" />
" />
" />
" />
" />| 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 |  |
Francis & Leo XIV’s “Welcoming” vs. 2 Thess. 3
Francis & Leo XIV’s “Welcoming” vs. 2 Thess. 3
Among their many other heresies, Antipopes Francis and Leo XIV have taught that there should be “openness” and “welcoming” to people who deny Catholic teaching and violate Catholic morals. Their message is directly opposed to the teaching of 2 Thessalonians 3, among many other things.
2 Thessalonians 3:6- “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
2 Thessalonians 3:14- “If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.”
Comment
Censorship
Leo XIV’s 6-Month Spiritual Rampage – Francis 2.0 Confirmed
… This is what the Dimond brothers are faced with by the internet mediums. I don't get updates on their new presentations even though I subscribe…
S C
This is why people should subscribe to our newsletter: https://mhfm.email.
They Don’t Understand “Invincible Ignorance”
But the concept of "invincible ignorance" did exist pre Florence the post vatican 2 church is actually closer to saint augustine and thomas Aquinas.
M V
You really don’t understand the issue. The concept of “invincible” or “inculpable” ignorance was acknowledged by saints such as St. Thomas, but they did not teach that people who were thus ignorant of Christ could be saved. For them it only meant that such people would not be condemned for the sin of infidelity or unbelief, but that they would be condemned for their other sins. They held (as the Church teaches) that no one at all can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ, even if they’ve never heard of Him. So no, the Vatican II Sect’s position is NOT traditional or compatible with the teaching of Augustine, Aquinas and (most significantly) the dogmatic statements of the Church. As St. Thomas said here:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. II-II, Q. 10, A. 1: “If, however, we take it [unbelief] by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such ignorance of divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. However, infidels of this kind [i.e. those who lack the faith through ignorance rather than contrariety] are in fact damned on account of other sins, which cannot be remitted without faith, but they are not damned on account of the sin of infidelity. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22): ‘If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin’; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as ‘referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ.’”
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.
Recent Content
^