| 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 |  |
Catholic vs. “Orthodox” On The Transfiguration Light (Leo, Maximus)
MHFM: Today is the feast of the Transfiguration. This video (which we also have in article form) clearly shows that Eastern father St. Maximus the Confessor contradicts the Eastern ‘Orthodox’/Palamite position on the Light of the Transfiguration. Pope St. Leo the Great does as well. It’s another clear example of how the Eastern ‘Orthodox’ don’t have the truth. Rather, they simply have a collection of false claims and misrepresentations.
MHFM: If there's a traditional Catholic willing to help with a baptism in the Dallas area, please e-mail us at [email protected].
In the Islamic Republic of Iran it’s not only illegal to preach the Gospel, but “marriages” with girls age 10 or younger are often permitted. It’s a country in almost total darkness founded on the imposed veneration of the pedophile Mohammed, who “married” a six-year-old.
In fact, in the 1960s, the man who would found the Islamic Republic of Iran, “Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini”, wrote a work of Islamic jurisprudence that endorsed sexualized acts with infants as long as it was not intercourse! What an outrage. A great number people have rightly been appalled by the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Yet many of those same people seem, on some level, to legitimize or defend the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is far worse. In fact, the Epstein scandal would only be comparable to the Republic of Iran if an entire country was founded on a religion that venerated Epstein and outlawed preaching the Gospel.
Simon Magus is mentioned in Acts 8:9-24. The term simony comes from him because he tried to purchase spiritual power with money.
Acts 8:20-21: “But Peter said to him, ‘May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.’”
According to the testimony of the ancient Church, Simon persisted in his false views and was damned. He is considered to be the “father of heretics”.
A widespread tradition holds that Simon Magus persuaded many at Rome by his magical arts. He was even able to fly by the power of demons. Yet, under Nero his evil ministry was defeated by St. Peter during an encounter between the two. The historical reality of this encounter, including Simon’s ability to fly by the power of demons, was accepted by many saints and early Christian writers. See, for example, St. Robert Bellarmine’s comments in De Romano Pontifice, Book 1, Chap. 23. The event is also related by 4th century Christian apologist Arnobius.
Arnobius, Contra Gentes, Book 2, 4th century: “For they had seen the chariot of Simon Magus, and his fiery car, blown into pieces by the mouth of Peter, and vanish when Christ was named. They had seen him, I say, trusting in false gods, and abandoned by them in their terror, borne down headlong by his own weight, lie prostrate with his legs broken; and then, when he had been carried to Brunda, worn out with anguish and shame, again cast himself down from the roof of a very lofty house.”
St. Bede the Venerable (d. 735) held the view that Simon Magus was damned. St. Robert Bellarmine endorses the same position in De Justificatione, Book 3, Chap. 14.
St. Bede the Venerable, Expositio Supra Acta Apostolorum, 8:20-40: “Thus this Simon, who received the curse from Peter, died in eternal damnation.” (J.P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, 92:961)
Apologetics’ Value
It’s not only good to share our most recent video (A Prophet Explains The Vatican II Apostasy From Catholicism) with people in the Novus Ordo, but also with interested Protestants, Eastern ‘Orthodox’, etc. It has a lot of apologetics’ value in explaining to people in general (not just those who claim to be Catholic) how this situation could have happened in Rome.
Comment
A Prophet Explains The Vatican II Apostasy From Catholicism
Another Catholic masterpiece from MHFM…
Htg
Comment
A Prophet Explains The Vatican II Apostasy From Catholicism
… brilliantly explained.
Christine
Great Apostasy
A Prophet Explains The Vatican II Apostasy From Catholicism
This great apostasy is what the third secret of fatima was all about, the vatican 2 council…
Michelle
In his commentary on John 8:24, St. Thomas again expresses his position (which is the teaching of the Church) that faith in Christ is required for salvation. Like other saints and doctors, he correctly teaches that people cannot be freed from original sin without faith in Christ. (The act of faith through which original sin is removed is the Sacrament of Baptism.) Thus, to be excluded from salvation it’s not necessary for people to reject Christ. Rather, regardless of whether they’ve heard of Jesus, people remain in original sin and are excluded from salvation unless they come to faith in Him (through baptism, etc.).
St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary On The Gospel of John (8:24): “‘I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.’ Then, in order not to entirely exclude all hope for their salvation, he proposes the remedy, saying, ‘For if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sin.’ He is saying in effect: You were born in original sin, from which you cannot be absolved except by my faith: because, if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sin.”
