| Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | “Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
| Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed | Steps To Convert | Outside The Church There Is No Salvation | E-Exchanges | The Holy Rosary | Padre Pio | Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups | Help Save Souls: Donate |  |
Answer: 1) People misunderstand in what the visibility of the Church consists; 2) the Vatican II sect cannot be the visible Church of Christ; and 3) the Vatican II sect denies this very teaching on the visibility of the Church.
No one denies that the Catholic Church could cease to exist in all the countries of the world except one. The visibility of the Church does not require that the faithful or the hierarchy be seen in every single geographical location around the globe. This has never been the case. Simply, the visibility of the Church signifies real Catholic faithful who externally profess the one true religion, even if they are reduced to a very small number. These faithful who externally profess the one true religion will always remain the visible Church of Christ, even if their ranks are reduced to just a handful.
And that is precisely what is predicted to happen at the end of the world.
Our Lord Himself indicates that the size of the Church will become frighteningly small in the last days.
Luke 18:18: “But yet, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?”
The Apocalypse of St. John seems to indicate the same.
Apocalypse 11:1-2:
“And there was given me a reed like unto a rod, and it was said to me: Arise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that adore in it. But the court, which is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not, because it is given to the Gentiles…”
The Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, a popular compilation of Catholic commentary on the Scriptures by Rev. Fr. Geo. Leo Haydock, contains the following comment on Apoc. 11:1-2.
Catholic Commentary on Apoc. 11:1-2, Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims Bible:
“The churches consecrated to the true God, are so much diminished in number, that they are represented by St. John as one church; its ministers officiate at one altar; and all the true faithful are so few, with respect to the bulk of mankind, that the evangelist sees them assembled in one temple, to pay their adorations to the Most High. - Pastorini.”[1]
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has never taught that there must always be a certain number of bishops or faithful for the Church to exist. As long as there is at least one priest or bishop and at least a few faithful, the Church and the hierarchy are alive and visible. Today there is much more than a handful of faithful left who maintain the unchanging Catholic Faith. Thus, the argument of our opponents from the standpoint of visibility lacks any merit and is contrary to the prophecies of Sacred Scripture.
Further, during the Arian crisis the true Faith was eliminated from entire regions, so much so that there were hardly any Catholic bishops to be found anywhere.
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.”[2]
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.”[3]
The Arian heresy became so widespread in the 4th century that the Arians (who denied the Divinity of Christ) came to occupy almost all the Catholic churches and appeared to be the legitimate hierarchy basically everywhere.
St. Ambrose (+382): “There are not enough hours in the day for me to recite even the names of all the various sects of heretics.”[4]
Things were so bad that St. Gregory Nazianz felt compelled to say what the Catholic remnant today could very well say.
St. Gregory Nazianz, “Against the Arians” (+380): “Where are they who revile us for our poverty and pride themselves in their riches? They who define the Church by numbers and scorn the little flock?”[5]
This period of Church history, therefore, proves an important point for our time: If the Church's indefectible mission of teaching, governing and sanctifying required a governing (i.e., jurisdictional) bishop for the Church of Christ to be present and operative in a particular see or diocese, then one would have to say that the Church of Christ defected in all those territories where there was no governing Catholic bishop during the Arian heresy. However, it is a fact that in the 4th century, where the faithful retained the true Catholic faith, even in those sees where the bishop defected to Arianism, the faithful Catholic remnant constituted the true Church of Christ. In that remnant, the Catholic Church existed and endured in her mission to teach, govern and sanctify without a governing bishop, thus proving that the Church of Christ's indefectibility and mission to teach, govern and sanctify does not require the presence of a jurisdictional bishop.
It should also be noted that the hierarchy can be defined in two ways: the jurisdictional hierarchy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy.[6]
Pope Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentum (# 13), Oct. 7, 1954: “Besides – as has also been divinely established – the power of orders (through which the ecclesiastical hierarchy is composed of bishops, priests, and ministers) comes from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”[7]
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 parts of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It is possible that as long as the ecclesiastical hierarchy remains the hierarchy exists.
Non-sedevacantists who raise this objection cannot point to one real Catholic bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. To whom are they going to point? Are they going to point to "Bishop" Bruskewitz, who conducted an interfaith Seder Supper with a group of rabbis in his own cathedral during Holy Week?[8] Are they going to point to "Cardinal" Mahony or "Cardinal" Keeler?
If it’s true that there must be one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction somewhere (which is something that has not been proven), then he is somewhere. But it doesn’t change the fact that Benedict XVI and his apostate bishops are not Catholic and therefore not part of the hierarchy. Against a fact there is no argument; against this fact there is no argument.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Vatican II sect rejects the visibility of the Catholic Church, thus proving again that it’s not the visible Catholic Church!
Vatican II document, Unitatis Redintegratio (# 1):
“Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God.”[9]
Remember this one? At the very beginning of its Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican II teaches that almost everyone longs for a truly universal and visible Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel. Again, for those who doubt that Vatican II was here denying that the Catholic Church exists, we will quote Antipope John Paul II’s own interpretation of this passage.
John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 5, 1996, speaking of prayer with non-Catholics: “When we pray together, we do so with the longing ‘that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God’ (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1).”
John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 7), May 25, 1995: “And yet almost everyone, though in different ways, longs that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God (Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio, 1.).”[10]
So, if you accept the Church’s teaching on its visibility, that’s just one more reason to reject the Vatican II sect and its antipopes.
