’. It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”(more…)
Dear Brothers, this is another excellent article. I agree with you. I tossed my free book in the garbage.
God bless you.
Barbara
I live in Oklahoma and stumbled across your website and watched a couple of your videos. I am very interested in what I have seen thus far. I grew up in a non-denomination church and I know very little about Catholicism. For the past 10 years I have felt quite lost, however I have a very strong desire to find the truth. Do you have a guide to Catholicism for those who know little about it?
ps. Could you pray that I find the truth?
Thanks
Thank you for the contact. Yes, we will pray that you come to see the truth of the Catholic Faith, and the necessity to embrace it. Attached is a basic Catechism for you. I would also recommend that you begin praying the Rosary every day. We would be happy to send you one if you would like, as well as a How to Pray the Rosary sheet. We also have a special DVD package which includes more than 8 different programs for only a few dollars. [Update: New Special Package Here] It's critical for you to embrace the Catholic Faith, since it is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation. If you have any more questions, please let us know.
As many of you know, the phenomenon of “speaking in tongues” is prevalent in the Charismatic Movement. We’ve tried to inform those involved that the Charismatic Movement is not of God. This is proven most easily by the Charismatic Movement’s promotion and acceptance of ecumenical and heretical teachings. The extraordinary phenomena that often occur at these meetings – which sometimes include barking like dogs, rolling around on the floor in hysteria, making sounds like pigs, etc. – are not the gifts of the Holy Ghost. However, some refuse to believe that the devil could actually be behind the extraordinary occurrences of “speaking in tongues” that they see at these charismatic meetings. They should know that the early Church heretic Montanus also spoke in tongues.
“Montanism was a growing problem… This man, Montanus, began to prophesy and to ‘speak in tongues.’ He was soon followed by two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who left their husbands to devote themselves to his mission… Montanist preachers called upon their hearers to renounce marriage, to give up their worldly goods to their spiritual leaders… to seek martyrdom wherever possible, and to repudiate all civil obligations. Though rejected by almost all the bishops, the Montanist call struck responsive chords all over Asia Minor; the whole church of Thyatira, for example, went over to them – Thyatira’s church which the Apostle John had warned, in his letter to the seven churches of Asia in the Book of the Apocalypse, to beware of a prophetess whose teaching led to immorality.” (Warren H. Carroll, The Founding of Christendom, Vol. 1, p. 464.)
This shows us again that speaking in tongues or what appears to be “speaking in tongues” can be from demonic sources; in the case of the heretical Charismatic Movement today, it is definitely from demonic sources.
A traditional bishop Oravec have sent me following article to convince me of rightness of doctrine of "baptism" of desire.
It is his condition, that I must accept this teaching in order to be allowed to receive Sacraments from him. And I urgently need some catholic bishop or priest, who don't recognize as valid novus ordo priesthood and "church", because my wife will go to novus ordo "mass" with my childern, if she has no other possibility. Should I inhibit her from bringing my childern to novus ordo "mass"??? Is following explanation right? Could I accept this exception of "baptism" of desire??? Why God could not save someone, who has catholic faith and desire for baptism, but died before he could receive this water baptism??? As st. Thomas Aquinas alone confirmed, that God could do this (save soul without water baptism), because His Power is not fixed only to the sacraments???Josef
One of us conversed with Bishop Oravec in the past, and the issue of salvation was specifically discussed. He believes that souls can be saved in other religions. That is a fact. He is not a Catholic, but a complete heretic. He couldn’t see how the damnation of all non-Catholics was compatible with the mercy of God. He is a false shepherd who has no Faith; and since he is an imposing heretic who is binding his false teaching on you, you should absolutely not receive the sacraments from him at all. (more…)
Brothers: Where may I find the text used by JP II ( using apparently infallible language ) at the 'canonization' of Escriva? It seems someone read it to me shortly after the act and it used traditional language but I cannot remember the source where the complete text may be found.
