| Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | “Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
| Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed | Steps To Convert | Outside The Church There Is No Salvation | E-Exchanges | The Holy Rosary | Padre Pio | Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups | Help Save Souls: Donate |  |
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?
Scott K.
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!
Pax Tecum,
Steven K.
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???
PLEASE, RESPOND.
IN CHRIST
WAYNE
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.
Fall 2004
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.
Fall 2004
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.
Fall 2004
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.
Guys -
I was reading thru your web site and have two questions:
Where is the Church in the world?
-Mike
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.”
Hello MHFM!
Here is an off the wall question ... If there is currently no pope, can one still gain a plenary indulgence? As you know, one of the requirements of (hopefully) gaining a plenary indulgence is to say prayers for the intention of the pope. No pope ... no plenary indulgence?
In IHM, Dan K.
We believe that if one prayed the three Hail Marys for the intentions of the Papacy or the Church it would be sufficient to gain the Plenary indulgence, but I’m not aware of any specific decree or writing on the topic. In any case, this question would not be particular to our own time, but would apply in any Papal Interregnum (any period when we have no Pope, due to the death of the Pope, etc.)
Brothers Dimond,
First of all, congratulations to Peter for a brilliant defense of our Catholic Faith with regard to the absolute necessity of water baptism and for exposing, once again, the manifest errors of Bishop McKenna and of those “traditionalists” who hold to the same errors. I also look forward to your new book on EENS which I will be ordering along with some tapes… However, I wonder if you have considered the possibility of sanctification prior to water baptism.
Michael
We’re glad that you liked the article. Sanctification from sin is not possible without water baptism. You may be referring to the position of the St. Benedict Center, which holds that sanctification is possible without water baptism but that salvation is not possible without water baptism. There is a section refuting this position in the book. To sum up the problems with their position simply: they correctly hold that unbaptized catechumens are outside the Catholic Church, but at the same time they hold that these catechumens (whom they admit are outside the Church) can have their sins remitted. This contradicts the solemn teaching of Pope Boniface VIII, which teaches that there is no remission of sins outside the Church.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin.” (Denz. 468-469)But all of these points are expanded upon in detail in the book.
Dear Brothers Michael & Peter,
My father was raised as a Presbyterian. He has used the line, "The Kingdom of God is within you", using that as an excuse for not having to go to church on Sunday. Or having to really follow any organized religious beliefs. Since he does not really follow any religious principles, except what may suit his needs or desires. How should I explain to him what Jesus meant by that statement? And that the Catholic Church was the only Christian church that was founded by Christ Himself, which my father refutes?
Yours in Christ,
Scott K.
Scott, Jesus says this in response to a question about when the Kingdom of God will come. The Jews expected that when God’s Kingdom and the Messiah would come to fruition it would be a temporal kingdom that would physically subjugate all peoples to the Jews. Jesus was refuting this notion, by pointing out that the Kingdom of God is spiritual, it concerns the soul, and is therefore “within you.” Regarding your second question, I would first share with a Protestant the clear teaching of Christ and the New Testament on the Necessity of Baptism (John 3:5; Mark 16:16, etc.), the Institution of the Papacy (Mt. 16), the Institution of Confession (John 20:23) and the Eucharist (John 6), and the condemnation of the idea of faith alone (James 2:24), to begin with. If they cannot accept these things, then they are simply not honest people.
To Whom It May Concern:
Is your community affiliated with Rome or any Benedictine order within the United States? I have recently read your material, which is likened to that of heresy. While shocked at this information, I do have to admit that I am further intrigued. So, I do have to reiterate my question: Are you affiliated with Rome?
Please advise on this. Thank you.
Kind Regards,
J.F. G.
No, our community is not affiliated with Antipope John Paul II or the “Benedictine” order under him, simply because they are not real Catholics as they do not accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on many issues, such as, for instance, the Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church – to name just a few. They can claim to be Catholic just as John Kerry does, and hold the buildings of the Church, but they are no more Catholic than he is.