By the way, the idea of an invisible Church – taught by the Vatican II sect – has been condemned at least three times: Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896;[11] Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928;[12] Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 64), June 29, 1943.[13]
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896:
“‘Now you are the Body of Christ’ (1 Cor. 12:27) – and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error.”[14]
Moreover, here is an interesting quote from the Lay Investiture crisis (1075-1122). During this crisis the evil King of Germany, Henry IV, instituted an antipope (who was supported by many German bishops). Henry also appointed his own bishops who were also subject to the antipope. The result was two bishops in most dioceses and massive confusion.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, 1910, “Investitures,” p. 86: “There was now much confusion on all sides… Many dioceses had two occupants. Both parties called their rivals perjurers and traitors…”[15]
The point is: while we are currently dealing with an unprecedented apostasy, the Church has seen confusing times before, including those in which the true hierarchy was not easily ascertainable.
See other Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism
[1] The Douay-Rheims New Testament with a Catholic Commentary, by Rev. Leo Haydock, Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1991, p. 1640.
[2] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970, Vol. 2, p. 39.
[3] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 3.
[4] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 158.
[5 Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 33.
[6] Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, “Hierarchy,” Tan Books, p. 229.
[7] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 267.
[8] Catholic Family News, January, 1999.
[9] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 908.
[10] The Encyclicals of John Paul II, Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1996, p. 918.
[11] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 388.
[12] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.
[13] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 50.
[14] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 388.
[15] The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, 1910, “Investitures,” p. 86.
Chris Ferrara, ”A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” The Remnant, Sept. 30, 2005, p. 18: “Indeed, both the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law provide that no one may insist that an ecclesiastical office has been lost due to heresy unless this has been established by a declaration of the competent authority.”[1]
Answer: This is simply not true. Antipope John Paul II’s heretical and invalid 1983 Code states that such a declaration is necessary in Canon 194 § 3. But the 1917 Code doesn’t. The 1917 Code’s parallel canon to canon 194 is canon 188. Canon 188 of the 1917 Code does not contain this provision, but simply declares that a cleric who “Publicly defects from the Catholic faith” (188 § 4) loses his office by that very fact “without any declaration.”
Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.”[2]
Notice that the 1917 Code doesn’t say anything about a declaration being necessary; it says just the opposite – “without any declaration”! When one compares the two canons, one sees the glaring difference.
Canon 194.1-3, 1983 Code of Canon Law: “One is removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself: ... 2- who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church… The removal from office referred to in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.”[3]
This is probably why Ferrara provides no citation to the 1917 Code in his footnote; he only provides a reference to the 1983 code. Thus, we are dealing with another blatant falsehood from Ferrara.
See other Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism
[1] Chris Ferrara,”A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” The Remnant, Sept. 30, 2005, p. 18.
[2] The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, translated by Dr. Edward Von Peters, p. 83.
[3] The Code of Canon Law (1983), A Text and Commentary, Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, Edited by James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1985, p. 111.
Errors of John Hus, Condemned by the Council of Constance: “#20. If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown (as a reprobate), then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it."[1] – Condemned
Answer: No, the Council of Constance didn’t condemn the idea that a heretic would cease to be the pope at all. This is a serious misunderstanding of this proposition. As we see clearly above, the Council condemned something significantly different. It condemned the proposition that a wicked man would cease to be the head of the Church, since he is not a member of it. The proposition from the heretic Hus rightly asserts that one who is not a member of the Church cannot be the head of the Church, but it falls into trouble by stating that the pope ceases to be a member if he is “wicked.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”[2]
A merely wicked pope doesn’t cease to be pope, but a heretic or schismatic does. This is because heresy and schism and apostasy separate one from the Church, while other sins (no matter how grave or wicked they are) do not. Thus, we can see clearly that the proposition is condemning the idea that wickedness separates one from the Church. It is not condemning the truth that a heretic ceases to be the pope. In fact, many of the other propositions from John Hus which were condemned by the Council of Constance repeat the false idea expressed above in different ways: that the wicked are not part of the Church.[3]
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). 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 (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be pope.”
See other Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism
Answer: The Joint Declaration with the Lutherans by itself proves that the Vatican II “popes” are non-Catholic antipopes. The fact that John Paul II and Benedict XVI neither wrote the document nor signed it is completely irrelevant. They both approved of it publicly numerous times, and agreed with it.
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.”[1]
Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “… the important Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) …”[2]
James Smith could draw up a document denying the Immaculate Conception, and if you were to go around giving speeches about how great Smith’s document is, that would make you a manifest heretic. The fact that you didn’t write Smith’s document or sign it means nothing; you publicly approved of it. John Paul II and Benedict XVI publicly approved of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, which teaches that the worst Lutheran heresies are not condemned by the Council of Trent. They are manifest heretics.
See other Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism
Answer: No, indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is. The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church. It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days. This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."[1]
Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16!
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:
“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”[2]Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”[3]
St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”[4] (Intro. To Catena Aurea.)
Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell. Heretics are not members of the Church. That’s why a heretic could never be a pope. The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ. It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics.
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”[5]St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."
There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes. Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines. This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.
See other Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism
[1] Coll. Selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum. Caillu and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp 411-412
[2] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 113.
[3] Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 351.
[4] The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Regnery, Co: Chicago, IL, 1963, Vol. 1, pp. xxiv.
[5] Denzinger 423.
Answer: The authority a Catholic has to determine that heretics are not members of the Church is Catholic dogma, which teaches us that those who depart from the Faith are considered alien to the Church.
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.”[1]
Moreover, to assert that adhering to this Catholic dogma is to engage in private interpretation, as this objection does, is to assert precisely what Pope St. Pius X condemned in his Syllabus of Errors against the Modernists.
