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.
Your latest argument against Mr Ferrara (Heresy of the week) finally convinced me that there has been no pope on Saint Peter's See ever since the death of Pius XII. I have long remained reluctant to admit it entirely, not because I am a member of SPPX (for lack of other nearby possibilities of finding Catholic Masses and Sacraments), but only because the prospect looked too terrifying to be taken seriously… Well, I guess it has to be faced : 2 and 2 are 4 and "Let your 'yes' be a 'yes', your 'no' be a 'no' : everything else comes from the devil". Besides, such situations already happened in the past, which I KNEW, but refused to ADMIT !... Funny how the human mind works sometimes...
Thank you ever so much for your spiritual help, and God may bless you !
François Thouvenin
Strasbourg (France)
Dearest Brothers Dimond,
B R A V O ! ! ! Just finished reading your response to Robert Sungenis on your website and I stood up and cheered. The clarion call of truth is so evident when seen in direct contradiction to the abominable heresies of the devil. And thank you for the background on this man. Very telling. I certainly hope that many, many people are finding you on the internet. Ah, I can only say God bless you with his choicest graces for this glorious work you are doing!
Sincerely in Christ the King,
Margaret Moore
Dear brother Peter,
Please keep on your mailing list for news with regard to novus ordo scandals.
thanking you in J.m.j.
May God bless you for pulling me out of heresy.
Allan Simoes Goa, India.
Thanks for the interest.
Dear Brother Dimond,
I hope you recall that we had an online conversation a few months ago about the topic "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation." I… maintained that those who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion have some hopes of acquiring salvation through the mercy of God; well, after reading your book online as well as various other documents, I have come to this conclusion: unless one dies a baptized Catholic in the state of grace, he shall suffer eternal damnation, no exceptions whatsoever, and to believe in this argument of "invincible ignorance" is to reject the Catholic Faith totally.
Thank you for enlightening me on this matter; please pray for me that my faith may grow.
God bless you and Mary keep you.
Adam Twardowski
That’s great to hear; yes, we will.
Bro Dimond,
Just a few weeks ago I received your package with the videos, tons of reading material, and your book "Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation". I want to thank you for all of your hard work in not only defending the faith, but in also teaching the faith to those (like myself) who have been led astray these past 40 years. However, I have an interesting observation that I was thinking of while working my way through your book. You spend alot of time talking about the necessity of Baptism for salvation and also refuting the false theory of "Baptism of Desire". Well, a scripture that always troubled me came to mind. In The Acts of the Apostles chapter 8, we read about Philip and his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch. Specifically, after the Spirit told Philip to go to the man, and after Philip had preached Jesus to him, the eunuch said something which had always been astounding to me........in verse 36 the eunuch says, "See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?" The FIRST THING he asks for is to be baptized!!!!! That always confused me since Baptism today is seen more as a sign than a necessity, but after reviewing your research into what the Catholic Church has always said about the necessity of Baptism, it now makes perfect sense. Obviously, in Philip's preaching to the man, he undoubtedly told him of the necessity of Baptism; and of Our Lord's own words on the matter. If he hadn't, the eunuch never would have said those words. Also, in verse 37 (the very next verse), Philip confirms the Church's teaching (and also shoots down the heretical "Sola Fide" error) with the words, "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest." In other words, faith in Jesus Christ was obviously necessary for this man's salvation, but ALSO the sacrament. Thankfully for the eunuch, he wasn't told "Your desire is enough", or "Just believe, you'll be fine". No, on the contrary, the minute the eunuch professed faith in Jesus Christ, he commanded the chariot they were riding in to stop and IMMEDIATELY baptized him (verse 38). Sounds like Philip thought Baptism was very important.
Anyway, I just wanted to encourage you in your work and to tell you how much it is appreciated.
