What is the correct Fatima prayer “O my Jesus, pardon our sins”?

Thanks for the e-mail.  No, the version you have is not a phony version of the prayer that Our Lady asked to be said after the decades of the Rosary.  It’s basically the correct version.  Some people say the version: “O my Jesus, pardon our sins, save us from the fire of hell, have mercy on the souls in Purgatory, especially the most abandoned.”  But Sr. Lucy affirmed categorically to William Thomas Walsh that this version of the prayer is not correct; this one is correct: “O my Jesus, pardon us, save us from the fire of hell, draw [or lead] all souls to heaven, especially those in most need [or most in need].” And there is no violation of the dogma in praying for all souls to be converted, and therefore be led to heaven.  Everyone who is still alive has a chance to be saved.  And God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), even though that won’t happen, and all who die as non-Catholics will be lost. 

A reader drops a nice note

Thanks for the words of support.

Seeking Catechesis

MHFM: K.D., thanks for the interest.  Yes, you don't want to go the RCIA program, since it is part of the new, non-Catholic Vatican II religion.  A Catholic must avoid the New Mass under pain of grave sin, since it is not a valid Mass.

(more…)

“Someone put a video on the windshield of my car” - A heretic objects

It’s all taken out of context… right… sure….That’s why you don’t even give one example of where this supposedly occurs.  You prove our point that people like you are not Catholic when you state: “Should your assertion be true that salvation is found only in the Catholic Church, you will need the prayers., because you are clearly outside it.”  You’re not even convinced that a dogma that has been defined by the Church more than seven times is true, and you’re telling me I’m not a Catholic.  Begone, you blinded heretic.  Write us again when you finally believe in the infallibly defined dogmas of the Faith, and are ready to be honest.

Hutton Gibson – heretic and phony Catholic who totally rejects the Catholic dogma on salvation 

Hutton Gibson, October, 2004 Newsletter: Objection from a reader: “…you quote Joseph Pohle, S.T.D.: ‘In like manner Mass may be celebrated privately for the souls of deceased Jews and heathens, who have led an upright life, since the sacrifice is intended to benefit all who are in purgatory.’  [the reader says:] This is pure modernism, and implies that a Jew or heathen who has led an upright life but died outside the Body of Christ on earth could be in Purgatory.’  Hutton Gibson’s response: … ‘I can appreciate that Leonard Feeney might have difficulty in reconciling Joseph Pohle’s implication with his own views.  Naturally, if no Jew or heathen can be saved, then neither can be in Purgatory.  But Pohle had never encountered Feeney’s subsequent innovation, and therefore took no cognizance of it.’”

Comment: A few years back Hutton Gibson, the “traditionalist” father of the famous Mel Gibson, wrote us and expressed his disappointment that we hadn’t quoted him in Issue #1 of our magazine.  He also stated that entire writings of his had been dedicated to our “heresy.” Hutton has denounced us several times in his newsletters.  As we inform the many people who ask us about Hutton Gibson, the unfortunate fact is that Hutton Gibson does not possess the Catholic Faith (even though he claims to be Catholic), because he obstinately rejects the dogma that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. It is a fact that Hutton Gibson believes that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith.  He has indicated this many times in his writings.  He consistently attacks with a devilish tenacity the staunch priest Fr. Leonard Feeney, because Fr. Feeney believed and defended this dogma which Hutton hates so much.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

In his October newsletter, we see that Hutton Gibson again reveals his heretical depravity.  He is asked about Jews and heathens getting into Purgatory, and therefore being saved.  He says that Fr. Feeney might have a problem with this, but J. Pohle (a heretic who also rejected the dogma) did not encounter Feeney’s “innovation.”  In other words, according to Hutton Gibson, it is an “innovation” of Fr. Feeney that all who die as Jews and heathens cannot be saved!  This is clear-cut heresy from a wicked man who is subverted in his sins.  Hey Hutton… you liar and corrupter of the Faith… tell Pope Eugene IV and Pope Gregory XVI that this was Fr. Feeney’s innovation… you heretic.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life…  You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.  He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’  Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma.  Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’  Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use.  We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction.  Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you.  But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

The following could take place at Hutton Gibson’s Judgment: [Jesus Christ]: You know, Hutton, that I stated again and again in the Gospel that he who does not believe in Me is condemned, and that Jews that don’t believe in Me will be condemned.  And you know that the Council of Florence defined without exception that all who die as Jews are not saved.  And yet you not only rejected this dogma and contradicted it, but you attacked those who professed it as heretics, and you dishonestly called this truth, given by Me and defined by the Council of Florence, Fr. Feeney’s innovation.  You know that this is a lie, Hutton, for which there is no excuse. [Hutton Gibson would say]: Yes, it is true, Lord… I cannot deny it because it is true.  [Jesus Christ]:  You are condemned by your own words… Begone to the outer darkness, your sentence is Hell for all eternity.

