| 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 |  |
Judgment Came Swiftly
No one escapes the judgement.
Theodosius
Judgment came swiftly in this instance.
What Is Bergoglio’s False Gospel
Vigano’s “Excommunication” By Francis Is Invalid (Catholic Teaching)
What is the false gospel that Francis teaches? (genuine question to help me understand)
James C
He teaches a false gospel because, among many other things, he condemns converting people to the Catholic faith. He also agrees with Martin Luther on justification. He teaches religious indifferentism. He teaches that the death penalty is contrary to the Gospel, to name just a few things. All of that (and much more) is documented in our videos and articles. Here are a few quotes that are relevant.
Francis, Speech to Lutherans and ‘Catholics’, Oct. 13, 2016: “It is not licit to convince them of your faith. Proselytism is the strongest venom against the ecumenical path.”
Here he defines proselytism as trying to convince people of the faith, and he rejects it.
Francis, Aug. 7, 2013: “Should you go and convince someone else that he should become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough."
Here he says 'no' to the question of whether people should convince others to be Catholic.
Francis, Video Message To National Catholic Youth Conference, Nov. 21, 2019: “Go, go and take the Lord, go and fill up your environments, even the digital ones, not with convictions, not to convince, not to proselytize, but rather by bearing witness to Jesus’ tenderness and mercy.”
Here he again heretically rejects trying to convince people of the faith, and he rejects having convictions.
Francis, Address To Participants In The General Chapter of The Pontifical Institute For Foreign Missions, May 20, 2019: “And so you proclaim Jesus Christ. This is not seeking new members for this ‘Catholic society’, no. It is making Jesus visible: so he may become visible in my person, in my conduct; and to open, through my life, room for Jesus. This is evangelizing. This is what your Founders had at heart.”
Here he explicitly rejects the effort to seek new members for the Catholic society (further proving our point).
Francis, June 26, 2016: "Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he [Luther] was not mistaken."
Here he teaches that Luther was not wrong on justification. That is to teach a false gospel.
Bergoglio’s Poisonous Words
Vigano’s “Excommunication” By Francis Is Invalid (Catholic Teaching)
Hearing the words of Bergoglio here, they drip like slow, sweet poison from his lips.
Johnny Toronto
... you mention that adults who are baptised into Protestant or Eatsern Orthodox sects receive valid baptisms but are not united to the Mystical Body because their heresy is an impediment to the reception of sacramental grace. Notice how you mention adults though. It's because you know full well that babies who are validly baptised into false sects do receive sanctyfing grace and union with Christ and are to be considered Catholic. That's because babies are incapable of heresy, so there's no impediment on their part. But what you don't mention in ANY of your videos is the distinction between formal and material heresy and formal and material schism. How convenient of you. This is where the fatal flaw in your position lies and where many of the things you teach around baptism and ecclesiology crumble which is why you NEVER mention those distinctions. EVER. The fact that babies baptised into false sects become members of the Mystical Body despite never having stepped foot in a Catholic Church or ever having come into contact with a Catholic, proves that the Church is both visible and invisible, physical and metaphysical and is wider and larger 8n scope than just the visible institution. But you make it sound like it's impossible to be a true member of the Church unless you are formally united to it by stepping into one of the tangible brick and mortar buildings owned by the visible heirarchical Church. You also like to quote Mystici Corporus about how only those who profess the true faith are members of the Church. Well if babies or adolescents that are baptised into false sects can become members of the Chuch without professing the true faith, then so can adults. That's because a robust knowledge of Catholcism and all of its theological nuances isn't required for salvation. At a minimum you need to believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek him. That's St. Paul in Hebrews and what the Church told the Jesuit missionaries who were trying to convert the Native Americans. So adults who convert to Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy without understanding the theological and historical differences between the different communions but believe that God exists, is a rewarder of those who seek Him, that Christ is the Messiah, that He died on the cross for our sins etc do recieve grace and union with Christ because any errors that they may hold are usually in good faith and are accidental, not something they hold on purpose with bad will and malicious intent to defy the Catholic Church, so they would only be guilty of material heresy, not formal heresy, and thus would be united to the Church since it's the formal kind that offends God and severs one from the Mystical Body. God isn't going to hold a theology quiz and prevent people from entering heaven who lack an in-depth understanding of advanced theological concepts or make honest mistakes because they don't know any better or lack the mental capacity and reading comprehension skills to understand scripture and arrive innocnetly at false conclusions which happen to be (materially) heretical. That's idiotic nonsense. God is infinite in His perfections and immutable in His divinity, so His permanent disposition towards us is one of love. He's not in the business of condemning people for making honest mistakes or transgressing Church laws that they don't even know exist. He's not like our unjust secular authorities who say that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it and doesn't absolve you of guilt. Ignorance does absolve you in God's eyes, for you can only be guilty for doing something that you know to be wrong. Full knowledge and consent are 2 of the conditions for a sin to be mortal, and not all Protestants or Eastern Orthodox know that they are in error and many of them think they are doing the right thing and that it's Catholics who are the ones in error. Once shown the truth, many of them actually end up converting, which proves that it's not bad will on their part, just a lack of understanding. Also, Vatican II was held at a time before the whole born-again evangelical and charismatic movements took off which is when the idea of accepting Jesus into your heart and saying the sinners prayer was gkw yoi got saved became a common belief. Most Protestants at the time of Vatican II were still baptised as babies and were thus members of the Church, provided they didn't sink into formal heresy in theie adult ears.
“God himself said to St. Theresa: ‘No one is lost without knowing it, and no one is deceived without wanting to be.” (The Glories of Mary, p. 557)
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”
Preaching, But Not Believing - Heresy
St. Jerome: You Cannot Be Saved Without Water Baptism
The Church cannot preach any other way to salvation than baptism and the sacraments. But God can save whomever he wills in whichever way he wills.
