Recent Featured Videos and ArticlesEastern “Orthodoxy” RefutedHow To Avoid SinThe Antichrist Identified!What Fake Christians Get Wrong About EphesiansWhy So Many Can't Believe“Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World ExistsAmazing Evidence For GodNews Links
Vatican II “Catholic” Church ExposedSteps To ConvertOutside The Church There Is No SalvationE-ExchangesThe Holy RosaryPadre PioTraditional Catholic Issues And GroupsHelp Save Souls: Donate

E-EXCHANGES

Questions and Answers

“What is your opinion on Geocentrism?”


June 7, 2005

Dear Brothers Dimond,

Enjoyed reading your article on "The Great Apostasy, Not the Great Facade." Would you put me on the mailing list?

My questions:

What is your opinion of Sr. Lucy? Does she attend the New Mass? Does anyone have access to her true opinions? Do you have an article on her? (and)

What is your opinion on Geocentrism? Do you have an article on the controversy? (Is there anyway you can add a Search feature to your site?)

God bless you.

Catherine

MHFM

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?


June 1, 2005

I was reading you article entitled: A Warning about certain Heretical Traditional Priests and Chapels

You include a Bishop (?) Dolan and a Bishop (?) Sanborn.  These guys are not valid Bishops since they were never valid Priests.

George

MHFM

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?


May 27, 2005

Good afternoon,

I just went to your Web site today and noticed a new article warning about heretical priests.  I noticed that Fr. Ringrose was on the list when I read the article.

This was a surprise to me, because I have been to St. Athanasius (in Vienna, Virginia) since 2002 and not once have heard him even mention anything about "Feeneyism" in any of his sermons; however, I have seen pamphlets in near the front door which come from SSPX magazines which actually promote "baptism of desire".  And the bookstore also sells SSPX material.

I never saw anything notorious in this regard, but I have heard on only two occasions where he talks about the heresies of Vatican II, yet does not go forward with the correct conclusion (i.e. the last four claiming to be popes from John XXIII onward are actually antipopes).  As with "Feeneyism", I did not see this heresy imposed on anyone from the times I've been there.  However, I have stopped going to Mass at that chapel for some time while I'm still trying to sort this all out.  I have not talked to him about either issue, and planned to do so once I got my information together to present to him.  I want to make sure my information is 100% correct before doing anything like this…Thanks for the information.  Take care, and have a blessed afternoon.

MHFM

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?


May 22, 2005

I've been looking around on the internet and stumbled onto your site but I am not sure what you believe in. It seems that you don't agree with the novus ordo church, SSPV or the SSPX. Also, you don't seem to believe in Baptism by desire which is contained in the Baltimore Catechism and was taught to every Catholic for generations.

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.

Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

MHFM

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?


May 17, 2005

Brother, what exactly is the modernist definition of baptism of desire?  Do the modernists believe that one can be saved merely by having a desire to be baptized but no intention of actually being baptized with water?  If so, that's absurd.

Or, do they define baptism of desire as one who not only desires to be baptized with water but intends to, but dies before he gets the chance to do so.  For example, let's say that a catechumen who is studying the Catholic faith in order to be baptized, when on his way to church to be baptized with water is killed by a car.  Can he be saved?  Or is this what the modernists teach?

MHFM

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?


May 13, 2005

Dear Brothers:

First, congratulations on an excellent website, and May God bless your crusade against heresy! I have two questions.

1)  Since, as you point out, the assassination attempt on Wojtyla has elevated his status in the eyes of the world, and enabled him to pose as "Mary's Pope" and preach heresy more effectively, is there any evidence that the assassination attempt was "staged.", and that there was no real threat to the life of Wojtyla?   

2)  I agree with you that the real Sister Lucy is dead (or imprisoned).  She would never have supported the the Vatican's interpretation of the third secret.  I have a question regarding her:  Did she ever express doubts about the validity of the papacies of Paul VI and John XXIII, considering  the fact that she spoke of "diabolic disorientation", and said that "in 1960 it [the meaning of the third secret] will be clearer."

MHFM

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”?


