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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has The Catholic Hierarchy Died?

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

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

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

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

Is the Roman Martyrology infallible?

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

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

ST. ALBAN AND HIS CONVERTED GUARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

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

“What is your opinion on Geocentrism?”

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

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

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

Regarding no financial support for the Byzantine church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was Lefebvre’s ordination by Bishop Lienart valid?

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

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

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

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

What about Fr. Ronald Ringrose?

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

What does MHFM believe on salvation and baptism issue?

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

What is the Modernist definition of baptism of desire?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting comment from reader on certain false traditionalists

Yes, you are exactly right.

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison with JPII and Alcimus of the Machabees

That is a very interesting point.

What are the “Infallible” statements which refute NFP?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was Garabandal A True Marian Apparition?

Thanks for the support. To answer your questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-Vatican II teaching on NFP, how is it refuted?

Mark, we are familiar with the quotations.  They are not infallible statements; and they are not even Papal statements. They are a few somewhat ambiguous responses from members of the Holy Office before Vatican II and they reflect the growing Modernism that was capturing large parts of the clergy from the time of the late 1800's to Vatican II – as exemplified by the rampant denial of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation found in many theology texts and manuals from the period. So, to reiterate, they are not infallible or binding, and, if they do in fact endorse birth control by means of NFP (as they seem to), they contradict the Magisterial teaching of Pius XI that the primary purpose of marriage and the marriage act is the procreation of children – and that the other purposes or ends of marriage must always be subordinated to the procreation of children. NFP violates this by subordinating the procreation of children to other ends by deliberately trying to avoid it.

I take issue with you calling Fr. Wathen “Mr.” Wathen

Art, there is no obligation to refer to heretics, even those validly ordained, as "Father."  The Councils of the Church did not hesitate to refer to Arius, Nestorius, and the other heretics simply as Arius, Nestorius, etc. even though they were priests and Bishops.

II Council of Constantinople, 553, Can. 11: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches..."

Where does the Church teach that heretics cannot please God by their prayers, praises and worship?

In Sess. 5, the Council of Trent's Decree on Original Sin, it is declared:

"... our Catholic Faith, without which it is impossible to please God' [Heb. 11:6]". 

An exchange on no salvation outside the Church

No, the Catholic Church has never taught that.  The dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation has been solemnly defined at least seven times by Popes speaking from the Chair of St. Peter.  Each time the Church has infallibly defined that all who die without the Catholic Faith are lost without exception. Never once were any exceptions mentioned about “invincible ignorance.”  It is just the opposite: all exceptions were always excluded. (more…)

Is Mel Gibson a Sedevacantist and did The Passion contradict the Bible?

To your first question, I believe Mel would claim to be a Sedevacantist, although he is not very outspoken about this. In his interview with ABC he gave the line about how the traditional Mass has “never been abrogated.” This is an argument that non-sedevacantists who accept Paul VI as the Pope make. Regarding the charge that The Passion contradicts scripture, no, I don’t believe The Passion contradicts scripture, except for one glaring change that I noticed that Mel Gibson made to the words of Our Lord. This change was made by Mel to appease the Christ-denying Jews. In the part of the movie where Jesus stands before Pilate (the part that corresponds to John 18:36 ff.), Mel Gibson has Jim Caviezal say:

“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants should certainly strive that I should not be delivered into the hand of this people.”

“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants should certainly strive that I should not be delivered into the hand of THE JEWS.”

Wasn’t “for all” used in an Aramaic Mass?

