Where does it mention the Rosary in the Bible?

Besides the meditations on the mysteries of Christ and Our Lady (all of which are indicated in Scripture), the Rosary is comprised essentially of two prayers, the Our Father and the Hail Mary.  Both come from the Bible.  The Our Father is given to us by Our Lord in Scripture (Matthew 6; Luke 11), and the main part of the Hail Mary is found in Luke Chapter 1.  The Hail Mary is as follows:  HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE, BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB JESUS, HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD PRAY FOR US SINNERS NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH.

“Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou among women” comes directly from Luke 1:28. “Blessed art thou among women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb [Jesus]” comes directly from Luke 1:42. “Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death” is not found in Scripture, but completes the above prayer with a sublime petition to the Mother of God.

Pope St. Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon, 451, ex cathedra: “… our Lord Jesus Christ… indeed born of the Father before all ages according to His Divinity, but in the last days born of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, according to His humanity; for us and for our salvation, one and the same Christ…”

“Blessed Alan De la Roche who was so deeply devoted to the Blessed Virgin had many revelations from her and we know that he confirmed the truth of these revelations by a solemn oath.  Three of them stand out with special emphasis: the first, that if people fail to say the Hail Mary (the Angelic Salutation which has saved the world) out of carelessness, or because they are lukewarm, or because they hate it, this is a sign that they will probably and indeed shortly be condemned to eternal punishment.  The second truth is that those who love this divine salutation bear the very special stamp of predestination. The third is that those to whom God has given the signal grace of loving Our Lady and of serving her out of love must take very great care to continue to love and serve her until the time when she shall have had them placed in heaven by her divine Son in the degree of glory which they have earned.”  (The Secret of the Rosary, p. 45.)

“These words [Luke 1:48] are a prediction of that honor which the Church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin.  Let Protestants examine whether they are in any way concerned in this prophecy.” (Challoner)

Do you know of a Benedictine ‘monastery’ in New Mexico?

Yes, we are familiar with them. Unfortunately, they do not hold the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, but agree with the SSPX that souls can be saved without baptism and in false religions. They also hold that John Paul II is the Pope. They are basically an SSPX Monastery. Certain SSPX priests go from the SSPX into the Monastery and then back into the SSPX, although they would “officially” claim that the Monastery is not strictly affiliated with the SSPX. I also believe that Bishop Williamson has gone there to perform ordinations, although I’m not 100% certain about this. Thus, their positions would be in line with the SSPX.

What about the Hindu abomination at Fatima?

Celso, We addressed that issue in the Heresy of the Week from 5/28/04.  You will find it in the Heresy of the Week Archive on our website.

Hindus Worship the devil at Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima

Do you know anything about Fr. Andrew Wingate, a priest who claims to bilocate, etc.?

Pat: I looked at his website.  Fr. Wingate is a complete heretic who believes that Catholics should unite with the schismatic "orthodox" sects.  Thus, he promotes schism and the denial of the Catholic Faith.  He even promotes that these schismatics have true visionaries.  He also believes that John Paul II is the Pope and that John Paul II is on the side of God.  This alone proves that Wingate and his “messages” are not of God, but of the devil; for he denies the defined Catholic Faith.  He also promotes the totally false and wicked "revelations" of Fr. Gobbi, who thinks that John Paul II is "Mary's Pope."  Nothing could be further from the truth or more clearly from Satan - as one look at the photo galleries on our website shows. Thus, Fr. Wingate gives himself away as a tool of Satan.  Wingate is probably having visions and, who knows, maybe he does bilocate, but these visions, bilocations and false miracles are given to him by Satan in order to promote him as a false prophet to deceive people and keep them inside the phony Vatican II sect.  These are the false signs and wonders spoken of in 2 Thess. 2 that accompany the reign of Antichrist. In various places in the world today there are things happening with other Novus Ordo false prophets which are similar to the things that Fr. Wingate claims are happening to him.

Have you ever contacted Bishop Williamson about the dogma?

