- Sexual Pleasure and the Various Sexual Acts in Marriage
- Most Holy Family Monastery Heresies, Contradictions and Lies Exposed!
- Antipope Francis approves of Atheism, False religions, and Homosexuality, teaching that they all saves a person!
- The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II
- Natural Family Planning, the Marital Sexual Act, and Procreation
- Sinful sexual pleasure and lust within marriage exposed
- Foreplay is intrinsically evil and a mortal sin against the natural law
- Masturbation is intrinsically evil and a mortal sin against the natural law
- About sinful sexual thoughts and fantasies inside and outside of the marital act
- Kisses and touches performed for sensual motives are condemned as mortal sins by the Catholic Church
- About Receiving the Sacraments From Heretics and Prayer in Communion with Heretics
- SSPX and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Exposed!
- SSPV, Bishop Clarence Kelly and The Daughters of Mary Exposed
- The amazing lies, heresies and contradictions of Peter and Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery caught on tape and writing exposed
- Chastity and Virginity increases one’s chance of reaching Heaven according to the Holy Bible
Fr. Rama P. Coomaraswamy Biography, Books, Beliefs, Heresies and Practices Exposed
Fr. Rama P. Coomraswamy, M.D. (born 1929 – died 2006), was a self-professed Roman Catholic priest who converted to “Catholicism” at age 22. He was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Jose Gaston Ramon Lopez (a sedevacantist bishop) at the presence of Fr. Malachi Martin, a Vatican professor and a close friend of John XXIII and Paul VI.
Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy was born as the third child to the famous art philosopher and pagan father, Dr. Ananda Coomaraswamy, who specialized in the scholarly studies of Indian culture and Hinduism. Some of Fr. Rama Coomraswamy's most notorious activities include being Mother Theresa's personal physician, brain surgeon, psychologist, psychiatrist, seminary professor, university professor, and a priest.
In his theological works Rama P. Coomaraswamy buries the idea that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church that Christ founded. Coomaraswamy discusses in detail what 'tradition' (the teachings and practices which comprise the Magisterium) mean to a Catholic. Using as evidence Christ's own words, the Epistles, Church Councils, papal pronouncements, and history he demonstrates that, for a Catholic, the Magisterium cannot change. However, the Vatican II sect argues that the Magisterium can change. Thus the Vatican II sect is not Catholic.
The Destruction of the Christian Tradition
Fr. Rama P. Coomraswamy's book, The Destruction of the Christian Tradition (first published January 1, 1981) explains the aggiornamento of the Conciliar Church and how it "changed" the Catholic Church with a new ecclesiology, i.e., the nature of the Church being "updated" with times. (In reality, however, the Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church but the end times Counter Church. See Is the Vatican II sect the Whore of Babylon Prophesied in the Apocalypse?)
Fr. Coomaraswamy explains that most of the 7 sacraments have gone invalid. His position was that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration for Bishops and Ordinations for Priests are doubtfully valid due to defect of form and intention. (It must be pointed out however that the New Rite of consecrating Bishops and the New Rite of ordaining Priests must be not only be considered doubtful, but also invalid. See Why the New Rite of Ordination & New Rite of Consecration of Bishops are Invalid). The New Rite of Holy Orders as stated by Fr. Coomaraswamy were changed by “Archbishop” Annibale Bugnini—who was the primary architect of the New Mass and a Freemason—and the 6 Protestant ministers who composed the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Mass) for Paul VI. It is thus true to say that Vatican II made their "Mass" more Protestant, and specifically Anglican. This is not even debatable: this is supported by the Vatican II instigators own words and deeds.
The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.
Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” (Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.)
In the chapter called 'Communist infiltration of the Church', did you know that the Vatican II sect was honoring the Soviet state-implanted "hierarchy" while deliberately abandoning the priests who were standing up to Communist oppression? Or that then-"Cardinal" Montini's private secretary was discovered to be a Communist agent whose activities led to the deaths of priests in the Russian bloc? Or that while the real Church always condemned Communism, the antipopes went out of their way to praise it? Or that then-bishop Wojtyla was the only bishop allowed free travel in Soviet Poland?
Rama Coomaraswamy further demonstrates how the post conciliar church is actually the continuation of the modernistic views propagated by Antipope John the 23rd, reaching fruition in Vatican 2, effectively muting the voice of tradition while propagating the errors of modernism.
