Dear Brothers Michael and Peter,
I recently read a letter written by the late Bishop Moises Carmona-Rivera (who was consecrated by Bishop Thuc in 1981). This letter is a defense of his episcopal consecration and leaves many questions open about his validity. In the letter, he states, "....some said, without any foundation, that our consecrations were invalid because we were consecrated in the new rite..." After this very ambiguous statement, he does not go on to say that he and Zamora were, in fact, consecrated in the old rite. What does this mean? Does this mean that he was consecrated in the new rite and he feels that it is valid, meaning that those of us who hold it to be invalid are judging so with "no foundation"? Or, does he mean that these accusations were made with no foundation because, in fact, they were consecrated in the old rite?
I am sorry for the tone of this question, but this is a major dilemma for my family. If there is question about the validity of Carmona-Rivera due to the rite used in the ceremony, then my family is without a valid Mass anywhere nearby.
I would like to thank you for your help with this, as I know that you are very thorough with your research and will only report facts. I am not interested in getting someone's "opinion" when the souls of my family and myself are at stake. God bless you!
No, in context Carmona is simply saying that some people, without any foundation at all, have claimed that he was consecrated in the new rite. He goes on to say that others, more seriously, have claimed other things. The implication is that any claim that he was ordained in the new rite is almost a joke. Carmona was validly consecrated in the traditional rite. Thus, the priest ordained through his line would be valid. But we cannot vouch for such a priest’s doctrinal views, and there is a very strong chance that the priest denies the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation or supports NFP or something else. Thus, you almost certainly couldn’t support him financially, though perhaps you could receive the sacraments from him if he is not notorious or imposing about his false views. Also, we’ve been informed that certain CMRI priests have communicated to people that they don’t want those who don’t accept baptism of desire at their chapels. Since those CMRI priests are imposing their false views, one should not receive the sacraments from them at all. We don’t know if this is a universal development with CMRI priests, so one should check with the CMRI priest in their area about this. (They don’t want people who believe in that “awful” teaching that all must be baptized to be saved, as Our Lord said, but they have no problem with the idea that Jews who reject Christ can be saved. What abominable heretics.)
Do you have a copy of Mancipia of January 2006. On page 4, No Pope? No Hope!.Are you inserested in replying. (Very Flimsy)
Yes, thank you, it’s covered in the Heresy of the Week.
Dear Brother Dimond: I am writing this to express my admiration for your excellent defense of the Catholic doctrine in your weekly item "Heresy of the Week" of 2/4/06. God bless you, Jos ValkeringMHFM: Glad you liked it… the SBC really walked into that one with “No Pope? No Hope!”
I troubled you a few days ago with my questions.
I think I’ve found almost all I wanted on your site, which I’ve looked up through more thoroughly now.
So this is to thank you very much indeed because I doubt I would’ve understood what and how I should do and act when a liturgy is said by a heretical priest. And they are perhaps all of them up to Archbishop Huzar as they call Benedict XVI ‘pope’ during the service (one, I recall, had privately praised JPII for having visited an Islamic temple – not big deal, he’d said; another one had spoken in his homily two weeks ago how moved he’d been on the day of JPII’s burial – “such a great man” ). In addition, the main celebrant in my parish told me a few days ago that ‘orthodox’ ‘mysteries’ (sacraments) ‘are’ ‘valid’ – something I opposed and disagreed with. My reasoning is how they can be valid, if schismatics are beyond the Church whereby are not Christians. They are null, void and nothing.
O.k., thank you very much for your site and your hard work. It did help me to clear out clouds in front of the light of my Catholic faith. Although this is just a beginning for me.
Thanks for the interest. The only thing I would mention is that it’s important to understand that heretics and schismatics can have a valid Mass and Eucharist, if they observe proper matter and form and have a valid priesthood. “Orthodox” schismatics do have a valid Mass, since they have a valid priesthood and employ valid matter and form in their liturgy. But being outside the Church, they do not profit from the reception of sacraments, but sin when receiving them; and since they are notorious heretics, no Catholic can receive sacraments from them.
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”Pope Pius IX, (+1862):“… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.” (Amantissimus # 3)
Dear Brother Dimond:
My family and I are attending the .. (SSPX) though we do not support it financially. I am pregnant and due to give birth in the spring. I recently found out that our prospective godparents (whom I thought to be Catholic) are faithless heretics. I am talking about my own parents. My father has made it clear on a couple of occassions that I should stop having babies (we have 5 children so far). I know for a fact that the SSPX Church we attend will not baptize our new baby without godparents and I know of no one else that could fullfill that roll. I am considering baptizing the new baby myself at home; is this really the right thing to do in an non life threatening situation?...
I was also wondering about the author Solange Hertz and what you think of her. In one of her books, she indicated that it is better to stay home and say prayers, do spiritual reading, etc rather than attend the Mass of a heretic (even a heretic priest who calls himself traditionalist).