This explanation, that people remain in original sin without faith in Christ, is also rooted in the words of John 3:36. St. Robert Bellarmine has a good passage about this, as we covered in this video/article: How Is One Saved “By The Name Of Jesus Christ”? (Acts 4:12).
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book 6, Chap. 2: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him [John 3:36]… Correctly St. Augustine observed… that it was not said [in John 3:36]: ‘The wrath of God will come on them’, but ‘remains on them’, in order that we would understand faith in Christ to be necessary not only so that we would not fall into the wrath of God, but even that we might be freed from the wrath into which we have fallen through the disobedience of the first man. Concerning which it was stated by the Apostle to the Ephesians, chapter 2: For we were also by nature children of wrath…”
Some people are familiar with Anthony Cekada, an independent sedevacantist priest who died in 2020. Although he said some true things, he was sadly a heretic and a John 3:5 mocker who also aggressively promoted the sinful birth control practice of NFP. He believed that people can be saved without even faith in Jesus Christ (a blatant heresy that’s condemned by many popes). In fact, when he was still alive someone we knew called him up and asked him if he believed that Jews can be saved without the Catholic faith. Cekada responded by indicating that if a Jew is a thief then no, but yes if otherwise. He simply didn’t have the Catholic faith or even truly believe in the Gospel, just like many other independent and illicit clergy who have no authority to function as priests. Cekada misrepresented Catholic teaching about theologians in reference to the Magisterium. The false arguments advanced by heretics and John 3:5 mockers like him are thoroughly refuted in our playlist on salvation:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGVSKByrYzssJHrA8L1PjrxWW-S15pnEQ
MHFM: It's very sad to hear about Charlie Kirk. We plan (God willing) to make some additional comments about it.
Antipope Leo XIV sent the Vice-President of the Italian “Bishops’” Conference to celebrate an “LGBT” “Mass” in Rome, just days after meeting with the notorious James Martin. He also allowed a rainbow “pride” cross to be processed into St. Peter’s Basilica and the Vatican. The Vatican II Sect (which is the end-times Counter Church, the Whore of Babylon, as our material explains) is a pro-“LGBT” sect. Some people are calling this the abomination of desolation, but that more properly refers to the New Mass. The quote of the day on our website, from Pope St. Gregory VII, is remarkably applicable to what Antipope Leo XIV just allowed in Rome.
Pope St. Gregory VII: “Divine scripture testifies that an equal punishment is due to those who commit an evil and to those who assent to it [Rom. 1:32].” (To The Clergy and Laity of Germany, 1075)
As we’ve documented, at the Council of Florence Pope Eugene IV defined that all who die as pagans are not saved. The Church also teaches that Muslims are pagans (Pope Callixtus III, Missa Contra Paganos). In our video Leo XIV’s Huge Error Condemned By Famous Catholic Figure, we showed that Juan de Torquemada (one of the prime theologians at Florence) specifically taught that it’s impossible to be saved in Islam (or without the Christian faith). In our video Pope Pius II Destroys Vatican II On Islam, we showed that another pope (about 20 years after Florence) taught that no one can be saved in Islam. Yet, even though the Council of Florence’s definition, the teaching of a prime theologian of the Council, and another pope shortly after the Council all teach that no one can be saved in Islam, members of the Vatican II Sect and countless false traditionalists (including the heretical SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc.) hold that Muslims (and other non-Christians) can be saved without the Catholic faith. It shows that they have no fidelity to Catholic teaching whatsoever and that they are not Catholics. (This is not even to mention the many other definitive papal statements which teach that the Catholic faith and faith in Jesus Christ are required for salvation).
Moses was a type of Jesus in many ways. Exodus 32:9-13 is another example. God wanted to destroy the people, but Moses interceded for them to prevent their destruction.
Exodus 32:9-13- “And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. ‘Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may destroy them, in order that I may make a great nation of you.’ But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, ‘O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel’…”
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
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:
False Trad John 3:5 mockers are often very lenient toward members of the Novus Ordo, Protestants, other non-Catholics, etc. But when they encounter people who adhere to Jesus’ words in John 3:5 (which have been defined as a dogma), their demonic wrath, pseudo-condemnations, and calumnies come out.
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.”
When confronted with the Catholic Church’s dogmatic teaching that no one can be saved without baptism (which is based directly on Jesus’ solemn proclamation), their reaction is comparable to the people in this video.