What are the recommended prayers a good lay person should say in the morning and evening.
The answer to your question about morning prayers is that, after the morning offering, it is good to say the following prayer to the Holy Trinity - the prayer given at Fatima.
"Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I adore thee profoundly, and I offer You the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the earth, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges, and indifference with which He Himself is offended. And through the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart and of the immaculate heart of Mary, I beg of You the conversion of poor sinners."After that, some of the following prayers to the Virgin are very good to say:
Sub Tuum Praesidium
We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God! despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us from all dangers, O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.
Dedication to the Blessed Virgin Mary
My Queen, my Mother. I give myself entirely to thee; and to show my devotion to thee, I consecrate to thee this day my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being, without reserve. Wherefore, good Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me, as thy property and possession.
Short Prayers to the Virgin
Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation. My Mother, preserve me this day from mortal sin. Mother of love, of sorrow, and of mercy, pray for us. My mother, my trust. Mary, Virgin Mother of God, pray to Jesus for me. In thy conception, O Virgin Mary, thou wast immaculate, pray for us to the Father, whose Son Jesus Christ conceived of the Holy Ghost thou didst bring forth. To thee, O Virgin Mother, who wast never defiled with the slightest stain of original or actual sin, I commend and entrust the purity of my heart. O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.
Dear Brother Michael;
First, I want to say hello… Regardless where I go to Mass I meet people that know of you and your work and always find information with your name on it in their information bins. There is a married couple at the chapel I attend presently that know your work very well and I believe the woman has spent a great deal of time talking with you in the past on the telephone….
I have several questions and issues that I've been meaning for months to ask you about. They are below and I would be most appreciative if you would please send your answers or comments when you have time.
Questions/Issues
1. I do not support the traditional priest at the chapel I go to by putting money in the collection plate. However, I do put money into the collection plate for the Building Fund. Is this ok?
2. The congregation says the rosary before Mass. They also say an additional decade for "the Pope". I abstain from saying that decade because they recognize JPII as a valid pope and I do not. Is this correct on my part?
B. R.
B., good to hear from you. The answer to your first question is no, you absolutely cannot donate any money to the SSPX for any reason, including the building fund, since they are a heretical and schismatic group.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics."The answer to your second question is that you should not pray the Rosary with the people at that church, since they are praying for the Antipope.
Dear Brothers Michael & Peter,
In your News and Commentary section, what the heck was the New Ritual in the Novus Ordo? Was that supposed to represent the repression of women in the Catholic Church?
Also, is the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. supposed to be an ecumenical cathedral? For years I thought it was a Catholic Cathedral, but seeing it on TV for Reagan's funeral, I saw no "altar". But the rest of the cathedral looked like any other Novus Ordo church. If you have a chance to answer this, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Sincerely, Rose
We’re not sure what that ritual in the Novus Ordo was, but it was something bizarre and evil. The “National Cathedral” in Washington, D.C. is actually a Cathedral of the Episcopal sect, but the Novus Ordo apostate bishops sometimes go there for ecumenical events, including after 9/11, if I recall correctly.
Hello
I have a question regarding John Paul's bent cross that he carries. I heard that it was a satanic symbol.
Appreciate your ministry and God Bless You,
Sincerely Doris
Doris, You are absolutely correct. Paul VI and John Paul II have both carried a symbol which few have understood - the sinister bent or broken cross on which the body of Christ is displayed as a repulsive or distorted figure. Satanists in the fifth and sixth centuries, as well as black magicians and sorcerers in the Middle Ages, used such figurines to represent their hatred for Christianity. The Museum of Witchcraft in Bayonne, France has woodcuts of symbols used in the black mass and witch Sabbath of the Middle Ages in which the broken cross was used as the symbol of the Antichrist. (source: The Broken Cross by Piers Compton)
Hi,
I have a question which you may have answered or addressed somewhere else so I apologize if it is a repeat.