God bless you and keep up the wonderful work.
Thank you for your question. You should baptize the baby yourself, and not have the SSPX priest do it. Regarding Solange Hertz, last time we checked she held that no one has the authority to say that the manifestly heretical non-Catholic Antipopes of the Vatican II sect are not true Popes. Thus, her opinion on where one may or may not attend Mass isn’t worth much. I believe she holds, or at least accepts as Catholic, the heretical position of The Remnant; otherwise they wouldn’t carry her articles and give her awards. (more…)
I am a dedicated fan of your website and I access your site atleast 2-3 times a week.I am also a sedevacantist and have absolutely in the Novus Ordo "Robber Church". However whenever I pray the rosary one thing always nags my mind and begs clarification,please guide me. After every decade we pray thus "Oh My Jesus have mercy on us and deliver us from the fires of hell,lead all souls to heaven especially those who are in most need of thy mercy" If we pray for all souls doesn't that include pagans,heretics,Hindus,Moslems etc.If this is so is it not in violation of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam nullam Salus". Is it possible that the above prayer is a subverted version of the Fatima message released by the Robber Church. Please guide me?
Thanks for the e-mail. No, the version you have is not a phony version of the prayer that Our Lady asked to be said after the decades of the Rosary. It’s basically the correct version. Some people say the version: “O my Jesus, pardon our sins, save us from the fire of hell, have mercy on the souls in Purgatory, especially the most abandoned.” But Sr. Lucy affirmed categorically to William Thomas Walsh that this version of the prayer is not correct; this one is correct: “O my Jesus, pardon us, save us from the fire of hell, draw [or lead] all souls to heaven, especially those in most need [or most in need].” And there is no violation of the dogma in praying for all souls to be converted, and therefore be led to heaven. Everyone who is still alive has a chance to be saved. And God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), even though that won’t happen, and all who die as non-Catholics will be lost.
Hello Brothers Dimond,
With the world moving further and further away from Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith, I find it very difficult to make friends or associate with certain kinds of people. Almost everyone out there leads an immoral or unethical life. Everywhere I turn and almost everyone I converse with at work and other places speaks of women, sex, etc. I don't imagine myself being friends with such people because I adhere to my Catholic faith and try to refrain from unethical/immoral conduct. Other than my parents, I hardly have anyone to call a friend or even to associate with. I'm pretty much a loner. My only sibling lives in another state with his wife and son. I sometimes browse through chat rooms and online postings about people looking for friends and what I find is almost always displeasing. Sometimes I think it's just best to give up looking and just deal with being a loner. I pray the Rosary everyday and try to hang in there but it's frustrating not having anyone to share thoughts with except my parents and a few close friends of theirs whom I see only once in awhile. Do you have any advice? I think it might be best for me to just carry this cross and avoid immoral people. That way I won't gamble with my salvation. I look forward to someday being saved and enjoying eternal happiness.
You’re not alone in feeling that you’re alone (no pun intended). We’ve heard from many Catholics who have expressed similar sentiments. One should use that opportunity to build his or her relationship with God, pray extra rosaries, do spiritual reading, etc. It is actually in time by himself or herself that one finds the situation most conducive to spiritual advancement. And if one has a strong prayer life, etc., it’s important to have a healthy recreation period each day. Board games and sports are things we recommend. (Chat rooms, in my opinion, are a waste of time, unless it’s a traditional Catholic one – and even then it still may be a waste of time.) (more…)
I have been so adamantly against Natural Family Planning. Why did the Blessed Mother say this?
Since I have seen this all I thought to be true is so very confusing....
"The encyclical of Pope Paul VI on birth control is true and must be followed by mankind. There shall be no rationalization of sin.” - Our Lady of the Roses [Bayside], October 2, 1976
Can you please help me understand this?
Michelle, the Bayside Messages are false, and not from God, but from the devil. We will soon be posting a more complete exposé which proves this.
Are female trousers wrong? Are females permitted to wear pants?
Our position is that females should not wear pants. In our opinion, the only exceptions for this would be women who are, for instance, working by themselves and doing some unusual form of work that a dress makes extremely cumbersome. Or, for example, another young woman asked us if she could play a recreational game of volleyball with her friends wearing a pair of long, baggy pants that basically look like a dress and are very modest. She explained that she really couldn’t play the game wearing a dress. We don’t see a problem with wearing such a pair of pants for the game. And in areas where there is massive poverty and the children truly cannot afford a dress, obviously exceptions would be permitted. But we do believe that women who wear pants and obstinately refuse to wear dresses simply because they don’t want to are putting their souls in jeopardy. Padre Pio certainly thought so; he wouldn’t even hear the Confessions of women who didn’t wear long dresses, and he allegedly refused absolution to a woman who didn’t wear, but sold, female pants. But many women, especially young women today, don’t know that Traditional Catholic women don’t wear pants. It is our duty to inform them charitably.