Thankyou, Mike
Here it is:
Antipope John Paul II, Oct. 6, 2002, “Canonizing” Josemaria Escriva: “In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define Blessed Josemaria Escriva to be a Saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
I had a few questions....I re-read in the book "Absolutely No Salvation outside the Catholic Church" the pages prior to until after Fr. Feeney. Please don't take this as judging Fr. Feeney at all...but I was curious....do you know why he just didn't go to Rome, even though of course under canon law he didn't have to. He didn't have anything to fear because he was completely protected by the dogma's set down by the Church. So I was curious why he didn't just go. I ask this question with complete respect.
Also, if there were heretical things written with a valid bishops imprimatur, how do you know what books are good and which are bad? Only prior to 1876? Did Pope St. Pius X not know that heretical things were being printed during his time? I am sure he couldn't have possibly seen every book that was written at the time. Did I just answer my own question?
I read all of this about 6 months ago, but for some reason this time I actually understood what I was reading.
I know you are extremely busy with your important work. So you do not have to respond to such questions if you do not have the time!
May God Reward you for your work!
God Bless you!
Teri Thurman
I believe he didn’t go because when the authorities in Rome handling the matter refused to give him the reason for the summons, as required by canon law, they demonstrated that they weren’t trustworthy and operating in good faith. And the reason that the authorities in Rome handling the case didn’t give him a reason is because they were too embarrassed to say: you are being summoned to Rome because you are preaching Outside the Church There is No Salvation and that only baptized Catholics can be saved! (more…)
Brothers,
I just wanted to say that I believe your article "The Joint Declaration of Schism by Catholic Family News and The Remnant on the SSPX– and its major blasphemy against the Catholic Church" is one of the best revealing articles of the war that is happening against the True Catholic Church in our times.
And once again, I believe you shown more and more support for sedevacantism given by its opponents': CFN and the Remnant. It's beginning to seem that the more these editors write, the further they seem to evidently support that sedevacantism is not 'just an argument', but the only
plausible explanation for the current state of the Catholic Church.
God bless you and keep you! May Our Lady and St. Francis De Sales help your writings to enlighten the Faithful in all this confusion.
- Michael O.
Thank you. The schismatic position of these false traditionalists has gotten so bad that it’s beyond absurd at this point. Simply put, men who would actually write an article which describes their “Pope’s” plan to “canonize” John Paul II as “the revolution is preparing to canonize its own” simply do not believe in the Catholic Church - period. They have equated the authoritative and solemn “canonizations” by their “Pope” and what they deem to be the Catholic Church with the work of the revolution. On a similar note, just recently Bishop Williamson said again that the Vatican doesn’t have the same religion as he does. So, he rejects sedevacantism because he insists on professing communion with members of a different religion. Related Article: The Joint Declaration of Schism by Catholic Family News and The Remnant on the SSPX – and its major blasphemy against the Catholic Church
Did you know that the Aztec culture in Mexico in the 15th and 16th centuries, which the Catholic conquistadors physically overthrew – and which the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe spiritually crushed – was arguably the wickedest culture in human history?
Dear Brother Dimond,
My nephew is planning to get married this September. Despite all my effort to convince him otherwise, he is planning to get married in the Novus-Ordo church. I tried to convince him that it is not the true Roman Catholic religion, but a counterfeit church. I showed him and my brother how sacriligious the Novus-Ordo is, but to no avail. My question is this: Am I allowed to attend the service, but not to participate; or am I not allowed to attend it at all? Also, what about the reception and dinner afterwards? Please respond as soon as you can. You have been a tremendous help to me and others who desire the true Catholic faith. Thank you and God bless You!
