Informação Espiritual Você Deve Saber para ser Salvo

MÍDIA MORTALMENTE PECAMINOSA!

Baixe como:

“Sabe, porém, que nos últimos dias haverá momentos difíceis. Os homens serão egoístas, gananciosos, soberbos, blasfemos, rebeldes com os pais, ingratos, iníquos, sem afecto, implacáveis, mentirosos, incontinentes, cruéis, inimigos do bem, traidores, atrevidos, enfatuados, mais amigos dos prazeres do que de Deus; manterão aparências de piedade, mas negarão a sua força interior. Evita essas pessoas!” (II Timóteo 3:1-5)

A maioria das pessoas dessa geração, até mesmo aqueles que se professam Cristãos, estão tão decaídos em moralidade que mesmo as pessoas libertinas que viveram cem anos atrás se envergonhariam das muitas coisas que as pessoas hoje desfrutam. E isso é exatamente o que o demônio tem planejado desde o início, de passo em passo abaixando os padrões de moralidade no mundo através da mídia até que, de fato, ninguém possa escapar de pecar mortalmente por assisti-la com a intenção de divertir-se a si mesmo. Sim, assistir mídia impiedosa apenas por divertimento ou prazer ou para passar o tempo (que poderia ser usado para Deus), como a maioria das pessoas fazem, é mortalmente pecaminoso.

A 55 anos atrás (1956), Elvis Presley teve que ser filmado acima da cintura em um show de tv por causa de um movimento de quadril giratório. Não que isso fosse uma performance aceitável, toda coisa tendenciando para sexualidade é uma abominação, mas ainda isso serve para provar o quanto de declínio tem vindo desde então, quando mesmo a imprensa secular considerava não apropriado o que hoje seria olhado como nada. Mas mesmo naquele tempo, em grandes filmes de Hollywood como Os Dez Mandamentos (The Ten Commandments), poderiam ser vistos ambos mulheres e homens que estão incrivelmente imodestamente vestidos. A queda e declínio da moralidade tem estado em progresso constante desde o tempo da invenção do filme cinematográfico. Deus permitiu esse artifício ser inventado por causa dos pecados das pessoas, especialmente para os pecados da carne. A mídia tem tanto poder que ela pré condiciona a mente das pessoas de tal forma – já que as pessoas olham para TV como realidade – que o que era vergonhoso ontem será a norma hoje! Então se os meios de comunicação mostrarem indecência como norma, norma isso se tornará!

SÉRIES DE TV, FILMES, DESENHOS

Nós já sabemos que quase tudo na televisão terá as mais abomináveis impurezas e abominações apresentadas neles de tal forma que um pai deve ser horrorizado por isto e recusar suas crianças até mesmo a tomarem parte disso, mas isso, tristemente, não é o caso para maioria. Você ficará impressionado por até onde isso vai. Até mesmo desenhos infantis que alguém poderia pensar que era aceitável é modesto está longe de aceitável ou modesto, mas mesmo muitas vezes pior que a mídia geral transmitida para espectadores mais velhos, os quais serão abordados brevemente.

Primeiramente, você vai quase sempre ver fornicação e adultério ou outras impurezas sexuais e pecados da carne apresentados através da mídia ímpia como a norma para viver, junto com uma rejeição do jeito tradicional que as pessoas viveram antes do começo do século 19. As sugestões sexuais e perversões são incessantes nesses shows. Sentar e assistir ou permitir que suas crianças assistam tais shows não é apenas loucura mas um claro pecado mortal.

Segundamente, há uma parte cômica em quase todo show que parece não conter pecado, mas quando examinada de perto vai ser revelada pelo que realmente é. Porque tripudiação (também chamado de piada sobre a deficiência alheia) que é um muito abominável e descaridoso pecado será muito certamente impossível de escapar se você assiste séries televisivas! Esse pecado detestável da tripudiação prevalece em todo tipo de mídia como desenhos, filmes e shows, onde as pessoas estão agredindo um ao outro ou rindo das diferentes calamidade ou tolices que outra pessoa experiência. Pense sobre quão nocivo é isso: rir na calamidade ou aborrecimento de outra pessoa! Ainda, você não pode escapar vendo isso quando você assiste TV! Faça aos outros como você desejaria que eles fizessem a você foi um dos mandamentos do Senhor! (Mateus 7:12) - Você não ia querer alguém rindo ou fazendo graça das suas calamidades e equívocos, ainda nós rimos e aprovamos quando coisas tristes acontecem com outros ? E aí temos as piadas constantes sobre a religião Cristã com incontáveis palavras derrogatórias proferidas num estado de espírito muito blasfemo pela mídia quando ela tenta descrever o quão ultimamente estúpido, tolo e fora de moda é ser um firme Cristão que crê na Bíblia. A constante ridicularização e escárnio de Deus e da religião Cristã deveria ser causa suficiente para rejeitar essa sujeira mortalmente pecaminosa por inteiro! De novo, você não aprovaria um show que blasfemasse você, seu amigo, criança ou esposa, e ainda você assiste shows fazendo uma zombaria de Deus e religião, o que vale infinitamente mais do que frágeis seres humanos?

Terceiramente, nós temos o especificamente mal pecado da vestimenta imodesta e maquiagem o que cada show mantém como lei a ser seguida, e não há exceção em desenhos para crianças. A maioria dos personagens mulheres estão metade vestidas ou metade nuas nesses desenhos exibindo seu corpo de uma forma sexualmente sugestiva. Isto, de fato, é o que o demônio quer, pois ele pré condiciona a sexualidade das crianças para crescer em idade jovem. A pequena sereia por exemplo, o personagem principal no filme da Disney chamado "A Pequena Sereia", é completamente nua da cintura para cima exceto por uma pequena cobertura de conchas do mar sobre seus seios, o que é ultrajante para dizer o mínimo! Tristemente, assim é como a maioria dos personagens se vestem! A personagem mulher em Aladdin, o filme é imodestamente vestida mostrando a maior parte do seu corpo. Ela até seduz sexualmente um dos homens numa cena por qualquer motivo, a isto é o que nossas crianças estão assistindo e aprendendo, do próprio Satanás! Se você tem permitido suas crianças assistirem tais coisas, você deveria ter vergonha de si mesmo!

Ha uma perfeita razão porque jovens crianças se tornam sexualmente ativas em uma idade jovem. Crianças jovens assistindo tais filmes e shows imitam o comportamento, movimentos e jeito de agir dos personagens; por exemplo: o deslizar dos olhos, a sedução de homens e mulheres, as rotações do quadril e o jeito sedutor de mover o corpo e jeito sedutor de andar, etc.

Sininho (Tinker Bell), uma personagem em destaque em muitos shows da Disney, é considerada como uma das mais importantes marcas registradas icônicas da Disney, (de acordo com as fontes da Wikipédia),

“A sininho é ilustrada como uma jovem (sexy) de cabelo loiro, grandes olhos azuis, fêmea branca, com uma exagerada figura de ampulheta (formato modelo). Ela está vestida num curto traje (ultra-reveladora mini-saia) verde-limão com um acabamento minucioso e pantufas verdes com pufes brancos. Ela é trilhada por pó-de-fada/duende quando se move e esse pó pode ajudar os humanos a voarem se eles 'acreditarem' que vão (mais da bobagem da mágica de contos de fadas e 'acreditar' no oculto, tudo para nossas crianças assistirem). Alguns críticos têm reclamado que a Sininho é muito sugestiva sexualmente." (E esse deveria ser um personagem para filmes infantis. Abusivo para dizer o mínimo, até o mundo secular concorda!)

Estes são alguns dos exemplos que eu pude chegar a pensar, e meu conhecimento sobre shows infantis é muito limitado. Alguém com mais conhecimento poderia facilmente preencher um número de volumes sobre o mesmo assunto.

O pecado do vestir imodestamente e maquiar traz pensamentos impuros e luxuriosos inumeráveis, o que é justamente o que o demônio quer quando ele incita as pessoas a cometer esses pecados de vestir-se imodestamente e pintar o rosto com maquiagem, como apenas meretrizes e bárbaros faziam, até recentemente, quando "Católicos" começaram a seguir essa tendência. Aqueles que fazem essas coisas, fazem com o único motivo de fazer os outros cobiçarem-os ou para fazerem a si mesmos parecerem mais atraentes para os outros. Isso é pecaminoso para dizer o mínimo e muito desgostoso para Deus.

Bilhões de almas estão queimando agora enquanto falamos no excruciante fogo do inferno desde que eles foram tentados a impurezas sexuais em seus pensamentos pela mídia que eles assistiram! Irá você seguir eles ou então deixar sua criança seguir eles e ser a causa da sua maior tristeza quando, além de ser condenado, você deverá suportar ser atormentado para todo o sempre por sua própria criança ? Completa loucura! Você deve impedir sua criança de usar maquiagem e vestimenta imodesta a qualquer custo! Você só pode esperar se salvar do inferno se você fizer tudo em seu poder para prevenir suas crianças de irem lá. Você está ? Se elas recusarem te obedecer expulsem elas! Se elas são jovens, porque então não te obedecem ? Há um perfeito motivo pelo qual a sagrada escritura manda castigar na educação de nossas crianças!

"Quem ama o próprio filho, castiga-o com frequência, para no fim se alegrar....Dá muito mimo a teu filho, e ele far-te-á surpresas desagradáveis; segue os seus caprichos, e ele te entristecerá. Não rias com ele, e com ele também não irás chorar, para que não acabes rangendo os dentes. Não lhe dês liberdade na juventude, nem feches os olhos aos seus defeitos. Obriga-o a curvar o pescoço enquanto é jovem, e bate-lhe nas costas enquanto é menino, para que não cresça teimoso, não te desobedeça e não te cause muito sofrimento. Corrige o teu filho e torna-o responsável, para que não te desonre com a sua insolência." (Eclesiástico 30:1-13)

Não seja enganado pelo mundo. Você não peca de forma alguma ante Deus se você castiga seus filhos na educação da retidão. O mundo, ou em verdade, Satanás, que comanda esse mundo, tem feito leis que dizem que a punição de crianças é errado. Essa é uma das muitas razões que ele tem obtido êxito em alcançar a ruína da humanidade! Lembre que crianças rebeldes e sem Deus foram uma das profecias do fim dos tempos que a Bíblia mencionou. (2 Timóteo 3:1-5)

Quarto, há o abominável e mortal pecado de blasfêmia o qual é proferido em quase todo show de TV, mesmo indo tão longe a ponto de trocar o nome de Deus, Jesus ou Cristo por profanidades. Há algumas centenas de anos atrás as pessoas teriam ficado horrorizadas de cometer esse pecado já que desde então era punido por execução. Mas agora as pessoas cometem esse pecado constantemente e sem medo, sem ninguém levantar uma sobrancelha. Ainda, quando a morte chega, todos os blasfemadores irão abrir seus olhos e descobrir que estão num mar de fogo para queimar e ser atormentado por toda eternidade. Se você assiste coisas que contém blasfêmia, o que seria quase todos filmes ou show nessa época, então você está literalmente doente e vil e o Inferno será longo para você a menos que se arrependa imediatamente e resolva nunca fazer isso novamente. A morte irá vir e agarrar você queira você goste ou não.

Quinto, tem a aceitação universal de falsas religiões, mágica e ocultismo que era corretamente punível por morte mais cedo em nossa história mas que agora é norma na mídia. Você verá o horrível pecado de mágica e ocultismo em quase todo tipo de show de TV; por exemplo, em desenhos animados é quase 'sempre' a norma; é também uma frequente ocorrência em outros shows transmitidos para o público geral como Buffy, a caçadora de vampiros, Charmed (As Feiticeiras em Portugal e Jovens Bruxas no Brasil), Sabrina, a bruxa adolescente (Bruxinha Adolescente em Portugal, A Aprendiz de Feiticeira no Brasil), etc.! Muitas comédias famosas estão também fazendo essa sujeira maligna parecer divertido e aceitável. Mas novamente, a norma dos shows de comediante é fazer graça de coisas que são abomináveis e pecaminosas. Uma pessoa não pode assistir shows de comédia sem ser culpada de pecado grave, pois como pode uma pessoa regozijar-se e rir sobre coisas que desagradam Deus?

Apenas para mostrá-lo quão longe o pecado de idolatria, mágica, nova era e ocultismo tem chegado na mídia, o seguinte será apresentado sobre o maior filme de enorme sucesso, Avatar.

Este artigo vai provar que uma pessoa assistindo mídia será forçada a acreditar ou desacreditar com um número de eventos que desdobram-se por toda linha de história e, toda vez que uma pessoa concorda com ou falha em discordar com aquilo que é contra Deus, ela de fato comete um pecado grave. Isso é o que faz o assistir de mídia tão mortal. As pessoas hoje em dia não penetram a severidade desse crime mas ele é facilmente entendível como sendo um mais maligno crime quando se percebe que Deus irá julgar cada nosso pensamento como obra.

"O Avatar, de James Cameron, é um filme aonde prestar veneração a uma árvore e comunicar com espíritos é não apenas aceitável; são atraentes. Avatar é também marcadamente panteísta e essencialmente o evangelho segundo James Cameron. Esse tema panteísta que iguala Deus com as forças e leis do universo é externamente pintado pelos heróis e heroína no filme, os quais todos idolatram Eywa, a Deusa "Toda Mãe", que é descrita como "uma rede de energia" que "flui através de todas as coisas vivas."

De ponta a ponta, o filme esta disseminado com mágica ritualística, comunhão com espíritos, xamanismo, e idolatria ostensiva enquanto ele condiciona as audiências a acreditar nessas mentiras pagãs ocultas. Além do que, o público é levado a simpatizar com o Avatar e termina puxando-o enquanto ele é iniciado em rituais pagãos. Até a cientista líder se torna pagã no final, proclamando que ela está "com Eywa, ela é real," e vai ficar com ela após sua morte."

As pessoas hoje em dia não sondam a severidade desse crime de mágica, idolatria e paganismo mas é facilmente entendível como sendo um maior crime quando se percebe que magos e ocultistas estão em comunhão com o demônio quando eles fazem seus rituais mágicos ou oferendas, seja isto prestando culto a uma arvore, pedra ou algo feito por mãos humanas. Nós estamos constantemente sendo bombardeados através da mídia para aceitar magia, paganismo, espiritualismo, ocultistas, etc., em outras palavras, religiões falsas, o que claramente mostra que Satanás está envolvido aqui.

Salmos 95:5- "Porque os deuses dos pagãos, sejam quais forem, não passam de ídolos. Mas foi o Senhor quem criou os céus"

1 Coríntios 10:20- "As coisas que os pagãos sacrificam, sacrificam-nas a demônios e não a Deus. E eu não quero que tenhais comunhão com os demônios."

Se alguém fosse fazer um show que apresentasse a perversão infantil da pedofilia como uma coisa boa e normal para se fazer todo mundo iria ser chocado, mas agora a mídia mundana apresenta a comunhão com demônios como algo bom e permissível e ninguém levanta uma sobrancelha. Assistir tal corrupção é mortalmente pecaminoso e o seu tormento no inferno será eterno se você assistir tais coisas ou permitir que crianças assistam tais coisas.

Sexto, há o mais maligno pecado da ganância e amor de possessões o qual é mostrado universalmente na TV como algo bom e louvável para se seguir. Você irá ver as mais extravagantes demonstrações de excessos mundanos! Isso é abominável primeiro já que todo tipo de excesso é uma afronta contra as muitas pessoas pobres que não têm dinheiro suficiente para sequer alimentarem a si mesmas e segundamente já que ele tenta as pessoas a procurarem essas fúteis e desnecessárias coisas como carros caros, casas, e colares de ouro, etc... ao invés de estarem contentes com comida, roupa e abrigo como o Apóstolo nos diz para ser. Se Deus julga mesmo cada pensamento que você vai ter, quão muito mais não irá ele julgar obras, o que é o que assistir mídia pagã é!

Deveria também ser entendido que a mídia dá a pessoa que a assiste uma experiência tipo droga, uma experiência falsa e uma chama impiedosa. O mais perigoso efeito da mídia é o estado sonhador em que ela coloca a pessoa. Depois de assistir algo mundano que faz uma impressão, isso é o que vai ocupar sua mente e seus sentimentos pela maior parte do dia ou mesmo semanas por vir. No filme de grande sucesso Avatar, essa demonstração pode ser vista mais claramente. Um artigo de notícias publicado no Economic Times lê como segue:

'Avatar' nos conduzindo ao suicídio, dizem fãs

LOS ANGELES: 'Avatar' pode ter encantado os públicos mundiais com suas fantasias de um mundo alien utópico, mas frequentadores de cinema têm reclamado de depressão e mesmo pensamentos suicidas depois de assistir o hit de ficção científica.

Fãs da obra prima 3D de James Cameron estão aparentemente achando difícil separar fato de ficção e fóruns na Internet tem sido inundados com postagens de frequentadores de cinema contaminados de pensamentos suicidas sobre não ser possível visitar o planeta Pandora, reportou a CNN online. O fã-site norte americano 'Avatar Forums' tem recebido 2.000 postagens sob um tópico intitulado 'Jeitos de lidar com a depressão sobre o sonho de Pandora ser inatingível'.

O administrador do fórum Philippe Baghdassarian disse, "O filme foi tão belo e ele mostrou algo que nós não temos aqui na terra. Eu acho que as pessoas viram que nós poderíamos estar vivendo de um jeito completamente diferente e isso fez eles ficarem deprimidos".

Um usuário do fórum chamado 'Okoi' escreve, "Depois que eu assisti 'Avatar' na primeira vez, eu verdadeiramente senti deprimido conforme eu 'acordava' neste mundo mais uma vez."

Deveria ser entendido que essa depressão surge de uma falta de fé em Deus. O mundo pelo qual eles realmente anseiam não é um mundo de conto de fadas como pintado no filme Avatar, mas de fato o reino do Céu e a eterna visão de Deus - porque isso é onde toda a humanidade foi destinada a vir tivessem abstido de pecar e amar o mundo através de seus 5 sentidos. Ninguém pode ser feliz sem Deus, pois Deus é felicidade. Depressão surge de uma consciência culpada quando uma pessoa recusa fazer o que ela deveria para alcançar a salvação e a eterna visão de Deus. Satanás está trocando o anseio pelo Paraíso real na cabeças das pessoas pelo anseio de sonhos de conto de fadas na mídia. Entristecedor, para dizer o mínimo!

Um cristão deveria estar consumindo seu tempo em crescer a sua fé pela oração, leitura, e outros bons trabalhos, mas a maioria das pessoas ao invés fazem o contrário e desperdiçam maior parte do seu tempo em contos e fábulas inúteis, os quais ocupam suas mentes no lugar de Deus. É por isso que a mídia maligna guia incontáveis almas para a condenação eterna e tormentos do inferno. E isso é também um claro cumprimento das profecias do fim dos tempos, que disse que muitos iriam se desviar de Deus para fábulas e contos de fadas. Você é um desses que foram profetizados?

“Porque virá tempo em que os homens já não suportarão a sã doutrina da salvação. Levados pelas próprias paixões e pelo prurido de escutar novidades, ajustarão mestres para si. Apartarão os ouvidos da verdade e se atirarão às fábulas.” (2 Timóteo 4:3-4)

Essa profecia também previu a falsa teoria da evolução na qual um Cristão, naturalmente, não pode acreditar já que ela contradiz a história bíblica da criação, com a morte entrando no mundo primeiro após o pecado.

DESENHOS

O segundo maior mal depois da sexualidade e falta de modéstia em shows infantis é o constante bullying e fazer graça de personagens mais fracos e a violência em ambos revistas, shows, filmes (e vídeo games é claro). Mesmo a imprensa secular reconhece que shows infantis com frequência são mais violentos que outros programas transmitidos para o público geral! Esse artigo abaixo foi tirado do Daily Mail e claramente prova esse ponto mais além.

"Altos níveis de violência em desenhos como Scooby-Doo podem fazer as crianças mais agressivas, pesquisadores afirmaram ontem. Eles descobriram que shows animados visados para jovens muitas vezes têm mais brutalidade que programas transmitidos para públicos gerais. E eles disseram que crianças copiaram e se identificaram com personagens fantasiosos tanto quanto eles iriam com atores da tela.

O estudo também descobriu que jovens tendem a imitar o comportamento negativo que eles viram na TV como espalhar boatos, tagarelice e o "deslizar olhos pra cima". Os psicólogos dos E.U.A. questionaram 95 garotas de idades 10 e 11 sobre seus shows de TV favoritos, avaliando eles por conteúdo violento e verbal e agressão indireta. Os shows incluíam Lost, Buffy a Caçadora de Vampiros, American Idol, Scooby Doo e Pokemon.

Os pesquisadores descobriram que essa produção direcionada a crianças tão novas quanto 7 anos, o que incluía um número de desenhos, tinha os maiores níveis de violência. Eles registraram 26 atos de agressão a hora comparado com apenas 5 em shows direcionados ao público em geral e 9 em programas considerados inadequados para menores de 14 anos. 'Resultados indicaram que existem níveis maiores de agressão física em programas de crianças que em programas para o público geral,' o estudo disse."

A seguinte história foi tirada de um jornal Chinês provando mais a fundo o ponto de como bullying, rebeldia, desobediência, etc., é ensinado para crianças através de anime/desenhos/revistas.

Educadores Preocupam Sobre Influência de Desenhos em Crianças

"Como muitos de 8 anos de idade, os heróis favoritos de Liu Yimin não são grandes cientistas ou o time nacional de futebol ou ícones populares chineses como Lei Feng. (De acordo com a norma mundana, uma pessoa deve idolatrar fracos seres humanos.)

Seus heróis são dois personagens animados japoneses que afrontam seus pais e professores. Educadores locais estão preocupados e dizem que alguns dos personagens podem ser uma má influência nos jovens.

Xin San, um arrogante aluno do jardim de infância, faz bullying com os fracos, luta com os fortes e constantemente tem avidez por mulheres - muitas mulheres.

"Eu acho que o conteúdo destes shows é muito maduro para crianças," disse Zhang Jinlian, diretora do Centro de Orientação Psicológica para Crianças e Jovens Xangai. Ela disse que muitos estudantes gostam de imitar as ações desses meninos do desenho, causando problemas na sala de aula e em casa. Zhang gostaria de ver medidas tomadas para prevenir crianças de lerem livros e assistirem vídeos e VCDs sobre Xin San, mas o menino desenho é simplesmente popular demais para ser evitado.

Mas as crianças de hoje não querem ser instruídas, elas querem desenhos inovativos com personagens que são rebeldes, Xu chama a atenção. Vendas de livros e VCDs das duas séries de desenhos mais níveis de audiência do "Chibi Maruko Chan" na TV Xangai provam que rebelião é muito popular com os jovens locais.

Infelizmente, crianças estão pegando essas atitudes rebeldes. Zhang disse que muitas crianças agora intimidam seus pais a comprar pra elas um novo brinquedo - um truque que elas pegaram de Chibi Maruko Chan (sem dúvida eles fazem bullying nos seus colegas de classe mais fracos como eles têm sido ensinados). Até pior, ela disse, alguns meninos jovens olham luxuriosamente para suas colegas de classe meninas."

A um tempo atrás, quando a Igreja Católica tinha um grande impacto na moralidade na sociedade Cristã, as pessoas admiravam e adoravam nosso divino salvador Jesus Cristo, a abençoada Virgem Maria e a fama e virtudes dos Santos. Toda criança Católica tinha um Santo padroeiro de sua escolha para admirar e seguir. Que melhores exemplos em virtudes e boas maneiras lá podem possivelmente existir?

Satanás tem de fato trocado uma adoração de Deus por homem através da mídia. É por isso que as crianças hoje admiram atores, artistas, heróis ou personagens essencialmente achados na mídia. Que criança hoje não gostaria de ser como o Super Homem, Homem Aranha ou qualquer outro Super Herói que é mostrado na mídia como invencível, adorado e amado por todos ? Porque estão ambos adultos e crianças hoje em dia tão orgulhosos e violentos, desafetuosos, desobedientes, concupiscentes e arrogantes, etc., se não porque nós através da mídia temos sido condicionados a agir e a comportar nessa forma? Com o diabo como um exemplo através de seus atores libertinos e personagens animados, isso sempre vai terminar mal.

Com santos exemplos como os do próprio nosso Salvador e dos Santos, virtudes como humildade, paciência, caridade e amor florescem e são encontradas. Portanto, aprenda a educar suas crianças no conhecimento de Cristo e seus Santos, dê a eles livros Católicos sobre Santos para que eles possam aprender sobre virtudes e bons filmes Católicos sobre os Santos. Você pode achar muitos livros Católicos diferentes de Santos nesse site abaixo, e mais é adicionado com frequência!

http://www.igreja-catolica.com

Você não pode permitir suas crianças assistirem nada a menos que você esteja 100% certo que o filme, show ou áudio que eles estão vendo tenha nada dentro dele que seja contra a lei de Deus. A menos que você mantenha esse padrão, você irá ter suas crianças atormentando você por toda a eternidade no inferno já que você permitiu influências malignas e pecados repercutirem neles numa idade precoce. Você é responsável pelo bem estar espiritual deles enquanto eles morarem sob o seu teto. Isso, é claro, deveria fazer cada pai ficar muito nervoso. Pois se você tivesse um tigre vivo e de verdade no seu quarto você jamais iria permitir sua criança lá dentro, já que o animal poderia matá-las e come-las. A TV ou mídia é muito mais perigosa que um tigre jamais será já que ela mata a alma imortal de sua criança preciosa! Ainda assim, a maioria das pessoas permite suas crianças assistirem TV sem nenhuma supervisão. Se você diz que você não pode supervisionar a atenção deles na mídia, então jogue fora a TV e outros dispositivos que eles usam para acessar coisas pecaminosas ou se prepare para sofrer as eternas consequências no fogo do Inferno por suas ações!

Agora uma mais profunda examinação será feita nos diferentes tipos de programas que são apresentados através da mídia.

Agora, você pode perguntar: "Então você está proibindo toda mídia como errado e pecaminoso de assistir?" A resposta é não. Nem toda mídia é ruim, mas quase tudo na televisão é, porém. Você pode ter que assistir menos ao que a caixa tem a oferecer para você. Existem por exemplo numerosos grandes filmes religiosos e séries, o que é totalmente aceitável e bom para o espírito assistir (mesmo embora, em muitos filmes, especialmente mais novos, lá irá ter cenas imodestas ou cenas de impureza. Um Cristão não deve olhar para filmes ou séries os quais eles sabem tem cenas ruins que podem tentá-los). Filmes religiosos são os melhores visto que eles dirigem sua mente rumo as coisas espirituais e Deus, o que não pode ser dito de filmes mundanos. Quando eu estou falando sobre filmes Religiosos eu não estou me referindo a esses filmes mundanos disfarçados de filmes religiosos, o que na verdade tem absolutamente nada a fazer sobre espiritualidade mas na verdade sobre o mundo; por exemplo, histórias sobre um homem apaixonando-se por uma mulher ou uma mulher apaixonando-se por um homem, ou outros motivos mundanos com piadas, muita conversa fútil, etc. Isso é disparate total e absoluto e serve em nada mesmo pra edificação da alma, mente ou corpo e deveria ser totalmente evitado como o lixo que isso realmente é!

A maior parte dos documentários por exemplo, (a respeito dos documentários que você assiste) podem ser assistidos mesmo se a maior parte deles não é boa ou edificante para a alma. Documentários sobre profecias, fim dos tempos ou dia do juízo final, são aceitáveis já que eles atraem sua mente para o fim, morte e julgamento vindouro. Documentários sobre animais, natureza, espaço, etc. são em si mesmos não ruins ou pecaminosos ou contrário a Deus e podem ser assistidos. No entanto, eles irão muitas vezes ser o começo de grande mal e pecado. Qualquer coisa que você assiste ou escuta sempre é um perigo se você ficar muito apegado a isso ou permitir tempo demais para ser gasto nisso todo dia. Como uma regra, se você não for capaz de permanecer um único dia sem mídia visual e auditiva (televisão e música), isso é um claro sinal que você está viciado em mídia. Então se você deve assistir algo e se você não pode se abster, você precisa aprender a assistir programas que não são contra Deus ou as morais Cristãs. Mas, ainda o perigo de assistir estes são os mesmo que os outros shows ruins já que eles irão direcionar sua mente para coisas mundanas, mas ao menos ela direciona sua mente para a criação de Deus que alguém pode contemplar e dali tirar frutos, o que não pode ser dito de fábulas e contos de fadas, filmes pró-evolução e anti-Deus.

Pessoas, entretanto, que sempre priorizam atividades mundanas antes das espirituais irão mais certamente perder suas almas. Uma pessoa deve ser capaz de fazer uma resolução para deixar atividades mundanas por horas diárias e oferecer essas horas para Deus em solidão ao rezar e ler suas palavras. Muitas pessoas têm tempo, mas elas gastam ele de maneira ruim e escolhem assistir mídia ou fazendo outras infrutíferas obras de condenação.

Você seria um Santo se você tivesse o mesmo desejo e ânsia por Deus como você têm por coisas mundanas. Você só pode receber um desejo, amor e ânsia por Deus como você tem pelas coisas mundanas quando Ele é quem você deseja e esforça-se por obter sobre todas as outras coisas. Isso não vai acontecer enquanto você estiver demasiadamente apegado a coisas mundanas. Você também deve ser capaz - ou no mínimo ter um desejo de ser capaz - de chegar ao ponto onde você quer desistir de assistir mídia completamente. Pois se uma pessoa nem mesmo deseja a melhor parte, como então pode ela crescer? Deus é a mais boa e melhor parte!

Todos os filmes e séries que levam sua mente em direção a fantasias e fábulas assim como Senhor dos Anéis, Heroes, Smallville, Avatar, etc, mesmo se nós fossemos dizer, para efeito de causa, que eles tem nada neles contra Deus (o que não é verdade), deveriam ainda ser evitados, já que eles dirigem nossas mentes de Deus, do mundo natural em que nós vivemos, para fantasias e todo tipo de pensamentos referentes a isso. Essa é a principal causa para isso ser tão perigoso e a mesma razão porque tantas muitas pessoas assistindo esses shows têm desejos não realísticos insaudáveis ou depressões. Porque uma pessoa que passa muito tempo em achar Deus, vai evidentemente sonhar e almejar muito por Deus e chegar perto d’Ele. Em contraste, Uma pessoa que gasta muito tempo no mundo está longe de Deus e morto diante de Deus!

Agora você pode perguntar: "Posso eu então assistir outros filmes mundanos ou séries se a história é fixada em coisas realísticas ou a criação de Deus?" A resposta para essa pergunta é que depende de que filme ou show você quer assistir. Eu diria que uma pessoa pode assistir filmes e séries sobre o fim do mundo, o pós-vida e o paranormal, etc, desde que leve sua mente em direção ao julgamento e a morte vindoura do corpo, o que é uma coisa boa. Disso pode ser entendido que isto depende de que fruto pode ser retirado daquilo pra começar. "E toda a árvore que não der bom fruto será cortada e lançada ao fogo.” (Lucas 3:9)

Você irá sem nenhuma dúvida produzir fruto ruim se você gastar muito tempo em coisas ruins. Assim, se o filme ou show é sobre coisas vãs e mundanas, então uma pessoa não deveria assistir tais shows já que o fruto dela é vazio e vão. Esse ponto pode ser ademais provado pelas sagradas escrituras.

"Cuidado para que ninguém vos escravize através de filosofias enganosas e vãs, de acordo com tradições humanas, que se baseiam nos elementos do mundo, e não em Cristo." (Colossenses 2:8)

Isso em boa parte exclui todos os filmes, shows e séries (séries anime e vídeo games também) que já foi alguma vez feito no mundo inteiro.

