| 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 |  |
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
Exposing Lies
Bishop Sanborn And John Salza Are Totally Wrong On Manifest Heresy – New Evidence From Pope Martin V
This is a spiritual battle and it is very clear God is on your side. He allows these clueless and bad willed heretics to spit out their lies and heresies with such pride and arrogance, so that when their lies are exposed, they should be ashamed of themselves, be humble and repent, but they continue in their pride no matter what facts is put before them. Even though their position is so absurd and has been refuted already, it is not a coincidence that you came across this Papal Bull at the right moment. Clearly God is with you and directs you. While he conceals this information from these heretics on account of their pride and bad will, he reveals them to you on account of your faithfulness and truthfulness… Thank you so much…
Sincerely
Philip M
Can you baptize this person?
Can we give baptism for people on coma stage and people who lost their mental stability in their life, if they don't have a desire to become a Catholic?
Thratiou
No, unless they previously expressed the desire to become Catholic and be baptized.
Baptism Without True Faith
Many adults are receiving baptism without Catholic faith. I know some non catholics who received baptism only to marry a Catholic. What about them? Do they receive valid baptism?
Yes, if they want to receive it, but it does not justify. They would receive only the baptismal character without any grace. We cover that in some detail in this video: https://endtimes.video/trent-horn-refuted-on-catholic-church/
St. Basil, Letter 159: “For if, to me, to live is Christ, [Philippians 1:21] truly my words ought to be about Christ, my every thought and deed ought to depend upon His commandments, and my soul to be fashioned after His.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book 4, Chap. 11: “… although the image of God properly resides in the soul, nevertheless by reason of the soul the whole man is rightly said to be made to the image of God.”
After Watching
Documentary: Protestantism’s Big Justification Lie
After watching your video on Protestant justification. I am no longer a Protestant. Also, after reading early church fathers about the unity of the church and it being the Catholic Church it's no longer deniable. I would have to be delusional to reject this truth...
Matthew Diotte
Evidence
Francis Contradicts God And St. Pius V On Homosexuality Laws
God is providing anyone with eyes to see, or ears to hear, more than enough evidence to conclude that antipope Francis is not Catholic. While most are of bad will, many will be looking for answers. We all need to do our part in personally evangelizing confused people by directing them to Most Holy Family Monastery via their website and materials…
J. Knight
Warning
Francis Contradicts God And St. Pius V On Homosexuality Laws
Is the Warning coming soon? What do you think ?
Jeanine Curran
There isn’t going to be a warning. The Lord will come like a thief in the night.
1 Thess. 5:2 – “For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”
Prophecies about the Great Apostasy, the end-times Beast and the Whore of Babylon are being fulfilled all around us. But only those with the eyes of faith will recognize it.
Sanctification And The Protestant View Of Forensic Justification
Documentary: Protestantism’s Big Justification Lie
Sanctification is what changes the character after salvation, after we are justified by faith in Christ’s payment for our sins.
Anna Ferrara
Did you watch the video? What we show is that according to Scripture and even according to the admission of Protestants (who fail to see the implications of their admissions), the act of sanctification itself changes man’s status before God. It saves the person (Titus 3:5); it forgives sins; it transfers him from the Kingdom of Satan to the Kingdom of God; it brings him into the family of God (John 3:5); etc. Thus, the act of sanctification necessarily justifies (which is the Catholic position); for to be justified is to be initially saved, to have one’s sins forgiven, to have one’s status before God changed, to be transferred from the kingdom of Satan to the family of God, etc. Yet, the Protestant position of forensic justification is that sanctification does not justify, even though it does the aforementioned things. It’s illogical, unbiblical, false and self-refuting.
Protestantism
Dear Brothers,
Thank you for your daily quotes - and the gems that you post in your videos and on your e-exchange page. In addition to proving beyond doubt that the V2 Sect is a counterfeit church (and the last and most significant revolt against God), it is interesting to also consider papal quotes in contrast to the pronouncements of Protestants… Only bad will can make a person accept the lie that Protestantism is based on the Bible. And since heretics despise the truth, it is no wonder that they cannot correctly comprehend the signs of the times or the prophesies that have foretold them.