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[2]Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned[3]
Notice, the idea that dogmas are interpretations is condemned. But that’s exactly what this objection is asserting, whether those who make it will admit it or not. They are saying that to apply the truth of a dogma is “private interpretation.” Further refuting this objection is the fact that, in its Decree on the Sacrament of Order, the Council of Trent solemnly declared that the dogmatic canons are for the use of all the faithful.
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 23, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”[4]
The word “canon” (in Greek: kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. The Council of Trent is infallibly declaring that its canons are measuring rods for “all” so that they, making use of these rules of Faith, may be able to recognize and defend the truth in the midst of darkness! This very important statement blows away the claim of those who say that using dogmas to prove points is “private interpretation.” Catholic dogma is the authority of all who come to these correct conclusions.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 7), Aug. 15, 1832: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[5]
See other Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism
Answer: It is not true that Pope Liberius gave in to the Arians, signed any Arian formula, or even excommunicated St. Athanasius. Pope Liberius was a staunch defender of the truth during the Arian crisis, but his return from exile gave some the idea that he had compromised, when, in fact, he had not. We quote Pope Pius IX.
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 16), January 6, 1873, On False Accusations:
“And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy.”[1]Pope Benedict XV, Principi Apostolorum Petro (# 3), Oct. 5, 1920:
“Indeed, lest they should prove faithless from their duty, some went fearlessly into exile, as did Liberius and Silverius and Martinus.”[2]
According to Pope Pius IX and Pope Benedict XV, Pope Liberius didn’t falter in any way during the Arian crisis, and was falsely accused by the Church’s enemies for standing firm. Pope St. Anastasius I bears witness to this as well.
Pope St. Anastasius I, epistle Dat mihi plurimum, about 400 AD:
“For at this time when Constantius of holy memory held the world as victor, the heretical African faction was not able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we believe, our God provided that the holy and untarnished faith be not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men… For this faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is Dionysius, thus a servant of God, prepared by divine instruction, or those following his example of holy recollection, LIBERIUS bishop of the Roman Church, Eusebius also of Vercelli, Hilary of the Gauls, to say nothing of many, on whose decision the choice could rest to be fastened to the cross rather than blaspheme God Christ, which the Arian heresy compelled, or call the Son of God, God Christ, a creature of the Lord.”[3]
It was not Pope Liberius, but the pseudo-bishop Ischyras, who, before he usurped the See of Alexandria, ejected St. Athanasius from his See.
Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 14), April 13, 1791:
“Perhaps in appreciation of these actions, the bishop of Lidda, Jean Joseph Gobel, was elected Archbishop of Paris, while the archbishop was still living. He is following the example of Ischyras, who was proclaimed bishop of Alexandria at the Council of Tyre as payment for his sinful service in accusing St. Athanasius and ejecting him from his See.”[4]
See other Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism
OBJECTION- Pope Pius XII taught that an adult can be saved without Baptism in his speech to Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951. This proves baptism of desire.
“In the present economy there is no other way of communicating [sanctifying grace] to the child who has not yet the use of reason [other than Baptism]. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice [i.e., Baptism of Desire] for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open...."[1] --Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951
ANSWER- No, this a speech to Italian midwives; a speech to Italian midwives is not infallible.
In fact, in a Nov. 22, 1951, speech to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Pius XII repeatedly taught that the Earth is “billions” of years old.
Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "... the work of the omnipotent Creator, Whose power, aroused by the mighty ‘fiat’ pronounced billions of years ago by the Creative Spirit, unfolded itself in the universe and, with a gesture of generous love, called into existence matter, fraught with energy."
Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "Thus this energy, in the course of billions of years, is slowly but irreparably transformed into radiation."
Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "In the course of billions of years, even the quantity of atomic nuclei, which is apparently inexhaustible, loses its utilisable energy and matter approaches, to speak figuratively, the state of a spent and wasted volcano." (https://inters.org/pius-xii-speech-1952-proofs-god)
That’s completely wrong. It’s another example of why it’s crucial to distinguish between what popes teach with the full weight of the office and what they might say in other capacities.
Pius XII's speech to midwives is less authoritative, in fact, than Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Ad Salutem. In his encyclical of 1930, in discussing those who “beg for baptism” and die before being regenerated [i.e. baptized], Pope Pius XI makes his own the words of St. Augustine which declare that “utter ruin” is their lot. In other words, no man who begs for baptism can be saved by his desire without the waters of regeneration.
Pope Pius XI, Ad Salutem (#44), April 20, 1930: “Some bishops and priests were at a loss as to what course to pursue in the midst of so many crushing disasters. One of them asked Augustine his opinion: ‘Surely we know [Augustine said] that when such perils reach their crest and no escape is possible, people of both sexes of all ages are wont to flock to the Church. Some beg for baptism, some for reconciliation, some for the performance of penance, all for consolation and the sacraments to be made available and administered. In such a crisis, if ministers be lacking, utter ruin is the lot of those who leave this world unregenerated or unshriven.’”[2]
A pope is infallible only when speaking from the Chair of Peter or reiterating what the Church has always taught in her ordinary and universal Magisterium.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”[3]
Pius XII’s speech to midwives doesn’t bind Catholics. Further, his speech to the Italian midwives is not more authoritative than Pope St. Siricius’s letter to Himerius in 385, in which that pope strongly declares that the man who begs for regeneration and dies without it will not be saved.
Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385:
“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”[4]
The fact that popes can make mistakes in their fallible capacity is proven throughout Church history. Pope John IV wrongly attempted to defend the heretical words of Pope Honorius, which were condemned by the III Council of Constantinople.