Yes, we’ve sent Williamson materials in the past, which he rejected. He is adamantly opposed to the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation. He is not reasonable, especially when one considers what he believes on the core issues of the day. His declaration that he rejects John Paul II’s “Canonizations” even though he regards him as the Pope (a declaration which is quoted in our article “the Heresies of the SSPX”) reveals him to possess absolutely no Faith in the Papacy whatsoever.

“I have a question on EENS”

It is possible for a person who has been baptized, and believes in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, to be saved without having set foot in a Catholic church. For instance, some of the heathen whom St. Isaac Jogues converted were instructed in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) and were baptized just before they were tortured and killed. They were Catholics even though they never set foot in a Catholic church. In order to be a Catholic and a member of the Church, one must at least be baptized and, if above reason, know at least the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) – and not reject any teaching of the Church. Persons such as those described above (baptized just before death by St. Isaac Jogues) are also subject to the Roman Pontiff, just like infants, by virtue of their baptism. Such persons would not be exceptions to the dogma at all, since those persons are Catholics and are within the bosom and unity of the Church; they are also part of the visible Church, by virtue of their baptism and acceptance of the essential mysteries of Catholicism.

What about “Pope” Michael?

Frank, “Pope” Michael has no credibility, nor does any person who claims to be Pope today. One cannot just elect himself Pope, as he has done. If I recall correctly, “Pope” Michael was “elected” by a conclave consisting of his mother and two of his relatives! The true Catholic Church still exists with that remnant of Catholics which maintains the deposit of Faith whole and inviolate, just like it did during the Arian crisis, although today’s crisis is even worse because it is the Great Apostasy.

Could “Sister” Lucia be drugged?

No, this “Sister” Lucia is not on drugs. We saw the “beatification” ceremony as well, and “Sister” Lucia was so enthusiastic about meeting John Paul II that she grabbed John Paul II’s hand and kissed it immediately after receiving the Novus Ordo cookie. Supposing that John Paul II were a Pope and the Novus Ordo Mass valid (neither of which is true), the real Sister Lucia would never do this; she wouldn’t interrupt her concentration immediately after receiving Our Lord to grab the hand of the Pope. She would wait until after Mass to pay her respects. But the fake “Lucia” was so intent on showing everyone her devotion to Antipope John Paul II that she couldn’t even wait until the end of the Novus Ordo and the consummation of the cookie to kiss his hand.

Where are the Catholic priests and is it a sin to support the SSPX?

The sad fact of the matter is that there are only a few priests in the country that are fully Catholic. To answer your question about donating to the SSPX after one has been made aware of their heresies, the answer is yes it is a mortal sin for one to obstinately contribute to the SSPX, and by doing so one is showing Jesus Christ that he endorses the idea that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Jews can be saved without the Catholic Faith, which they promote in their books. 

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

Can one sing in a Christmas concert that will be held in a Protestant “church”?

Barbara, no, a Catholic should not sing in the Choir if the concert is going to be held in the heretical Protestant "church," even if the choir is non-religious.

Why won’t the Eastern “Orthodox” accept the true Faith?

That’s a good question. If they were truly devoted to Our Lady they would become Catholic; but, in my opinion, the answer as to why they don’t is, in most cases, due to intellectual pride.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, on Heretics: “We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride.”

How to pray the 15 Decade Rosary?

Gene, I'm glad that you received the material.  The answer to your question is yes, you can go straight to the next Our Father for the first Sorrowful Mystery.  And, actually, you don't have to say the Hail Holy Queen, etc. until you are finished with the Glorious Mysteries (i.e., if you are going to say all 15 mysteries).

Is it necessary to bash John Paul II?