Dear Brothers Peter and Michael.
I realize that you are very busy so I don't expect an answer to my e-mail right away but I would hope that you would respond to it at your convenience.
This is my situation, after 25 years or so I believe it was around 1985 I left the catholic church to find the truth. As I traveled through various Protestant denominations I found out that none of them had the truth, so in 2003 I returned to what I thought was the Catholic Church, only to be disappointed that I couldn't distinguish it from the Protestant churches I had attended over the years. I tried to validate everything that I saw happening during the service but my conscience would not rest that something was definitely wrong here. So I began searching for a traditional church on line and eventually found a CMRI church near my home about 40 miles away. It is the only church in my area that says the Traditional Latin Mass.
However, I have read many of your articles and I am not sure what I should do about attending this church because you indicated that most of the priests believe that you can be saved outside the Catholic Church…
When I came to the CMRI church, the priest that was there at the time had me say the Profession Of Faith from the Council Of Trent. I went to confession also.
I feel so lost because if I can't go to this church then there aren't any churches available for me to go to.
I am planning to send for the book "Outside the Catholic Church Their is no Salvation" as well as some of your videos. Someone from the church I attend gave me your Crying in the Wilderness magazines ( all 4 of them).
I believe in the articles you mentioned that we can attend the Mass but not support the church in anyway. Is this correct? Or can I support it if the priest upholds to the outside the church there is no salvation?
I am not sure if I could spiritually survive not attending Mass at least on a weekly basis but it would be pointless to attend a Mass that wasn't valid either.
Well, this is my dilemma! I just want to make sure that I have peace with God and a place in heaven.
Sue, unfortunately all of the CMRI priests believe that members of false religions can be united to the Church and saved without actual possession of the Catholic Faith. So, you cannot financially support any of them under pain of mortal sin. They also defend the sinful birth control practice of Natural Family Planning. But if the priest is not notorious and imposing about these issues at the particular chapel you attend, then we are of the opinion that you could continue to go and receive the sacraments as long as you don’t support them in any way. For more on this issue consult the section of our website Where To Receive Sacraments. We’re very glad to hear about your return to the true Catholic Faith, and your having been able to recognize the phoniness and Protestantism of the Vatican II sect. Keep praying the Rosary and holding the Faith without compromise and things will work out for you.
You can also download individual months by clicking on the image thumbnail for the particular month.
📌 = Current Month Of The Year | ✝️ = Lent Begins
On days of fast, only one full meal is allowed, at which meat may be taken. Two other meatless meals, which together are less than the full meal, are also permitted. Only liquids may be taken between meals. The law of fast must be observed by all between the ages of 21 and 59 inclusive.
If fasting poses a serious risk to health or impedes the ability to do necessary work, it does not oblige.
There are also certain days of abstinence.
On days of complete abstinence, meat (and soup or gravy made from meat) may not be taken at all.
On days of partial abstinence, meat (and soup or gravy made from meat) may be eaten only once. The law of abstinence must be observed by everyone age 7 and older.
There is no obligation of fast or abstinence on a holy day of obligation, even if it falls on a Friday.
(USA, adopted 1951, modified 1956)
1. Priests and faithful before Mass or Holy Communion – whether it is the morning, afternoon, evening, or Midnight Mass – must abstain for three hours from solid foods and alcoholic beverages, and for one hour from non-alcoholic beverages. Water does not break the fast.
2. The infirm, even if not bedridden, may take non-alcoholic beverages and that which is really and properly medicine, either in liquid or solid form, before Mass or Holy Communion without any time limit.
Priests and faithful who are able to do so are exhorted to observe the old and venerable form of the Eucharistic fast (from foods and liquids from midnight). All those who will make use of these concessions must compensate for the good received by becoming shining examples of a Christian life and principally with works of penance and charity.
(Pope Pius XII, Sacram Communionem, 1957)
(St. N.) Commemoration
1. The Circumcision (Jan. 1)
2. Ascension Thursday
3. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (August 15)
4. All Saints’ Day (November 1)
5. The Immaculate Conception (December 8)
6. Christmas (December 25)
What is your opinion of those who say that John Paul II is not a heretic, even after you show them his heresies?
I believe that those who have seen all the evidence against John Paul II – for instance, the Assisi abominations; his teaching that we shouldn’t convert Schismatics; his Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification; his desire to promote Islam and Islamic culture; his acceptance of all religions as more or less good; his teaching that all men are saved; his teaching that the Holy Ghost is responsible for non-Christian religions; his teaching that there are Saints and Martyrs in non-Catholic religions; his teaching that non-Catholics can receive Holy Communion; etc., all of which are covered in our video Why Antipope John Paul II Cannot Be the Pope – and still say that he is a Catholic and not a heretic, are committing a sin about as bad as worshipping Satan.
I’ve heard people say that Padre Pio told John Paul II that one day he would be Pope.