This is not what could happen, but Hutton Gibson’s damnation is what will happen if he continues on his path – and it is what will happen to all the other heretics who believe the same way.  Hutton Gibson is no different from the Protestants who cannot accept the Catholic dogma on the Eucharist or the Priesthood.  He cannot accept the Catholic dogma on salvation; it is too hard for him, just like those who left Our Lord in John Chapter 6.

And by their fruits you shall know them.  When Mel Gibson was interviewed on National Television by ABC’s Diane Sawyer, just before his film came out, he had a great opportunity to evangelize.  When asked about whether Jews and Muslims can be saved, all he had to do was read from the Bible, or point to the words of Jesus Himself [in Mk. 16:16; Jn. 14:6, etc.].  And Mel should have anticipated that ABC would ask him if he believes Jews go to heaven, so he should have been prepared simply to quote Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Instead of simply quoting Jesus or Catholic dogma, Mel vacuumed the power and the truth out of the Gospel, and told the world a new gospel, that you don’t even have to be Christian to be saved.

From Mel Gibson’s interview with Diane Sawyer on PrimeTime:

DIANE SAWYER:    (Voice Over) So when we talked with

Gibson and his actors, we wondered, does his traditionalist view bar the door to Heaven for Jews, Protestants, Muslims?

MEL GIBSON: That’s not the case at all.  Absolutely not.  It is possible for people who are not even Christian to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s just easier for –and I have to say that because that’s what I believe.

DIANE SAWYER: (Off Camera) You have the nonstop ticket?

MEL GIBSON: Well, yeah, I’m saying it’s an easier ride where I am because it’s like –I have to believe that.

I remember when this occurred feeling extremely sad and disappointed, because I knew what a blow it was for the salvation of so many countless souls who were watching; souls who might have been impelled to seek further, to move closer, to investigate more deeply the traditional Catholic Faith, if Mel had simply professed its necessity and that it is the only way for them to be saved.  Perhaps millions of souls could have heard the truth for the first time in their lives – the only truth that ultimately mattered for them in their lives filled with countless hours of worthlessness and diversion from the point of life and eternity.  Mel could have told them that truth for once in their lives – a truth that may have shaken them out of their darkness – but no, he told them a lie instead.  When Mel told the world on National Television, a world that was anticipating his new film day after day all over the news, that it’s not even necessary to be Christian to be saved, it was like the story of his film went from truth to fable, from history to theatre, from power to emptiness, from fact to fiction.

Mel Gibson uttered his heresy when he was sitting next to a Jew, Mia Morgenstern.  Thus, Mel holds that Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, etc. can be saved, and even Jews who reject Christ – for he said this while sitting next to a woman who rejects Christ.  And where did Mel get this heretical belief?  From his heretical father, of course, who believes the same thing.  Thanks a lot, Hutton.  Hutton the heretic was probably sure to instill in his son Mel a detestation for “Feeneyism” – that “deplorable” error – and behold the wonderful fruits: the denial of Jesus Christ on National Television.  Hutton reared him and prepared him to answer like a good heretic, and he did.  Mel learned his lesson well to believe in baptism of desire and to hate “Feeneyism,” didn’t he?  Mel’s interview was so bad that the next day on Good Morning America a Christ-denying Jew of the American Jewish Committee called Mel’s words “fabulous.”  The Christ-denying Jew specifically made note of the fact Mel mentioned the possibility of non-Christians being saved.  (The devil and those who are his take in all of this.)

And this brings me to two other points:  1) We often hea,r from those who believe in the heresy of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant”/non-Catholics without the Faith, that their belief is no hindrance to their effort to evangelize or profess the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation without compromise.  This is nonsense!  If this were true, then Mel Gibson should have been able simply to say what the Church says: Outside the Church There is No Salvation; but he couldn’t.  Mel had to indicate that you don’t have to be Catholic to be saved because this is what he believes.