What is your opinion based on church teachings, regarding the baptism of infants into the Vatican II sect? Specifically, if these babies were to die what are we to think about their eternity? They are being baptized into an anti-christ church using a changed sacrament which I assume makes it invalid. They are innocent babies, but without baptism am I right in saying they cannot go to heaven? Are they "marked” somehow by Satan as his since they are baptized into his church? I was just pondering this. This is a long question--sorry.
I really respect and appreciate all of the information/research you are making available. Your take on this would be much appreciated. It is a tragedy that innocent kids are being brought into that false church. It breaks my heart.
Thank you so much,
Rene
Rene, the Church teaches that anyone can baptize, provided he uses the matter and form and intends to do what the Church does - i.e., pronounce the words and pour the water. So, as long as water is used, and the infant child of Novus Ordo parents is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, the baptism would be valid and those infants would therefore be validly baptized into the Catholic Church and would go to heaven if they died in infancy, just like the baptized infants of Protestant families who die in infancy would also go straight to heaven. The baptized infants who have Protestant or Novus Ordo parents don't become heretics until they knowingly embrace the Protestant or Novus Ordo heresy.
Pope Innocent IV, Council of Lyons I, 1254: "Moreover, if anyone without repentance dies in mortal sin, without a doubt he is tortured forever by the flames of eternal hell. But the souls of children after the cleansing of baptism, and of adults also who depart in charity and who are bound neither by sin nor unto any satisfaction for sin itself, at once pass quickly to their eternal fatherland." (Denz. 457)Being below the age of reason, it is not possible for baptized infants to be heretics. So, as long as they are below the age of reason, they are members of the Catholic Church, despite belonging to a heretical family.
Dear sirs,
I read my Bible but it is some times hard to know certain meanings. I hear people talke about saved and born again, to get to heaven. How do I get to heaven or like born again or saved. If you can tell me I would be greatly thankful.
TOMMY… NORTH CAROLINA
Tommy, the meaning of Jesus about the necessity to be born again is found in John 3:5. He says, "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." This refers to water baptism. It means that no one can enter heaven without water baptism. But getting baptized is not the only thing one must do to be saved. One must belong to the one Church Christ established (the Catholic Church), for he who refuses to hear the Church is like the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17). We can tell you in more detail what you must do to belong to this Church if you contact us. (more…)
Dear Bro. Dimond, what is your comment on the book FATIMA AT TWILIGHT by Mark Fellows. Also, would you send me a copy of #6 of Crying in the Wilderness… Thank you.
Mary A.
Regarding the book Fatima in Twilight, the description of the events of Fatima were very well written and very interesting, as well as many of the facts dealing with the spread of Communism. I found those parts of the book to be very good. But many of the author’s conclusions about Sister Lucia, John Paul II, etc. are false and dangerous. (more…)
Do you if any Popes condemned Pentecostalism? My friends and I were involved in the Catholic NO Charasmatic movement for 25 years - my daughter graduated from Steubenville U. Now that I'm back in the Traditional Roman Catholic Church, I'd like to share what the Church has taught about this movement. Thanks for any info!
I’m not aware of any Popes who condemned it because it is a new phenomenon. But it is not traditional, it is ecumenical (involvement with Protestants and the Novus Ordo), so it must be rejected on that basis alone. Further, it involves things to which Catholics should naturally hold an aversion and recognize as not being Catholic and evil – e.g., speaking in gibberish, some even barking like dogs, and some even oinking like pigs. If your daughter is convinced of the Church’s traditional teaching on Outside the Church There is NO Salvation (please get our new book on this topic), and if she denounces all heretics, as well as the heresies of the Vatican II, John Paul II, etc., then she will naturally see that the Pentecostal movement is incompatible with the Traditional Catholic Faith.
Dear Brothers,
In a discussion I had lately someone told me that the new ordinal for priests that started sometime around 1968 was invalid. Can this be true. I have no way to look this up myself.I hope I can rely on you to give me a hand with this information. Thank you!!