First of all, John Paul II is not a Pope because he is not a Catholic. He does not believe in the Council of Trent, but holds that Justification by faith alone is acceptable; he does not believe in Vatican I, but holds that Eastern Schismatics should not be converted to a belief in the Papacy; he does not believe in Jesus Christ, but holds that Jews can reject Him and be saved because their covenant with God is still valid. He holds that Islam and Animism are good religions; and he holds that all men are saved. Why is it necessary to expose him? One really shouldn’t have to answer this question, but the answer is that there are countless reasons. He is the head of the phony Vatican II sect which is deceiving millions of those who profess to be Catholic; he is the main enemy of Jesus Christ and Our Lady in the world by far. Since he claims to be the Pope, people are following his program of apostasy and accepting it because they think he is the official teacher in the Church. Further, basically all of the abominations, sacrileges, scandals and heresies of the Novus Ordo sect with which one is bound to battle ultimately emanate from, or have their origin in, his activity or that of his phony predecessors, Paul VI and John XXIII. One good example is the recent Hindu abomination at Fatima. How was this able to occur? It was able to occur because they were just following John Paul II’s lead in Assisi. He did the same thing at Assisi: he turned the sacred convent over to false religions for them to worship the devil. Thus, to attempt to expose the Hindu outrage at Fatima without exposing Antipope John Paul II is foolish and futile. That is why those who think they are opposing the evil of the Vatican II revolution by simply exposing the Bishops or the radical theologians without getting to the heart of the problem (John Paul II) are swatting gnats when there is a big bird right in their faces, Antipope John Paul II. Those who fail to understand what Antipope John Paul II is or what he is all about are deceived and will be deceived about what is happening to the Catholic Church in the last days.

Is Racism a sin?

Racism is a sin, which is a result of pride and hatred of neighbor. Racists are infatuated with themselves; they think that they are so great that they despise those of a different race or nationality. But while they are filled with how great they think they are, they are a disgrace in God’s sight. God doesn’t care what race or nationality you are; He cares if you love Him and hold the true Faith. The Catholic Church is universal, i.e., it embraces equally all men of whatever race or nationality.

Pope Pius XI, Rerum Ecclesia (#26), Feb. 28, 1926: “Anyone who looks upon these natives as members of an inferior race or as men of low mentality makes a grievous mistake.”

Understanding God’s Justice and His hatred of the wicked?

Jason, thank you for your question. God’s mercy is for those who fear Him (Luke 1:50). When His mercy is mentioned in Scripture, it is given to those who fear, obey and cooperate with His grace. Those who begin by fearing Him and obeying Him then come to see His love. That is why Scripture teaches that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 110:10). But those who spurn Him, deny Him and disobey Him get His wrath. And it is an awful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, as St. Paul says (Heb. 10:31). What I think is important to take from your e-mail is that God’s truth is a serious thing. He casts the wicked into Hell for all eternity; and He tortures them day and night for ever and ever, as the Apocalypse says. This is important for us to understand because there are many people we hear from all the time, especially among the “traditionalists,” who reject the truth because they are too liberal. They refuse to believe that this many people could be condemned by God and could be going to Hell. They need to re-read the words of Jacinta of Fatima: “Lucia found Jacinta sitting alone, still and very pensive, gazing at nothing. ‘What are you thinking of, Jacinta?’ ‘Of the war that is going to come, and of so many people who are going to die and go to Hell.’” (William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, p. 94) And it must be repeated that God is not unreasonable, of course. The people who go to Hell deserve it because they obstinately refuse to see the truth. God’s yoke is sweet and His burden is light (Mt. 11:30) for those who believe the truth, as people should – and for those who want to do the right thing with a pure intention. But for those who deny the truth or refuse to see things God’s way or refuse to obey Him, it is an awful thing.

Concerning home-schooling and singing for non-Catholic services

S. P., thanks for the questions. To answer your questions,

1. Unfortunately, you should not send your child to the Vatican II school, and we believe that it would be a mortal sin, as her soul would be placed in grave peril by the pagan influence of the Novus Ordo "Catholics," not to mention the apostasy of the school itself.  Her chances of saving her soul in such an environment would be very, very slim. So, she is without question better off not going and you should not send her.  You should continue to home-school her.

