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.
I had one last question I forgot to ask in my last email. Is CMRI an okay place to attend mass? And if not could you please let me know what is wrong with their organization. Again thank you for your time.
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.
I am a recent convert from Protestantism who has since rejected the Novus Ordo and the "Newchurch" sect. I have been studying sedevacantism for a few months, and am leaning towards it. I hold to the doctrine of no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and have been debating with some associates of totally heretical defenders of Vatican II, namely Shawn M. and Dave A. Reading through M.’s awful writings, he presents a quote from the Catechism of Saint Pius X as follows:
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.
How should this be understood? Also-I have enjoyed your articles very much: you should write refutations of Shawn M. and Dave A.: not that they are particularly good writers, but they are apparently very influential in convincing "conservatives." If I want to order the DVD's and "No Salvation..." book, do I just send $15 to the monastery?
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…)
In Matthew 2:16 we read how Herod ordered the murder of all the baby boys in Bethlehem and nearby who were two years old or under , because of the birth of Jesus. Since you hold that all who do not receive water Baptism and believe in the Trinity will go to Hell, what do you suppose is the fate of these Holy Innocents who died because Jesus was born of Mary?
If you will permit me one more question, in Romans 9:14-16 we read of God's free choice in that He "will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." Does not your insistence on an absolutely inflexible condition of water Baptism attempt to limit the freedom of choice of Almighty God?
I ask these questions respectfully, not to try to trap you with words, or to burden you, but because I find the matter of water Baptism so ultimately important and the Scripture references I give above so challenging to your position.
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.”
I hope you aren't giving me the "silent treatment" because I had made a donation to Bob Sungenis. I don't agree with his support of Vatican II or JPII, I merely supported his work on Geocentrism more than anything else. And since I sent him my email telling him that I was a sedevacantist, he hasn't responded to any contact from me anymore either.
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.
Where does it mention the rosary in the Bible?
Besides the meditations on the mysteries of Christ and Our Lady (all of which are indicated in Scripture), the Rosary is comprised essentially of two prayers, the Our Father and the Hail Mary. Both come from the Bible. The Our Father is given to us by Our Lord in Scripture (Matthew 6; Luke 11), and the main part of the Hail Mary is found in Luke Chapter 1. The Hail Mary is as follows: HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE, BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB JESUS, HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD PRAY FOR US SINNERS NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH.
“Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou among women” comes directly from Luke 1:28. “Blessed art thou among women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb [Jesus]” comes directly from Luke 1:42. “Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death” is not found in Scripture, but completes the above prayer with a sublime petition to the Mother of God.Protestants fail to understand the significance of Mary because they don’t understand Jesus. They fail to understand the significance of the following truth about Jesus.
Pope St. Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon, 451, ex cathedra: “… our Lord Jesus Christ… indeed born of the Father before all ages according to His Divinity, but in the last days born of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, according to His humanity; for us and for our salvation, one and the same Christ…”One may say, what is Mary doing in a discussion of this magnitude? Therein lies her dignity, her power with God, and why God wishes us to have devotion to her. Catholics perceive and say “wow” at Mary’s role in the above, while Protestants remain blind to it and often attack it. They fail to understand how her soul “doth magnify the Lord” (Luke 1:47) because they don’t understand who she is who gives birth to the Son of God in His humanity. They fail to perceive the ramifications of this inscrutable truth. The Hail Mary, which begins in Luke 1:28 (the Angelic Salutation), is so significant precisely because it represents the Incarnation – the act by which the Son of God became man. As St. Louis De Montfort puts it, the Angelic Salutation (the Hail Mary) “has saved the world,” because by it (God becoming man in Mary’s womb) man had a chance to be saved.
“Blessed Alan De la Roche who was so deeply devoted to the Blessed Virgin had many revelations from her and we know that he confirmed the truth of these revelations by a solemn oath. Three of them stand out with special emphasis: the first, that if people fail to say the Hail Mary (the Angelic Salutation which has saved the world) out of carelessness, or because they are lukewarm, or because they hate it, this is a sign that they will probably and indeed shortly be condemned to eternal punishment. The second truth is that those who love this divine salutation bear the very special stamp of predestination. The third is that those to whom God has given the signal grace of loving Our Lady and of serving her out of love must take very great care to continue to love and serve her until the time when she shall have had them placed in heaven by her divine Son in the degree of glory which they have earned.” (The Secret of the Rosary, p. 45.)The Hail Mary, and Catholics’ petitions throughout history to the Mother of God, are prophesied by Our Lady herself in Luke 1:48: “…for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” The Catholic commentary on this verse puts it well:
“These words [Luke 1:48] are a prediction of that honor which the Church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are in any way concerned in this prophecy.” (Challoner)
There is a Benedictine traditional monastery in New Mexico… Do you know what their belief is on Outside the Church there is no salvation and John Paul II? There is that prophecy that says that those Benedictines faithful to the rule will be saved and something about remaining until the end of the world. Thank you so much.
To Jesus Through Mary, T. S.
Yes, we are familiar with them. Unfortunately, they do not hold the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, but agree with the SSPX that souls can be saved without baptism and in false religions. They also hold that John Paul II is the Pope. They are basically an SSPX Monastery. Certain SSPX priests go from the SSPX into the Monastery and then back into the SSPX, although they would “officially” claim that the Monastery is not strictly affiliated with the SSPX. I also believe that Bishop Williamson has gone there to perform ordinations, although I’m not 100% certain about this. Thus, their positions would be in line with the SSPX.