Some have claimed – most notably Michael Malone, now deceased – that the Traditional Maronite Rite used "all" in its Consecration; but this is not true. After issue #1 of our magazine came out Michael Malone wrote us a letter attempting to refute our article on the New Mass by bringing forward this “proof” that the Maronite Rite used all in the Consecration. But Malone was completely wrong; for it was only a modern mistranslation of the Aramaic word in the Maronite Rite which used "all." The word all is not found in the Traditional Maronite formula of Consecration.   The original Aramaic word is "sagueeia." Sagueeia has been mistranslated in certain English Maronite Liturgies as “all.” It means many, not all. But Michael Malone, who was a heretic who was desperate to defend the New Mass and Vatican II, spread this untruth and deceived a great many. No traditional liturgy ever approved by the Church has used “all” in the Consecration, nor could it, as our recent article on the New Mass showed. This is because a Sacrament must signify the grace it effects and vice versa. “All” does not signify the grace proper to the Eucharist – the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ – because not all are members of the Mystical Body.

Is the CMRI an okay place to attend Mass?

We believe that you could attend the Mass of certain priests of the CMRI (who are not notorious about their heresy); but you cannot give them any money because they deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as explained in the section about them our website and in our book. They even believe with Bishop Robert Mckenna that Jews who reject Christ can receive baptism of desire. This is why Fr. Puskorius (editor of their magazine) didn’t respond to our public letter asking him about that issue. Also, we do not believe that anyone should attend the Mass of Bishop Pivarunas, since Pivarunas is a notorious heretic who has repeatedly made his heresy known in a very public fashion.

Letter Exchange/Debate on John Paul II’s heresies with President of “Catholics United for the Faith”

1/20/05 – My first letter to Leon Suprenant, President of “Catholics United for the Faith” (CUFF), after he visited our website and said that it promotes schism

2/3/05 – Mr. Suprenant’s Response to Bro. Peter Dimond’s Letter

2/15/05 – Bro. Peter Dimond’s Response to Mr. Suprenant

First Letter to Leon Suprenant, President of “Catholics United for the Faith” (CUFF), after he visited our website and said that it promotes schism

Mr. Suprenant had written one of our readers and told him that our website was promoting schism (because we don’t accept the Vatican II religion).  He informed this person that he (Mr. Suprenant) was open to addressing his concerns about the continuity of the post-Vatican II religion with traditional Catholic teaching.  So, I wrote him the following letter.

(more…)

“The Second Vatican Council was a completely legitimate exercise of the Church's Magisterium“

You lack even the courage to put your name.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: Please--surely we can do better than that. I didn't know who to address my post to, so I settled for initials. My name is Jim Russell. Pleased to meet you, Brother Dimond. Now that we've established that I have courage, and cordiality, could you please address the question I asked in my initial post? If you prefer to avoid the question, then just tell me where you would like to begin.

Sincerely, Jim Russell

MHFM: Before I answer the question, please tell me if you regard John Kerry (the former presidential candidate who supports abortion) as a Catholic or a heretic?  He has not been excommunicated by your Bishops.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: Brother Dimond: I am assuming that your request means that, by answering your question, you will agree to answer mine. I accept.

Heresy is defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith." Are we on the same page with its definition? Assuming so, we must still ask the question, "who gets to decide--officially--what is heresy and what is not"?

But I will say that in my personal judgment, *which I submit to the authority of the Church's Magisterium*, Kerry's baptismal identity makes him Catholic in name, although his personally held beliefs are far from the authentic Catholic faith. Kerry's pro-abortion views, for example, are clearly anti-Catholic. The Magisterium has said so. Heresy, however, is an official term used in magisterial, authoritative declarations regarding the formal status of someone's relationship with the Church. *I* can't declare someone to be a "heretic" in any official sense at all. I don't think it makes sense for private individuals to label *other* private individuals as heretics when that is the prerogative of the Magisterium alone.

Kerry can and will be denied Communion in at least some dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church. The jurdicial penalty of excommunication would clarify his official status, but wouldn't necessarily make him a heretic, if, for example, he is officially declared instead to be an apostate or schismatic, etc. Heresy is a precise juridical term used officially in specific situations by those competent to officially declare what is heresy and what is not.

So, back to you and my question.

Jim Russell

JIM: Brother Dimond:

I'm beginning to think I've scared you off!  I'm assuming you're willing to continue discussion, correct?