2. A Catholic cannot sing for non-Catholic services or the Novus Ordo churches.  Seek first the Kingdom of God and His justice and all will be added on to you (Mt. 6:33).  The only response a Catholic can give is that to sing for these services would be a compromise of the Faith, a participation in non-Catholic worship, and a grave sin.

Without a true Pope, how can we be sure of dogma?

C. V., a Catholic has sure Faith in the dogmas because they were proclaimed from the Chair of Peter, whose teaching God will not allow to err. The fact that a Pope is not currently reigning has no bearing on the certainty of those dogmas. Also, the Church does not need restoration.  It still exists, but has simply been reduced to a remnant. 

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832:“Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune.”

What is a good book for potential converts from Protestantism to read?

Davy, there are many good books, but the one I would recommend off the top of my head for a potential convert from Protestantism is The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis De Sales (available from TAN Books). 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (also available from TAN) is also very good.

Get our book for only $5.00 (price includes shipping): The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church (click here to order or to read more about the book)

Are Novus Ordo Confessions valid?

A Confession to a validly ordained Novus Ordo priest (i.e., a priest ordained in the Old Rite) would be valid if the Novus Ordo priest says "I absolve you from you sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."  But the person you mentioned persists in going to the invalid Novus Ordo "Mass," and therefore that person is sinning gravely.  Thus, he does not approach Confession with the proper resolution to avoid this grave sin and therefore his Confession is sacrilegious.

Aren’t you misusing the term Apostate?

No, we are not misusing the term apostate. It is perfectly accurate to label Antipope John Paul II and his Bishops apostates. Pope Pius IX labels the “Old Catholics,” who merely denied Papal Infallibility (one dogma), as apostate priests in Graves ac diuturnae.

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 2), On the “Old Catholics”: “Having violently occupied parishes and churches with apostate priests, they have not neglected any deception or cunning to lead the children of the Catholic Church into wretched schism… Because it has always been the especially characteristic of heretics and schismatics to use lies and deception, these sons of darkness… [the ‘Old Catholics’] repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine… But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme Magisterium.”

“Luther would have the world believe Him (God) to be the direct author of sin and damnation… Calvin followed; he took up the blasphemous doctrines of the German apostate…” (Vol. 10, Feast of the Sacred Heart, p.428.)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by that very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is that supernatural virtue by which… we believe what He has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of human reason [author: that is, not because it seems correct to us], but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Can a Catholic pray for the deceased Fr. Paul Wickens?

We are sorry to hear about the death of Fr. Wickens, but the sad fact is that Catholics cannot pray for him, because there is no evidence that he died a faithful Catholic, and there is much evidence to indicate that he died adhering to and accepting various heresies. Without question he will be praised as a hero by many of the false traditionalists.  Any time any priest dies who celebrated the Latin Mass they honor him as if he were a Saint, no matter what he believed.  All that matters to them is that he said the Latin Mass – and he’s going straight to heaven.  Whereas Martin Luther cried “Faith Alone,” the false traditionalist heretics hold to Salvation by the Latin “Mass Alone.”  They could care less what the priest actually believed. (more…)

What about “material/formal pope sedevacantism” (Cassiciacum Thesis)?

THE ABOVE VIDEO IS VERY IMPORTANT AND REFUTES THE CASSICIACUM THESIS

Steven, you are referring to the Cassiciacum Thesis or the “material/formal pope” idea.  It is not actual sedevacantism.  It's the theory that the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy have valid elections, but not jurisdiction over the Church.  Adherents of this idea also hold that the Vatican II Sect is not an entity different from the true Church and that all members of the Novus Ordo (who have not been declared heretics) are Catholics!  They make many anti-sedevacantist arguments to defend their false position.

