What about this Message from Bayside?

Michelle, the Bayside Messages are false, and not from God, but from the devil.  We will soon be posting a more complete exposé which proves this.

The False Apparitions at Bayside, NY

Francisco’s vision of a demon

Our readers may find it interesting to know that Francisco had a vision of a demon on top of a rock – one separate from the July 13, 1917 vision.  Here is Lucy’s account:

 “One day we were looking for a place called the Pedreira, and as the sheep passed by, we climbed from one rock to another, trying to make our voice echo from the bottom of these great ravines.  Francisco, as usual, retired to the hollow of a rock.  After a long pause, we heard him crying, calling on Our Lady and invoking her. 

     “We were very disturbed, thinking something had happened to him.  We began to look for him, saying: ‘Where are you?’  ‘Here!  Here!’  But it still took us a little while to reach where he was.  We found him, finally, trembling with fear, still on his knees, very much shaken and incapable of getting up.  ‘What’s the matter with you?  What happened?’  In a voice half suffocated with fear, he told us: ‘One of those great big beasts from hell was just here, breathing fire.’” (quoted in The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 2, pp. 41-42)

What’s with this “sedevacantist” group in Puerto Rico?

During the “reign” of Antipope John Paul II, there were many false apparitions in various parts of the world.  One of the common characteristics of these false messages was not only that John Paul II was supposedly great and “Mary’s Pope,” but also that the one after him would be the Antipope.  These false messages prophesied that John Paul II would be the last true Pope.  This group in Puerto Rico is simply holding on to - and applying – these false messages from the devil.  That is why this group thinks that John Paul II was great and a valid Pope, but rejects Benedict XVI as an Antipope – something completely illogical and totally ridiculous, since John Paul II held the same heresies as Benedict XVI.  These false apparitions also told people that the New Mass is valid, while deploring the many abuses there.  (The devil knew that that was just the kind of thing that would trip up certain conservatives.)  That is why this phony group still goes to the New Mass, but opposes the abuses.  The devil was able to keep countless people going to the New Mass with similar messages in the false Bayside apparitions.  To put it simply: this group in Puerto Rico is used by the devil to discredit the sedevacantist movement.  God has abandoned these people to spiritual blindness because they receive not the love of the truth (the traditional teachings of the Church) and follow apparitions instead (2 Thess. 2).  During the reign of Antipope John Paul II, this group would have been one of the biggest defenders of Antipope John Paul II and vigorously opposed to true sedevacantist arguments.  To include them with sedevacantists is a travesty of justice.  But these are the deceptions that God allows people to follow because they don’t love the truth.

Should Females Wear Pants?

Our position is that females should not wear pants.  In our opinion, the only exceptions for this would be women who are, for instance, working by themselves and doing some unusual form of work that a dress makes extremely cumbersome.  Or, for example, another young woman asked us if she could play a recreational game of volleyball with her friends wearing a pair of long, baggy pants that basically look like a dress and are very modest.  She explained that she really couldn’t play the game wearing a dress.  We don’t see a problem with wearing such a pair of pants for the game.  And in areas where there is massive poverty and the children truly cannot afford a dress, obviously exceptions would be permitted.  But we do believe that women who wear pants and obstinately refuse to wear dresses simply because they don’t want to are putting their souls in jeopardy.  Padre Pio certainly thought so; he wouldn’t even hear the Confessions of women who didn’t wear long dresses, and he allegedly refused absolution to a woman who didn’t wear, but sold, female pants.  But many women, especially young women today, don’t know that Traditional Catholic women don’t wear pants.  It is our duty to inform them charitably.

