Recent Featured Videos and ArticlesEastern “Orthodoxy” RefutedHow To Avoid SinThe Antichrist Identified!What Fake Christians Get Wrong About EphesiansWhy So Many Can't Believe“Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World ExistsAmazing Evidence For GodNews Links
Vatican II “Catholic” Church ExposedSteps To ConvertOutside The Church There Is No SalvationE-ExchangesThe Holy RosaryPadre PioTraditional Catholic Issues And GroupsHelp Save Souls: Donate

E-EXCHANGES

E-Exchanges

This section of our website (which is updated daily) contains some less formal – and short – e-mail exchanges that we’ve had which we feel may be of value to our readers.  We will include those portions of the exchanges we deem relevant and valuable.  We often add bolding and underlining which are not necessarily that of the other party.  This section also frequently includes, not only e-exchanges we have, but also our notes, updates and comments. Section containing some important recent posts. E-Exchange Archives.

Does Pope Eugene IV contradict Scripture?


April 10, 2004

Pope Eugene IV professed that even if a protestant or orthodox sheds his blood for Christ, he is still damned unless he incorporates himself with the Roman Catholic Church before his death.  My question is " Isnt this saying contrary to Sacred scripture? Our Lord clearly stated "Whoever saves his life shall lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake shall gain it. Furthermore, Jesus stressed "Blessed are you when they insult you, revile you and persecute you and speak all kinds of evil against you for My sake, be glad and rejoice during that day for your rewards are very great in heaven.

Please reply. Thanks and God bless.

MHFM

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

The Antichrist will be a Jew?


April 5, 2004

[Regarding the article, Antipope John Paul II: Final Antichrist Revealed]

Interesting article, but I have one criticism:  the antichrist will and must be a Jew, according to Our Lord Himself…

MHFM

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

Asking for clarification on Canonization article


March 31, 2004

To MHFM:

HI,
I am confused here.

Quote from our Canonization article: >>>>The issue is whether a Pope can err on a matter of Faith proclaimed to the whole Church and declared in virtue of his apostolic authority.  And the answer to this, as St. Thomas, St. Robert and the rest agree, and as I have shown, is a resounding no.
Antipope John Paul II and his counterfeit Vatican II sect and realize that he has no authority to Canonize because he is not the Pope?>>>>

Aren't you contradicting yourselves? In one paragraph you say JPll CAN canonize and then you turn right around at the end and say he has NO authority.
Which is it?
I would appreciate your help in understanding this.....
JMJ,
Cathy

MHFM

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

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

What Mass does MHFM accept?


March 26, 2004

Brother Dimond,

What Mass do you accept at the Monastery?

Yours in Christ,

L.H.

MHFM

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

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

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

Council of Florence on Circumcision; and Man becoming God?


March 21, 2004

Bro. Peter,

Regarding the quote from Pope Eugene IV from the Council of Florence, it appears that this prohibition concerns only those who observe these rites AND place hope in them as necessary for salvation.   If in this is not true than all males that have been circumcised have sinned mortally.  I think that this quote from Pope Eugene holds if someone believes and participates in these Jewish rites with a belief that they are necessary for salvation.  Now, don't get me wrong I am not condoning the participating in these rites at all, for I,  believe as you do that it is sinful to do so,  even out of curiosity, as the other two quotations state.  

TO JESUS THROUGH MARY

Paul

ps Did you see the article in the last Remnant by Solange Hertz titled "Universal Vocation"?  It quotes many Saints that say that  man was created to be God.  One example is from St. Basil of Caesarea, "Man is a creature under orders to become God"  Another example from the article is "St. Augustine would sum up their doctrine in a definitive formula: Factus est Deus homo ut homo factus fieret Deus. 'God became man that man may become God'.

    While reading this article, I kept reverting back in my mind all the writings of JPII.  Any comments on this? 

MHFM

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

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

(more…)

^