Noticiário em si mesmo não é maligno ou contrário a Deus ou as morais, mas a maior parte dos jornais hoje tem imagens totalmente inaceitáveis, o que fazem eles extremamente inadequados para ler. Ler jornais que você sabe que irão conter muitas fotos sexuais, impuras e impudicas e histórias inúteis sobre sexo, etc, é idiotice completa e irá levar a pecados da carne se você não conseguir guardar a si mesmo. For example, I have gone to numerous mainstream news websites just to read news, and it has become so bad that I never go to them unless I first have all the images blocked. (Ad block Plus extension for Firefox or Google Chrome webbrowser is also a good tool to get rid of all ads, immoral or otherwise.) Nós aconselhamos você a nunca assistir noticiários na televisão ou semelhante já que ele é tão preenchido com pecados que é quase impossível assistir sem ver coisas que irão prejudicar sua virtude como imodéstia, maquiagem, blasfêmia, tripudiação, luxúria, adultério etc... continuando na infinidade. Entretanto, assistir notícias diárias é dificilmente necessário e São Afonso claramente repreende as pessoas por isso em seu mais excelente trabalho, A Verdadeira Esposa de Cristo:

"São Doroteu diz: "cuidado com o muito falatório, pois ele bane da alma pensamentos santos e lembrança de Deus." Falando de religiosos que não conseguem abster de indagação sobre novidades mundanas, São José Calasanctius disse: "O religioso curioso mostra que ele esqueceu a sim mesmo." É certo que aquele que fala demais com homens conversa, porém, pouco com Deus, pois o Senhor diz: Eu conduzi-la-ei ao deserto e falar-lhe-ei ao coração. Se, então, a alma deseja que Deus fale ao seu coração ela deve buscar solidão; mas essa solidão nunca irá ser achada por religiosos que não amam silêncio. "Se," disse a Venerável Margarida da Cruz, "nós permanecemos em silêncio, nós iremos achar solidão." E como irá sequer o Senhor condescender falar aos religiosos que, ao buscar a conversa das criaturas, mostra que a conversação de Deus não é suficiente para fazê-la feliz? Por esta razão, para uma freira que se regozija-se em receber visitas e cartas, em ler os jornais e em falar frequentemente das coisas do mundo, é impossível ser uma boa religiosa. Toda vez que ela desnecessariamente mantém comunicação com seculares, ela vai sofrer uma diminuição de fervor."

Você pode perguntar: "Não poderia esse jeito de ver mídia ser então aplicado a todos os shows?" A resposta é não! A maior parte de shows são ruins em si mesmos caso ou não você fixe seus olhos em cenas ruins. E os objetos de discussão nesses shows são com frequência a causa de isso ser pecaminoso, pois é vão, tolo ou contra Deus. Noticiário, pelo outro lado, não é a menos que você deliberadamente escolha sondar em notícias ruins ou shows, tal como notícias de celebridades ou shows de celebridade tal como 'Ídolo' e os similares, os quais são mortalmente pecaminosos e completamente e absoluta tolice assistir e regozijar-se em. Porque isso é criação de ídolos a partir de seres humanos fracos. É verdadeiramente enjoativo de se contemplar como as pessoas idolatram a fama mundana juntamente com seres humanos fracos e pecaminosos!

Nós não iremos fazer muita menção de filmes ou shows como Prison Break, Heroes, 24, Matrix, Exterminador, 300, X-Men, Transformers, Homem-Aranha e semelhantes, etc. Pois não deveria haver necessidade de explicação sobre esses shows. Eles são todos contra Deus, eles são todos baseados em quebrar os mandamentos de Deus e fazer mal ou violência, ou apreciando outros fazendo mal ou violência. Seja você ou o mundo afirmando que é sobre bem versus mal ou não, não importa, pois esses shows em si mesmos são totalmente infrutíferos, com frequência extremamente violentos, desculpando crimes e pecados, e frequentemente compelem o espectador a concordar ou discordar com as ações dos personagens, as quais mais que com frequência são mais más ações que 'boas', se é sequer possível chama-las de boas. Toda vez que você concorda ou falha em discordar com algo que obviamente é contra Deus, você cometeu um pecado! Quando você assiste filmes ou shows por prazer que tem personagens fazendo crimes e pecados, você de fato concorda com eles por sua continua ação de assistir e seu fracasso em renunciar isto da exata mesma forma que um político que está falando contra o aborto seria um pró-abortista quando continuamente votando para permitir aborto. Assim, você está de fato em favor do mal por não denunciar e renunciar completamente!

Pergunte a si mesmo, é próprio para uma criança de Deus tirar prazer em tais bobagens ? Iria Deus aprovar esses shows ruins ? Assistir shows assim irá apenas servir pra agitar você em direção a querer assistir mais show mundanos e impiedosos. Shows com muita violência, super poderes, mágica e luta são os mais perigosos já que excitam nossa carne e corpo em uma falsa sensação ou excitação muito extraordinariamente. Uma pessoa que não separar isso de si mesma irá perder sua alma!

Existe tanta blasfêmia, adultério, luxúria, orgulho, vaidade, roupagem imodesta, idolização de seres humanos mortais, ganância, gula e pecaminosos atos e conversa entre incontáveis outros pecados na mídia de hoje que é uma verdadeira abominação e repugnante ver! Isso é de fato um verdadeiro e eterno massacre espiritual de bilhões de pessoas - o que é de longe mais horripilante e lamentável que qualquer massacre físico irá sempre ser - que nós observamos acontecendo em tempo real sem ninguém levantar uma sobrancelha! Entretanto, as gargalhadas deles irão se tornar em uma tristeza eterna depois do mesmo momento que suas mortes chegarão! Então toda palavra de zombação e blasfêmia irá ter seu tormento específico no inferno por toda eternidade por vir. Aprenda a meditar no Inferno diariamente e você não irá hesitar um segundo em renunciar assistir mídia maligna e sem-Deus!

COMO CONTROLAR SEUS OLHOS

O aprendizado e controle da sua visão será mais necessário para salvação. Você não pode enganar Deus! Toda vez que você olha intencionalmente com cobiça em seu coração para um incasto, sedutor e impróprio objeto, você tem mais seguramente cometido um pecado mortal! Por isso, toda vez que você se deparar com algo pecaminoso (ou mesmo algo lícito mas que é muito bonito) com seus olhos, você deve criar o hábito de olhar para baixo ou desviar o olhar - pois o pecado da cobiça não irá estar longe - fazer o sinal da cruz e dizer uma Ave Maria, o que é altamente recomendado e ajuda contra impurezas. Incontáveis dentre os Santos têm repreendido pessoas pelo grande erro de falhar em controlar seus olhos. São Inácio de Loyola, por exemplo, repreendeu um irmão por olhar para sua face por mais que um breve momento. Santa Brígida fez uma confissão específica para cada uma das faces que ela viu durante cada dia! Isso é verdadeira sabedoria, pois o mundo te diz para sempre observar a pessoa que está com você no rosto. Isso irá muitas vezes levar a pecados e pensamentos impuros.

COMO CONTROLAR SUA FALA

"Procura esquivar-te das conversas frívolas dos mundanos, que só contribuem para a impiedade." (II Timóteo 2:16)

Falar excessivamente de coisas mundanas e desnecessárias é também considerado murmúrios vãos e deveria ser totalmente evitado. Se você não tem nada bom para dizer referente a Deus ou a edificação da alma, então uma pessoa deve manter silêncio. Murmurações vãs irão conduzir à impiedade como afirmado acima, pois sobre aquilo que uma pessoa fala muito, daquilo ele está cheio seu coração. Se Deus não está no coração do homem, então Satanás deve ocupar aquele lugar, e você não pode servir a ambos Deus e homem!

VIDEO GAMES

Quase todo tipo de jogo que existe em nosso triste tempo tem numerosas coisas mortalmente pecaminosas nelas que as fazem impossível de jogar sem ir para o inferno. A geração mais jovem especialmente, mas também pessoas mais velhas, é tão pervertida e drogada por esses novos jogos que eles parecem viver para nada mais!

Primeiramente, existem os incontáveis jogos que tem uma pessoa indo por aí matando ou machucando outros humanos ou criaturas por diversão; por exemplo, Counter-Strike, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Starcraft, Modern Warfare, Gears of Wars, Tekken, etc. Jogar tal jogo é não somente doentio mas abominável. Pense nisso: jogar um jogo por diversão ou prazer que é constituído do assassinato ou dano de outro ser!

Deus solenemente declara que ele vai julgar cada pensamento nosso, quanto mais então irá ele julgar nossas ações? Quando nós em nossa mente tomamos prazer e divertimo-nos matando ou machucando outros seres, Deus toma isso como um ato na mesma exata forma como ele nos julga como assassinos se nós odiamos nosso irmão, ou, como um adúltero se nós olhamos para uma mulher com cobiça em nosso coração. O que então irá Deus julgar você ser quando você em seu coração ama coisas abomináveis?

Segundamente, há o constante perigo de ódio, ira incontrolável e orgulho em jogos quando não acontece como as pessoas gostariam que fosse, e isso é mais verdade quando jogando jogos online. Pois quando as pessoas pensam de si mesmas que elas estão boas no jogo que elas jogam, elas ficam ensoberbecidas e enganadas a pensar que essa vitória num jogo sem valor na verdade as faz alguém. Isso é verdadeiramente patético! Mas se alguém então os derrota, seu orgulho e arrogância ficam feridos, e eles ficam irritados, com raiva e irados. Quem não teve experiência disso em jogos online? Claro, essas coisas acontecem em jogos de jogador individual também, mas não é tão comum quanto. Jogos online são de longe os piores e pecaminosos de todos os jogos, já que eles não apenas afetam você, mas os outros com que você joga tão como. Você entende agora porque jogos online são os mais perigosos de todos os jogos? Você percebe agora que cada pessoa que você tem afetado pelo seu jogo irá demandar justa vingança sobre você, a menos que você apague esses pecados por penitência, arrependimento e confissão? Dar a outros um mau exemplo e ser a causa ou acumpliciado da perdição de outra pessoa é o pior de todos os pecados que alguém pode ser culpado nessa vida. Cada singular pensamento, palavra, e ação será julgado cuidadosamente e punido no momento que você morrer. Você não pode esconder da morte.

Terceiramente, existem incontáveis jogos que tentam mostrar mágica e o oculto como não apenas aceitável mas mesmo bom e louvável; por exemplo, World Of Warcraft, Diablo, Oblivion, etc. Sim nesses jogos, uma pessoa é até premiada por mágica e temas ocultos por assassinar ou machucar o oponente. Inferno eterno será o lar de todos vocês que jogam tais jogos pois eles são todos contra Deus, eles são todos baseados em quebrar os mandamentos de Deus e fazer maldade e violência, ou divertindo outros fazendo maldade e violência. Quer ou não você ou o mundo digam que é bem versus mal, ou seja isto humanos ou monstros quem você está matando ou ferindo, não muda o fato que os jogos eles mesmos são totalmente ruins e infrutíferos, com frequência extremamente violentos, e, como com filmes, com frequência compelem o jogador a tomar ações, concordar ou discordar com ocorrências, o que em termos divinos são inaceitáveis e abomináveis. Jogar esses jogos irá apenas servir para incitar você a rumo a querer jogar mais. Jogos com muita violência e luta, ou com a aptidão de pecar no orgulho por exibir-se, ou com muito uso de poderes mágicos do oculto, ou com a capacidade de alcançar fama pessoal numa terra de fantasia, ou a exibição com habilidades como com jogos online, são todos os mais perigosos já que eles servem para agitar a carne e principalmente o corpo em um falso e não santo fogo de prazer e emoção. Uma pessoa que não corta isso fora de si mesma irá de fato perder sua alma!

ESPORTES PROFFISIONAIS

Esportes profissionais podem parecer não ter nenhum pecado neles, mas incontáveis dos pecados mortais irão ser expostos quando examina-se isso cuidadosamente:

Primeiro, quase todo tipo de esportes profissionais apoia o pecado mortal dos jogos de azar, e é apenas um fato que esses times ou jogadores pegam uma porção larga dos seus salários de jogos de azar. Esportes profissionais são de fato um dos maiores, se não o maior gerador do pecado mortal dos jogos de azar que tem destruído incontáveis das famílias e levado milhões de pobres almas ao desespero, suicídio e inferno. Deste modo, aqueles que assistem esses jogos assistem pessoas que estão sendo pagas para apoiar e fazer o pecado mortal do jogo de azar existir. Divertir com a matança da alma eterna de outro ser humano é um bem claro pecado mortal.

Segundo, quase todo tipo de esporte profissional é jogado nos Domingos, o que é um claro pecado mortal já que ele é um trabalho para esses jogadores e eles pegam um salário disso. Por conseguinte, eles estão quebrando um dos Dez Mandamentos de Deus e não há desculpa para tais coisas. É um claro pecado mortal divertir-se com alguém cometendo pecado mortal.

Terceiro, como nós podemos ver pelo Livro dos Macabeus, o povo Judeu negligenciou a adoração divina a fim de comparecer a diferentes festividades esportivas na arena. Isso agora é profeticamente cumprido em muitas pessoas que chamam a si mesmas de Católicas. Pois ao invés de rezar o Rosário, leitura da palavra de Deus e brincar com e educar suas crianças em boas morais Cristãs para qual o Domingo é destinado, eles assistem jogos pecaminosos enquanto colocam suas crianças na frente de outro aparelho de TV, negligenciando seu bem estar espiritual. Muitos santos ensinam que esportes em si mesmos não são pecado, - o que é claro não é - mas quando isso torna-se muito sério e mais que um jogo divertido entre amigos, ou quando alguém tem muito deleite nisso ou faz algo muito grande daquilo que tem nenhum valor, então eles unanimemente ensinam que isso torna-se pecaminoso.

São Francisco de Sales - "Esportes, peças, festividades, etc, não são em nelas mesmas ruins, mas antes assuntos indiferentes, capazes de serem usados para bem ou mal; mas, todavia, eles são perigosos, e é ainda mais perigoso tomar grande prazer neles."

São Francisco de Sales - "Caminhar, jogos inofensivos, música, instrumental ou vocal, esportes de campo, etc., tais recreações são inteiramente lícitas que elas necessitam de nenhuma regra além daquelas da discrição comum, que mantém toda coisa interiormente dos limites adequados de tempo, lugar, e medida. Então de novo jogos de habilidade, que exercitam e fortalecem corpo ou mente, como tênis, jogo da péla, correr no ringue, xadrez e semelhantes, são neles mesmos ambos lícitos e bons. Apenas deve-se evitar excessos tanto no tempo dado para eles ou a quantidade de interesse que eles absorvem; pois se muito tempo for dado para tais coisas, elas cessam de serem uma recreação e viram uma ocupação; e tão longe de descansarem e restaurarem corpo ou mente, elas tem precisamente o efeito contrário. Depois de cinco ou seis horas gastas por causa do xadrez, a mente de uma pessoa está gasta e cansada, e muito longo um tempo dado ao tênis resulta em esgotamento físico; ou se pessoas jogarem valendo alto, elas ficam ansiosas e desarranjadas, e tais objetos não importantes não merecem tanto cuidado e pensamento. Mas, acima de tudo, acautele-se de armar seu coração sobre qualquer uma dessas coisas, pois por mais lícito que um divertimento possa ser, é errado dar o coração de alguém para ele. Não que eu não desejaria que você tomasse prazer naquilo que você está fazendo, - isso não seria recreação de outra forma, - mas eu não o teria ocupado totalmente com isso, ou tornar-se ansioso ou aficionado demais de qualquer uma dessas coisas."

Quarto, as pessoas estão gastando bilhões de dólares em algo que deveria ser um jogo de diversão. Eles têm feito que um jogo sem valor que não possui significância qualquer se tornar algo sério. Pense sobre isso. As pessoas dizem: essa ou aquela pessoa corre tal e tal rápido ou venceu esse ou aquele jogo. E as pessoas pensam sobre isso como se fosse algum tipo de conquista digna de louvor, quando isso é de fato entristecedor e abominável já que guia almas para o inferno. São pessoas adultas valorizando um jogo sem propósito ou esporte como algo que retém significância ou valor: isso é verdadeiramente patético. Elas gastam seu dinheiro e tempo nessa sujeira quando poderiam estar tentando ajudar almas que estão caindo diariamente para o fogo eterno no inferno.

“E assim o coração humano que é estorvado com inúteis, supérfluos e perigosos aderentes torna-se incapacitado para aquela determinada caminhada atrás de Deus que é a verdadeira vida de devoção. Ninguém culpa crianças por correrem atrás de borboletas porque elas são crianças, mas não é ridículo e deplorável ver homens totalmente crescidos ávidos por tais desprezíveis ninharias como as distrações mundanas nomeadas anteriormente, (ESPORTES, bolas, jogadas, festividades, desfiles), os quais são aptos pra derrubar eles fora de seu balanço e perturbar sua vida espiritual." (São Francisco de Sales, Introdução acerca da Vida Devota [Indroduction into the Devout Life]).

Quinto, a maior parte dos diferentes atletas ou jogadores estão muito imodestamente vestidos em roupas que são absolutamente abomináveis pra Deus já que elas são apertadas e revelam bastante corpo. Apenas umas poucas centenas de anos atrás, mulheres teriam sido detidas e encarceradas por vestirem as roupas que atletas ou jogadores vestem agora. Assistir qualquer jogo ou esporte que apoia ou tolera os cinco motivos mencionados acima é totalmente pecaminoso e qualquer pessoa honesta que não tem recusado a meditar sobre o inferno e que percebe que é possível que ele ou ela possa ir ao inferno irá concordar enquanto pensar sobre esse assunto de uma maneira racional e calma. Não permita sua dependência em esportes trivializar pecados mortais claros que são agidos na frente de todo mundo. Arrependa-se antes que seja muito tarde!

SOBRE MÚSICA

É apenas um fato que todos os tipos de música popular são lixo mortalmente pecaminoso que é feito pelo Diabo para o único motivo de arrastar sua alma para um eterno fogo do inferno. Haverão incontáveis sugestões impuras rumo ao pecado junto com uma rejeição de qualquer tipo de moralidade e decência. Música popular aplaude o pecado, e muitas vezes fala contra Deus e moralidade. Em resumo, contém os mesmos erros e pecados que mídia mundana têm tal como: vestimenta imodesta, adultério, blasfêmia, linguagem chula e xingamentos, ganância, fornicação, maquiagem, exultação maligna, mágica, ocultismo, aceitação de religiões falsas, criação de ídolos a partir de humanos mortais, etc... e são muitas vezes até pior. Canções populares que não aplaudem a idolatria e veneração do homem é difícil de encontrar hoje, e é mais difícil hoje de achar canções populares que não louvam e cultuam pecado e mundanidade como norma. Mas piores ainda são os vídeo clipes. Uma pessoa não pode sequer escutar a essas músicas sem pecado grave, mas quão muito mais então uma pessoa peca quando assistindo esses vídeo clipes pecaminosos com mulheres/homens semi-nus cultuando pecado e o oculto por ação e exemplo ? Isso é infelizmente o que muitas das suas crianças estão assistindo diariamente na TV que você tem dado a eles! Você deve rejeitar esse música maligna inteiramente e não aceitar que isso seja reproduzido em sua casa.

Nem toda música é ruim ou pecaminosa, você pode por exemplo escutar música religiosa, música instrumental, música clássica ou outra música alinhada com a decência e morais. Mas o mais alto bem é, claro, não escutar música nenhuma. Desistir da vontade própria é sempre o bem mais elevado.

A melhor música que alguém pode escutar é, claro, música religiosa, já que ela atrai sua mente e coração rumo nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, Maria, a alegria do Céu, etc.

A próxima melhor coisa que alguém pode escutar é música clássica e música instrumental onde nenhum canto é envolvido, pois isso não irá afetar a sua mente rumo coisas mundanas como músicas mundanas de outra maneira sempre fazem.

O pior tipo de música que alguém pode escutar é música que canta sobre afazeres mundanos. Uma pessoa que escuta muita música deveria evitar escutar músicas mundanas, caso contrário ele ou ela irá ser atraído em rumo essas coisas mundanas e afazeres sobre os quais são cantados. Também é muito necessário testar a si mesmo se você é viciado em música de qualquer jeito, mesmo música totalmente aceitável. Isso é facilmente feito ao passar alguns dias sem música para que você possa testar se alguns sintomas de afastamento tem efeito em você. Todos vícios em coisas mundanas são maléficos e têm efeito sobre a alma de um jeito prejudicial. Só porque você não vê ou entende o efeito não significa que ele não está acontecendo. Preguiça espiritual e depressão entre outras coisas são atributos comuns de um vício em mídia ou música.

Os efeitos do tipo errado de música e música seculares são muito perigosos. Existem numerosas citações provenientes do mundo secular que podem ser tragas para provar esse ponto.

"Música diretamente representa as paixões dos estados da alma - suavidade, raiva, coragem, temperança...se uma pessoa escuta o tipo errado de música ela irá virar o tipo errado de pessoa..." (Citação de Aristóteles)

Especialista do cérebro, Dr. Richard Pellegrino, declarou que música tem o estranho poder de "...desencadear uma enxurrada de emoções humanas e imagens que tem a capacidade de instantaneamente produzir mudanças muito poderosas em estados emocionais." Ele prosseguiu dizendo: "Aceite isso de um cara do cérebro. Em 25 anos de trabalho com o cérebro, eu ainda não posso afetar o estado de mente de uma pessoa do jeito que uma simples canção pode."

Dr. Alan Bloom está bem correto quando afirma que "música popular tem apenas um apelo, um apelo bárbaro, ao desejo sexual... mas desejo sexual pouco desenvolvido e não educado ... música popular dá as crianças, numa bandeja de prata, com toda a autoridade pública da indústria do entretenimento, tudo que seus pais sempre costumavam dizer a eles que teriam que esperar até eles crescerem ... pessoas jovens sabem que o rock e a música popular têm a batida da relação sexual ... Nunca houve tal forma de arte direcionada tão exclusivamente para crianças...(Todo Católico deve entender que masturbação é um claro pecado mortal!) As palavras implicitamente e explicitamente descrevem atos corporais que satisfazem desejo sexual e tratam ele como se fosse culminação apenas natural e rotineira para crianças que não têm ainda a menor imaginação de casamento ou família." (Dr. Allan Bloom, Closing of the American Mind, pp. 73-74).

Dr. Allan Bloom: "Hoje, uma proporção muito larga de pessoas jovens entre as idades de 10 e 20 vivem para música. Essa é sua paixão; nada mais os excita como isso faz; eles não conseguem levar seriamente nada estrangeiro a música. Quando eles estão no colégio e com suas famílias, eles estão ansiosos pra plugarem a si mesmos devolta em sua música. Nada cercando eles - colégio, família, igreja - tem alguma coisa a ver com seu mundo musical. Na melhor da hipóteses essa vida medíocre é neutra, mas principalmente ela é um impedimento, drenado de [conteúdo] vital..."

Dr. Paul King, diretor médico do programa adolescente no Hospital Charter Lakeside, em Memphis, TN, diz que mais que 80% dos seus pacientes adolescentes estão lá por causa da música rock. Dr. King diz, "as letras se tornam uma filosofia de vida, uma religião."

Permitir você mesmo ou sua criança a ter qualquer tipo de música como rock, pop, rap, tecno, trance, ou qualquer tipo de música que é mesmo remotamente similar a isso é mortalmente pecaminoso e realmente estúpido quando apresentado com esses fatos. Bilhões de almas estão queimando agora enquanto falamos no excruciante fogo do inferno visto que elas recusaram parar de escutar música má e pecaminosa! Você irá ter suas crianças comendo seu coração fora por toda eternidade no inferno por causa do ódio violento que eles irão ter contra você, já que você poderia ter obstruído elas em seu pecado mas se recusou a assim fazer.

SOBRE LIVROS

"Livros ruins vão abundar sobre a terra e os espíritos da escuridão irão em todo lugar espalhar relaxamento universal em tudo relativo ao serviço de Deus..." (Profecia de La Salette, 19º de setembro de 1846)

De acordo com Profecia Católica, livros ruins iriam dominar no fim, e nós podemos agora ver isso acontecendo bem na frente dos nossos olhos com o sistema escolar mundano e com livros mundanos perversos como a serie Harry Potter a qual ensina crianças que mágica e o oculto é algo bom e louvável de se fazer ou apreciar. Mágica é um pecado mortal abominável o qual foi acertadamente punido por execução quando a Fé Católica estava em controle da Europa e América do Sul. Mas agora, "Católicos" cegos não apenas dizem as suas crianças que ser um mago ou um ocultista é bom, eles também compram esses livros para as crianças deles. Pense sobre isso: Se alguém fizesse um jogo sobre como fazer contato com demônios e ainda por cima vendesse isso para suas crianças jogarem nas lojas, então todo Cristão ficaria horrorizado, pois todo Cristão sabe que fazer contato com espíritos demoníacos é possível. Ainda assim, muitos pais deixam suas crianças lerem sujeiras ou assistir filmes que retratam mágica e canalização com espíritos demoníacos como normal e bom.

Acredite ou não, o exemplo usado tem agora de fato virado uma realidade por causa de pais como você mesmo, que dizem que mau é bom e bom é mau. Satanás não tem limite, ele iria fazer ainda pior se o mundo ou Deus fossem permiti-lo. Tristemente, conforme o tempo passa entretanto, coisas piores irão se tornar uma norma.

Tabuleiro Ouija um controverso brinquedo para os pequenos

A Toys R Us está vendendo tabuleiros Ouija, promovendo eles como aceitáveis para crianças tão novas como oito anos de idade.

A edição rosa do tabuleiro Ouija está listada para meninas de oito anos de idade e acima enquanto a versão regular é designada para todas as crianças de 8 e acima. Stephen Phelan, gerente de comunicações da Human Life International, verificou o website e relata que as descobertas são perturbadoras.

"É simplesmente preocupante que essas coisas são tratadas tão casualmente como qualquer outro jogo, como Banco Imobiliário ou qualquer outro neste site da Toys R Us -- e eu acho que é algo do qual os Cristãos deveriam estar cientes e realmente não apoiar," ele afirma.

"Se você for para a seção de comentários no [web]site da Toys R Us, você irá ler comentários de pessoas que falam sobre estarem obcecadas com ele, falam sobre perder escola por isso, falam sobre os espíritos com que eles falaram do outro lado e quão de dar arrepios isso foi," Phelan descreve.

O gerente de comunicações acrescenta que os grupos primeiros que negam os males do tabuleiro Ouija são aqueles que negam o mundo dos espíritos completamente. Ele prossegue dizendo que os Cristãos tem um mandato bíblico.

"Nós deveríamos lidar com a verdade apenas," ele nota. "Nós deveríamos ter nada a fazer com espíritos das trevas. Nós não deveríamos intrometer em nada que iria comprometer nossas almas, e é isso exatamente o que aquilo faz." O fabricante do produto é a Hasbro.

O Senhor do Anéis é outra série de livros famosos que apresenta mágica, ocultismo, conto de fadas e fábulas como algo bom e louvável mas é na realidade apenas outra abominação diante do Senhor. Tristemente, muitos "Católicos" se recusam a aceitar esses fatos e ainda acreditam que Senhor dos Anéis é bom ou mesmo Católico. Você pode enganar a si mesmo, mas você não pode enganar Deus!

"Porque virá tempo em que os homens já não suportarão a sã doutrina da salvação. Levados pelas próprias paixões e pelo prurido de escutar novidades, ajustarão mestres para si. Apartarão os ouvidos da verdade e se atirarão às fábulas." (2 Timóteo 4:3-4)

S.ta Teresa até confessou que ler livros que em si mesmos não eram ruins, era ainda o começo de grande dano e tepidez de sua parte. O que então deve alguém dizer sobre mídia perversa, vídeo games perversos e livros pecaminosos nauseabundos? Uma pessoa não pode fazer essas coisas sem se tornar completamente tépida e fria no serviço de Deus exatamente como isso também aconteceu com a gloriosa S.ta Teresa, pois aqueles que sempre buscam coisas mundanas estão de fato diminuindo no fervor de Deus!

A citação seguinte provando mais além esse ponto foi tirada da Vida de Santa Teresa- "O que eu devo agora falar sobre foi, eu acredito, o começo de grande mal para mim. Eu contraí um hábito de ler livros; e essa pequena omissão que eu observei foi o começo de tepidez nos meus bons desejos e a ocasião de meu afastamento em outros aspectos. Eu pensei não haver nenhum dano nisso quando eu desperdiçava muitas horas noite e dia em tão vã uma ocupação, mesmo quando eu guardei isso em segredo do meu pai. Tão completamente eu estava dominada por essa paixão, que eu achava que eu nunca poderia ser feliz sem um novo livro."

Isso não soa familiar? Não pensamos todos nós, como Teresa fez, que nós não podemos ser feliz sem a nossa mídia diária, nossos filmes ruins e séries, nossos ruins vídeo games e livros? Se o efeito nessa Santa foi o começo de um grande dano, o que então isso irá ser pra você quando o que você faz em comparação com ela é infinitamente mais prejudicial e perigoso para sua alma? Quão completamente estúpido e insensato não é gastar-se tempo lendo livros nocivos mundanos, quando pode-se gastar tempo lendo bons livros Católicos sobre virtude que iriam edificar alma, mente e corpo? Você vai achar inumeráveis livros Católicos bons se você apenas procurar por eles, um bom local para começar é aqui: http://www.igreja-catolica.com

"Para uma vida espiritual, a leitura de livros santos é talvez não menos proveitoso que oração mental. São Bernardo diz que a leitura nos instrui ao mesmo tempo na oração e na prática da virtude. Por esta razão ele concluiu que a leitura espiritual e oração são as armas pelas quais o inferno é vencido e paraíso ganho..." São Afonso

Queime todo livro, filme ou álbum musical imediatamente que pode ser considerado ser pecaminoso e arrependa-se, faça penitência e confesse desse mal. Assim como você jogaria fora veneno para que ele não possa ser capaz de machucar você mesmo ou sua criança, faça o mesmo aqui. Pense sobre agradar Deus primeiro e não você mesmo ou sua criança. A vida é muito curta e o Inferno é muito longo e doloroso para se recusar a seguir a lei de Deus.

HOME-SCHOOLING (ENSINO EM CASA)

Pelo amor de Deus, mantenha suas crianças longe de escolas públicas, (se essa opção está disponível para você) a da companhia de outros homens maus. Você deve fazer tudo em seu poder para impedir o sistema escolar mundano de doutrinar suas crianças, indo até tão longe como se mudar de seu país se seu país força escolas públicas nas crianças. A responsabilidade de uma alma eterna que é maior que o universo não deve ser tratada de ânimo leve. Se você pode ensinar em casa suas crianças mas não faz isso, então você realmente não se importa pelo bem estar espiritual de suas crianças. Como pode um pai Católico com boa consciência deixar suas crianças irem para o colégio público aonde ele sabe que eles irão ser expostos a más influências por outras crianças e sofrerão lavagem cerebral por ensinamentos como evolucionismo e educação sexual ? A maioria das coisas que nós aprendemos na escola são supérfluas de qualquer jeito e nunca serão necessárias. Nós somos bombardeados com ensinamentos desnecessários que irão ocupar muito do nosso tempo. Isso irá levar almas a esquecerem Deus e o bem estar espiritual deles próprios! O sistema escolar antes era muito diferente de hoje, pois tempo atrás maioria dos estados era Cristão, e Deus e a Bíblia não eram banidos da escola.

Você irá permitir suas crianças irem para colégio público e sair com amigos mundanos ou sem-Deus? Então tristemente, você irá de fato perder eles para o mundo! Deus não nos diz para ficar tanto em guarda contra demônios como com homens (Mateus 10:17), pois homens são muitas vezes mais prejudiciais para nós que os demônios são, pois demônios podem ser expelidos ao invocar os mais santos nomes de Jesus e Maria, mas o homem, por outro lado, não pode ser expelido da mesma forma. E se um homem tenta mudar a própria vida ele irá ser injuriado, desprezado e chamado miserável mais tolo, um bom para nada e homem de nenhuma educação. Muitas almas fracas tristemente se voltam para o vômito de tais e semelhantes reprovações de medo da perda do respeito humano!

SOBRE MASTURBAÇÃO

Já que tão muitos estão saindo do pecado mortal e convencendo a si mesmos que certas coisas não são pecado, nós devemos pregar contra aqueles pecados com alguma especificidade afim de que não pereçam pessoas em sua ignorância.