Yours in Christ,
Rich Bonomo
Many people argue that the teachings of Vatican II don’t contradict Catholic dogma in any way. They strenuously assert that the Vatican II religion is in perfect continuity with the unchanging Catholic religion. Some people call these individuals (who defend everything in Vatican II and the post-conciliar apostasy) neo-Catholics; we call them neo-apostates, since they attempt to explain away everything from kissing the Koran to allowing idol-worshippers to take over and pray to false gods at Assisi. But one of the most interesting and clear ways of proving that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church is simply by looking at what its members believe at the local level. The amount of stories from individuals who have actually been discouraged from becoming Catholic by members of the Novus Ordo Church, including Bishops, Vatican officials and RCIA teachers, seem almost endless; but if you ever want to be stirred to a holy indignation against the Vatican II apostasy, or if you ever want proof of what an abominable outrage the Vatican II sect is, or if you ever want to be convinced that it is a matter of heaven or hell to completely reject this false, non-Catholic sect falsely posing as the Catholic Church, then just call some Novus Ordo churches and ask them: “Do you accept the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation? Is Islam a false religion? Is Judaism a false religion?”
Dear Brothers Dimond,
I was recently reading Fahey's MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST AND THE REORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY and came across a statement about Jews of good will being saved. Were you aware of this error in his writing? It took me completely by surprise! As always, we enjoy your thorough research, and have been greatly helped in our understanding of the Faith by your writings.
Sincerely,
Bruce Blommel Family
Yes, we were aware of this. His heretical teaching that even Jews who reject Our Lord can be in the state of grace is covered in section 34 of our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.
Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953), p. 52: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”(more…)
…As for my belief in baptism of desire, I choose not to believe anything. I merely accept without questioning the undiffering, unchanging position of the Saints, Doctors, and Popes of the Catholic Church, namely that if a person formally and explicitly desires to be a Catholic and perform all duties necessary to be one, for the love of Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Faith, this desire to be a Catholic and attain the singular adopted sonship that only the Catholic Church can grant can allow salvation to one that death meets before the opportunity for Baptism can be had. This is the position of the Church from the beginning and through her entire history by every Pope, Doctor, and Saint without exception, along with the entire Catholic laity throughout history, and I would not presume to hold otherwise.
I very much hope that these statements will help you abandon your position about the absolute and unconditional necessity for Water Baptism for salvation….
In Christ and Mary,
Grant
Grant, this is simply nonsense. It sounds like you’ve been reading the lying books of the SSPX on baptism of desire, which assert the same falsehood. (more…)
Thank you for your response. I had already gone (to Father Lovett's Mass) before hearing from you, but pretty much figured out he DOES have some wacky ideas. I questioned him for nearly two hours. Just a heads up for anyone interested in going to his Mass. Here is a summary -
1) He claims Christ has revealed that there is only to be a "general confession" and not auricular, although he "allows" auricular should the penitent desire to go.
2) The "faithful" should give themselves their own penance as they see fit.
3) The Mass is now to be brought into the home and NOT a church or chapel.
4) When questioning him on how the best way to rear our children to help them decide a religious vocation (what I was getting at was where would they go for religious training) his answer was that "he trains priests" and as far as women go, women will be able to "do the Mass in their homes as it was meant to be." I was outraged and asked him to clarify and he was VERY vague about it, but gave the example that if the Mass was to be held in the home and the woman is a widow, then she should have the means to perform the Mass herself. He even suggested that St. Therese of the Little Flower was often quite distraught because she, too, wanted to be able to perform the Mass and could not.
5) My husband asked him repeatedly the name of his "organization" as he claims they ARE the TRUE Catholic Church Remnant, he just referred us "to the book" (This is my Beloved Son, hear Him)
6) He believes the Chair of St. Peter is empty by MORTAL man, but claims Christ, Himself is now Pope until Peter II takes the chair.
7) He believes that after John XXIII a "Pope Clement XV" took the chair and died in the 80's.
That's about it. We left, never to return. He said I was a "mixed up girl". ;)
+JMJ+
Kelly
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.
I admire your zeal in presenting the heresies of the latter Popes on your Web page http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/.
However, this dedication would be put to a better cause if you'd take into consideration that the whole Papal Primacy (as defined by the Vatican Council I) is a heresy (actually one of the greatest heresies of the Roman Catholic Church)….May the Lord have mercy on all of us,
An "Eastern Schismatic", Alexandru
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.
