Objection 11): What does it matter whether or not Benedict XVI/Francis is a pope? The issue does not concern me.

Answer: If whether or not Benedict XVI is a pope does not matter, then the non-Catholicism of the Vatican II sect does not matter, the New Mass doesn’t matter, etc.  One cannot separate one from the other.  You cannot separate pope and Church.  Furthermore, to maintain that Benedict XVI is the head of the Catholic Church is to assert that the gates of Hell have prevailed against Her.

Further, to obstinately recognize Benedict XVI as the pope is to commit a sin against the Faith; for it is to assert that one has the true Faith who, in fact, is a manifest heretic and apostate against it.  Moreover, to recognize Benedict XVI and the other Vatican II antipopes as true popes is to scandalize non-Catholics; it is to be unable to consistently present the Faith to a non-Catholic.  On this point, we must now see The Devastating Dilemma to demonstrate just how much this issue matters.

The Devastating Dilemma: Why Catholics cannot even present the Faith to a Protestant if they accept the Vatican II antipopes as true popes

Suppose that tomorrow you encounter a well-informed Protestant who is interested in becoming a Catholic.  While this man claims to be interested in becoming “Catholic,” he has major problems with the teaching of the Catholic Church on justification: he rejects the canons and decrees of the 16th century Council of Trent.  As he explains his position you think to yourself: “How does this man expect to become Catholic when he doesn’t believe in the teaching of the Council of Trent on justification?”  

So you, being a charitable Catholic, inform him that if he wants to become Catholic he must accept and believe the Council of Trent’s teaching on justification and repudiate Luther’s view of justification by faith alone (sola fide), since the Catholic Church (not to mention scripture – James 2:24) condemns the idea of justification by faith alone. 

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 10, ex cathedra:
“‘You see, that by works a man is justified AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE’ (James 2:24).”[1] 

But the Protestant responds by saying:

“Excuse me sir, I do not have to accept and believe the Council of Trent’s teaching on justification to become Catholic.  Nor do I have to believe that justification by faith alone is a heresy, as you say.  Your pope, Benedict XVI, and his predecessor, John Paul II, who are both Catholics agree with and have approved of a document that says that faith alone is not a heresy, and that Trent’s canons on justification do not apply to the Lutheran explanation of justification.”  And he proceeds to make three points in succession to prove this. 

#1) The Protestant first cites the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, approved by the Vatican on Oct. 31, 1999.  He quotes two selections from the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, which he happens to have in his briefcase.

Joint Declaration With Lutherans: “# 5.  THE PRESENT JOINT DECLARATION has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ.  It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and SHOWS THAT THE REMAINING DIFFERENCES ARE NO LONGER THE OCCASION FOR DOCTRINAL CONDEMNATIONS.”[2] 

After citing this, the Protestant correctly explains that this rules out any condemnation of the Lutheran view of justification (faith alone, etc.).  He then cites # 13.

Joint Declaration With Lutherans: “# 13.  IN LIGHT OF THIS CONSENSUS, THE CORRESPONDING DOCTRINAL CONDEMNATIONS OF THE 16TH CENTURY DO NOT APPLY TO TODAY’S PARTNER.”[iii]

After citing this, the Protestant rightly explains that this also means that Trent’s condemnations (in the 16th century) of the Lutheran view of justification no longer apply. 

#2)  To further substantiate his point, the Protestant proceeds to cite two more selections from the same Joint Declaration With the Lutherans.

Joint Declaration With Lutherans: “# 41.  Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: THE TEACHING OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCHES PRESENTED IN THIS DECLARATION DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CONDEMNATIONS FROM THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.”[4]

The Protestant points out the obvious fact that this means that none of the Lutheran teaching contained in the Joint Declaration is condemned by the Council of Trent.  He then proves that justification by faith alone is among the teaching of the Lutheran churches in the Joint Declaration.