Pope John IV, “Dominus qui dixit” to Constantius the Emperor, Regarding Pope Honorius, 641: “…So, my aforementioned predecessor [Honorius] said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh; and certain ones converting this to their own meaning, suspected that He taught one will of His divinity and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth.”[5]
In studying papal errors throughout history in preparation for its declaration of papal infallibility, the theologians at Vatican I found that over 40 popes held wrong theological views. In a notorious case of papal error, Pope John XXII held the false view that the just of the Old Testament don’t receive the Beatific Vision until after the General Judgment. But none of these errors were taught by popes from the Chair of St. Peter, just like Pius XII’s speech to Italian midwives is not a declaration from the Chair of St. Peter.
Perhaps the most notorious case of papal error in Church history is the “Synod of the Corpse” of 897. This was where the dead body of Pope Formosus – who by all accounts was a holy and devoted pope – was condemned after his death by Pope Stephen VII for a number of supposed violations of canon law.
“In late January 897 the terrible Duchess Ageltrude and her son Lambert II who called himself emperor, entered Rome. There very soon followed the nightmare scene graven forever upon the historical memory of Christendom. The decayed body of Pope Formosus was taken out of its tomb in St. Peter’s. It was dressed in pontifical robes, and under them even the hair shirt the ascetic pope had worn in life, was put on the corpse. It was propped upon a seat. It was charged with violations of canon law… A deacon was assigned as canon lawyer for the defense. The ‘case’ was heard. Pope Stephen VII pronounced the corpse guilty as charged… Its robes and the hair shirt were stripped off again. The three fingers of its right hand, which had been raised for pontifical blessings, were cut off.”
This quote doesn’t mention that after the condemnation of Formosus by Pope Stephen VII, Pope Formosus’s body was thrown into the Tiber.
But some years later in 898, “In mid-summer Pope Stephen VII was arrested… by whom or for what reasons we do not know… His successor, Romanus, ruled just four months. Romanus’ successor, [Pope] Theodore II, ruled for only twenty days. But during those twenty days he ordered that the body of [Pope] Formosus, which had been rescued from the Tiber, be returned with all honor to its original tomb in St. Peter’s; and he restored the Roman clergy ordained by Pope Formosus whom Stephen VII had degraded.”[6]
So, Pope Theodore II overturned the condemnation of Pope Formosus which was issued by Pope Stephen VII.
In 898, Pope John IX was elected to succeed Pope Theodore II. He agreed with Pope Theodore II on the Formosus issue, and “condemned the entire proceedings of Stephen VII against Formosus’s body, and burned its records.”[7]
We can see that Pope John IX also agreed with Pope Theodore II, and condemned Pope Stephen VII’s condemnation of Pope Formosus.
However, a few years later Pope Sergius III (904-911) was elected pope. He held a different view on the Pope Formosus issue. Pope Sergius III “went so far as to praise the memory of Stephen VII while still condemning that of Formosus, whom he called a ‘haughty intruder,’ and John IX, whom he called ‘a wolf.’ He once again declared Formosus’s ordinations invalid, and many priests who had been ordained by Formosus were required to undergo a rite of reordination.”[8]
So, to summarize: We have Pope Stephen VII and Pope Sergius III who were in favor of the condemnation of Pope Formosus, while Pope Theodore II and Pope John IX condemned the condemnation of Pope Formosus. None of these decisions were promulgated as a binding teaching on faith or morals to be believed by the universal Church (i.e. infallibly). This should show us all very clearly that not every decision, speech, opinion or judgment of a pope is infallible.
Furthermore, Pope Pius XII was a very weak pope who was the bridge to the Vatican II apostasy. It’s not a surprise that he believed in explicit baptism of desire for adults. That view was very widespread at the time. The thing which is of utmost importance in this regard is not what saints, theologians or even popes taught in their fallible capacity; it’s what God has allowed the infallible Magisterium of the Church to define. That’s the key (literally and figuratively – Mt. 16:18-20).
Pope Pius XII allowed the denial of the salvation dogma to run rampant throughout his reign. He reformed the Holy Week rites (a decision of his which many of those who love baptism of desire reject), and in the same fallible speech to Italian midwives cited above he endorsed the birth control method of Natural Family Planning. In his encyclical Humani Generis, Pius XII also said that the Magisterium doesn’t forbid investigation into a certain type of theistic evolution, which is absurd.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#36), Aug. 12, 1950: “For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful.”[9]
Theistic evolution holds that creatures were living, evolving and dying for perhaps millions of years before Adam lived and died. But Scripture and Catholic dogma teach that through Adam’s sin death first entered the world! Thus, theistic evolution and Catholic teaching are incompatible. Moreover, notice how John Paul II used Pope Pius XII’s fallible teaching to promote evolution as true.
John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution, Oct. 22, 1996: "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."[10]
Thus, people shouldn’t get carried away with something that Pius XII said in his fallible capacity. Baptism of desire advocates cannot, for a moment, argue that Pius XII’s speech to midwives proves baptism of desire. (It should be emphasized that Pius XII is only enunciating the position of explicit baptism of desire for adults). Pope Pius XII was simply wrong in his fallible capacity, just like he was wrong on theistic evolution and NFP. Baptism of desire is proven false by numerous irrefutable arguments from the infallible teaching of the Chair of St. Peter, which baptism of desire advocates cannot even begin to respond to. And Pius XII’s own official teaching on baptism in Mystici Corporis declares that no unbaptized person is to be considered a member of the Church.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”[11]
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, 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.”[12]
[2] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 387.