They are legion. They hate the necessity of baptism because they are evil and the Sacrament of Baptism is the necessary gateway to Christ and His one true Church (Council of Florence).
It’s also noteworthy that many independent False Trad priests and illicit bishops are the most aggressive and vicious opponents of Catholic truth on baptism in our day. We don’t think that’s just a coincidence. Those heretical independent “priests” and “bishops”, who have NO PERMISSION from the Catholic Church to function as Catholic priests and bishops, have been raised up by Satan to oppose the true remnant Catholic Church in our day. The true Catholic remnant in our day successfully opposes and refutes the Vatican II Sect, and by God’s grace makes converts, by firmly adhering to Catholic truth on salvation and baptism.
It was recently announced that Antipope Leo XIV will declare John Henry Newman (who died in 1890) to be a “Doctor of the Church”. Newman was a famous writer who is perhaps best known for his work called An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. While Newman was very learned, and he did make many interesting points about ecclesiastical history, his understanding of the aforementioned matter was severely flawed. He taught things that are directly contrary to Catholic teaching. We might expand upon this fact. Contrary to Newman’s flawed understanding of dogma and how it relates to divine revelation, the true understanding of it (based on the official pronouncements of the Chair of St. Peter) is covered in our recent video: To Understand Catholic Dogma You Need To Know This.
Newman also taught that the dogma Outside The Church There Is No Salvation has exceptions. That is heretical, and it represented a failure to understand and believe in papal infallibility and the unique protections given to popes when they teach the entire Church. Newman’s statement on that matter was even condemned as a rejection of the salvation dogma by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (who himself was a liberal on the salvation issue). We covered that in this video/article: Pope Pius IX Did Not Teach Salvation Outside The Church
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 124, 126: “The teaching that the dogma of the necessity of the Church for salvation admits of exceptions is, in the last analysis, a denial of the dogma as it has been stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’ It is important to note that such teaching is found in Cardinal Newman’s last published study on this subject… Obviously there could be no more effective way of reducing the teaching on the necessity of the Church for the attainment of eternal salvation to an empty formula than the explanation advanced by Newman…”
Newman’s heretical statement on this matter is another example of how the denial of the salvation dogma (which was the key to the Great Apostasy) started (in various fallible sources) before Vatican II.
The notorious Protestant heretic John MacArthur died on July 14, 2025, at the age of 86. MacArthur was extremely heretical and very anti-Catholic. Now he’s paying the price for his bad will and his rejection of the truth. MacArthur’s false gospel of “faith alone” and “once justified always justified” is thoroughly refuted in our videos, such as:
Documentary: Protestantism’s Big Justification Lie
How Many Serious Sins Do Protestants Think A “True Believer” Can Commit?
What Millions Of Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians
Justification Debate - (Catholic) vs. (Reformed Protestant)
His false teaching on salvation constituted a huge lie and a deception. MacArthur was a Calvinist. Here’s what St. Bellarmine said about heretics who believed as MacArthur did.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, Book 2, Chap. 16: “They [Calvinists] make war on the very justice of God, and refer all men’s crimes to God as their author.” (Commenting on the Calvinists’ heretical position that God predestines people to Hell)
Concerning the Protestant heresy that a truly justified believer can never lose faith or justification or would necessarily recover faith and be saved before death, St. Robert Bellarmine said:
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Iustificatione, Book 3, Chap. 14: “… the testimonies of Scripture are so numerous and so clear [in contradicting this], that it’s astounding an error of this kind was able to fall into the minds of men.”
Despite the obvious falsehoods that he promoted, countless blind people promote and look up to MacArthur as if he were a great Christian teacher. They are very deceived and will follow him to damnation unless they embrace the true faith. We wish that MacArthur had been different, but he chose his path. Of course, no Catholic is permitted to pray for John MacArthur, since he died outside the Church. Yet, many in the Vatican II Sect and many false traditionalists will do so and violate Catholic teaching in the process.
Our readers may find it interesting to know that Francisco had a vision of a demon on top of a rock – one separate from the July 13, 1917 vision. Here is Lucy’s account:
“One day we were looking for a place called the Pedreira, and as the sheep passed by, we climbed from one rock to another, trying to make our voice echo from the bottom of these great ravines. Francisco, as usual, retired to the hollow of a rock. After a long pause, we heard him crying, calling on Our Lady and invoking her.