Jim Russell

MHFM: No, that is quite far from the truth.   I'm involved with many things, many of which are of a more pressing priority than refuting a heretic who thinks that the apostate John Kerry is a Catholic.  After all, you did send your e-mail yesterday.  I was planning on responding to you when I had time, such as now.

First, I must say that you are quite deceived.  You really believe that you are a Catholic, and you are trying to tell me what is Catholic teaching, while at the same you hold that the apostate John Kerry is a Catholic and you don't believe the Vatican II Antipopes endorse false religions. This means that you believe that one can obstinately support abortion and hold the Catholic Faith.  Sorry to say, but this is heresy.  I must say that you understand nothing at all about the unity of Faith in the Church, heresy, Magisterial teaching or how the Church views heretics.  Have you even read Pope Pius XI's 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos?  If not, you better since this encyclical condemns as apostasy the very ecumenism that is exemplified by the Vatican II Antipopes.

How about Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum of 1896?  Have you read the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Pope Pius IX?  I think you  better educate yourself on what the Catholic Church traditionally teaches because you think that you are a defender of the Catholic Faith when you are actually acting as its enemy - by defending the Vatican II apostasy.   You asked three different questions: 1) produce a quotation from the Vatican II Antipopes which endorses false religions; 2) produce a heresy in Vatican II; and 3) produce Catholic teaching which says that an individual can determine that another individual is a heretic.  I will answer one question at a time, so that these e-mails don't get too long.  After I answer them I will ask you a few questions.

You write:

“For starters, can you show me *anywhere,* in the teachings of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, it is declared that an individual Catholic has the authority to declare another person to be a heretic? I look forward to your reply.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Here we see the teaching of the Catholic Church that individuals who recede from the teaching of the Magisterium must be considered outside the Church (e.g. heretics).  This is the teaching of all the ancient fathers, as Pope Leo XIII declares.  Below we also see St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, illustrating the same teaching that individuals can and must consider as heretics those who demonstrate a rejection of Catholic teaching.  He states that a Catholic condemns as heretics those who show themselves to be by their external works.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

And this is traditional teaching of course, since only a tiny fraction of all the heretics who exist have traditionally been declared to be heretics by name.  For instance, Hans Kung and Billy Graham have never been declared to be heretics, but Catholics are obligated to consider them as such, since they obstinately reject Catholic teaching.  But you don’t understand this, since you don’t, as of yet, have the Catholic Faith.  So, I have answered your question.

You also asked for me to produce a quotation from the Vatican II Antipopes which endorses false religions.  Well, here you go:

John Paul II, March 21, 2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan...” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)

This is total apostasy.  This is an endorsement of a false religion and a rejection of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.  I could quote many more, but this should suffice for this e-mail.  The Catholic Faith holds that Islam is an abomination which leads to damnation, as it rejects the True God and the Catholic Faith.  Antipope John Paul II asked for its protection.  He was an apostate who completely rejected the Catholic Faith.  That is why he also kissed the blasphemous Koran, etc., etc., etc., etc.

You write:

“There is no such thing as the "Vatican II religion." The teachings of the Second Vatican Council are the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. One who "protests" againsts these teachings would rightly be called "protestant," which is probably the best description of the views espoused by your web site.”

Sir, again you are completely deceived.  You call what is Catholic “Protestant,” while you are in communion with men who agree that Justification takes place by “faith alone” and that the Council of Trent no longer applies (Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, approved by John Paul II).  But since you say this, would you agree that Benedict XVI promotes Protestantism by encouraging the formation of Protestant and non-Catholic Monasteries such as the Monastery of Taize?

The famous ecumenical Monastery of Taize is located in the south of Burgundy, France.  The Taize community “is made up of over a hundred brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant backgrounds, from more than twenty-five nations.” [Taize]

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 304: “For more than a decade, Taize has been, without a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical inspiration, emanating from a local center inspired by a particular ‘charism’.  Similar communities of faith and of shared living should be formed elsewherein which the foregoing of a communal reception of the Eucharist would, without ceasing to be a hardship, become comprehensible and in which its necessity would be understood by a prayer community that cannot answer its own prayer but is, nevertheless, calmly certain it will be answered.”