We had heard the same thing, but the answer to your question is No. Padre Pio never told John Paul II that he would be Pope. In an article in Inside the Vatican, John Paul II was asked about this and admitted that Padre Pio never told him this. But the myth was spread all around nevertheless. But Padre Pio did throw John Paul II out of the Confessional during his visit to San Giovanni Rotondo in 1947.
Antonio Pandiscia is the official biographer of Padre Pio and he was the only man allowed to interview him more than once. He said: “The current Pope [sic] went to San Giovanni Rotondo for the first time in 1947 shortly after his ordination. A witness, who has since passed away, told me that Padre Pio was brusque with the young Polish priest on that occasion. I think he could not accept the fact that the young Wojtyla (John Paul II) had worked in the theatre before becoming a priest.” (Inside the Vatican, August/September, 1996, p. 12.)
Hello Brother Dimond.
Would you happen to know when the new rite of Holy Orders was introduced by Paul Vl?
I found out that the priest who baptized me was ordained in May, 1967 and am curious to know which rite was used for his ordination.
It was introduced June 18, 1968.
Dear Bro.Michael Dimond, O.S.B. and Bro.Peter Dimond, O.S.B.,
I am from Sabah Borneo, Malaysia…
I never know about the Novus Ordo until only recently which is about 2 weeks to be exact. I don't know if our Mass is valid or not. Tell me what to do. And how about the new decade of rosary, the Luminous Mystery. Is it legal or is it considered under Novus Ordo?
Thank you for your time.
We're very glad to hear that you found the website. The New Mass is not valid, because it has a changed form of Consecration. A Catholic must not attend it under any circumstances. The article near the top of the website explains why the New Mass cannot be valid. Also, no Catholic should pray the Luminous Mysteries because they were added by Antipope John Paul II, who is not a valid Pope. If you have more questions, let us know.
1. Who are the faithful Catholics left in the world, since all the CMRI bishops are heretical with all their followers, the SSPX believes that Satan can be the head of the Church, and all the other independent priests believe in baptism of Desire?
2. Please estimate for me how many faithful Catholics are left in the world, since all of these people are heretics?
3. Do you believe that Pride is enough to put a soul into hell!
1. The faithful Catholics left in the world are those who maintain the true Faith. 2. I don't know the number of those. 3. If pride is grave then it will lead to mortal sins which will put a person in hell. And “pride is the beginning of all sin” (Ecclus. 10:15). Pride causes man not to pray as much, not to fear sin, not to listen to what they should or to whom they should, not learn what they need to know. Pride causes people to dismiss truth or people speaking the truth by finding fault with petty things. We’ve dealt with many people who, though they don’t have haughty personalities, admit that they commit mortal sins and yet they are still critical of others’ spiritual lives. Frankly, if they commit any mortal sin then they shouldn’t be criticizing anybody. But they cannot see their decrepit state because they are filled with pride: “…knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Apoc. 3:17) They don’t fear to offend God by their mortal sins because they are filled with pride.
I was reading through your articles and noticed under the brief one dealing with whether the Catholic remnant needs governing Bishops or not, and it says there are currently no fully Catholic Bishops, if I understood correctly.
Does this mean the hierarchy has died?
The hierarchy can be defined in two ways: the jurisdictional hierarchy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. 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 the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It is possible that as long as the ecclesiastical hierarchy remains the hierarchy exists.
However, the non-sedevacantists who raise this objection cannot point to one real Catholic Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. Who are they going to point to? "Bishop" Bruskewitz, who thinks that not converting schismatics is not heretical? "Cardinal" Mahony? "Cardinal" Keeler?
The fact is that if there must be one Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction somewhere (which is something that has not been proven), then he is somewhere. But it does not change the fact that John Paul II and his apostate Bishops are not Catholic and therefore not part of the hierarchy. Against a fact there is no argument; and against this fact there is no argument.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church: “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits. 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, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)
Of course, there are countless arguments and discussions and citations that both sides in the "Three Baptisms" (or, more accurately, the debate about the possibility of salvation for those who desire Baptism, either normally or to the extreme of being martyred for the Catholic Faith and their desire for Baptism) debate present, but I would like to get your specific comments on just this particular passage from the Roman Martyrology. I have read all your citations on the subject, but want to know what your comments are just on this particular passage. The copy I have is the 1749 edition. This particular passage is in every edition of the Martyrology back to the edition of Gregory XIII:
"At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, St. Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored. After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment. With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood. St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion..."