Some "conservative" outlets assure their hapless listeners that the tide is changing, and that the new world order will be defeated. They are totally unaware that the demonic new world order was and is the fruit of heresy, schism and apostasy in the first place, and that as long as a person refuses to convert to the true Catholic faith, he or she is an unwitting accomplice to the crime. And how ironic to hear some of the 'warnings' these people now give - avoid public schools, demand parents' rights, etc. They are blind to the verifiable fact that the true Popes (whom they reject and despise), have warned the world about every evil it would suffer if men did not obey God - and that Popes have been doing this ever since the Papacy was founded by Christ.
Lee Ann
Baptized as Protestant
“Exorcist Priest” Vincent Lampert – Demonic Activity And His Heretical Beliefs
It is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church that any baptized person can lose sanctifying grace only through the deliberate and knowing commission of a mortal sin. Since protestant baptisms do confer sanctifying grace, and since dying in the state of sanctifying grace means that one will eventually get to heaven, a baptized protestant who dies in the state of sanctifying grace will eventually get to heaven.
Dave Gaetano
You need to learn Catholic teaching. You should watch this video: Trent Horn Refuted By Bro. Peter Dimond On The Catholic Church. It directly addresses the issue. People who receive baptism as heretics or Protestants do not receive sanctifying grace. Their heresy is an impediment to the reception of the grace. That’s the Church’s teaching. Protestants cannot be saved without conversion. What you have written is heresy.
Blind
“Exorcist Priest” Vincent Lampert – Demonic Activity And His Heretical Beliefs
Lampert is blind. He just explained that the devils repudiate our Lady Mary and cannot see that other "pastors" and "christians" also repudiate her. Does he not see whose side they are on? He... sends them to the cause of their disease, false religions.
Pax S
Strong Arguments
“Exorcist Priest” Vincent Lampert – Demonic Activity And His Heretical Beliefs
The arguments on this channel are incredibly strong…
Max
Hostile Takeover
Viganò Says Francis Is A “Non-Catholic Pope” (Analysis)
Not only is The Chair of Peter vacant… [T]he statement by Mueller that the synodal process is a hostile takeover actually applies to Vatican II…
Michael N
Rosary, Happiness
I have taken your advice of praying the 15 mysteries of the Holy Rosary, and it is indeed powerful... Together with the preparation for consecrating oneself to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as prescribed by St. Louis de Montfort (now on day 16th) I feel like I've walked a long way. Yet I feel no tiredness, but only refreshment. With the genuine wish to continue walking not because of fear, but because of love. It gives me actual enjoyment, as I get true happiness from praying the Holy Rosary. Because true happiness in this world comes only from God, and therefore once we awake in the Glory of Our Lord, only this happiness will continue, and the rest, as we read from Moses: "shall be erased from under the heavens" (Exodus 17:14). I feel particularly content with the continual use of the Rosary…
S
True Penance
Pope St. Gregory VII, Nov. 25, 1079: “For we call a penance unfruitful when it is so received that a man should persist in the same fault or else in a similar one that is worse or a little less.”
Threatening
This is terrifying...
A S C
New Video Posted
Trent Horn Refuted By Bro. Peter Dimond On The Catholic Church
Was asleep
Hello Brothers
I have just become a traditional Catholic and have a few questions… I don’t accept Vatican 2 and I believe the V2 popes are antipopes. Thank you for all of the work that you do It opened my eyes I was asleep and fooled.
Julie
Ecuador
I live in Quito, Ecuador… I fully believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and in all of her dogmas and decrees. I fully believe in the holy faith as presented faithfully in your website… Thank you for your support and carry on with the good fight for Christ's truth…
Joshua
Church in Germany
Hello… these are greetings from Germany, which are filled with best wishes & blessings from God! I am a man from Germany & I watched your channel for years... I agree with the "things" you transmit… I want to ask, if you can tell me a church-group which is located here in Germany..?