Wayne C. Lang
Thanks for your question. We did address this question in more detail in Question 62 of the Questions and Answers section, so we refer the readers there. The short answer to your question is absolutely not. A Catholic cannot attend the wedding or the wedding reception of a heretic. The reason is that to attend such a wedding service or the reception is to honor and celebrate the marriage of a heretic. It is to honor and celebrate a person or people getting married in the state of mortal sin, and in a fashion which displeases God and places them on the road to hell. This issue involves the divine law: (more…)
Since I have been a traditionalist (1978), I have always been under the assumption, that the rules of the lentin fast and abstinence should be followed according to the last revisions of Pope Pius XII, i.e. 1953 or 1957 and definetely NOT any new rules adhering to the changes of Vatican Council II. I attend Mass at a SSPX on Long Island and the bulletin on Ash Wednesday stated the following:
“All catholics ages 14 and up are obliged to abstain from meat this Ash Wednesday. And all catholics between ages of 18 and 59 are obliged to fast this Ash Wednesday. New Code Canons 1251 & 1252. All Catholics are encouraged, though no longer under pain of Mortal Sin, to keep the fast throughout the remainder of lent excepting Sundays. The fast of Lent is no longer obligatory under pain of Sin except Ash Wednesday and Good Friday which still oblige under pain of mortal sin.
The obligation to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year still obliges under pain of venial sin.”
What does the reference to “new Code Canons….” Mean? - the Newchurch (since Vatican II) canons or the Old Church canons? It sounds to me as though the SSPX has one foot in the Novus Ordo church and the other in Tradition. What do I tell my children and grandchildren – who look to me for guidance in such matters??
Hoping to hear from you shortly and God Bless.
Joan Malone
The canons to which you referred are from the new code. The SSPX adheres to the new fasting rules promulgated by Antipope John Paul II in the new code of canon law (1983). Thus, they hold that one is not bound to fast except on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. This is simply a by-product of their false position. Many traditionalists don’t know that every day in Lent (except for Sundays) is an obligatory day of fast because they’ve been instructed by non-sedevacantist, independent “traditionalist” priests (such as the priests of the SSPX, etc.) who accept the new disciplinary laws of the Vatican II sect.
As many of you know, the preposterous and monstrous “theory” of Evolution is taught as fact in all public schools. This one picture of metamorphosis (with its accompanying explanation) alone refutes the folly of Evolution; it is truly a picture worth a million textbooks. Scroll down to the bottom of the link to find the picture and the accompanying explanation:
If I'm not mistaken the only days of absolute fast during Lent are Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday, and the Ember Days. The other days are not obligatory, correct?
No, every day in Lent (except for Sundays) is a fast day. See the Calendar on our mainpage for more details.
Unlike most liquids, water freezes from the top down. If it did not act in this unusual way, all life on earth would eventually die:
“Streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans freeze from the top down, because water reaches its maximum density at 39°F—seven degrees above its normal freezing point. As cold air further lowers the water’s temperature, water defies the behavior of most liquids and expands. This less dense water “floats” on top of the denser water. Eventually, it freezes into ice, which is even less dense.
“We are fortunate that water behaves in this unusual way. If water continued to contract as it became colder and froze, as most substances do, ice would sink. Bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up. Surface water would quickly freeze, then sink. During the summer, the overlying liquid water would insulate the ice and delay its melting. Each winter more ice would collect at the bottom. This would first occur at polar latitudes, but over the years would spread toward the equator as surface ice reflected more of the Sun’s rays back into space, cooling the earth. Sea life would eventually cease. Evaporation and rain would diminish, turning the land into a cold, lifeless desert.” (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning – Compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood, p. 186, note 124.)
Hello Brother Dimond,
I would like to know what you have to say about all the anti-sedevacantists who use the argument that there cannot be a Church without a visible head (the Pope).
Al
Quite simply, the Church has been without a visible head hundreds of times. The Church is without a visible head every time the Pope dies. This situation has lasted for years. By the way, here is an interesting quote from the Lay Investiture crisis (1075-1122). During this crisis, the evil King of Germany, Henry IV, instituted an Antipope (who was supported by many German Bishops). Henry also appointed his own Bishops who were also subject to the Antipope. The result was two Bishops in most dioceses and massive confusion.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, 1910, “Investitures,” p. 86: “There was now much confusion on all sides…. Many dioceses had two occupants. Both parties called their rivals perjurers and traitors…”The point is that, while we are dealing with an unprecedented apostasy, the Church has seen confusing times before, including those in which the true hierarchy was not easily ascertainable.