Michel
What you have expressed is a condemned Modernist error. You are arguing that dogmas are preceptive norms for acting, but not norms for believing. That’s condemned.
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #26: “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
Since it’s impossible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18), He will only save people in the manner in which He has said people must be saved. Well, God has revealed that people must be saved with the Catholic faith and by an act in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12) – i.e. water baptism.
https://endtimes.video/acts-4-12-salvation-name-of-jesus/
Video Posted
Anathema - Jimmy Akin Gets It Wrong In Debate With James White
Insightful Video
Anathema – Jimmy Akin Gets It Wrong In Debate With James White
Incredibly outrageous that Akin found it appropriate to celebrate the Vatican II antichurch’s statements regarding how all Protestants aren’t actually anathematized! This also goes back to how God doesn’t give graces to those that seek approval from other men rather than God alone, as Akin shamelessly did. Thanks for another insightful video, Brothers!
Servus A
Another Protestant Sect
Anathema – Jimmy Akin Gets It Wrong In Debate With James White
Jimmy Akin thinks that he converted to Catholicism from Protestantism. He doesn't know he has joined another protestant sect which is the Vatican 2 counter church. He never was a Catholic.
Ben
Thomas Merton
Was the Catholic monk Thomas Merton in error by seeking truths in other religions whilst remaining faithful to the Catholic religion?..
Jeff K
He was not a true Catholic. He was, rather, a promoter of false ecumenism and religious indifferentism. That is incompatible with the Catholic faith. For why, see these videos (among others):
https://endtimes.video/vatican-ii-new-religion/
https://endtimes.video/why-mother-teresa-was-not-a-saint/
Born Into Pagan Family But Wants To Convert
Dear Dimond Brothers,
Thank you for your consistent work in propagating the Traditional Catholic faith. I am not a Catholic. I was born into a pagan family but my grandparents are Catholic (post V2). I am planning to convert to Catholicism due to your content. I refuse to worship pagan gods since my plan to convert. My parents are angry at me due to my behavior. Funnily enough, my grandma defended my parents and said that Catholicism is not against pagan worship. Please pray for me as well as for my family.
Best Regards,
Vito
It's great to hear that you want to convert. It's crucial that you make it a priority to do so. We recommend that you pray the Rosary each day and the Hail Mary frequently. That will give you important graces. We recommend that Catholics, if they can, pray 15 decades of the Rosary each day and the Hail Mary frequently. This is an important spiritual video: https://endtimes.video/how-to-avoid-sin/
"And Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' And they cast lots to divide his garments." (Luke 23:34)
Did Jesus pray for all who crucified Him while He was on the Cross? The answer is no, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Since Christ’s prayers were absolutely efficacious, being perfectly conformed to God's will, He only prayed for those in the world who would accept Him and were predestined to eternal life.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. 3, Q. 21, A. 4, Whether Christ’s Prayer Was Always Heard: “Objection 2. Further, He [Christ] prayed that the sin of those who crucified Him might be forgiven, as is related (Luke 23:34). Yet not all were pardoned this sin, since the Jews were punished on account thereof. Therefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard… I answer that, according to the will of reason, Christ willed nothing but what He knew God to will. Wherefore every absolute will of Christ, even human, was fulfilled, because it was in conformity with God; and consequently His every prayer was fulfilled. For in this respect also is it that other men's prayers are fulfilled, in that their will is in conformity with God, according to Romans 8:27… Reply to Objection 2: Our Lord did not pray for all those who crucified Him, as neither did He for all those who would believe in Him; but for those only who were predestinated to obtain eternal life through Him. Wherefore the reply to the third objection is also manifest.”
The Errors of Peter Abelard, Condemned by Innocent II, July 16, 1140, #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” - Condemned.
St. John Chrysostom, On Luke 23:34: “But He [Jesus] says, Forgive them, if they should repent. For He is gracious to the penitent, if they are willing after so great wickedness to wash away their guilt by faith.”
Devils Laughing In Hell?
Man Shot & Saw Hell – Shocking Must-See Video
How can devils laugh in Hell when there is no pleasure there?
The Vision of Drytheim and the experience of the man covered in our recent video report that demons laugh in Hell as they attack and torture people. Their laughing in Hell, however, is not a manifestation of actual pleasure (which they completely lack) but rather of utter hatred, mockery and disdain. In an analogous way, many people in this life laugh at good people, sound advice, and sound teaching out of mockery and contempt, even though they are actually miserable, insecure and unhappy.
Renewed Urgency
Man Shot & Saw Hell – Shocking Must-See Video
Thank you for your new video about the man that was shot and saw Hell. It has given me a renewed urgency to work for the conversion of sinners…
M
Brothers I have an extremely important question. I am 100% open to joining the Church I just have one question about the Holy See of Rome. Peter himself was rebuked by Paul during the council of acts. Paul showed Peter the error in his belief that the gentiles must be circumcised. This is covered in Galatians 2. If the pope (Peter) was incorrect in doctrine how does this lead to the belief of papal infallibility. The lesser bishop Paul rebuked the Pope, Peter in this passage. How do I reconcile this?
Deacon
Actually, the evidence is overwhelming that the 'Cephas' rebuked by St. Paul in Galatians 2 was not St. Peter. We have an in-depth video on this matter: Did St. Paul Really Rebuke St. Peter In Galatians 2? We encourage you to view it. God wants you to become a traditional Catholic. Our material explains how to do that.
Comment
John 3:5 Mockers Stumped (1917 Code, Delayed Ensoulment, “Baptism Of Desire”)
… Outstanding work.