Dear Brothers Dimond,
FYI, hindu worship permitted in Fatima Church May 2004 . Any info on this abomination? I do not see it in your website.
Celso, We addressed that issue in the Heresy of the Week from 5/28/04. You will find it in the Heresy of the Week Archive on our website.
I agree that outside the Church there is no salvation, but I have a question:
Do you deny that it is possible for a person who is not a "visible" member of Catholic Church to be saved? What I mean is this: do you deny it is possible for a person who has never stepped foot into a Catholic Church, but who has been baptised, to be saved? I understand it would be an exception, but do you deny any possibility for such an exception? Surely you do not deny that. Thanks…
It is possible for a person who has been baptized, and believes in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, to be saved without having set foot in a Catholic church. For instance, some of the heathen whom St. Isaac Jogues converted were instructed in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) and were baptized just before they were tortured and killed. They were Catholics even though they never set foot in a Catholic church. In order to be a Catholic and a member of the Church, one must at least be baptized and, if above reason, know at least the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) – and not reject any teaching of the Church. Persons such as those described above (baptized just before death by St. Isaac Jogues) are also subject to the Roman Pontiff, just like infants, by virtue of their baptism. Such persons would not be exceptions to the dogma at all, since those persons are Catholics and are within the bosom and unity of the Church; they are also part of the visible Church, by virtue of their baptism and acceptance of the essential mysteries of Catholicism.
Dear bro Dimond , Grace and blessing of the Lord be upon you for the work you are doing for souls. Since I discovered your website I have been challenged to seek the truth of the catholic faith. As a result of this I visit many traditional catholic sites .i understand that you maintain that the see of peter is vacant. I wish to seek for your opinion on the issue of antipope and the various claimants to the chair of Peter apart from JP11.who is the pope? I recently got a publication titled WHERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. In the publication it is argued that pope Michael is the true pope of the catholic church.What is your advice on this. Does he have credibility? Does he have canonical status?pls dont be offended if I ask too many questions. I will appreciate a prompt reply to this. Pls find attached for WHERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Frank, “Pope” Michael has no credibility, nor does any person who claims to be Pope today. One cannot just elect himself Pope, as he has done. If I recall correctly, “Pope” Michael was “elected” by a conclave consisting of his mother and two of his relatives! The true Catholic Church still exists with that remnant of Catholics which maintains the deposit of Faith whole and inviolate, just like it did during the Arian crisis, although today’s crisis is even worse because it is the Great Apostasy.
I think you're right on target about Malachi Martin. He had a lot of people fooled. With regards to Fr. Wickens...his chapel has not been turned over to the SSPX. Apparently the SSPX could not provide a full time priest which was Fr. Wickens request. There is a search for a full time traditional priest for the Chapel.
With regards to Sr. Lucia....have you ever considered the possibility that she may be on "drugs" that would account for her personality change. I too caught a glimpse of the canonization service, and watched Sr. Lucia being escorted to receive "communion" from JPII and immediately after she turned and waved with a big smile on her face. She seemed to be rather confused.
If you've ever read any books about Opus Dei, it's a well known fact that they rely heavily upon "drugs" to soothe their subjects, especially the ones who begin to have qualms of conscience. Who knows...they may have JPII "medicated" too! Antipsychotic drugs have the side effects that resemble the "symptoms" of Parkinson's Disease. Remember when JPII first started showing signs of the "disease", it was denied that he had Parkinson's. Maybe it wasn't Parkinson's at the time, but since the side effects are irreversible, why not just say it is Parkinson's. T.T.
No, this “Sister” Lucia is not on drugs. We saw the “beatification” ceremony as well, and “Sister” Lucia was so enthusiastic about meeting John Paul II that she grabbed John Paul II’s hand and kissed it immediately after receiving the Novus Ordo cookie. Supposing that John Paul II were a Pope and the Novus Ordo Mass valid (neither of which is true), the real Sister Lucia would never do this; she wouldn’t interrupt her concentration immediately after receiving Our Lord to grab the hand of the Pope. She would wait until after Mass to pay her respects. But the fake “Lucia” was so intent on showing everyone her devotion to Antipope John Paul II that she couldn’t even wait until the end of the Novus Ordo and the consummation of the cookie to kiss his hand.
Do you have a list of places in the USA where one can go to mass with a valid/no BOD/JPII no pope priest, and maybe a school? If attending an SAP chapel, like Davie, FL, with Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, I find it difficult not to give some money in the collection so the priest/building can survive, or stipends for masses (spelling?) for the souls in Purgatory, is this a mortal sin? Let's say I move to St. Mary's, Kansas and send my children to school there, would it be a sin to pay tuition or to donate money for the school?
I try to do what I see as correct in the eyes of God, and so, I naturally understand your correct analysis of "Outside the Church No Salvation, period", it's an open and shut case. I don't see it open and shut for your conclusion that the SSPX is heretical for it's response to VATII and JPII, however, I do see your position regarding JPII as a more consistent conclusion than the SSPX's.