April 11, 2005

Dear Rev. Brothers

At last the kettle calls the pot black?!. By the way, last month Sister Mary Cabrini (Superior) and Sister Mary Michael of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart visited this part of India for a day. The have given us a factsheet on dogma [ compiled by themselves] that says that: " Baptism of Desire is a doctrine of Faith. It has been dogmatized (D. 388, D. 796). We must believe in Baptism of Desire in order to be a member of the Church founded by Christ."

They also urged us to stay away from ALL Traditionalist priests and priestly societies as all of these are operating illicitly - " criminal and sacrilegious " (Pius XII). The only priest acceptable would be one ordained during the reign of Pius XII who from the very outset rejected Vatican II and the New Mass.

Yes, I've spoken with one of those "Sisters."  Unfortunately, they are heretics who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  What they say on baptism of desire is completely false and is refuted in our book.  They also don't know what they are talking about regarding Jurisdiction.

They are hypocritical, for while they spew their false views regarding Jurisdiction, they are themselves independent and irregular according to normal status.  But I guess the "rules" don't apply when it comes to them, of course.

What are the “Infallible” statements which refute NFP?


March 15, 2005

And also what are the Infallible" statements concerning NFP.

MHFM

Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.” Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Besides this primary purpose, there are also secondary purposes for marriage, such as mutual aid, the quieting of concupiscence and the cultivating of mutual love. But these secondary purposes must always remain subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage (the procreation and education of children). This is the key point to remember in the discussion on NFP.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends. (more…)

Was Garabandal A True Marian Apparition?


March 11, 2005

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:

  1. Garabandal- What is your opinion?  Apparantly, Padre Pio claimed that these were authentic apparitions of Mary, but I'm not so sure about that.
  2. 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).
  3. 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. 

Brenda

MHFM

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?


February 20, 2005

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

MHFM

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?


February 11, 2005

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,
Gary

MHFM

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.

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


January 27, 2005

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......

Holly Z

MHFM

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.

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


January 25, 2005

Dear Brothers,

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?

MHFM

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?


January 20, 2005

Brothers,

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.

Robert

MHFM

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.?


January 2, 2005

Greetings,

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?

Sincerely,
Jay D.

MHFM

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?


December 15, 2004

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.

Sincerely,
Dr. M.

MHFM

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?


December 4, 2004

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.

MHFM

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?


November 20, 2004

Where does it mention the rosary in the Bible?

Thank you.

Donna H.

MHFM

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)

Do you know of a Benedictine ‘monastery’ in New Mexico?


November 13, 2004

Dear Brothers,

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.

MHFM

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.

What about the Hindu abomination at Fatima?


November 10, 2004

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.
      God bless.
                           Celso V.

MHFM

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.

Hindus Worship the devil at Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima

“I have a question on EENS”


November 1, 2004

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…

 

MHFM

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.

What about “Pope” Michael?


October 28, 2004

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

MHFM

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.

Could “Sister” Lucia be drugged?


October 25, 2004

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.

MHFM

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.

Where are the Catholic priests and is it a sin to support the SSPX?


October 22, 2004

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.

MHFM

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.

Can one sing in a Christmas concert that will be held in a Protestant “church”?


October 19, 2004

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

MHFM

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.

How to pray the 15 Decade Rosary?


October 13, 2004

Good morning,

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

MHFM

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).

Is it necessary to bash John Paul II?


October 10, 2004

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.

MHFM

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.

Is Racism a sin?


October 7, 2004

I was wondering what your thoughts were on racism in Catholic teaching?

MHFM

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.

Understanding God’s Justice and His hatred of the wicked?


October 4, 2004

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.

MHFM

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.

Concerning home-schooling and singing for non-Catholic services


October 1, 2004

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.

MHFM

S. P., thanks for the questions. To answer your questions,

  1. Unfortunately, you should not send your child to the Vatican II school, and we believe that it would be a mortal sin, as her soul would be placed in grave peril by the pagan influence of the Novus Ordo "Catholics," not to mention the apostasy of the school itself.  Her chances of saving her soul in such an environment would be very, very slim. So, she is without question better off not going and you should not send her.  You should continue to home-school her.
  1. A Catholic cannot sing for non-Catholic services or the Novus Ordo churches.  Seek first the Kingdom of God and His justice and all will be added on to you (Mt. 6:33).  The only response a Catholic can give is that to sing for these services would be a compromise of the Faith, a participation in non-Catholic worship, and a grave sin.

^