Sebastian Moncada
Grace Of Regeneration Began With His Resurrection
John 3:5 Mockers Stumped (1917 Code, Delayed Ensoulment, “Baptism Of Desire”)
If the old testament saints are in heaven now, that would mean they were born again before going to heaven, so if they can received the Sacrament of baptism even though they are dead, without physical going to the baptism, why can't God do the same for people who died before wanting to be baptized?
Pdub
The Old Testament righteous were not born again without baptism. As Leo the Great teaches, "the grace of regeneration began with His resurrection" (citation below). Further, in this video we present the evidence that they were all baptized (even though they died before the Law of Baptism was promulgated): Jesus’ Descent Into Hell & The Baptism Of The Good Thief
Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 16, Oct 21, 447: “... after He rose from the dead, handed on both the form and power of baptizing to His disciples, in whose person all the chiefs of the churches received their instructions with these words, ‘Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ On which of course He might have instructed them even before His passion, had He not especially wished it to be understood that the grace of regeneration began with His resurrection.”
God has declared, and the Church infallibly teaches, that all need baptism for salvation. Further, no one who dies outside the Church in the New Testament period can be saved, and only the baptized are in the Church.
Providence & Baptism
John 3:5 Mockers Stumped (1917 Code, Delayed Ensoulment, “Baptism Of Desire”)
Where does the Church teach that God would NOT take a person’s life before baptism while they are being catechized? It would be a cruel god that would damn a person while they desired to be in the Church but still needed to be taught for baptism.
Jamie
To your first question, the Church teaches that everyone in Heaven from the New Testament period receives baptism (Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus) and that no one can be saved without water baptism (Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, etc.). Further, Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Siricius both teach that for unbaptized catechumens in any situation (including accidents, persecutions, etc.), the only way for them to be saved is to actually receive water baptism. They taught that in two of the most important papal decretals in the early Church:
https://vaticancatholic.com/pope-st-leo-the-great-contradicts-baptism-of-blood-desire/
https://vaticancatholic.com/latin-text-oldest-surviving-papal-decree-rejects-baptism-desire/
Ergo, God in His providence will keep all of His elect alive so that they can receive the Sacrament. St. Augustine expressed it well in his final work Against Julian.
St. Augustine, Against Julian, Book 5, Chap. 4: “Of the number of the elect and predestined, even those who have led the very worst kind of life are led to repentance through the goodness of God… Not one of them perishes, regardless of his age at death; never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator [Baptism]. Because of these men, our Lord says: ‘This is the will of him who sent me, the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’”
We also see examples of this in the case of missionaries such as St. Isaac Jogues. Here are just two quotes from his life:
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 92: “Then, most of all [the heathens concluded], the Blackrobes caused people to die by pouring water on their heads; practically everyone they baptized died soon after.”
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 225: “Two of the Hurons, Jogues learned, were to be burned to death that night at Tionontoguen. He stayed with them on the platform and concentrated his appeals on them. Finally they consented. About that moment, the Mohawks threw the prisoners some raw corn that had been freshly plucked. The sheaths [of the corn] were wet from the recent rains. Father Jogues carefully gathered the precious drops of water on a leaf and poured them over the heads of the two neophytes [new converts], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Mohawks understood that his [Jogues’] act meant to bring happiness to these hated victims. They raged at his audacity and beat him down, threatening to slaughter him with the Hurons… That night the two Hurons [whom he had baptized] were burned over the fire.”
Other examples can be found in these files:
https://vaticancatholic.com/st-isaac-jogues-st-francis-xavier-vs-invincible-ignorance/
St. Emerentiana, Jan. 23
MHFM: Today is the feast of St. Emerentiana. Many who don't believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation falsely claim that St. Emerentiana was not baptized. However, the truth is that Pope Benedict XII dogmatically defined that all the martyrs in Heaven from the New Testament period received baptism. Further, the Church has never taught that St. Emerentiana or any other martyr got to Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism. This video covers the matter. We also have an article on the same topic.
Was St. Emerentiana Baptized? Unbaptized Martyrs?
… I got into an argument with some Protestant heretics and we ended up talking about the “gift of tongues” and one Protestant showed me 1 Cor 14:2. I didn’t know how to answer it…
1 Cor. 14:2- “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.”
Hello. We agree with St. Thomas’ explanation of the verse. In 1 Cor. 14:1 and following, St. Paul is teaching the Corinthians that they should not be desirous of the gift of tongues or languages just for the sake of speaking in that way, but rather insofar as it will edify others. Hence, he says in 1 Cor. 14:2: “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.” The tongue or language mentioned there, which is spoken not to men but to God, is not an unintelligible babble language. Rather, it refers to an actual human language that’s not understood by those in the audience (but only by God, who of course knows all languages). As St. Thomas says, it’s like “when one might speak German to a Frenchman without an interpreter.” St. Paul’s point is that speaking in tongues for its own sake is not beneficial. It should be understood by others and edify them.
This is also why St. Paul says:
1 Corinithians 14:10-13- “There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on 1 Cor. 14:1-4- “In regard to the second it should be noted that because there were few in the early Church assigned to preaching faith of Christ throughout the world, the Lord enabled them to proclaim the word to more people by giving them the gift of tongues, by which they could all preach to all. Not that they spoke in one language and were understood by all, as some say, but that they spoke the languages of different nations and, indeed, of all. Hence the Apostle says: ‘I thank God that I speak in the languages of all of you,’ and in Acts (2:4) it says: ‘They began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ Furthermore, many received this gift from God in the early church. But the Corinthians, being inquisitive, were more desirous of this gift than the gift of prophecy. Therefore, when the Apostle mentions here about speaking in a tongue, he means an unknown language not interpreted; as when one might speak German to a Frenchman without an interpreter, he is speaking in a tongue. Hence, all speech not understood or explained, no matter what it is, is properly called speaking in a tongue.”