Pope St. Pius X condemned the following Modernist proposition on July 3, 1907 in “Lamentabili Sane”:

“The dogmas of faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing.”- Condemned

The idea that we can preach that there is no salvation outside the Church, while we believe in our hearts that there is salvation outside the Church, is false and heretical.  Those who believe in salvation for the “invincibly ignorant”/non-Catholics without the Faith will fail to call the non-Catholics to conversion without qualification when it matters, if they even try to convert them at all.  They will fail to profess the necessity of the Catholic Faith precisely because they don’t believe in the necessity of the Catholic Faith.  A true Catholic, on the other hand, can call non-Catholics to conversion without compromise precisely because he believes what he professes.  And the Catholic Church believes what She professes.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

2) A “traditionalist” who also denies this dogma recently complained that those of us who adhere strictly to this truth are making such a “big deal” about this, and causing division among traditionalists.  The hypocrisy of this statement is astounding.  Think about this: if you don’t want division, then why can’t you people just be quiet – nay, shut the heck up – and repeat with the Catholic Church that all who do not die as Catholics will not be saved?  Why must you and your heretical friends insist on the contrary and all kinds of “exceptions”?  Does this benefit anyone, even if they were true?   Even if you believed that some men who are not Catholic can be saved without the Faith (which is clearly false), you know that it does no one any good to insist on this idea, so why do you go out of your way to do so?  Is this not totally evil?  Can you not see that this is evil, that it benefits only the devil, that it serves only to discourage conversions and evangelism?

Why can’t you just shut your mouths, drop your pens and repeat without exception:  Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation?  Are you trying to keep non-Catholics from the Catholic Faith?  You blind fools, you are enemies of God and the non-Catholics whom you falsely try to justify!  For even if you believed that some men don’t need the Catholic Faith for salvation, you can see that it does not benefit anyone to insist on this.  But you insist on this falsehood simply because those who don’t believe this truth cannot profess it when it matters, and the devil causes you to attack the truth which you have despised in your hearts.

Only those who believe in their hearts that there is utterly no salvation outside the Church (Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council) will be able to profess it and truly call non-Catholics to conversion, which is true charity.

Hutton Gibson Exchange

The following exchange concerned a reader’s false and bad willed criticism of something that was written in our above article on Hutton Gibson.

Here’s the paragraph to which he refers:

Because it's a very reasonable description of what could happen, and it has been done many times by Catholics writing on spiritual matters.  I guess you would consider The Imitation of Christ blasphemy, for it uses that description throughout the book.

[NEXT RESPONSE FROM ROB – notice that we were willing to let this go at this point, but Rob comes back with more and stronger accusations. For this reason, he had to be more specifically rebuked and refuted.]

… You are completely wrong.  It clearly speaks from the standpoint of God.  You have uttered a lie.  Moreover, Hutton Gibson (if he doesn't have a major conversion) is going to go to Hell for his heresy.  You are just a liberal and obviously of bad will.  Do you believe that he is on the road to Hell?  If not, you are a heretic, in addition to a liberal of bad will.

[NEXT RESPONSE FROM ROB]

“Cutting off e-mails…” I don’t know what you are talking about.

Rob, you are definitely on the road to Hell.  Your false criticism is a mortal sin.  You obviously do not really believe that Gibson is on the road to Hell; for if you do, then what is your problem with what's written?  For, in that case, you must admit that what is written might be said to Him.  And if it might be said to Him, then of course it's true to say that this is what God might say to Him.   Do you now see how stupid your criticism is?  Probably not because you are a liar.

To further illustrate your bad will, you admit that it's okay to speak from the standpoint of God, but not concerning what He could say at the Judgment.  Tell me, please, where does the Church teach that?  Nowhere.  Where does the Church teach that you may speak from God's standpoint in spiritual writing, but not from His standpoint at the Judgment?  Provide proof, or retract your mortally sinful accusation.

You detect righteous indignation in my e-mails because I can very clearly see your bad will and dishonesty.  I see your bad will in action. Your argument is pathetic and very dishonest.

To definitively refute your false criticism, here are three examples. Two of these examples specifically concern the Judgment.

St. Alphonsus, Prep. For Death, Abridged Version, p. 120: “‘Go, Jesus Christ will say: never shall you again behold my face.’”