Masturbação é definitivamente um pecado mortal. Existem aproximadamente três lugares aonde São Paulo dá uma lista de alguns dos principais pecados mortais que excluem as pessoas do Paraíso. Essas listas não abrangem todo pecado mortal, é claro, mas alguns dos principais. Bem, sempre intrigou muitas pessoas exatamente o que está sendo referido nas seguintes passagens pelo pecado de "impureza" e "efeminação". São Paulo diz que esses pecados excluem pessoas do Paraíso. "Efeminação" refere-se a agir como um homossexual? A que "impureza" se refere?

Gálatas 5:19-21- "Ora, as obras da carne são estas: fornicação, impureza, libertinagem, idolatria, superstição, inimizades, brigas, ciúmes, ódio, ambição, discórdias, partidos, Invejas, bebedeiras, orgias e outras coisas semelhantes. Dessas coisas vos previno, como já vos preveni: os que as praticarem não herdarão o Reino de Deus!"

1 Coríntios 6:9-11- "Porventura ignorais que os injustos não terão parte no reino de Deus? Não vos iludais: os libertinos, idólatras, adúlteros, efeminados, sodomitas, os ladrões, gananciosos, beberrões, maldizentes, estelionatários, ninguém desses terá parte no reino de Deus. E alguns de vós éreis isso! Mas fostes lavados, fostes santificados, fostes justificados pelo nome do Senhor Jesus Cristo e pelo Espírito de nosso Deus."

Efésios 5:5-8- "Podeis estar certos de uma coisa: nenhuma pessoa imoral, impura ou avarenta - pois a avareza é uma idolatria - jamais terá herança no reino de Cristo e de Deus. Ninguém vos engane com argumentos vazios, porque essas coisas atraem a ira de Deus sobre os desobedientes. Não sejais seus cúmplices! Outrora éreis trevas, mas agora sois luz no Senhor. Por isso, comportai-vos como filhos da luz."

S.to Tomás de Aquino identifica masturbação como a "impureza" e "efeminação" bíblica.

S.to Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologicae, Pt. II-II, Q. 154, A. 11: "Eu respondo que, como afirmado acima (A6,9) onde quer que lá ocorra um tipo especial de deformidade pelo qual o ato venéreo é dado impróprio, há uma determinada espécie de lascívia. Isso pode ocorrer de duas formas: Primeiro, por ser contrário a razão correta, e isso é comum a todos os vícios sensuais; em segundo lugar, porque, além disso, é contrário a ordem natural do ato venéreo como próprio para a raça humana: e isso é chamado “o vício antinatural". Isso pode acontecer de várias maneiras. Primeiro, ao procurar polução, sem qualquer copulação, para motivo de prazer venéreo: isso pertence ao pecado de "impureza" que alguns chamam "efeminação". Em segundo lugar, por copulação com uma coisa de espécie inadequada, e isso é chamado "bestialidade". Em terceiro lugar, por copulação com um sexo inadequado, masculino com masculino ou feminino com feminino, como o Apóstolo declara (Romanos 1:27): e isso é chamado o "vício de sodomia". Em quarto lugar, por não observar a maneira natural de copulação, quer como meios indevidos, ou como outras maneiras monstruosas e bestiais de copulação."

Portanto, não apenas masturbação é um pecado mortal, mas um pecado mortal que está identificado em três locais diferentes nas Escrituras como um que exclui do Reino de Deus. Também é classificado por S.to Tomás como um dos pecados contra a natureza, pois ele corrompe a ordem intentada por Deus. É provavelmente por isso que é chamado "efeminação". Embora não seja o mesmo que a abominação de Sodoma, é desordenado e antinatural. Nós acreditamos que esse pecado - já que é contrário a natureza e é classificado como "efeminação" e "o vício antinatural" - é a causa de algumas pessoas serem entregues a desejos antinaturais (homossexualidade).

Portanto, pessoas que estão cometendo esse pecado precisam cessar o mal imediatamente e, quando preparado, fazer uma boa confissão. Se as pessoas estão realmente lutando nessa área, então elas não estão perto do nível espiritual aonde elas precisam estar. A graça de Deus está lá para elas; mas elas precisam rezar mais, rezar melhor, evitar as ocasiões de pecado (má mídia sendo uma delas) e exercitar suas vontades. Elas precisam rezar consistentemente o rosário de 15 décadas (isto é diariamente). Elas precisam colocar mais esforço espiritualmente e então isto não deverá ser um problema.

VAIDADE, VESTIMENTA IMODESTA, E MAQUIAGEM

Nossa Senhora de Fátima: "Os pecados do mundo são muito grandes! Os pecados que levam a maioria das almas para o inferno são os pecados da carne! Certas modas serão introduzidas que ofenderão Nosso Senhor muito. Aqueles que servem Deus não devem seguir esses costumes. A Igreja não tem modas; Nosso Senhor é sempre o mesmo. Muitos casamentos não são bons; eles não agradam Nosso Senhor e não são de Deus."

"Que o vosso adorno não seja apenas de coisas exteriores, como penteado, uso de jóias de ouro ou roupas finas, mas de qualidades internas, isto é, o ornamento inalterável de carácter suave e sereno. Isso sim é coisa preciosa diante de Deus. De facto, era assim que se enfeitavam as santas mulheres [e homens] de outrora, que punham a sua esperança em Deus. (1 Pedro 3:3-5)

A autoridade divina da palavra de Deus demanda que você sempre vista-se humildemente ao não usar roupas apertadas que mostram seus seios ou nádegas ou mostrando muita pele - o que leva a tentação - e que você também abstenha de usar qualquer tipo de maquiagem, jóias, e acessórios (exceto Rosários ou Escapulários marrons e semelhantes, que são um jeito muito bom de proteger-se contra o demônio) de modo a não dar um mau exemplo ou tentar seu próximo à luxúria carnal e pecado. Pois cada pessoa que você tentou com sua aparência imodesta irá demandar que Deus execute sua justa vingança sobre você já que você tentou-as a pensamentos luxuriosos!

Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo ensina nas revelações de Santa Brígida que todos que usam maquiagem ou vestimentas imodestas serão atormentados especialmente por cada pessoa que as viu em sua vida inteira a menos que elas corrijam antes do momento de sua morte, o que é, triste de dizer, impossível de saber quando será. Isso pode ser milhares e milhares de pessoas executando vingança em você no inferno por toda eternidade! Que horror! Isso, é claro, significa que você não pode ir e se banhar ao ar livre em público, já que isso seria ainda mais imodesto e imoral! O mundo tem de fato mudado muito nos últimos 100-200 anos; ainda, ninguém deveria pensar que poderia fazer essas coisas simplesmente porque são universalmente aceitas. Você quer ir com a maioria? Então, tristemente, Inferno espera você por toda eternidade!

“A mulher não usará roupa de homem nem o homem vestido de mulher, pois quem o fizer será abominável diante do SENHOR teu Deus." (Deut 22:5).

Mulheres não deveriam vestir ou agir como homens pois isso é uma abominação a vista de Deus. Deus criou a raça humana com dois gêneros, intentando cada a ter sua e seu próprio lugar na Criação. Homens e mulheres não devem se comportar ou se vestir de mesma maneira. Parte da beleza da raça humana é achada nas diferenças entre homem e mulher.Cada um de nós vive dentro de uma sociedade maior. Nós somos influenciados pela cultura ao nosso redor. Ainda assim sociedade e cultura com frequência ensinam-nos coisas falsas, que levam-nos para longe de Deus. A maioria das mulheres (pelo menos na sociedade e cultura Ocidental) se vestem e agem muito como homens. Elas procuram os mesmos papéis na sociedade, na família e na Igreja. Elas estão seguindo um ensinamento popular da nossa cultura hoje, que mulheres e homens devem ter as mesmas funções, e especialmente que as mulheres devem adotar papeis formalmente ocupados apenas ou principalmente por homens. Elas estão demonstrando sua aderência a esse ensinamento ao se vestirem como homens. Esse ensino da nossa cultura é contrário ao ensinamento de Cristo.

Deus quer que homens e mulheres ajam e vistam de acordo com seus gêneros e o lugar que Deus tem dado a cada um na Criação. Roupagem e penteados são expressões do pensamento, comportamento e atitude da pessoa. Mulheres não devem se comportar como homens nem ter os mesmos papéis que os homens, portanto elas não devem vestir ou arrumar-se como homens. E vice-versa.

“Não penseis que vim abolir a Lei e os Profetas. Não vim para abolir, mas para cumprir. Em verdade, eu vos digo: antes que o céu e a terra deixem de existir, nem uma só letra ou vírgula serão tiradas da Lei, sem que tudo aconteça. Portanto, quem desobedecer a um só destes mandamentos, por menor que seja, e assim ensinar os outros, será considerado o menor no Reino dos Céus. Porém, quem os praticar e ensinar será considerado grande no Reino dos Céus." (Mt 5:17-19).

O santo Padre Pio (de Pietrelcina) costumava recusar ouvir a confissão de mulheres que estavam usando calças ou roupas imodestas.

PADRE PIO SOBRE MODAS DOS DIAS MODERNOS

1 Timóteo 2:9: "Do mesmo modo, que as mulheres se ataviem com traje decoroso, com modéstia e sobriedade..."

Gálatas 5:19: "Além disso, as obras dos instintos egoístas são bem conhecidas: fornicação, impureza, libertinagem..."

Padre Pio tinha visões fortes sobre modas femininas no vestir. Quando a mania da mini-saia começou, ninguém ousava vir ao mosteiro do Padre Pio vestido de tal inapropriada maneira. Outras mulheres vinham não em mini-saias, mas em saias que eram pequenas. Padre Pio ficava muito chateado com isso também.

Padre Pio não tolerava nem saias apertadas nem curtas ou vestidos decotados. Ele também proibiu suas filhas espirituais de vestirem meias transparentes. Ele dispensava mulheres do confessionário, mesmo antes delas entrarem se ele discernisse seus vestidos como sendo inapropriados. Muitas manhãs ele levava uma pra fora após a outra - terminando por ouvir apenas algumas poucas confissões. Ele também tinha um aviso fixado na porta da igreja declarando: "Pela vontade explícita do Padre Pio, mulheres devem entrar no seu confessionário vestindo saias com pelo menos 8 polegadas (20 cm) abaixo dos joelhos. É proibido obter emprestado vestidos mais longos na igreja e vesti-los para o confessionário."

Padre Pío repreendia algumas mulheres com as palavras, "Vá e se vista." Ele as vezes adicionava: "Palhaços!" Ele não dava um passe pra ninguém, fossem elas pessoas que ele conheceu ou viu pela primeira vez, ou filhas espirituais de longa data. Em muitos casos, as saias estavam muitas polegadas abaixo dos joelhos, mas ainda não eram longas o suficiente para o Padre Pio! Meninos e homens também tinham que vestir longas calças, se eles não quisessem ser expulsos da Igreja.

Os imodestos têm um lugar especial no inferno esperando por eles, já que eles são a fonte dos mais abomináveis pecados da carne, como São Paulo nos ensina em 1 Coríntios,

"Fugi da devassidão. Em geral, todo pecado que uma pessoa venha a cometer é exterior ao seu corpo. Mas quem pratica imoralidade sexual peca contra seu próprio corpo." (1 Cor 6:18)

Isso deve é claro ser entendido no sentido de fornicação literal tanto quanto fornicação na mente, o que também é pecado mortal e danável! Você será tido como responsável por cada olho que tem te visto se você usa maquiagem ou roupas imodestas. Isso pode contabilizar até milhares e milhares de pessoas executando vingança em você no inferno por toda eternidade! Mesmo se você não usa nenhuma maquiagem ou se veste vaidosamente, Deus irá ainda julgar você para o inferno se você tomar prazer em pensamentos vãos ou ter opiniões vãs de si mesmo. Se um único pensamento pode danar uma pessoa, quão muito mais deveriam tentadores com maquiagens e roupas imodestas serem condenadas! Isso conta por todo tipo de maquiagem que uma pessoa possa usar por vaidade. Quão abominável querer ser aceito por sua aparência em vez de suas opiniões! Ó, vaidade, você deverá breve apodrecer no túmulo, mas sua alma deverá arder por todo sempre no inferno, já que você atentou em fazer seu exterior belo e, em assim fazendo, perverteu seu interior.

SOBRE PENSAMENTOS RUINS

"Eu, porém, vos digo: todo aquele que lançar um olhar de cobiça para uma mulher, já adulterou com ela em seu coração." (Mateus 5:28)

Deus solenemente declara que irá julgar cada pensamento nosso, quanto mais então irá ele julgar nossas ações? Quando nós, em nossa mente, tomamos prazer em pensamentos pecaminosos, Deus toma isso como um ato na mesma forma como ele julga nós como assassinos se nós odiamos nosso irmão, ou como um adúltero se nós olhamos para uma mulher com luxúria em nosso coração. O que, então, irá Deus julgar você ser quando você, em seu coração, ama coisas abomináveis?

Ninguém pode escapar de ter pensamentos ruins pois nós ainda não somos anjos, mas meros homens. Nós não podemos escapar desses pensamentos ruins, mas podemos negar desfrutar deles. Não fique surpreso se você tem todo tipo de pensamentos abomináveis. Muitas pessoas são não-instruídas e não entendem que isso é Satanás tentando e dando a elas esses pensamentos. Sim, muitos pensamentos ruins surgem de diversas ocasiões ruins que você tem que se inserir durante a duração do dia ou vida, mas ainda, se você não pensa sobre esses pensamentos propositadamente e ele ainda te ataca, então isso deve ser Satanás tentando você!

Toda vez que você tem pensamentos ruins contra sua própria vontade e você resiste a ele, você não cometeu nenhum pecado.

Quando você tem pensamentos ruins contra sua própria vontade, deleita-se neles um pouco e se arrepende quase imediatamente, você ainda cometeu pecado.

Se você, entretanto, propositadamente mergulha em pensamentos ruins e se diverte com eles, você cometeu sem dúvida pecado mortal! Uma demonstração mais clara disso pode ser vista nas revelações de Santa Brígida:

O Filho de Deus fala para a noiva (Santa Brígida): "Sobre o que você está preocupada e ansiosa?" Ela respondeu: "Eu sou afligida por vários pensamentos inúteis que não posso me livrar e ouvir sobre o seu julgamento terrível me perturba." O Filho respondeu: "Isso é verdadeiramente justo. Anteriormente você achou prazer em coisas mundanas contra a minha vontade, mas agora, pensamentos diferentes são permitidos virem até você contra sua vontade.

Mas tenha um temor prudente de Deus, e ponha grande confiança em mim, seu Deus, sabendo por certo que quando sua mente não toma prazer em pensamentos pecaminosos, mas esforça contra eles por detestá-los, então eles se tornam uma purgação e uma coroa para a alma. Mas se você tomar prazer em cometer mesmo um leve pecado, o qual você sabe ser pecado, e você assim o faz confiando em sua própria abstinência e presumindo a graça, sem fazer penitência e reparação por isso, saiba que isso pode tornar um pecado mortal.

Em conformidade, se algum prazer pecaminoso de qualquer tipo vier a sua mente, você deveria imediatamente pensar sobre aonde isso está dirigindo e arrepender...

...Deus não odeia nada tanto quanto quando você sabe que pecou mas não se importa, confiando em suas outras ações meritórias, como se por causa delas Deus iria aturar seu pecado, como se ele não pudesse ser glorificado sem você, ou como se ele não fosse deixar você fazer algo mau com sua permissão, vendo todas as boas ações que você têm feito, já que, mesmo se você fizesse cem boas ações por cada uma perversa, você ainda não iria ser capaz de pagar Deus de volta por sua bondade e amor. Assim, então, mantenha um medo racional de Deus e, mesmo se você não puder evitar esses pensamentos, então pelo menos tolere eles pacientemente e use sua vontade para lutar contra eles. Você não será condenado por causa deles adentrando sua cabeça, a menos que você tome prazer neles, já que não está dentro do seu poder preveni-los.

Novamente, mantenha seu temor de Deus de forma a não cair pelo orgulho, mesmo que você não consinta aos pensamentos. Qualquer um que mantém-se firme mantém-se pelo poder de Deus sozinho. Assim, o medo de Deus é como a porta de entrada para o céu. Muitos existem que tem caído precipitadamente para suas mortes porque eles abandonaram o medo de Deus e estavam, então, envergonhados de fazer uma confissão diante homens, embora eles não estivessem envergonhados de pecar diante de Deus. Portanto, eu devo recusar absolver o pecado de uma pessoa que não tem se importado o suficiente para pedir o meu perdão por um pecado pequeno. Nessa maneira, pecados são aumentados pela prática habitual, e o pecado venial, que poderia ter sido perdoado através da contrição, se torna um sério através da negligência da pessoa e desprezo, como você pode deduzir do caso dessa alma que já foi condenada...

(Revelações, livro 3, capítulo 19)

http://www.prophecyfilm.com/revelations/book3/b3_chapter19.htm

DANCETERIAS, PUBS E BAILES

"Não há um mandamento de Deus que a dança não faz os homens quebrarem! Mães podem de fato dizer: 'Ah, eu fico de olho nos vestidos delas, mas não se pode manter a guarda sobre seus corações.' Vão, vocês, pais perversos, vão para inferno abaixo aonde a ira de Deus te espera, por causa da sua conduta quando você deu livres oportunidades para suas crianças; VÁ! Não demorará muito antes que elas juntem-se a você, vendo que você as mostrou o caminho tão bem! Então você verá se o seu pastor estava certo em proibir essas distrações infernais." (O Cura De Ars, São João Maria Batista Vianney [The Curé D'Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, p. 146])

São Afonso (c. 1755): "No ano 1611, no celebrado santuário de Maria de Montevergine, aconteceu que, na vigília de Pentecostes, as pessoas que aglomeraram lá profanaram a festividade com bailes, excessos e conduta imodesta, quando um fogo foi repentinamente descoberto rompendo afora da casa de entretenimento aonde eles estavam festejando, de tal forma que em menos de uma hora e meia ela estava consumida, e mais de mil e quinhentos foram mortos. Cinco pessoas que permaneceram vivas afirmaram sob juramento que elas haviam visto a Mãe de Deus ela mesma, com duas tochas acesas, acender fogo na estalagem." (As Glórias de Maria [The Glories of Mary, p. 659].)

Por essas citações todo mundo pode ver quão malignas são danceterias. Dançar causa milhares de pensamentos tentadores e lascivos que levam incontáveis das almas perdidas ao inferno. Defender obstinadamente danças entre rapazes e garotas, ou entre homens e mulheres é absolutamente desprezível e aqueles pais que permitem suas crianças irem em tais eventos ou aqueles que, mesmo em tempos, forçam suas crianças a tais eventos, irão experimentar o tormento mais excruciante no inferno, a menos que eles reparem imediatamente. Ir a pubs que apenas vendem álcool ou que propagam jogos de azar ou outros pecados mortais é absolutamente inaceitável e pecaminoso. Esses lugares foram pregados contra fervorosamente por São João Vianney, e ele os chamou de verdadeiros buracos do inferno e a causa de incontáveis dos pecados mortais!

MANTENHA SANTIFICADO SEU DIA DE SABADO OU DOMINGO

Já que muitas pessoas que estão lendo isto não tem sido ensinadas esses conceitos por modernistas heréticos, nós devemos apontar algumas outras coisas com respeito a isso: trabalhos servis são proibidos aos Domingos; pessoas não deveriam lavar roupas no domingo; pessoas não deveriam fazer trabalhos no quintal (como cortar a grama, etc.) nos Domingos; pessoas não deveriam comprar comida nos Domingos a menos que elas estejam passando fome etc... Exceções a isto seriam trabalhos que absolutamente precisam serem feitos. Por exemplo, fazer uma fogueira na sua casa para que você possa ficar aquecido e sobreviver são trabalhos que são completamente aceitáveis. Se você é capaz de fazer sua comida para a família inteira antes do Domingo, você deveria fazer assim. Não deve se gastar o Domingo fazendo comida para a família, o que pode tomar várias horas do dia. Você pode, é claro (se você não têm nenhuma comida preparada), tomar tempo para fazer algo pequeno para você ou a família que não requer muito do seu tempo, ou pegue alguma comida que você já tem dê uma aquecida. Você não pode lenhar madeira nos Domingos e você deve restringir a si mesmo para apenas fazer coisas que são absolutamente necessárias para sobrevivência. Isso, é claro, implica algum pré-planejamento, mas ninguém deveria recusar obedecer os mandamentos divinos, já que essa ação irá indubitavelmente levar à condenação eterna. Uma pessoa obediente verá a beleza de Deus forçando homem a descansar de trabalhos físicos.

Fazer outros trabalhos desnecessários nos Domingos é completamente inaceitável a menos que você tenha fome e não tenha os meios necessários para sustentar sua família. Nos países mais ricos, indo até ao ponto de mendigar ou receber pagamentos de assistência social todo mês é de longe melhor que fazer trabalhos desnecessários no Domingo, já que isso não apenas dana você mesmo, mas também dana seu empregador. Seu empregador será de fato punido por cada pessoa que ele permitiu ou forçou (por ameaças de dispensa) trabalhar nos Domingos. Isso pode ser milhares e milhares de pessoas atacando um homem por toda eternidade! Que horror!

Se você tem esgotado todas as opções para receber uma renda, por exemplo: procurar por outro emprego ou se mudar para outro lugar, ou qualquer outra forma legítima de receber uma renda, (como receber cheques da assistência social para o apoio das necessidades para você ou sua família, enquanto isso não implique que você tenha que comprometer sua fé de qualquer forma,) então você não é obrigado a ficar longe do trabalho e pode seguramente trabalhar nos Domingos enquanto esta é sua última opção. Abaixo estão alguns exemplos de motivos aceitáveis de por que você poderia trabalhar nos Domingos.

Se você não pode continuar a fazer ensino em casa para suas crianças por exemplo, esse seria um motivo aceitável para continuar a trabalhar nos Domingos; outro exemplo seria se você tivesse que mudar para uma vizinhança ruim com muitas drogas, violência e lascívia, que iria influenciar você ou sua família de uma forma pecaminosa, ou se por deixar o seu emprego você puder ser forçado a pegar outro emprego que é pecaminoso ou imoral. Isso seria outro motivo para continuar a trabalhar nos Domingos até você ter achado outro emprego aonde você não é forçado a trabalhar nos Domingos ou forçado a colocar o bem estar espiritual de sua família em perigo.

Isso serve se o trabalho que você faz é aceitável diante de Deus. Se você peca contra Deus pelos trabalhos específicos que você faz, como vender contraceptivos, pornografia, jornais ruins com imagens imodestas ou histórias sobre sexo ou outros pecados etc, então você não pode ir para aquele trabalho mesmo se você passar fome ou não tiver os meios para apoiar a si mesmo ou sua família. Em tais casos você deve colocar sua confiança inteira em Deus. Você não pode ser a causa dos pecados mortais de seus irmãos sem você mesmo ser culpado de pecado mortal!

"Por isso Eu digo-vos: não vos preocupeis com a vida, com o que comer; nem com o corpo, com o que vestir. Pois a vida vale mais do que a comida, e o corpo mais do que o vestuário... buscai o seu Reino, e Deus dar-vos-á essas coisas em acréscimo. (Lc. 12:22-24, 27-28, 31)

Entretanto, nos países mais pobres aonde não há chance de conseguir assistência social ou renda de qualquer outra forma, é totalmente aceitável trabalhar nos Domingos, enquanto a pessoa tiver que fazer para sobreviver. Muitas pessoas não operam sob essas condições mas trabalham nos Domingos para ter mais dinheiro do que elas precisam para sobreviver. Sim, muitas pessoas tem os meios necessários para ficar longe do trabalho nos Domingos, mas apenas vão trabalhar para receber mais abundância em riquezas. Isso é um claro pecado mortal!

O seguinte exemplo nisso pode ser visto mais claramente das revelações de Santa Brígida, no livro corretamente intitulado o Livro das Perguntas [livro 5]. Ele é composto de perguntas para quais Nosso Senhor e Juiz dá maravilhosas respostas:

"Terceira pergunta. Novamente o monge apareceu em sua escada como antes dizendo: "Porque eu não deveria exaltar a mim mesmo sobre os outros vendo que eu sou rico?"

Resposta para a terceira pergunta. O Juiz respondeu: "Sobre o porque você não deve tomar orgulho em riquezas eu respondo: as riquezas do mundo apenas pertencem a você na medida que você precisa delas para comida e roupas. O mundo foi feito para isso: que o homem, tendo mantimento para seu corpo, possa através do trabalho e humildade retornar para mim, seu Deus, quem ele escarneceu em sua desobediência e negligenciou em seu orgulho. Entretanto, se você diz que os bens temporais pertencem a você, eu lhe asseguro que você esta em efeito forçosamente usurpando para você mesmo tudo o que você possui além das suas necessidades. Todos os bens temporais devem pertencer a comunidade e estarem igualmente acessíveis para os necessitados por caridade.

Você usurpa para sua própria possessão supérflua coisas que deveriam ser dadas a outros por compaixão. Entretanto, muitas pessoas possuem muito mais que outras mas em uma forma racional, e elas distribuem isso de uma forma discreta. Por isso, de forma a não ser acusado mais severamente no dia do julgamento porque você recebeu mais do que os outros, é aconselhável para você não se colocar na frente dos outros por agir arrogantemente e ajuntando posses. O quão prazeroso que é no mundo ter mais bens temporais que outros e tê-los em abundância será, da mesma forma, terrível e doloroso aquém da medida no dia do julgamento, não ter administrado de uma forma razoável mesmo bens mantidos licitamente."

http://www.prophecyfilm.com/revelations/book5/b5_interrogation7.htm

"O terceiro mandamento é que você deve ter em mente e lembrar de santificar e manter santo o seu dia de sábado ou domingo. Isso quer dizer que você não deverá fazer nenhum trabalho ou operação no dia de domingo ou dia santo, mas que você deverá descansar de todo trabalho mundano e ter a intenção de realizar, e servir a Deus seu criador, que descansou no sétimo dia dos trabalhos que ele fez nos seis dias antes, no qual ele fez e ordenou o mundo. Esse mandamento satisfaz ele que mantém em seu poder a paz de sua consciência para servir a Deus de forma mais santa. Então esse dia que os judeus chamavam de sábado é o mesmo que dizer descanso. Esse mandamento não deve nenhum homem manter espiritualmente que esteja impedido em sua consciência com um pecado mortal, tal consciência não pode estar em descanso nem em paz enquanto ele está em tal estado. No lugar do dia de sábado que foi retamente mantido na velha lei, a santa igreja tem estabelecido o domingo na nova lei. Pois Nosso Senhor levantou da morte para a vida no domingo, e por isso nós devemos manter ele santamente, e estar em descanso dos trabalhos da semana anterior, e cessar o trabalho de pecado, e intentar fazer trabalhos espirituais, e seguir Nosso Senhor suplicando ele da misericórdia e agradecer ele pelos benefícios, pois eles que quebram o domingo e outras festividades solenes que estão estabelecidas para serem santificadas pela igreja, eles pecam mortalmente, pois eles assim fazem diretamente contra o mandamento de Deus supracitado e a santa igreja, exceto se isso for por alguma necessidade que a santa igreja admite e concede. Mas eles pecam muito mais então que empregam o domingo e as festas em pecado, em luxúria, em indo para as tavernas em tempo de serviço, em glutonaria e bebendo embriagados, e em outros pecados, ultrajam contra Deus. Pois ai pela tristeza, eu penso que há mais pecado cometido no domingo e dias santos e festividades que em outros dias de trabalho. Pois então ficam eles bêbados, lutam e matam e não ficam ocupados virtuosamente no serviço de Deus como deveriam fazer. E como Deus manda-nos lembrar e ter em mente manter e santificar o dia santo, eles que assim fazem pecam mortalmente e não observam nem mantém esse terceiro mandamento." (de A Lenda Dourada ou Vidas dos Santos [The Golden Legend or the Lives of the Saints], volume 1, pg. 122-123)

Da citação acima pode ser aprendido que o homem não deveria fazer as coisas num domingo como ele faria nos outros dias. O domingo é intentado para Deus para ser mantido em santidade. Assim, se a única diferença para você nos domingos é que você mantém-se afastado do trabalho servil, e não dá nada de seu tempo para Deus, que lucro há para você?

Deus mandou pelo menos um dia de descanso, para que o homem possa descansar domingo e usá-lo para o seu bem estar espiritual, em oração, lendo e fazendo outros bons trabalhos para a alma. Você deveria então usar o domingo abstendo-se de sua própria vontade como assistir tv, jogando jogos, escutando a música ou rádio, etc, e ao invés empenhar-se em conhecer Deus em solidão, oração e meditação.

FUMO E DROGAS

Nós não sabemos se fumar em bem pequenas quantidades uma vez em cada tempo é um pecado. Mas nós acreditamos que fumar habitualmente ou regularmente é um pecado, isso definitivamente corta fora as graças das vidas das pessoas. Nós não vemos como aqueles que fumam habitualmente, por exemplo, durante o dia, seriam de qualquer forma diferentes das pessoas que comem doce o dia todo e, assim, tentam constantemente gratificar a si mesmo daquela forma. Isso não é nem ainda para entrar no assunto que nós sabemos, é horrível para a saúde e leva para a morte. Se você está fumando, você está dando um exemplo horrível para as pessoas tentando elas a começar a fumar, o que é altamente viciante e letal. Fumo é tão viciante que cientistas médicos têm comparado esse vicio ao vício da heroina. Muitas pessoas que ficam viciadas em cigarros não irão nunca ser capaz de parar e serão escravos de longa vida de um hábito sujo, mau e diminuidor de graça.

O mesmo pode ser dito de todas as substâncias viciantes que você não precisa para sobreviver, tais como: café, doces, chips, biscoitos, refrigerante, boas carnes, etc... Se você não consegue se abster dessas substâncias por sequer alguns dias, então vocês está viciado a elas e precisa a aprender a se abster delas. Bons dias para aprender a se abster dos próprios desejos são as quartas, sextas e sábados. Sextas-feiras têm sempre sido um dia de abstinência na Igreja Católica - desde que nossos irmãos sofriam e morriam naquele dia - o que significa que alguém não pode comer nada contendo carne sob a dor de pecado mortal (não há obrigação de jejum ou abstinência num dia santo de obrigação como o Natal, mesmo se ele cai numa sexta-feira). Uma pessoa deveria, é claro, também abster-se de outras substâncias supérfluas. Enquanto algumas substâncias podem parecer inofensivas, graça é altamente diminuída nas pessoas que sempre usam coisas que são supérfluas.

EXPLICANDO AS LEIS DE JEJUM E ABSTINÊNCIA, PARA DIAS DE JEJUM E ABSTINÊNCIA

Nos dias de jejum, apenas uma refeição inteira é permitida, na qual carne pode ser tomada. Duas outras refeições sem carne, que juntas são menos que uma refeição inteira, também são permitidas. Apenas líquidos podem ser ingeridos entre refeições. A lei do jejum deve ser observada por todos entre as idades de 21 e 59.

Se jejum representa um risco sério a saúde ou impede a habilidade para fazer o trabalho necessário, não é obrigado.

Existem também certos dias de abstinência.

Nos dias de abstinência completa, carne (e sopa ou molho feito de carne) não poderão ser ingeridos absolutamente.

Nos dias de abstinência parcial, carne (e sopa ou molho feitos de carne) podem ser comidos apenas uma vez. A lei de abstinência deve ser observada por todos de idade 7 e superior.

Não há obrigação de jejum ou abstinência em um dia santo de preceito, mesmo se ele cair em uma Sexta.

Jejum Eucarístico

1. Padres e fiéis antes da Missa ou Santa Comunhão - quer seja manhã, tarde, noite ou Missa do Galo - devem se abster por três horas de alimentos sólidos e bebidas alcoólicas e por uma hora de bebidas não-alcoólicas. Água não quebra o jejum.

2. Os enfermos, mesmo se não acamados, podem ingerir bebidas não-alcoólicas e o que é realmente e propriamente medicamento, seja em forma líquida ou sólida, antes da Missa ou Santa Comunhão sem qualquer limite de tempo.

Padres e fiéis que são capazes de assim fazer são exortados a observar a velha e venerável forma do Jejum Eucarístico (de alimentos e líquidos desde meia-noite). Todos aqueles que farão uso dessas concessões devem compensar pelo bem recebido se tornando exemplos reluzentes de uma vida Cristã e, principalmente, com trabalhos de penitência e caridade.