Dear Brother Dimond,
… I want to state that John XXIII and Paul VI, as well as their successors (we will leave the topic of their canonical legitimacy aside for a moment) never considered the Second Vatican Council to be “dogmatic” in nature; John XXIII made very clear in his opening address, which was written by then-Cardinal Montini, that the council was to be “pastoral” in nature, and that it was to avoid making any dogmatic definitions or definitive condemnations. The council would not be aided by the grace of infallibility, and so it would not be binding upon individual consciences. Therefore, a person can reject the Second Vatican Council and at the same time adhere to the authority of John XXIII and his successors without being a “schismatic.” Therefore, I must disagree with your reasoning which states that those “Novus Ordo Catholics” who reject the Second Vatican Council are “schismatics” as they refuse the authority of those whom they consider to be Popes (if I understand your reasoning correctly). ..
Sincerely in Christ,
Adam Twardowski
[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.”(more…)
What is your opinion of those who say that John Paul II is not a heretic, even after you show them his heresies?
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.
I’ve heard people say that Padre Pio told John Paul II that one day he 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.)
Hello Brother Dimond.
Would you happen to know when the new rite of Holy Orders was introduced by Paul Vl?
I found out that the priest who baptized me was ordained in May, 1967 and am curious to know which rite was used for his ordination.
Thanks.
It was introduced June 18, 1968.
well i was reading a book by a scoffer, and he says that one reason that jesus wasn't alive was that there was no record of him in the area. he claims that the levites and secret society's took the story of horus and changed the names and dates to jesus. he claiims that writers like philo were there and never wrote of jesus. there is a few others too, but that one is good for now. and how could jesus be born of original sin if his mother wasn't. if she wasn't born with immaculate conception, she must have some original sin in her. i would like to know how to counter this mans arguement. thank you. jason
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.
To Mr. Sungenis
I noticed in the December 2004 question about "Baptism of Desire" (number 38), that you used a mistranslation of that referenced portion of the Council of Trent.
The true translation is "without", not "except through". Hence, the true quote from the Council of Trent in no way supports "baptism of desire". Are you aware of this?
BridgetSungenis: Bridget, whether the "true" translation is "without" or "except through" really makes little difference, since the words are interchangeable in English. To suggest that Trent's reference to baptism of desire is negated simply because the word has a slight ambiguity is simply not correct.
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: Let's look at both possibilities:
First using "except through"
"...and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be erected [sic] except through the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it, as it is written..."
Now with "without":
"...and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be erected [sic] without the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it, as it is written..."
The latter usage would clearly indicate that one cannot be baptized without water or the desire for water, and thus the condition of using water is fulfilled both in the usage of "without" and "except through."
Lastly, I would suggest that whoever is trying to teach you that there is no such thing as a baptism of desire cease and desist. This is a dogmatic teaching of the Church, and it is infallible. Any attempt to alter it will simply bring terrible consequences.
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.
Dear Bro.Michael Dimond, O.S.B. and Bro.Peter Dimond, O.S.B.,
I am from Sabah Borneo, Malaysia…
I never know about the Novus Ordo until only recently which is about 2 weeks to be exact. I don't know if our Mass is valid or not. Tell me what to do. And how about the new decade of rosary, the Luminous Mystery. Is it legal or is it considered under Novus Ordo?
Thank you for your time.
Mary
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.
1. Who are the faithful Catholics left in the world, since all the CMRI bishops are heretical with all their followers, the SSPX believes that Satan can be the head of the Church, and all the other independent priests believe in baptism of Desire?
2. Please estimate for me how many faithful Catholics are left in the world, since all of these people are heretics?
3. Do you believe that Pride is enough to put a soul into 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.
Dear Brs. Peter and Michael,
I know that you spend many hours researching doctrinal matters. I have a matter that I would like you to consider researching. It deals with the issue of Baptism of desire. As you know, the subject of baptism of desire, and blood, has become somewhat of a hot topic as of recent years. This is a matter that has divided traditional Catholics.
You take the position that since the Church teaches INFALLIBLY that a person must be baptized WITH WATER, that baptims of blood and desire are heresy. Others, on the other hand, claim that baptism of desire and blood are teachings of the Church from the earliest years. In my opinion, both sides make a strong case for their belief. You base yours on the infallible statements; others claim that Trent taught their belief: they also point to numerous Catechisms that teach baptism of desire and blood, claiming that the difference is between the objective and subjective (Canon Hess, for example).
I have found something that I think clears up the matter. At least in my mind, the "contradiction" between the teachings of various saints is cleared up. Since you dedicate so much of your time to study, I am requesting that you look into this matter.