[3] Denzinger 1839.
[4] Fr. Jacques Dupuis, S.J. and Fr. Josef Neuner, S.J., The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.
[5] Denzinger 253.
[6] Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2 (The Building of Christendom), 1987, pp. 388-399.
[7] Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2 (The Building of Christendom), 1987, p. 389.
[8] Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2 (The Building of Christendom), 1987, p. 390.
[9] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 181; Denzinger 2327.
[10] John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution, Oct. 22, 1996, available on the internet.
[11] Denzinger 2286.
[12] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 685.
Dear Brothers,
Where in Portugal is the dogma of Faith being preserved and by whom? I am referring to what the Blessed Mother told Sister Lucia in Fatima. I surmise that the Blessed Mother is stating that it is the country, as a whole, that will be preserving the Catholic Faith until, I assume, Christ's Second Coming .. can you offer an explanation?
Thanks,
LML
Since we don’t have the complete sentence, we cannot say for sure, but it could be:
“In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved in a faithful remnant…”Or:
“In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved until the Great Apostasy…”
Dear Brothers Dimond
I wish to make a Consecration of myself to Mary, following the St Louis de Montfort method. However, I note that on the day of Consecration we are supposed to receive Holy Communion and make the Act after this, as well as make an offering such as light a candle to Our Lady in Church. In these times of apostasy, I am unable to attend a Catholic Mass (only the Indult is available), and I would appreciate your advice on how a person should make the Consecration in these circumstances of not being able to receive Holy Communion or visit a Catholic Church that is not connected with the counterfeit Catholic Church.
Best wishes
Gerard
Thanks for the question. There is no obligation to make the Consecration to Mary before a priest or in a church, especially today. You should make it in your home.
In the Last Gospel of the Mass from St. John we read:
"But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
What does the bold faced quotations mean - what does it refer to? Does "born" refer to baptism. It seems pretty clear to me, but I may not be understanding it clearly. Could you give me a take on what it might mean? I read it every Sunday at Mass and wonder it's meaning.
Thanks!
Dede
Thanks for the question. Yes, we have an opinion about this verse. This was actually mentioned in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation (section 22). While we cannot say infallibly what this particular verse means since the Church has never issued any infallible declaration on this specific verse, here is what is said about it in the book. We think the correct conclusion is pretty obvious:
John 1:12-13-“But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become the sons of God: to them that believe in His name: WHO ARE BORN, NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.”
The context of the passage is dealing with “becoming the sons of God,” that which St. Paul called “adoption of sons” (Rom. 8:15). This is the theological and scriptural term for Justification, the state of sanctifying grace (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4). The term signifies the transition from being a child of Adam (the state of original sin) to becoming an adopted son of God (the state of sanctifying grace). Pope St. Leo the Great, in fact, confirms that this passage of St. John’s Gospel is talking about becoming a son of God by the Sacrament of Baptism.Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 63: On the Passion (+ c. 460 A.D.): “… from the birth of baptism an unending multitude are born to God, of whom it is said: Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn. 1:15).” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 151.)
So as God, through St. John, is describing man’s being “born again” to the state of grace in Baptism, He speaks of those who are born, “NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD”! The “will of the flesh” is desire. The “will of man” is desire. “Blood” is blood. In my opinion, what God is saying here in this very verse is that in order to become a son of God – in order to be justified – it does not suffice to be born again of blood or desire (i.e., baptism of blood or desire). One must be born again of God. The only way to be born again of God is to be baptized with water in the name of God: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt. 28:19).
Dear Br Dimond.
A protestant invites me to attend a lecture on creation by another protestant this Friday. It's not in any protestant temple and there's no religious service. If there's no praying together, can I attend it? Thanks
Yes, we don’t see any reason why you couldn’t go unless attacking the Catholic Faith is somehow an integral part of his presentation on Creation (which we highly doubt). You should at least try to convert the Protestant who invited you, of course, if you haven’t done so already.
I heard Brother Michael's interview on Coast to Coast. I cannot believe they let that lunatic JC yell and scream away on the airways. Anyway, I do have a serious question: If the 3rd secret given at Fatima by Our Lady was never revealed or made public, how do we (or how does Brother Michael) know what it contained?
Thank you!
Susanna Szilard
Thank you for your question. While we don’t know infallibly, we can say almost with certainty (based on a number of things) that the Third Secret concerns apostasy from the Catholic Faith by people who purport to hold positions of authority in Rome.
First, the very words which come just before the undisclosed Third Secret are: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved… etc. [Third Secret].” Since these are the last words before the Third Secret, they imply that the Third Secret deals with the dogma of Faith not being preserved.
Second, people who have commented on the Third Secret, including high-ranking members of the Vatican II sect – who purport to have read the Third Secret or to have acquired intimate knowledge of its contents (including Joseph Ratzinger, “Cardinal” Ciappi) – reveal that it has to do with the loss of the Faith.
"In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." (Mario L. Ciappi, “cardinal” and household theologian to John Paul II, quoted in The Devil's Final Battle, p. 33)
Third, Our Lady said it would be clearer in 1960, and this was just after Vatican II was called – the very council which put into motion the major apostasy from the Faith we are all now living through.
Hello,
I have enjoyed watching your online videos. I suppose my favorite is the "Creation and Miracles, Past and Present." The point about the earth being only around 5,000 years old is major. If our world is only 5,000 years old, it would make a person's life feel a lot more significant than if the earth is millions and millions of years old. The theory of evolution is a depressing topic.