I was raised catholic but the true-Church is no longer visible in our land..! Do you know, if there is in Germany a place, where the real Church is still around..?
Thank you
R P
The Church is still visible, even though it has been reduced to a remnant. There are options for confession, but few for receiving Communion. Once you are convinced on all the issues, we can help you with them. We also recommend that Catholics, if they can, pray 15 decades of the Rosary each day and the Hail Mary frequently.
St. Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1274): “Unbelief… arises from pride, through which man is unwilling to subject his intellect to the rules of faith…” (Summa Theologiae Pt. II-II, Q. 10, A. 1, Reply 3)
Pope St. Gregory VII: “He who does not speak up against wicked men in consideration of his office consents to them; and he who does not do away with things that should be cut out commits them.”
Do Not Bother
"HHS Sec" Xavier Becerra: Expect A Virus "Resurgence" In "The Fall And Winter" - 19 second video
These fiends do not even bother offering an actual scientific explanation; all they have to say is "most experts" or "the experts agree" or "the scientific consensus is" and the misguided sheep will cave in and do their bidding. I grew up listening to secular "intellectuals" like Richard Dawkins and Neil DeGrasse Tyson argue for producing scientifically literate citizens only to find out... that most "medical professionals" will not even bother reading the methodology section of a paper in a medical journal.
Lucas
Another example
MHFM: This is another example from the period of the Great Western Schism of how the common opinion of theologians is often wrong. Theologians of the University of Paris thought that a council was superior to a pope and could depose him. That is of course contrary to true Catholic teaching.
Clinton Locke, The Age of the Great Western Schism: “The opinion of the University of Paris was also read to the council [at Constance], and such an opinion at that time carried great weight. This opinion concluded that the Pope could not dissolve the council, for to do so would involve him in the sin of schism; that the whole church is more than the Pope and superior to him; that the Pope holds his power through the church and as its representative, and that a council, if necessary, might depose him…”
Ukraine
Perhaps the most in your face money laundering scheme ever devised...
Tommy
‘Orthodox’ Sects
Vatican II Is A New Religion (Visual Proof)
If the orthodox church is outside the body of Christ, even though it is identical in belief and practice to the catholic church minus the pope, then the catholic church is outside the body of Christ. The catholic church in reality is the church of itself, as it clearly worships itself.
John G.
The ‘Orthodox’ sects (and there are many different ones) are outside the Body of Christ. They are not identical in belief and practice to the Catholic Church, even if you prescind from the truth of the Papacy. They reject the Filioque and the true doctrine of God's simplicity, among other things. See this: https://endtimes.video/the-trinity-the-filioque-catholicism-refutes-eastern-orthodoxy/ The Papacy is a truth revealed by God. To reject it is to reject Christ's revelation. You will find videos that thoroughly refute Eastern 'Orthodox' theology here: https://vaticancatholic.com/eastern-orthodoxy/
Jacinta: “If they hurt us, we are going to heaven. But those that hurt us, poor people, are going to hell.” (Oct. 13, 1917, regarding those who might hurt them on their way to the apparition site – Our Lady of Fatima, p. 144)
St. Francis De Sales (1602): “Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he (the Pope) is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…”
Yes, but
The Truth About The SSPX, The SSPX-MC, And Similar Groups
Yes but unfortunately, today, the Catholic Church is being led by an Apostate, one who gives the eucharist to non-Catholics, practicing homosexuals, and those who have and supports abortions.
Jerome Taylor
Francis is an antipope. He doesn't lead the Catholic Church, as our material explains. Heretics cannot be valid popes. The Vatican II Sect is not the Catholic Church but the prophesied, end-times Counter Church, as our material explains.