The sad fact of the matter is that there are only a few priests in the country that are fully Catholic. To answer your question about donating to the SSPX after one has been made aware of their heresies, the answer is yes it is a mortal sin for one to obstinately contribute to the SSPX, and by doing so one is showing Jesus Christ that he endorses the idea that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Jews can be saved without the Catholic Faith, which they promote in their books.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics."Actions speak louder than words. Thus, one can say that he disagrees with the SSPX, but if he still contributes to this group, then his actions prove that he doesn't stand against their heresy but endorses it. If you were to move to St. Mary's you could pay tuition only (since this is required) but you could not give any donations to the school or a penny of financial support. You could only pay the tuition fee, just like if you buy a book from them: you can pay the cost of the book, but you cannot supplement that with any additional money as a donation. The SSPX is, unfortunately, heretical and schismatical for its union with John Paul II. It is heretical because it holds that heretics are Catholics (which is heresy) and that people can be Catholic and completely reject the necessity of Christ and the Church. It is also heretical for holding that the Catholic Church is apostate (namely, that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church). The SSPX is schismatical because it holds that one can reject the solemn Canonizations of the man it believes to be the Pope.
Dear Brothers, I would like to know if it is ok to sing in a recreational choir where some of the pieces are from the Gloria in Latin by Mozart and the Huron Carol by St. Jean deBreuf. This is for a Christmas concert for the general public, although the location is a United Church but only for its sound. This is a non-religious affiliated choir. I would appreciate your opinion. Thank you and God bless. -Barbara
Barbara, no, a Catholic should not sing in the Choir if the concert is going to be held in the heretical Protestant "church," even if the choir is non-religious.
I have received the material I ordered and I wanted to say thank you, incredible stuff. I wanted to ask what might seem an incredibly stupid question. When you pray all 15 mysteries at one time can you move from one right to the other? In other words after you finish the joyful mysteries and after you recite the Hail Holy Queen, can you start right away with the next Our Father and meditation on the first sorrowful mystery? Thank you again
Gene, I'm glad that you received the material. The answer to your question is yes, you can go straight to the next Our Father for the first Sorrowful Mystery. And, actually, you don't have to say the Hail Holy Queen, etc. until you are finished with the Glorious Mysteries (i.e., if you are going to say all 15 mysteries).
Dear Brother, My wife and I find great interest in the articles you send, & also in your magazines we have here at home. Wouldn't it be better to pray for our Pope rather then keep bashing him? How can you be sure it isn't the Masons doing most of the damage and not him? For all you know, he could even have a double who is being seen & doing things he shouldn't. Anything is possible, but being our Pope, he deserves more respect rather then being called names. That kind of talk & articles can only make matter worse. Let's pray instead! Thank you, J. & C.
First of all, John Paul II is not a Pope because he is not a Catholic. He does not believe in the Council of Trent, but holds that Justification by faith alone is acceptable; he does not believe in Vatican I, but holds that Eastern Schismatics should not be converted to a belief in the Papacy; he does not believe in Jesus Christ, but holds that Jews can reject Him and be saved because their covenant with God is still valid. He holds that Islam and Animism are good religions; and he holds that all men are saved. Why is it necessary to expose him? One really shouldn’t have to answer this question, but the answer is that there are countless reasons. He is the head of the phony Vatican II sect which is deceiving millions of those who profess to be Catholic; he is the main enemy of Jesus Christ and Our Lady in the world by far. Since he claims to be the Pope, people are following his program of apostasy and accepting it because they think he is the official teacher in the Church. Further, basically all of the abominations, sacrileges, scandals and heresies of the Novus Ordo sect with which one is bound to battle ultimately emanate from, or have their origin in, his activity or that of his phony predecessors, Paul VI and John XXIII. One good example is the recent Hindu abomination at Fatima. How was this able to occur? It was able to occur because they were just following John Paul II’s lead in Assisi. He did the same thing at Assisi: he turned the sacred convent over to false religions for them to worship the devil. Thus, to attempt to expose the Hindu outrage at Fatima without exposing Antipope John Paul II is foolish and futile. That is why those who think they are opposing the evil of the Vatican II revolution by simply exposing the Bishops or the radical theologians without getting to the heart of the problem (John Paul II) are swatting gnats when there is a big bird right in their faces, Antipope John Paul II. Those who fail to understand what Antipope John Paul II is or what he is all about are deceived and will be deceived about what is happening to the Catholic Church in the last days.
I was wondering what your thoughts were on racism in Catholic teaching?
Racism is a sin, which is a result of pride and hatred of neighbor. Racists are infatuated with themselves; they think that they are so great that they despise those of a different race or nationality. But while they are filled with how great they think they are, they are a disgrace in God’s sight. God doesn’t care what race or nationality you are; He cares if you love Him and hold the true Faith. The Catholic Church is universal, i.e., it embraces equally all men of whatever race or nationality.
