Was John Paul I murdered or died naturally?

We think that John Paul I was probably murdered. We think this because of the conflicting reports that the Vatican has issued surrounding his death. But just because he was probably murdered does not mean that he was a good man or even a valid Pope, of course. It is a fact that John Paul I was a heretic who embraced the religious indifferentism of Vatican II and even petitioned for approval of the birth control pill. The Vatican II Antipopes don’t wear the Papal Tiara as a symbolic way to show the enemies of the Church that they are infiltrators and on their side. Paul VI’s giving away of the Tiara (a picture of which can be seen in our photo gallery) was an obvious message to the world that he was a Satanic agent trying to give away the house, which is why he abolished the oath against Modernism, the profession of Faith of Trent, the Index of Forbidden books, changed the Mass, etc., etc., etc.

Divisions among traditionalists?

Thank you for your interest. The unfortunate divisions among those who profess to be traditional Catholics arise, simply, because those people you described above reject Catholic dogmatic teaching in one or more areas. So division from them in these areas of Faith is not desirable, but it is necessary, simply because they don’t accept the truth in totality. If all “traditionalists” would accept the dogmatic teachings of the Church without compromise, then there would be no division among traditionalists. But since this is not the case, there must be division from those who deny the truth, as there can be no unity with heresy. As Our Lord says, I came to not to bring peace upon the earth, but the sword – to divide (Matthew 10:34-37).

Does Pope Eugene IV contradict Scripture?

Pope Eugene IV said that no one, even if he sheds blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained within the bosom and unity of the Church. Many people shed blood IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, but not for Christ.  The Protestants who reject the one true Catholic Faith and Christ's clear teaching on Confession (John 20:23), the Eucharist (John 6:54), the necessity of Baptism (John 3:5), etc. reject Christ’s truth, so their act of martyrdom is not for Him, but for Christ in name only– if it were truly for Him then they would accept His truth.  (more…)

The Antichrist will be a Jew?

Our Lord doesn’t say that the Antichrist will be a Jew.  The passage that you are probably referring to (John 5:43), where Our Lord says to the Jews “if another will come in his own name him you will receive” may refer to the Antichrist, but it is not certain.  If it does, all it necessarily means is that the Jews will embrace him or receive him.  And, in fact, if this passage refers to the Antichrist, then Antipope John Paul II has fulfilled it, because Antipope John Paul II was literally “received” by the Jews in the Synagogue in 1986.  But as a Catholic, no one is bound to agree with our opinion that Antipope John Paul II is definitely Final Antichrist, although the evidence is, frankly, overwhelming.  All Catholics must condemn him as at least an Antichrist, who is not Catholic and outside the Church.  Our articles prove without any doubt that Antipope John Paul II is totally Antichrist and that he preaches that every man is Christ; this is a fact which no one can deny.

Asking for clarification on Canonization article

Cathy, perhaps the reason that you are confused is because you reference two different sentences from my article which are taken out of context and you don’t quote the sentences in totality.  The first sentence from my article which you reference is bolded below in its complete context.  It simply says that a true Pope cannot err on a matter of Faith proclaimed to the entire Church (such as Canonization).  

One of the ways by which Fr. Moderator was able to mislead his readers on this issue was to pervert the nature of the question.  In attempting to articulate his heretical argument that Canonizations are not infallible, the reader will notice that Fr. Moderator speaks about how St. Thomas and St. Robert supposedly said that a Pope can err in a decision based upon human testimony.  That may be true, but that is irrelevant.  The issue is not whether or not a valid Pope can make a mistake on a decision purely based on human testimony; no one disputes this.  The issue is whether a Pope can err on a matter of Faith proclaimed to the whole Church and declared in virtue of his apostolic authority.  And the answer to this, as St. Thomas, St. Robert and the rest agree, and as I have shown, is a resounding no.  And this is why Fr. Moderator could not even bring forward one direct quote from any Saint stating that Canonizations are not infallible; but he effectively and slyly misled his readership by switching the nature of the question and misrepresenting the authorities he claimed to reference.  

What Mass does MHFM accept?

We accept the Mass of Pope St. Pius V; we don’t approve of the invalid Novus Ordo, of course, and we don’t approve of the use of the 1962 Missal, the Mass of John XXIII – which is the same as the Mass of St. Pius V but with St. Joseph’s name illegally added to the Canon (as well as some other minor changes). We acknowledge that the 1962 Missal is valid, since the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon has no bearing on validity, only legality. We also believe that in this time of crisis one can attend a Mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest who uses the 1962 Missal, as long as the person does not agree with or support the priest. Here is an interesting quote relating to this issue:

“In order to further the liturgical reform that Hebblethwaite [John XXIII’s biographer] claimed John ‘favored,’ the Pope ‘added to the Roman Canon the name of St. Joseph – beati Joseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi – a pious ruse to show that the text was not immutable [unchangeable],’ according to Hebblethwaite.” (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 177)

In other words, according to John XXIII’s biographer, the whole reason for John XXIII to add St. Joseph’s name to the Canon was to show the Canon was not unchangeable and to pave the way for what later came with Antipope Paul VI – the New Mass.

Council of Florence on Circumcision; and Man becoming God?

Paul, the statement from the Council of Florence (Denz. 712) condemns all who “observe circumcision,” whether or not they place hope in it for salvation.  Those who get the foreskin of their children cut solely for health reasons are not “observing circumcision” (the ritual of the Old Law), but are simply having a medical procedure performed for health reasons.  Therefore, the phrase “observe circumcision” presupposes that one is doing it to fulfill the Old Law.  If one is not doing it to fulfill the Old Law then he is not actually “observing circumcision.”

Regarding your second question, I’m familiar with the quotes that people bring forward.  In fact, I recently read a large book (over 300 pages) by a man who purports to be a “traditional Catholic” and the whole point of the book was to prove that all the baptized are Jesus.  But it is heresy to say that any man becomes God.  Otherwise there would be more than one God.  Some of the fathers of the Church said this about baptized Catholics when speaking in exaggerated and wrong terms about the truth that a justified man partakes of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4); but they never should have said that man becomes God.  They simply should have repeated what 2 Peter 1:4 says: that a justified man partakes of the divine nature.

(more…)