These words are not recorded of Jesus in the Bible, but St. Alphonsus uses them while speaking from the standpoint of Jesus at the Judgment. This has to be blasphemy, according to your nonsensical argument. Here we see another example of St. Alphonsus speaking from the standpoint of God at someone’s judgment:

St. Alphonsus, Prep. For Death, Abridged Version, p. 39: “The unhappy wretches will have recourse to God in death, and God will say to them, ‘Now do you come to Me? Call upon your creatures to help you, since they have been your gods.’ Thus will the Lord say, because they will have recourse to Him, but without a sincere intention of being converted.”

St. Alphonsus doesn’t know for sure that the Lord will pronounce these very words to these individuals or to any individuals. This is not recorded in Scripture. However, because it could apply to them, he legitimately uses this description.

Here’s another quote from the Imitation of Christ, in which the author speaks from the standpoint of God. This doesn’t directly deal with the Judgment (though the other two quotes above do), but one can see the point.

Imitation of Christ, Book III, Chap. 9: “But he that would glory in anything besides me, or delight in any good as his own (not referred to Me), shall not be established in true joy, nor enlarged in his heart, but in many kinds shall meet with perplexities and anguish.”

These words are attributed to Jesus in the Imitation of Christ in order to deliver a spiritual message. In fact, these three quotes (and there are others) directly say that this is what the Lord says or will say. Our quote below doesn’t even do that. It says: “the following could take place” – not “will,” as St. Alphonsus says.

Thus, it’s quite dishonest for you to wrongly say that my statement is blasphemous, but that St. Alphonsus’ statement (which goes further) is acceptable. Do you now see that you are wrong? It’s certain that Gibson will be damned if he continues on the present path. The following paragraph (which is found in the aforementioned article) is a very reasonable description of what might be said:

As the above facts prove, your criticism is totally wrong. My indignation is focused at your bad will and your petty and false accusations. We shouldn’t even have to deal with this kind of nonsense, but because the level of bad will and pride is so great, people like you throw out this kind of nonsense.

A reader on the SSPX’s views and leaders

Thank you for your comments and question, with which I basically agree.  In one sense there is a difference between the position of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. and the teaching of John Paul II/Benedict XVI on salvation.  But in another sense there is no difference.  The difference is that the heresy of John Paul II/Benedict XVI (that we shouldn’t even convert non-Catholics and/or that all men are saved) is worse than the heresy of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI.  The SSPX, SSPV, CMRI believe that one should be a Catholic and that it is the safer course to be a Catholic, even though they hold that one could still be saved if he dies as a non-Catholic.  In other words, they don’t hold that it’s truly necessary to be Catholic, but they hold that it’s the better thing to do if you want to maximize your chances (e.g., sort of like getting side-impact air bags in your automobile). (more…)

A reader laments the current spiritual situation

You’re not alone in feeling that you’re alone (no pun intended).  We’ve heard from many Catholics who have expressed similar sentiments.  One should use that opportunity to build his or her relationship with God, pray extra rosaries, do spiritual reading, etc.  It is actually in time by himself or herself that one finds the situation most conducive to spiritual advancement.  And if one has a strong prayer life, etc., it’s important to have a healthy recreation period each day.  Board games and sports are things we recommend.  (Chat rooms, in my opinion, are a waste of time, unless it’s a traditional Catholic one – and even then it still may be a waste of time.) (more…)

Comments on Schmidberger of the SSPX going to CT

Connecticut is pretty far from here; plus, I don’t think that we would actually be welcome guests (to put it euphemistically) at the SSPX’s retreat house.  There are so many questions that one could ask Schmidberger.  If you are able to ask just one, perhaps you should ask him why he even claims to be Catholic when he rejects the solemn “Canonizations” of the man he deemed to be Pope?  That is to say, the SSPX rejects John Paul II’s “solemn Canonization” of Josemaria Escriva.  It was rejected publicly from both the Australian and American SSPX seminaries, by Fr. Peter Scott and Bishop Williamson respectively. So then, Fr. Schmidberger, the people of the SSPX are also free to reject the Canonization of St. Therese of the Child Jesus by Pope Pius XI, are they not? (more…)

Comment on the Why John Paul II Cannot be the Pope video

We’re glad you watched the video.  Yes, the facts in that tape are such that if a person of good will watches carefully through the entire video he will be convinced that John Paul II was not the Pope.  And knowing the truth on this matter should not render a person diffident or discouraged, but happy to be enlightened of the truth on the matter.  Knowing what’s really happening is comforting and liberating (despite, of course, the sadness and desolation that sometimes accompanies a deep consideration of the current state of spiritual affairs).  This knowledge should make one feel zealous to go forward and share the truth with others, and fight for the true Catholic Faith in this time of almost universal apostasy. A person’s reaction after seeing the truth that John Paul II was not the Pope (as well as Paul VI, Benedict XVI, etc.) should not be: “Oh, no, John Paul II was not the Pope!”  Rather, it should be: “Thank God this non-Catholic heretic was not the Pope!  And thank God Vatican II was not a Council of the Catholic Church!”