Pope Pius XI, Rerum Ecclesia (#26), Feb. 28, 1926: “Anyone who looks upon these natives as members of an inferior race or as men of low mentality makes a grievous mistake.”The truth is that there is really only one race, the human race, as we all come from Adam and Eve. And while there is no sin to note distinctions in your nationality or your family heritage or to be aware of this, of course, or even to talk about it, it should also be noted that when this emphasis or focus on one’s nationality becomes inordinate, even in those who are not racists (e.g., people who constantly talk about how “Irish they are” or how “Italian they are”), it is a sign that a person is infected with pride and is infatuated with himself. Some also use nationality to justify sins; for instance, those drunks who say, “well, I’m Irish, what do you expect.” Sorry, but being Irish has nothing to do with the sin of getting drunk, but people dishonestly attempt to justify this sin in this way.
A few questions…The… question is about God's hatred, his abhorrence of the wicked. What exactly does this term mean? In Deuteronomy 28, God says He will rejoice in destroying the people that forsakes His ways. In other places, he talks about laughing at the wicked as their plans come to naught (I suppose as He precipitates them down to Hell). The Old Testament treats often of the destruction promised evil-doers. The Psalmist sometimes asks for the destruction of his enemies. How am I supposed to reconcile all of this with a loving God? I know Jesus suffered and died for us all, good and wicked, but I am beginning to rethink how I see his teachings, His Passion, and his death.
My understanding of the matter is that God hardens hearts. In one passage, He says you have before you fire and water, whichever you choose shall be given you. In other words, if I forcefully and constantly choose to be a hedonist, God won't spend my whole life preventing me from being a hedonist; he will abandon me to those false pleasures which have become my god. St. Alphonsus, in "Preparation for Death," talks of the way God withdraws His grace from the impenitent and leaves them almost completely unable to repent, easy prey for demons at the hour of death. These to me are examples of God's hatred: if you resolutely choose to contradict Him, He will largely abandon you to your way… How would you have me understand God's hatred? Also I would like to hear your interpretation of the words toward the end of Psalm 138: Have I not hated them who hated thee, O Lord? With a perfect hatred I have hated them and they have become an enemy to me. Is this the passage Jesus was talking about when he taught you have heard it said that you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but amen, I say to you, love your enemies and do good to those who hate you? What does this passage (about perfect hatred) mean?
Why does God seem to change His teaching in this matter?... As always, thanks for the materials; they are eye-opening and educational. Thanks also for the counsel. Jason B.
Jason, thank you for your question. God’s mercy is for those who fear Him (Luke 1:50). When His mercy is mentioned in Scripture, it is given to those who fear, obey and cooperate with His grace. Those who begin by fearing Him and obeying Him then come to see His love. That is why Scripture teaches that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 110:10). But those who spurn Him, deny Him and disobey Him get His wrath. And it is an awful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, as St. Paul says (Heb. 10:31). What I think is important to take from your e-mail is that God’s truth is a serious thing. He casts the wicked into Hell for all eternity; and He tortures them day and night for ever and ever, as the Apocalypse says. This is important for us to understand because there are many people we hear from all the time, especially among the “traditionalists,” who reject the truth because they are too liberal. They refuse to believe that this many people could be condemned by God and could be going to Hell. They need to re-read the words of Jacinta of Fatima: “Lucia found Jacinta sitting alone, still and very pensive, gazing at nothing. ‘What are you thinking of, Jacinta?’ ‘Of the war that is going to come, and of so many people who are going to die and go to Hell.’” (William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, p. 94) And it must be repeated that God is not unreasonable, of course. The people who go to Hell deserve it because they obstinately refuse to see the truth. God’s yoke is sweet and His burden is light (Mt. 11:30) for those who believe the truth, as people should – and for those who want to do the right thing with a pure intention. But for those who deny the truth or refuse to see things God’s way or refuse to obey Him, it is an awful thing.
I very much agree with most all your commentary. However, one is left with very disconcerting conflicts concerning just about everything in life. For example: my daughter, who has Asperger's Syndrome, has been home-schooled since first grade. Soon she will be in high school and she very much wishes to attend an actual school. The only school with a program to work with special needs children is a Catholic high school under the auspices of Vatican II Church officials... She mentioned that she could simply not go to Communion and act like the other children of other religions instead of actively participating in the religious activities there. What do you think? Would I be committing a sin by sending her there for the academic and social advantages?
Also, on another topic that is unrelated, but presents a similar problem: I am a trained classical singer, a soprano, with university degrees in performance. As a singer, the only opportunities to sing for profit are to sing for church services, be they Protestant or Catholic, or do concerts, which would be done in various churches, both Vatican II Catholic churches and Protestant, as well as concert halls… My singing job would be as a cantor, section leader, and soloist at Vatican II Masses, or for concert organizations who perform under many different venues including many different churches.
If I insist on being a purist, I cannot sing, and therefore, I will not be able to use my talent or make money as a singer. As you probably know, female solo voices are not allowed at the Traditional Latin Rite Mass, except as part of a choir -- and there is no choir position available in this area, except in the Vatican II churches. Again, what do you think? Am I committing a sin by singing at heretical churches, when I regard those positions as merely job opportunities?... Thank you very much for your time and attention, as I know you are extremely busy. I am about to make the decision about the church job any day now.
Most sincerely, S. P.
S. P., thanks for the questions. To answer your questions,
I am enjoying reading your book THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, but I think it is addressed to those who are already essentially committed to Roman Catholicism (of some variety) and not to potential converts thereto. For that, I presume, there are other publishers that you recommend. Is Tan Books the best? Sincerely yours, Davy C.