Bro. Peter Dimond:
I have read with interest your article, "The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the Impostor Sr. Lucy". I don't remember the article pointing this out (though, admittedly, I might have missed it), but the horrendous Stalin died on March 5, 1953--a mere 9 months after Pope Pius XII's consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart.
Though Khrushchev was an evil man, he was a considerable improvement over Stalin. Therefore, one could posit that the consecration made by Pius XII began to bear fruit in less than a year.
Sincerely,
Geof
Yes, thank you, it was pointed out near the end of the fall of the satellites section: The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the impostor Sr. Lucy (more…)
1) Since reading your recent article on the conversion of Russia, I have decided to sever all relationships with the Fatima Crusaders. I have,for several years been purchasing Brown Scapulars at a very reasonable price from them and giving them to family and friends as well as wearing one myself. Do you know of any place where I can get Brown Scapulars at a reasonable cost ( about a dollar piece) ? I'd like to thank you for the clarification on Sr. Lucy. I have always felt disturbed about her attending the new mass. It didn't make sense to me that a person who had seen the Blessed Mother could attend this abomination. Even religious obedience did not seem to justify participation in a pagan ceremony. As for Fr. Gruner I have suspected him of insincerity for some time. His tirades against the Vatican and belief in John Paul II as either a dupe or powerless didn't ring true. I am still looking for a true Catholic priest. Although I attend the St Pius X Latin mass in Ridgefield Conn., not contributing and not going to confession leaves me out in the cold when I most want to be a part of the real Catholic Church. Thank you again for all your good work in bringing out the truth.
2) Dear Brother
This latest article is really just too much! Our Lady promised what she promised with the consecration of Russia-
To try and say it was something else-that the word conversion was not CONVERSION but just that they would end up being "nice guys" that wouldn't hurt or persecute anyone anymore is ridiculous Our Lady has worked and can work greater miracles than this! This was to be a sign for a greater worldwide conversion .....When Our Lady is pleased with the correct formula of consecration--even if it is with only 1 faithful bishop=- the world will know it These arguments are a waste of time and energy. I was not going to waste my time in writing but this attack on the words of Our Lady of Fatima has really gone too very far… Our Lady talks very literally for her poor ignorant children on the earth-she realizes that we need to be talked to in a simple and direct way. She would not mislead us and give us false hope in a conversion that could not be seen-- a conversion of peace- HA- really and yet there has been no peace with Russia. You have some good information about Sr Lucia but all ends up being called into question with this disappointing explanation of "conversion of Russia" Well you can believe what you wish but I truly think you are only shooting yourself in the foot…. Your article gives way to despair
In Jesus and Mary
Kathy Heckenkamp
No, the only thing that is ridiculous is your blindness. It’s quite obvious – obvious, that is, to those who will take off the blinders and sincerely look at the facts – that Our Lady was not speaking of a religious conversion. That is why Sr. Lucy said that the consecration of Russia means that: “The good Lord promises to end the persecution in Russia…”!!! (WTAF Vol. 2, p. 465) That is why Sr. Lucy said that the consecration of Russia will result in an “abbreviation of the tribulation,” not a conversion of the nation to the Catholic Faith.