True Eastern Catholics Are Not Palamites
But aren’t Eastern Catholics Palamists? Are they heretics too?
Emil
No, true Eastern Catholics are not Palamites. You should see this video/article: Greek "Orthodox" Gregory Palamas Is Not A Saint & He Was Condemned Before Vatican II.
Awesome Miracle
The Amazing And Miraculous Image Of Our Lady Of Guadalupe
Truly awesome miracles about every aspect of this tilma. The resulting massive miracles of conversion are a testament to the Power and the Glory of God working through Our Blessed Lady the Queen of Heaven and Earth. Glory to God.
Paddy Early
Drop RCIA
…I’ve started going to a church that has a “divine mercy” “theme” to it and I started my RCIA classes there. I am now fully Aware and willing to accept that this is a false teaching and it is the Devil clever substitute church. Should I completely drop my RCIA classes and find another church to go to or should Continue to go until the end of it. I’ve never been baptized…
Deon
We’re glad that you came across the information. Yes, you should drop RCIA (and avoid the New Mass) and convert through the steps on our website. You should also start to pray the Rosary each day and the Hail Mary frequently. (We recommend that Catholics, if they can, pray 15 decades of the Rosary each day and the Hail Mary frequently.)
Explaining
Why Francis Must Not Be Considered The Pope
Thank you, sir, for clearly and succinctly explaining the peril in which we currently reside. It is imperative that all faithful awaken to this peril, and 'with fear and trembling work out your salvation. ' (Phil. 2:13)
Jason Hurd
Heretics Always Misuse Scripture
The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea 787, Sess. 6: “When people try to pervert the correct doctrine according to their own fancy, let no one be surprised if they employ the words of Scripture, since all originators of heresy take the starting point of their error from inspired Scripture, falsifying the orthodox utterances of the Holy Spirit with their own wicked thoughts.”
Burke, French Revolution
All this action of the antipope to remove or punish more conservative "prelates" reminds me a lot of the demonic French Revolution, where the ones who enabled and were allies of the revolution or even brought the revolution about in the first place were eventually punished themselves by the beast they helped create. These worldlings are praised and glorified one day, but the next are thrown under the bus when they become "too soft" or "too conservative" for the fast growing wickedness of the beast...
Philothea
Creation Science – Dr. Walt Brown
Did God allow the devil to place conclusive evidence to the contrary inside the earth, or was that a result of the fall? How does one properly reconcile God’s truth and non-promotion of confusion with the observable facts around us? That all secular evidence precludes a young earth isnt disputable, so there’s got to be something missing to reconcile this.
Coffee Catastrophe
Hello. Science does not support evolution or an old Earth. It destroys evolution and supports a young Earth. On that matter, we recommend the book: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown (a scientist with a Ph.D. from MIT): https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
We also recommend these videos:
https://endtimes.video/amazing-evidence-for-god/
https://endtimes.video/creation-and-miracles-condensed-version/
Powerful Quote
The Earth Is Young (Acts Of Nicaea II)
Powerful quote…
Josip Gregoric
Benedict XVI, Luther
Benedict XVI was even WORSE than Luther in some ways.
Ryan Autrey
John 6:40 and Baptism
Gavin Ortlund & Trent Horn Are Both Wrong About Cornelius & Baptism
John 6:40 [40] For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” No regenerating water baptism here. Are you saying Jesus forgot?
Tricord
1. The necessity of baptism and baptismal regeneration were mentioned by Jesus, as recorded in the very same Gospel just a few chapters earlier (i.e. John 3:5). 2. In the New Testament, “believing in Jesus” and entering the faith of Christ are connected with baptism. Baptism is how one becomes one of the faithful. For example:
Galatians 3:26-27- “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through the faith [διὰ τῆς πίστεως]. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
Colossians 2:12 “… having been buried with him in baptism, by which you were also raised with him through the faith [διὰ τῆς πίστεως]…”
Baptism is the instrument through which a person receives regeneration, first justification, and justifying faith. That’s why only the baptized were called “the faithful” in the early Church. Thus, Jesus' reference in John 6:40 to those who believe in Him presupposes baptism. In addition to this video on which you commented, see this playlist of videos for more on the necessity of baptism: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGVSKByrYzssJHrA8L1PjrxWW-S15pnEQ
Errors Of Heretics
Gavin Ortlund & Trent Horn Are Both Wrong About Cornelius & Baptism
Another stunning exposure of the lies and deceptions from heretics - even from one who considers himself a "Catholic" when, in fact, he is a member of the Vatican II Sect, the prophesied end-times counter-church…
Francis
New Video Posted
Gavin Ortlund & Trent Horn Are Both Wrong About Cornelius & Baptism
MHFM: This video covers important points throughout, including a very significant quote from an early father that we have not shared before, and an explanation of the major flaw in Protestant salvation doctrine. Thus, we encourage people to watch the entire video.
MHFM: This is an interesting quote from St. Irenaeus concerning the promise God made to Abraham about inheriting the land. In their delusion, many people think that the land God mentioned is reserved for Jews who deny Jesus! That is of course false. St. Irenaeus, however, points out that the promise will see its fulfillment when the true faithful of Christ inherit the land at the resurrection of the just. The Church is the Israel of God, not the Jews: Jews Are Not Israel Or The Chosen People
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chap. 32, AD 180: “Thus, then, the promise of God, which He gave to Abraham, remains steadfast. For thus He said: Lift up your eyes, and look from this place where now you are, towards the north and south, and east and west. For all the earth which you see I will give to you and to your seed, even forever [Genesis 13:13-14]. And again He says, Arise, and go through the length and breadth of the land, since I will give it unto you [Genesis 13:17]; and [yet] he did not receive an inheritance in it, not even a footstep, but was always a stranger and a pilgrim therein [Acts 7:5; Hebrews 11:13]… Thus did he await patiently the promise of God, and was unwilling to appear to receive from men, what God had promised to give him, when He said again to him as follows: I will give this land to your seed, from the river of Egypt even unto the great river Euphrates [Genesis 15:13]. If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord… Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: But you, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise [Galatians 4:28]. And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spoke] of many, but as of one, And to your seed, which is Christ [Galatians 3:16]. And again, confirming his former words, he says, Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know therefore, that they who are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in you shall all nations be blessed. So then they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham [Galatians 3:6], etc. Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God promised the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth [Matthew 5:5].”