Both St. Bede and Fr. Alban Butler both give the same account and claim the Heavenly Reward for the unbaptized soldier, through his desire to be a Catholic and his martyrdom specifically for the Catholic Faith. I grant that you might say that neither St. Bede or Fr. Alban Butler is authoritative in a doctrinal sense. However, the Roman Martyrology is a compilation of diverse martyrologies that were remembered by virtually every monastic community for hundreds of years and were authoritatively prepared and promulgated as a complete text in 1584, by Pope Gregory XIII…
God Bless you,
First, I want to say that all of these issues are dealt with in-depth in the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation. There are separate sections on these issues. Also, I’m glad you brought up the case of St. Alban, since this is a prime example of how the errors of baptism of desire and blood have been spread. The many historical accounts in the Roman Martyrology are not necessarily infallible and binding upon Catholics. That is why they have been revised several times, and it is why clear errors have been found in them.
Donald Attwater, ACatholic Dictionary, p. 310: “An historical statement in the ‘Martyrology’ as such has no authority… A number of entries in the Roman Martyrology are found to be unsatisfactory when so tested.”
ST. ALBAN AND HIS CONVERTED GUARD
St. Alban was the protomartyr of England (303 A.D.) The account of his martyrdom is particularly interesting and instructive on this topic. On the way to his martyrdom, one of the guards who led him to execution was converted to Christ. The Roman Martyrology (a fallible document), as well as Butler’s Lives of the Saints, says that the guard was “baptized in his own blood.” St. Bede the Venerable, a Church historian, says that the guard’s martyrdom occurred without “the purification of Baptism.” But watch this: in recounting the story of the martyrdoms of St. Alban and his guard, St. Bede and Butler’s lives of the Saints reveal a very important point.
St. Bede: “As he reached the summit, holy Alban asked God to give him (Alban) water, and at once a perennial spring bubbled up at his feet…” Butler: “The sudden conversion of the headsmen occasioned a delay in the execution. In the meantime the holy confessor (Alban), with the crowd, went up the hill… There Alban falling on his knees, at his prayer a fountain sprung up, with water whereof he refreshed his thirst… Together with St. Alban, the soldier, who had refused to imbrue (stain) his hands in his blood, and had declared himself a Christian, was also beheaded, being baptized in his own blood.”
The reader may be confused at this point, and rightly so, so let me explain. We have two (fallible) accounts of the martyrdom of St. Alban and his guard, from St. Bede and Bulter’s Lives of the Saints. They both record that just before the martyrdom of St. Alban and his guard, St. Alban prayed for “water” which he miraculously received! St. Bede then goes on to say that the guard died unbaptized! Butler’s says that the water was merely to “refresh” Alban’s thirst! With all due respect to St. Bede and the good things in Butler’s, how obvious does it have to be? A Saint, who had a few minutes to live and who had a convert wanting to enter the Church of Christ, would not call for miraculous water in order to “refresh his thirst”! He obviously called for the miraculous water to baptize the converted guard, and God provided it for the sincere convert, since “unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” This is a prime example of how the errors of baptism of blood and desire have been perpetuated – by passing down the fallible conclusions of fallible men, for instance, by passing down the ridiculous conclusion that the guard died unbaptized when these very accounts admit of the presence of miraculously received water! And this example of St. Alban and his guard, which actually shows the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, is frequently and falsely used against the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism.
It is also interesting to consider how much “faith” obstinate baptism of desire advocates have in the fallible accounts and conclusions of historians – such as the obviously ridiculous conclusion of Fr. Butler that the guard died unbaptized when he admits that St. Alban received miraculous water! – while they dismiss the infallible defined dogmatic statements. The fact of the matter is that they don’t really have faith in these accounts, but emphasize them because they like what they say: that people don’t need baptism.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
This means that Our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration that no man can be saved without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost is a literal dogma of the Catholic Faith.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, 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.”
I’m just wondering, do you believe that baptism of desire applies only to people who desire baptism and believe in Christ, or do you believe that people who don’t even desire baptism or believe in Christ (such as certain Jews, Buddhists, Muslims) could be united to the Church and saved?
Dear Brothers Dimond,
Enjoyed reading your article on "The Great Apostasy, Not the Great Facade." Would you put me on the mailing list?
What is your opinion of Sr. Lucy? Does she attend the New Mass? Does anyone have access to her true opinions? Do you have an article on her? (and)
What is your opinion on Geocentrism? Do you have an article on the controversy? (Is there anyway you can add a Search feature to your site?)
God bless you.
1. In short, this “Sister Lucia” is not the real one. She has repeatedly stated that she agrees that the Third Secret has been revealed, and that she is in line with the Vatican’s present position on Fatima. The attempts by Gruner, etc. to state that this is not what “Sister Lucia” really believes simply don’t square with reality. They fly in the face of many interviews with this “Sister Lucia,” but most devastatingly the televised 2000 “beatification” of Jacinta and Francisco. There, this “Sister Lucia” showed anyone who was watching that she fully endorses the Vatican’s present position on Fatima. She is an impostor; and the real Sister Lucia is most surely dead. (This “Sister Lucia” definitely doesn’t look like a woman who is 98 years old, either!)