Davy, there are many good books, but the one I would recommend off the top of my head for a potential convert from Protestantism is The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis De Sales (available from TAN Books). 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (also available from TAN) is also very good.
Dear MHFM: A relative of mine attends the novus ordo every Sunday and goes to "confession" only to a priest who was ordained in the traditional rite back in the early 1950s. He wants to know is his confession valid? If not why? Thanks!!!
A Confession to a validly ordained Novus Ordo priest (i.e., a priest ordained in the Old Rite) would be valid if the Novus Ordo priest says "I absolve you from you sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." But the person you mentioned persists in going to the invalid Novus Ordo "Mass," and therefore that person is sinning gravely. Thus, he does not approach Confession with the proper resolution to avoid this grave sin and therefore his Confession is sacrilegious.
Dear Brother Peter,
I also wanted to let you know that Father Gonzales of SSPX at St. Jude's this past Sunday also asked us to pray for Father Wickens. Do you think that that is ok?
We are sorry to hear about the death of Fr. Wickens, but the sad fact is that Catholics cannot pray for him, because there is no evidence that he died a faithful Catholic, and there is much evidence to indicate that he died adhering to and accepting various heresies. Without question he will be praised as a hero by many of the false traditionalists. Any time any priest dies who celebrated the Latin Mass they honor him as if he were a Saint, no matter what he believed. All that matters to them is that he said the Latin Mass – and he’s going straight to heaven. Whereas Martin Luther cried “Faith Alone,” the false traditionalist heretics hold to Salvation by the Latin “Mass Alone.” They could care less what the priest actually believed. (more…)
Dear Bro. Diamond,
What do you make of the so-called "material/formal sedevacantism" proposed by some traditional priests? I look forward to your response. Thank you and God bless!
THE ABOVE VIDEO IS VERY IMPORTANT AND REFUTES THE CASSICIACUM THESIS
Steven, you are referring to the Cassiciacum Thesis or the “material/formal pope” idea. It is not actual sedevacantism. It's the theory that the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy have valid elections, but not jurisdiction over the Church. Adherents of this idea also hold that the Vatican II Sect is not an entity different from the true Church and that all members of the Novus Ordo (who have not been declared heretics) are Catholics! They make many anti-sedevacantist arguments to defend their false position.
The thesis also holds that the Vatican II antipopes receive jurisdiction to appoint cardinals, and that the apostate 'cardinals' of the Vatican II Sect are true cardinals. The thesis is false, and amounts to a position half-way between the position of the SSPX and actual sedevacantism. If a man is a pope, he has full and supreme jurisdiction over the Church. If not, then he lacks jurisdiction proper to the office. Also, heretics cannot be validly elected pope.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1831)
The proposition anathematized above, especially the bolded portion, is what many 'recognize and resist' false traditionalists have fallen into. A true pope cannot be separated from his authority. But if a man is not a true pope, then he does not have jurisdiction proper to the papal office. The Vatican II claimants to the Papacy are heretics. Since they are outside the Church, they have no jurisdiction. The Cassiciacum Thesis must be rejected. The main adherents of the Cassiciacum Thesis in our day are the members of Bishop Donald Sanborn's group, who also deny the Catholic faith by professing that members of false religions can be saved without the Catholic faith.
DEAR BRO. MICHAEL AND PETER-----
I AM A GENTELMAN IN MY 50s AND I AM NOT ABLE TO GET TO A LATIN MASS OR A BYZANTINE LITURGY----ALL WE HAVE IS NOVUS ORDO---AND I CANT TRAVEL LONG DISTANCES TO ATTEND TRADITIONAL SERVICES. AM I DOOMED TO HELL FOR THIS???
CAN MY SOUL STILL BE SAVED???
Yes, Wayne, in charity we must tell you that if you continue to go to the invalid Novus Ordo you will be doomed to Hell. You are not receiving Our Lord Jesus Christ, but a piece of bread. You are not going to a Catholic Mass, but a Protestant service. You can still save your soul, but not if you continue to go to the Novus Ordo. If you cannot get to a traditional Mass that is acceptable, you must stay home on Sunday. The third Commandment of God is to keep holy the Sabbath. It is a Church law to attend Mass on Sunday. This only obliges if there is a true Mass available, with a true Catholic priest celebrating it. The English Martyrs in the 16th century were tortured horribly simply because they would not countenance or participate in a service just like the Novus Ordo, which had been imposed upon them.
DEAR BROTHER MICHAEL DIAMOND--
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF FR. MALACHI MARTIN??? WAS HE AS HOLY AS EVERY ONE SAYS HE WAS??? WHAT ABOUT HIS DEATH??? HOW DID HE DIE???
IN YOUR OPINION WAS HE A VERY SUCCESSFUL EXOECIST??? WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE HAVING YOUR BROTHER PETERS OPINIONS ON THESE QUESTIONS TOO. HOW WELL DID YOU AND YOUR KNOW FR. MARTIN???
THANK YOU !
I spoke with Malachi Martin on the telephone a few times when Martin was living.
I know the following information will upset some people, but the truth must be told. The fact is that Malachi Martin held to and publicly spread numerous heresies, as well as the most pernicious and misleading errors regarding the current apostasy. For instance, when he was on the Art Bell radio program he stated that pagan, American Indian religions glorify Jesus. These are pagan, false religions of the devil; yet Martin says they glorify Jesus. Martin's statement was completely heretical and a denial of the Faith.