Video Posted
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - What They Don’t Want You To Know!
Perfect vs. Imperfect Contrition
… For many years, I have had the understanding that only perfect contrition satisfies for the forgiveness of mortal sins in confession, whereas, imperfect contrition (fear of the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell} only satisfies for venial sins, but leaves the soul open to the potential grace to achieve perfect contrition in the future. Am I mistaken?...
Hello, you are mistaken. Perfect contrition (i.e. sorrow for having offended God) is only necessary to be restored to the state of grace if one cannot receive sacramental absolution. Imperfect contrition (i.e. sorrow arising from the fear of Hell and God’s punishment), which includes the firm purpose to avoid the sin in the future, is sufficient to be forgiven in confession.
Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on the Sacrament of Penance: “As to imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, since it commonly arises either from the consideration of the heinousness of sin or from the fear of hell and of punishment, the council declares that if it renounces the desire to sin and hopes for pardon, it not only does not make one a hypocrite and a greater sinner, but is even a gift of God and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, not indeed as already dwelling in the penitent, but only moving him, with which assistance the penitent prepares a way for himself unto justice. And though without the sacrament of penance it cannot per se lead the sinner to justification, it does, however, dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of penance. For, struck salutarily by this fear, the Ninivites, moved by the dreadful preaching of Jonas, did penance and obtained mercy from the Lord.”
Came To Know Traditional Catholicism
Hello MHFM,
I am someone who came to know traditional Catholicism by the grace of God and with the help of your materials… Thank you,
Jim
Evidence
Amazing Evidence For God – Scientific Evidence For God
The amount of scientific evidence for our God in this video is amazing, and yet, the atheists and evolutionist will still deny our creator…
I. I.
Would not have known
Jesus’ Descent Into Hell & The Baptism Of The Good Thief
Thank you for this very insightful video...! I could never have known about any this if it's not because of this video...
Damien
Formal Heresy
Some people say that heresy is only formal “when the Church recognizes it”.
It's not true that something is only considered formal heresy "when the Church recognizes it." A person is considered a notorious (and thus formal) heretic when 1) the heretical teaching is public and 2) the imputable/sinful character of the act is publicly known. Francis has fulfilled both. People can become notorious heretics without any declaration or official Church recognition, as the teaching of Pope Martin V (and others) proves. Moreover, certain positions are so notorious (e.g. it's illicit to convince people of the faith; permission for same-sex 'blessings'; etc.) that public adherence to them by itself constitutes notorious (and thus formal) heresy. We discuss these matters here: Great Proof Texts For Sedevacantism Show That Francis Is Not The Pope. According to Catholic principles, based on what he publicly preaches, teaches and does, Francis is definitely a manifest heretic and cannot be considered to have membership or authority coram ecclesia (in the sight of the Church).
No Authority To Recognize Francis
Breaking: Francis Says “Yes” To Same-Sex “Blessings” In Response To “Cardinals”
Dear Brothers,
Brother Peter made a really good point about how so many deceivers try to avoid the truth (and discourage others from seeing it) by claiming they don't have 'authority.' Yes, we might ask such individuals: who gave you the authority to ignore the teachings of every pope from St. Peter to Pope Pius XII? Those popes certainly didn't give you any such authority, because they were adamant that the dogmatic teachings of the Church can never change and that to be a Catholic, one must be subject to those popes and accept their dogmatic pronouncements. In addition (we might also ask) who gave you the "authority" to align yourselves with individuals or "churches" that reject papal teaching, and who gave you the authority to defend and even support them? Certainly, the aforementioned popes never gave you any such authority; on the contrary, they condemned such actions!...
Lee Ann
Video Posted
Breaking: Francis Says “Yes” To Same-Sex “Blessings” In Response To “Cardinals”
… The Nicene creed says the spirit proceeds from the father. Any addition to that [could be unlawful]...
Shane
The Nicene Creed was modified (before the Filioque was added to it) at the Second Ecumenical Council – a council the Eastern 'Orthodox' claim to accept. It was modified (with additions and omissions) in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople. A series of statements about the Holy Spirit were added, including the very clause “who proceeds from the Father” (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον). Some of the other changes made to the 325 Nicene Creed (at the 381 First Council of Constantinople) include:
- The words “of Heaven and of Earth” (οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς) were added.
- The words “before all the ages” (πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων) were added.
- The words “that is, from the essence of the Father” (τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς ουσίας τοῦ πατρός) were omitted.
- The canon/anathema at the end of the Creed was omitted.
- The section on the Holy Spirit was enlarged from five words to twenty-eight words with these additions: “… the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets…”
- Statements about baptism, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection were added, including: “… one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
Even in the 381 expanded version of the Creed (known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος – consubstantial) is not used in reference to the Holy Spirit, even though that is of course the true position. The Creed does not explicitly call the Holy Spirit ‘God’. Rather, it teaches the divinity of the Holy Spirit in other ways, by stating that He is ‘life-giving’, ‘co-worshipped and glorified’, etc.
