| 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 |  |
Comment
Voice Of Reason Scandal: It’s More Revealing Than You Think
Thank you for another amazing video.
Polox
Excellent Video
Voice Of Reason Scandal: It’s More Revealing Than You Think
Excellent video and exposé!...
Julian
The Spiritual Deception
Voice Of Reason Scandal: It’s More Revealing Than You Think
Thank you for this excellent video and for explaining the wider spiritual significance of this scandal. I very much appreciate the work put into exposing these spiritual frauds and servants of the Devil in keeping people in the Vatican II counter Church who might otherwise wake up to the spiritual deception.
What strikes me with this latest scandal is listening to the absolute drivel he speaks. It was pure theological mush, a steam of consciousness and nonsensical contradictory babble. It is truly alarming to think that people listen to these so called spiritual influencers and think that they are experts in theology and matters of the Faith. But the nonsense and vile heretical gibberish he speaks is perfectly consistent and supported by the Vatican II counter church, whose theology of universal salvation dissolves Christ and the necessity of being inside the Church to be saved. It is ad hoc theology, whatever argument serves the purpose of the moment irrespective of how it is consistent with other statements made elsewhere. Any coherent or rigorous doctrine is trashed in favour of sloppy cafeteria style chatter. It is no wonder many so called Catholics accept any heresy, the confusion caused by these evil tools of Satan is breathtaking, especially as they lie about dogmas and what the Church actually believes.
Also it is long past the time people realise that the Vatican II church and its minions embrace all religions and heresies and reserve the harshest condemnation and Church discipline only for traditional Catholics or those claiming to be Traditionalist. You make a good point that this is done because Satan knows that only Traditional Catholics holding to the dogmas of the Faith can be saved, and therefore every effort is made to persecute and slander those wanting to follow and defend the true Church. This latest scandal exposes just how wicked they are.
God bless you
Gerard
Shedding Light
Voice Of Reason Scandal: It’s More Revealing Than You Think
Thank you for shedding light into this.
Drew G
Absurd
Voice Of Reason Scandal: It’s More Revealing Than You Think
I couldn’t believe my ears the moment I heard him consider Gregory Palamas a “saint” under the excuse of “invincible ignorance”. Unbelievable. It would almost be akin to considering Martin Luther a “saint” based on the same faulty criteria. This is what happens to those obstinately defending the Vatican II Sect, they end up engaging in egregious mental gymnastics in order to defend a false council.
S
Deeper Spiritual Significance
Voice Of Reason Scandal: It’s More Revealing Than You Think
Loved this. You're absolutely right, there is a much deeper spiritual significance here.
Watrew
Going To Start
Voice Of Reason Scandal: It’s More Revealing Than You Think
I’m going to start 15 decades of the Rosary.
Sh
Comment
Voice Of Reason Scandal: It’s More Revealing Than You Think
Another excellent video, brothers. Thank you…
Jim
Opening Of The Graves
Jesus’ Descent Into Hell & The Baptism Of The Good Thief
All new to me. I always asked myself about the opening of the graves of the O.T. saints and their appearances. Now I understand it... Thanks
Tony
Video
The “Strongest” Argument Against The Papacy (Pope Vigilius) – Refuted
God bless you, this video is a treasure.
I K
Like Hell
“Priests” Possessed After Rodney Howard-Browne “Charismatic Anointing”
The cacophony of screaming and laughing is undoubtedly what hell sounds like.
Don
Important
John Henry Newman’s Error On Baptism & Confirmation
Thank you MHFM for this important teaching and for all your research and learning, giving us correct answers to our many questions and cleaning up the confusion caused because of the rejection of the True Traditions Catholic Faith!...
Daniel Woods
Conversion To The Catholic Faith
You guys were a big part of my conversion to the Catholic faith. God bless you.
Cody Miller
Pope Pius IX: Must Be Visibly United To Be In The Church
On the occasion of the convocation of the First Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX wrote to Protestants and other non-Catholics about the necessity for them to enter the Catholic Church. He taught that they are not in any way members or parts of the true Church of Christ because they are visibly separated from Catholic unity. This refutes two false positions: 1) the heretical teaching of Vatican II that such non-Catholics can be in the Church of Christ and even that Eastern schismatic churches are true particular churches – i.e. true local churches of the Church of Christ; and 2) the false idea that anyone can be saved without baptism. Pope Pius IX’s statement proves #2, that no one can be saved without baptism, because the only way to be visibly united to the Church (which he and other popes teach is required to be inside the Church) is by becoming a member of the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, To Protestants and Other Non-Catholics, Sept. 13, 1868: “Now, however, one who carefully considers and reflects on the condition in which the diverse and mutually disagreeing religious societies that are separated from the Catholic Church find themselves… should be able very easily to convince himself that no particular one of those societies or even all of them joined together in any way constitute and are that one and Catholic Church that Christ the Lord established, and willed to exist, nor can they in any way be said to be a member or part of the same Church (neque membrum aut partem eiusdem Ecclesiae ullo modo dici posse), because they are visibly separated from Catholic unity.” (Denzinger 43rd Edition, Ignatius Press, 2012, no. 2998)
Comment
Syracuse “LGBT Churches” Prove Leo XIV’s Sect Isn’t Catholic
I’m so grateful to this channel…
Donrobertoni
In the past we’ve mentioned that Cardinal John Henry Newman’s understanding of dogma was very flawed. A clear example of that is found in the following passage.