We were very disturbed, thinking something had happened to him. We began to look for him, saying: ‘Where are you?’ ‘Here! Here!’ But it still took us a little while to reach where he was. We found him, finally, trembling with fear, still on his knees, very much shaken and incapable of getting up. ‘What’s the matter with you? What happened?’ In a voice half suffocated with fear, he told us: ‘One of those great big beasts from hell was just here, breathing fire.’” (quoted in The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 2, pp. 41-42)
In a recent discussion about whether faith in the recipient is required for a valid baptism, someone claimed: “A valid baptism presupposes that all elements have been met, for which the remission of sins has been given and that the supernatural faith, hope and charity have been infused at once.” That is not correct.
A valid baptism does not presuppose that all the elements for the remission of sins must be present or that faith, hope, and charity have been infused. That is only true when one does not place an obstacle in the way. But if one places an obstacle in the way – for example, by rejecting one or more dogmas of the faith – but still wants to be baptized of his or her own free will, then the baptism is valid (i.e. the person receives the baptismal character), but the person does not receive the remission of sins or the grace of the sacrament. We cover that in this video/article: https://endtimes.video/trent-horn-refuted-on-catholic-church/
It’s remarkable and outrageous to see defenders of Vatican II trying to convince people that the Catholic Church traditionally taught that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Their claim is false, and they misrepresent many things. No, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God, and that fact is clear from traditional Catholic teaching. There are some powerful additional points that we hope to share on this topic. They will further refute the heretical distortions and lies that are being put forward by adversaries of the true Catholic faith – i.e. defenders of the Vatican II apostasy who lead people into heresy and blasphemy.
John of St. Thomas (a prominent 17th century theologian) made an interesting statement about how certain words in dogmatic pronouncements necessarily exclude all exceptions. In the passage below he’s referring to the absolute requirement of supernatural faith. However, the point he makes also applies to the absolute requirement of the Catholic faith and baptism for salvation, since similar language is used in dogmatic texts about baptism and the Catholic faith. John of St. Thomas says that general statements, such as we see in the Athanasian Creed, and words like nulli (to no one) and nunquam (never) exclude all exceptions.
John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologi In Secundam Secundae D. Thomas, 1663, p. 50: “Supernatural faith is so necessary for salvation that in no case can it be supplied by something else. The conclusion is understood concerning habitual faith in children, which is infused simultaneously with grace, but concerning actual faith in adults… certainly the passages cited in the first proposition [about the necessity of supernatural faith] are so general [e.g. Athanasian Creed, Heb. 11:6, ita generalia sunt] that they admit of no exception, especially that of Trent there cited, to which can be added what the same council says, Sess. 6, Chap. 7: without faith justification never comes to anyone. It excludes all persons in that word nulli, and all times and places in that word nunquam.”
As an example of how such language is used for the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, see this video/article: No One Can Be Forgiven Without This
The L.A. Riots: it's interesting (as we've mentioned before) how the major eruptions of lawlessness so frequently occur in June – a month now dedicated to sin in the name of "pride."
1 John 3:4- "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."
In Acts 2, St. Peter connected Joel’s prophecy about the Spirit being poured out with what happened on Pentecost.
Joel 2:28-29: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit.”
Acts 2:16-21: “[St. Peter said:] But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”
Some also think that St. Peter might have been connecting (on some level) Joel’s prophecy about the sun being darkened and the moon having turned to blood with what happened on Good Friday and in the first century.
Joel 2:31: “The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.”
F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, p. 69: “The wonders and signs to be revealed in the world of nature, as described in vv. 19 and 20 [by St. Peter], may have more relevance in the present context than is sometimes realized: it was little more than seven weeks since the people in Jerusalem had indeed seen the sun turned into darkness, during the early afternoon of the day of our Lord’s crucifixion. And on the same afternoon the paschal full moon may well have appeared blood-red in the sky in consequence of that preternatural gloom. These were to be understood as tokens of the advent of the day of the Lord…”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on Matthew: “This is the sign which before He had promised to give them when they asked it, saying, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas (Matthew 12:39), meaning His cross, and His death, His burial, and His resurrection… For after the crucifixion, the city was destroyed, and the Jewish state came to an end, they fell away from their political society and their freedom, the gospel flourished, the word was spread abroad to the ends of the world; both sea and land, both the inhabited earth and the desert perpetually proclaim its power. These things then He means, and those which took place at the very time of the crucifixion. For indeed it was much more marvelous that these things should be done, when He was nailed to the cross, than when He was walking on earth.”