Anyway, in your "Creation" video, Padre Pio is featured, a favorite saint of mine… Are there some saints in the church that could not really be saints? There have been some questions about the sainthood of Elizabeth Seton. Some have stated that there was a heavy lobby in Rome to make her a saint because she was an American, and one of the necessary miracles was dispensed with in order to make her a saint. Is this true? I was converted to Catholicism in the mid-80's by in older, more traditional Catholic priest, and he gave Elizabeth Seton as my saint. I've never really cared for that saint.
I've listened to the recorded versions of your 2 radio broadcasts... I think they have gone well and wish you the best in the future.
Sincerely,
Dona Beall
Dona, thank you for your comments. Elizabeth Ann Seton was "canonized" by Antipope Paul VI in 1975. He obviously had no authority to canonize, since he was an antipope. This does not mean that Elizabeth Ann Seton is not in Heaven or wouldn't be worthy of canonization by a true pope; it simply means that, as of yet, she has never been canonized and therefore we cannot say infallibly that she is to be numbered among the saints.
This is to address a question arising after having visited your web-site. Does canon law & the magisterium of the Church ( both Pre & Post Vatican II ) allow for the perfect liberty of a member of the Church (in rightful conscience) to believe that the Seat of Peter is vacant? Are their any circumstances where Sedevacantism is not permitted? Thank you for your reply.
Yours In Christ,
Marta Klein
Thank you for your question. He who is elected as the Bishop of Rome – by the clergy of Rome in the first millennium, and by the College of Cardinals in the second millennium (or, in rare cases, by a pope appointing his successor) – must always be accepted as the pope unless there is clear evidence that the election was invalid or that the man “elected” is a manifest heretic (as taught by Pope Paul IV). In the case of the Vatican II “popes,” they are undeniable manifest heretics and have presided over a new religion and a new gospel which contradicts what all the true popes have taught from St. Peter on. It is definite, therefore, that they cannot be accepted as true popes based on the very teaching of the validly elected popes themselves.
Dear Bro. Diamond,
If one adds "Amen" after "I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is the baptism valid or by saying "Amen" does that make it invalid.
God love you,
Judith
Thanks for the question. No, adding “amen,” which means “truly,” does not affect the validity of the baptism. It does not change the meaning of the essential form.
Dear Bros Dimonds,
I went through RCIA and was confirmed into the Catholic Church Easter of 2001 by a Novus Ordo priest. Did I receive any of the graces associated with this sacrament?
Thank-you.
Sincerely,
Michael
The short answer to your question is no. Since the new confirmation cannot be considered valid (see below), you did not receive the graces associated with this sacrament. The New Order of Confirmation was promulgated on Aug. 15, 1971. The form and the matter of the sacrament have been changed. The traditional form for the sacrament of confirmation is:
“I sign you with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm you with the Chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”The new form in the New Rite for the sacrament of confirmation:
“N., receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”As one can see the traditional form of Confirmation has been fundamentally changed. The new form actually uses a form that is used in the Eastern Rite. Why would Paul VI replace the traditional form in the Roman Rite with the form of the Eastern Rite? We will see the significance of this change when we look at the matter of Confirmation, which has also been changed. (more…)
Dear Brothers,
I was baptized during the period of time when many of Paul VI's changes were taking place and I'm concerned about the validity of my baptism. I know the Episcopal rite of consecration was changed on June 18, 1968 and put into effect (I believe) on April 1, 1969, but when was the rite of baptism changed?David
The New Order of Baptism was promulgated by Paul VI on May 15, 1969. The essential form remains valid (unless the Novus Ordo “priest” decided to change it on his own); and, since anyone can validly baptize, those baptized with it would be considered validly baptized. But the removal of things around the essential form by Paul VI – while not destroying validity – serves to further confirm his revolutionary agenda. The questions “do you renounce Satan?” and “Do you believe…?” are now directed toward the “parents and godparents”; they are no longer directed toward the candidate for baptism. In the new rite, the candidate for baptism is not even asked if he believes. Also, a newly baptized child no longer receives a white garment – it is only mentioned symbolically. The candidate for baptism is no longer required to make a baptismal vow. In addition, all the exorcisms of the devil are omitted in the Paul VI’s new rite of Baptism! Why would one remove the exorcism prayers? Although Satan is mentioned in the texts, he is not banished. Conclusion: As long as the person baptizing in the Novus Ordo Church pours water (hitting the forehead) and uses the essential form – “I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” – with the intention to do what the Church does, then the baptism is valid, despite these other problems in the surrounding rite. But these changes to the rite of Baptism, although not essential to validity, serve to reveal the true character and intentions of the men who have implemented the Vatican II revolution. Moreover, in some cases doubt has arisen about whether the water actually strikes the forehead when it is poured in the Novus Ordo rite. If there is any doubt about whether the water sufficiently made contact with the forehead, a conditional baptism should be performed when a person is convinced on all the issues and ready.
….what if my wife does not want to attend the traditional church you recommend and she wants to stay at the novus ordo?
thank you,
David D
You simply must tell your wife that she cannot go to the Novus Ordo (the New Mass). A major problem today – and we hear all the time from people who ask questions very similar to yours (concerning a spouse who opposes them in their pursuit of salvation and truth) – is that so many make the devastating mistake of marrying a man or a woman who doesn’t care about the Faith. People don’t think too much about that when they get married, but it often turns out to be a life-long mistake.