(Papa Pio XII, Sacram Communionem, 1957)

La Planificación Familiar Natural (PFN) (Espanhol)

El Placer Sexual y la Lujuria (Espanhol)

Dogmas Cristianos en los Cuales Debes de Creer para ser Salvado (Espanhol)

Natural Family Planning is Sinful Birth Control

What is Natural Family Planning?

Natural Family Planning (NFP) is the practice of deliberately restricting the marital act exclusively to those times when the wife is infertile so as to avoid the conception of a child. NFP is used for the same reasons that people use artificial contraception: to deliberately avoid the conception of a child while carrying out the marital act.

Why is NFP wrong?

NFP is wrong because it’s birth control; it’s against conception. It’s a refusal on the part of those who use it to be open to the children that God planned to send them. It’s no different in its purpose from artificial contraception, and therefore it’s a moral evil just like artificial contraception.

The Teaching of the Catholic Papal Magisterium

Pope Pius XI spoke from the Chair of Peter in his 1931 encyclical Casti Connubii on Christian marriage. His teaching shows that all forms of birth prevention are evil. We quote a long excerpt from his encyclical which sums up the issue.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of the family circumstances.

“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).

“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”²

One can see that Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful because they frustrate the marriage act. Does this condemn NFP? Yes it does, but the defenders of Natural Family Planning say “no.” They argue that in using Natural Family Planning to avoid conception they are not deliberately frustrating the marriage act or designedly depriving it of its natural power to procreate life, as is done with artificial contraceptives. They argue that NFP is “natural.”

Common sense should tell those who deeply consider this topic that these arguments are specious because NFP has as its entire purpose the avoidance of conception. However, the attempted justification for NFP – the claim that it doesn’t interfere with the marriage act itself and is therefore permissible – must be specifically refuted. This claim is specifically refuted by a careful look at the teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage and ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church on the primary purpose of marriage (and the primary purpose of the marriage act) which condemns NFP.

Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”³

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”⁴

Besides this primary purpose, there are also secondary purposes for marriage, such as mutual aid, the quieting of concupiscence, and the cultivating of mutual love. But these secondary purposes must always remain subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage (the procreation and education of children). This is the key point to remember in the discussion on NFP.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”⁵

Therefore, even though NFP doesn’t directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is wrong because practicing it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.

NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order intended by God. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; for all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate or thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.

To summarize: the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).

God’s Word

It’s not a complicated matter to understand that using Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy is wrong. It’s written on man’s heart that such activity is wrong.

Genesis 30:1-2- “And Rachel seeing herself without children, envied her sister, and said to her husband: Give me children, otherwise I shall die. And Jacob being angry with her, answered: Am I as God, who hath deprived thee of the fruit of thy womb?”

We all know that God is the One who opens the womb, the One who killeth and maketh alive.

Genesis 30:22- “The Lord also remembering Rachel, heard her, and opened her womb.”

1 Kings 2:6- “The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to Hell, and bringeth back again.”

So why would a woman who desires to fulfill the will of God make a systematic effort to avoid God sending her a new life? What excuse could such a person possibly make for going out of her way to calculate how to have marital relations without getting pregnant with the child God was going to send? Why would a woman (or a man) who believes that God opens the womb try to avoid His opening of the womb by a meticulous and organized effort, involving charts, cycles and thermometers? The answer is that those who engage in such behavior as NFP turn from God (which is the essence of sin) and refuse to be open to His will.

When a married couple goes out of their way to avoid children, by deliberately avoiding the fertile times and restricting the marriage act exclusively to infertile times, they are committing a sin against the natural law – they are sinning against the God whom they know sends life. NFP is, therefore, a sin against the natural law, since God is the author of life and NFP thwarts His designs.

People Know that NFP is a Sin

Below are a few very interesting testimonies from people who have either used NFP or were taught NFP. Their comments have been taken from “the letters to the editor” section of a publication which carried an article on NFP.⁶ (Their names were given in the original letter.) Their letters demonstrate that the women who use NFP, as well as the men who tolerate or cooperate with it, are convicted of its sinfulness by the natural law written on their hearts. Those who use NFP know that they are thwarting the will of God and practicing contraception.

“Dear Editor… I was a non-religious divorced pagan before I met my husband who was, at the time, a minimal practicing Catholic. I became Catholic in 1993 and we were married in 1994. I had no idea at that time that Catholics were allowed to do anything to prevent a child. I had never even heard of NFP until the priest we were meeting with during the six months prior to our wedding handed me a packet of papers and basically said, ‘here, you'll want to learn this.’ When I got home, I briefly thumbed through the papers. I saw calendars, stickers, and charts. To be honest, it was mind-boggling all the effort people would go through just so they could have [relations] without consequence. It was also shocking to me that this was being promoted before I even took the vows on my wedding day! I threw the packet away and have never looked back. I am thankful that I never learned NFP… I wonder which of my children wouldn't be here had I chosen to keep those papers and learn NFP?”

“Dear Editor… I am a mother to seven children and can share my own experiences. NFP did NOT bring my marriage closer. I struggled with reconciling myself to the fact that scripture states a husband and wife should be submissive and not separate unless for prayer. We were avoiding pregnancy... plain and simple. There can be nothing spiritual about telling your spouse that you can't participate in the [marital act] for fear of a child being conceived. Webster's dictionary defines contraception as: ‘deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation.’ Systematically charting and watching out for those fertile days is the deliberate prevention of conception. I know friends who use it. I've talked to them in a very personal way. They do not want any more children. They are using NFP as birth control, which it is. And one friend has been using it for 11 years and ‘hasn't had any accidents.’ … I can say that St. Augustine was right on target when he wrote in The Morals of the Manichees: ‘Marriage, as the marriage tablets themselves proclaim, joins male and female for the procreation of children. Whoever says that to procreate children is a worse sin than to copulate thereby prohibits the purpose of marriage; and he makes the woman no more a wife than a harlot, who, when she has been given certain gifts, is joined to a man to satisfy his lust. If there is a wife, there is matrimony. But there is no matrimony where motherhood is prevented, for then there is no wife.’… My favorite comment recently was made by another author comparing NFP to a farmer who plants his corn in the dead of winter so as to avoid a plentiful harvest.”

“Dear Editor… Let me put the NFP debate simply: if it is your intention to avoid having children it really doesn't matter what method you use. You've already committed the sin. If, however, you use contraception as your method of choice, you add to the first sin a second one. As to the oft-repeated mantra of ‘grave reasons,’ allow me to say this: name one. Look deep into your heart and name one that is really, truly grave… We did the NFP bit for awhile... and have felt revulsion over it ever since. During that time we might have had at least two more children.”

“To the Editor: NFP is one of the chief infiltrations of the new-age sex cult into the Church, along with sex-ed and immodest dress… As modern Catholics have been conditioned to embrace mutually contradictory ideas while defending them as consonant, they have been easily deceived by the notion that NFP, as commonly practiced, is somehow different from birth control. I have no training in moral theology, but even I know that the goal of an action determines its substance. When a couple engages in deliberately sterile relations, this is known as birth control, plain and simple.“

Planned Parenthood and NFP of the Same Cloth

Have you noticed the similarities between Planned Parenthood (the world’s largest abortion provider) and Natural Family Planning? Artificial contraceptives and abortifacients are found under store aisles marked “Family Planning.” Like abortionists, family planners consider children as something undesirable, at least temporarily; whereas the true faithful have always considered them as an undeniable blessing from God Himself, planned by His providence from all eternity. “Behold, children are the inheritance of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward… Blessed is the man whose desire is filled with them; he shall not be confounded…” (Psalm 126:3,5).

In publications promoting NFP, the fertile period of the wife is sometimes classified as “not safe” and “dangerous,” as though generating new life were considered a serious breach of national security and a little infant a treacherous criminal! This is truly abominable.

Could it be more clear that those who subscribe to this type of behavior and this method shut God and children out and replace them with their own selfish agenda?

Tobias 6:17 – “The holy youth Tobias approaches his bride Sara after three days of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity. Having been instructed by the Archangel Saint Raphael that to engage in the marital act he must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the Devil hath power.”

The word matrimony means “the office of motherhood.” Those who use NFP attempt to avoid matrimony (the office of motherhood) and shut out God from themselves.

Saint Caesar of Arles: “As often as he knows his wife without a desire for children… without a doubt he commits sin.”⁷

Errors Condemned by Pope Innocent XI: “9. The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect.”–Condemned⁸

NFP has eternal and infinite consequences

The following facts may be the most incriminating to the practice of “Natural Family Planning.”

If family planners had their way, there would have been no St. Bernadette of Lourdes, who was born from a jail flat; nor St. Therese of Lisieux, who came from a sickly mother who lost three children in a row; nor St. Ignatius Loyola, who was the thirteenth of thirteen children;⁹ and most certainly not a St. Catherine of Siena, who was the twenty-fourth child in a family of twenty- five children!¹⁰

Examples of saints who were the last of many children could probably be multiplied for pages. St. Catherine of Siena and the rest of the saints who would have been phased out of existence by NFP will rise in judgment against the NFP generation. Natural Family Planners would have been sure to inform St. Catherine’s mother that there was no need having five children (let alone twenty-five!), and that she was wasting her time going through all those pregnancies.

Only in eternity shall we know the immortal souls who have been denied a chance at Heaven because of this selfish behavior. The only thing that can foil the will of the all-powerful God is the will of His puny creatures; for He will not force offspring on anyone, just as He will not violate anyone’s free will. NFP is a crime of incalculable proportions. (Just contemplate for a second the thought: if your mom had decided not to have you.)

If family planners had their way, the appearances of Our Lady of Fatima would not have occurred, as she appeared to Lucia (the seventh of seven children), Francisco (the eighth of nine children) and Jacinta (the ninth of nine children). Family Planners, by their selfish thwarting of the will of God, would have erased from human history the entire message of Fatima, as well as the incredible miracle of the sun, the extraordinary lives of these three shepherd children, and all the graces of conversion obtained by their heroic sacrifices. How many saints, conversions and miracles have been erased by this abominable birth control practice? Only God knows.

A mother of many children, who was about to be a mother once more, came to Ars (the place where St. John Vianney resided) to seek courage from him. She said to him, “Oh, I am so advanced in years, Father!” St. John Vianney responded: “Be comforted my child; if you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it!”

1 Timothy 2:15- “Yet she shall be saved through child-bearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.”

Scripture teaches that a woman can be saved through child-bearing (if she is Catholic and in the state of grace). But NFP advocates would have us believe that a woman can be saved through child-avoiding. Moreover, just as a woman who fulfills the will of God and maintains the state of grace in the state of matrimony is saved by her childbearing, so too are countless women going to be damned for not bearing the children that God wanted them to have.

“Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice and all things will be added unto you.” (Mt. 6:33)

Objections

Objection 1) Natural Family Planning is a justifiable practice of birth control because it does nothing to obstruct the natural power of procreation.

Response: We’ve already responded to this objection above. We won’t repeat all of that here. We will simply summarize again that NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary PURPOSE of marriage and the conjugal act to other things. This makes the fact that NFP does nothing to obstruct the marriage act itself irrelevant, since the primary purpose is being frustrated.

Objection 2) Pope Pius XII taught that NFP is lawful for at least certain reasons. So you have no right to condemn it, as he was the pope.

Response: It is true that Pope Pius XII taught that Natural Family Planning is lawful for certain reasons in a series of fallible speeches in the 1950’s. However, this does not justify NFP. Pius XII’s speeches were fallible, and were therefore vulnerable to error.

In studying papal errors throughout history in preparation for its declaration of papal infallibility, the theologians at Vatican I found that over 40 popes held wrong theological views. In a notorious case of papal error, Pope John XXII held the false view that the just of the Old Testament don’t receive the Beatific Vision until after the General Judgment. Pope Honorius I, a validly elected Roman Pontiff, encouraged the heresy of monotheletism (that Our Lord Jesus Christ only had one will), for which he was later condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople. But none of these errors were taught by popes from the Chair of St. Peter, just like Pius XII’s speech to Italian midwives is not a declaration from the Chair of St. Peter.

One of the most notorious cases of papal error in Church history is the “Synod of the Corpse” of 897. This was where the dead body of Pope Formosus – who by all accounts was a holy and devoted pope – was condemned after his death by Pope Stephen VII for a number of supposed violations of canon law.¹¹ Pope Sergius III was also in favor of the judgment, while later Popes Theodore II and John IX opposed it. This should show us very clearly that not every decision, speech, opinion or judgment of a pope is infallible.

Those who think that they’re safe following something simply because it was endorsed by pre-Vatican II theologians or by Pope Pius XII in his fallible capacity are mistaken. Even though the explosion of the Great Apostasy occurred at Vatican II, its momentum by a departure from the Faith was well in motion prior to Vatican II, as is evidenced from many pre-Vatican II books which promoted condemned heresy and modernism. Most of the priests had already fallen into heresy in the 1950’s, as is proven by the fact that almost all of them accepted and embraced the new religion of the Vatican II Church when it was imposed.

The bottom-line remains that it’s an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that the primary end of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children. Natural Family Planning subordinates the primary end of marriage and the conjugal act to other things and is therefore gravely sinful.

Objection 3) I know that NFP is always wrong, except for certain reasons, and in those cases it is allowable.

Response: We will quote again Pope Pius XI to respond to this objection.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”¹²

No reason, however grave it may be, can bring it about that something that is intrinsically evil can become good. NFP subordinates the primary purpose of the conjugal act (the procreation and education of children) to other things and is therefore forbidden.

And this brings us to another point. If NFP is not a sin – if it is simply “natural,” as they say – then why can’t married couples use NFP during the whole marriage and have zero children? If NFP isn’t a sin, then all women are perfectly free to use this method of birth control to phase out of existence all children so that not even one is born. However, basically all of the defenders of NFP would admit that it would be immoral and gravely sinful to use NFP to avoid all new life. But when they make this admission they are admitting that NFP is a sin; otherwise, let them confess that it can be used by all couples for any reason to avoid all children.

Objection 4) In Casti Connubii itself, Pope Pius XI taught that married couples could use the periods where the wife cannot become pregnant.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”¹³

Response: Yes, Pope Pius XI taught that married couples could use their marriage rights in the infertile periods of the wife (or when there is a defect of nature or age which prevents new life from being conceived). But he did not teach that they could designedly restrict the marriage act to the infertile periods to avoid a pregnancy, as in Natural Family Planning.

This is why, in the very passage quoted above, Pope Pius XI reiterates that all use of the marriage rights – including when new life cannot be brought forth due to time or nature – must keep the secondary ends of marriage subordinate to the primary end! This teaching is the deathblow to NFP, as NFP itself is the subordination of the primary end of marriage (the procreation and education of children) to other things. So, in summary, the passage above does not teach NFP, but merely enunciates the principle that married couples may use their marriage rights at any time. Further, in the same paragraph, the very paragraph that the defenders of NFP erroneously twist to justify their sinful birth control practice, Pope Pius XI condemns NFP by reiterating the teaching on the primary purpose of marriage, which NFP subordinates to other things.

Objection 5) In Humanae Vitae itself, Pope Paul VI taught that married couples may take advantage of the natural cycles of infertility and thus control birth.

Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (# 16), July 25, 1968: “...married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.”

Response: Yes, Antipope Paul VI explained correctly that NFP is birth control when he promoted it in his encyclical Humanae Vitae.

Paul VI was the man who claimed to be the head of the Catholic Church from June 21, 1963 to August 6, 1978. He was the man who promulgated the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass. Paul VI solemnly ratified all 16 documents of Vatican II. It is not possible for a true pope of the Catholic Church to solemnly ratify teachings that are heretical. The fact that Paul VI did solemnly ratify the heretical teachings of Vatican II proves that Paul VI was not a true pope, but an antipope.

It’s important to keep in mind that Paul VI was the one who gave the world the New Mass, the other new “sacraments,” and the heretical teachings of Vatican II. If you go to the New Mass or embrace the teachings of Vatican II, the confidence that you have that these things are legitimate is directly connected to the confidence that you have that Paul VI was a true Catholic pope.

We will now expose the amazing heresies of Paul VI. We will show, from his official speeches and writings, that Paul VI was a complete apostate who was not even remotely Catholic. All of the official speeches and writings of the men who claim to be pope are contained in the Vatican’s weekly newspaper, L’ Osservatore Romano. The Vatican has reprinted issues of their newspaper from April 4, 1968 to the present. From those speeches, we will now prove that Paul VI was not a true pope because of the irrefutable and undeniable evidence that he was a complete heretic and an apostate.

The Heresies of Paul VI (1963-1978) (LINK TO SECTION)

Objection 6) Everyone admits that “Natural Family Planning” can be used to help a woman achieve a pregnancy. Therefore, the same method can be used to avoid pregnancy.

Response: If a couple is using Natural Family Planning to achieve a pregnancy, it is lawful because in this case they are doing their utmost to fulfill the primary end of marriage (the procreation and education of children). If a couple is using Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy, it is unlawful because in this case they are doing their utmost to avoid the primary end of marriage (the procreation and education of children).

Objection 7) But my traditional priest instructed me in NFP.

Response: When the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the pit (Matthew 15:14). Couples who use NFP know that they are committing a sin. It’s written on their hearts. They don’t need a priest to tell them it’s wrong. Yes, the priests who obstinately instruct people that NFP is okay and defend this birth control method are also guilty, but this doesn’t take away the responsibility of the couples who follow their bad advice.

This is why we stress that those who are contributing money to heretical or schismatical “traditionalist” priests who promote or accept heresies such as NFP or any other heresy must cease immediately if they don’t want to share in their sin and follow them to Hell, as these priests are leading souls to Hell. Of course, you may neither approach these priests for mass or the sacraments if you have found out that they are bad willed obstinate heretics. Please consult this article for further information on this subject.

This includes the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, the Society of St. Pius V, the C.M.R.I. and almost all independent priests in this time of the Great Apostasy.

Conclusion

Couples who have used NFP, but who are resolved to change, should not despair. NFP is an evil, but God is merciful and will forgive those who are firmly resolved to change their life and confess their sin. Those who have used NFP need to be sorry for their sin and confess to a validly ordained priest that they have practiced birth control (for however long it may have been used). Both the wife and the husband who agreed with the use of NFP need to confess. They should then be open to all of the children that God wishes to bestow upon them – without concern or knowledge of charts, cycles, fertile or infertile, seeking first the kingdom of God and His justice, letting God plan their family.

Endnotes:

¹ The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, Vol. 5, p. 227.

² The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), pp. 399-400.

³ The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 394.

⁴ The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 399.

⁵ The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 394.

⁶ http://www.seattlecatholic.com

⁷ Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1970, Vol. 3:2233.

⁸ Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 1159.

⁹ John. J. Delaney, Pocket Dictionary of Saints (abridged edition), New York: Double Day, 1980, p. 251.

¹⁰ John. J. Delaney, Pocket Dictionary of Saints (abridged edition), 110.

¹¹ Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2 (The Building of Christendom), Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1987, p. 387.

¹² The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 399.

¹³ The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 394.

This NFP article will be updated soon.


PART II

Sexual Pleasure and Lust

Quieting vs inflaming concupiscence

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “THE PRIMARY END OF MARRIAGE IS THE PROCREATION AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN... For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

A husband and wife are allowed to quite concupiscence as a secondary motive after the first motive of procreation. This is a dogma proclaimed by Pope Pius XI above. This means to put down the flames of concupiscence, and not to inflame it in any way. The goal is to get the spouse to Heaven, to glorify God, and sanctify one self, and not primarily about pleasure. The gravity of sin, when inflaming concupiscence, depends on the thoughts and actual deeds that a couple consent to during the act of marriage. But husband and wife are never allowed to prevent the conception of a child in any way, either through contraceptives, or by withdrawal, or by the use of NFP. Further, doing acts above what is necessary in the marital act, can be a mortal sin, but if the act is natural, yet done for the sake of lust only, it seems to be at least a venial fault or defect, as the following Church teaching affirms:

Various Errors on Moral Subjects, Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679: “THE ACT OF MARRIAGE EXERCISED FOR PLEASURE ONLY IS ENTIRELY FREE OF ALL FAULT AND VENIAL DEFECT.” (Denz. 1159) -Condemned by Pope Innocent XI.

As we can see above, it is at least a fault or venial defect to have relations only for lustful motives. From this can be learned that a couple must have a reason for coming together during the marital act. Thus, they may not just come together for whatever lustful reason they may come to think of, for that would be (at least) a venial defect, according to Catholic teaching. Faults or venial defects open up the soul to graver sins and that is why one must always guard oneself very carefully from falling into faults and defects. A couple can only lawfully participate in the marital act (without any sin or defect) if it's done for the primary purpose of having children, and the secondary purpose of quieting the concupiscence. The secondary motive of quieting concupiscence can follow the primary motive if the spouses choose this, but the secondary motive is not needed to lawfully complete the marital act in the same way as the primary motive of raising children, nor is it meritorious even though it is allowed:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “THE PRIMARY END OF MARRIAGE IS THE PROCREATION AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN... For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Since many couples today, and especially those who call themselves by the name of Catholic, inflame their lust to the fullest both before, during and after the procreative act, as they have been taught by their apostate Vatican II Church and perverted evil theologians, we must condemn this idea in specific detail.

Notice the words of Pope Pius XI: “quieting of concupiscence”. Those who thus commit acts which are not necessary for the completion of the marital act absolutely commit sin, since they inflame their flesh in a totally sinful way. Therefore, the inflaming of concupiscence is condemned as sinful because it subordinates the secondary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the quieting of concupiscence) to other ends. It subordinates the secondary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid the normal procreative act as their first or only act of marriage, to other things while having marital relations. The inflaming of concupiscence therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point destroys all of the arguments made by those who defend unnatural, unlawful, non-procreative forms of fore-or-after-play outside of normal intercourse; because all of the arguments made by those who defend inflaming the flesh, focus on the concupiscence and lust within the marriage act itself, and not on the primary or secondary ends of lawful intercourse (the procreation and education of children; and the quieting of concupiscence).

So what these lustful couples then do by enhancing their pleasure during the marital act, is not the only lawful quieting of concupiscence that Pope Pius XI spoke about, but is the exact opposite, since they first inflame their lust and concupiscence before putting it out, and are therefore then, without a doubt, committing sin (probably even a mortal sin depending on what they thought, did or consented to during their impure act). If such a lust seeking couple is not guilty of mortal sin, then they are guilty of venial sin. For if coming together only for normal lustful motives is at least a venial fault or defect according to Catholic teaching, what then would those unnatural and unnecessary acts be that these lustful people live out during the heat of their shameful lust?

Various Errors on Moral Subjects, Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679: “THE ACT OF MARRIAGE EXERCISED FOR PLEASURE ONLY IS ENTIRELY FREE OF ALL FAULT AND VENIAL DEFECT.” (Denz. 1159) -Condemned by Pope Innocent XI.

Although a venial fault does not separate us from God as does a mortal sin, a venial defect can still (if practiced unto death) lead a person to Hell since it might lead him into committing other sins, and since he did not care to stop doing what he knew was a danger to his soul, and even took great delight in it, though he knew it was offending God. To consent to faults and defects, or deliberate venial sins, is of course very bad. We can learn this truth from Jesus Christ himself:

“Moreover, know that just as all mortal sins are very serious, so too a venial sin is made mortal if a human being delights in it with the intention of persevering.” (Jesus speaking to St. Bridget, Book 7, Chapter 27).

So, to deliberately live in faults and defects are truly a gateway into committing more grave sins. An even more clearer demonstration of this can be seen in another chapter of St. Bridget's revelations:

The Son of God speaks to the bride (St. Bridget): “What are you worried and anxious about?" She answered: "I am afflicted by various useless thoughts that I cannot get rid of, and hearing about your terrible judgment upsets me." The Son answered: "This is truly just. Earlier you found pleasure in worldly desires against my will, but now different thoughts are allowed to come to you against your will.

“But have a prudent fear of God, and put great trust in me, your God, knowing for certain that when your mind does not take pleasure in sinful thoughts but struggles against them by detesting them, then they become a purgation and a crown for the soul. But if you take pleasure in committing even a slight sin, which you know to be a sin, and you do so trusting to your own abstinence and presuming on grace, without doing penance and reparation for it, know that it can become a mortal sin. Accordingly, if some sinful pleasure of any kind comes into your mind, you should right away think about where it is heading and repent...

“...God hates nothing so much as when you know you have sinned but do not care, trusting to your other meritorious actions, as if, because of them, God would put up with your sin, as if he could not be glorified without you, or as if he would let you do something evil with his permission, seeing all the good deeds you have done, since, even if you did a hundred good deeds for each wicked one, you still would not be able to pay God back for his goodness and love. So, then, maintain a rational fear of God and, even if you cannot prevent these thoughts, then at least bear them patiently and use your will to struggle against them. You will not be condemned because of their entering your head, unless you take pleasure in them, since it is not within your power to prevent them.

“Again, maintain your fear of God in order not to fall through pride, even though you do not consent to the thoughts. Anyone who stands firm stands by the power of God alone. Thus fear of God is like the gateway into heaven. Many there are who have fallen headlong to their deaths, because they cast off the fear of God and were then ashamed to make a confession before men, although they had not been ashamed to sin before God. Therefore, I shall refuse to absolve the sin of a person who has not cared enough to ask my pardon for a small sin. In this manner, sins are increased through habitual practice, and a venial sin that could have been pardoned through contrition becomes a serious one through a person's negligence and scorn, as you can deduce from the case of this soul who has already been condemned.

“After having committed a venial and pardonable sin, he augmented it through habitual practice, trusting to his other good works, without thinking that I might take lesser sins into account. Caught in a net of habitual and inordinate pleasure, his soul neither corrected nor curbed his sinful intention, until the time for his sentencing stood at the gates and his final moment was approaching. This is why, as the end approached, his conscience was suddenly agitated and painfully afflicted because he was soon to die and he was afraid to lose the little, temporary good he had loved. Up until a sinner's final moment God abides him, waiting to see if he is going to direct his free will away from his attachment to sin.

“However, if a soul's will is not corrected, that soul is then confined by an end without end. What happens is that the devil, knowing that each person will be judged according to his conscience and intention, labors mightily at the end of life to distract the soul and turn it away from rectitude of intention, and God allows it to happen, since the soul refused to remain vigilant when it ought to have...” (The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, Book 3, Chapter 19).

So, what does God think of couples who come together during the act of in marriage sinful lust and concupiscence, and about a couple who works on the inflaming of lust (rather than the quieting of their lust)?

“They seek the warmth and sexual lust that will perish and love the flesh that will be eaten by worms... When the couple comes to bed, my Spirit leaves them immediately and the spirit of impurity approaches instead because they only come together for the sake of lust and do not discuss or think about anything else with each other. But my mercy is still with them if they will be converted to me. Because of my great love, I place a living soul created by my power into their seed. Sometimes I let evil parents give birth to good children, but more often, evil children are born of evil parents, since these children imitate the evil and unrighteous deeds of their parents as much as they are able and would imitate it even more if my patience allowed them. Such a married couple will never see my face unless they repent. For there is no sin so heavy or grave that penitence and repentance does not wash it away.” (St. Bridget's Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 26).

A couple may therefore then not do anything before, during or after the procreative act that is against the primary or secondary purpose of marriage, the begetting of children and the quieting of concupiscence. So, contrary to modern day notion and common opinion (even amongst those who dare to call themselves Catholic), a husband and a wife are never allowed to help themselves with their hands or do other things to enhance their lust, or in this way make themselves “ready” before the act (as they so call it and their sinful excuse is). If a couple really believes in God, they should pray to God before coming together, and God would hear their prayers and make them ready, without any further need by the couple to inflame their lust in a sinful way. Lubricants are of course also acceptable and the non sinful way to use if there is a problem to complete the marital act. However, lubricants that increase the sexual pleasure and that now are being manufactured and sold are of course totally unacceptable. Likewise, if a woman was not able to quiet her concupiscence before the fulfillment of the procreative act, it is unlawful for her (or her husband) to help herself afterwards. If husband and wife engage in unlawful activities such as masturbation or any other unnecessary act, they committed a mortal sin. Barren couples and people with defects or old age still fulfills the primary end of marriage through normal intercourse by wishing for children and by not being against conception if it should occur. Husband and wife are forbidden to indulge in unnecessary acts, e.g. to masturbate themselves or their spouse during the procreative act and in this way enhance their lust. Masturbation is as forbidden during the procreative act as it is at any other time for any person. To avoid falling into mortal sin, a couple need to learn to pray to God for relief in their concupiscence and lust. If you really want help from God, He will help you and remove the concupiscence and lust from you. It would also help very much to offer up penances to God like fasting and eating less tasty food in order to acquire this goal. These small penances coupled with spiritual reading and prayer will help a couple stem sinful inclinations as long as they stay out of mortal and venial sin.

It is of greatest importance that husband and wife are not influenced by the evil demonic teachings that is rampant in the secular world and even amongst those who call themselves "Catholic" or even traditional "Catholic". These people will tell you things such as: “That almost nothing is wrong in the marital act so long as the primary purpose of the act was achieved at some point. Whatever happens before, during or afterwards, was part of that act and therefore licit and permitted.” This is clearly false, and have been refuted with Catholic Dogma (Pope Pius XI), and Catholic teaching condemning the idea that the marital act - performed for lust only - was without any fault or defect (quoted below). Anyone that therefore listens to or follows these demonic peoples teachings or agrees with them, will lose their souls, since they then reject the natural law God has imprinted on their hearts.

Various Errors on Moral Subjects, Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679: “THE ACT OF MARRIAGE EXERCISED FOR PLEASURE ONLY IS ENTIRELY FREE OF ALL FAULT AND VENIAL DEFECT.” (Denz. 1159) -Condemned by Pope Innocent XI.

The Demon of Lust

In Tobias, we can clearly see that there is a demon of lust, and that this demon hath power over certain individuals who come together for various reasons during the marital act: “Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.” People who thus shut God out from themselves and their hearts, and who do things during, before or after the marital act which they normally wouldn't do if they really believed that God were present with them, over them the devil hath power. If concupiscence and lust is not controlled and in some sense fought against, it will almost always end in mortal sin, because all control is lost. “Go not after thy lusts, but turn away from thy own will.” (Eclcus. 18:30)

Many are handed over to the devil before, during, or after the marital act though, but this is only when they do more than what is necessary to complete the procreative act or if their only purpose is to satisfy their lust, or if they consent to thoughts that are sinful. For we can clearly see how persons that are living in deliberate venial sins are handed over to the devil in St. Bridget's Revelations:

Jesus speaking to St. Bridget: “Moreover, know that just as all mortal sins are very serious, so too a venial sin is made mortal if a human being delights in it with the intention of persevering. … Therefore, know for very certain that as often as they daub their faces with antimony and other extraneous coloring [makeup], some of the infusion of the Holy Spirit is diminished in them and the devil draws nearer to them. In fact, as often as they adorn themselves in disorderly and indecent clothing and so deform their bodies, the adornment of their souls is diminished and the devil's power is increased.” (St. Bridget's Revelations, Book 7, Chapter 27).

Most couples who sin in the marriage act undoubtedly also fall for the sins of vanity, immodest clothing, and use of makeup condemned by Jesus Christ above, since these people really are lovers of the flesh, and not of God. However, in the above statement, we can clearly see how those people who commit deliberate venial sins, are in fact diminishing their love of God, and beauty of soul, and that these people in fact are handed over to the devil for their sins: “some of the infusion of the Holy Spirit is diminished in them and the devil draws nearer to them.” This is an important point to remember. For as often as a couple goes farther than what is licit or permitted (non-sinful) in the procreative act, they always commit a sin (at least venially), and will thus as a necessity be drawing closer to the devil (unless repentance is followed). Therefore, it is of great importance that you learn to control your lust. Risking eternal damnation for a momentary, deliberate venial or mortal pleasure or sin is not worth it, and is a horribly bad choice to make:

Jesus Christ speaking to St. Bridget: “Therefore, two holes will be opened in him. Through the first there will enter into him every punishment earned for his least sin up to his greatest, inasmuch as he exchanged his Creator for his own lust. Through the second there will enter into him every kind of pain and shame, and no divine consolation or charity will ever come to him, inasmuch as he loved himself rather than his Creator. His life will last forever and his punishment will last forever, for all the saints have turned away from him.' My bride, see how miserable those people will be who despise me and how great will be the pain they purchase at the price of so little pleasure!” (St. Bridget's Revelations, Book 2, Chapter 9).

