Most Holy Family Monestary

  • Thread starter Thread starter rouselweis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rouselweis

Guest
Hi, I was wondering what others think of MHFM mostholyfamilymonestary.comAfter visiting their website, it seems many of their arguments are valid, especially their counterarguments to those who do not agree with them.

They are sedevacantist, but also believe strongly that there is no salvation outside the Church, as taught by all of the Popes and church elders prior to Vatican II.

Does anyone on the forum affiliate with them, agree with them, or know anything about them? What are your opinions on the organization?
 
rouselweis said:
Hi, I was wondering what others think of MHFM mostholyfamilymonestary.comAfter visiting their website, it seems many of their arguments are valid, especially their counterarguments to those who do not agree with them.

They are sedevacantist, but also believe strongly that there is no salvation outside the Church, as taught by all of the Popes and church elders prior to Vatican II.

Does anyone on the forum affiliate with them, agree with them, or know anything about them? What are your opinions on the organization?
Click to expand...
They are total nutjobs (and I mean that in a completely charitable way). They are a splinter of a splinter of a splinter of a splinter of a group. They have excommunicated everyone and claim to be the real Catholic Church. The thing is they have few followers, make little sense and most of their info is comically off-base.

My advice is don’t waste your time on their site. If you want to learn about Catholicism try www.vatican.va

God bless!
 
rouselweis said:
as taught by all of the Popes and church elders prior to Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Not at all true, read this:

romancatholicism.org/bod-quotes.htm

The Most Holy Family Monastery rejects Baptism of Desire and Blood. The above link shows that BOD and BOB have been taught since the beginning of the Church. There is no salvation outside the Church, but that doesn’t mean one has to be a formal member to be inside the Church, and hence to be saved. Anyone saved visibly “outside” the Church is not really “outside” but inside, because they are imperfectly joined to her, and are saved because of the Church. I posted this in a previous thread, but here it is again; a list of Church Fathers, Popes, Doctors, Councils, and theologians who have taught Baptism of Desire and Blood:

Tertullian (died A.D. 220)
St. Hippolytus. (A.D. 253)
Origen. (A.D. 253)
St. Cyprian (A.D. 258)
St. Eusebius of Caesaria. (A.D. 341)
St. Basil the Great (Doctor, A.D. 379)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Doctor, A.D. 386)
St. Gregory Nazianzen (Doctor, A.D. 389)
St. Ambrose (Doctor, A.D. 397)
Aurelius Prudentius Clemens (A Christian poet; died A. D. 405)
St. John Chrysostom (Doctor, A.D. 407)
Rufinus Tyrannius (A.D. 410)
St. Jerome (Doctor, A.D. 420)
St. Augustine (Doctor, A.D. 430)
Pope St. Leo the Great (Doctor, A.D. 461)
St. Prosper of Aquitaine (A.D. 463)
Gennadius of Marseilles (A.D. 496)
St. Fulgentius (A.D. 533)
St. Bede the Venerable (Doctor, A.D. 735)
Rabanus Maurus (A.D. 856)
Hugh of St. Victor (A.D. 1141)
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (Doctor, A.D. 1153)
Peter Lombard, “Master of the Sentences” (A.D. 1160)
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1216)
St. Bonaventura (Doctor, A.D. 1270)
St. Thomas Aquinas. (Doctor, A.D. 1274)
St. Catherine of Siena (Doctor, A.D. 1380)
Pope St. Pius V (A.D. 1572)
Council of Trent (A.D. 1563)
St. Charles Borromeo (A.D. 1584)
St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor, A.D. 1621)
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori (Doctor, A.D. 1787)
Bishop George Hay (A.D. 1811)
Fr. Michael Muller (A.D. 1875)
Dom Gueranger (A.D. 1875)
Blessed Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1878)
Orestes Brownson (late nineteenth century)
Pope St. Pius X (A.D. 1914)
Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1922)
Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1958)
Second Vatican Council (A.D. 1965)

Here’s some Catechisms that teach this:

Catechism of Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
The Baltimore Catechism
Catechism of St. Pius X
This Is The Faith
My Catholic Faith
The Catholic Catechism
Catechism of the Catholic Church

Vatican II didn’t teach anything new here. If you read the above link you can see this is true. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (“Outside the Church there is no salvation”) and Baptism of Desire and Blood can co-exist. Most Holy Family Monastery holds to the Feeneyite position, which only comes due to a lack of proper Thomistic theology.
 