First Council of Constantinople
With regard to the Council of Chalcedon’s statement that it is unlawful to “deliver a different symbol [creed]”, that was a disciplinary decree that sought to forbid other unapproved symbols from being used to convert people. It did not stop later councils – including the very next council, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 – from promulgating dogmatic canons that served as rules of faith that must be accepted by new converts and everyone else.
Council of Chalcedon, 5th session, 451: “These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith (heteran pistin), nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different creed (heteron sumbolon) to as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized.”
The Church, through a pope (who wields the supreme authority over the Church from Christ), has the authority to add a true statement to the Creed for the defense of the faith or for further clarification of a point. Hence, there’s no merit to the argument that the Church could not add the words ‘and the Son’ to the Creed for a defense and assertion of the true doctrine. Thus, the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV correctly declared:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Laetentur coeli”, July 6, 1439: “We define in addition that the explanation of those words ‘Filioque’ for the sake of declaring the truth and also because of imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed…”
The lawfulness of adding the Filioque to the Creed was acknowledged by representatives from all five Patriarchal sees at the Council of Florence, as well as by the Metropolitan of Russia and a large Greek delegation that included people who at one time had been opposed to the Filioque. After the debates and presentations at Florence, they came to accept the Filioque and the lawfulness of its inclusion in the Creed.
Video Posted
A Big Problem For “Orthodoxy”: St. Gregory Of Nyssa & The Filioque
MHFM: This is a must-see video for those interested in the Catholic faith, apologetics, and defending the faith in these times.
... What if the Spirit moved the Church to change the teaching in V2 to facilitate the so called New Evangelization…? Does the Spirit not have the sovereign right to make changes?...
The teaching of the Church cannot change. It’s heretical to hold that a dogma can change. Dogma does not evolve, and it must be believed as the Church has once declared (Vatican I). We recommend that you read this: https://vaticancatholic.com/believe-dogma-as-once-declared/
Where Does Vatican II Teach Heresy On Baptism And The Body Of Christ?
Where does Vatican II teach heresy on baptism and the Body of Christ, namely, that all the baptized (even if they reject Catholic teaching) are united to Christ and incorporated into Christ’s Body?
In Lumen Gentium #15, referring to communities that dissent from Catholic teaching (i.e. Protestants, E. 'Orthodox', etc.), Vatican II says: "They are marked by baptism, by which they are united to Christ..." That's false. Unitatis Redintegratio #3 teaches the same, stating (again in reference to dissenters): "... those justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ." That's also false (and actually heretical). The Vatican II antipopes have repeated this heresy many times (e.g. Bergoglio repeatedly teaching that all the baptized are in the Body of Christ). One can find the full quotes and a discussion of this matter in this video/article: https://endtimes.video/trent-horn-refuted-on-catholic-church/
Acts 19 vs. Francis
Antipope Francis Condemns Quran Burning - 32 second video
Acts 19:19 "And many of them who had followed curious arts, brought together their books, and burnt them before all; and counting the price of them, they found the money to be fifty thousand pieces of silver."
Martin Francis
Francis’ Hypocrisy
Antipope Francis Condemns Quran Burning - 32 second video
If Francis rejects the idea that offensive protests should be allowed in the name of free speech, then he should be up in arms over Pride marches and parades. After all, what are they other than offensive protests against God and society that are allowed in the name of free speech. He should have come out heavily against the riots and looting that took place here in 2020. They were offensive protests allowed in the name of free speech in which people were beaten and killed. He should condemn Antifa and pro-abort demonstrations. Yet he doesn't do any of those things.
Mike
Palamas Taught A ‘Real Distinction’
Greek “Orthodox” Gregory Palamas Is Not A Saint & He Was Condemned Before Vatican II
Lol show me where Saint Palamas said there is a “real distinction” between essence and energy. Scholastics like Marin Jugie have slapped scholastic labels on the doctrine as if they map on perfectly… he’s been refuted by Pino, David Bradshaw, Christian Kaapes, … Palamites and Scotusts [sic] alike have put this nonsense to rest.
C
Anyone who has read Palamas on this matter and is not a liar knows that Palamas taught a real distinction between essence and energies. In many different ways Palamas says that one [i.e. the essence] is not the other [i.e. the energies]. He is as emphatic that the essence is not the energies as he is that the Father is not the Son. In fact, he taught that it’s blasphemy to identify them. He taught that the essence is one but the energies are multiple. He also taught that some of the energies begin but the essence does not. Of course there is a real distinction between what has a beginning and what does not. Palamas’ position that some ‘uncreated energies’ have a beginning is rank heresy condemned by all the fathers. Palamism is polytheism, and it is frankly as stupid and heretical as Calvinism (although in a very different way). It definitely denies the simplicity of God and other Christian dogmas. Stop following deluded and heretical false teachers of the Eastern ‘Orthodox’ who will lead you right to Hell. You will find additional material that refutes Eastern ‘Orthodoxy’ here: https://vaticancatholic.com/eastern-orthodoxy/
By the way, you mention Bradshaw. He admits that Palamas taught that some ‘uncreated energies’ begin but he tries to defend it! We discuss that here: https://vaticancatholic.com/gods-eternity-immutability-denied-by-eastern-orthodox-speakers/ He thus denies the basics of the Christian faith. Lastly, Ortho-pagans like you think that adding 'Lol' to your comment bolsters your argument. It doesn't. In your case, it just reveals the weakness of your claims.
Defective Consecration Of The Bread
You admitted that "FOR THIS IS MY BODY" is the only thing required for valid consecration of the Host, so how can you then conclude that we are only worshiping a piece of bread at the New Mass? Even if I were to grant that the consecration of the wine is invalid, the Host would still be validly consecrated at the moment that the words are uttered.