He wrote in the first chapter of this book, "No one disputes the fact that after Vatican II, the Catholic Church was different. The fundamental question is whether the changes... involved fundamental points of doctrine and practice. If the latter is the case, one would be forced to conclude that the post-Conciliar Church is no longer the same as its pre-Vatican II counterpart... The answer to the query posed at the start of this chapter—'Is it the same Church?'—will by and large depend upon the answers given to these questions... This book will attempt to answer these questions." (Pg. 2)
"There can be no doubt that the post-Conciliar 'Popes' have rejected the authority of the Magisterium and would lead us to do the same. They have thus lost their authority because it cannot be said of them that he who hears them is hearing Christ." (p. 43)
"Men have rebelled against that Christianity which is true and faithful to Christ and His doctrines. In its place they have fashioned Christianity to their own liking, a new idol which does not save, which is not opposed to the passions of carnal desires nor to the greed of gold and silver which fascinates, nor to the pride of Life; a new religion without a soul, without religion, a mask of dead Christianity without the spirit of Christ." (Pope Pius XII, quoted on p. 384)
He states that post-Conciliar Catholics "cannot 'pick and choose' just what he will accept in the New Church without declaring that it is in fact his own 'private opinion' that is the basic authority for his decision. The 'post-Conciliar Catholic,' no matter how 'sincere,' is plainly and simply, no longer a Roman Catholic." (Pg. 104) He adds, "Present-day Catholics are faced with a terrible dilemma. If they obey the post-Conciliar 'Popes,' they must apostatize from the Catholic Faith as it has existed since the time of Christ and the Apostles." (Pg. 129)
He explains, "A traditional Catholic is one who adheres to the teachings of the Church as they have always been. He insists upon the traditional sacraments administered by validly ordained priests, as he rejects the teachings of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, and all the other post-Conciliar sacraments." (Pg. 429) He adds, "The fact remains that the true Church has become an underground Church, much as happened during the time of the Reformation in England, or again in France where Catholics refused to accept the 'constitutional' priests." (Pg. 432)
Father Coomaraswamy argues convincingly that if you accept the Council of Trent and Vatican I you cannot accept Vatican II and the "New Church". Like Father James Wathen in his tour de force The Great Sacrilege, Father Coomaraswamy presents an overly convincing case that the Roman Catholic Church (except for a marginalized faithful remnant) no longer exists as a social institution. It has been destroyed from within and reduced to a remnant. The Catholic Church now can only be found among those scattered faithful to the pre-Vatican II teachings.
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
On Sept. 19, 1846, the Church approved apparition Our Lady of La Salette prophesied that Rome would lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist in a final days apostasy from the one true Catholic Faith.
Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”
While the author has many great insights, sometimes his theology lacks clarity and decision.
For example, after the author proves that the antipopes are not Catholic, and that the sedevacantist position (that there is no currently reigning pope) is the correct one to hold, he seems to concede that it is OK for a Catholic to believe the nonsense that John Paul II, et alius, are popes "materially" but not "formally" (a modernist innovation that the Church never held).
As another example, after irrefutably showing that the new Mass and new Rite of Ordination respectively lack the sacrifice, tradition and apostolic succession, he then claims that the new Mass and Ordination of priests are only "doubtful" - not unquestionably invalid.
The greatest flaws, however, in the book, are its promotion of heresies. After quoting John 3:5 ("unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven"), Coomaraswamy then in effect calls Christ a liar and claims that one does not need water baptism in order to enter heaven. (This is the heresy of baptism of desire, and it is thoroughly refuted by the online video "Baptism of Desire Buried".) He also promotes the idea that someone who is "invincibly ignorant" of the Gospel can be saved. Not only does this (again) deny the necessity of water baptism, but it was never held by any Doctor or saint of the Church. (These issues are thoroughly covered in the book *Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation*, available from Most Holy Family Monastery (also see Most Holy Family Monastery Beliefs, Heresies and Practises Exposed in order to be aware of their soul slaying heresies).