Our Lord to Sr. Lucy, Oct. 22, 1940: “I will punish the nations for their crimes by means of war, famine and persecution of My Church and this will weigh especially upon My Vicar on earth. His Holiness will obtain an abbreviation of these days of tribulation if he takes heed of My wishes by promulgating the Act of Consecration of the whole world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention of Russia.” (The Whole Truth About Fatima – abbreviated: WTAF, Vol. 2, p. 732)What part of this don’t you understand? (more…)
Dear Brothers Michael and Peter,
I recently read a letter written by the late Bishop Moises Carmona-Rivera (who was consecrated by Bishop Thuc in 1981). This letter is a defense of his episcopal consecration and leaves many questions open about his validity. In the letter, he states, "....some said, without any foundation, that our consecrations were invalid because we were consecrated in the new rite..." After this very ambiguous statement, he does not go on to say that he and Zamora were, in fact, consecrated in the old rite. What does this mean? Does this mean that he was consecrated in the new rite and he feels that it is valid, meaning that those of us who hold it to be invalid are judging so with "no foundation"? Or, does he mean that these accusations were made with no foundation because, in fact, they were consecrated in the old rite?
I am sorry for the tone of this question, but this is a major dilemma for my family. If there is question about the validity of Carmona-Rivera due to the rite used in the ceremony, then my family is without a valid Mass anywhere nearby.
I would like to thank you for your help with this, as I know that you are very thorough with your research and will only report facts. I am not interested in getting someone's "opinion" when the souls of my family and myself are at stake. God bless you!
In JMJ,
Joseph Blagg
No, in context Carmona is simply saying that some people, without any foundation at all, have claimed that he was consecrated in the new rite. He goes on to say that others, more seriously, have claimed other things. The implication is that any claim that he was ordained in the new rite is almost a joke. Carmona was validly consecrated in the traditional rite. Thus, the priest ordained through his line would be valid. But we cannot vouch for such a priest’s doctrinal views, and there is a very strong chance that the priest denies the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation or supports NFP or something else. Thus, you almost certainly couldn’t support him financially, though perhaps you could receive the sacraments from him if he is not notorious or imposing about his false views. Also, we’ve been informed that certain CMRI priests have communicated to people that they don’t want those who don’t accept baptism of desire at their chapels. Since those CMRI priests are imposing their false views, one should not receive the sacraments from them at all. We don’t know if this is a universal development with CMRI priests, so one should check with the CMRI priest in their area about this. (They don’t want people who believe in that “awful” teaching that all must be baptized to be saved, as Our Lord said, but they have no problem with the idea that Jews who reject Christ can be saved. What abominable heretics.)
I have been reading extensively on the Chaos of the Church. I have been reading every anti-Sede article I have come accross from the Fatima Crusader, CFN, Mr. Sungenis, etc. I have not seen a good argument. Then I read your responses and you BLOW THEM AWAY!!! I guess the truth does that to the untruth…
-Jaime Soria
Dear Brothers Dimond,
I am sending to you an e-mail for the first time and I am happy to send it to you,in order to express my heartfelt thank to you for revealing the Truth of Holy Catholic Faith to ignorant people like me.
I am a Unversity student from UK who began to concentarate serously on Catholic Faith very recently. Although born as a Catholic I did not practise it whole heartedly since I was 10,only practised it outwardly to appease my parents.I was an ardent supporter of Marxism and then I was intriguied by Liberalism.Believe me I am telling you the truth I was the greatest "fan" you could have ever found for JP II.I was quite able to get along with his liberalistic and marxist convictions and I was used to by heart the homilies and speeches which he made. In our home there is still a framed photograph of JP II which hangs in our living room.I had his photograph in my study room at University Hall until YESTERDAY.
But when I went through your materials regarding Vatican II sect and its antipopes I could not deny those strong arguments and I completely in agreement with the sedevacantist position which deny the autority of Vatican II and its antipopes.You can imagine how hard was it for me to reject JP II who is an ardent pupil and defender of him and finally I did it.I REMOVED his potrait from my room.I know for sure that my parents still have him in the living room and I will reveal them the whole truth when I return home.
Dear Brothers I have basically two questions.I sincerely believe that you will send me your clarification at your earliest convinience.