Seth
The answer is that by not intending to use the Church's form for the consecration of the wine the person has a defect of intention, which is present at the moment he tries to consecrate the bread. That defect of intention invalidates the consecration of the bread as well.
Portland
Felon released from prison early by Kate Brown (Deep State-OR) is accused of killing 4 women - video
I live right outside Portland. It is a despicable den of iniquity. What is bitter is considered sweet.
Justin Knight
Nestorius’ Deposition & The Council Of Ephesus
… Nestorious [sic] taught heresy in 428 AD, and wasn’t formally deposed until the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.
Seethi
A formal deposition (rendering one notorious by notoriety of law and bringing with it additional consequences, such as what Ephesus did to Nestorius in 431) is often well after the person has become notorious by notoriety of fact and lost jurisdiction. Pope St. Celestine taught that Nestorius fell, lost jurisdiction, and was justly rejected before the canonical process as a result of his heretical preaching. We cover that in the debate and in this video: Great Proof Texts For Sedevacantism Show That Francis Is Not The Pope.
Bellarmine understands the teaching of Pope St. Celestine exactly as we have written, and he applies it to Nestorius having lost office "ex quo haereses praedicare coepit" (i.e. from the moment he began to preach heresies). For example:
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante, Chap. 10: “For that reason [Popes] Celestine and Nicholas, in the passages cited, say that a heretical bishop, from the moment he began to preach heresies, was not able to loose or bind anyone…”
Video Refuting Protestantism
“Pastor” Steven Anderson Exposed – Documentary
Great video, best Catholics I've encountered. You're doing God’s work.
John Clossick
Preaching Heresy And Losing Office
Where do you get the idea that simply “preaching” a falsehood makes you lose the office?
Seethi
1. An office is not lost for simply preaching falsehood but for preaching heresy notoriously (or a false gospel). 2. Pope St. Celestine taught that Nestorius and those of his ilk lost office “ex quo talia praedicare coeperunt” (i.e. from the moment they began to preach such things). Bellarmine quotes that very passage and applies it to how someone would lose the papal office ipso facto for PREACHING heresy notoriously. Thus, the office is lost coram ecclesia (i.e. in the sight of the Church) before any declaration or Church intervention. We discuss that here: Great Proof Texts For Sedevacantism Show That Francis Is Not The Pope. But Francis was never the pope. The same is true of the other Vatican II antipopes.
Consecration Of Russia Question
In your one of your videos you say that pope pius XII consecrated russia to the immaculate heart in 1952, and that was sufficient. In 1957 Fr Fuentes interview, sr Lucy says that Russia will be the instrument chosen by God to chastise the world if we do not bring about the conversion of that poor nation, but that is 5 years after the Pius XII consecration. Am I missing something? Please help me to understand this. Thank you for your time, Ron.
Have you read our article on this? https://vaticancatholic.com/consecration-russia-fatima-lucy/ The statement to Fuentes does not contradict the fact that Pius XII's consecration was the fulfillment. Sr. Lucia was repeating things that Our Lady had previously told her. Also, Sr. Lucia did not always know if something fulfilled Heaven's request. In 1947, when asked by William Thomas Walsh about Pope Pius XII’s 1942 consecration of the world, Sr. Lucy didn’t even know if it was sufficient. This was before the specific consecration of Russia in 1952.
William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, p. 222: “After my return from Portugal I wrote several questions which His Excellency the Bishop of Leiria was good enough to send to Sister Dores [Sr. Lucy]. Her answers, written February 17, 1947, reached me just too late for the first edition of this book… Q. Is it your opinion that the Pope and the Bishops will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary only after the laity have done their duty, in Rosaries, sacrifices, first Saturday Communions, etc.? A. [Sr. Lucy] The Holy Father has already consecrated Russia, including it in the consecration of the world, but it has not been done in the form indicated by Our Lady: I do not know whether Our Lady accepts it, done in this way, as complying with her promises. Prayer and sacrifice are always the means necessary to draw down the graces and blessings of God.”
Further, the 'conversion' of Russia came to full fruition after the 1957 interview with the dramatic transformation of Russia. Our Lady’s words on the consecration of Russia were firmly set within the context of changing/transforming Russia from the specified persecutions of “war… hunger… of the Church.” That's what 'conversion' meant in the context of the message given.
Argument: “Thinking the last 6 popes are antipopes is such a dangerous thought in the sense that if you are wrong in your assessment and believe it, that just makes you an heretic... it is such a big risk... may the Holy Ghost bless us with His wisdom and prudence!”
Yannick
No, not only is it certain that the Vatican II claimants are manifest heretics and antipopes, as our material shows, but even if they were valid popes (which is not the case) and you had good reasons to doubt their validity, you would not be a schismatic for refusing to recognize them as valid popes.
Canonist Franz Xavier Wernz, Ius Canonicum, edited by Pietro Vidal [Gregorian University, Rome, 1937], vol. 7, n. 398: “Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI) or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.”
Moreover, what’s truly dangerous is recognizing manifest heretics who officially teach false doctrines (such as false ecumenism and participation in non-Catholic worship, which the Church has always condemned as mortally sinful). To recognize the Vatican II antipopes is to contradict Catholic teaching in many ways, including the Church's teaching on papal infallibility and indefectibility, as our material shows.
… One thing I am struggling with is the whole baptism of desire problem. Intellectually, your arguments make sense to me. But what is making me hesitant to fully accept it is that I was seemingly condemned by the Holy Office pre V2. I don’t remember that being addressed in the video I watched, can you explain this to me?...