Yours Truly, Matt
Matt, the New Rite of Ordination was signed on June 18, 1968. It took effect on April 1, 1969.
Dear Bros,
What is the Traditional Catholic teaching on young women leaving their household to live on their own. My 20 year old was contemplating the idea and I having been raised Mexican Catholic was taught it was wrong and disgraceful for a woman to move out on her own. So I conveyed that to her and I had her talk to a priest from the CMRI whom I expected to echo my wishes to her. Instead he "recommended" she not leave but assured her there was no sin in it.
So I asked an Old Catholic priest I met and he said it was a sin because the 4th Commandment is broken and a women should be under the care of a man (her father, husband, or in a convent). I myself believe it is a grievous sin to defy one's parents' wishes to simply live independently (that's how I was brought up). Who is correct here?
No hurry but please do respond. Thank you and God bless.
M. M.
M., there is nothing which precludes a woman over 18 from choosing to leave home and live on her own, provided she is planning to adhere to the Catholic Faith and live her life accordingly. But if she is moving out simply in the hope of being able to live a worldly or non-Catholic lifestyle then obviously she is not justified in her actions. So, to put it simply: there is nothing wrong with moving out; what matters is how she is planning on living her life when she moves out.
Dear Brothers, do you think the Fatima Prayer after the decades of the Rosary expresses a sentiment of universal salvation in it?
Thank you and God bless.
Barbara
Barbara, I don’t believe it does. The prayer [O my Jesus, pardon us, save us from the fire of hell, draw (or lead) all souls to heaven, especially those in most need] is simply asking God to lead all souls to heaven; it is not asserting that all souls will make it. God wishes for all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), even though only just a few find it (Mt. 7:13; Luke 13:24).
please can you tell me: 1-what is a material heretic- i saw it on your website and i am not sure what it is exactly-it's heresy but what is the exact definition and please give and example so i can under- stand it-and what is the history of this term? i tried finding it on the computer's old catholic terms dictionary and i couldn't find it listed-maybe i just wasn't doing the search correctly-but i did find heresy in it-but not material heretic- Sincerely, Maureen
Maureen, the whole issue of "material heresy" is explained in the article on our website called, "Why John Paul II Cannot be the Pope - a comprehensive presentation." There is a whole section on it. We would recommend that you look at it.
Hi, I am a Sedevacantist and my husband is a defender of the SSPX. He refuses to look rationally at the facts I present to him, and dismisses me by saying that women are too emotional and aren’t capable of understanding any of these things, and that this is why no women have ever been condemned as heretics – they aren’t capable of being heretics and so aren’t capable of understanding the truth on these issues . Is this true?
Your husband is completely wrong. The Church has always taught that any woman who rejects Church teaching is a heretic. In fact, here is Pope Clement V denouncing and condemning as heretical a sect of women:
Pope Clement V 1311-1312: “We entertain in our heart a deep longing that the Catholic faith prosper in our time and that the perverseness of heresy be rooted out of Christian soil. We have therefore heard with great displeasure that an abominable sect of wicked men, commonly called Beghards, and of faithless women, commonly called Beguines, has sprung up in the realm of Germany. This sect, planted by the sower of evil deeds, holds and asserts in its sacrilegious and perverse doctrine the following errors…”(Decree # 28, Council of Vienne)
Brother Peter or Brother Michael:
I have a question that will probably be coming up too often among the laity with the times we are in:
1) Suppose a priest has been validly ordained, but later became a homosexual after his ordination, does this automatically excommunicate him: no longer a priest? Or is he still a valid priest? Please explain.
2) Suppose a priest has been validly ordained and at the same time knew he was homosexual (entered the seminary and ordination with full knowledge and intention he is homosexual). What does this incur if a) he practices his sexual preferences, or b) practices "chastity"/celibacy and remains a homosexual?
Thank you and maybe you could consider briefly addressing this on your website as it has come to my attention that a lot of people are confused about this.