Thought-Provoking
Pelosi Banned From “Communion” – The Truth You Won’t Hear Elsewhere
Very thought-provoking video…
Bert Rodgers
Baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ”
Awesome stuff… ! I appreciate your videos. One question According to the book of acts, every water baptism was performed in the “Name of Jesus Christ” and not “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”. Can you explain why the Catholic Church doesn’t baptize in Jesus Name ? Thanks
Grey
“Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” does not mean that it's not according to the Trinitarian form. “Baptism in the name of Jesus” refers to the baptism instituted by Jesus Christ, which is performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This is indicated in Acts 19, as the video below covers.
Acts 19:2-5- “And they said, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ And Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
This passage indicates that the baptism “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” was according to the Trinitarian form, which mentioned the Holy Spirit (as well as the Father and the Son). By being baptized in the name “of the Son” and according to the Trinitarian baptismal form, one is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (for He is the Son). This is the act that people must receive to be justified, as we cover in this video/article:
Cornelius, The Gift Of Languages & The Necessity Of Baptism
Food Shortages, Philippines
Bank of England Gov says “apocalyptic” food shortages around the world are on the way - video
Our Department of Agriculture reported the same here in the Philippines. They urged people to do urban gardening.
Florence
Divided Sect
Beware of Francis’ Divided “Church”
A very good video! ... how wicked and faithless false traditionalists are... they defend a disunited sect where one is able to hold every anti-Catholic position imaginable...
Catholic553
Post-Trent Catechism By St. Peter Canisius Contradicts “Baptism Of Desire”
St. Peter Canisius, Summa Doctrinae Christianae, 16th century, De Baptismi Sacramento:
“What is Baptism, and is it necessary to all? This is the first sacrament of the New Law and the most necessary, consisting in the external washing of the body and the legitimate enunciation of the words in accordance with Christ’s institution. It is a sacrament, I say, that is necessary not only for adults but also for little ones, and is no less efficacious for them in obtaining eternal salvation. All are born children of wrath; therefore even the little ones need cleansing from sin, for they cannot be cleansed and be regenerated as children of God without this sacrament. For as a general rule our Lawmaker declared, ‘unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.’”
Why does St. Peter Canisius use the phrase “For as a general rule”? That suggests there are some cases where one can be saved without reception of water baptism.
Quoc
No, it doesn’t suggest that at all. He uses the word “generatim”, and you have to consider the context. St. Peter was writing in Latin, not in English. In context he’s speaking about two CLASSES of people: adults and infants. He teaches that baptism is necessary for both groups, and he emphasizes/concludes this point by stating that the Lawmaker declared “as a general rule… unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit…” [Nam et generatim legislator edixit], using “generatim” to teach that the words of Jesus apply to all classes of people, not just specifically to infants or specifically to adults. They apply to the entire humanum genus (human race). It could also be translated “as a universal rule”. In his speech against the governor Verres, Cicero treats the terms “generatim” and “universe” as virtually synonymous: “... singillatim potius quam generatim atque universe loquar.” Further, as the video showed, St. Peter elsewhere in his catechism teaches that only those with faith and baptism can receive the remission of sins.
St. Peter Canisius, Summa Doctrinae Christianae, 16th century, Concerning faith and the symbol of the faith, #19: “The remission of sins, without which none can be justified and saved. This truly rich treasure did Christ obtain for us by a bitter death and His own precious blood, in order that the whole world might be freed from its sins and their perpetual punishments. Of this said treasure only those are made partakers through the grace of Christ who join themselves to Christ’s Church through faith and baptism, and persist in her unity and obedience.”
As the video also covers, when teaching that baptism is most necessary for salvation, he also gives footnotes to passages from Church fathers that specifically contradicted the idea that unbaptized catechumens can be forgiven or saved. In fact, the third passage he cites on this matter, which we did not discuss in detail in the video, comes from a letter believed at one time to have been written by Pope Clement. It is no longer considered authentic. However, that passage cited by St. Peter Canisius taught that “it is impossible” for someone to be saved without water baptism. That gives us another indication of what St. Peter was teaching in his catechism: no one is saved without water baptism based specifically on Trent, etc
^
" />
" />
" />
" />
" />