A G
This video/article covers the alleged Holy Office Letter: The Holy Office - Is It Infallible? (Geocentrism & Fr. Feeney)
In short, Holy Office acts/decisions that are approved in common form are not infallible. That's explained in the aforementioned article/video. Suprema Haec Sacra (the letter written against Feeney, dated Aug. 8, 1949) was not only a supposed 'common form' act (demonstrating that it was not infallibly promulgated), but it wasn't even officially promulgated. It was never published in the Acts of the Apostolic See. Therefore, it was actually a private, fallible, modernist document written by a 'cardinal' that served as a heretical basis for post-Vatican II heresies. Yet it's erroneously treated by many people as a dogmatic proclamation that overrides the actual dogmatic definitions. It's absurd.
This playlist of videos thoroughly covers the salvation and baptism issues: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGVSKByrYzssJHrA8L1PjrxWW-S15pnEQ
True Conversion
Cameron Bertuzzi Proves Bro. Peter Dimond Correct
Dear Brothers,
In addition to proving how utterly disgraceful the Vatican 2 Sect is, your important videos on Bertuzzi also reminds us… that the people who accept the Vatican 2 Sect and its anti-popes do not understand what a true conversion is. Although it's the greatest of miracles, conversion is meaningless to them. They do not know that when a person truly converts, he changes. He becomes a new person, and the old man is left behind, as Sacred Scripture repeatedly warns us he must be. A person's beliefs change; his understanding of the world, of himself and of others change. Above all, his view of God changes, and he now clearly comprehends the importance of the true religion and the reality of the last things…
Lee Ann
Substitute
Faustina & The Divine Mercy Deception
Dear Brothers,
Thank you for the great new video, Faustina and the Divine Mercy Deception. This video gives a critical insight into the dark and twisted heart of the Vatican II sect and the Antichrist. From the pride that the Devil nurtured in Faustina, to the substitution of devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Rosary, to the fake and horrifyingly dangerous 'indulgence' of 'Divine Mercy Sunday,' evil managed 'sneak in the back door' to deceive multitudes. This is a critical video…
God bless,
Chris White
John Paul II Jewish?
I watched your ‘Apocalypse Now in the Vatican’ video, and I have a question regarding your claim that JP2 was the antichrist. As well put together and possibly convincing as your case may be, don’t the Church Fathers say that the AC will be a Jew? From my readings as well, the AC would ban all other religions other than his own. What do you say about JP2 fulfilling those details?
Thanks. God Bless you,
Jayden Aplin
The opinions or views of Church fathers are not binding unless they are unanimous on a point. But there is evidence that John Paul II was of Jewish lineage: https://vaticancatholic.com/the-pope-was-jewish-says-historian/
With regard to the view that the Antichrist will ban all other religions, we believe that's wrong. We believe that's a misunderstanding of 2 Thess. 2, which we believe was fulfilled with Assisi, etc., as covered here: https://endtimes.video/the-antichrist-identified/ Further, someone who would ban all other religions would not be deceptive at all. The prophecies about the Beast and the Whore of Babylon deal with a spiritual deception – i.e. pagan Rome returning under the guise or deceptive appearance of the Church (by means of a Counter Church). That’s covered in Apocalypse Now In The Vatican.
NEW MUST-SEE VIDEO
No Latin Mass Or Prayers For Dead Non-Catholics – Papal Teaching
MHFM: This is a must-see video for those who care about authentic Catholic teaching. Among other things, it covers important new quotes from Pope Gregory XVI which (to our knowledge) have never been translated into English until now. It also exposes how the Vatican II Sect and many high profile ‘Catholics’ contradict Catholic teaching on this topic.
Eagle Vision
Just How Good Is Eagle Vision? - video
Thank you, MHFM. God's creations will never seize to amaze me.
Lucas
Evil Alliance
ADL Leader Jonathan Greenblatt: "The FBI works directly with ADL every day" - 23 second video
What an evil alliance!... Thank you for posting this, MHFM.
Antonia
Increased Rapidly
How terrible. The manifestation of sexual sins has increased rapidly, especially in the last fifty years.
Francis
Used To Be
“Extremely conservative bishop” Joseph Strickland is not Catholic
I agree 100%. I used to be a "alter server" in the Tyler Diocese and once served in a "latin mass" that Strickland preformed. I found your content and started asking the "priests" in the diocese if any were ordained in the latin rite, and not a single one said they were. All are novus ordo and used the logic that the sacraments are still valid. Strickland was ordained in the novus ordo too. They also said a "latin mass" in honor of Benedict XVI after he died. Also a "priest" in Tyler claims to have known Benedict XVI and to have known JP2!!! I even tried to spread flyers around the diocese promoting the truth of the Catholic Church and one "priest" threatened to have me arrested for "criminal trespassing." These people are not real catholics and are very deceived people. Thank you Most Holy Family Monastery and may God be with you.
Leif Keating
Thoughts On Vigano
“Extremely conservative bishop” Joseph Strickland is not Catholic
Brothers, what are your thoughts on archbishop vigano? He has had a conversion -to the tradtional Latin mass. Do you feel he is just a part of the Vatican 2 sect & a heretic?...
Marie Therese
Hello. Vigano states many true things. However, he is still part of the Vatican II Sect. His position is, in fact, inconsistent and contrary to Catholic teaching. For instance, he stated that Francis is a "non-Catholic pope"! That's absurd and opposed to Catholic teaching, as we discuss in this video about Vigano: Viganò Says Francis Is A "Non-Catholic Pope" (Analysis).
Since Vigano states many true things but fails to come to the correct conclusions on core matters (and remains within the Vatican II Sect), he sadly functions as a deceiver who keeps people thinking that there's hope in the Vatican II Counter Church when there is not. Simply put, he keeps people from the full truth and the proper conclusions.
According To
Jew in Israel admits he believes Christians should be killed because they are “idol worshippers”
Horrible, according to "BoD" apostates, this man has a chance to obtain salvation in this state. Just horrible...
Lex Orandi
^
" />
" />
" />
" />
" />