1)As you sited in your article regarding Bishop Williamson,you quoted St.Alphonus Ligouri in which he(St.Alphonus) says that all canonizations made by pope are infallible and he is guided and helped in a special way by the Holy Ghost in the process of canonization.I accept it whole heartedly.But something coming from the "Traditionalist camp" disturbs me.They questions the canonization of St. Therese,the little flower o Jesus.They say that she explicitly believed that ALL can be saved without coming to Catholic Faith.That disturbs me very much.Please clarify me.
2)I was born in 1982 and you know that I must have been baptised by a novus ordo preist who are in complete union with Vatican II doctrine.So I am wondering whether my baptism is valid, this is a question which torments me night and day.Please clarify me.
I am looking forward a quick reply from me.Clarfy me !!!!!!!
I need your help.
Yours in Christ,
Milan.
Milan, that’s great to hear. Concerning your questions: 1) We have never seen any quotes from St. Therese stating that all men are saved, which is a horrible heresy. 2) The Church teaches that even heretics can validly baptize. So, even a Novus Ordo priest can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter and form. If you have some reasonable doubt about your baptism, however, you could get a friend to perform a conditional baptism. The conditional form of baptism is given on our website.
In this section of our website, from time to time we will be posting quotes or comments on topics that we feel our readers may find interesting or beneficial. We particularly like the topic of Creationism, so here is an interesting quote about how Altruism destroys evolution:
“11. Altruism- Many animals, including humans, will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another – sometimes the life of another species. Natural selection, which evolutionists say explains all individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic ‘individuals.’ How could risky behavior that benefits only another ever be inherited, because its possession tends to prevent the altruistic ‘individual’ from passing on its genes for altruism? If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have completely eliminated unselfish behavior. Furthermore, cheating and aggressiveness should have ‘weeded out’ cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution.” (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning – Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, p. 7.)
Dear Brothers Dimond,
I must say that was a breathtaking article. I will have to read it again there is so much to absorb. To think people living in this country knew little or next to nothing about what was going on under Stalin and Lenin. Reading history sources like Barnes Review, I have learned a great deal about those times and places, but I did not piece it together the way you have. It makes some of the things I read stand out in my mind and appear in a very different light. I wish now I had not given away those magazines, and could go back and reread some of the things I want to remember.
That there was an imposter Sister Lucy was not hard to imagine with all the contradicting stories, (and I did imagine it for some time) but the way you put it all together it would be almost impossible not to see the idea of imposter as anything but a rational and logical means to their end.
---
Dear Brothers Dimond,
Wow! What a bombshell! Just finished reading your explosive new article concerning Fatima and the consecration of Russia, and I must say it leaves one a bit breathless. It really seems to be the missing piece in the puzzle. I am a genuine Roman Catholic, sedevacantist, etc. and of course, knew something was amiss concerning this whole subject. Your thorough "sleuthing" seems to have solved the quandary. I, too, am planning to reread -- there is so just so much to digest. Once again, I thank you with all my heart for your fabulous and incomparably important work. God bless you!
Sincerely in Christ,
Margaret Moore
---
Dear Brother Dimond
Congratulations on an excellent article! Having studied this period of history, I am impressed by how your perspective explains a lot of how history developed during this time…Best wishes
Gerard----------
Excellent article.
Keith M.
--------
[Subject: Great article on the Fatima consecration]
Brothers,
I finished the article on the Fatima consecration. I made a copy for Father [x] and another copy for people to read after mass.
The information you present puts the novus ordo and false traditionalists in perspective. The pictures of both the real and fake Sister Lucy are very convincing.
I wonder if Mr. Gruner will close up shop now? :o)
Robert
---
Dear Brothers, I read your article on Fatima with great interest. Very well done. I had given up on the explanations of N.Gruner long ago. What I'd like to know is how should we devotedly observe Fatima today?
Thank you and God bless you in your excellent work.
The imperfect peace must be about over considering the Middle East and all the activity going on there and the rising tide of Islam over the whole world. And the New Order Church is collapsing upon itself as more and more the truth of what it is becomes clearer for all to see. Yet so few seem to see, or even want to see.