Malachi Martin also publicly stated in an interview with Bernard Janzen that Buddhists can be saved and that John Paul II has never taught heresy! Only one who was completely unfamiliar with Antipope John Paul II (which Martin was not) or a conspirator or an apostate would ever dare to utter such an outrageous statement. Malachi Martin also promoted the false and evil notion that John Paul II is just a weak man surrounded by much worse men who are the real problem, thereby exonerating John Paul II from guilt in the process. This is exactly what the devil wants people to believe, and it has been imbibed all over the “traditional” and false “conservative” movement. We've seen firsthand how his books, especially Windswept House, have falsely influenced many traditionalists (especially in the SSPX, among whom his views are rampant) to exonerate John Paul II from the Vatican II apostasy, and shift the focus to other people - other people who, in reality, are just following his program of apostasy. This has given many a false hope in the false Vatican II sect.
Malachi Martin would occasionally reveal some very interesting facts, and then mix them in with all kinds of falsehoods. He was a mass of confusion. For instance, he stated publicly on the Art Bell program that the validity of the Novus Ordo is questionable (which means that it must be considered invalid), and then when he was asked where one could go to a Seminary he would just say, "find a good one"! Why didn't he tell the poor person asking the question that he couldn't go to any Novus Ordo Seminaries since they are celebrating "Masses" that cannot be considered valid? Martin would speak about Paul VI being the choice for the “Anti-Church,” while at the same time he defended the Anti-Church of which Paul VI was the head.
The fact is that he was a man who misled countless souls into error and a false explanation of the Vatican II Apostasy - his false explanation being all the more deceptive because of the conservatism and the truths with which it was mixed. And he may have been far worse than we can even imagine. We have seen a serious expose of Malachi Martin which brings forward evidence that he was an agent of international Judaism. One must ask: why were his books published by major Jewish Publishing houses? There is also a book written about him called Clerical Error, in which the author (a prominent man) claims that Martin carried on an affair with his wife. Some may say that this is all meant to discredit him, but we have an acquaintance who met Malachi Martin and saw him give a woman a deep kiss on the lips. This only lends credence to the claims of the author of Clerical Error. We also know a Biblical Scholar who was going to co-author a book with Malachi Martin. This Biblical Scholar knew Martin well and was not convinced that he was not working for some secret Society.
Many don’t know that Malachi Martin’s first book was called Jesus Now. This book denies the Second Coming of Christ and is filled with blasphemies against Our Lord Jesus Christ. Martin never publicly renounced this most disgusting work. These are the facts about Malachi Martin, as disquieting as they may be to some.
DEAR MONKS, I JUST GOT THROUGH READING YOUR COMMENTARY ON MALACHI MARTIN. I HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION TO ADD TO WHAT YOU SAID. BACK IN THE LATE 80'S I WAS IN CHARGE OF GETTING GUESTS ON A WORLDWIDE CATHOLIC RADIO PROGRAM. ONE OF THE GUESTS LINED UP FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS MALACHI MARTIN. I HAD HIS APARTMENT PHONE NUMBER IF I REMEMBER IN NEW YORK. THIS IS WHAT I REMEMBER ON THE ONLY CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE MAN. THIS WAS IN THE EVENING AND A WOMAN ANSWERED THE PHONE. I COULD HEAR HER IN THE BACKGROUND THE WHOLE TIME I WAS TALKING TO HIM. I REMEMBER I HAD ABOUT TEN OF HIS BOOKS AND THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS I WANTED TO ASK HIM. I HAD THE BOOKS NEARBY FOR REFERENCE. I WANTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE ANTICHRIST, THE DEVIL, THE CHURCH, ETC. FIRST OF ALL THE MAN [Malachi] WAS PLASTERED WITH ALCOHOL. HE SWORE LIKE A SAILOR. HE TOOK GOD'S NAME IN VAIN OFTEN AND USED THE F-WORD ROUTINELY. I KNOW IT WAS HIM -BECAUSE I HAD HEARD HIM ON TALK SHOWS. HE HAD JUST BEEN ON KMOX RADIO IN ST.LOUIS. I REMEMBER MY BOSS RUNNING TO TELL ME THAT HE WAS ON THE RADIO BEING INTERVIEWED. HIS VOICE WAS UNMISTAKEABLE. IT WAS HIM ON THE PHONE. WHAT I OBSERVED IS HE WAS PROBABLY AN ALCOHOLIC AND A FOUL MOUTH. I WAS TOLD HE ACTED LIKE A SAINT IN FRONT OF OTHERS. IT JUST DEPENDED ON THE SITUATION. WE DISCUSSED THE ANTICHRIST AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULD BE A WORLD MANAGER AND WOULD PROBABLY BE JEWISH. I BROUGHT UP BISHOP FULTON J.SHEEN. I ASKED IF HE WERE A BIG PHONEY. AND HE SAID ABSOLUTELY. I MENTIONED TO HIM THAT SHEEN HAD WRITTEN A BOOK STATING THAT TEILHARD DE CHARDIN WAS NOT ONLY THE HOLIEST SAINT OF THE 20TH CENTURY BUT A ST JOHN OF THE CROSS - IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. AS I SAID THE WHOLE TIME THERE WAS A WOMAN IN THE BACK GROUND LAUGHING AND GIGGLING. SHE MAY HAVE BEEN DRUNK ALSO. THIS SURELY MUST HAVE BEEN THE WOMEN YOU MENTIONED IN THE COMMENTARY. I SPOKE TO HIM ABOUT NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH AND HE