Some comments on Msgr. Fenton’s book, The Catholic Church and Salvation

As noted in some of our recent e-exchanges, some of our readers were interested in comments on Msgr. Fenton’s 1958 book The Catholic Church and Salvation.  One baptism of desire defender who wrote to us called it a “masterful” treatment of the dogma.  Well, we just got our hands on a copy of this book.  I’ve only had a chance to read a few pages so far, but here is what Fenton (in truth, a pernicious heretic who corrupted and denied the dogma) says in the introduction to his book:

(more…)

Another question about salvation: more dishonesty from the SSPX

Thank you for your question.  I also read the newsletter.  First of all, I must mention again that the SSPX – as usual! – misquotes the Council of Trent.  Fr. Fullerton quotes the Council of Trent as saying that one cannot be justified “except through” water baptism or the desire for it.  This is a lie.  This is from the horrible mistranslation found in Denzinger.  Being dishonest heretics, the SSPX, the CMRI and many other groups consistently misquote it as well and don’t care to correct it.  Well, they won’t get away with this obstinate misrepresentation of a Council before the Judgment Seat of God. (more…)

Were you on Jack Blood’s radio program?

Yes, both of us were on Jack Blood’s show about the real John Paul II.  We don’t have a transcript.  It went pretty well; we were able to make some of the main points briefly, but there are so many commercial breaks that it is very difficult to get into any depth.  You can only just cover the basics quickly.  We were glad to be able to do it, and hopefully it made the information available to people who haven’t heard it.

A question about a finer point of Pope Leo’s declaration on water baptism

Thank you for your question, which is a good one.  It involves a subtle, but important point.  Pope Leo the Great’s dogmatic teaching that the Spirit of Sanctification, the Blood of Redemption and the Water of Baptism are inseparable is on the topic of sanctification, not Baptism.  The three are inseparable in sanctification.  Notice that “sanctification by the Spirit” and purification from sin is what he is talking about. (more…)

Some comments on a fresh heresy from the Eternal Apostate Television Network

Thank you for your e-mail.  That’s quite a heresy.  I wonder if any of the EWTN supporters who heard or watched the sermon ever deeply considered its implications: what it means about their presence at church, their entire effort to attend “Mass,” etc.  I wonder if it hit any of them that this means that being a Catholic, praying the Rosary, going to Confession, etc. is pointless. (more…)

“I have started to watch the DVDs, and I am impressed...”

A Question on Mass Attendance from a traditionalist

Sue, unfortunately all of the CMRI priests believe that members of false religions can be united to the Church and saved without actual possession of the Catholic Faith.  So, you cannot financially support any of them under pain of mortal sin.  They also defend the sinful birth control practice of Natural Family Planning.   But if the priest is not notorious and imposing about these issues at the particular chapel you attend, then we are of the opinion that you could continue to go and receive the sacraments as long as you don’t support them in any way.  For more on this issue consult the section of our website Where To Receive Sacraments. We’re very glad to hear about your return to the true Catholic Faith, and your having been able to recognize the phoniness and Protestantism of the Vatican II sect.  Keep praying the Rosary and holding the Faith without compromise and things will work out for you.

More on Ferrara and the Ecumenism of the Return

Another website which linked to our article concerning: Benedict XVI rejects the “ecumenism of the return” – and Chris Ferrara omits to mention it, has issued a retraction of sorts stating that Chris Ferrara may not have deliberately omitted this astounding heresy from his article.  To avoid any confusion, we want to make it very clear that WE ISSUE NO RETRACTION WHATSOEVER, since no retraction is necessary. 

(more…)

A prospective convert writes in

That's great to hear.  Attached is a summary of the Catholic Catechism.  I would read it and become familiar with its contents.  Before you would be baptized, you would have to be convinced of all the Catholic dogmas, including Outside the Church There is No Salvation - which includes rejecting Protestantism. (more…)

A comment on the response to Ferrara

A comment on the Bob Sungenis article

A reader from India writes in

Thanks for the interest.

A change of position from a reader on the salvation dogma

That’s great to hear; yes, we will.

Baptism: Philip and his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch

The apostasy of Vatican II confirmed at the local level – an interesting article from a “Benedictine” Nun

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?” 

(more…)

Question about heresy in Fr. Denis Fahey’s writings

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.”

The lies about “baptism of desire” continue, and coining a new phrase

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…)

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

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

An Eastern Schismatic writes in

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

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

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When was the New Rite of Ordination introduced?

It was introduced June 18, 1968.

What about “The Da Vinci Code”?

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

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

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

A Sacrament cannot take place without matter or form.

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

A Sacrament cannot take place except through matter or form.

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

I continue with Mr. Sungenis’ response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Mass and the Luminous Mysteries

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