So, the more pleasure and sensual gratification a person seek to derive from the sexual act, the more will the devil's power over him be increased, and the more the sin is increased (with the intention of persevering), the more the devil's power over him is increasing also, until what was a venial and pardonable sin, becomes a mortal and damnable sin. Therefore, if you already understand that you live in deliberate venial sin with respect to sexual pleasure, you need to learn controlling your lust immediately, keeping it within the range of what is licit and permitted within a marriage, and not by going any further. If you follow these things put down in this article, and in the other here, you will be keeping the marriage duty within the range of licit marital relations.

A couple then, when coming together, should not be concerned about the momentary pleasure they derive from the act, or be working on enhancing it in unusual ways, but should rather be focusing their mind on God and to love Him and please Him, by feeling close to Him. Consequently, if a couple wish to be perfect, they should pray to God to keep them from sinning during the act, and that they may produce offspring to the honor and glory of God, and that He might minimize the amount of pleasure they will feel during the act, so that they may not grow attached to it. God might grant this prayer to a couple if they so wish, but if they are not granted this gift (the begetting of children or the minimizing of pleasure), they should still be focusing their pleasure and love towards God, and not on themselves. God demands of us to not forget Him during the procreative act. People usually tend to forget about God when they have too much attention on themselves, or on their spouse, or the pleasure derived from different acts. We can read the following important points regarding this in the book of Tobias: “For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.” (Tobias 6:17). Notice the word “from their mind”, in the mind (or heart) are usually all our thoughts, and God wishes us to have Him there. The best thing then, and which God demands of you, is to think about Him and to love Him during the whole procreative act, and husband and wife should not be ashamed of doing so. Is not God better or more worthy of being desired or lusted after than your husband or wife will ever be? The more a person loves God, the more will that person desire to be close to God, during all times. One of the greatest mistakes many couples undoubtedly do during the procreative act, is that they strive to be close with their spouse rather than with God (who knows everything and sees everything), or that they rather think of pleasing their spouse more than pleasing God (who created them and redeemed them, yes even died for them).

Prayer before Marital Relations

“Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God today, and tomorrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock. For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that know not God.” Tobias 8:4-5

Jesus tells us of the necessity of praying always (Lk 18:1). We are never to cease praying (1 Th 5:17). Thus, Christian married couples will always have marital relations in the context of prayer. Tobias prayer before relations with his wife is an example of this (Tb 8:4-8). In prayer, we express our weakness and God's power (2 Cor 12:9) to rectify sinful problems in marital relations.

Praying the Rosary before, during and after intercourse is highly recommended since it is the most powerful prayer ever given to mankind. Granted, it might be hard to pray during the act, at least in a worthy and proper manner, but spouses should do their best to at least acknowledge the presence of God Almighty and His Mother and loving them deeply during the act, by expressing loving words to God and His Blessed Mother, supplicating Them for their help to resist sinful inclinations. Husband and wife should not be ashamed of having recourse to the Blessed Virgin and Our Lord during intercourse. In contrast, what better thing can there possibly be for a couple then to always have God and the thought of loving God in their minds during all times?

The importance of Loving God during intercourse and at all times

We can read the following interesting points of the importance of loving and thinking about God during the procreative act in St. Bridget's Revelations:

The Mother of God speaks to St. Bridget about Her parents: “When an angel revealed to them that they would give birth to the Virgin from whom the salvation of the world would come, they would rather have died than to come together in carnal love; lust was dead in them. I assure you that when they did come together, it was because of divine love and because of the angel’s message, not out of carnal desire, but against their will and out of a holy love for God. In this way, my flesh was put together by their seed and through divine love.” (St. Bridget's Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 9).

Although you will not be spared from feeling lust or concupiscence as it happened to Anna and Joachim, this should in no way hinder you from loving and desiring God during the procreative act, and should be the primary purpose along with love of children for a couple, rather than desiring or lusting at your spouse. Most couples, however, choose to think about themselves or their spouse in an inordinate way and consequently to love themselves or their spouse during the procreative act. Anna and Joachim, however, clearly chose the best part by loving and thinking about God. If we think about God during the act, then our love will be directed towards Him, which is the best part. God's love never dies! So it's clearly a great mistake to seek love from a fleshly object that will rot and be eaten by worms, rather than seeking it from God, who lives and reigns forever and ever! Husband and wife should thus love their spouse, their own, and their children's souls, and not their bodies that will rot and be eaten by worms in the grave. This is an advice to those couples who wish to be perfect, as Anna and Joachim were perfect.

St. Jerome: "Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his God]."

As we can see above, he who loves his wife too much, or in other words, he who loves his wife more than he loves God, is in fact an adulterer of his God. Tell me, dear reader, whom do you love during the act, God, or your spouse? Have the thought of God or that he is present ever even entered your mind during intercourse? Have this absence of God's presence in your thought also driven you into committing shameful sins by the inflaming of concupiscence in unlawful ways? Indeed, those couples who doesn't shut God out from themselves or their hearts during intercourse, will less likely fall into other sins during the act. For if it is God we love during intercourse, it is him we are seeking to please, and not ourselves or our spouse.

“He that loveth father or mother more than me [Jesus], is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37)

It is also evident that the offspring of holy and devout parents will receive a great many graces and benefits because of the parents' holiness, and that according to many saints, lustful parents will effect their children, inflicting sinful impulses on the child. Every parent who love their children or their future children, should do their utmost to live in holiness, knowing that every act they will ever do, can have an effect on their children, for better or for worse. Only in Hell will bad parents understand how their acts effected their children, but then it is sadly too late.

“Sometimes I [Jesus] let evil parents give birth to good children, but more often, evil children are born of evil parents, since these children imitate the evil and unrighteous deeds of their parents as much as they are able and would imitate it even more if my patience allowed them. Such a married couple will never see my face unless they repent. For there is no sin so heavy or grave that penitence and repentance does not wash it away.” (St. Bridget's Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 26).

Love is necessary for Salvation

For a person to be Saved, he needs above all to love his God with all his mind, and with all his strength, and with all his heart. If any person fails to do this (in that he loves something more than God, whatever it may be or however small it may be), he will not be Saved. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that people really start to do everything in their might and power to acquire and foster the love of God in their hearts, by loving God very deeply always and at all times, and by praying to God for help in loving Him worthily. If a person can have deep love for their husband or wife, or for their children, by having a desire for them constantly, then, likewise, should a person then have no problem in growing an even greater love and longing for God in his heart, if he only so wish and desires. We can read the following important words of loving and desiring God in context of marriage in the wonderful Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden:

“For that reason, I [Jesus] wish to turn to the spiritual marriage, the kind that is appropriate for God to have with a chaste soul and chaste body. There are seven good things in it opposed to the evils mentioned above[1]: First, there is no desire for beauty of form or bodily beauty or lustful sights, but only for the sight and love of God. Second, there is no desire to possess anything else than what is needed to survive, and just the necessities with nothing in excess. Third, they avoid vain and frivolous talk. Fourth, they do not care about seeing friends or relatives, but I am their love and desire. Fifth, they desire to keep the humility inwardly in their conscience and outwardly in the way they dress. Sixth, they never have any will of leading lustful lives. Seventh, they beget sons and daughters for their God through their good behavior and good example and through the preaching of spiritual words.

They preserve their faith undefiled when they stand outside the doors of my church where they give me their consent and I give them mine. They go up to my altar when they enjoy the spiritual delight of my Body and Blood in which delight they wish to be of one heart and one body and one will with me, and I, true God and man, mighty in heaven and on earth, shall be as the third with them and will fill their heart. The worldly spouses begin their marriage in lustful desires like brute beasts, and even worse than brute beasts! But these spiritual spouses begin in love and fear of God and do not bother to please anyone but me. The evil spirit fills and incites those in the worldly marriage to carnal lust where there is nothing but unclean stench, but those in the spiritual marriage are filled with my Spirit and inflamed with the fire of my love that will never fail them.” (St. Bridget's Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 26).

So, then, what are the seven evil fruits of a worldly marriage in comparison to the seven good fruits of the spiritual marriage mentioned above?

[1] “But people in this age are joined in marriage for seven [evil] reasons: First, because of facial beauty. Second, because of wealth. Third, because of the despicable pleasure and indecent joy they get out of their impure intercourse. Fourth, because of feasts with friends and uncontrolled gluttony. Fifth, because of vanity in clothing and eating, in joking and entertainment and games and other vanities. Sixth, for the sake of procreating children but not to raise them for the honor of God or good works but for worldly riches and honor. Seventh, they come together for the sake of lust and they are like brute beasts in their lustful desires.” (St. Bridget's Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 26).

Only ungodly couples, who would want to gratify their fleshly lust to the fullest during the act, without even once thinking about God, would want to shut God out from their hearts or their minds. God is always present for every action we will ever make. Let's get this concept imprinted on our minds.

“I am one God in three Persons, and one in Divinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Just as it is impossible for the Father to be separated from the Son and the Holy Spirit to be separated from them both, and as it is impossible for warmth to be separated from fire, so it is impossible for these spiritual spouses to be separated from me; I am always as the third with them. Once my body was ravaged and died in torments, but it will never more be hurt or die. Likewise, those who are incorporated into me with a true faith and a perfect will shall never die away from me; for wherever they stand or sit or walk, I am always as the third with them.” (St. Bridget's Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 26).

Jesus demands of us that we love Him even more than we love ourselves or our wife or our children:

“He that loveth father or mother more than me [Jesus], is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37)

“but I alone was all their good and pleasure and perfect delight.” (St. Bridget's Revelations, on Adam and Eve before the fall – Book 1, Chapter 26).

The meaning of the passage above, wasn't that a couple couldn't delight or feel pleasure in/from God anymore, but rather that before the fall, God was the only delight and pleasure man ever felt and desired. After the fall, God had to compete with human concupiscence and fleshly lust. God is a jealous God, and he wants us to love and desire Him above everything else. So, to love God during all times, even during intercourse, is an advice to those couples who wish to be perfect, and for those couples who ardently longs and desires to be united with God through ecstatic love. Consequently, those people who choose to despise and disregard what's been covered here, seek then not to be united with the eternal, incorruptible God (who lives and reigns forever and ever), but with a fleshly worthless object (that will rot and be eaten by worms in a grave).

Relations during pregnancy should be avoided

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who, in the married state, use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

The primary end of marriage is of course the procreation and education of Children:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

But Pius XI did not teach that a couple could designedly restrict the marriage act only to the infertile periods to avoid a pregnancy, as in the mortally sinful practice of Natural Family Planning. When a deliberate plan is made in having relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding having relations during the known fertile periods, the mortal sin of contraception occurs.

The only reason why relations during pregnancy is allowed is because to avoid a greater evil, such as adultery (in deed or thought), masturbation, or spouse rape. This is thus not something meritorious, but something that is allowed because of concupiscence and human weakness, and because many people cannot live chastely without otherwise falling into mortal sin. To St. Jerome, the marital act was not something good or praiseworthy, because it only acts as a relief valve to avoid a greater evil:

St. Jerome: "Thus it must be bad to touch a woman. If indulgences is nonetheless granted to the marital act, this is only to avoid something worse. But what value can be recognized in a good that is allowed only with a view of preventing something worse?"

The main difference between Natural Infertility due to old age, or due to defects, compared with the infertility during pregnancy, is that in the first two, if God so wills, He may open the womb of the infertile due to old age, or due to defects, as we can read happening many times in the Bible. But in the third case, when a wife is pregnant, she cannot become pregnant again - according to the natural order God has established - and that's really the main difference between the two. However, it's a fact that it was ordained in the Old Testament for couples to abstain from each other during pregnancy, and during the wife's monthly cycles (her menstrual period). St. Augustine even thought this law still applies to us today. The best option is of course to remain chaste during the wife's pregnancy, since there is no chance of her becoming pregnant again. Anne Catherine Emmerich had the following interesting points to say about marital relations during pregnancy:

“It was explained to me here that the Blessed Virgin was begotten by her parents in holy obedience and complete purity of heart, and that thereafter they lived together in continence in the greatest devoutness and fear of God. I was at the same time clearly instructed how immeasurably the holiness of children was encouraged by the purity, chastity, and continence of their parents and by their resistance to all unclean temptations; and how continence after conception preserves the fruit of the womb from many sinful impulses. In general, I was given an overflowing abundance of knowledge about the roots of deformity and sin.” (Anne Catherine Emmerich, Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

Many lustful people will not agree with what Anne Catherine Emmerich said above, and they may even be offended by it. This is so because these people want to deceive themselves into thinking there's nothing wrong at all about concupiscence (even though it's a known fact that it leads countless of souls to Hell). It's a fact that the sexual lusts and the sexual temptations that urges people into committing sins of the flesh, is an evil product from the fall. In other words, it was not originally intended to happen in this way according to God's original plan for mankind, but it ended up in that way because of Adam's and Eve's transgression. If a person is honest with himself, he will understand that this is true. However, most people want to deceive themselves and therefore choose to overlook this fact.

Another instance of the truth that marital relations during pregnancy is bad can be found in The Revelations of St. Bridget Book 9 or appendix. St. Bridget asks a man (her husband) that is now in purgatory about the specific reasons why he escaped eternal hell. This is the third reason why he escaped hell: “The third [reason] is that I obeyed my teacher who advised me to abstain from my wife’s bed when I understood that she was pregnant.”

Thus, it is totally clear that those who have marital relations during pregnancy are endangering their own and their child's spiritual welfare. However, the above passage was not a condemnation of relations during pregnancy, but it clearly indicates that there can be a danger spiritually in having relations during the time of a pregnancy.

The evil of concupiscence

St. Augustine goes so far as to call concupiscence evil and a disease (although not evil in the generative aspect). Yes, he even shares a point we have thought could be true, namely, that Original Sin is transmitted through Lust:

St. Augustine: “Wherefore the devil holds infants guilty [original sin] who are born, not of the good by which marriage is good, but of the evil of concupiscence, which, indeed, marriage uses aright, but at which even marriage has occasion to feel shame.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence Book 1, Chapter 27).

St. Augustine: “This disease of concupiscence is what the apostle refers to, when, speaking to married believers, he says: 'This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication: that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the disease of desire, even as the Gentiles which know not God.' (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). The married believer, therefore, must not only not use another man's vessel, which is what they do who lust after others' wives; but he must know that even his own vessel is not to be possessed in the disease of carnal concupiscence.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence Book 1, Chapter 9).

Adultery, fornication and masturbation are examples of bad and damnable lust. Lust is also an evil in marriage and can easily turn into something damnable if husband and wife goes too far (as sadly happens with most couples today, even by those who call themselves Catholic). Just because it's licit to perform the marriage act for procreative purposes in marriage, does not make the lust caused thereof good or praiseworthy. St. Augustine explains this point further:

“Forasmuch, then, as the good of marriage could not be lost by the addition of this evil [lust]... Since, therefore, marriage effects some good even out of that evil, it has whereof to glory; but since the good cannot be effected without the evil, it has reason for feeling shame. The case may be illustrated by the example of a lame man. Suppose him to attain to some good object by limping after it, then, on the one hand, the attainment itself is not evil because of the evil of the man's lameness; nor, on the other hand, is the lameness good because of the goodness of the attainment. So, on the same principle, we ought not to condemn marriage because of the evil of lust; nor must we praise lust because of the good of marriage.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence Book 1, Chapter 8).

Sexual temptations during lawful procreative relations can also be a cause of sin since it may drive a husband and wife to go farther than what is necessary or licit, either during, before or after the marital act, and this, of course, is also a great evil. These temptations, as we have seen, does not turn into something good just because a person is married, for he is still tempted into committing sins. This is one of the very reasons that lust and sexual temptations are bad, also in marriage, for they are still defects, and are still occasions of sin and an evil product from the fall, a product from original sin.

Temptations are thus not something good, but are truly “unclean temptations” as described above by Anne Catherine Emmerich, and the “evil of concupiscence” or “this disease of concupiscence” as stated above by St. Augustine. If a person understands these concepts and agrees with them (that a couple's sensual behavior during their child's pregnancy could effect their child in a negative way, inflicting sinful impulses upon the child), will he understand and agree with what Anne Catherine Emmerich said above. The wisdom by Anne Catherine Emmerich is worth quoting again:

“It was explained to me here that the Blessed Virgin was begotten by her parents in holy obedience and complete purity of heart, and that thereafter they lived together in continence in the greatest devoutness and fear of God. I was at the same time clearly instructed how immeasurably the holiness of children was encouraged by the purity, chastity, and continence of their parents and by their resistance to all unclean temptations; and how continence after conception preserves the fruit of the womb from many sinful impulses. In general, I was given an overflowing abundance of knowledge about the roots of deformity and sin.” (Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

The sensuality that thus will be aroused during pregnancy, is a great evil that will be affecting both husband and wife, and their future child. Relations during pregnancy can also sometimes be dangerous to the child, and could lead to a premature birth. So however one looks at it, the best opinion is to practice abstinence. And if a person claims that he cannot do this, how then will he manage when either one of the spouses dies?

If spouses wishes to nurture virtue, and if there is a mutual consent for abstaining from marital relations, then both husband and wife can separate from each other any amount of time they decide, in order to cultivate virtue and evangelical perfection. We pray and beg that all may consider to do this from time to time. With all these facts in consideration, the most prudent thing is obviously to remain chaste during the whole duration of the pregnancy, in order to nurture virtue in yourself and your future children.

Finally, consider the words of Sacred Scripture on marriage and sexuality:

Hebrews 13:4 “May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.”

Ephesians 5:12 “For the things that are done by them in secret are shameful, even to mention.”

This page will be updated soon.

INFALLIBLE CATHOLIC DOGMA AND DOCTRINE YOU MUST KNOW ABOUT

INTRODUCTION

The unchanging dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for Salvation, was defined as a truth by our first pope St. Peter himself:

“… the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ… Nor is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name, under heaven, given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12).

There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church is His Mystical Body. Since there is no entering into the Catholic Church of Christ without the Sacrament of Baptism, this means that only baptized Catholics who die in the state of grace (and those who become baptized Catholics and die in the state of grace) can hope to be saved.

“If anyone abideth not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.” (John 15:6)

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”

THE KEYS OF ST. PETER AND HIS UNFAILING FAITH

It is a fact of history, scripture and tradition that Our Lord Jesus Christ founded His universal Church (the Catholic Church) upon St. Peter.

Matthew 16:18-19-“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the universal Church of Christ.

John 21:15-17-“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

And with the supreme authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon St. Peter (and his successors, the popes) comes what is called Papal Infallibility. Papal Infallibility is inseparable from Papal Supremacy – there was no point for Christ to make St. Peter the head of His Church (as Christ clearly did) if St. Peter or his successors, the popes, could err when exercising that supreme authority to teach on a point of Faith. The supreme authority must be unfailing on binding matters of Faith and morals or else it is no true authority from Christ at all.

Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin. It means that the successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.

Luke 22:31-32- “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not. Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:“SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR…”Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:“… the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not ...’”

And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.

Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”

The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith. Though this truth was believed since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:

“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

But how does one know when a pope is exercising his unfailing Faith to infallibly teach from the Chair of St. Peter? The answer is that we know from the language that the pope uses or the manner in which the pope teaches. Vatican I defined two requirements which must be fulfilled: 1) when the pope is carrying out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; 2) when he explains a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. A pope can fulfill both of these requirements in just one line, by anathematizing a false opinion (such as many dogmatic councils) or by saying “By our apostolic authority we declare…” or by saying “We believe, profess, and teach” or by using words of similar importance and meaning, which indicate that the pope is teaching the whole Church on Faith in a definitive and binding fashion.

So, when a pope teaches from the Chair of Peter in the manner stipulated above he cannot be wrong. If he could be wrong, then the Church of Christ could be officially led into error, and Christ’s promise to St. Peter and His Church would fail (which is impossible). That which is taught from the Chair of Peter by the popes of the Catholic Church is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself. To reject that which is taught by the popes from the Chair of Peter is simply to despise Jesus Christ Himself.

Luke 10:16- “He that heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me…”

Matthew 18:17 -“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896:

“… Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium… If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”

NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The following statements on Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation are from the highest teaching authority of the Catholic Church. They are ex cathedra Papal decrees (decrees from the Chair of St. Peter). Therefore, they constitute the teaching given to the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Such teachings are unchangeable and are classified as part of the solemn magisterium (the extraordinary teaching authority of the Catholic Church).

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

As we can see from this infallible statement from the chair of Peter, no one at all can be saved unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives.. Yet, many people today who call themselves Catholic or Christian, boldly and obstinately assert the direct opposite of this statement and claim that protestants, heretics, Jews, schismatics and even Pagans can attain eternal life.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, The Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger 39-40.)

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:

“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Those who refuse to believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation until they understand how there is justice in it are simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s revelation. Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His teaching first and understand the truth in it (i.e., why it is true) second.A Catholic does not withhold his belief in Christ’s revelation until he can understand it.That is the mentality of a faithless heretic who possesses insufferable pride. St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point.

St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.”

CONCERNING THOSE BAPTIZED VALIDLY AS INFANTS BY MEMBERS OF NON-CATHOLIC SECTS

The Catholic Church has always taught that anyone (including a layman or a non-Catholic) can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter and form and if he has the intention of doing what the Church does.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denzinger 696)

The Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a member of the Church.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism:

“If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”

This means that all baptized infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers, are made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one point does this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing his membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff? After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she obstinately rejects any teaching of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”

So, one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost. 2) Among those who are baptized as infants, they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever that membership (which they already possess) when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”

The fact is that all Protestants who reject the Catholic Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy, etc. have obstinately separated from the Faith of the Roman Church and have therefore severed their membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true with the “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately reject dogmas on the Papacy and Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to the Catholic Faith for salvation.

MATERIAL HERESY

The children or people that are baptized in heretical communities cannot become heretics until they reach the age of reason or until they adopt any heretical views that are opposed to the Catholic Church. This means that some of those baptized persons who are now going to a heretical or schismatic “Church” might not yet be heretics even if everyone else in the same Church are heretics. However, when these children reach the age of reason, many of them might fall into an error called “material heresy.”

The term “material heresy” is used to describe persons who believe in a heresy without knowing that they are contradicting the Catholic Church’s official and infallible teaching. There’s no such thing as a material heretic in the dogmatic teaching of the Church.There are heretics; there are schismatics; and there are Catholics. Material heretic is simply a name for a Catholic who is erring in good faith about a dogma. In other words, it’s another name for a mistaken Catholic. It’s a person who is holding a false position – one that is strictly incompatible with Catholic dogma. However, that person is not obstinate against that dogma. He would change his position immediately upon being informed of the true position. The “material heretic” is a Catholic. This is very important to understand. Many Catholic saints have been material heretics. St. Thomas, for example, did not believe that Mary was conceived immaculately (Summa Theologica, Part. III, Q. 14, Art. 3, Reply to Obj. 1) even though it is now a defined dogma that Mary was conceived immaculately, and no wonder that even Saints have erred in their teaching, for it is very hard to imagine that a human can know every Church teaching that exists.

THE NATURAL LAW

The natural law is written on the heart of all men, so that all men know that certain things are against God’s law and that certain things are in accordance with the natural law of charity, etc.

As the Haydock Bible and Commentary correctly explains about Romans 2:14-16,

“these men are a law to themselves, and have it written in their hearts, as to the existence of a God, and their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful: they may also do some actions that are morally good, as by giving alms to relieve the poor, honoring their parents, etc. not that these actions, morally good, will suffice for their justification of themselves, or make them deserve a supernatural reward in the kingdom of heaven; but God, out of His infinite mercy, will give them some supernatural graces” which if they continue to cooperate with they will get more graces and eventually be exposed to the Catholic Faith, which they must have to be saved.”

All baptized infants are Catholics, even if they are baptized in a Methodist church-building, etc. This is de fide. These baptized Catholics, when they reach the age of reason in a Protestant building, if they hold the Trinity and the Incarnation (which are the two essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith) hold the absolutely essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity..

“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

If they don’t know about any other Catholic dogmas (other than the Trinity and Incarnation) then they are not heretics but Catholics [Christians], unless they hold a position that is incompatible with Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation or deny a truth that all know about God and the natural law or deny something that they know to be clearly taught in Scripture. For instance, if the baptized person described above claims to believe in the Trinity and Incarnation but holds that all religions are more or less good, then he is a heretic and does not have the Catholic Faith (even before he knows that such a position is condemned by the Church) because his belief is incompatible with true Faith in the Trinity as the one true God, which belief he must have to be said to have the Catholic Faith in its simplest components.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928:

“…that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy... Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it...”

Another example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation (which are the simplest components of the Catholic Faith) and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas holds that man does not have free will (which some Protestants teach). This person would also become a heretic even before he has seen his position condemned by the Church and before he has heard of other Catholic dogmas (other than the Trinity and Incarnation) because he is rejecting a truth which all know to be true from the natural law, namely, that man has a free will. Thus, he is denying a truth all know about man from the natural law and he is a heretic.

Another example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity and Incarnation (the Catholic Faith in its simplest components) and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas refuses to believe that God is a rewarder and a punisher. This person is a heretic, even though he has never seen that his position is condemned by the Church and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas, because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions (see Heb. 11:6).

A large majority of Protestants today believe in the doctrines of “faith alone” and “eternal security.” These doctrines contradict both the natural law and reason which says that every man shall be rewarded or punished for his deeds. It also contradicts, word for word, the teaching of James 2 in scripture, which teach that faith without works is dead, and that man is not saved by faith alone. This person who believes in faith alone or eternal security is a heretic, even though he has never seen that his position is condemned by the Church and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas, because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions, and that faith alone does not justify a man only, but our deeds also.

Other common heresies against the natural law is to hold that birth control or natural family planning, also called nfp, which many “Catholics” practise to avoid conception, (which makes them guilty of the mortal sin of contraception) is acceptable, or if a person is to hold that abortion is acceptable, or if a person is to hold that the consuming of mind altering drugs to the point where the conscience is impeded is acceptable. These examples would all fall under the category of deadly sin, because he is rejecting a truth which all know to be true from the natural law, namely, 1) that abortion is murder, 2) that contraception or nfp deliberately frustrates the natural power to generate life, 3) and that mind altering drugs such as smoking marijuana is a mortal sin, just like getting drunk is.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church and Salvation by heresy, schism or apostasy.

The baptized children who reach the age of reason in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don’t embrace any of the positions like those described above, which are directly incompatible with Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, would be Catholics in a heretical church building.

THERE IS NO SALVATION FOR MEMBERS OF ISLAM, JUDAISM OR OTHER HERETICAL OR SCHISMATIC NON-CATHOLIC SECTS

So far we’ve seen that it’s an infallibly defined dogma that all who die as non-Catholics, including all Jews, pagans, heretics, schismatics, etc. cannot be saved. They need to be converted to have salvation. Now we must take a brief look at more of what the Church specifically says about some of the prominent non-Catholic religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and the Protestant and Eastern schismatic sects. This will illustrate, once again, that those who hold that members of non-Catholic religions can be saved are not only going against the solemn declarations that have already been quoted, but also the specific teachings quoted below.

SPECIFIC CATHOLIC TEACHING AGAINST JUDAISM

Jews practice the Old Law and reject the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity. The Jews reject Our Lord Jesus Christ and call him a deceiver, yet many “Christians” say that they are good? This is mind-blowing! The Church teaches the following about the cessation of the Old Law and about all who continue to observe it:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began,and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath (not to be mistaken with the Christian Sabbath) and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

Many people, who call themselves Catholic, do also boldly assert in contradiction of this infallible statement by Pope Eugene IV in the Council of Florence, that Jews who either reject Christ or who have not found or accepted Christ as their Messiah, can be saved. They also contradict our Lord’s words in the gospel.

John 3:36 “He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103, A. 4: “In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61), March 1, 1756:

“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#’s 29-30), June 29, 1943: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished… on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [Eph. 2:15]… establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ‘To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’ On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death…”

Thus, those who obstinately defends that faithless Jews who reject Christ can be saved and willfully contradict these infallible teachings of the Church, is a heretic, and will receive the full force of the automatic condemnation.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives...”

SPECIFIC TEACHING AGAINST ISLAM

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434:

“… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

Pope Callixtus III, 1455: “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet [Islam] in the East.”

The Catholic Church considers Islam an “abominable” and “diabolical” sect. [Note: the Council of Basel is only considered ecumenical/approved in the first 25 sessions, as The Catholic Encyclopedia points out in Vol. 4, “Councils,” pp. 425-426.] An “abomination” is something that is abhorrent in God’s sight; it’s something that He has no esteem for and no respect for. Something “diabolical” is something of the Devil. Islam rejects, among many other dogmas, the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Its followers are outside the pale of salvation so long as they remain Muslims.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:

“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e., the followers of Islam, also called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to remove this offense together from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

While the Church teaches that all who die as non-Catholics are lost, it also teaches that no one should be forced to embrace baptism, since belief is a free act of the will.

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (#36), Nov. 1, 1885: “And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’”

The teaching of the Council of Vienne that Christian princes should enforce their civil authority to forbid the public expression of the false religion of Islam shows again that Islam is a false religion which leads souls to Hell (not Heaven) and displeases God.

SPECIFIC CATHOLIC TEACHING AGAINST PROTESTANT AND SCHISMATIC SECTS

The Catholic Church also teaches that those baptized persons who embrace heretical or schismatic sects will lose their souls. Jesus founded His Church upon St. Peter, as we saw already, and declared that whoever does not hear the Church be considered as the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17). He also commanded His followers to observe “all things whatsoever” He has commanded (Matthew 28:20). The Eastern schismatic sects (such as the “Orthodox”) and the Protestant sects are breakoff movements that have separated from the Catholic Church. By separating themselves from the one Church of Christ, they leave the path of salvation and enter the path of perdition.

These sects obstinately and pertinaciously reject one or more of the truths that Christ clearly instituted, such as the Papacy (Matthew 16; John 21; etc.), Confession (John 20:23), the Eucharist (John 6:54), and other dogmas of the Catholic Faith. In order to be saved one must assent to all the things which the Catholic Church, based on Scripture and Tradition, has infallibly defined as dogmas of the Faith.

Below are just a few of the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Faith which are rejected by Protestants and (in the case of the Papacy) by the Eastern “Orthodox.” The Church “anathematizes” (a severe form of excommunication) all who obstinately assert the contrary to its dogmatic definitions.

"To understand the word anathema…we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of. This is the sense of anathema in the following passage from Deut., vii, 26: ‘Neither shalt thou bring anything of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema like it. Thou shalt detest it as dung, and shalt utterly abhor it as uncleanness and filth, because it is an anathema.’”

Thus, a Protestant or an “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately rejects these dogmatic teachings is anathematized and severed from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It’s quite interesting that, in issuing these dogmatic canons, the Church says: “If anyone shall say…. let him be anathema [anathema sit]” as opposed to “If anyone shall say… he is anathema [anathema est].” This qualification of “let him be” allows room for those Catholics who may be unaware of a particular dogma and would conform to the teaching of the canon as soon as it were presented to him. The person who is obstinate, however, and willfully contradicts the dogmatic teaching of the Church receives the full force of the automatic condemnation.

The point here is that if one is able to reject these dogmas and still be saved, then these infallible definitions and their accompanying anathemas have no meaning, value or force. But they do have meaning, value and force – they are infallible teachings protected by Jesus Christ. Thus, all who reject these dogmas are anathematized and on the road to damnation.

Pope Pius XI, Rerum omnium perturbationem (#4), Jan. 26, 1923: “The saint was no less a person that Francis de Sales… he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.”

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 13, Can. 1 on the Eucharist, ex cathedra:"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the Body and Blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema."

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 14, Canon 3 on the Sacrament of Penance: “If anyone says that the words of the Lord Savior: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained’ [John 20:22 f.], are not to be understood of the power remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of penance… let him be anathema.”