He praises the non-Catholic Monastery of Taize; and he encourages similar communities to be formed, thus encouraging people to become non-Catholics.  Do you agree that this shows that Benedict XVI is a promoter of Protestantism?  If not, you show yourself to be an abominable hypocrite.

Last point: there are many heresies in Vatican II.  I will just cite one: its teaching that non-Catholics may lawfully receive the Holy Eucharist.  This is a rejection of Catholic teaching, which has always forbidden non-Catholics from receiving Communion.  This prohibition of the Church is rooted in the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-Catholics sin when receiving Holy Communion since they are outside the Church.  It cannot be changed.  Vatican II contradicted it and taught heresy.

Vatican II, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27: “Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”

So, since you asked me three questions, I will ask you three: 1) have you read Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Mortalium Animos?  2) Do you admit that Benedict XVI promotes Protestantism by encouraging the formation of non-Catholic Monasteries?  3) Do you admit that Benedict XVI’s teaching that Catholics shouldn’t convert Protestants and schismatics is heresy (see below)?

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology(Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism.  The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.  On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.  On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the Church. While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the problem.  This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action.  That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it.  As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

I quoted the entire passage without a break so that people can see that this is not being taken out of context in any way.  Ratzinger specifically mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith (and accept Vatican I: “the full scope of the definition of 1870”).  He specifically rejects it as the way to unity.  This is totally heretical and it proves that he is a complete non-Catholic heretic.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928: “… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: … Pope John Paul the Great was holier than you or I will ever likely be.....The kissing of a book does not make or UN-make Popes. Surely you understand that; surely your faith in the promises of Christ and the Magisterium’s protection by the Holy Spirit runs deeper than that?

***** Sir, again you are completely deceived.   You call what is Catholic “Protestant” while you are in communion with men who agree that Justification takes place by “faith alone” and that the Council of Trent no longer applies (Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, approved by John Paul II).*******

Maybe you are completely deceived. Who gets to decide? But, just for fun, why not produce for me a *direct* quote from a universal teaching of the Church that claims the Catholic Church teaches “sola fide”—I want to see the exact words that back up your claim above. I *know* the Joint Declaration to which you refer does not state that....

Can you show me *anywhere* in Church teaching where it specifically says that an individual can or should dissent from the *Magisterium’s* authority and that an individual is free to apply doctrines regarding offenses against the faith to the Magisterium itself?...

Jim Russell

MHFM:  Oh really?  So you “know” that the Joint Declaration doesn’t teach Justification by faith alone.  Read it and weep.  (You also blaspheme Jesus Christ by asserting that Antipope John Paul II was “John Paul the Great” after you’ve seen his apostasy.)

Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works."

This is the annex to the official statement made by your Vatican II sect under John Paul II with the Lutheran sect.  Your sect is Protestant.

Antipope John Paul II, Jan. 19, 2004, At a Meeting with Lutherans From Finland: “… I wish to express my gratitude for the ecumenical progress made between Catholics and Lutherans in the five years since the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification… It is my hope that Lutherans and Catholics will increasingly practice a spirituality of communion, which draws on those elements of ecclesial life which they already share and which will strengthen their fellowship in prayer and in witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 28, 2004, p. 4.)

So, what you claimed to “know” was completely wrong.  Perhaps you should realize that you are also wrong in other areas relating to this matter.  Regarding your second question, it doesn’t make any sense.  You are asking me to produce a Magisterial teaching that allows Catholics to reject the Magisterium.  A Catholic can never reject the Magisterium.  The Magisterium is the infallible, unerring teaching authority of the Catholic Church.  All teachings of the Magisterium must be accepted, since they are infallible.