Joint Declaration With Lutherans: “# 26.  ACCORDING TO THE LUTHERAN UNDERSTANDING, GOD JUSTIFIES SINNERS IN FAITH ALONE (sola fide).  In faith they place their trust wholly in their Creator and Redeemer and thus live in communion with him.”[5]

He concludes, with perfect logic, that according to the Vatican’s own agreement with the Lutherans on justification, faith alone is most assuredly not condemned by the Council of Trent.  Thus, he says to you:

“You see, sir, the Catholics who adhere to and believe in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification do not hold that faith alone is a heresy that is anathematized infallibly by decree of the Council of Trent, as you claim a Catholic must believe in order to be Catholic.”

#3) Finally, this smart Protestant knows that you will try to say that John Paul II and Benedict XVI didn’t sign the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification.  So he points out that the Joint Declaration was signed under John Paul II’s auspices and repeatedly approved by Benedict XVI.

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.”[6]

Benedict XVI, Address to Methodists, Dec. 9, 2005: “I have been encouraged by the initiative which would bring the member churches of the World Methodist Council into association with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999.”[7]

 The Protestant concludes his presentation by saying:

“Benedict XVI (and, before him, John Paul II) is a Catholic and adheres to the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the doctrine of justification, which declaration explicitly teaches that faith alone is not anathematized by Trent, and that the remaining differences between Lutherans and Catholics on justification are not the occasion for any doctrinal condemnations.  Therefore, when I become a Catholic, I will hold the same position as Benedict XVI and as the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans sets forth.  I will hold that faith alone justifies, and I will not hold that it is an anathematized heresy!  And I will not embrace the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, because John Paul II and Benedict XVI have accepted, endorsed and agreed with the Joint Declaration, which explains that Trent’s canons are no longer in force.”

You know that as a Catholic, you have a strict obligation to tell him that belief in faith alone and belief in the Catholic religion are incompatible.  So what do you say in response?

If you hold that Benedict XVI and John Paul II are/were valid popes, you spit back the following response, which is the only thing that you can think of:

“John Paul II and Benedict XVI are wrong.  They aren’t infallible in everything they say or do.  The Joint Declaration is not infallible.  The Council of Trent is infallible.” 

And the smart Protestant, quickly detecting the flaws in this illogical and poor response, replies:

“Sir, I never said that the Joint Declaration is infallible.  Infallibility has nothing to do with our discussion.  The bottom-line is that you admit that Benedict XVI is a Catholic with whom you are in communion, and with whom every Catholic must be in communion.  You admit that he is not a heretic who is outside the communion of the Catholic Church for embracing the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, so you must admit that I will also be a Catholic in communion with the Church (not a heretic) when I take the same position. ” 

If you hold that Benedict XVI is a valid pope, you would then have nothing to say in response to this Protestant.  The debate is over, and you have lost.  You cannot on the one hand say that acceptance of faith alone and the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification is incompatible with this Protestant’s entrance into the Catholic Church (which you must as a Catholic, since this was defined infallibly at Trent), while you simultaneously give obedience to Benedict XVI as head of the Catholic Church, who has demonstrated his acceptance of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification quite publicly.  The Protestant has cornered you and you are forced to admit that he can indeed become Catholic and hold to what is taught in the Joint Declaration.  This proves that those who accept Benedict XVI as the pope cannot even consistently present the Catholic Faith to a Protestant.  THEY MUST ADMIT THAT ONE CAN BE A “CATHOLIC” AND HOLD THAT FAITH ALONE IS NOT AN ANATHEMATIZED HERESY, AND THAT TRENT’S CANONS DO NOT APPLY TO THE LUTHERAN VIEW OF JUSTIFICATION. 