It’s interesting to note that Pope St. Siricius’ 385 Decree to Himerius, which explicitly denies that unbaptized catechumens in any necessity can be saved by desiring baptism, was intended for the whole Church and found in important collections of the earliest papal decretals.
“Not only is all of Spain supposed to be informed of the ‘statuta apostolicae sedis’; Siricius intended it for the whole Church.” (Detlev Jasper and Horst Fuhrmann, Papal Letters in The Early Middle Ages, p. 21)
“Siricius’ decretal to Himerius of Tarragona… was present in almost all of the systematic collections [of the early papal decretals].” (Detlev Jasper and Horst Fuhrmann, Papal Letters in The Early Middle Ages, p. 40)
For a discussion of this important decree and its relevance to the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, see this article: The Latin Text of the Oldest Surviving Papal Decree Rejects “Baptism of Desire” - Pope St. Siricius. It’s a powerful spiritual weapon against John 3:5 mockers.
Hegseth Orders Harvey Milk’s Name To Be Removed
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the Navy to rename the ship that had been named after “gay rights” activist Harvey Milk. That’s a good move.
1 Cor. 5:11 vs. Antipope Leo
Antipope Leo XIV’s statement (which we covered in a recent video) that he is welcoming to people of whatever lifestyle choice, moral views, etc. contradicts the Church’s teaching and specifically 1 Cor. 5:11.
1 Corinthians 5:11- “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”
If you had any doubt that the false traditionalist Taylor Marshall was a spiritual snake and a theological chameleon, consider that he has made an open profession of “submission” and obedience to “his holy father”, the notorious heretic Antipope Leo XIV. He is also presenting him in a positive light. Not that long ago, when Antipope Francis was on a heretical rampage, Marshall stated that he couldn't see how Jorge Bergoglio could be pope. He also acknowledged that Francis taught heresies. He was trying to capitalize on the anti-Francis momentum at the time. He then changed his tune. Even though the new Antipope Leo XIV is theologically aligned with Francis, Marshall perceives that the winds of popular support are blowing in Antipope Leo XIV's direction at the moment. Hence, he has adjusted his commentary accordingly. He presents the notorious heretic Leo in very positive terms as if he is a Catholic pope and teaches that others should submit to the non-Catholic. He is truly a disgraceful individual and a deceiver who will reap what he sows. Don’t let anyone tell you that such a phony heretic and supporter of the Novus Ordo Counter Church is a “traditional Catholic”.
Philippians 2:21 Sums It Up
Philippians 2:21 is a fitting description of so many false theological commentators in our day, especially those who have commented on Antipope Francis recently.
Philippians “For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.”
Death Penalty Would Be Just
Yes, the death penalty would be the just punishment. The sun should not rise on her.
Marianne
Now
"Father" James Martin says Francis "had gay friends… met regularly with transgender people" - video
Now he resides with... Satan.
Angelo
We’re working on a video about Antipope Francis’ death. Among other things, it will smash a strawman that certain dishonest people have desperately tried to create with regard to our position on him (because frankly they cannot refute our positions).
There are many people who claim that no matter how wickedly a person lived and died, one must never conclude that such a person went to Hell. They are wrong and contradicted by various statements of saints and others. Here’s an interesting example from Pope Stephen II. He stated that the Lombard King Aistulf went to Hell.
Pope Stephen II, To King Pippin (Codex Epistolaris Carolinus 8), 757: “Indeed that tyrant, that follower of the devil, Aistulf, drinker of Christian blood, destroyer of God’s churches, was struck by a divine blow and sank into the pit of Hell…”
After the news of Antipope Francis’ death, it’s disgraceful to see so many people in the Novus Ordo and various false traditionalists praying for him. Since Francis died as an unrepentant public heretic who was guilty of a multitude of public scandals and grave sins in addition to his many heresies, no Catholic may pray for him. That's the Church's teaching. Those who do pray for him after his death in notorious heresy contradict Catholic teaching and demonstrate that they don't profess the true faith. This video covers the Church’s teaching that Catholics are not permitted to pray for deceased heretics, deceased non-Catholics, and others who clearly die in grave sin. We plan to have more comments on the death of Antipope Francis.
^
" />
" />
" />
" />
" />