Pope Pius XI, “Divini Illius Magistri,” December 31, 1929:  “Upon this magisterium Christ the Lord conferred immunity from error, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all.” (Denz. 2204)

Your contradictory question reveals your lack of understanding of what the Magisterium is: it is the infallible teaching authority of Christ’s Church exercised by a true Pope when speaking from the Chair of Peter solemnly or reiterating in his ordinary and universal teaching that which has always been held from Scripture or Tradition.  The defined teachings of the Magisterium are an unchangeable body, the deposit of Faith, such as those promulgated at the Council of Nicaea, Florence, Trent, etc.  Neither the persons of Bishops nor the teaching of Bishops constitute the teaching of the Magisterium, unless they are reiterating what has already been taught by the Magisterium.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 1, 1311-1312: “We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Let those who devise such plans be aware that, according to the testimony of St. Leo, ‘the right to grant dispensation from the canons is given’ only to the Roman Pontiff.  He alone, and no private person, can decide anything ‘about the rules of the Church Fathers.’”

Pope Leo XIII, Officio sanctissimo #7, Dec. 22, 1887: “…the Roman Pontiff, whose sole right it is, by divine command and appointment to be the guardian of that doctrine, to hand it on and to judge truly concerning it.”

The fact that Bishops don’t represent or possess the infallible teaching of the Magisterium is proven by the fact that a General Council is worthless if not approved by the Pope.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless.”

So, your question, if it were posed in a way consistent with Catholic teaching, would be: Can you show me *anywhere* in Church teaching where it specifically says that an individual can reject as invalid, due to his manifest heresy, a man who is allegedly elected Pope by the College of Cardinals?  The answer is a resounding Yes.  There is an entire Papal Bull about it, called cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV. Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.  This Bull teaches that a heretic cannot be accepted as a valid Pope, even with the unanimous consent of the Cardinals.  This proves two points which directly refute you: 1) it proves that it is a real possibility for a heretic to be elected, otherwise Paul IV wouldn’t have issued the Bull.  2) It proves that individuals have the authority to recognize when such a claimant to the Papacy has defected into heresy, and therefore to reject him on that basis as invalid; otherwise the Bull, telling Catholics they can reject as invalid one who defects from the Faith, would be contrary to the Faith.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

 (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

This is also why St. Robert Bellarmine teaches Catholics that a validly elected Pope who is a manifest heretic must be rejected as not the Pope.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: *******Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works." This is the annex to the official statement made by your Vatican II sect under John Paul II with the Lutheran sect.  Your sect is Protestant.*****

Wrong. You quote the “annex” document without ever considering the declaration text itself, which says: “The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith (my emphasis) in Christ.” And: “Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, (my emphasis) we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

And:  “Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith.” And: “According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide).” It is clear from the Declaration itself that the teaching know as “sola fide” is a *Lutheran*--not Catholic teaching. What both sides *agree* upon is that justification occurs by GRACE ALONE, not faith alone.  So, by robbing the Annex statement of all context, you feel you can make the wild claim that Pope John Paul II’s “sect” somehow altered centuries of Catholic teaching and now teaches the Lutheran doctrine of “sola fide” to 1 billion Catholics who never quite seemed to learn the new teaching? Nor did the world media ever comment on this incredible story. Nope. Don’t think so…

Jim Russell

MHFM: First, I must say that you are just a liar.   I quoted the very declaration from the Annex to the Joint Declaration which teaches Justification by “faith alone” on the Lutheran and the “Catholic” side.  What part of this don’t you understand?

Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works."

If anyone wants to see how much of a lie your claim that the “Catholic” side didn’t agree to Justification by “faith alone” is, he or she can simply click here Official Common Statement and Annex and then scroll down about ½ page to the Annex, 2, C to see for himself or herself that your sect (which claims to be “Catholic”) officially declared Justification by “faith alone.”

WE CAN ALL READ.  IT BLATANTLY TAUGHT JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE.  You are just a complete liar, as we can all see.  But, as we will see shortly, we don’t even need this quote to prove the point.