The thesis also holds that the Vatican II antipopes receive jurisdiction to appoint cardinals, and that the apostate 'cardinals' of the Vatican II Sect are true cardinals.  The thesis is false, and amounts to a position half-way between the position of the SSPX and actual sedevacantism.  If a man is a pope, he has full and supreme jurisdiction over the Church.  If not, then he lacks jurisdiction proper to the office.  Also, heretics cannot be validly elected pope.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1831)

The proposition anathematized above, especially the bolded portion, is what many 'recognize and resist' false traditionalists have fallen into.  A true pope cannot be separated from his authority.  But if a man is not a true pope, then he does not have jurisdiction proper to the papal office.  The Vatican II claimants to the Papacy are heretics.  Since they are outside the Church, they have no jurisdiction.  The Cassiciacum Thesis must be rejected.  The main adherents of the Cassiciacum Thesis in our day are the members of Bishop Donald Sanborn's group, who also deny the Catholic faith by professing that members of false religions can be saved without the Catholic faith.

(more…)

Am I going to lose my soul going to the Novus Ordo?

Yes, Wayne, in charity we must tell you that if you continue to go to the invalid Novus Ordo you will be doomed to Hell. You are not receiving Our Lord Jesus Christ, but a piece of bread. You are not going to a Catholic Mass, but a Protestant service. You can still save your soul, but not if you continue to go to the Novus Ordo. If you cannot get to a traditional Mass that is acceptable, you must stay home on Sunday. The third Commandment of God is to keep holy the Sabbath. It is a Church law to attend Mass on Sunday. This only obliges if there is a true Mass available, with a true Catholic priest celebrating it. The English Martyrs in the 16th century were tortured horribly simply because they would not countenance or participate in a service just like the Novus Ordo, which had been imposed upon them.

The CMRI does not have valid priests?

Dear Mr. & Mrs. K., You are not correct about this. Paul IV’s Bull is referring to acts proper to an office; he is not referring to the administration of the Sacraments. It is heresy to say that heretics cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist. This is why the Church has always acknowledged that heretics like the Greek “Orthodox” have valid priests and valid Masses. A heretic can also absolve from sins in certain situations, which is why a Pope and Saints have taught that a Catholic could even go to a Greek “Orthodox” in danger of death. Someone has clearly misled you in this area. The CMRI is definitely heretical, that is clear, and so no one is required to attend their Masses, but their priests are valid and their sacraments are valid. It seems as if you have been speaking with some of the heretics in the Northwest who promote the idea that none of the traditionalist priests have jurisdiction, which is completely wrong. Almost all of those people also deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, by the way.

“What did you think of Malachi Martin?”

I spoke with Malachi Martin on the telephone a few times when Martin was living.

I know the following information will upset some people, but the truth must be told. The fact is that Malachi Martin held to and publicly spread numerous heresies, as well as the most pernicious and misleading errors regarding the current apostasy. For instance, when he was on the Art Bell radio program he stated that pagan, American Indian religions glorify Jesus. These are pagan, false religions of the devil; yet Martin says they glorify Jesus. Martin's statement was completely heretical and a denial of the Faith.

Malachi Martin also publicly stated in an interview with Bernard Janzen that Buddhists can be saved and that John Paul II has never taught heresy! Only one who was completely unfamiliar with Antipope John Paul II (which Martin was not) or a conspirator or an apostate would ever dare to utter such an outrageous statement. Malachi Martin also promoted the false and evil notion that John Paul II is just a weak man surrounded by much worse men who are the real problem, thereby exonerating John Paul II from guilt in the process. This is exactly what the devil wants people to believe, and it has been imbibed all over the “traditional” and false “conservative” movement. We've seen firsthand how his books, especially Windswept House, have falsely influenced many traditionalists (especially in the SSPX, among whom his views are rampant) to exonerate John Paul II from the Vatican II apostasy, and shift the focus to other people - other people who, in reality, are just following his program of apostasy. This has given many a false hope in the false Vatican II sect.

Malachi Martin would occasionally reveal some very interesting facts, and then mix them in with all kinds of falsehoods. He was a mass of confusion. For instance, he stated publicly on the Art Bell program that the validity of the Novus Ordo is questionable (which means that it must be considered invalid), and then when he was asked where one could go to a Seminary he would just say, "find a good one"! Why didn't he tell the poor person asking the question that he couldn't go to any Novus Ordo Seminaries since they are celebrating "Masses" that cannot be considered valid? Martin would speak about Paul VI being the choice for the “Anti-Church,” while at the same time he defended the Anti-Church of which Paul VI was the head.