Here are what two Catechism have to say on the subject:

Baltimore Catechism on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus:
  1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
    A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.
Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never – even in the past – had the slightest doubt of that fact – what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

Catechism of St. Pius X on Baptism of Desire:

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
 
Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Ligouri says this about Baptism of Desire:

"We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
 
It is also interesting to note for those who think the Church has changed something here is that some of the most Traditional Catholic societies like the Society of St. Pius X, Society of St. Pius V, Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, and the “True” Catholics who “elected Pius XIII” all believe in Baptism of Desire. This is so because Baptism of Desire does not contradict “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

Here are some further Traditional articles that deal with Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood:

Some of these articles are from sedevacantists, but they are useful, because they are very good articles from very Traditional Catholics on the subject at hand.

sspx.org/miscellaneous/th…feeneyites.htm

sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr…c_doctrine.htm

sspx.org/miscellaneous/three_baptisms.htm

sspx.org/District_Superio…ors_letter.htm

truecatholic.org/cathsalv.htm

sspv.net/flash_paper/arti…cle_feeney.swf

cmri.org/adsum04-1a.html

All of these articles are from Traditional sources and refute the Feenyite position, that only formal, baptized Catholics can be saved. The Church has never believed this.
 
A.C.J. ICXC A.M.D.G. MPOV A.C.M.
  • Code: 
           ------              J.M.J.              ---------                  +
                               +
Dear Fellow-Writers,
I for one do agree with the Most Holy Family Monestary on their matter of baptism…and several other things…Not because they say it, but because I had already researched it for a long time before I even saw there site, and held what I held to be true…
Code: 
 A couple things: (This is ad-lib; so fogive me spelling and such)  Did not Our Dearest Lord say that "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he shall not gain eternal life."?...He did not say that by either Baptism of water OR the Holy Spirit.  He said Baptism of Water AND the Holy Spirit...
 Like also...In the Council of Trent it is stated that to reach heaven one must have "baptism or the desire thereof."  Now...If one were really to research this the would realize that the word "aut" is used; which actually back then had the meaning of and!     Now...Just to make a point...In the Council of Florence (I think that was the right one) it is stated that "neither Jews or schismatics" will get to heaven...Now perhaps you may not agree with that...However; if you would note on the latin text the word "aut" is used inbetween Jews and schismatics...Now, do you think that the Council was trying to say that "Jews or Schismatics" meant which ever one...or both?

 Also...Saint Athinatius said that, "Even if one should shed his blood for the faith without being totally united to it is not saved." (sorry I forgot the exact words, and I am not at home to get my book right now.)...


 There really are SO MANY quotes proving that the Church did not really hold those other baptisms...
Yours in Christ through Mary,
AMDGJMJ2
 
AMDGJMJ2 said:
There really are SO MANY quotes proving that the Church did not really hold those other baptisms…
Click to expand...
If you read my above posts and links, then one would come to the conclusion that there are SO MANY quotes that disprove what you just said, and prove that there is Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood.

Feeneyite’s believe that the rejection of their teachings on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus leads one to hell whether he is ignorant or not. If this is the case, somebody better call the Vatican and let them know that more than half of the Doctors of the Church are in hell. :eek:
 
SemperFidelis said:
If you read my above posts and links, then one would come to the conclusion that there are SO MANY quotes that disprove what you just said, and prove that there is Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood.