Second, to say that I don’t consider the whole text of the Joint Declaration is funny.  I’ve pointed out in I don’t know how many articles and columns that, in addition to the fact that the Annex teaches Justification by faith alone, the Joint Declaration itself declares that none of the LUTHERAN TEACHING in the JD is condemned by the Council of Trent.  (for a short article on this issue, go here: Antipope John Paul II denies the Council of Trent again by commemorating the heretical JD with the Lutherans on Justification.)

Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century [i.e., the Council of Trent], in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent."

This means that none of the teaching of the Lutherans in the JD is condemned by the Council of Trent, including Justification by “faith alone.”

Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "26. According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide)."

DOES EVERYONE FOLLOW?  I WILL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, MR. RUSSELL: THE…TEACHING…OF…THE…LUTHERAN…CHURCHES….PRESENTED…IN…THIS…DECLARATION…DOES…NOT…FALL…UNDER…THE…CONDEMNATIONS…FROM…THE…COUNCIL…OF…TRENT.  But the heresy of Justification by “faith alone” was condemned by the Council of Trent approximately 13 times.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 10, ex cathedra : "'You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone' (Jas. 2:24)."

Thus, the statement in #41 of the JD means that the “Catholic” side agrees that all the dogmatic canons and decrees in Trent condemning faith alone are overturned, and that faith alone is no longer contrary to or condemned by Trent.  It is not possible for heresy to be any more formal than this.  So your sect holds that “faith alone,” the Lutheran heresy, is not condemned by Trent. THAT IS A FACT.  IF YOU DENY IT – AS YOU MOST PROBABLY WILL – YOU JUST MOCK GOD AND SHOW YOURSELF TO BE A COMPLETE LIAR AGAIN.

Third, you say that if this were true the media surely would have picked up on it.  The media did, of course.  When the Joint Declaration was published in 1999 there were hordes of articles and news reports declaring that “the Catholic Church” overturned its view on Justification.

It’s also interesting to note that when I quoted the clear heresy of “faith alone” in the Annex to the Joint Declaration, you then directed me to the Joint Declaration itself, as if it “saved” everything.  This is clearly false, as we can see.  But what’s interesting is that in e-mails to the heretics Leon Suprenant and James Likoudis – both complete heretics and obstinate defenders of the Vatican II apostasy like yourself – they did just the opposite (see Suprenant’s Response in E-Mail Discussions)!  When I quoted the heresies for them in the Joint Declaration itself, they both directed me to the Annex to clarify everything!  This just shows that their – and your – whole defense of the Vatican II apostasy is based on false and easily refuted lies.  It shows the bad will and dishonest tactics of heretics such as yourself.  This kind of false and dishonest tactic – which attempts to prey upon people’s ignorance with statements that are completely untrue, such as that the “Annex” clarifies everything – will work with someone who is not familiar with the documents concerned.  But it won’t work with someone who is very familiar with the documents and knows that all three involved in the Joint Declaration teach blatant heresy.

So, in conclusion, even if we prescind completely from the teaching of Justification by faith alone that your sect officially made in the “Annex,” the Joint Declaration itself clearly identifies the Lutheran heresy and specifically says that it is not condemned by Trent.  Nothing could be more heretical.  But you will probably deny this, even though it is undeniable, because you are a liar and of bad will.  Sadly, one must say that you are a prime example of a person of bad will and why God sends people to hell for all eternity.

JIM: …I believe your claim is that anyone guilty of heresy automatically loses ecclesial office, including and especially the Pope. A necessary consequence of this view, seems to me, is that this point of view therefore unravels the office of the Papacy from the very *beginning* with, you guessed it, Pope St. Peter himself.  Poor Pope Peter, the prince of the Twelve, he to whom Jesus gave the power of the Keys and called the Rock, was most definitely a heretic, according to the evidence we have. His astounding heresies number at least two, possibly three.