The reason she is silenced much of the time is because if she weren’t she would be quickly detected as a fraud; it is not because she would tell the Nicholas Gruner line on Fatima. The fact that this “Sister Lucia” accepts the false Vatican II religion and the New Mass also shows her to be a fraud.
2. We don’t have a fully formed opinion on Geocentrism and we haven’t written anything on the subject. We are open to facts in this regard.
I was reading you article entitled: A Warning about certain Heretical Traditional Priests and Chapels
You include a Bishop (?) Dolan and a Bishop (?) Sanborn. These guys are not valid Bishops since they were never valid Priests.
You are referring to the accusation that Bishop Lienart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre and consecrated him with two other Bishops, was a Freemason and therefore did not validly confer Orders upon Lefebvre – which subsequently caused all the priests ordained by Lefebvre to be invalid.
While some may be sincerely confused about this issue, it is not a tenable position. This is because when a minister uses the correct matter and form - that is, the traditional rite of ordination - he is presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. Lienart used the traditional rite of ordination in ordaining and consecrating Lefebvre.
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”
Suspicion that Lienart was a Freemason is not sufficient to question his intention, since he used the traditional rite in ordaining Lefebvre. During the French Revolution the Bishop Talleyrand was a Freemason. He ordained many priests. There is no evidence that the Church re-ordained any of those men; on the contrary, they were accepted as valid. Further, it was discovered after his death that Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, Cardinal Rampolla, was a high-ranking Freemason. Surely Rampolla ordained priests, but there is no evidence that any of the men he ordained were conditionally re-ordained. If one can doubt the validity of the Lefebvre-line orders then one can go back in history and question almost anyone's orders.
I just went to your Web site today and noticed a new article warning about heretical priests. I noticed that Fr. Ringrose was on the list when I read the article.
This was a surprise to me, because I have been to St. Athanasius (in Vienna, Virginia) since 2002 and not once have heard him even mention anything about "Feeneyism" in any of his sermons; however, I have seen pamphlets in near the front door which come from SSPX magazines which actually promote "baptism of desire". And the bookstore also sells SSPX material.
I never saw anything notorious in this regard, but I have heard on only two occasions where he talks about the heresies of Vatican II, yet does not go forward with the correct conclusion (i.e. the last four claiming to be popes from John XXIII onward are actually antipopes). As with "Feeneyism", I did not see this heresy imposed on anyone from the times I've been there. However, I have stopped going to Mass at that chapel for some time while I'm still trying to sort this all out. I have not talked to him about either issue, and planned to do so once I got my information together to present to him. I want to make sure my information is 100% correct before doing anything like this…Thanks for the information. Take care, and have a blessed afternoon.
e were informed by a lady who attended that church that Fr. Ringrose gave a series of talks on baptism of desire, basically denouncing Feeneyism and anyone who holds it. The fact that you saw pamphlets on baptism of desire corroborates that he has a major desire to promote it, and that he is clearly against those who don't accept it. We don't believe anyone should attend his church since he has publicly denounced “Feeneyism” from the pulpit, but one could certainly call him up and ask him his position on the matter.
I've been looking around on the internet and stumbled onto your site but I am not sure what you believe in. It seems that you don't agree with the novus ordo church, SSPV or the SSPX. Also, you don't seem to believe in Baptism by desire which is contained in the Baltimore Catechism and was taught to every Catholic for generations.
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
You have correctly ascertained that we don’t agree with the Conciliar Church (the Vatican II/Novus Ordo sect). The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, but a non-Catholic sect which rejects the Catholic Faith and Jesus Christ by endorsing heretical sects, schismatic sects, as well as idolatrous and pagan religions. Regarding what we believe on the salvation issue, you are also correct that we don’t believe with the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI that it is not necessary to have the Catholic Faith for salvation. We don’t believe, as they do, that certain Buddhists, Jews, Muslims or Hindus can be united to the Catholic Church. We believe, profess and preach that all who die as non-Catholics will not be saved, as the Holy Roman Church believes, professes and preaches. (more…)
Brother, what exactly is the modernist definition of baptism of desire? Do the modernists believe that one can be saved merely by having a desire to be baptized but no intention of actually being baptized with water? If so, that's absurd.
Or, do they define baptism of desire as one who not only desires to be baptized with water but intends to, but dies before he gets the chance to do so. For example, let's say that a catechumen who is studying the Catholic faith in order to be baptized, when on his way to church to be baptized with water is killed by a car. Can he be saved? Or is this what the modernists teach?
The modernists believe that baptism of desire saves people who belong to false religions and have never heard of Christ and don't desire baptism. It is a sick joke that they actually call this abominable view "baptism of desire," since those Doctors of the Church who did believe in baptism of desire (i.e., for catechumens) would condemn their perverse heresy. So, in short, baptism of desire today = salvation for non-Catholics without the Catholic Faith. It is an abominable heresy. The whole history of the error of baptism of desire (and there is no such thing, even for catechumens) is discussed in depth in our book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, especially section 14.