What about this Message from Bayside?

Michelle, the Bayside Messages are false, and not from God, but from the devil.  We will soon be posting a more complete exposé which proves this.

The False Apparitions at Bayside, NY

Francisco’s vision of a demon

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)

What’s with this “sedevacantist” group in Puerto Rico?

During the “reign” of Antipope John Paul II, there were many false apparitions in various parts of the world.  One of the common characteristics of these false messages was not only that John Paul II was supposedly great and “Mary’s Pope,” but also that the one after him would be the Antipope.  These false messages prophesied that John Paul II would be the last true Pope.  This group in Puerto Rico is simply holding on to - and applying – these false messages from the devil.  That is why this group thinks that John Paul II was great and a valid Pope, but rejects Benedict XVI as an Antipope – something completely illogical and totally ridiculous, since John Paul II held the same heresies as Benedict XVI.  These false apparitions also told people that the New Mass is valid, while deploring the many abuses there.  (The devil knew that that was just the kind of thing that would trip up certain conservatives.)  That is why this phony group still goes to the New Mass, but opposes the abuses.  The devil was able to keep countless people going to the New Mass with similar messages in the false Bayside apparitions.  To put it simply: this group in Puerto Rico is used by the devil to discredit the sedevacantist movement.  God has abandoned these people to spiritual blindness because they receive not the love of the truth (the traditional teachings of the Church) and follow apparitions instead (2 Thess. 2).  During the reign of Antipope John Paul II, this group would have been one of the biggest defenders of Antipope John Paul II and vigorously opposed to true sedevacantist arguments.  To include them with sedevacantists is a travesty of justice.  But these are the deceptions that God allows people to follow because they don’t love the truth.

Should Females Wear Pants?

Our position is that females should not wear pants.  In our opinion, the only exceptions for this would be women who are, for instance, working by themselves and doing some unusual form of work that a dress makes extremely cumbersome.  Or, for example, another young woman asked us if she could play a recreational game of volleyball with her friends wearing a pair of long, baggy pants that basically look like a dress and are very modest.  She explained that she really couldn’t play the game wearing a dress.  We don’t see a problem with wearing such a pair of pants for the game.  And in areas where there is massive poverty and the children truly cannot afford a dress, obviously exceptions would be permitted.  But we do believe that women who wear pants and obstinately refuse to wear dresses simply because they don’t want to are putting their souls in jeopardy.  Padre Pio certainly thought so; he wouldn’t even hear the Confessions of women who didn’t wear long dresses, and he allegedly refused absolution to a woman who didn’t wear, but sold, female pants.  But many women, especially young women today, don’t know that Traditional Catholic women don’t wear pants.  It is our duty to inform them charitably.

Some comments on Msgr. Fenton’s book, The Catholic Church and Salvation

As noted in some of our recent e-exchanges, some of our readers were interested in comments on Msgr. Fenton’s 1958 book The Catholic Church and Salvation.  One baptism of desire defender who wrote to us called it a “masterful” treatment of the dogma.  Well, we just got our hands on a copy of this book.  I’ve only had a chance to read a few pages so far, but here is what Fenton (in truth, a pernicious heretic who corrupted and denied the dogma) says in the introduction to his book:

(more…)

Another question about salvation: more dishonesty from the SSPX

Thank you for your question.  I also read the newsletter.  First of all, I must mention again that the SSPX – as usual! – misquotes the Council of Trent.  Fr. Fullerton quotes the Council of Trent as saying that one cannot be justified “except through” water baptism or the desire for it.  This is a lie.  This is from the horrible mistranslation found in Denzinger.  Being dishonest heretics, the SSPX, the CMRI and many other groups consistently misquote it as well and don’t care to correct it.  Well, they won’t get away with this obstinate misrepresentation of a Council before the Judgment Seat of God. (more…)

Were you on Jack Blood’s radio program?

Yes, both of us were on Jack Blood’s show about the real John Paul II.  We don’t have a transcript.  It went pretty well; we were able to make some of the main points briefly, but there are so many commercial breaks that it is very difficult to get into any depth.  You can only just cover the basics quickly.  We were glad to be able to do it, and hopefully it made the information available to people who haven’t heard it.

