What is the correct Fatima prayer “O my Jesus, pardon our sins”?

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. 

A reader laments the current spiritual situation

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…)

What about this Message from Bayside?

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.

The False Apparitions at Bayside, NY

Should Females 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.

A Question on Mass Attendance from a traditionalist

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.

Traditional Catholic Calendar

You can also download individual months by clicking on the image thumbnail for the particular month.

📌 = Current Month Of The Year | ✝️ = Lent Begins

Explaining the Laws of fast and abstinence, for days of fast and abstinence

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)

Eucharistic Fast

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)

Common Abbreviations

Ab Abbot
Ap Apostle
App Apostles
B Bishop
Bb Bishops
C Confessor
Cc Confessors
Comp Companions
D Doctor
Ev Evangelist
M Martyr
Mm Martyrs
P Pope
Pp Popes
St Saint
Ss Saints
V Virgin
Vv Virgins
W Widow
(St. N.) Commemoration

Holy Days of Obligation (USA)

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 do you think about the people who still say that John Paul II is a Catholic and not a heretic after seeing all the evidence?

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.

Did Padre Pio say that one day John Paul II 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.)

When was the New Rite of Ordination introduced?

It was introduced June 18, 1968.

The New Mass and the Luminous Mysteries

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.

Who are the faithful Catholics left in the world? Is pride enough to send one to 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.

Has The Catholic Hierarchy 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)

Is the Roman Martyrology infallible?

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?

“What is your opinion on Geocentrism?”

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.

Was Lefebvre’s ordination by Bishop Lienart valid?

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.

What about Fr. Ronald Ringrose?

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.

What does MHFM believe on salvation and baptism issue?

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…)

What is the Modernist definition of baptism of desire?

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.

Was the shooting of JP2 staged?; question about Sister Lucia?

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.

What about these Sisters of the “Missionaries of the Sacred Heart”?

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.

What are the “Infallible” statements which refute 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.”

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.”

Was Garabandal A True Marian Apparition?

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.

Pre-Vatican II teaching on NFP, how is it refuted?

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.

Where does the Church teach that heretics cannot please God by their prayers, praises and worship?

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]". 

Is Mel Gibson a Sedevacantist and did The Passion contradict the Bible?

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.”

“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.”

Wasn’t “for all” used in an Aramaic Mass?

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.

Is the CMRI an okay place to attend Mass?

We believe that you could attend the Mass of certain priests of the CMRI (who are not notorious about their heresy); but you cannot give them any money because they deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as explained in the section about them our website and in our book. They even believe with Bishop Robert Mckenna that Jews who reject Christ can receive baptism of desire. This is why Fr. Puskorius (editor of their magazine) didn’t respond to our public letter asking him about that issue. Also, we do not believe that anyone should attend the Mass of Bishop Pivarunas, since Pivarunas is a notorious heretic who has repeatedly made his heresy known in a very public fashion.

What about the Catechism of Pius X and Shawn M.?

I’m not very familiar with the specifics of the writings of the two men you mentioned, but I am familiar with their general positions. They give an all-out defense of the Vatican II apostasy, including defending the Assisi abomination, all the Vatican II documents, etc. People such as this are extremely evil and utterly blinded spiritually; in fact, words cannot describe how evil they are. They defend the rejection of Christ and the most evil thing in the world – the Vatican II apostasy – and they try to convince people that it is fine. If a person cannot even see that the Assisi abomination/John Paul II’s ecumenism is apostasy, then he is totally of bad will and I don’t know what one could say to convince him of the truth. We have focused more of our attention on the group of people who at least can see that the ecumenism, Assisi, etc. is contrary to the teaching of the Church. People should really not read writings by people like Shawn M. unless it is to expose him. Reading his garbage is truly like listening to Lucifer speak. I know one person who was a sedevacantist who continually read the “defenses” of ecumenism, etc. by Shawn M. and others. After listening to Shawn M.’s evil garbage for long enough, the devil moved in and the Sedevacantist began to imbibe the garbage and his whole Faith was destroyed. Now, this person actually has no problem with Assisi and is a full-fledged defender of the Vatican II apostasy. It was all because, in his bad will, he opened his mind up to Satan through entertaining the responses of Satan’s useful idiots, the apostate Shawn M. and others. One other lady who was a traditionalist and home-schooled her children began to read Shawn M.’s writings. She is now back in the Novus Ordo, and her children go to public school. Lucifer can thank his dupe, Shawn M., for that one. But, if we get time, it may be something we will address more in detail in the future. (more…)

What about the Holy Innocents and Romans 9:14-16?

MHFM: Dr. M.: There is a section in our book (Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation) which deals specifically with this objection.  I will copy the section for you below.  The short answer to your question is that the Holy Innocents and the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law - that is, before the law of baptism became obligatory on all. Regarding your section question: no, we are not limiting the free choice of God.  God has revealed to man what He will do and what we must believe.  He has told us via divine revelation that no one will be saved without the Catholic Faith.  If that is not what He does, then He would not have revealed it.

Romans 8:29-30- “For whom He foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son: that he might be the first-born amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

The Good Thief and The Holy Innocents

Donating to a heretic for his work on Geocentrism?

That's like saying, "I just made a donation to John Kerry's campaign because I support his economic policy"; or "I just made a donation to the Greek Orthodox Church because I support their work and study of the early Church Fathers"; or "I just made a donation to the Lutheran ‘Church’ because I support their creation science".  You cannot support heretics, and Bob Sungenis is definitely a heretic - one of the worst in the traditionalist movement.