John Henry Newman, An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 2, Sect. 3, 1878: “Of the Sacraments, Baptism is developed into Confirmation on the one hand; into Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences on the other.”
According to Newman, Confirmation is a development of Baptism. But that’s false. Such a notion was condemned as a modernist error in the following passage of Pope St. Pius X’s Lamentabile.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #44: “There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.” - CONDEMNED
Confirmation was not a development of Baptism, but a separate sacrament instituted by Christ, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent taught.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Institution of Confirmation: “Accordingly, pastors must explain that not only was [Confirmation] instituted by Christ the Lord, but that by Him were also ordained, as Pope St. Fabian testifies, the rite of chrism and the words which the Catholic Church uses in its administration. This is a fact easy to prove to those who acknowledge Confirmation to be a Sacrament, because all the sacred mysteries exceed the powers of human nature and could be instituted by no other than God alone.”
For the proper understanding of dogma, see this recent video: To Understand Catholic Dogma You Need To Know This
Their False Position On Infants
‘Born Again’ Refutes ‘Faith Alone’
That’s great point at the end about James and baptists not believing infants can be saved since they can’t express faith.
Raker
President Over All The Churches
St. Gregory Nazianzen Refutes “Orthodoxy” On The Papacy
As an inquirer into traditional Catholicism - Do you know if St. Gregory is referring to Rome being President over all the West, (noting he mentions Rome leads the entire West just before this) or President over all Churches? Trying to understand here, please pray for me also. Thank you!
CalvaryandChristendom
As the video covers, Gregory directly says that the See of Rome is “president over all”, not just the West. He says that Rome is binding together the West because heresies were flourishing more in the East than in the West. But the presidency of Rome is “over all”. That’s also the teaching of the ecumenical councils. We have also posted this in article form at the link above. See this playlist for other videos that totally refute Eastern “Orthodoxy”: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGVSKByrYzss4weDvPDa-2SANNmPrxaqD It’s crucial that you embrace the traditional Catholic faith. Our material also explains what’s happening in Rome now.
Compassion
Man Rescues Baby Swan Caught In Fence - video
I appreciate these stories MHFM, they demonstrate kindness and compassion in people which is sometimes hard to find.
Jsn
Lives In California, Terrified
AB 495: Parental Rights On The Chopping Block In California
Dear brothers, I live in California and I am terrified of this bill. It shows how secular the state has become I will vote against this evil. Pray for us California.
JP
Only Way To Enter Communion
John 3:5 Mockers Have A Demonic Opposition To Catholic Truth On Baptism/Salvation
That video clip is a classic. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and water baptism is the only way to enter into Communion with Her.
Francis
Comment
“Priests” Possessed After Rodney Howard-Browne “Charismatic Anointing”
… videos are so very well put together…
Damien
Bro. Peter Dimond
Certain dishonest heretics have misrepresented the facts about and the status of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, which took place in 1866. They have claimed that the pope at the time, Pope Pius IX, specifically approved and looked over all the decrees that were issued by that national council. Their claim is not true. Those individuals are not only dishonest, but they are often unfamiliar with the basic distinction between something approved in common form (in forma communi) and something approved in specific form (in forma specifica). Only acts approved in the latter way are protected by infallibility. We cover more on that here: https://vaticancatholic.com/the-holy-office-geocentrism-fr-feeney/ But in the case of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, its decrees were not approved in common form or in specific form (but merely revised by a Roman Congregation) according to Sebastian Bach Smith, a professor of canon law writing with an imprimatur in 1887. Further explanation is given below, but here are a few key statements he makes.
Sebastian Bach Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Imprimatur 1887, Vol. 1, p. 77: “Q. 174. Is the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore approved in forma specifica? A. 1. It is not…”
Sebastian Bach Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Imprimatur 1887, Vol. 1, p. 78: “Note: A careful study of the subject would seem to show that the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore was not confirmed by the Holy See in any form, not even in forma communi, but merely revised and corrected [by a Roman Congregation].”
The fact that a Roman Congregation revises a book or a decree does not guarantee that the revised work is without error or definitive or that it’s an act of the Chair of St. Peter. An obvious example of how Roman Congregations and members of Roman Congregations can be wrong is found in the geocentrism controversy. In the 17th century Roman Congregations (with the approval of popes in forma communi) considered the denial of geocentrism to be heresy. But in the 19th century Roman Congregations changed their position and specifically allowed people to embrace heliocentrism. Regardless of which position one takes on that matter, both positions cannot be correct. One must admit that Roman Congregations were wrong either in the 17th century or in the 19th century. But the Chair of St. Peter and the Magisterium are never wrong. This further demonstrates that Roman Congregations are not identical to the Magisterium.