DIDN'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT. THEY ALWAYS QUOTE ST.THOMAS AQUINAS - AND I POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD BEEN WRONG ON MANY THINGS. HE WAS CERTAINLY WRONG ABOUT THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. AFTER THAT CONVERSATION I WAS REALLY SUSPICIOUS OF HIS BOOKS - AND WHAT HE SAID. I TRIED TO INFORM OTHERS ABOUT THIS ONE CONVERSATION - AND WHAT I HAD OBSERVED AND HEARD - BUT I REMEMBER BEING PERSECUTED AND ATTACKED BY THOSE WHO CLAIMED TO BE CATHOLIC. I LOST SOME SO-CALLED CATHOLIC FRIENDS. AS TO BISHOP SHEEN I SUSPECT HE WAS EVEN WORSE THAN MARTIN. IN SHEENS FIFTY TALKS ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH HE PROMOTES EVOLUTION BIG TIME. JUST AS IN POLITICS - THE CONSERVATIVES ARE AS EVIL AS THE LIBERALS. THEY ARE PROBABLY MORE EVIL BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SUCKED IN BY THEIR CONSERVATIVE APPEAL. THE DEVIL IS ON THE RIGHT AND ON THE LEFT. JUST A FEW THOUGHTS. ED FROM ST.LOU.
Thank you, Ed, for that very interesting information, which is perfectly consistent with the activity of Malachi Martin as seen by others, as well as his repeated and public denials of the Catholic Faith. There is an interesting story which corroborates this, which we would like to share with our readers. We had a friend who is a Biblical Scholar, who presently lives in New York City. He knew Martin very well. At lunch one day, he, Martin and others got into a conversation about Lazarus and the Rich Man in the Gospel (Luke 16). During the conversation, Martin said he believed that the Rich Man was in Hell, and someone at the table disagreed with him and gave the reasons why. The person who disagreed apparently didn’t think that the Rich Man could be in Hell, since the Rich Man showed compassion on his brothers by asking that God warn them of the fires – activity inconsistent with a damned soul, according to this man. So, when this man said that he disagreed with Martin, Martin alleged responded: “Who do you think you are a [bleeping] Saint,” bleeping used to denote the use of profanity.
But your e-mail sheds light on a reality that few can see because their faith is too weak, that men who present themselves as strong Catholics can actually be this wicked and evil inside. So many souls have been misled by this phony apostate; he has effectively neutralized a large part of the traditionalists by his false thesis that John Paul II is not the real problem, and the damage and the evil he has done in falsely shaping the view of people is difficult to put into words, especially among many of the shallow SSPX supporters, who fawn over people when they appear to have knowledge and erudition, while missing the important thing – what is the substance of their message? Are they saying anything of value? People are so deceived by this heretical apostate, that “Catholic Treasures” was even selling a tract commemorating him.
Dear Brother Dimond,
We do indeed intend to order the 7 DVDs etc., in future, information unobtainable elsewhere in the era of the Great Apostasy… I should add also in honesty that your reader's and your own comments on Malachi Martin have little bearing on his many virtues, generously distributed to me as I described, and to countless others. Once he left Rome and the Jesuit order, a campaign of vicious scurrility and slander was initiated, and continued until his death. " Put not your faith in princes, " he often told me, and he sometimes did, to his detriment. This is not to raise Malachi to the altar, if such indeed were merited, and this God alone knows. But second-hand tales of his drinking and untoward language are inadmissible in court, and without names and dates, I place little confidence in them. That he at one time drank, and cursed, is without doubt likely. I myself shared a glass of wine with him in New York. I never heard uncivil language from his lips but like you I have spoken to others who have; so he could be coarse.
Bear in mind, however, two factors: one being that Malachi has already had judgment passed on him by his Maker, for worse or (I dearly hope) for better. The other is that he participated over twenty years in over 200 minor and major exorcisms, a field of endeavor which most priests avoid and would not touch, as Malachi would say, "with a ten foor barge pole". More to the point, a standard feature of major exorcism is that in this deadly struggle with ultimate evil, the exorcist can expect his every unconfessed sin exposed, every error revealed, every secret laid bare by his foe. I submit that someone exposing himself to the baleful hatred of Lucifer's minions in a state of mortal sin is foolhardy beyond reason, and would soon pay the ultimate and eternal price for such a grievous error.
In short, I personally do not claim sainthood for my dearest friend, now passed from my ken, but I have little patience with those who gleefully shred his reputation, most likely to elevate their own worth in the eyes of others, a deplorable practice I notice most especially in the ranks of Traditional Catholics who preen themselves on being private potiffs for the others in their circle of acquaintances. I know such a trend is likely, given the shambles of authority now regnant, but I hold with my name saint Paul in such matters: in all things, charity… P.W.