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 14, on Extreme Unction and Penance: “These are the things which this sacred ecumenical synod professes and teaches concerning the sacraments of penance and extreme unction, and it sets them forth to be believed and held by all the faithful of Christ. Moreover, the following canons, it says, must be inviolately observed, and it condemns and anathematizes forever those who assert the contrary.”

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 16, ex cathedra:"After this Catholic doctrine of justification - which, unless he faithfully and firmly accepts, no one can be justified - it seemed good to the holy Synod to add these canons, so that all may know, not only what they must hold and follow, but also what they ought to shun and avoid."

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation."

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

To further show that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, I will quote numerous infallible statements from the Chair of St. Peter.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

This infallible dogmatic definition from the Chair of St. Peter condemns anyone who says that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation. The Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all for salvation, first of all, because, as the Council of Trent defines, all men (except the Blessed Virgin Mary) were conceived in a state of original sin as a result of the sin of Adam, the first man. The Sacrament of Baptism is also necessary for all for salvation because it is the means by which one is marked as a member of Jesus Christ and incorporated into His Mystical Body. And in defining the truth that all men were conceived in the state of Original Sin, the Council of Trent specifically declared that the Blessed Virgin Mary was an exception to its decree on Original Sin. But in defining the truth that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, the Council of Trent made no exceptions at all.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”

We see here that one cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven without faith and the external rite of baptism (i.e., the Sacrament of Baptism). Ignorant people nowadays contradict this fact and claim that people can reach heaven without a real and actual water baptism. One could easily understand if a person were ignorant of these facts and believed that a person or infant could be Saved without the sacrament of baptism since many have been wrong on this issue, even Saints. But when one has seen these infallible dogmatic declarations from the Popes, and still obstinately hold to the position that people or infants can be saved without real and actual water baptism, he is a heretic. A heretic is a person who obstinately, willfully and knowingly hold an opinion which he knows to be in opposition with what the Church teach.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “Likewise (I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

For a person to assert that salvation can be attained invincibly or ignorantly by Jews, pagans, heretics or schismatics without baptism or the Catholic Faith, is truly an the most evil of doctrine since it renders Faith in Jesus Christ and the true Catholic Faith meaningless. According to this erroneous world view, anyone who is “good” can attain eternal life.

Many people like to object against these truths as “bitter” or “uncharitable.”But this is not true. The “foundation of charity is faith pure and undefiled” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, #9). Some will also say that they cannot understand the justice behind these infallible declarations by God through the Popes. But it is not our job to question God’s laws and decrees. Our job is to believe first and understand second. Yet, if one looks at this situation clearly, one can understand the justice behind it. Adam and Eve brought death and original sin on every human being through their sin of eating the forbidden fruit. Did they fall for just desiring the fruit? NO! They fell after eating a real physical fruit. If you cannot accept that all of humanity must be baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, how can you accept that all of humanity fell into sin because of Adam and Eve ate a physical fruit?

Here are some very relevant quotes from the Revelations of St. Bridget that describes the power of a real baptism and how real water must be joined to the sacrament of baptism for baptism to be efficacious:

“The Mother appeared again and said: “My son, you still have need of a horse and saddle. The spiritual signification of the horse is baptism. Just as a horse has its four legs and carries a man on the journey he must accomplish, so too baptism, as signified by the horse, carries a man in the sight of God and has four spiritual effects. The first effect is that the baptized are liberated from the devil and bound to the commandments and service of God. The second effect is that they are cleansed from original sin. The third is that they are made God's children and coheirs. The fourth is that heaven is opened to them. Yet how many there are today who, having reached the age of reason, pull the reins on the horse of baptism and ride it off on a false path! The baptismal path is true and rightly followed when people are instructed and upheld in good moral habits before reaching the age of reason and when, upon reaching the age of reason and carefully considering what was promised at the baptismal font, they keep their faith and love of God intact. However, they ride away from the right path and rein the horse in when they prefer the world and the flesh to God. The saddle of the horse or of baptism is the effect of the bitter passion and death of Jesus Christ, which gave baptism its efficacy. What is water if not an element? As soon as God's blood was poured out, God's word and the power of God's outpoured blood entered into the element. Thus, by the word of God, the water of baptism became the means of reconciliation between humankind and God, the gate of mercy, the expulsion of demons, the way to heaven, and the forgiveness of sins. So those who would boast of the power of baptism should first consider how the effect of baptism was instituted through bitter pain. When their mind swells up with pride against God, let them consider how bitter their redemption was, how many times they have broken their baptismal vows, and what they deserve for their relapses into sin.” The Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 4, Chapter 74

As we can read from this splendid teaching by our Holy Mother, the water received the blood of our Lord when he died for our sins, and that is why the water can have such a great efficacy that it can even wash away original sin when it is used with the invocation of the name of the Holy Trinity. Here comes another good example from St. Bridget's revelations about the efficacy of baptism:

Christ describes why a three year old boy is tormented by a demon: “And even though the boy is born by the seed of the father and mother, the devil still has the greatest power over him, for he is not reborn through the true baptism, but is only baptized in the way that women are accustomed to baptize, who do not know about the words of the Holy Trinity. That is why the boy may be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; then he will be cured.”

BELIEVE DOGMA AS IT WAS ONCE DECLARED

There is only one way to believe dogma: as holy mother Church has once declared.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

One of the main problems with most traditional “Catholic” groups and the heretical Second Vatican Council - the Vatican II “Church” - is the constant and obstinate deviation from the true literal meaning as the dogmas once was infallibly declared. As we learn above, there can never be a recession from the true meaning of the dogmas as they were once declared under the specious name of deeper understanding. Thus we are forced to accept the dogmas as they are written under pain of mortal sin.

This definition of the First Vatican Council is critically important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way the Devil attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to recede (move away) from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared. There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how holy mother Church has declared them.

Many of us have dealt with people who have attempted to explain away the clear meaning of the definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation by saying, “you must understand them.” What they really mean is that you must understand them in a way different from what the words themselves state and declare. And this is precisely what the First Vatican Council condemns. It condemns their moving away from the understanding of a dogma which holy mother Church has once declared to a different meaning, under the specious (false) name of a “deeper understanding.”

Besides those who argue that we must “understand” dogmas in a different way than what the words themselves state and declare, there are those who, when presented with the dogmatic definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation, say, “that is your interpretation.” They belittle the words of a dogmatic formula to nothing other than one’s private interpretation. And this also is heresy. For its not our own interpretation which defines the dogmas, the dogmas define themselves, as have been shown. A person claiming otherwise will make himself guilty of bearing false witness. And this also is mortal sin.

THOSE WHO DIE IN ORIGINAL SIN OR MORTAL SIN DESCEND INTO HELL

As I have proven above, there is no possible way for children to be freed from original sin other than through the Sacrament of Baptism. This, of course, proves that there is no way for infants to be saved other than through the Sacrament of Baptism. So the following definitions merely affirm what has already been established: no child can possibly enter the kingdom of Heaven without receiving water baptism, but will rather descend into Hell.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:

“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Here Pope Pius VI condemns the idea of some theologians that infants who die in original sin suffer the fires of Hell. At the same time, he confirms that these infants do go to a part of the lower regions (i.e., Hell) called the limbo of the children. They do not go to Heaven, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire. This is perfectly in accord with all of the other solemn definitions of the Church, which teach that infants who die without water baptism descend into Hell, but suffer a punishment different from those who die in mortal sin. Their punishment is eternal separation from God.

Pope Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge (# 25), March 14, 1937: “‘Original sin’ is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Rom. v. 12). It is the loss of grace, and therefore eternal life, together with a propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer.”

THE UNBAPTIZED CHILDREN AND THE LIMBO OF THE CHILDREN

The Catholic Church teaches that aborted children and infants who die without baptism descend immediately into Hell, but that they do not suffer the fires of Hell. They go to a place in Hell called the limbo of the children. The most specific definition of the Church proving that there is no possible way for an infant to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism is the following one from Pope Eugene IV.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Eugene IV here defined from the Chair of Peter that there is no other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil (i.e., original sin) other than the Sacrament of Baptism. This means that anyone who obstinately teaches that infants can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is a heretic, for he is teaching that there is another remedy for original sin in children other than the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - Condemned

The arch-heretic John Wyclif was proposing that those (such as ourselves) are stupid for teaching that infants who die without water (i.e., sacramental) baptism cannot possibly be saved.He was anathematized for this assertion, among many others.And here is what the Council of Constance had to say about John Wyclif’s anathematized propositions, such as #6 above.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415: “The books and pamphlets of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, were carefully examined by the doctors and masters of Oxford University… This holy synod, therefore, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, repudiates and condemns, by this perpetual decree, the aforesaid articles and each of them in particular; and it forbids each and every Catholic henceforth, under pain of anathema, to preach, teach, or hold the said articles or any one of them.”

So those who criticize Catholics for affirming the dogma that no infant can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism are actually proposing the anathematized heresy of John Wyclif. Here are some other dogmatic definitions on the topic:

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

This means that anyone who asserts that infants don’t need the “laver of rebirth” (water baptism) to attain eternal life is teaching heresy. St. Augustine was perhaps the most outspoken proponent of the apostolic truth that infants who die without Baptism are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven (since they have original sin).

St. Augustine, A.D. 415: “Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

The Revelations of St. Bridget also corroborates this infallible dogmatic truth revealed by God in Book 5, Interrogation 6:

First question. Again he appeared on his ladder as before, saying: "O Judge, I ask you: Why does one infant emerge alive from the mother's womb and obtain baptism, while another, having received a soul, dies in the mother's belly?"

Answer to the first question. The Judge answered: "You ask why one infant dies in the mother's belly while another emerges alive. There is a reason. All the strength of the child's body comes, of course, from the seed of its father and mother; however, if it is conceived without due strength, because of some weakness of its father or mother, it dies quickly. As a result of the negligence or carelessness of the parents as well as of my divine justice, many times it happens that what was joined together comes apart quickly.

Yet a soul is not brought to the harshest punishment for this reason, however little time it had for giving life to the body, but, rather, it comes to the mercy that is known to me. Just as the sun shining into a house is not seen as it is in its beauty - only those who look into the sky see its rays - so too the souls of such children, though they do not see my face for lack of baptism, are nevertheless closer to my mercy than to punishment, but not in the same way as my elect." - The Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 5, Interrogation 6, Question 1

More proof:

“But consider my goodness and mercy! For, as the teacher says, I give virtue to those who do not have any virtue. By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion. As it is written: It has pleased my Father to give the kingdom of heaven to such as these. By reason of my tender love, I even show mercy to the infants of pagans. If any of them die before reaching the age of discretion, given that they cannot come to know me face to face, they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering.” - The Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 2, Chapter 1

These fascinating sentences clearly affirm infallible Catholic dogma by teaching that no one can see God's face without water baptism. Yet, they also give us explicit confirmation that these children are in a state of light and mercy, though not in the same way as those in Heaven.

BAPTISM OF BLOOD AND BAPTISM OF DESIRE – ERRONEOUS TRADITIONS OF MAN

In this document, I have shown that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. I have also shown that it is only through receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one is incorporated into the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. I have also shown that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 – Amen, amen I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God – are to be understood literally: as they are written. This is the infallible teaching of the Church and it excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. However, throughout the history of the Church, many have believed in the theories called baptism of desire and baptism of blood: that one’s desire for the Sacrament of Baptism or one’s martyrdom for the faith supplies for the lack of being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. Those who believe in baptism of blood and baptism of desire raise certain objections to the absolute necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. I will respond to some of the major objections made by baptism of desire and blood advocates; and in the process, I will give an overview of the history of the errors of baptism of desire and baptism of blood. In doing this I will demonstrate that neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire is a teaching of the Catholic Church.

THE FATHERS ARE UNANIMOUS FROM THE BEGINNING

The Fathers (or prominent early Christian Catholic writers) are unanimous from the beginning that no one enters heaven or is freed from original sin without water baptism.

In 140 A.D., the early Church Father Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5, and writes:

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.”

This statement is obviously a paraphrase of John 3:5, and thus it demonstrates that from the very beginning of the apostolic age it was held and taught by the fathers that no one enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit based specifically on Our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration in John 3:5.

In 155 A.D., St. Justin the Martyr writes:

“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”

Notice that St. Justin Martyr, like Hermas, also quotes the words of Jesus in John 3:5, and based on Christ’s words he teaches that it is from apostolic tradition that no one at all can enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.

In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, also dated 155 A.D., St. Justin Martyr further writes:

“… hasten to learn in what way forgiveness of sins and a hope of the inheritance… may be yours. There is no other way than this: acknowledge Christ, be washed in the washing announced by Isaias [Baptism]…”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.:

“He says, ‘Unless a man be born again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water and the Spirit’ – he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God…..if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.”

We see that St. Cyril continues the apostolic Tradition that no one enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit, based again on an absolute understanding Our Lord’s own words in John 3:5.

Pope St. Damasus, 382 A.D.:

“This, then, is the salvation of Christians: that believing in the Trinity, that is, in the Father, and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and baptized in it…”

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:

“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:

“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:

“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

St. John Chrysostom, 392 A.D.:

“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ not a whit from them, those who go hence without illumination, without the seal! … They are outside the royal city…. with the condemned. ‘Amen, I tell you, if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

St Augustine, 395 A.D.:

“… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.:

“But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.”

Pope St. Gregory the Great, c. 590 A.D.:

“Forgiveness of sin is bestowed on us only by the baptism of Christ.”

Theophylactus, Patriarch of Bulgaria, c. 800 A.D.:

“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. It does not suffice to believe; he who believes, and is not yet baptized, but is only a catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation.”

Many other passages could be quoted from the fathers, but it is a fact that the fathers of the Church are unanimous from the beginning of the apostolic age that no one at all can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, based on the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5. The eminent Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following (even though he believes in baptism of desire) in his three volume set on the fathers of the Church.

Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

The eminent scholar Fr. Jurgens is admitting here three important things:

1) The fathers are constant in their teaching that John 3:5 is absolute with no exceptions; that is, no one at all enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit;

2) The fathers are so constant on this point that it likely constitutes divine revelation, without even considering the infallible teaching of the popes;

3) The constant teaching of the fathers that all must receive water baptism for salvation in light of John 3:5 excludes exceptions for the “invincibly ignorant” or “physically impossible” cases.

And based on this truth, declared by Jesus in the Gospel (John 3:5), handed down by the Apostles and taught by the fathers, the Catholic Church has infallibly defined as a dogma (as we have seen already) that no one at all enters heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

NOT ALL OF THE FATHERS REMAINED CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN AFFIRMATION

Despite the fact that there is a constant tradition from the beginning that no one at all is saved without water baptism, not all of the fathers always remained consistent with their own affirmation on this point. And that is where we come across the theories of “baptism of blood” and “baptism of desire.” It must be understood that the fathers of the Church were mistaken and inconsistent with their own teaching and the apostolic Tradition on many points – since they were fallible men who made many errors.

The fathers of the Church are only a definite witness to Tradition when expressing a point held universally and constantly or when expressing something that is in line with defined dogma. Taken individually or even in multiplicity, they can be dead wrong and even dangerous. St. Basil the Great said that the Holy Ghost is second to the Son of God in order and dignity, in a horrible and even heretical attempt to explain the Holy Trinity.

St. Basil (363): “The Son is not, however, second to the Father in nature, because the Godhead is one in each of them, and plainly, too, in the Holy Spirit, even if in order and dignity He is second to the Son (yes, this we do concede!), though not in such a way, it is clear, that He were of another nature.”

When St. Basil says above that the Godhead is one in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he is correctly affirming the universal, apostolic Tradition. But when he says that the Holy Spirit is second in dignity to the Son he ceases to remain consistent with this Tradition and falls into error (material heresy, in fact). And the fathers made countless errors in attempting to defend or articulate the Faith.

St. Augustine wrote an entire book of corrections. St. Fulgentius and a host of others, including St. Augustine, held that it was certain that infants who die without baptism descend into the fires of Hell, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. As Pope Pius VI confirmed, unbaptized infants go to Hell, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire.

But St. Augustine was so outspoken in favor of this error that it became the common and basically unchallenged teaching for more than 500 years, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized infants share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.”

This is why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of a father of the Church or a handful of fathers; a Catholic goes by the infallible teaching of the Church proclaimed by the popes; and a Catholic assents to the teaching of the fathers of the Church when they are in universal and constant agreement from the beginning and in line with Catholic dogmatic teaching.

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”

The Catholic Church recognizes infallibility in no saint, theologian or early Church father. It is only a pope operating with the authority of the Magisterium who is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error on faith or morals. So, when we examine and show how Churchmen have erred on the topics of baptism of desire and blood this is 100% consistent with the teaching of the Church, which has always acknowledged that any Churchman, no matter how great, can make errors, even significant ones.

THE THEORY OF BAPTISM OF BLOOD – A TRADITION OF MAN

A small number of the fathers – approximately 8 out of a total of hundreds – are quoted in favor of what is called “baptism of blood,” the idea that a catechumen (that is, one preparing to receive Catholic Baptism) who shed his blood for Christ could be saved without having received Baptism. It is crucial to note at the beginning that none of the fathers considered anyone but a catechumen as a possible exception to receiving the Sacrament of Baptism; they would all condemn and reject as heretical and foreign to the teaching of Christ the modern heresy of “invincible ignorance” saving those who die as non-Catholics. So, out of the fathers, approximately 8 are quoted in favor of baptism of blood for catechumens. And, only 1 father out of hundreds, St. Augustine, can be quoted as clearly teaching what is today called “baptism of desire”: the idea that a catechumen could be saved by his explicit desire for water baptism. This means that with the exception of St. Augustine, all of the few fathers who believed in baptism of blood actually rejected the concept of baptism of desire. Take St. Cyril of Jerusalem, for example.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.: “If any man does not receive baptism, he does not receive salvation. The only exception is the martyrs...”

Here we see that St. Cyril of Jerusalem believed in baptism of blood, but rejected baptism of desire. St. Fulgence expressed the same.

St. Fulgence, 523: “From that time at which Our Savior said: “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,’ no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism pour out their blood for Christ…”

Here we see that St. Fulgence believed in baptism of blood but rejected the idea of baptism of desire. And what’s ironic and particularly dishonest is that the baptism of desire apologists (such as the priests of the Society of St. Pius X) will quote these patristic texts (such as the two above) in books written to prove baptism of desire, without pointing out to their readers that these passages actually deny baptism of desire; for we can see that St. Fulgence, while expressing belief in baptism of blood, rejects baptism of desire, only allowing martyrs as a possible exception to receiving baptism. (What would St. Fulgence say about the modern version of the heresy of baptism of desire, also taught by such priests of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. whereby Jews, Muslims, Hindus and pagans can be saved without Baptism?)

It is also important to point out that some of the fathers use the term “baptism of blood” to describe the Catholic martyrdom of one already baptized, not as a possible replacement for water baptism. This is the only legitimate use of the term.

St. John Chrysostom, Panegyric on St. Lucian, 4th Century AD:

“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a Baptism; for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is a taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul; and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood.”

St. John is here describing the martyrdom of a priest St. Lucian, a person already baptized. He is not saying that martyrdom replaces baptism. St. John Damascene describes it the same way:

St. John Damascene:

“These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers --- thus they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep... spotless and undefiled. Whence some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism: I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.”

This is important because many dishonest scholars today (such as the priests of the Society of St. Pius X) will distort the teaching on this point; they will quote a passage on baptism of blood where St. John is simply speaking of baptism of blood as a Catholic martyrdom for one already baptized, and they will present it as if the person were teaching that martyrdom can replace baptism – when such is not stated anywhere.

Some may wonder why the term baptism of blood was used at all. I believe that the reason the term “baptism of blood” was used by some of the fathers was because Our Lord described His coming passion as a baptism in Mark 10:38-39.

[Mark 10:38-39]: “And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink the chalice that I drink of: or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? But they said to him: We can. And Jesus saith to them: You shall indeed drink of the chalice that I drink of: and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, you shall be baptized.”

We see in the aforementioned passage that Our Lord, although already baptized by St. John in the Jordan, refers to another baptism which He must receive. This is His martyrdom on the cross, not a substitute for baptism of water. It is His “second baptism,” if you will, not his first. Thus, baptism of blood is described by Our Lord in the same way as St. John Damascene, not to mean a substitute baptism for an unbaptized person, but rather a Catholic martyrdom which remits all the fault and punishment due to sin.

The term baptism is used in a variety of ways in the scriptures and by the Church fathers. The baptisms: of water, of blood, of the spirit, of Moses, and of fire are all terms that have been implemented by Church Fathers to characterize certain things, but not necessarily to describe that an unbaptized martyr can attain salvation. Read the verse of scripture in which the term baptism is used for the Old Testament forefathers:

[1Cor. 10:2-4]: “And all in Moses were BAPTIZED, in the cloud, and in the sea: And did all eat the same spiritual food, And all drank the same spiritual drink: (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)”

I believe this explains why a number of fathers erred in believing that baptism of blood supplies the place of baptism of water. They recognized that Our Lord referred to His own martyrdom as a baptism, and they erroneously concluded that martyrdom for the true faith can serve as a substitute for being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. But the reality is that there are no exceptions to Our Lord’s words in John 3:5, as the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church confirms. Anyone of good will who is willing to shed his blood for the true faith will not be left without these saving waters. It is not our blood, but Christ’s blood on the Cross, communicated to us in the Sacrament of Baptism, which frees us from the state of sin and allows us entrance into the kingdom of Heaven.

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

SUMMARIZING THE FACTS ON BAPTISM OF BLOOD

As stated already, the theory of baptism of blood has never been taught by one pope, one council or in any Papal Encyclical. At least 5 dogmatic councils of the Catholic Church issued detailed definitions on Baptism, and not one ever mentioned the concept or the term baptism of blood. The Council of Trent had 14 canons on Baptism, and baptism of blood is mentioned nowhere. And, in fact, various infallible statements from the popes and councils exclude the idea.

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Eugene IV explicitly excludes from salvation even those who “shed blood for the name of Christ” unless they are living within the bosom and unity of the Church! And, as proven already, the unbaptized are not living within the bosom and unity of the Church (de fide)! The unbaptized are not subjects of the Catholic Church (de fide, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2); the unbaptized are not members of the Catholic Church (de fide, Pius XII, Mystici Corporis # 22); and the unbaptized do not have the mark of Christians (de fide, Pius XII, Mediator Dei # 43).

If “baptism of blood” truly served as a substitute for the Sacrament of Baptism, God would never have allowed the Catholic Church to understand John 3:5 as it is written in its infallible decrees, as He has (Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, etc.). This is certain, because the Church’s official understanding of the scriptures cannot err.

Furthermore, God would never have allowed the infallible Council of Trent to completely pass over any mention of this “exception” in its canons on baptism and its chapters on justification as an alternative way of achieving the state of grace. He would never have allowed all of the infallible definitions from popes on only one baptism to avoid any mention of “the baptism of blood.”

And God would not have allowed Pope Eugene IV to define that nobody, even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, can be saved unless he is in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church, without mentioning the exception of “baptism of blood.” God has never allowed the theory of baptism of blood to be taught in one council, by one pope, or in one infallible decree, but only by fallible theologians and fallible early Church fathers. All of this is because baptism of blood is not a teaching of the Catholic Church, but the erroneous speculation of certain fathers who also erred frequently in the same documents. Besides, there would be no need for God to save anyone by baptism of blood (or “baptism of desire”), since He can keep any sincere souls alive until they are baptized.

THE THEORY OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE – A TRADITION OF MAN

Those who have been brainwashed by apologists for the theory of baptism of desire may be surprised to learn that of all the fathers of the Church, only 1 can even be brought forward by baptism of desire advocates as having taught the concept. That’s correct, only one, St. Augustine. The baptism of desire advocates will make a feeble attempt to bring forward a second father, St. Ambrose, as we will see; but even if that were true, that would make only two fathers out of hundreds who can be quoted as ever having speculated on the concept of baptism of desire. So then, what is one to say about the following statements of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), who have written three separate books on “baptism of desire”?

Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau (SSPX), Baptism of Desire, p. 63: “This baptism of desire makes up for the want of sacramental baptism… The existence of this mode of salvation is a truth taught by the Magisterium of the Church and held from the first centuries by all the Fathers. No Catholic theologian has contested it.”

Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX), Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 79, on Baptism of desire: “It is not only the common teaching, but unanimous teaching; it is not only since the early part of this millennium, but rather from the beginning of the Church…”

These statements are totally false and grievous lies which completely misrepresent the teaching of Tradition and corrupt people’s faith, as we already have seen. The fathers are unanimously against the concept that anyone (including a catechumen) could be saved without water baptism. But let us examine the teaching of the one father, St. Augustine, who did express belief (at least at times) in the idea that a catechumen could be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by his desire for it.

ST. AUGUSTINE (354-430)

St. Augustine is quoted in favor of the concept of baptism of desire, but he admittedly struggled with the issue, sometimes clearly opposing the idea that unbaptized catechumens could achieve salvation, and other times supporting it.

St. Augustine, 400: “That the place of Baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same Blessed Cyprian draws…Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if… recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the Mystery of Baptism.”

There are two interesting points about this passage. The first relates to baptism of blood: notice that Augustine says that his belief in baptism of blood is supported by an inference or an argument that St. Cyprian made, not anything rooted in the Tradition of the Apostles or the Roman Pontiffs.

St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254): “… in regard to what I might think in the matter of the baptism of heretics… This baptism we cannot reckon as valid…”

As we saw already, many of the inferences of St. Cyprian showed themselves to be quite wrong, to put it nicely, such as his “inference” that it was from “apostolic Tradition” that heretics cannot confer baptism, which is wrong, since even heretics can baptize validly. Thus, St. Augustine is revealing by this statement a very important point: that his belief even in baptism of blood is rooted in fallible human speculation, not in divine revelation or infallible Tradition. He is admitting that he could be wrong and, in fact, he is wrong.

Secondly, when Augustine concludes that he also believes that faith (that is, faith in Catholicism) and a desire for baptism could have the same effect as martyrdom, he says: “Considering this over and over again…” By saying that he considered this over and over again, St. Augustine is admitting that his opinion on baptism of desire is also something that he has come to from his own consideration, not through infallible Tradition or teaching. It is something that he admittedly struggled with and contradicted himself on. All of this serves to prove again that baptism of desire, like baptism of blood, is a tradition of man, born in erroneous and fallible human speculation (albeit from some great men), and not rooted in or derived from any Tradition of the Apostles or of the popes.

Out of the hundreds of fathers of the Church, the only other one that the baptism of desire advocates even try to quote is St. Ambrose. They think that in his funeral speech for his friend (the Emperor Valentinian) he taught that the emperor (who was only a catechumen) was saved by his desire for baptism. But St. Ambrose’s funeral speech for Valentinian is extremely ambiguous and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. It is thus gratuitous for them to assert that it clearly teaches the idea of “baptism of desire.”

LITURGICAL TRADITION AND APOSTOLIC BURIAL TRADITION

Besides these clear testimonies of the fathers against the theory of baptism of desire, perhaps most striking is the fact that in the history of the Catholic Church there is not a single tradition that can be cited for praying for – or giving ecclesiastical burial to – catechumens who died without baptism. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) had the following to say about the actual Tradition of the Church in this regard:

“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”

There you have the teaching of Catholic Tradition! No catechumen who died without the Sacrament of Baptism received prayer, sacrifice or Christian burial! The Council of Braga, in 572 A.D., forbade prayer for catechumens who died without Baptism. Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gelasius had earlier confirmed the same Church discipline – which was the universal practice – forbidding Catholics to pray for unbaptized catechumens who had died. This means that the belief in the early Church was that there was no such thing as baptism of desire. The theory of baptism of desire didn’t become a widespread belief until the middle ages, when St. Thomas Aquinas and some other eminent theologians made it their own, which caused many theologians to subsequently adopt that position out of deference to them, a position on the possible salvation of catechumens who died without baptism which was contrary to the overwhelming belief and liturgical tradition of the early Church, not to mention the Church’s later infallible teaching on the scripture John 3:5.

The true teaching of apostolic and Catholic tradition on this topic is also seen from the teaching of the Catholic Liturgy, which all worshipping Catholics in the early Church acknowledged and believed: namely, that no unbaptized catechumen or unbaptized person was considered part of the faithful. That unbaptized catechumens are not part of the faithful was held by all of the fathers because it was taught to all Catholics in the liturgy.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”

This means that no unbaptized person can be saved, because Catholic dogma has defined that no one is saved outside the one Church of the faithful.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’”

POPE ST. SIRICIUS (384-398)

In his letter to the Bishop of Tarragona in the year 385, Pope St. Siricius also shows how the belief in the early Church rejected any concept of baptism of desire.

Pope St. Siricius, 385, [Concerning the necessity of baptism] “Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Latin found in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Latin Edition, 1962, no. 184; an English Translation found in The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)

I hope that the baptism of desire advocates read this one very carefully. The Pope declares that the man who begs for regeneration and desires water baptism is still denied heaven if he dies without it! This quotation from Pope St. Siricius is striking in that it again clearly shows how the early Church rejected belief in the concept of baptism of desire. The Pope begins by affirming that the observance of Paschal time should not be relaxed. (He is referring to the fact that Baptisms were historically performed during Paschal time.) After affirming that this tradition should be maintained, the Pope warns that infants and those in any necessity or danger should be baptized immediately, lest those who desire baptism die and are “deprived of the Kingdom and life” for not having received water baptism which they desired. This is a clear rejection of the idea of baptism of desire.

This point is made again by the Pope in the second half of the quotation, where he says that when those unbaptized persons “ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for.” This means that receiving water Baptism is the only help to salvation for such persons who earnestly desire to receive Baptism. There is no help to salvation for such persons in their desire or martyrdom, but only in receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

As you can see, you are anathematized if you assert that baptism of desire is a Catholic doctrine!

MAJOR OBJECTIONS

SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

OBJECTION- In Session 6, Chapter 4 of its decree on Justification, the Council of Trent teaches that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it! So there!

ANSWER- [Preliminary Note: If Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire advocates claim (which it isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism or at least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved. It would mean that it would be heresy to say that any unbaptized person could be saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow for water baptism. But 99% of the people who quote this passage in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that one must desire baptism to be saved! They believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who don’t desire water baptism. Thus, 99% of those who quote this passage reject even what they claim it is teaching. Frankly, this fact just shows the dishonesty and the bad will of most baptism of desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were devoted to its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all and are in heresy for teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.]

That being noted, this passage of the Council of Trent does not teach that Justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. It says that justification in the impious CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the water of baptism or the desire for it. This is totally different from the idea that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

First off, the reader should note that this crucial passage from Trent has been horribly mistranslated in the popular English version of Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic Dogma, which is cited above.

The critical phrase, “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it” has been mistranslated to read: “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…” This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (without) – which is found in the original Latin – to “except through” completely alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of baptism of desire. This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still being used all the time by baptism of desire apologists (often deliberately), including in recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI. That being mentioned, I will proceed to discuss what the council actually says here.

Looking at a correct translation, which is found in many books, the reader also should notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this. That is why all of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.

But what does the passage in Trent that we just discussed say: It says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”

But what about the claim of the baptism of desire people: that the use of the word “or” (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. A careful look at the correct translation of this passage shows this claim to be false. Suppose I said, “This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one.” Does this mean that a shower can take place by the desire to take a shower? No it doesn’t. It means that both (water and desire) are necessary.

Or suppose I said, “There cannot be a wedding without a bride or a groom.” Does this mean that you can have a wedding with a groom and not a bride? Of course not. It means that both are necessary for the wedding. One could give hundreds of other examples. Likewise, the passage above in Trent says that Justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT water or desire; in other words, both are necessary. It does not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire!

THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

OBJECTION- The Catechism of the Council of Trent taught that one’s determination to receive baptism could avail him to grace and righteousness if it is impossible for him to receive baptism.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once, p. 179: “On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

ANSWER- The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their introduction contains the following interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome, about the Catechism’s authority.

Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

THE CATECHISM ATTRIBUTED TO ST. PIUS X

The Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X repeats for us the same de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 16: “Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for Our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’”

So, contrary to popular belief, those who reject “baptism of desire” actually follow the teaching of the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X on the absolute necessity of water baptism. They don’t follow, however, the teaching of this fallible Catechism when it proceeds to contradict this truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 17: “Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”

This again is a total contradiction to what is stated in Question 16. It should be noted that this catechism, while attributed to Pope St. Pius X, did not come from his pen and was not solemnly promulgated by him. There is no Papal Bull from him promulgating the catechism, so it is just a fallible catechism that went out during his reign and was given his name. But, even if St. Pius X had himself authored the above words (which he didn’t), it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the points I’ve made. This is because a pope is only infallible when speaking magisterially. This catechism is not infallible because it wasn’t promulgated solemnly from the Chair of Peter or even specifically by the pope. Further, this catechism is proven not to be infallible by the fact that it teaches the abominable heresy that there is salvation “outside” the Church (as I will show)!

But I will first quote where the catechism affirms the dogma.

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 27: “Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.”

Here the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X reaffirms the defined dogma. But it proceeds to deny this dogma just two questions later!

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”

Here we see this fallible Catechism word for word denying the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation! It teaches that there can be salvation “outside” the Church, which directly denies the truth it taught to the people in Question 27. This statement is so heretical, in fact, that it would be repudiated even by most of the crafty heretics of our day, who know that they cannot say that people are saved “outside,” so they argue that non-Catholics are not “outside” but are “inside” somehow. So even those crafty heretics who reject the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation would have to admit that the above statement is heretical!

Further, notice that the catechism attributed to St. Pius X teaches the heresy that persons can be united to the “Soul” of the Church, but not the Body. As proven already, the Catholic Church is a Mystical Body. Those who are not part of the Body are no part at all.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

This discussion on the catechisms should demonstrate to the reader how the rampant denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of Water Baptism has been perpetuated through fallible texts with imprimaturs and why it has been imbibed today by almost all who profess to be Catholic. It has been perpetuated by fallible documents and texts which contradict themselves, which contradict defined dogma, and which teach heresy, and which – all the while – elsewhere affirm the immutable truths of the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church and water baptism for salvation. And this is why Catholics are bound to adhere to infallibly defined dogma, not fallible catechisms or theologians.

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

How many infallible statements from Popes have we not seen, which absolutely proves that a real psychical water-baptism is necessary for salvation? Anyone denying this fact is simply a liar and a heretic who obstinately adhere to fallible sources instead of infallible ones, and imagines himself (or some other man, or some other fallible source) to be the source of truth, thus putting man in the place of God (the infallible Popes, through whom God's truth is revealed). When such a person above described prays the "Our Father" he is a hypocrite, because he himself has no intention of doing the will of God!

THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR EVERYONE ABOVE THE AGE OF REASON TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION TO BE SAVED

John 3:36- “He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

The Catholic Church also teaches that it is absolutely necessary for everyone above reason to positively know about the most holy mysteries of our great religion in order to be saved. These mysteries are the Trinity and the Incarnation. Those who speak about invincible ignorance and that ignorance about the Catholic faith can somehow save a person are thoroughly refuted by these words below. They are also refuted by Our Lord’s words in the Gospel!

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.

“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Some will state that dogmas of the Catholic Church that true non heretical Popes have pronounced are somehow their own interpretation of how things work and that the Popes are not inspired by God when they speak infallibly from the chair of Peter. Such nonsense would mean that no foundation of truth could ever exist since there would be no infallible declarations by the Popes to rely on to explain Scripture to us. These woeful wretches are also condemned by our saintly Pope St. Pius X!

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned

Dogmas are truths fallen from heaven which cannot possibly contain error. They are not merely human statements, written to warn non-Catholics, which are subject to correction and qualification. Dogmas are infallible definitions of the truth which can never be changed or corrected, and have no need to be changed or corrected since they cannot possibly contain error. Dogmas are defined so that Catholics must know what they must believe as true from divine revelation without any possibility of error.

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin.”

INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6 on Justification, Chap. 15: “…it must be maintained that the grace of justification, although received, is lost not only by infidelity, whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin, although faith be not lost, thereby defending the doctrine of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelievers, but also the faithful who are ‘fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners’ [1 Cor. 6:9], and all others who commit deadly sins…”

The dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation has been solemnly defined at least seven times by popes speaking from the Chair of St. Peter. Never once were any exceptions mentioned about “invincible ignorance.” In fact, it is just the opposite: all exceptions were always excluded.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Thus, the idea that a non-Catholic who is ignorant of the Faith can be saved is heretical; it is contrary to the dogma that “no one,” (Pope Pius IV; Benedict XIV; Pius IX) “nobody at all,” (Innocent III) “nobody, even if he shed his blood in the name of Christ” (Eugene IV) can be saved as a non-Catholic. It is a denial of the dogma that “every human creature” (Boniface VIII) must be a Catholic, and that “only those” (Eugene IV) inside the bosom and unity of the Church can achieve salvation.

Those who insist that “invincible ignorance” can possibly save a person who dies as a non-Catholic simply depart from and deny the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., a famous 16th century Dominican theologian, summed up the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this topic very well. Here is how he put it: “When we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith. For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief. As St. Thomas says, however, if they do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.”

Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218, 1888: “Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’ (De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1).

All the people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by the Gospel go to Hell for sins against the natural law and the other grave sins which they commit – which bad will and failure to cooperate with God’s grace is the reason He does not reveal the Gospel to them. The First Vatican Council defined infallibly, based on Romans 1, that the one true God can be known with certitude by the things which have been made, and by the natural light of human reason.

St. Paul, Romans 1:18-20: “For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”

Everyone can know with certainty that there is a supreme spiritual being, Who is the One True God and the Creator of the world and all that it contains. Everyone knows that God is not something that they have carved out of wood or jade or stone. They know that God is not the tree that they worship or the river they worship or the rock or the snake or the sacred tree frog. They know that these things aren’t the Creator of the universe. Every such person knows that he is worshipping a creature rather than the Creator. They are, as St. Paul says in verse 20, without excuse. St. Augustine explains this well in reference to persons who died ignorant of the Faith and without baptism.

St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

In his Encyclical Letters, dated Dec. 8, 1849; Dec.. 8, 1864; and Aug. 10, 1863, and in his Allocution on Dec. 9, 1854: Pope Pius IX. says:

"It is not without sorrow that we have learned another not less pernicious error, which has been spread in several parts of Catholic countries, and has been imbibed by many Catholics, who are of opinion that all those who are not at all members of the true Church of Christ, can be saved: Hence they often discuss the question concerning the future fate and condition of those who die without having professed the Catholic faith, and give the most frivolous reasons in support of their wicked opinion . . . ."

"We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error, which has been imbibed by certain Catholics, who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true faith, and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to Catholic faith, as is evident from the plain words of our Lord, (Matt. xviii. 17 ; Mark xvi. 16; Luke x. 16; John iii. 18) as also from the words of St. Paul, (II. Tim. Iii. 11) and of St. Peter (II. Peter. ii. 1). To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic faith is to be an impious wretch."

"We therefore again reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all and every one of these perverse opinions and doctrines, and it is our absolute will and command that all sons of the Catholic Church shall hold them as reprobated, proscribed, and condemned. It belongs to our Apostolic office to rouse your Episcopal zeal and watchfulness to do all in your power to banish from the minds of the people such impious and pernicious opinions, which lead to indifference of religion, which we behold spreading more and more, to the ruin of souls. Oppose all your energy and zeal to these errors and employ zealous priests to impugn and annihilate them, and to impress very deeply upon the minds and hearts of the faithful the great dogma of our most holy religion, that salvation can be had only in the Catholic faith. Often exhort the clergy and the faithful to give thanks to God for the great gift of the Catholic faith."

St. Augustine, Tractate 89, on John 15:22-23- “What, then, does He [Jesus] mean by the words, If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin? [John 15:22] Was it that the Jews were without sin before Christ came to them in the flesh? Who, though he were the greatest fool, would say so?... But when He went on to say, But now they have no excuse for their sin, some may be moved to inquire whether those to whom Christ neither came nor spoke, have an excuse for their sin. For if they have not, why is it said here that these had none, on the very ground that He did come and speak to them? And if they have, have they it to the extent of thereby being barred from punishment, or of receiving it in a milder degree? To these inquiries, with the Lord's help and to the best of my capacity, I reply, that such have an excuse, not for every one of their sins, but for this sin of not believing on Christ, inasmuch as He came not and spoke not to them.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’

THE DOGMA, POPE PIUS IX AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

OBJECTION- What about Pope Pius IX? Isn’t it true that he taught that the invincibly ignorant could be saved in two documents? What about Singulari Quadem and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore?

ANSWER- Confusion on this topic has increased as a result of a few misunderstood statements from Pope Pius IX. As we analyze these statements, it is imperative to keep in mind that, even if Pope Pius IX had taught that the invincibly ignorant could be saved on these two occasions, it wouldn’t mean that such a position is true, because they were fallible documents which could have contained error. No pope can change or contradict dogma. Pope Honorius, who reigned in the 7th century, was, in fact, later condemned for propagating heresy, though not in his solemn capacity teaching to the universal Church, further proving how even a pope can err or teach heresy in his fallible capicity. Thus, no one, not even a pope, can change the dogma that no one who dies outside the Catholic Church, ignorant or not, can be saved. Here are some more quotes on ignorance.

Pope Benedict XV, Humani Generis Redemptionem (# 14), June 15, 1917: “…‘Ignorance is the mother of all errors,’ as the Fourth Lateran Council so truthfully observes.”

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

The first of the documents from Pope Pius IX, frequently quoted by those who believe in salvation outside the Church, is Singulari Quadem, an allocution (a speech to the cardinals) given December 9, 1854:

“....those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.”

First of all, this is a speech of Pope Pius IX to the cardinals. It is not a dogmatic pronouncement, not even an encyclical, nor even an encyclical addressed to the entire Church.

But is Pope Pius IX saying that the invincibly ignorant can be justified and saved in their condition? No. Rather, he is stating that the “invincibly ignorant” will not be held accountable for the sin of infidelity, but they will still go to Hell. Read carefully the last part of the sentence, “are not subject to any guilt IN THIS MATTER,” that is, in the matter of infidelity. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that unbelievers who have never heard of the Gospel are damned for their other sins, which cannot be remitted without Faith, not because of the sin of infidelity (or disbelief in the Gospel). These other sins of the unbelievers serve as the reason why God does not reveal the Gospel to them and which ultimately excludes them from salvation. If one among them, however, were truly sincere and of good will, and cooperating with the natural law, then God would send a preacher (even miraculously, if necessary) to bring the Catholic Faith and baptism to him. Pope Pius IX goes on to say in the same allocution concerning a person of good will who is invincibly ignorant:

“the gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and pray for refreshment by the divine light…

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

St. Augustine, Tractate 89, on John 15:22-23- “What, then, does He [Jesus] mean by the words, If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin? [John 15:22] Was it that the Jews were without sin before Christ came to them in the flesh? Who, though he were the greatest fool, would say so?...To these inquiries, with the Lord's help and to the best of my capacity, I reply, that such have an excuse, not for every one of their sins, but for this sin of not believing on Christ, inasmuch as He came not and spoke not to them.”

Thus, Pope Pius IX was not teaching that people who are ignorant of the Catholic Faith can be saved; he was, rather, stating that such unbelievers are not damned for the matter of infidelity. The fact that all who die as ignorant non-Catholics are not saved is the affirmation of all of Catholic Tradition and all the saints, besides being the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

Pope Pius IX proceeded to speak about the invincibly ignorant again seven years later in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863. Quanto Conficiamur Moerore does not meet the requirements for infallibility; it is addressed only to the cardinals and bishops of Italy.

Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion AND WHO ZEALOUSLY KEEPING THE NATURAL LAW AND ITS PRECEPTS ENGRAVED IN THE HEARTS OF ALL BY GOD, AND BEING READY TO OBEY GOD, LIVE AN HONEST AND UPRIGHT LIFE, can, by the OPERATING POWER OF DIVINE LIGHT AND GRACE, attain eternal life since God...will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.”

First, notice that Pope Pius IX specifically condemns the idea that a man “living in error and separated from the true Faith” can be saved. What, may I ask, is the idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant”? Why, of course, it is the idea that a man living in error and separated from the true Faith can be saved. So, the very concept of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” is condemned as QUITE CONTRARY TO CATHOLIC TEACHING in this very document of Pope Pius IX.

Second, notice again that Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly ignorant can be saved where they are. Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they cooperate with God’s grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by God’s “operating power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the truth of the Gospel] attain eternal life, since God will certainly bring all of his elect to the knowledge of the truth and into the Church by baptism. According to the specific definition of Sacred Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which removes the ignorant from darkness.

Ephesians 5:8 “For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light.”

1 Thess. 5:4-5 “But you, brethren [believers], are not in darkness… For all you are the children of the light.”

So, we must not interpret Pius IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore about the good-willed ignorant being saved by receiving “divine light and grace” contrary to their clear scriptural and Traditional meaning, which is that divine light and grace is received by hearing of the Gospel, believing it and being baptized. Thus, in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pius IX is saying that the good-willed, sincere person who is ignorant of the Faith will be “illuminated” by receiving the “divine light” (hearing the Gospel) and will enter the Catholic Church so that he can be saved.

I realize that Pope Pius IX was not nearly as clear as he could have been in the second half of Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. The heretics have had a field day with it, because they think that they can exploit its wording to favor their heresy that there is salvation outside the Church. If Pope Pius IX had repeated in a strong way the previous definitions of the popes, without any ambiguous language, he would have avoided the danger of modernists misinterpreting his words. This is a shame because almost all of his statements on this topic do very clearly affirm Church dogma without any ambiguity that heretics can jump on.

Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”

Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”

Pope Pius IX- Syllabus of Modern Errors- Proposition 16, Dec. 8, 1854: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned

Notice again that the concept of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” is condemned here. The concept of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant,” as it is held by almost everyone who holds it today, is that some men – including those who observe non-Catholic religions – can find and arrive at salvation in these religions because they are “without fault of their own.” But this is heretical and condemned by Pius IX’s own Syllabus of Errors above.

SALVATION FOR THE “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT” REDUCED TO ITS ABSURD PRINCIPLE

Invincible ignorance becomes a destructive heresy, obliterating the necessity of the catholic faith all over the world. The theory that “invincible ignorance” saves can also be refuted by reducing it to its absurd principle, which is this: If being ignorant of the Savior could render one worthy of salvation, then Catholics are actually doing non-Christians a disservice in preaching Jesus Christ to them. St. Paul, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Francis Xavier, Fr. Pierre De Smet, the North American Martyrs and the other countless heroic missionaries in Church history, who suffered mind-boggling hardships to preach the Gospel to the ignorant pagans, were simply making these people more culpable and more guilty before God, according to the modern heresy of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant.” If the missionaries had just stayed home, according to the invincible ignorance heresy, the sincere pagans could have been saved for never having heard of Christ through no fault of their own. But by making the effort to preach Christ to them, as the missionaries did, they were – according to the invincible ignorance heresy – rendering these persons without excuse if they failed to live up to the obligations of the Gospel or rejected it altogether. Thus, preaching the Gospel to the non-Christians, according to the heretical “invincible ignorance” theory, puts the pagans in a situation in which it is more likely that they are going to be damned. Thus, the modern heresy of salvation by being “invincibly ignorant” actually makes preaching to the pagans counterproductive for the salvation of souls. But such a notion is absurd, of course, and proves the illogical and false nature of the invincible ignorance heresy.

But, in fact, the heresy has gotten so bad today in the time of the Great Apostasy in which we live that most “Catholics” today readily profess that pagans, Jews, Buddhists, etc. who know of the Gospel and reject it can also be saved by “invincible ignorance.” But this is only the necessary result of the invincible ignorance heresy; for if pagans who’ve never heard of Christ can be saved “in good faith,” then pagans who reject Christ could also be in good faith too, for how much does one have to hear to lose his “invincible ignorance”? Once one strays from the principle – that is to say, once one rejects the divinely revealed truth – that all who die as pagans are definitely lost without exception (Pope Eugene IV, de fide), the clear cut lines of demarcation are rejected, and a gray area necessarily takes over, a gray area according to which one cannot possibly know or set limits on who is possibly in good faith and who is not.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).

GIFTS, DONATIONS AND WILLS

Catholics should neither will things nor give gifts/donations to those who are heretics or non-Catholics. This would include those who profess to be traditional Catholics, but don’t hold the correct positions. Well, here are some interesting canons we’ve recently come across in study. They come from the regional councils in Africa around the year 419 A.D. They inculcate the same ancient Christian concept:

Canons of the African Code, 419 A.D., Canon 22: “And that to those who are not Catholic Christians, even if they be blood relations, neither bishops nor clergymen shall give anything at all by way of donation of their possessions.”

Canons of the African Code, 419 A.D., Canon 81: “It was ordained that if any bishop should prefer to his Church strangers to blood relationship with him, or his heretical relatives, or pagans as his heirs, he shall be anathematized even after his death…”

ABOUT RECEIVING THE SACRAMENTS FROM HERETICS AND PRAYER IN COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

(For our most recent article refuting Peter and Michael Dimond’s lies and dishonesties on receiving sacraments from heretics in the debate with us, and on their website, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics Debate” – The Important Quotes, CLICK HERE.)

PREFACE

This article will not refute the concept of whether validly ordained (but heretical or schismatical priests) consecrate the sacraments validly – for they do – but will rather deal with whether one may approach such priests for the sacraments. Some people claim that one may approach heretical (but validly ordained) priests for the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession licitly and without sin. This concept however is totally false and will be thoroughly refuted in this article. (It must also be pointed out that while the validly ordained but heretical priests can consecrate most of the sacraments validly, they nevertheless cannot consecrate the sacraments of confession (Penance, Extreme Unction etc.), since they cannot give an absolution in these sacraments, since they are lacking jurisdiction, which is required for the validity of these sacraments, and which they have not since they are heretics and outside the Church. See COUNCIL OF TRENT TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION; and ST. THOMAS TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION.)

Important to understand here is that a heretical or schismatical priest consecrate these other sacraments validly – but illicitly – and sins mortally every time he confect these sacraments. Also everyone that knowingly approach a heretical or schismatical priest for the sacraments, receives them illicitly and sins mortally every time he approach these sacraments (unless ignorance excuse him).

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16). Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin [that is, only if they didn’t know it was heretics they approached or that it was wrong to approach them.]”

The priest consecrates validly because of his valid ordination to the priesthood; he consecrates illicitly because of his heresy or schism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “For administering Baptism validly no special ordination is required. Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, provided that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form, with the intention of doing what the Church does (Decr. pro Armen., Denzinger-Bannwart, 696). Only bishops, priests, and in some cases, deacons may confer Baptism solemnly. It is now held as certain that in Matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make the contract and the sacrament is a contract raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical "Arcanum", 10 Febr., 1880). For the validity of the other five sacraments the minister must be duly ordained. The Council of Trent anathematized those who said that all Christians could administer all the sacraments (Sess. VII, can.10). Only bishops can confer Sacred Orders (Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, can.7). Ordinarily only a bishop can give Confirmation. The priestly Order is required for the valid administration of Penance and Extreme Unction (Conc. Trid., sess. XIV, can.10, can.4). As to the Eucharist, those only who have priestly Orders can consecrate, i.e. change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.”

It should be stressed, of course, that all ordinations which has taken place in antipope Paul VI’s new rite of “Holy Orders” of bishops, priests and deacons are invalid, since they have deviated from the traditional formula of consecration. This means that all ordinations which have occurred after 1968 in Paul VI’s new rite of “Holy” Orders are invalid. This means that almost all the priests in the new Vatican II religion are invalidly ordained and never consecrate the sacraments either validly or licitly. Priests in the New Vatican II religion, however, who was ordained before 1968 and Paul VI’s new rite of ordination, are still valid priests and consecrates these sacraments validly (but illicitly) if they use the traditional formula (correct wording) of confecting these Sacraments. Some argue that even these heretical or apostate priests may be approached for the sacraments licitly. This, however, is completely false and will be thoroughly refuted in this article. (If you want to learn more about the invalidity of Vatican II, the New Mass, and Paul VI’s new rite of ordination, consult this page: http://www.catholic-saints.net/new-mass-vs-traditional-mass/)

THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR AVOIDING HERETICS

Now, the doctrine that people can never pray in communion with heretics, receive the sacraments from heretics or enter their churches, are taught from the beginning of the Church, and its foundation is of course from the Bible.

Titus 3:10:- “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.”

The infallible word of God commands us to avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition.

2 John 1:9-10:- “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”

This bible verse makes it crystal clear that those who have dealings with heretics or schismatics, “communicateth with his wicked works.” This means that those who have dealings with heretics have a part of and share in their sins.

However, there is one exception to this doctrine of receiving the Sacraments from heretics. This specific canon from the Council of Florence deals with the sacrament of baptism. The Catholic Church will always make it clear when there is an exception to a doctrine.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denz. 696)

This exception on baptism is really necessary since no man can ever be saved or by any other means enter into the bosom and unity of the Church without the sacrament of baptism. This, of course, is another proof of the explicit necessity for all to be baptized in order to be saved.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

The Church made this specific exception in regard to heretics since everyone - young as well as old - must receive the water of regeneration to be saved. However, the words of Pope Eugene IV, in the Council of Florence, do not allow a person to receive the sacrament of Baptism from heretics in all cases, but only in an extreme necessity. One example would be when the danger of death is imminent, and the person in question might risk dying without the sacrament of baptism. (This exception would also of course be valid if you don’t know any Catholics in your area and need baptism. If you have no Catholic friends or family members and need baptism you may be baptized by a heretic as fast as possible. See Baptism; the Steps to Convert to the Traditional Catholic Faith; the Steps for Those Leaving the New Mass; and Conditional Baptism). In such a situation, as described above, however, “not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” And so, it is clear why God made this exception through the Pope. Again, when there are exceptions, it will always be mentioned and made clear.

The point being made, one will not, however, find any exceptions regarding any other of the sacraments in regard to heretics or schismatics. According to the teachings of the Church, heretics and schismatics must be avoided under pain of mortal sin. You may thus not have friendly relations with them, e.g., playing sports together, or doing other activities like this, or even meet with them as one would meet with a real Catholic friend. The only exception to this would be if you’re trying to convert a heretic or an unbeliever. In such a case you can meet with him, play sports with him and talk with him. However, if your intention is wrong and you know that you keep contact with atheists or heretics for the wrong reasons, and not for the purpose of really converting them (or even if your intention is right but the sinner, heretic or schismatic is obstinate and non-convertible and refuses to listen), as all too often happens with heretical family members, then you must cease all contact with them. For doing otherwise might be the cause of your eternal destruction. How many people have not forfeited God to please other men more? How many have not lost God because they spent too much time trying to help others whilst overlooking themselves? "Beware of men", Jesus Christ warns (Matthew 10:17). Catholics must realize that few are Saved; most adult Catholics are damned. Not even Jesus Christ, who is God, could convert all the hardened Jews.

AGAINST HERETICS AND PRAYING IN COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

Catholics are explicitly forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with heretics or receive the sacraments from them as Pope Leo X and the following dogmatic Councils makes clear. These quotations, of course, also condemn the Vatican II sect’s false ecumenism, as well as their false prayer meetings or gatherings with the false religions of the world.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8 and 9, ex cathedra: “And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.

“…All false Christians and those with evil sentiments towards the faith, of whatever race or nation they may be, as well as heretics and those stained with some taint of heresy, or Judaizers, are to be totally excluded from the company of Christ’s faithful and expelled from any position, especially from the Roman curia, and punished with an appropriate penalty…”

The Pope just said infallibly that all heretics should be avoided in every way. Note that you can only know that someone is a heretic if you yourself have obtained this knowledge of the person in question. Thus, if you know your priest to be a heretic, you are obliged to avoid him in every way, and may not approach him for the sacraments. This same authoritative language can be seen in Pope Vigilius ex cathedra decree from the Second Council of Constantinople.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex cathedra: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10).”

Question: Does this mean that I cannot live with my heretical parents, even though I’ve tried to convert them?

Answer: Of course not. All it means is that you cannot unite yourself with heretics purposely (outside of what the Church approves of), or be friends with them, or be in religious communion with them. That’s what’s condemned here. The Pope is not condemning those who, in a necessity, live with a heretic, who are married with a heretic (so long as the Church has approved of it), who buys food or do business with heretics, or who work under a heretic or take orders from him, etc.

Moving on:

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion [excommunicated].”

The Third Council of Constantinople just defined infallibly that any person who prays in communion with heretics are to be excommunicated and refused communion for praying with other heretics. Now let’s look at some other quotes:

Council of Laodicea, 4th century, (#Canon 6): "No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics… It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue in heresy.”

Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

Pope Pius IX, Sept. 16, 1864, letter to the English Episcopate (CH 254): “That Christians and ecclesiastics should pray for Christian unity under the direction of heretics and, what is worse, according to an intention which is radically impregnated and vitiated with heresy, is absolutely impossible to tolerate!”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258.1: “It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.”

Pope Pius VI, Charitas Quae, April 13, 1791: “31... Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”

For people then to claim (in spite of all the quotations above saying otherwise) that one may pray at heretical churches or receive the sacraments from them or that an assembly presided over by heretics or an assembly that prays in communion with other heretics, to somehow be the Church of God or the Church of Catholics, is simply to deny God’s revealed infallible truth.

ST. THOMAS AGAINST COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

Now, let’s look at what St. Thomas has to say about heretics.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Question 82, Art. 9: "I answer that, As was said above, heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin."

First, I want to make clear that the second part of this quotation from St. Thomas (which is taken out of context by certain individuals) will be dealt with shortly in the major objections section. However, St. Thomas is clearly teaching (in agreement with the Popes) that the people who knowingly attend the churches of heretics, schismatics, or even sinful (excommunicated) priests, become a sharer in their sin. And although one may approach a sinful priest licitly until the Church has made Her sentence on him, one may nevertheless not approach a priest who is a notorious or known heretic or schismatic, even if he’s undeclared, since he is not a Catholic.

One example of a known, notorious priest that must be avoided is the following: even if a priest’s heresy or schism was concealed to most people, and you perhaps was the only one who knew about it after talking to him and you thus knew him to be a heretic, then you must avoid him as a heretic and may not approach him for the sacraments. If, however, you would culpably or knowingly choose to go to such a heretical priest, then you are actually helping in this priest’s wicked and sinful deeds since you, by receiving the sacraments from him, are helping him to commit mortal sins and sacrileges against our Lord; and since you, by showing external communion with him, profess to everyone present that you have the same faith as he do. (And by the way, most if not all heretical priests today are not merely occult heretics but are in fact known as heretics to the people who uphold all (or most) dogmas, i.e., no baptism of desire, no salvation outside the Church at all). A priest who is a heretic or schismatic sins mortally when using the sacraments, and thus draws down on his own head and those he deceive an eternal flame of fire that will never be extinguished. So then, by entering the "Churches" of heretics you are clearly showing to everyone present that you are in communion with this person and that you agree with his heresies. That should be absolutely clear to any honest person.

IMPOSING OR NOT

Some will object to this by saying: “I can go to a heretical (but validly ordained) priest licitly for the mass and the sacraments as long as he isn’t imposing about his heresy or preach heresy from the pulpit.”

Answer: It does not matter whether the priest is imposing about his heresy or whether he preaches it from the pulpit, as some deceived people believe. For tell me, dear reader. Is someone who is a heretic a member of the Church even if he does not preach his heresy from the pulpit or are imposing about it? What about a "Pope" who was to become a heretic, but wasn’t imposing about his heresies; would you consider him as the Pope or go to him for the sacraments? According to these people, this heretical "pope" must be a valid pope, or at least a person that one can approach licitly for the sacraments, as long as he isn’t imposing about his heresies… But is this really so? Who would ever claim such nonsense? No, in truth, you would answer that he would not be a member of the Church, since all heretics are separated from the Church, and that he thus would consecrate the sacraments illicitly. Thus, the same logic then follows here with heretical priests, whether they are imposing or not, or whether they preach heresy from the pulpit or not. They are all to be avoided as odious heretics that undermine the Catholic Faith. (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra)

And if you don’t agree with this, then why don’t you go to the apostate Benedict XVI and receive the sacraments from him? He’s not any better than any of the other heretical priests you approach for the sacraments! In fact, they are just as bad as he is, they even hold to the same heresies as he do, and most of them even accept him as the pope and as head of the Catholic Church! We are not allowed to choose which heretics we can approach, as if some heretics should be tolerated. This is totally unscriptural, and contradicts numerous Catholic teachings.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."

IMPOSING – A TERM INVENTED BY HERETICS

Imposing is a term some people have invented for themselves to justify their going to different priests (that they know are heretics) for the sacraments and to hear mass from them. Well, the problem with this thinking isn’t that they are unaware of the fact that the priest is a heretic... but that they in fact are fully aware of this, yet make up excuses to go to him. But has there ever been a dogma that declares anything even close to this? Can anything even be cited to give such an indication? Of course not! You will not find any Church teaching that says so! To invent one’s own doctrines to justify one’s own mortal sin in receiving the sacraments illicitly, and then to teach others to do the same, is really outrageous and scandalous to say the least! These people have no shame! Whether a priest is imposing his heresies on other people or not, has nothing to do with whether the priest becomes a heretic, as St. Robert Bellarmine clearly shows:

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

The point is: what Catholic dogma says that one may knowingly approach a heretical priest for the sacraments (except for the sacrament of baptism in case of necessity)? Not a single dogma have been given thus far that have indicated this; (the Fourth Lateran Council, taken out of context, will be dealt with shortly). We would gladly change our position if someone proved to us with Catholic dogma that their position was true. However, this is not the case and no such dogmatic proof has ever been presented. Only fallible saints (taken out of context) and fallible theologians can be quoted, which then reveals that their position is weak and wavering and that it is lacking a good Catholic foundation. Is this what we are to build our Faith on; namely, saints and theologians, and in view of all the dogmas and reasoning, deny what has been put before our eyes? Isn’t this exactly what the believers in baptism of blood/desire do as well? Do they not obstinately cling to fallible saints and theologians instead of the infallible dogmas? And are they not condemned for this exact behavior, maybe even from you? Why then do you act precisely in the same way here? If you can’t prove your case with Catholic dogma, then you should not obstinately defend it or hold to it as true!

Besides, how can a person claim to believe in the Lord Jesus when he without compromise - even knowingly and willfully - approach a priest whom he knows reject the necessity of believing in Him, or any of His words? Do you really love Jesus and believe in Him, or do you just say you do? Are mass attendance and illicit sacraments more important to you than Jesus Christ and the Faith itself? For by the external deed you show to other people and to Our Lord that you have no problem to approach a priest who rejects Him! Apostates, heretics, and schismatics, crucify Our Lord a second time when they presume to consecrate these sacraments, and you are helping in this deed by going to them!

Neither can you preserve your faith or please God if you approach heretical priests, as Pope Pius IX makes clear: “For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God.”

And you become a sharer in the heretical priest's sin as St Thomas says: “As was said above, heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.”

NOTORIOUS OR NOT

Some people also falsely claim that one factor which determines if a priest is to become a heretic that must be avoided for communion, is determined by the fact of his notoriety; or how many other people actually are aware of the priest’s heretical position; or if his heresies or sins (which they determine for themselves what heresies are notorious) are notorious. They claim this by asserting that only certain heresies can be classified as notorious (of which denying the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ for salvation [or obstinate denial of almost any other dogma], is not included in this category, according to them! which essentially means that no priest can ever be considered as notorious... isn’t that an amazingly convenient position that they have made up for themselves to fit their position?) and that notoriety is determined by the fact if it is well known, and that if only a few people are aware of the priest’s heretical position then the priest must not be a notoriously heretical priest that thus one may approach for the Sacraments.

Thus they reason, for according to them, only a notorious heretic must be avoided; and if the priest isn’t obviously known to ‘everyone’ (or most people)—or if his heresy doesn’t fit the virtually non-existent category of notoriety—he must therefore not be a notorious heretic and can thus be approached for the sacraments. However, they fail to realize that the priest in question may already have revealed his heresy and obstinacy or bad will to anyone who have made the true position known to him.