Greetings,
I'm Jocel de Souza and I came across your organisation by means of the DVDs prepared by you. Especially the ones prepared by Bro. Michael Dimond. And upon watching them, I've been left confused, troubled,amazed, etc. I've also had a large number of doubts that I wish to clarify. The most amazing DVD I've watched yet was Creation and Miracles: Past And Present. I'm Catholic for sure but some of the videos by you I've watched contradicts what I've thought about myself for all of my life. I can promise you if you have my doubts clarified and you indeed posess the truth I'll do whatever it takes to help you carry out your good work. Because I've searched for the truth my entire life and for some reason I feel that I could find it with you. So please keep in touch with me.
I live in Goa - India. And I'm 17 years of age. I hope you do not consider me too young to be involved in all of this.
Jocel de Souza
You are certainly not too young to be interested in these matters. In fact, it’s true with many that if they don’t get interested and do what God wants when they are young they don’t ever get around to doing it. We must all seize the opportunity now. As far as having doubts clarified, the teachings of the Church we quote and upon which we base our positions speak for themselves. The traditional dogmatic teachings of the Church admit of no doubt.
Hi:
I enjoyed your visit with George on C2C the other night. I agree with a lot of what you said. Is your Order part of the Roman Catholic Church or what is know as the Old Catholic Church which was once the See of Utrich?
Thanks
JB
No, of course we’re not part of the “Old Catholic” sect. The “Old Catholics” reject Papal Infallibility and the dogmatic decrees of Vatican I. They are unfortunately heretics and schismatics. We are Catholics and therefore accept the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, Vatican I, and all the true popes and dogmatic teachings of true popes throughout history. (more…)
Brother Dimond: Thank you for being on the program Coast to Coast am. You are steadfast in your defense of the true catholic church. I am currently attending a Triditine Mass at a church in Orlando whose priest is ordained by a "Thuc Line Bishop". Do you consider the 'Thuc line' ordinations valid? Am I attending a legitimate Mass? Prayerfully awaiting your reply. Jack Bryant, Orlando, Florida.
Yes, the Thuc line is valid. The priests ordained in the traditional rite of ordination by Thuc bishops must be considered validly ordained. There are no legitimate grounds upon which to question the validity. However, since almost all of even the traditionalist priests hold some views not consistent with Catholic teaching – such as that non-Catholics can be saved, etc. – you almost certainly cannot support the priest, though you could receive the sacraments from him without supporting him, provided he is not imposing or notorious about his heresy. ------------- Fall 2004
Your points are well taken. Thanks for your helpful independent views. Re my question about the validity of Abp Thuc consecrations: What is your informed view? Is Bishop [x] validly consecrated since he is in succession from Abp Thuc? Thanks for your refreshing insights! -Paul M.
I was reading your web site, and read that you recommended the St. Louis De Montfort on the Rosary from Tan Books. However, you stated that you dont recommend many of the Tan books. Do you have a list of the books that should not be read from Tan?
Thanks!!!
Joe
They have much beneficial material; however, some of their books promote the heresy that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith. This heretical idea was a big problem before Vatican II, as our material proves. As far as we know, Tan also sells a few books which promote the sinful birth control practice of NFP. But these are small in number, so it shouldn’t be a problem for strong Catholics who are convinced of the true positions.
Dear Brother Michael,
Please be so kind as to tell me where I might find a 'true' Catholic church in London, England. Currently I go to Westminster Cathedral, the seat of Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor. Is he a heretic? Your site is very interesting. Many thanks,
RT Mulchrone
Thanks for the e-mail. “Cardinal” Cormac Murphy O’Connor is a heretic. He is a leader in the post-Vatican II sect. He publicly endorses the heresies of Vatican II, such as false ecumenism, etc. He also accepts the New Mass. He is a validly ordained priest (having been ordained in 1956), but cannot be considered a valid bishop (having been ordained in 1977, after Paul VI’s new rite was instituted), nor a Catholic one. We don’t have the specific locations of Masses in England, but we have given you the e-mail address of someone who does know where the traditional Mass is offered in England. Using those guidelines, people have to apply them to their specific options. These guidelines include, of course, the fact that no one can go to the New Mass – but only a traditional Rite. No one can financially support any priest or “bishop” professing communion with Antipope Benedict XVI and the Vatican II sect. And one should not even attend the traditional rite of a priest or bishop who is notorious or imposing about his heretical position. But if there is a valid priest celebrating a traditional rite who is not notorious or imposing about his heretical position then we believe you may go (you don’t have to), without supporting him.
Dear Brother Diamond,
First, thank you for speaking to the world about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...my family is relistening to a tape we made of Coast A.M. of your interview. I hope you are invited back!!!!
I would like to know what you think of someone attending Fordham Univ. in N.Y. My 22 year old son may be transferring there as a Sophomore. I e-mailed him the link to the "Jesuit" pagan "sculpture" in Canada from your site. Maybe he should read Fr. Malachi Martin's book "The Jesuits". What do you think? He does come to the traditional Mass at times, but not regularly, and does not receive the Sacraments! Please pray for him. His name is Jonah. Thanks,
Janet Anderton
Thank you for your question. First, he shouldn’t bother reading Malachi Martin’s books. Malachi Martin mixed truth with error and misled many. He said that Buddhists could be saved without the Catholic Faith and that John Paul II never uttered a heresy. Second, our feelings about young men and women attending colleges and universities is this: normally speaking (there may be rare exceptions, of course) since the campuses of these colleges and universities are cesspools of iniquity – and living in the dorms surrounded by the pagans and non-Catholics who make mortal sin a way of life at such colleges and universities would be an almost-constant occasion of sin (with others constantly goading one to partake in such party-type activity) – it would be a tragic spiritual mistake for most young men and women to subject themselves to such a situation by living in the dorms at these colleges and universities. Almost 100% of them would fail in such an environment and fall into mortal sin, no matter how much they protest that they wouldn’t. To preserve a person’s soul from such snares (and preserving the soul is the most important thing to be considered – Mt. 16:26), to attend such a college or university a person should either live at home and commute (that way he would be away from the mortally sinful party-lifestyle) or rent an apartment and live by himself so that he doesn’t have to live and constantly be around non-Catholics who are frequently committing mortal sins and/or encouraging him to do so (e.g. by inviting him to parties, etc.). “Catholic” Fordham University, since it’s Catholic in name only, would be considered just like any secular/pagan university. Hence, we believe one could attend provided that one doesn’t take religion classes or live amidst the sinful surroundings, but can be separate in some way by commuting or having one’s own place away from the others.