The fact that the Second Council of Baltimore was not approved in forma specifica – and not even in forma communi, according to Smith – is relevant because the decrees of the Second Council of Baltimore contain a few erroneous expressions on the salvation and baptism issue. That should not be a surprise because, as we’ve pointed out repeatedly, the Vatican II apostasy and the breakdown of the faith did not happen three days before Vatican II. The breakdown of the faith began over a hundred years before Vatican II, with errors on the salvation dogma being taught not by the Chair of Peter or the Magisterium but in fallible acts and by various fallible theologians. Many people were falling into serious errors in the 1800s, and this was especially true on the crucial matter of the necessity of baptism and the Catholic Church for salvation. Those who fail to realize this are naïve and ignorant. Man-worshippers who lack divine faith and have no fidelity to the dogmas and the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter cannot comprehend this simple fact. However, it should be noted that the erroneous passages in the Second Council of Baltimore do not teach the blatant and condemned heresy that souls can be saved without any belief in Jesus Christ.
Further, the acts of the aforementioned council open with a profession of faith, taken from the Council of Trent, which correctly asserts that no one can be saved without the Catholic faith and that the sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation, although all the sacraments are not necessary for each individual. That means that at least one sacrament (namely, Baptism) is required to be saved, and that everyone must have the Catholic faith to be saved. Unlike the other decrees of the Second Council of Baltimore, the position that the Sacrament of Baptism and the Catholic faith are required for every person’s salvation (which the council repeated through its profession of faith) is infallible because it was also contained in the dogmatic decrees of the Councils of Trent, Vatican I, and more. Thus, while various heretics mispresent the facts about the Second Council of Baltimore – and they attempt to use its fallible and non-definitive decrees to bolster their false position on salvation – they depart from the definitive and infallible profession of faith that was repeated by the same council. Here’s more of what Sebastian Bach Smith said on the matter of the Second Council of Baltimore.
Sebastian Bach Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Imprimatur 1887, Vol. 1, pp. 75-78: “What is meant by the confirmation of councils in forma communi and in forma specifica?... Benedict XIV says: ‘Statutes are said to be confirmed in common form, which are not individually examined or approved by the Roman Pontiff motu proprio [of his own accord], et ex certa scientia [from certain knowledge].’ Confirmation in forma specifica is that ‘which is made with perfect knowledge of the whole affair and all of its circumstances.’ Benedict XIV explains this more explicitly: ‘Confirmation in specific form [in forma specifica] is said to be made when it is preceded by an examination of the case and each individual statute is carefully weighed up, and then, with no added condition, confirmation is pronounced by Apostolic Authority with the clause motu proprio and from certain knowledge.’
171. Q. How can it be known that a provincial or national council is approved in forma specifica and not merely in forma communi? A. 1. When the tenor or contents of its decrees are inserted in the instrument of confirmation. 2. When, in the absence of the above, these phrases are used: ex certa scientia; proprio motu; ex plenitudine potestatis; non obstante lege aut consuetudine in contrarium, or supplentes omnes juris et facti, defectus. 3.) The recognitio by the Sacred Congregation is not sufficient; the confirmation must be given by letters Apostolic.
172. In case of doubt whether a council is approved in forma specifica or only in forma communi, canonists commonly hold that it is approved merely in forma communi…
174. Is the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore approved in forma specifica? A. 1. It is not; for the Decretum of the Propaganda, dated Jan. 24, 1868, Pro Recognitione Concilii (Pl. Balt. II.), has none of the marks above given in confirmation of the forma specifica. This appears from the decree itself, which reads: ‘The Same Sacred Congregation, having applied diligent inquiry, with a few corrections and observations excepted, has judged and most willingly recognized the acts and decrees of the same Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, so that the same may be inviolately observed by all to whom they pertain.’ Moreover, the sole revision and approbation of decrees by a Sacred Congregation is not Papal confirmation, at least in forma specifica. For decrees of councils are sanctioned in forma specifica, not by a ‘Decretum S. Congr. pro recognitione concilii’, but by apostolic letters or briefs. Now, the decrees of Baltimore were confirmed, or rather reviewed, not by apostolic letters, but by a Decretum S. C. de Prop. Fide’ above mentioned, as appears clearly from the Holy Father’s reply to the Fathers of Baltimore, Sept. 2, 1867: ‘What pertains to the Acts of the Council (Second Plenary of Baltimore), it is appropriate that you will receive a response concerning the same Acts, after they have been set before our Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.’
From what has been said we infer that it is allowed to appeal to the S. C. de Prop. Fide from the decrees of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, and also from the decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, held in 1884; for, the confirmatio in forma communi does not remove the defectus juris that may be contained in their enactments…
Note: A careful study of the subject would seem to show that the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore was not confirmed by the Holy See in any form, not even in forma communi, but merely revised and corrected [by a Roman Congregation]. ‘Thus, the decree of the Propaganda (C. Pl. Balt. IL., p. cxxxvi.) has for its heading the words: ‘Decretum pro Recognitione Concilii’; but not ‘Decretum pro approbatione or confirmatione Concilii.’”
These facts are sufficient to refute the serious misrepresentations that have been made on this matter by various individuals. For more on the salvation and baptism issues and related magisterial teaching, see this playlist of videos:
^
" />
" />
" />
" />
" />