Feeneyite’s believe that the rejection of their teachings on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus leads one to hell whether he is ignorant or not. If this is the case, somebody better call the Vatican and let them know that more than half of the Doctors of the Church are in hell. :eek:
Click to expand...
Let’s be accurate at least:
One is NOT in the torments of hell because of EENS.
No one is guilty of not joining the Church if he is ignorant of the fact that he is to join it.
One is in the torments of hell for the the OTHER mortal sins he likely commits over his life that go unforgiven (Just like any Catholic) in perfect contrition Because he has no other way to gain forgiveness in the Sacrament.
Even the Feeny followers hold to that, as well as the MHFM.
Got it?
Good.
One who has not been baptized http://www.barricksinsurance.com/image00111.gifhas original sin just the way a newborn does.
Baptism of desire if it does exist, would be so rare as to be foolish to even argue over it.
What needs to be done is conversion of those who have never been invited to a church, and those who are in false sects like protestantism, Mormonism, JW’s. That would cover 99.999% of all the people we ever come in contact with.
Lately, the Immigrant Muslims are the next group.
FORGET arguing if imaginary people are “saved” and get to work on doing some saving.
Because while you are arguing about this imaginary person who allegedly has Original Sin removed by some mystical desire, (& their infants don’t even have access to such a thing), the sects are converting multitudes into their own false religions.
http://www.visualcomedian.com/geist_wake_up.jpg
 
How many adherents to Holy Family Monastery are there anyway? maybe 100? or less?
 
TNT said:
Let’s be accurate at least:
One is NOT in the torments of hell because of EENS.
No one is guilty of not joining the Church if he is ignorant of the fact that he is to join it.
Click to expand...
I have read on a Feeneyite website that denial of EENS (in the way they interpret it) leads one to hell whether they are ignorant or not. I refuse to believe that St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, etc. are in hell.
One is in the torments of hell for the the OTHER mortal sins he likely commits over his life that go unforgiven (Just like any Catholic) in perfect contrition Because he has no other way to gain forgiveness in the Sacrament.
Click to expand...
When one has no recourse to the Sacrament of Confession, an act of perfect contrition will forgive one of his sins. If one has recourse to Confession, then he must go ASAP, even after an act of perfect contrition.
Even the Feeny followers hold to that, as well as the MHFM.
Got it?
Good.
One who has not been baptized http://www.barricksinsurance.com/image00111.gifhas original sin just the way a newborn does.
Baptism of desire if it does exist, would be so rare as to be foolish to even argue over it.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. Baptism of Desire is probably extremely rare. Most people in the world have mortal sin on their soul, and therefore could not receive Baptism of Desire. The Bible, and the teachings of most Saints agree that only a few will be saved. I believe this. If it’s that hard for Catholics, those visibly outside the Church will surely have a hard time.
What needs to be done is conversion of those who have never been invited to a church, and those who are in false sects like protestantism, Mormonism, JW’s. That would cover 99.999% of all the people we ever come in contact with.
Lately, the Immigrant Muslims are the next group.
Click to expand...
Where did I ever say we shouldn’t convert those visibly outside the Church? Any religion that isn’t Catholic, is false, and we should convert the people in those false religions. We should never assume that one MIGHT be saved who is visibly outside the Church, and we should work to bring them into the Church.
FORGET arguing if imaginary people are “saved” and get to work on doing some saving.
Because while you are arguing about this imaginary person who allegedly has Original Sin removed by some mystical desire, (& their infants don’t even have access to such a thing), the sects are converting multitudes into their own false religions.
http://www.visualcomedian.com/geist_wake_up.jpg
Click to expand...
Would you tell all those Saints, Doctors, Church Fathers, etc. that they were wasting their time writing about Baptism of Desire? There is ABSOLUTELY no salvation outside the Church, but the Feeneyite’s are wrong in their interpretation, and we should take the time correcting them of their errors.
 