The two *obvious* examples of Pope Peter’s heresies are, first, his absolute and unequivocal denial of Jesus during Jesus’ arrest and trial. Second, Peter’s falling in with the “Judaizers” as described in Galatians. A possible third heresy, one which happens just after his being appointed the “Rock” by Jesus, is his denial of the fatal mission of Christ, a denial met with Jesus calling Peter “Satan.”  Now according to your view, such heresies would leave Peter devoid of his papacy. Therefore you must have an explanation as to why you *don’t* think Peter an antipope or a heretic. I’d like to hear it.

God bless, Jim Russell

MHFM:  So, the position that a heretic loses the Papacy automatically “unravels the office of the Papacy from the very beginning.”  You seem quite sure of yourself, just as you were quite sure about the Joint Declaration on Justification.  You were so sure of yourself that you wrote the following because we hadn’t yet responded to your objections concerning St. Peter:

Dear Brother Dimond:

…I didn't really think you could handle the question I posed about the "astounding heresies" of St. Peter himself; apparently you fear the truth, or at least the consequences of what you call the "truth." I will be searching for a reuptable Catholic publication that will be willing to publish an account of my experience of "dialoguing" with you, expecially the nature of the easy victory you've given me by ignoring my question about St. Peter, ironically your namesake, I presume.

I'm sorry if I've disturbed your peace by demonstrating how ludicrous your views really are by applying them to the first Pope, but consider it an opportunity for growth and conversion of heart. Right now your heart must be too hardened to reply to my questions about Peter, so I will have to be satisfied with the victory of the truth despite your silence. If you ever do decide to confront my question about Peter, please do let me know.

Until then, know that you will be in my prayers.

Jim Russell

You really walked into this one.  But that’s exactly what blinded heretics do.  If you knew the teaching of Vatican I thoroughly, you would know that Vatican I defined that ST. PETER DID NOT BECOME POPE UNTIL AFTER THE RESURRECTION:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 1, 1870: “And upon Simon Peter alone Jesus after His resurrection conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold, saying: ‘Feed my lambs,’ ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:15].”

In Matthew 16:18-20, Our Lord told St. Peter that He will build His Church upon him; but Our Lord did not confer the supreme jurisdiction upon St. Peter until after the Resurrection with the words of John 21:15: ‘Feed my lambs…”  With one quotation from Catholic dogma your heretical mouth is stopped.

Your only other objection in this regard would then be St. Paul’s rebuke of St. Peter in Galatians 2:11 for refusing to sit with the gentile converts who had not been circumcised.  This was an imprudent action, no doubt, which St. Peter corrected.  It was not heresy, but could have led to heresy if St. Peter had continued with it and expanded upon it.  The Haydock Commentary on this passage notes: “…the opinion of S. Augustine [on this passage] is commonly followed, that S. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence.”  All the Doctors of the Church are familiar with and/or have commented on this passage, including St. Robert Bellarmine, etc.  Yet, all of them who addressed the issue of a heretical “Pope” still agreed that a heretical “Pope” would cease to be Pope.  They saw nothing in Galatians 2:11 which contradicted that because there is nothing.  There are actions which clearly constitute heresy and apostasy, such as kissing the Koran (and thereby directly endorsing a false religion) or bowing one’s head with the Jews as they pray for the Coming of the Messiah (and thereby denying Christ) or conducting interfaith worship with pagans and idolaters – all committed by Antipope John Paul II.  But the action of St. Peter, while being imprudent and something that could lead to heresy if not changed, was not a clear-cut heretical or apostate action.

It’s sad to say, but it doesn’t matter what facts one brings forward, or what heresies one can quote from the Vatican II Antipopes to prove the point to you, you would reject it all because you are, at this time, dishonest to the core.  Your “Pope” rejects Jesus Christ:

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones, 1998, pp. 53-54: “I have ever more come to the realization that Judaism (which, strictly speaking, begins the end of the formation of the canon, that is, in the first century after Christ) and the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel’s Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazereth.  The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways.  For the most part, only after the Second World War did we begin to understand that the Jewish interpretation, too, in the time ‘after Christ’, of course possesses a theological mission of its own.”