The fact is that he was a man who misled countless souls into error and a false explanation of the Vatican II Apostasy - his false explanation being all the more deceptive because of the conservatism and the truths with which it was mixed. And he may have been far worse than we can even imagine. We have seen a serious expose of Malachi Martin which brings forward evidence that he was an agent of international Judaism. One must ask: why were his books published by major Jewish Publishing houses? There is also a book written about him called Clerical Error, in which the author (a prominent man) claims that Martin carried on an affair with his wife. Some may say that this is all meant to discredit him, but we have an acquaintance who met Malachi Martin and saw him give a woman a deep kiss on the lips. This only lends credence to the claims of the author of Clerical Error. We also know a Biblical Scholar who was going to co-author a book with Malachi Martin. This Biblical Scholar knew Martin well and was not convinced that he was not working for some secret Society.

Many don’t know that Malachi Martin’s first book was called Jesus Now. This book denies the Second Coming of Christ and is filled with blasphemies against Our Lord Jesus Christ. Martin never publicly renounced this most disgusting work. These are the facts about Malachi Martin, as disquieting as they may be to some.

Fall 2004

More corroborating info on the apostate Malachi Martin from a reader

Thank you, Ed, for that very interesting information, which is perfectly consistent with the activity of Malachi Martin as seen by others, as well as his repeated and public denials of the Catholic Faith. There is an interesting story which corroborates this, which we would like to share with our readers. We had a friend who is a Biblical Scholar, who presently lives in New York City. He knew Martin very well. At lunch one day, he, Martin and others got into a conversation about Lazarus and the Rich Man in the Gospel (Luke 16). During the conversation, Martin said he believed that the Rich Man was in Hell, and someone at the table disagreed with him and gave the reasons why. The person who disagreed apparently didn’t think that the Rich Man could be in Hell, since the Rich Man showed compassion on his brothers by asking that God warn them of the fires – activity inconsistent with a damned soul, according to this man. So, when this man said that he disagreed with Martin, Martin alleged responded: “Who do you think you are a [bleeping] Saint,” bleeping used to denote the use of profanity.

But your e-mail sheds light on a reality that few can see because their faith is too weak, that men who present themselves as strong Catholics can actually be this wicked and evil inside. So many souls have been misled by this phony apostate; he has effectively neutralized a large part of the traditionalists by his false thesis that John Paul II is not the real problem, and the damage and the evil he has done in falsely shaping the view of people is difficult to put into words, especially among many of the shallow SSPX supporters, who fawn over people when they appear to have knowledge and erudition, while missing the important thing – what is the substance of their message? Are they saying anything of value? People are so deceived by this heretical apostate, that “Catholic Treasures” was even selling a tract commemorating him.

Fall 2004

A Defense of Malachi Martin

If the only evidence against Malachi Martin were personal accounts against his character, then perhaps one could scrutinize each of those accounts and, by slim chance, determine that they were all false (which I don't believe). But Malachi Martin is on record with public heresy: stating that Buddhists can be saved and thereby denying Catholic dogma; stating that pagan religions glorify Jesus, which is apostasy; stating that John Paul II has never denied the Faith, which is heresy; and for years feeding people a misleading and heretical explanation of the Vatican II apostasy. This demonstrates that Malachi Martin was not of God and did not possess the true Faith.

Fall 2004

A Defense of Malachi Martin Part 2

It is a common tactic of liberals to attribute to the person with whom they disagree a position that he doesn't hold to avoid addressing his facts which they find so disquieting. This is precisely what you have done multiple times. You have implied that I am advocating "burnings at the stake"; drawings and quarterings; sending everyone else in my path to Hell; and condemning the world in toto. None of those things did I espouse or suggest, but you bring up these emotionally charged ideas to skirt away from the fact that you refuse to admit that Malachi Martin's statements that Buddhists can be saved and that pagan religions glorify Jesus are heretical and denials of Catholic Faith. If you cannot say that those statements are denials of Catholic Faith then I'm sorry to say that you don't possess it. It is not my fault that Malachi Martin believed these things.