As long as one acknowledges Benedict XVI as the Catholic pope, he is defending a Church that has repudiated the Council of Trent, a “Church” that is, by definition, a non-Catholic Church – a Church of heretics.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, profession of faith, 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.”[8] 

The same judgment and authority by which you determined that this non-denominational Protestant was a heretic and outside the Catholic Church – a judgment you made upon meeting him and finding out what he believed and how he repudiated the Council of Trent – is the same exact judgment that you absolutely are forced to make about Benedict XVI.  It should hit you in a striking and illuminating way that you are not guilty of judging the Holy See or a pope when you correctly judge that Benedict XVI is a non-Catholic; rather, you are identifying a non-Catholic for what he is, just as you correctly identified the non-denominational Protestant you met as a non-Catholic, as well as any Calvinist, Methodist or Episcopalian.

See other Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism

Objection 9): Pope Liberius gave in to the Arian heretics and excommunicated St. Athanasius, yet he remained the pope…

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

Does Pius XII’s speech to midwives prove baptism of desire? No.

PIUS XII’S SPEECH TO MIDWIVES

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]

Where in Portugal is the dogma of Faith being preserved and by whom?

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…”

“In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved until the Great Apostasy…”

About Consecration to Mary

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.

On the Last Gospel of the Mass from St. John

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).

Can one attend a lecture on Creationism by a Protestant?

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.

What did the Third Secret of Fatima contain?

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.

Was Elizabeth Ann Seton validly canonized a ‘saint’?

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.

When is it a Catholic’s duty to recognize a Pope?

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.

“If one adds ‘Amen’, is the baptism valid?”

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.

Is the New Rite of Confirmation valid?

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.”

“N., receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”

When was the Rite of Baptism changed?

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.

How To Perform A Baptism & A Conditional Baptism

“What if my wife does not want to attend the Traditional Church?”

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.

“Am I too young to be interested in the truth?”

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.

Is MHFM part of the “Old Catholics” (Union of Utrecht)? No.

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…)

Are the Thuc Line Bishops Valid?

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

Which Tan Books are NOT Recommended?

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.

“Where can I find a true church in London, England?”

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.

Can a Catholic attend a college or university?

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.

Which version of the Bible should I read?

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…)

Avoid the “Priestly” Fraternity of Saint Peter

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

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.

“What do you think about Divine Mercy?”

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:

Sister Faustina’s Divine Mercy Devotion is something to avoid

“What is your take on this television network [EWTN]?”

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.

A Marriage and Annulment Question

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…)

“If the Mass isn't valid, what am I supposed to do?”

Thanks for the e-mail.  The Third Commandment (Keep holy the Sabbath) is God’s law.  Attending Mass on Sunday and Holy Days is the Church’s law, which is only obligatory if the Church provides you with a true Mass and a truly Catholic priest within a reasonable distance.  There is no obligation to attend a false Mass; in fact, there is a positive obligation under pain of mortal sin to not attend the New Mass, since one cannot approach a doubtful or invalid sacrament. (more…)

Did Padre Pio ever say the New Mass?

Thank you for your question. Padre Pio died on September 23, 1968. The New Mass wasn’t promulgated until April 3, 1969. Padre Pio didn’t celebrate the New Mass. (more…)

What is the problem with the CMRI priests?

We know it can be somewhat overwhelming for people who are first discovering traditional Catholicism to then hear that the priests who introduced them to such truth – the traditional Mass, the rejection of Vatican II, etc. – are themselves denying aspects of the Faith.  It’s an unfortunate situation, but it’s true.  It’s part of the spiritual test that God has allowed this world to go through.  People must have a strong faith anchored to Him, the Church itself and her authoritative teachings, or else they will be swept away in desolation and confusion upon discovering that so many of those they thought were traditional are, in fact, heretical. (more…)

“Do I offend God if I stop going to the New Mass?” Answer: No.

Thanks for the e-mail.  No, you definitely cannot go since the removal of “many” from the consecration is not the only problem.  The removal of “mysterium fidei” (the mystery of faith) also causes a doubt about the validity.  (more…)

Is a forced baptism valid? No.

Thanks for the e-mail.  You are correct: a forced baptism would be invalid.  Desire is a necessary disposition for one above the age of reason to have in receiving baptism.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180: "INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it…"