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION
To further show that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, I will quote numerous infallible statements from the Chair of St. Peter.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
This infallible dogmatic definition from the Chair of St. Peter condemns anyone who says that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation. The Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all for salvation, first of all, because, as the Council of Trent defines, all men (except the Blessed Virgin Mary) were conceived in a state of original sin as a result of the sin of Adam, the first man. The Sacrament of Baptism is also necessary for all for salvation because it is the means by which one is marked as a member of Jesus Christ and incorporated into His Mystical Body. And in defining the truth that all men were conceived in the state of Original Sin, the Council of Trent specifically declared that the Blessed Virgin Mary was an exception to its decree on Original Sin. But in defining the truth that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, the Council of Trent made no exceptions at all.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”
We see here that one cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven without faith and the external rite of baptism (i.e., the Sacrament of Baptism). Ignorant people nowadays contradict this fact and claim that people can reach heaven without a real and actual water baptism. One could easily understand if a person were ignorant of these facts and believed that a person or infant could be Saved without the sacrament of baptism since many have been wrong on this issue, even Saints. But when one has seen these infallible dogmatic declarations from the Popes, and still obstinately hold to the position that people or infants can be saved without real and actual water baptism, he is a heretic. A heretic is a person who obstinately, willfully and knowingly hold an opinion which he knows to be in opposition with what the Church teach.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “Likewise (I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
For a person to assert that salvation can be attained invincibly or ignorantly by Jews, pagans, heretics or schismatics without baptism or the Catholic Faith, is truly the most evil of doctrine since it renders Faith in Jesus Christ and the true Catholic Faith meaningless. According to this erroneous world view, anyone who is “good” can attain eternal life.
PROOF FOR THE SEDEVACANTIST POSITION
In order to prove that one cannot obstinately regard Antipope Francis as a Pope without becoming a heretic, here are some of his worst heresies which proves that he is a complete heretic.
In On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13 Francis says he respects atheists and doesn’t try to convert them. He also says that their “life is not condemned”:
“I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him… nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not. For that reason alone everyone has a series of virtues, qualities, and a greatness of his own.” (Francis, On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13)
In contrast to Francis, the Council of Florence dogmatically defined that any individual who has a view contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Trinity, or any one of the truths about Our Lord or the Trinity, is rejected, condemned and anathematized by God.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “… the holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy Spirit… Therefore it [the Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ [and of God], which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”
An atheists interviewed Francis for the Italian newspaper The Republic. The interview was published on October 1, 2013. Francis directly told the atheist that he has no intention of trying to convert him. Francis rejects proselytism four different times in this interview. Francis declared: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.”
Now, our Lord commanded the apostle to go and proselytize, to go and teach. He said: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commended you.” (Matthew 28:19)
How clear is that? And what’s really outrageous about this statement is that he’s essentially spitting on and mocking the martyrs, who suffered, died, were tortured, for teaching, preaching and spreading the true faith; and this apostate has the nerve to call it a solemn nonsense. That anyone claiming to be the Pope says such an evil statement, is incredible.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”
Pope Pius IV, profession of faith, Council of Trent, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that atheists are condemned and that they must be converted to the Catholic faith for salvation. Yet, Antipope Francis is dominating the headlines around the world with his assertion that people don’t need to believe in God to get to heaven.
Antipope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (# 254), Nov. 24, 2013: “Non-Christians [such as atheists], by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs.”
Some may argue that when Francis continued in his Evangelii Gaudium, saying: “they [false religions, practices and beliefs] can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences” -- that this means they will be converted. But we already know he doesn’t believe the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, and that he rejects proselytizing atheists; so that is not what he means. He is just saying it could happen - “they can” - not that it will, which is why he said: they can be justified if they follow their conscience. And then he ended saying: “which can help us better to live our own beliefs.” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 254)
His position is of course, heresy and apostasy. He made a similar statement in an open letter to the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica.
Statements like this only confirm what we’ve documented about the Vatican II antipopes, and what was proven in the video “What Francis Really Believes.” I’ve read Francis’ entire letter. The headlines accurately reflect what Antipope Francis wrote in his Evangelii Gaudium.
Concerning atheists, Francis wrote:
“First of all, you ask if the God of Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God’s mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.” (“Pope” Francisco writes to La Repubblica: “An open dialogue with non-believers”, 2013/09/11/)
Here Francis clearly indicates that people who don’t believe in God can be forgiven and saved if they obey their own conscience and follow what they perceive to be good; and later in his “Evangelii Gaudium” (254) he confirmed that this indeed was what he meant. So don’t allow any liar to claim that Francis’ statement has been misrepresented. It has not been misrepresented as Francis himself confirmed.
That’s an astounding heresy because it’s a basic dogma of Catholicism that faith is necessary for salvation. This is a fundamental issue. As Hebrews 11:6 says, “…without faith it is impossible to please God.”