Frankly, it is not charitable to do what you did above: to attribute to someone something which he didn't advocate but which seems bad in order to cover up the weakness of your position. It is also very cowardly, because it demonstrates that a man cannot deal with the facts. The two facts that I cited above are not based on flimsy second-hand information, but public statements Martin made.

I'm sad to say that if your attitude in this regard is "I cannot judge," then you would have said the same thing in the 4th century during the Arian crisis when they quarreled over that "little" matter - only a word in Greek - whether Jesus was of one substance with the Father or merely of a similar substance. Many I'm sure said the same thing as you, "I'm just a sinful layman and I won't judge or condemn the Arians, let alone the Semi-Arians," and they wound up denying the Divinity of Christ. To be unable to denounce Malachi Martin’s statements that Buddhists can be saved; that pagan religions glorify Jesus; and that John Paul II has not taught heresy, is to be unable to profess the Faith of Christ.

I hope you realize that you are not looking at this matter fairly.

What do you think of Anne Catherine Emmerich?

The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich are not trustworthy.  Catholics should not read them.  The vision that you quoted is heretical because it says that there are pagans in Purgatory.  That is contrary to Catholic Faith. The fact is that there are no pagans in Purgatory.  All who die as pagans go to the fires of hell (de fide, Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence).  To be saved it is necessary to have the Catholic faith.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

The vision you quote is not the only vision of Anne Emmerich that is heretical.  There are other visions of Anne Emmerich that are contrary to Catholic dogma, such as when she supposedly saw a Jew and Protestants in Purgatory.  All of those visions must be rejected.  They are contrary to dogma.  The “visions” of Anne Emmerich are a prime example why Catholics must be very careful when reading private revelation.  It can come from the devil.  A Catholic should not read Anne Catherine Emmerich, except perhaps to expose her false visions, for one's faith will be attacked and possibly corrupted.  It is true that Anne Emmerich did not write down her own visions, but had an editor doing it for her.  Thus, it's possible that the editor is responsible for some of the false statements they contain.  However, it is more likely that she simply received a number of false visions from the Devil.

Bob Sungenis again misleads the people with the same false and already refuted arguments

Bob Sungenis, a “Catholic” apologist and defender of Vatican II and the New Mass, was recently asked a question by a man who was concerned that John Paul II may not be the Pope. The man had read an argument that John Paul II cannot be the Pope because John Paul II’s new Code of Canon Law teaches that Catholic priests can lawfully give Holy Communion to non-Catholics. The man was troubled by the argument that if John Paul II is the Pope, then the Catholic Church has officially erred in allowing Communion to be given to non-Catholics.

(more…)

Where is the Church in the world today?

The answer to your first question is that the Church exists with those traditional Catholics who maintain the faith whole and inviolate and do not compromise with heresy or the apostate Bishops.

St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.” Fr. William Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.” Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”

Can one gain a Plenary Indulgence if there is no Pope?

We believe that if one prayed the three Hail Marys for the intentions of the Papacy or the Church it would be sufficient to gain the Plenary indulgence, but I’m not aware of any specific decree or writing on the topic. In any case, this question would not be particular to our own time, but would apply in any Papal Interregnum (any period when we have no Pope, due to the death of the Pope, etc.)

Concerning heretical Traditional Priests, the SSPV and salvation

First of all, you need to get your facts straight. We never said that the SSPV priests believe in universal salvation. We said that they believe that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. This is not a question, this is simply a fact! They also believe that it’s possible for non-Catholics to be saved in any religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Protestantism, Islam, etc. They hold the same heresy as Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, who taught that souls can be saved in any religion.

Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”

Notice the etc. The word “etc.” means “and the rest, and so on”! Bishop Lefebvre is saying that there are many other religions in which people can be saved, because there is not one religion about which he could tell you that all those who die as members of it are definitely lost without a doubt. That souls can be saved in these religions is the belief of the SSPV and the CMRI, not just the SSPX.

Almost all of the traditionalists priests hold that even Jews who reject Christ can be saved. Bishop McKenna is probably one of the most “traditional” of the independent priests or Bishops in the country and he holds that even Jews who reject Christ can be saved, as proven in our article. Bishop Sanborn holds the same thing. He kicked a friend of ours out of his church in Michigan, and during the course of the conversation admitted to our friend that it’s possible for a Jew who rejects or hates Christ to be saved without the Catholic Faith.

So, you complain about our assertion that there are hardly any traditional priests that can be trusted with regard to the Faith. Well, that’s too bad, because that’s just simply the truth. Only a heretic would state that the CMRI, SSPX, SSPV and the other independent priests who believe that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith in non-Catholic religions are not heretical. According to you, a Catholic is supposed to have no problem with priests who believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. can be saved, just as long as they don’t profess belief in universal salvation.

I will now quote from the SSPV Responds section of our new book to document how the SSPV denies the dogma and contradicts themselves word for word in the process.

THE SSPV RESPONDS

The SSPV responded to us in the Fall, 2003 edition of their publication. Referring to Brother Michael Dimond and myself as “Brothers Grim” on the introductory page of their issue, Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV writes:

Oh really? Remember that claim (“no traditional Catholic priest is disputing the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation”) dear reader. And remember how I have pointed out that the thing which most characterizes the denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation is dishonesty. Remember how we have seen that the heretics on this issue speak out of both sides of their mouth with a satanic double-tongue: one minute they tell you that the Church is necessary and the next they deny it; one minute they tell you that there is no salvation outside the Church and the next they explain it away. So now watch the heretics at work. Watch how the heretics of the SSPV teach on page 1 of their Fall, 2003 issue the exact thing they deny on the introductory page. On pages 1-8 of this same issue, the SSPV carries an article by Francis Fenton explaining what they consider the real meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation.

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall, 2003, p. 1: “It is a doctrine of our faith that ‘outside the Church there is no salvation.’ This does not mean, however, either that an individual is assured eternal salvation simply because he is a member of the Roman Catholic Church or that he cannot be saved because he is not an actual member of the body of the Church.”

Did you get that? Outside the Church There is No Salvation “does not mean… that he cannot be saved because he is not an actual member of the body of the Church.” But on the introductory page of this issue, Fr. Jenkins told us on behalf of the SSPV that no traditional priest “is disputing the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation”! They assert here the exact heresy – word for word – which they claimed to reject on the introductory page! The statement here on page 1 of their publication (that persons who are not members of the Church can be saved) thus proves that their statement on the introductory page (that no one is disputing the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation) was a complete lie! It confirms what we have been saying all along about these dishonest heretics. The heretical Society of St. Pius V priests are so blinded by their denial of this truth that they cannot see that they are word for word contradicting themselves, in a matter of a few pages and in the very issue in which they purport to clarify their belief as in accord with Catholic teaching.

Thus, as I have said, it is a fact that the SSPV rejects the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and they lie every time they say they uphold Catholic teaching on the necessity of Church membership for salvation. They indeed believe and obstinately hold that Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, etc. can be saved without the Catholic Faith. In fact, the same article in their Fall, 2003 issue proceeds to deny the dogma in bold fashion over and over again.

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 5: “A non-Catholic, then, who, through no grave fault of his own, is not a formal member of the Church at the moment of death, is certainly not going to lose his soul on that score.”

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 6: “So, is it true and an article of faith that ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’? Yes, it is. Does this mean that a person, no matter how praiseworthy a life he may have led, will be eternally lost who, through no grave fault of his own, is not an actual member of the Church at the moment of death? No, it does not.”

But the SSPV’s Fall, 2003 issue is not yet finished denying this dogma.

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

This is brazen heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.