Genesis315 said:
Regarding their misinterpretation of EENS, see this article:

romancatholicism.org/fenton-proof2.htm

Also, to see the either sloppy or dishonest tactics of MHFM, check out this article which shows how they twist things to look heretical:

Pope or Heretic? An Evaluation of Benedict XVI

and a follow up:

Ratzinger’s Resurrection Heresy: A Brief Note on Another Misreading
Click to expand...
I didn’t read all three links in their entirety, but what I did read was great, especially the first one. Thanks for posting!
 
Most Holy Family Monestary is run by the Dimond Brothers. They are conspiracy theorists. By viewing everthing that the popes do in light of suspicion, the Dimond Brothers use conspiracy theories to fill in the gaps created by a lack of information. This makes it appear that they have the answers to perplexing questions. This is not a logical approach to problem-solving.

They use sensationalism and conspiracy theories to excite and confuse people and obscure the facts. They have photos and quotes that supposedly prove that the recent popes are heretics and not true popes. The idea is that “pictures don’t lie” and “you can’t argue with the facts”. In reality, pictures can easily be misinterpreted or even altered, and quotes taken out of context can seem to mean something other than the original intent. The problem with conspiracy theories is that, by their very nature, they usually can’t be proven wrong. Anyone can make up a conspiracy theory, and just because you can’t prove it wrong, that doesn’t make the theory true. You cannot base your religion on conspiracy theories. For one example of their work and how their arguments can be refuted, thy this site: catholicintl.com/epologetics/…dimondbros.htm
 
rouselweis said:
Well, what about their claim that the seat of Peter is vacant. They assert that because Pope John Paul II offered communion to 2 Protestants, that makes him a heretic, and an anti-pope.

Is there a side to the story I’m not hearing?

Can someone PLEASE reply to all of this?:confused:

romancatholicism.org/101-benedict.htm

romancatholicism.org/101-benedict.htm
Click to expand...
The guy who runs this website is more than a little strange. He has links to National Socialist (Nazi) websites (as if that is in line with Catholicism.) He advocates Jansenism, which has been condemned by several Popes as a form of “Catholic calvinism.” He is a sedevacantist and is a Feeneyite. However for some reason he has several links on his site that contradict Feeneyism. I do not quite understand this, but since these links are pretty good, I use them to refute the theology of Fr. Feeney. Don’t pay attention to the rest of this website, though, it is largely erroneous.
 
rouselweis said:
Well, what about their claim that the seat of Peter is vacant. They assert that because Pope John Paul II offered communion to 2 Protestants, that makes him a heretic, and an anti-pope.

Is there a side to the story I’m not hearing?

Can someone PLEASE reply to all of this?:confused:
Click to expand...
Well, even if the communicants were public heretics, and the pope, knowing this fact, deliberately gave them communion to insult Our Lord, this still wouldn’t make the pope a heretic, just a sinner! However, there are so many unknown factors in this situation. I’ve hard of such incidents before, but I’m not sure which ones you’re referring to, however, consider these factors:
  1. Were these people public heretics, and was this known to both the pope and the rest of the congregation at those particular masses? The church has not traditionally placed the responsibility of determining a communicant’s worthiness to receive communion on the priest – only in some cases where the recipient is known publically to not be in a state of grace.
  2. Did the pope realize who the people were when he gave them communion?
  3. Is the law restricting the distribution of communion to Cathlolics of divine origin, or is it a Church law, and thus not binding on the pope?
  4. Did the pope actually sin here and intend to give scandal out of a desire to do evil?
  5. Did the pope announce that he was doing this because it doesn’t matter if you’re a Protestant or a Catholic; it’s all the same to God?
The list could be extended, but you can see how the Dimond Brothers don’t stop to consider any of these, but rather jump to #5, so the pope must be a heretic.

Notice how their logic works. Beware!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top