God Bless and keep up the good work.
Mary Ann Davis
--------
Dear Brother Peter,
Last night I discovered your newest article "The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the impostor Sr. Lucy." I began to read, with fascination, facts that I certainly had not heard before. I do recall a telephone conversation with Brother Michael several years ago which touched on the premature death of Sister Lucia. How these revelations would turn the world upside down!
I hope to finish reading the piece today. Thank you for this great piece of research that you have produced.
Judith Andrews
Thanks, we’re glad you liked it. The best way to observe Fatima today is to have a true devotion to the Holy Rosary (pray 15 decades each day if you can), and make St. Louis De Montfort’s consecration to the Blessed Virgin as described in his book, True Devotion to Mary. If you have not read the book Our Lady of Fatima by William Thomas Walsh, you really should. It’s one of the best books out there, and the best on the pure message of Fatima, in our view.
Is the article, The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia, available in printed form to be ordered? RoyMHFM: Not right now. But it will be available in a book we hope to publish this summer.
Brothers,
I have been receiving CFN for years now and have progressively been getting sicker and sicker of the blasphemies levied against the Church. The only reason I maintained subscription was to keep up with the latest outrages. I now see I was wrong because I don't need them to fill me in with their convoluted blasphemous accusations against what they consider the Bride of Christ. Yes, I'm tired of them trashing the good name of all that is Catholic. According to that paper, the Church is so blemished with heresy and errors that it is a joke to call it Catholic. Yet, it's OK to throw perpetual rocks at this Church they call Catholic and at it's "pope"... Just don't say he's not pope!!! That's right... stone him, flog him, beat him senseless for destroying millions of souls and the faith of almost the entire Catholic world, disobey him, slander him, set up Churches and orders apart from him, mock him, resist him to his face BUT please please please don't say he's anything less than the "holy father" the "head" of Christ's Bride and Church, the Pope of the world! Chris Ferrara's latest pablem was so sickening that I refuse to renew any further subscriptions. Yes, funny how Mr. Ferrara NEVER mentions to his readers that there are sound reasons for sedevacantism based on INFALLIBLE teachings of Popes! Funny how he NEVER mentions anything about Paul IV's Bull which directs the laity specifically to reject anyone in office as warlock who would "deviate" from the faith! That Bull states that even if the laity are wrong about their conclusion, they are free to reach such a conclusion with impunity IF they (the laity) perceive the cleric to be a heretic. So, according to real Catholic teaching even if the sedevacantists are wrong (and they aren't) and Ratzinger is the pope they still by virtue of that Bull have every RIGHT to hold he is NOT pope and withdraw because Ratzinger has been shown without doubt to have "deviated" from the faith,,,,PERIOD. Enough of this garbage about us being schismatic, it is Mr. Ferrara who is schismatic and I hope you punch him back soon on this latest pile of puke!
Well said… It’s the same thing with “Tradition in Action”; their continuous rants on how their “Pope” contradicts this Tradition and denies that teaching and mocks this dogma (all the while still asserting that he’s not even a heretic!) have grown tiresome – no, they have grown into blasphemies against the Church and the Papacy. Really, someone should tell them and Catholic Family News: just be quiet until you’re ready to denounce him for the non-Catholic heretic he is. Regarding Ferrara, his arguments have already been totally refuted; there is no sense in pounding on a corpse. (I mean, his “Pope” believes in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification and Ferrara thinks he’s a Catholic; what more does one have to say?) Ferrara doesn’t address our arguments anyway; he sticks with fighting with his chosen opposition, Fr. Cekada, because Fr. Cekada does a pathetic job of producing heresies from Vatican II and Antipope Benedict XVI. (The reason for this is that most of the heresies of Antipope Benedict XVI have something to do with the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, which Cekada also rejects).
^
" />
" />
" />
" />
" />