A question about a finer point of Pope Leo’s declaration on water baptism

Thank you for your question, which is a good one.  It involves a subtle, but important point.  Pope Leo the Great’s dogmatic teaching that the Spirit of Sanctification, the Blood of Redemption and the Water of Baptism are inseparable is on the topic of sanctification, not Baptism.  The three are inseparable in sanctification.  Notice that “sanctification by the Spirit” and purification from sin is what he is talking about. (more…)

Some comments on a fresh heresy from the Eternal Apostate Television Network

Thank you for your e-mail.  That’s quite a heresy.  I wonder if any of the EWTN supporters who heard or watched the sermon ever deeply considered its implications: what it means about their presence at church, their entire effort to attend “Mass,” etc.  I wonder if it hit any of them that this means that being a Catholic, praying the Rosary, going to Confession, etc. is pointless. (more…)

“I have started to watch the DVDs, and I am impressed...”

A Question on Mass Attendance from a traditionalist

Sue, unfortunately all of the CMRI priests believe that members of false religions can be united to the Church and saved without actual possession of the Catholic Faith.  So, you cannot financially support any of them under pain of mortal sin.  They also defend the sinful birth control practice of Natural Family Planning.   But if the priest is not notorious and imposing about these issues at the particular chapel you attend, then we are of the opinion that you could continue to go and receive the sacraments as long as you don’t support them in any way.  For more on this issue consult the section of our website Where To Receive Sacraments. We’re very glad to hear about your return to the true Catholic Faith, and your having been able to recognize the phoniness and Protestantism of the Vatican II sect.  Keep praying the Rosary and holding the Faith without compromise and things will work out for you.

More on Ferrara and the Ecumenism of the Return

Another website which linked to our article concerning: Benedict XVI rejects the “ecumenism of the return” – and Chris Ferrara omits to mention it, has issued a retraction of sorts stating that Chris Ferrara may not have deliberately omitted this astounding heresy from his article.  To avoid any confusion, we want to make it very clear that WE ISSUE NO RETRACTION WHATSOEVER, since no retraction is necessary. 

(more…)

A prospective convert writes in

That's great to hear.  Attached is a summary of the Catholic Catechism.  I would read it and become familiar with its contents.  Before you would be baptized, you would have to be convinced of all the Catholic dogmas, including Outside the Church There is No Salvation - which includes rejecting Protestantism. (more…)

A comment on the response to Ferrara

A comment on the Bob Sungenis article

A reader from India writes in

Thanks for the interest.

A change of position from a reader on the salvation dogma

That’s great to hear; yes, we will.

Baptism: Philip and his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch

The apostasy of Vatican II confirmed at the local level – an interesting article from a “Benedictine” Nun

Many people argue that the teachings of Vatican II don’t contradict Catholic dogma in any way.  They strenuously assert that the Vatican II religion is in perfect continuity with the unchanging Catholic religion.  Some people call these individuals (who defend everything in Vatican II and the post-conciliar apostasy) neo-Catholics; we call them neo-apostates, since they attempt to explain away everything from kissing the Koran to allowing idol-worshippers to take over and pray to false gods at Assisi.  But one of the most interesting and clear ways of proving that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church is simply by looking at what its members believe at the local level.  The amount of stories from individuals who have actually been discouraged from becoming Catholic by members of the Novus Ordo Church, including Bishops, Vatican officials and RCIA teachers, seem almost endless; but if you ever want to be stirred to a holy indignation against the Vatican II apostasy, or if you ever want proof of what an abominable outrage the Vatican II sect is, or if you ever want to be convinced that it is a matter of heaven or hell to completely reject this false, non-Catholic sect falsely posing as the Catholic Church, then just call some Novus Ordo churches and ask them: “Do you accept the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation?  Is Islam a false religion?  Is Judaism a false religion?” 

(more…)

Question about heresy in Fr. Denis Fahey’s writings

Yes, we were aware of this.  His heretical teaching that even Jews who reject Our Lord can be in the state of grace is covered in section 34 of our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.

Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953), p. 52: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants.  It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”

The lies about “baptism of desire” continue, and coining a new phrase

Grant, this is simply nonsense.  It sounds like you’ve been reading the lying books of the SSPX on baptism of desire, which assert the same falsehood.  (more…)