In reading the writings of St. Alphonsus Ligouri and St. Catherine of Siena, and others, I have found a distinction between the "general order" and the "particular order". The general order is that which applies "generally" (similar to the objective); while the "particular order" applies in individular cases (similar to the subjective). As you know, if one does not distinguish between the objective and subjective there will be many apparent "contradictions". I think the same applies to the lack of distinction between the general order and the particular order.
The laws of the Church apply to the "general order", while the "particular" order applies to individual cases (circumstances). …Likewise, the Church speaks in the general order when it defines a dogma, but does not necessarily rule out a "particular" exception. In other places in "the Diologue" God speaks in greater detail of the general order and a particluar order. I think this may be the answer to the issue of baptism of desire and blood. In the general order, everyone must be baptised with water; however, in the particular order, there can be exceptions.
I am requesting that you look into this subject to see what you can find in Church teaching, as this may clear up the apparent "contradiction" between what some Popes and saints have taught. I would be interested in hearing what you find.
Thank you very much for all of your hard work and studies for the Church. I have most of your videos and tapes and do appreciate your fervent efforts.
If you do have time dedicate to this subject, I ask that you keep me informed as I too will be studying the topic. If I find any more information I will pass it along to you.
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.
I was reading through your articles and noticed under the brief one dealing with whether the Catholic remnant needs governing Bishops or not, and it says there are currently no fully Catholic Bishops, if I understood correctly.
Does this mean the hierarchy has 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)
Hello,
Of course, there are countless arguments and discussions and citations that both sides in the "Three Baptisms" (or, more accurately, the debate about the possibility of salvation for those who desire Baptism, either normally or to the extreme of being martyred for the Catholic Faith and their desire for Baptism) debate present, but I would like to get your specific comments on just this particular passage from the Roman Martyrology. I have read all your citations on the subject, but want to know what your comments are just on this particular passage. The copy I have is the 1749 edition. This particular passage is in every edition of the Martyrology back to the edition of Gregory XIII:
"At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, St. Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored. After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment. With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood. St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion..."
Both St. Bede and Fr. Alban Butler both give the same account and claim the Heavenly Reward for the unbaptized soldier, through his desire to be a Catholic and his martyrdom specifically for the Catholic Faith. I grant that you might say that neither St. Bede or Fr. Alban Butler is authoritative in a doctrinal sense. However, the Roman Martyrology is a compilation of diverse martyrologies that were remembered by virtually every monastic community for hundreds of years and were authoritatively prepared and promulgated as a complete text in 1584, by Pope Gregory XIII…
Comments?
God Bless you,
Grant Landis
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?
Dear Brothers Dimond,
Enjoyed reading your article on "The Great Apostasy, Not the Great Facade." Would you put me on the mailing list?
My questions:
What is your opinion of Sr. Lucy? Does she attend the New Mass? Does anyone have access to her true opinions? Do you have an article on her? (and)
What is your opinion on Geocentrism? Do you have an article on the controversy? (Is there anyway you can add a Search feature to your site?)
God bless you.
Catherine
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.
Thank you for your response. I found it both informative and disturbing. You advised that financial support of the Byzantine Church should be withheld. Would that be true of all the Eastern Catholic Churches? (Ukrainians, Melkites, Maronites, etc.) Should that happen these churches would all collapse and 'fade away'. Most important of all, do you consider The Divine liturgy of ST. John Chrysostom valid? The only changes made in the Eastern Catholic churches following Vatican II is that we have returned to our ancient traditions, purging any Latinizations.
Thank you.
Jack Bryant
Orlando, Florida
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.
In re-reading your work on Baptism of desire I went to the law dictionary to look up the word "or".
Using Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, Third Revision 1914, we see:
"As a particle, 'or' is often construed 'and', and 'and' construed 'or', to further the intent of the parties.... So, 'break or enter' in a statute defining burglary, means 'break and enter'. (emphasis mine)
It goes on to talk about when "or" is used to indicate an alternative choice that its use is often bad because it causes uncertainty:
"Where an indictment is in the alternative, as forged or caused to be forged, it is bad for uncertainty."
Clearly the Council of Trent was using the word 'or' in its most precise, legal sense in order to further its intent in defining justification when it says that justification cannot take place "...without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it". The Council of Trent is teaching us that to be justified we must be Baptized and desire Baptism - the Council of Trent is not offering us an alternative choice as you have pointed out so well!