In Christ, Christine
Christine, the fact that a priest is a homosexual would have nothing to do with the validity of his ordination. Such a priest would be ordained validly, but would receive the Sacrament in a state of mortal sin. And once ordained validly he always remains a priest, even if he becomes a homosexual.
Do you think Pope John Paul I was murdered or died naturally?
And why is the papal tiara no longer worn?
Christopher
Australia
We think that John Paul I was probably murdered. We think this because of the conflicting reports that the Vatican has issued surrounding his death. But just because he was probably murdered does not mean that he was a good man or even a valid Pope, of course. It is a fact that John Paul I was a heretic who embraced the religious indifferentism of Vatican II and even petitioned for approval of the birth control pill. The Vatican II Antipopes don’t wear the Papal Tiara as a symbolic way to show the enemies of the Church that they are infiltrators and on their side. Paul VI’s giving away of the Tiara (a picture of which can be seen in our photo gallery) was an obvious message to the world that he was a Satanic agent trying to give away the house, which is why he abolished the oath against Modernism, the profession of Faith of Trent, the Index of Forbidden books, changed the Mass, etc., etc., etc.
I have learned much from your research. I was raised PreVat. II and attended 16 years of preVat. II education (including Thomistic theology) and must admit I was royally duped. But I do have the experience of being raised in the Roman Catholic Church. Now I watch the infighting between you… SSPX, CMRI, CFN, the Remnant, etc. and I am saddened that the Traditional Catholics can't come to the same truths - there are only the same truths in the Roman Catholic Church. How can you all be right??? If you all would just stick to the infallible teachings of the Popes from the Chair of St. Peter - the authority of Holy Mother Church - and Holy Scripture, we wouldn't be in this mess! It's taken me three years of much reading and research to reaquaint myself with the true Faith - after being so involved in the Conciliar Church for 35 years as well as the Charasmatic Renewal - had to get my Catholic thinking back! I now feel ready to go to family, friends, priests in the Conciliar Church with this Truth, but if and when they would decide to go Traditional, where do I send them. They'll find out, like I have, that there is all this infighting, and it surely won't be easy for them to find the Truth when there is so much disagreement. Perhaps we all need to stop and pray and let God be God and lead us. None of us has all the Truth! (i.e., I've heard others criticize your stance on LaSalette and Fatima. the parts of each that haven't been approved by the Church, i.e. Tuy) God continue to bless you and your work. You have done a phenomenal job for Our Lord.
Thank you for your interest. The unfortunate divisions among those who profess to be traditional Catholics arise, simply, because those people you described above reject Catholic dogmatic teaching in one or more areas. So division from them in these areas of Faith is not desirable, but it is necessary, simply because they don’t accept the truth in totality. If all “traditionalists” would accept the dogmatic teachings of the Church without compromise, then there would be no division among traditionalists. But since this is not the case, there must be division from those who deny the truth, as there can be no unity with heresy. As Our Lord says, I came to not to bring peace upon the earth, but the sword – to divide (Matthew 10:34-37).
Pope Eugene IV professed that even if a protestant or orthodox sheds his blood for Christ, he is still damned unless he incorporates himself with the Roman Catholic Church before his death. My question is " Isnt this saying contrary to Sacred scripture? Our Lord clearly stated "Whoever saves his life shall lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake shall gain it. Furthermore, Jesus stressed "Blessed are you when they insult you, revile you and persecute you and speak all kinds of evil against you for My sake, be glad and rejoice during that day for your rewards are very great in heaven.
Please reply. Thanks and God bless.
Pope Eugene IV said that no one, even if he sheds blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained within the bosom and unity of the Church. Many people shed blood IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, but not for Christ. The Protestants who reject the one true Catholic Faith and Christ's clear teaching on Confession (John 20:23), the Eucharist (John 6:54), the necessity of Baptism (John 3:5), etc. reject Christ’s truth, so their act of martyrdom is not for Him, but for Christ in name only– if it were truly for Him then they would accept His truth. (more…)
^
" />
" />
" />
" />
" />