Dear Brother Michael,
After hearing you on Coast to Coast a few nights ago, I have been compelled to re-think some things. I have been struggling with my Catholic faith for most of my life. 1) Which version of the Bible do you consider the one to study and follow?
Sincerely,
Susie
The Douay-Rheims bible is a good Catholic bible to have. The Douay-Rheims with the Haydock Catholic Commentary is even better (it’s a big, red 3-volume set). However, it’s not enough to just study the bible. One must know the basic Catholic dogmas, and especially those which pertain to the current crisis. As the bible teaches, there are many passages in Sacred Scripture which are hard to understand, and which people twist to their own damnation. (more…)
Hello. I live in a little tiny town within the Diocese of Phoenix. Several months ago, priests from the Order of St. Peter began coming and saying the Traditional Latin Mass at our little church that the former priest in the area closed. What can you tell me about the Order of St. Peter? Thank you.
Roberta Westcott Clarkdale, AZ
Thanks for the e-mail. A Catholic cannot attend their Masses because their "bishops" are ordained in the invalid new rite of episcopal consecration. Thus, their "priests" are invalidly ordained. The FSSP also accepts the post-Vatican II apostasy, false ecumenism, the New Mass (even though they don't celebrate it themselves, they think people can go) and salvation outside the Church. Please watch our video on the New Mass online; the FSSP is mentioned in it.
From 2005
Brother Peter/Brother Micheal,
I recently convinced someone to stop attending the Novus Ordo Mass, and to attend the traditional Latin Mass. I sent him to a diocese church(St. Stephen the First Martyr) in Sacramento which is listed in the traditional mass booklet. I found out that recently the FSSP has taken over the Mass. They are a fairly new group so they do not have a lot of information about themselves on their website. Can you tell me if their Mass would be acceptable or not so I can let that person know?
Unfortunately the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter) is not acceptable for reception of Sacraments because the "Bishops" that ordain their men were made Bishops in Paul VI's invalid new rite of Episcopal Consecration. So no one should attend their "Masses" because they cannot even be considered valid. They are also compromisers with the Vatican II sect. They accept Vatican II, false ecumenism and John Paul II.
Brother Diamond...just wanted to ask you a question...What do you think about Divine Mercy? I listened to you on the talk show the night that you were on...what an impression you left on me..some people don't like to hear what you said...but you told it like it is...
I would appreciate a response as to what you think about Divine Mercy...E mail me back when you have time and thanks for your help...The real GOD BLESS!
Bobby Parkinson
Thanks for your question. We have received this question many times. We have a detailed answer to this question which we will be posting this week. Read full article here:
Dear Bro. Dimond,
What is your take on this television network? Is there concern for my soul? I watch it but lately I sense no peace with viewing programs. I do not know what it is. Something is not there anymore. I am also interested in obtaing your offer made on Coast to Coast am.
Please advise. Thank you.
Terri, we have an article on EWTN on our website. In short, they accept the New Mass and the post-Vatican II religious indifferentism. Thus, while they certainly have a few good programs, they are very much part of the post-Vatican II apostasy. They accept salvation outside the Church, etc. They are not truly Catholic, but very heretical. You can obtain the $8.00 DVD special [Update: New Specials Here] by sending us a check or calling with a credit card, and we hope you do since it contains very important information.
Hello Brother Dimond:
My husband and I heard you on Coast to Coast a couple of days ago and loved everything that you said. We spent the entire day and evening yesterday watching the dvds on your website and reading the information there. Everything you've said makes perfect sense to us and we both feel that you have come to us at a time in our lives when we were at a crossroads spiritually.
So here is our main question: We have been married for five years and have a six year old daughter together. My husband was born and raised a Catholic in the pre-Vatican II Church, and I converted to Catholicism from the Methodist Church after Vatican II. We were both married previously in the Catholic Church and then divorced. We married each other in a civil ceremony without obtaining annulments. At the time, we did not think about the religious ramifications of what we were doing. However, after listening to you (especially the dvd on Hell), we are now thinking quite a bit about it. So the question is, what do we do now? We obviously do not want to go to Hell. Is an annulment still an option? If so, what do we do in the meantime while we are waiting for the process to complete?…You and your fellow Brothers are in our prayers as you continue this wonderful work. We look forward to your response.
Thank you for your e-mail. It's great to hear about your interest, and God is definitely giving you graces to act upon this information. We would encourage you to pray the Rosary each day if you are not doing so now. Now to your important question. If your husband was born and raised a Catholic and was previously married by a priest to another person baptized as a Catholic, then he was validly married to that person. Thus, he wouldn't be free to marry again if that person is still alive (unless that person whom he married was already married, but we'll assume that's not the case). (more…)
^
" />
" />
" />
" />
" />