First, congratulations on an excellent website, and May God bless your crusade against heresy! I have two questions.
1) Since, as you point out, the assassination attempt on Wojtyla has elevated his status in the eyes of the world, and enabled him to pose as "Mary's Pope" and preach heresy more effectively, is there any evidence that the assassination attempt was "staged.", and that there was no real threat to the life of Wojtyla?
2) I agree with you that the real Sister Lucy is dead (or imprisoned). She would never have supported the the Vatican's interpretation of the third secret. I have a question regarding her: Did she ever express doubts about the validity of the papacies of Paul VI and John XXIII, considering the fact that she spoke of "diabolic disorientation", and said that "in 1960 it [the meaning of the third secret] will be clearer."
No, there is no evidence that it was staged. We believe that it was the fulfillment of Apocalypse 13:4, where one head of the beast – each head is an Emperor over the seven-hilled city (Apoc. 17:9) – is wounded. It is interesting that the man who shot JP2, Ali Agca, publicly claimed to be Jesus Christ in Court after the event. This is interesting because if the entire assassination attempt was orchestrated by Satan on May 13, 1981 to build up JP2 (which it was), it makes sense that the man whom Satan used to pull it off, Ali Agca, was possessed with John Paul II’s Antichrist doctrine that every man is Jesus Christ. Regarding your question about Sister Lucia, it’s not clear when they moved the phony one in, but it was probably some time around 1960. But there is no statement from the real one ever questioning the validity of John XXIII.
Dear Rev. Brothers
At last the kettle calls the pot black?!. By the way, last month Sister Mary Cabrini (Superior) and Sister Mary Michael of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart visited this part of India for a day. The have given us a factsheet on dogma [ compiled by themselves] that says that: " Baptism of Desire is a doctrine of Faith. It has been dogmatized (D. 388, D. 796). We must believe in Baptism of Desire in order to be a member of the Church founded by Christ."
They also urged us to stay away from ALL Traditionalist priests and priestly societies as all of these are operating illicitly - " criminal and sacrilegious " (Pius XII). The only priest acceptable would be one ordained during the reign of Pius XII who from the very outset rejected Vatican II and the New Mass.
Yes, I've spoken with one of those "Sisters." Unfortunately, they are heretics who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. What they say on baptism of desire is completely false and is refuted in our book. They also don't know what they are talking about regarding Jurisdiction.
They are hypocritical, for while they spew their false views regarding Jurisdiction, they are themselves independent and irregular according to normal status. But I guess the "rules" don't apply when it comes to them, of course.
And also what are the Infallible" statements concerning NFP.
Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.” Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”Besides this primary purpose, there are also secondary purposes for marriage, such as mutual aid, the quieting of concupiscence and the cultivating of mutual love. But these secondary purposes must always remain subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage (the procreation and education of children). This is the key point to remember in the discussion on NFP.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends. (more…)
Dear Brother Dimond:
Please put us on your e-mail list. We love your website, and have been reading and rereading your magazines for years. I have some questions for you:
- Garabandal- What is your opinion? Apparantly, Padre Pio claimed that these were authentic apparitions of Mary, but I'm not so sure about that.
- Holy days of obligation-These were changed by Paul VI if my memory is correct. If that is the case, since these changes were illegitimate, what are the real Holy Days of Obligation?? And why are they different for different countries? (I thought that they would be the same in a universal Church).
- Is it allright to make donations to nonCatholic organizations specializing in corporal works of mercy (ie Food for the Poor, Covenant House)?
I would very much like to have answers to these questions.
Thanks for the support. To answer your questions:
1. A certain person claims that Padre Pio endorsed the Garabandal apparitions. But the accounts of this aren't clear and, frankly, we don't believe the man's story. Even if it were true that Padre Pio endorsed Garabandal, the fact that Padre Pio thought they were true wouldn't prove it to be so, of course.
We believe that Garabandal is definitely a false apparition. We believe this for a number of reasons.
First, according to a friend of ours who has studied it (we have not yet been able to), the message states: "the Pope will reconvene the Council and it will be a great event in the Church.” This means that Garabandal apparently refers to Vatican II as something that will be a "great event" in the Church and Paul VI as a "Pope" - both of which are totally false and, if stated in the message, prove without any doubt that Garabandal was a false apparition of the devil.
Second, all of the "seers" at Garabandal are in the Novus Ordo sect (a bad fruit) and none of them pursued religious vocations. (Most of those who have visions such as this, like the real Sister Lucy of Fatima, pursue religious life). The original apparition occurred when they were stealing apples – not usually an activity that would be rewarded with a visit from the Mother of God, I would say. The "seers" also walked backwards, something that is suggestive of Satanic influence.