Again thank you for your excellent research and presentation.
Best regards,
~Phil Pinheiro~
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.”
I was reading you article entitled: A Warning about certain Heretical Traditional Priests and Chapels
You include a Bishop (?) Dolan and a Bishop (?) Sanborn. These guys are not valid Bishops since they were never valid Priests.
George
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.
Good afternoon,
I just went to your Web site today and noticed a new article warning about heretical priests. I noticed that Fr. Ringrose was on the list when I read the article.
This was a surprise to me, because I have been to St. Athanasius (in Vienna, Virginia) since 2002 and not once have heard him even mention anything about "Feeneyism" in any of his sermons; however, I have seen pamphlets in near the front door which come from SSPX magazines which actually promote "baptism of desire". And the bookstore also sells SSPX material.
I never saw anything notorious in this regard, but I have heard on only two occasions where he talks about the heresies of Vatican II, yet does not go forward with the correct conclusion (i.e. the last four claiming to be popes from John XXIII onward are actually antipopes). As with "Feeneyism", I did not see this heresy imposed on anyone from the times I've been there. However, I have stopped going to Mass at that chapel for some time while I'm still trying to sort this all out. I have not talked to him about either issue, and planned to do so once I got my information together to present to him. I want to make sure my information is 100% correct before doing anything like this…Thanks for the information. Take care, and have a blessed afternoon.
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.
I've been looking around on the internet and stumbled onto your site but I am not sure what you believe in. It seems that you don't agree with the novus ordo church, SSPV or the SSPX. Also, you don't seem to believe in Baptism by desire which is contained in the Baltimore Catechism and was taught to every Catholic for generations.
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
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…)
Brother, what exactly is the modernist definition of baptism of desire? Do the modernists believe that one can be saved merely by having a desire to be baptized but no intention of actually being baptized with water? If so, that's absurd.
Or, do they define baptism of desire as one who not only desires to be baptized with water but intends to, but dies before he gets the chance to do so. For example, let's say that a catechumen who is studying the Catholic faith in order to be baptized, when on his way to church to be baptized with water is killed by a car. Can he be saved? Or is this what the modernists teach?
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.
Dear Brothers Dimond, Last afternoon I viewed a video produced by you…It left me stunned and deeply moved. This morning I accessed your website for the first time and I am overwhelmed!!!
I am a Roman Catholic born in 1947 in a Buddhist country - SRI LANKA. Christian population was 5% of the entire population - Roman Catholics further reduced in number. I have lived in AUSTRALIA since 1972. As a youngster at St Peter's College Colombo we were taught Catholic Doctrine and some Apologetics by RC priests. Back then around the late fifties and early sixties we were clearly taught the teaching of BAPTISM OF DESIRE.
We were NEVER taught "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation"...or to be honest, I can't recall being taught this. In the year 2000, while praying in the presence of The Blessed Sacrament in a Novus Ordo church, an inner/exterior/everywhere' voice quietly said to me "I am not here!!!" Not long after I felt privileged when I discovered the SSPX realising the previous 30 years of Daily Masses in the NEW Church were wasted! Now, your revelations on the SSPX give me new matter to ponder on and pray about.
I deeply appreciate the monumental GOD-FILLED work you have done. Please pray for my soul as indeed I shall pray for you. May the Blessed and Most Holy Trinity Bless, guard and guide you with loving intercession from OUR Blessed Mother of GOD, MARY MOST HOLY
Yours sincerely
Peter de Niese
AUSTRALIA<
Dear Brothers:
First, congratulations on an excellent website, and May God bless your crusade against heresy! I have two questions.
1) Since, as you point out, the assassination attempt on Wojtyla has elevated his status in the eyes of the world, and enabled him to pose as "Mary's Pope" and preach heresy more effectively, is there any evidence that the assassination attempt was "staged.", and that there was no real threat to the life of Wojtyla?
2) I agree with you that the real Sister Lucy is dead (or imprisoned). She would never have supported the the Vatican's interpretation of the third secret. I have a question regarding her: Did she ever express doubts about the validity of the papacies of Paul VI and John XXIII, considering the fact that she spoke of "diabolic disorientation", and said that "in 1960 it [the meaning of the third secret] will be clearer."
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.
^