If the only evidence against Malachi Martin were personal accounts against his character, then perhaps one could scrutinize each of those accounts and, by slim chance, determine that they were all false (which I don't believe). But Malachi Martin is on record with public heresy: stating that Buddhists can be saved and thereby denying Catholic dogma; stating that pagan religions glorify Jesus, which is apostasy; stating that John Paul II has never denied the Faith, which is heresy; and for years feeding people a misleading and heretical explanation of the Vatican II apostasy. This demonstrates that Malachi Martin was not of God and did not possess the true Faith.
My preference is to leave public burnings at the stake to the English, and internet drawings and quarterings to others with better sources than mine. My position is that of a poor and sinful penitent who prefers not to participate in condemnations of those already having met their judgement. I doubtless have a great dearth of the firsthand evidence of heresy which for others is ready to hand, and given the obviously widespread diabolical disinformation now covering the world, I am most loath to sit and pronounce judgement on other poor souls, for fear of being so off-handedly condemned myself .
While the truly Catholic life is indeed a fierce battleground, with no quarter given, my preference is to follow our Lady's example and keep my eyes firmly fixed on Heaven, while avoiding sending everyone else in my path to hell. You cut a very wide swathe with your keen vision, Brother Peter, and I suspect that whatever be my response, your blade is already at my throat, for I can discern no charity in your judgements, which to my eyes seem to be based largely on personal anecdotes. Outside of yourself and your fellow Benedictines, have you as yet found anyone who passes the test of salvific probity, or does the world beyond your borders stand condemned in toto?...
It is a common tactic of liberals to attribute to the person with whom they disagree a position that he doesn't hold to avoid addressing his facts which they find so disquieting. This is precisely what you have done multiple times. You have implied that I am advocating "burnings at the stake"; drawings and quarterings; sending everyone else in my path to Hell; and condemning the world in toto. None of those things did I espouse or suggest, but you bring up these emotionally charged ideas to skirt away from the fact that you refuse to admit that Malachi Martin's statements that Buddhists can be saved and that pagan religions glorify Jesus are heretical and denials of Catholic Faith. If you cannot say that those statements are denials of Catholic Faith then I'm sorry to say that you don't possess it. It is not my fault that Malachi Martin believed these things.
Frankly, it is not charitable to do what you did above: to attribute to someone something which he didn't advocate but which seems bad in order to cover up the weakness of your position. It is also very cowardly, because it demonstrates that a man cannot deal with the facts. The two facts that I cited above are not based on flimsy second-hand information, but public statements Martin made.
I'm sad to say that if your attitude in this regard is "I cannot judge," then you would have said the same thing in the 4th century during the Arian crisis when they quarreled over that "little" matter - only a word in Greek - whether Jesus was of one substance with the Father or merely of a similar substance. Many I'm sure said the same thing as you, "I'm just a sinful layman and I won't judge or condemn the Arians, let alone the Semi-Arians," and they wound up denying the Divinity of Christ. To be unable to denounce Malachi Martin’s statements that Buddhists can be saved; that pagan religions glorify Jesus; and that John Paul II has not taught heresy, is to be unable to profess the Faith of Christ.
I hope you realize that you are not looking at this matter fairly.
Recently I read the book The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ - the visions of Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich by Tan books. Chapter LIX paragraph 4 of this book reads as follows:
”I next saw our Lord, with his triumphant procession, enter into a species of Purgatory which was filled with those good pagans who, having had a faint glimmering of the truth, had longed for its fulfillment: this Purgatory was very deep, and contained a few demons, as also some of the idols of the pagans. I saw the demons compelled to confess the deception they had practised with regard to these idols, and the souls of the poor pagans cast themselves at the feet of Jesus, and adored him with inexpressible joy: here, likewise, the demons were bound with chains and dragged away. I saw our Saviour perform many other actions; but I suffered so intensely at the same time, that I cannot recount them as I should have wished.”
This has me totally confused as I thought only those without mortal sin made it to or could make it to Purgatory. Could you please explain this paragraph to me. Just when you have time.
Appreciatively, B. R.
The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich are not trustworthy. Catholics should not read them. The vision that you quoted is heretical because it says that there are pagans in Purgatory. That is contrary to Catholic Faith. The fact is that there are no pagans in Purgatory. All who die as pagans go to the fires of hell (de fide, Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence). To be saved it is necessary to have the Catholic faith.
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 vision you quote is not the only vision of Anne Emmerich that is heretical. There are other visions of Anne Emmerich that are contrary to Catholic dogma, such as when she supposedly saw a Jew and Protestants in Purgatory. All of those visions must be rejected. They are contrary to dogma. The “visions” of Anne Emmerich are a prime example why Catholics must be very careful when reading private revelation. It can come from the devil. A Catholic should not read Anne Catherine Emmerich, except perhaps to expose her false visions, for one's faith will be attacked and possibly corrupted. It is true that Anne Emmerich did not write down her own visions, but had an editor doing it for her. Thus, it's possible that the editor is responsible for some of the false statements they contain. However, it is more likely that she simply received a number of false visions from the Devil.
I was reading thru your web site and have two questions:
Where is the Church in the world?
The answer to your first question is that the Church exists with those traditional Catholics who maintain the faith whole and inviolate and do not compromise with heresy or the apostate Bishops.
St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.” Fr. William Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.” Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”