We believe that the purpose of the false apparitions of Garabandal was to focus people on the physical chastisement – a great warning, miracle, and ball of redemption – and direct people away from Satan's real attack, which concerns our Faith, not physical chastisements. So, while people are waiting for what they think will be the "real" chastisement (what they expect to be a physical one) and remain in the false sect, the true chastisement (a spiritual one, the Vatican II sect) is already upon them and has (already) almost reached its consummation.
2. The Traditional Holy Days of Obligation are : Circumcision (Jan. 1); Ascension Thursday; Assumption BVM (August 15); All Saints' Day (November 1); Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8); Christmas (Dec. 25).
3. One should not make a donation to a non-Catholic organization that specializes in corporal works of mercy. One could donate clothes and possessions that one doesn't need, but not donations. This is because, among other things, you don't know what the non-Catholic organization will do with the donation.
I recently read an article…which quoted Popes and other clergy speaking about NFP prior to PIUS XII. I would like to know how you refute these quotations, and whether they are just to be ignored anyway since they are not ex-cathedra pronouncements. -Mark
Mark, we are familiar with the quotations. They are not infallible statements; and they are not even Papal statements. They are a few somewhat ambiguous responses from members of the Holy Office before Vatican II and they reflect the growing Modernism that was capturing large parts of the clergy from the time of the late 1800's to Vatican II – as exemplified by the rampant denial of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation found in many theology texts and manuals from the period. So, to reiterate, they are not infallible or binding, and, if they do in fact endorse birth control by means of NFP (as they seem to), they contradict the Magisterial teaching of Pius XI that the primary purpose of marriage and the marriage act is the procreation of children – and that the other purposes or ends of marriage must always be subordinated to the procreation of children. NFP violates this by subordinating the procreation of children to other ends by deliberately trying to avoid it.
Would you kindly refer me to where the papacy has prior to Vatican Council II declared solemnly that heretics cannot possibly please God in their prayers, praises and worship? I know that this declaration has been solemnly made but I can't put my finger on it. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours in Jesus, Mary & Joseph,
In Sess. 5, the Council of Trent's Decree on Original Sin, it is declared:
"... our Catholic Faith, without which it is impossible to please God' [Heb. 11:6]".No heretic or non-Catholic can please God so that he becomes justified before him and that God is truly pleased with him. But God does hear the prayers of heretics to turn to the truth if they are sincere in their prayers; for instance, if the heretic sincerely prayed for the true Faith, God would answer and give the heretic the graces to be led to Catholic truth.
Do you know if Mel Gibson is a sedevacantist? Next, have you seen the website… The guy says that "The Passion" contradicts scripture at every turn.....I haven't read everything yet, but what he mentions about the contradictions is very interesting......
To your first question, I believe Mel would claim to be a Sedevacantist, although he is not very outspoken about this. In his interview with ABC he gave the line about how the traditional Mass has “never been abrogated.” This is an argument that non-sedevacantists who accept Paul VI as the Pope make. Regarding the charge that The Passion contradicts scripture, no, I don’t believe The Passion contradicts scripture, except for one glaring change that I noticed that Mel Gibson made to the words of Our Lord. This change was made by Mel to appease the Christ-denying Jews. In the part of the movie where Jesus stands before Pilate (the part that corresponds to John 18:36 ff.), Mel Gibson has Jim Caviezal say:
“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants should certainly strive that I should not be delivered into the hand of this people.”But Jesus actually said, as recorded in John 18:36:
“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants should certainly strive that I should not be delivered into the hand of THE JEWS.”Notice the change that Mel made. He changed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His meaning – simply not to offend the Jews. If he had quoted the actual words of Our Lord the scene would have been more powerful and, most importantly, more accurate. This change was striking for me when I saw the movie.
Regarding the for all, for many, debate. I have heard many people defend the "for all" by saying that a certain mass, which has always been said in another language, uses the words "for all". (It may be the Aramaic Mass). I'm sure you are familiar with the argument. What is the answer to this?
Some have claimed – most notably Michael Malone, now deceased – that the Traditional Maronite Rite used "all" in its Consecration; but this is not true. After issue #1 of our magazine came out Michael Malone wrote us a letter attempting to refute our article on the New Mass by bringing forward this “proof” that the Maronite Rite used all in the Consecration. But Malone was completely wrong; for it was only a modern mistranslation of the Aramaic word in the Maronite Rite which used "all." The word all is not found in the Traditional Maronite formula of Consecration. The original Aramaic word is "sagueeia." Sagueeia has been mistranslated in certain English Maronite Liturgies as “all.” It means many, not all. But Michael Malone, who was a heretic who was desperate to defend the New Mass and Vatican II, spread this untruth and deceived a great many. No traditional liturgy ever approved by the Church has used “all” in the Consecration, nor could it, as our recent article on the New Mass showed. This is because a Sacrament must signify the grace it effects and vice versa. “All” does not signify the grace proper to the Eucharist – the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ – because not all are members of the Mystical Body.