What determines if a priest must be avoided for communion is not decided by the fact how many others are actually aware of him being a heretic or if he is only guilty of certain specific heresies. This is so since the priest by being a heretic, whatever heresy he may hold, have already severed himself from the Church and communion, and because the whole of Heaven (The Holy Trinity, The Blessed Virgin and all the Angels and the Saints) also have pronounced judgment on him. Are we then (in spite of these facts), to profess external communion with him who have severed himself from the Church, and whom God already have condemned? (If the priest converts, of course, the condemnation turns into mercy.)

Obviously then, the factor which determines if someone is to be avoided for communion is what you can know about the said person in question. It is not determined by what others decide or understand about him or by the fact of how many others actually are aware of him being a heretic. You will not be judged to hell for what others knew or did not know about. You will, however, be judged to hell for what you knew about; what you did not care to know about, and what you failed to do when you had obtained this knowledge!

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441: "Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views."

And if you don’t agree with this, then you must hold to the opinion that one could have approached the ultra-heretical antipope from hell, Paul VI, for the sacraments, even if we knew him to be a heretical antipope and even if we had obtained knowledge beforehand on what he would (try) do to the Church (according to the logic of the heretics) if only a few people were aware of him being a heretic and if only a few people knew about his evil intentions, or if his heresies would not be considered as notorious. Yes, according to this false position, (the illogical position of the heretics), one could even have approached him for the sacraments when he had started to put all these heresies into practice.

So when Paul VI was undermining and trying to destroy the faith in the hearts of the people as much as a heretic could possibly have done in a lifetime, i.e., by approving and putting into practice all the heresies of the Second Vatican Council; by changing the Traditional Mass into a New invalid Mass; by changing the Rites of Holy Orders (thus making all Vatican II priests and bishops invalidly ordained); by abolishing the index of forbidden books (which reveals his true intention, to spread heresy and lies); and by allowing contraception or NFP, etc, etc… then, in spite of all these facts, if only few people knew him to be a heretic or if he was not considered notorious, one could have approached him for the Sacraments… This is the inescapable and illogical conclusion of the heretics’ reasoning, but none, however, would ever dare admit to it!

But if your position is the true Catholic position: namely, that one couldn’t have approached Paul VI or any other heretic like him for the Sacraments, then you must also hold the position that one cannot approach other heretical priests for the sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist, that one personally knows are heretical. You cannot pick and choose what heretics to go to. All heretics are outside the Church. Therefore, all heretics must be avoided.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."

POPE PIUS IX AGAINST HERETICS

Pope Pius IX, "Graves Ac Diuturnae," 1875, (# 4): "You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice."

Can it be any clearer than that? We “SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction…” we “should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy.” and “THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM”

Further commenting on the absolute, undeniable words of Pope Pius IX above isn’t really necessary for an honest soul.

But why must heretics be totally avoided, you may ask? Pope Pius IX answers this too: “For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God...” Pope Pius IX says that your faith will be destroyed by going to heretics and that you cannot please God by doing this. How clear does it have to get? Thus, you may never approach your apostate or heretical Novus Ordo priest or your heretical and schismatical traditional “Catholic” priest, or any other heretical or schismatical priest of that sort for Confession or the Eucharist. For almost all of them, without exception, deny the necessity of believing in our Lord Jesus Christ by granting salvation to people who do not even believe in Him. Most of them also obstinately deny various dogmas of the Church when it is presented to them!

FALLIBLE VS INFALLIBLE

Heretics simply refuse to follow the teachings of the Church on these matters, but rather follow wrong and fallible statements of certain theologians or saints. Many of these saints and theologians do not even agree with their position. Yet, these heretics twist their words to fit their own heretical belief system (more on this later).

The point is: If we were to decide what constitutes the Catholic faith based on fallible saints or theologians, then we could as well deny the immaculate conception of Mary, we could believe that all unbaptized Children who die before the age of reason burns in the fires of hell, we could believe in the theory of baptism of desire and blood, etc. All these opinions, in fact, seems convincing and true in view of the respected saints and theologians, who have held these positions and taught it (which is the cause of so many believing in it), in spite of Catholic dogma saying otherwise.

However, be it the opinion of a theologian or a saint (or even both), it really holds no weight at all in comparison with infallible Catholic dogma. Real Catholics (not fake Catholics) base their Faith on infallible Catholic dogma, and not on the opinions of saints or theologians. That should be clear to anyone. When people stop believing in the infallible Magisterium of the Church and instead choose to base their faith solely on the theories of saints and theologians (or even on themselves and what they deem to be of the faith), then one knows that their case is doomed, and that their position is not the Catholic one.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives."

As we see above, it’s an infallible dogma (that one are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin) that all heretics are outside the Church and thus outside the bounds of licitly administering the sacraments. Therefore, you can never knowingly receive the sacraments from a heretical priest (licitly) without sinning mortally. You could, however, receive them licitly from a heretic, if you were unaware of him being a heretic. This is the only exception, but this exception doesn’t work if you know the priest to be a heretic.

However, if we were to say, (for the sake of argument) that it were true that one could approach a heretical priest for the sacraments without sin (which it isn’t); but let's theorize that it is so that we can refute this position further. If there were any such teaching by a saint or theologian that allowed such a thing, namely, that one could approach a heretical priest for the sacraments; and even if they held such a position, (which they don't) they were still not talking about approaching the kind of heretical priests that exists in our day, in the Great Apostasy. Examples of this would be a priest who rejects the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ or who believes in salvation for people who even reject Christ, such as pagans, Jews and Muslims. Would anyone dare to say that this is what the theologians and saints actually believed if they had theorized that one could go to a heretical priest for the mass and the sacraments? Absolutely not! Then don’t try to make it look as if they do!

Nevertheless, this is the exact same straw man argument the baptism of desire/blood advocates use. Don’t these people just love to stress (lying through their teeth) that "all the saints and theologians believed in baptism of desire and blood; so it must be true", and by it trying to imply that they (the saints and theologians) also believed in salvation for pagans, Muslims and Jews; (even though, in truth, their version of baptism of desire/blood only applied to people who already believed in Jesus Christ and who were catechumens, and not pagans, Muslims and Jews). See the difference?

Why then do some people try to make it look like as though the theologians had as opinion that one could go to the worst kind of abominable, apostate or heretical priests that may ever have existed, for the sacraments? They who hold this position even make it appear as though one are perfectly free to go to a heretic even after one have found out about his Christ rejecting heresy. It must also be pointed out that the only saints and theologians these people even try to quote to defend their position (of receiving the sacraments from heretics), do not even agree with their heretical position (except for one theologian); however, except for this one theologian (John de Lugo), the rest actually refutes their sacrilegious position (as we will show).

But according to these sad heretics, one can freely go to a priest who believes in universal salvation for everyone, and to a priest who obstinately defends, supports and accepts as "Pope" the most vile and abominable heretics to have ever lived in the history of the world! Yes, according to their view, one could even go to that priest after one have presented him with the proof about the Novus Ordo Church, Benedict XVI and Vatican II, that proves them to be heretical. Yes, one could go to him even after that priest obstinately rejected that undeniable proof you presented to him (according to their heretical logic), just as long as he isn’t preaching his heresies from the pulpit or are imposing about them! Such are their words, then you can go to him. Anything goes it seems for these people, anything but Catholic sense and Catholic dogma! The bad will of these people are truly remarkable and sad.

So then, what are we to do when we have presented our priest with the information about Benedict XVI and Vatican II, and he yet obstinately adheres to Benedict XVI as the pope and the Novus Ordo church as the true Church? Are we then to avoid him as the heretic he has manifestly shown himself to be? The answer to this question is of course yes!

Titus 3:10: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.”

2 John 1:9-10: “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

Therefore, it’s both a dogmatic and biblical fact that you cannot approach any heretical priests for the mass or the sacraments.

GOD WANTS OBEDIENCE RATHER THAN SACRIFICE

God wants obedience, rather than sacrifice. In other words, if you accept heretics or reject His dogmas, all your spiritual works will be worthless in His sight.

1 Kings 15:22-23: “And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected thee from being king.”

If a person rejects God’s truth, he cannot please Him. To hold that one may licitly receive the sacraments from heretics, in light of all the facts, is simply to deny God.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (#4), May 24, 1829: “Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

It is also of divine law and not only a disciplinary law that Catholics can only be in communion with other Catholics and that they may never worship with people who are heretics, schismatics, or infidels. To knowingly enter into a religious house that is heretical or schismatical is of course to profess religious unity outwardly in a way that is completely unacceptable. The scandal this provokes in the eyes of true Catholics is easy to understand. For every person that sees you entering a “church” where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, will assume that you agree with his heresy or schism. The unity of faith that must exist between people who call themselves Catholic and who worship God is one constant that can never be changed according to Catholic teaching. This is called divine law. Without the unity of faith, there is only darkness and eternal fire, as Pope Leo XIII and the following quotes makes clear:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896:“For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

Pope St. Clement I, 1st Century: "If any man shall be friendly to those with whom the Roman Pontiff is not in communion, he is in complicity with those who want to destroy the Church of God; and, although he may seem to be with us in body, he is against us in mind and spirit, and is a much more dangerous enemy than those who are outside and are our avowed foes."

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Pope Pius IX, Etsi Multa, #26, Nov. 21, 1873:"Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Humbert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle [2 John 10-11] to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted."

The above quote is very relevant to our situation today in that many priests and adherents of those priests would fall under this very same condemnation. First let’s learn a little history about the above condemnation of Joseph Humbert and all his adherents: "A surprisingly large number of German priests and laymen rejected the First Vatican Council’s solemn teaching on the papacy. In September 1870, nearly 1,400 Germans who called themselves 'Old Catholics' signed a declaration that renounced the conciliar teaching. In September 1871, 300 delegates met in Munich to organize a new church. Unable to find a Catholic bishop who would renounce Catholic dogma and join them, the Old Catholics turned to the Jansenist Bishop Heykamp of Devetner in the Netherlands of the schismatic Little Church of Utrecht. He ordained Father Joseph Humbert Reinkens a bishop in August 1873."

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways. We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."

Here, Pope Pius IX gives an explicit confirmation that people must consider heretics or schismatics to be outside the Church and that there is no need for a further declaration to decide this. But who can deny the fact that Vatican II also is a “new church”, and that all the validly ordained bishops and priests left in this “new church” also would fall under the same condemnation as Joseph Humbert? Therefore, without a doubt, you may not approach any of the validly ordained Novus Ordo priests for the sacraments of Confession or the Eucharist at all, as the heretics and schismatics teach.

Another striking fact is that almost all of the validly ordained priests left in the entire world (both traditional “Catholic” priests and Novus Ordo priests alike), also reject Vatican I and papal infallibility, by obstinately denying infallible Catholic dogma. The old “Catholics” was excommunicated for this very reason, and one were not even allowed to greet them, and anyone who would adhere to them (for example, receive the sacraments from them) was to be excommunicated just like them.

“We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church." (Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875)

Therefore, without a doubt, neither may you approach any of the validly ordained traditional “Catholic” priests left in the world for the sacraments, if they obstinately deny or reject even a single Catholic dogma or hold to even a single heresy, as Pope Leo XIII makes clear:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."

CAN HERETICS HAVE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH?

What are the requirements for a licit reception of the sacraments? This is a very important question to understand since many claim one can receive them licitly not only from heretics, but from apostate priests as well.

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. "Sacraments." (1912) Conditions for the licit reception: (b) "For the licit reception it is also necessary to observe all that is prescribed by Divine or ecclesiastical law, e.g. as to time, place, the minister, etc. As the Church alone has the care of the sacraments and generally her duly appointed agents alone have the right to administer them, except Baptism in some cases, it is a general law that application for the sacraments should be made to worthy and duly appointed ministers."

Sadly, we have come to a point in the history of the Church where even heretics are considered by some to consecrate the Eucharist licitly in the Church; which means, somehow, that heretics are given authority in the Church. But this is of course impossible. For to give or receive the sacraments licitly, means to give or receive them by the authority and permission of the Church. Do heretics have this authority in the Catholic Church (except for the sacrament of baptism)? Do heretics confect the sacrament of Confession and the Eucharist validly or licitly with the permission and the authority of the Catholic Church? Of course not! They do not have this authority either to consecrate the Eucharist licitly, or to absolve from sins validly or licitly, as we have shown! Please look at the following dogmas of the Church carefully, and see how heretics are outside the Church of Christ.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives"

Here we can see that all Catholics are bound under pain of mortal sin to believe that a heretic is outside the Catholic Church. Here are some other testimonies from the Magisterium which affirm this fact.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441: "Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved."

This last solemn profession of faith by Pope Innocent III in Eius exemplo, demonstrates how foreign to Catholic belief - that is to say, how heretical - is the idea that a heretic can be inside the Church. Nevertheless, this is exactly the idea proposed by individuals who assert that heretics – somehow – have authority to licitly administer the sacraments. And since it is a dogma that a heretic cannot be inside the Church, it is a dogmatic fact (a fact which if it were not true would render a dogma false) that a heretic cannot have any authority in the Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church."

Therefore, it is most certain that a heretic cannot consecrate the Eucharist licitly or administer the sacrament of Confession validly or licitly, because it is absurd to imagine that one who is outside can command in the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943:"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

MAJOR HERETICAL OBJECTIONS

FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL

FIRST OBJECTION: "Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council, teaches that heretics must first be pointed out before one is bound to stop going to them for religious purposes. So there."

ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION: The perverted, out of context quote with perverted out of context commentary, as presented by the deceiving heretics:

"Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, On Heretics, 1215: “Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics […] If however, he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH [postquam ab ecclesia denotati fuerint], let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…”"

Notice the smoke and mirrors […] where they whip out the Latin and say: "Look at this part here! Focus in on this only because if you read the whole thing you'll see we are perverting what the pope decreed when we claimed this was referring to heretics!" But now let us see the whole paragraph and let us examine what it REALLY says:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council (Tanner Edition): "Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics."

Alright, the pope just said that those believers (not heretics) who receive defend or support heretics are to be excommunicated…

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, continued: "We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated,"

Keep in mind that we are still talking about non-heretical believers who have been excommunicated for in some way helping a heretic.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, continued: "We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH [postquam ab ecclesia denotati fuerint], let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…"

"If he be a cleric," a cleric who is NON-heretical and has been excommunicated for in some way helping a heretic. Do you see how clearly they have perverted the meaning of this council? The heretics want it to speak about heretics, since it suits their purpose of going to other heretics for the sacraments, but anyone but a liar can see that it is not speaking about a heretic, but a believer "who receive, defend or support heretics."

There are two points to look at here. The first point is that these actions of supporting, defending or receiving heretics aren’t evil in themselves, but rather charitable if done rightly. The second point is that a believer can be in good faith regarding heretics. Helping a heretic doesn’t necessarily mean that the person agreed with the heretic or that he himself was a heretic or that he even knew he was helping a heretic. That’s why the council declares these people as “believers,” who “receive, defend or support heretics...” And since there are many ways of defending, supporting and receiving heretics that doesn’t necessarily involve heresy or schism, one cannot conclude (as heretics do), that one can go to undeclared (excommunicated) heretical or schismatical priests for the sacraments, that one know are heretics or schismatics, until the Church has made Her sentence on them, as their excuse is.

There are many examples one could give to show that a believer who receives, defends or even supports heretics isn’t heretical himself:

1. For can a believer receive a heretic into his home for the purpose of converting him? Of course he can!

2. Can the same believer in good faith and charity have compassion on a heretic who doesn’t have the means to financially support himself or his family? Absolutely! (The believer should of course, if he is aware of this person's heresy, wish to use this charity or support as a carrot or incentive in order to bring the heretic, schismatic or apostate into the Church again.)

3. And can a believer be in material heresy regarding a doctrine of the Church and unknowingly, defend the heretical position of a heretic? Absolutely!

As we have seen, these actions by the believer were neither heretical nor schismatical but charitable (if done in good faith). A believer can thus do well towards others without understanding that he actually might do harm or give greater scandal. That is why, according to the said council, they (the supporters) are to be avoided only after they have been pointed out by the Church, and their true intention have been revealed. For just as a person can do these things unknowingly and in good faith, so too can a person do these things out of compassion - not only for the heretic - but for the heresy held by him as well. A person who thus have compassion with a heresy held by a heretic - rather than compassion for the heretical person - is himself also a heretic, since he agrees with his heretical position and supports it. And if a believer was to become aware that a supporter of a heretic was agreeing with his heresy or supporting it, then he are to avoid him as a heretic since there is no need then to await the Church’s declaration to reveal the ‘supporters’ inner intentions. This is the reason why the Church doesn’t automatically declare these people who "receive, defend or support heretics" – as heretics – that absolutely must be avoided "until they have been pointed out by the Church."

That’s why it’s extremely dishonest for people to use the Fourth Lateran Council or St. Thomas Aquinas (next objection) as an argument for receiving communion or confession from an obstinately heretical priest (whom you know to be a heretic) for the Council clearly doesn’t teach that. In fact, it is a mortally sinful distortion of the truth taught in it!

Furthermore, it's very dishonest to pronounce the sentence of the Church as a basis of avoiding heretics in these times, when the Church and Her hierarchy no longer is visible or accessible for Catholics. Even those instances (like with sinful priests) where the Church would have judged normally, are today abrogated by the law or principle of epikeia, since there are no valid or non-heretical hierarchy in existence in the Church today. Epieikeia or Epikeia, meaning “equity,” is the name for the canonical principle that merely Church laws, a.k.a. ecclesiastical laws or disciplinary laws, can cease to bind in particular cases which were not envisioned by the lawgiver. This term can be found in any book dealing with these subjects. This principle does not apply to dogmatic teachings of faith or morals, but laws instituted by the Church for the governance of its members. That is why we today are even forced to make these judgments about sinful priests by our own judgment and by our own authority since there are no valid Church hierarchy. Thus, when WE see someone hold a heretical belief, we must by our own judgment and reason, judge him to be a heretic, and avoid him as such. Again, if we have the knowledge and reason to know or spot heresy, then we are to use that knowledge; for doing otherwise would be a sin against the Faith.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

It’s perfectly understandable if a person lacks knowledge to detect finer or more specific heresies that people can be material "heretics" about and which doesn't entail rejecting the natural law or the essential mysteries that all must know about. However, if you know your priest to be a heretic, then you must avoid him as such. If you don’t know that your priest is a heretic and you haven’t put much effort in finding out if he is, then find out if he is; and if he isn’t a heretic, then you can go to him (as long as he isn’t professing external communion with other heretics, as most priests do, who holds the notorious arch heretic Benedict XVI as the "Pope"). Such a priest is to be assumed to be a heretic (even though he doesn’t seem to hold to any other heresy), for the fact of him professing external communion with a notorious heretic. We assume that priest to be a heretic in the very same way we would assume as a heretic a person who enters a protestant church (who then is to be assumed to be a protestant heretic) for being in communion with other protestant heretics (even if there is a slight possibility of him being only a material heretic). Yes, there is a possibility that your priest is unaware of all the heresies that are promoted by Benedict XVI and Vatican II. In fact, there is a slight possibility that anyone who has been baptized - whatever "Christian" church building he may enter – may be a material heretic (as long as he doesn't contradict the natural law or the essential mysteries), although this scenario is very unlikely.

However, if you would have pointed out the true position regarding Vatican II and Benedict XVI to (for example) an independent priest who seem to hold to no heresy (at least outwardly), and who are not in communion with any other heretical society, and the priest, after having been presented with the evidence, yet obstinately continued to accept Benedict XVI as the "Pope" or Vatican II and the Novus Ordo “Church” as the true Catholic Church, then his heresy would have become manifested and you would be forced to avoid him. Thus, we must both avoid the priest whom we find out to be a heretic, and the priest whom we see profess external communion with other manifest heretics. This is a truth of faith that is further taught by St. Robert Bellarmine:

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

We do not sin by assuming someone to be a heretic (even if absolute proof is absent) if he by his external works reveals this possibility to be true. For when we make an assumption, we do not judge anything in a conclusive way. This method of thinking is not to be applied with other happenings that may occur to man through life (or even with material heresy in regards to faithful Catholics who can and may be erring on certain finer points of Faith). We are not to assume or judge on those things without clear irrefutable evidence, since most happenings in life are neither heretical nor sinful. But notorious or external signs of heresy or schism on graver points on the other hand, are mortally sinful and separates a soul from God. Heresy kills souls!

However, to judge someone as a definitive heretic for believing in baptism of desire (for example) - would be to go too far and to judge falsely, if you first failed to ask him what he thought or knew about it. For it could very well be that he is a material heretic (if his version of baptism of desire only concerns people or catechumens who already believe in Christ) and not as the heretics believe, who applies it to everyone, including pagans and people who reject Christ. A person becomes a heretic or schismatic by obstinately refusing to accept a position he knows the Church teaches. Thus, if he has been presented false or non-infallible evidence against baptism of desire, and he still is uncertain, it is possible that he is a material "heretic" (as long as he does not deny the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ for salvation.) He may not have fully understood what the Church teaches on this matter, and if he is uncertain and not obstinate, he may still be a material heretic.

A priest, however, who rejects Christ, by believing in universal salvation for everyone, including pagans and people that hate or even reject Christ such as the Jews or the Muslims - such a case would of course be an obvious one - for it is of divine law that every Christian must hold the belief in Jesus Christ as essential for Salvation. The same goes for the doctrine concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation. The number of these so called priests of Satan, who holds the belief in Jesus Christ and his Church as meaningless, are almost innumerable these days. All these so called priests must of course be totally avoided and condemned, even if, perhaps, your very good "friend" tells you otherwise. For you know very well in your heart that this is true.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. – But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity…
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra: "And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith."

And really, do the heretics think that the Catholic Church can contradict itself? They must hold to this, or be totally illogical.

WHY PEOPLE OF BAD WILL AND PRIDE ARE LEFT IN DARKNESS

Many people also don’t understand why so many “good” people are left in heresy or schism, faithlessness and darkness, or why so many “good” people have never even heard of Jesus Christ - and why these “good” people would be condemned and go to Hell if they died in that state, when they are not yet heretics or schismatics (for they cannot reject what they do not yet know about)?

The answer to these questions is that God beforehand knew of these peoples rejection of the true faith even though it was never presented to them. For even though a person has never heard of the Catholic Church or Her teachings on the Eucharist, Confession, Baptism, Faith and Works unto Salvation etc, during his whole life, but that person - while reading his Bible - rejects words which clearly indicates these teachings, i.e. "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have, you have no life in you", or "receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained;" then, if he read such and like words, but simply refused to believe that Jesus really could mean what he was saying, and that it was impossible that his personal interpretation was wrong, and if he was obstinate about his position, then he would be a mortal sinner and prideful, for he have already made up his mind that his personal interpretation is right. Thus, if ever the true position would have been presented to him, he would simply have refused to believe in it, and would then have become a heretic. I think many people who have talked with protestant heretics are aware of these facts. These protestant heretics often express opinions such as: “I simply refuse to believe such a teaching to be true”, or “I simply refuse to believe the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, etc…”

A humble soul will always think that it is possible that he or she has understood some things wrong, and thus will always conform herself immediately to the true faith when it is presented to her. A person who always thinks he’s right or who cannot accept advice from other people or who always have a high esteem of his own mind, he cannot, in truth, be in good disposition of ever receiving the true Catholic Faith. He would just simply refuse to believe if the true faith ever was presented to him. It’s truly a most sad and abominable pride and presumption to believe that it is not possible that one has understood some things wrong, and that one could not be corrected by other people. All heretics, without exception, have fallen in this trap of pride and presumption. The same must be said about all people who die as heretics, schismatics, pagans, infidels, Jews or Muslims, etc. A humble soul will not reject God’s words because he can’t understand it, but will rather seek to understand it, in that he prays to God for help and guidance (in knowing the truth). The mere thought or reflection of a humble soul that he or she might be in error, and her humble prayers to God coupled with abstinence from mortal sins, fervently pleading for His enlightenment concerning a specific issue, is often enough for a soul to come out of a heresy. For humility is the perfect way to Heaven, and none but the humble will enter therein.

"Heresies are only embraced by those who had they persevered in the faith, would be lost by the irregularity of their lives."
-St. Augustine

The first sin that every single heretic falls for before falling into heresy is always one or many of the seven mortal sins; namely, pride, lust, gluttony, envy, greed, sloth, and wrath. By reason of their mortal sins, the devil gains the possession of their conscience by justice, and is able to influence them into believing heresies. This is the sad truth behind heresy. A person who avoids mortal sins and follows the natural law, and also tries as much as he is able to avoid venial sins, will never fall into heresy, since holy angels guard him when he is in the state of grace.

We can never accept even the smallest venial sin. St. Teresa of Avila said, “For the love of God, take care never to grow careless about venial sin, however small … There is nothing small if it goes against so great a sovereign.” Deliberate venial sin weakens the spiritual powers, reduces our resistance to evil, and causes us to wander in our journey to the Cross. It is an illness of the soul, but not its supernatural death.

1 John 5:16 “There is sin which is mortal … All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

When a venial sin is enacted with full consent, the devil gets a hold over the person’s soul, where he is able to influence the soul more, and in a little while, he leads the soul into countless of mortal sins from this seemingly small venial sin, unless penance and amendment is made in reparation to God’s justice. A soul that continues in venial sin without quitting his sinful occasions deserve to fall into mortal sin since he rejected God’s commandments. If the soul continues committing venial sin, it will always end in mortal sin, so it’s very important to guard against mortal and venial sins at all times. Billions of poor souls are now suffering in the fires of hell, cursing their habitual venial sins that led them into committing mortal sins. If you wish to avoid joining them in the fires of hell, avoid every occasion of sin as if it were true poison.

Can you imagine the horror of standing before the Judge and hearing the sentence of death and eternal condemnation pronounced against you? Probably not. But you have felt the driving guilt and fear when God’s Word stabs you with this sentence: “The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23). Why do we fear and feel guilt? Because “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23).

All heretics, and all the other people who die outside the Church and Salvation, does not sincerely seek after the truth nor prays to God with sincerity to enlighten them about the truth. These people rather refuse to believe, or only believe in what they think is of the true Faith, rejecting everything else. This is the heresy or mortal sin all the Protestants or Eastern “Orthodox,” etc, fall under, who in truth (many of them) do not fully understand what the Church teaches (yet obstinately refuses to believe in it whenever it is presented to them) or would refuse to believe in it if it ever were presented to them.

This is the exact reason why many people are left in darkness and faithlessness, since God beforehand knew of their bad will and their refusal to accept the true Catholic Faith. This is a truth of Faith that is taught by many of the Popes, Saints and Fathers of the Church.

St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754: “See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”

2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

This is why every Doctor of the Church held that no adult could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is why the Doctors of the Church who believed in baptism of desire (although they were wrong about this) only extended it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity and Incarnation.

However, we should not think we are good in any way for having the Faith or think that we are special in anyway for being brought into the Faith. This is a trap which one easily could fall for. And it is a very dangerous trap, for if a person thinks himself to be special in anyway, then he is probably already lost. Pride (in my opinion) leads most souls to Hell. It is the beginning and end of damnation. (You may of course think or consider yourself to be specially evil or sinful, such as: “that you are the worst person on earth” or “the greatest sinner on earth” etc, which is good to think about oneself. This is the way one should consider oneself: as the greatest sinner in the world and totally unworthy to receive any grace from God.) In truth, personally, I do not understand why I have been brought to the Faith, and why so many pagans, Jews or Muslims, who are better than me, have not. What did I do to deserve this grace of Faith, and what did they fail to do? Why are they in darkness, while I have found the true light of the Gospel? Why, I often ask myself, without understanding why.

St. Alphonsus, Preparation For Death, (c. +1760): “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

SECOND OBJECTION: "St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that one may go to a heretic for the sacraments until the Church have pointed him out."

ANSWER TO THE SECOND OBJECTION: Sadly, the heretics have perverted St. Thomas' teaching here too, by saying that he was talking about heretical priests when he was actually talking about sinful priests. It must be understood that it would not matter if St. Thomas had said what the heretics want him to say, since St. Thomas would then be in contradiction with the infallible dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. That’s why Catholics (real Catholics) don’t go by the definitions of Saints or theologians when deciding what constitutes the Catholic Faith, but by infallible Catholic dogma proclaimed by the Popes from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra). Here is the full quote from St. Thomas as it is presented by the heretics:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp. Part, Q. 82, A. 9: “Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

Let's examine this teaching of St. Thomas closely. When he says "But not all who are SINNERS," it is clear that he excludes some of the people from being "debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power" that he speaks about above, that is, "heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates." When he mentions "sinners," one can only assume that he is not speaking about heretics or schismatics since he would have stated this if this were so. Also notice how St. Thomas said that those who receive the sacraments from a heretic commits sin: “Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church’s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin.” He then goes on to speak about the last category of priests, that is, sinful priests: “But not all who are sinners...” and says that some of the sinners (not heretics) must first be formally excommunicated before one must avoid them for the sacraments.

As people should know already, heretics and schismatics have no need for a declaration since they are already automatically excommunicated (from simply falling into heresy) and put outside the Catholic Church and Her Communion by the Divine law (de fide). SINNERS, on the other hand, are not generally excommunicated automatically, unless through notoriety by committing grave crimes like concubinage.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 9: “On the contrary, The Canon says (Dist. 32): ‘LET NO ONE HEAR THE MASS OF A PRIEST WHOM HE KNOWS WITHOUT DOUBT TO HAVE A CONCUBINE.’”

So St. Thomas is clearly dividing the priests into four different categories when he mentions “heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests” and then concludes that “not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church’s sentence from using this power”. It’s clear that he’s here trying to distinguish between sins that debars people automatically from using this power to perform the Eucharistic rite, such as concubinage, with the other sins that do not, referring to the lesser crimes Catholic priests can commit without being automatically suspended or excommunicated as a consequence of their sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 64, Art. 6, Reply to Objection 2: “He who approaches a sacrament, receives it from a minister of the Church [a Catholic priest], not because he is such and such a man, but because he is a minister of the Church [remember, heretics are not ministers of the Church]. Consequently, as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him [Catholic sinful priest], does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the Church from whom he has his ministry. But if the Church, by degrading, excommunicating, or suspending him, does not tolerate him in the ministry, HE THAT RECEIVES A SACRAMENT FROM HIM SINS, BECAUSE HE COMMUNICATES IN HIS SIN.”

Notice that this quotation is essentially identical to the other we saw above. But the difference in this quote from the former is that he here did not mention anything about heretical or schismatical priests, thus helping people to avoid any possible confusion and what St. Thomas could have meant.

In the above quotation it is self evident that St. Thomas did not intend to include heretics in his other statement or that it is lawful to receive the sacraments from them because St. Thomas said that we “receives it [the sacrament] from a minister of the Church... as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry”. However heretics are not tolerated by the Church nor ministers of Her, hence that St. Thomas couldn’t have referred to heretics as the heretics claim.

Therefore, when St. Thomas mentioned that it was “lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass” until the Church’s sentence has been pronounced, he was not referring to heretics or schismatics, but specifically to tolerated sinful, undeclared Catholic priests. That should be absolutely obvious to any honest person of good will reading this document.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside [he who is a heretic] can command in the Church [have jurisdiction].”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

It is obvious that St. Thomas was in agreement with the constant and infallible tradition of the Church which explicitly orders people to stay away from the churches of heretics, (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8.) But it would not matter anyway since Catholics decide these things by infallible Catholic dogma, and not on fallible Saints. But just to prove the point further we will look at what St. Robert Bellarmine has to say:

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' [by that very fact] deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

Let’s look again at what St. Bellarmine just said: "sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication"…"but the heretics exile themselves."

So it’s absolutely clear, as just proved by St. Robert Bellarmine, who quoted from St. Jerome, that St. Thomas was actually talking about how sinful priests are not “debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power to perform the Eucharistic rite”. Unless, of course, one would like to be a total liar. And so, St. Thomas is clearly speaking about how a priest with private or public mortal sins is not suspended by the Church's sentence (not formally) from performing the Eucharistic rite, even if he sins every time he confects the sacraments on account of the Divine suspension. We may thus approach sinful priests (and not heretical priests, as liars try to make it say) for the sacraments, until the Church's sentence is pronounced.

Catholics, however have no obligation to approach notoriously sinful priests for the sacraments and can stay home, but neither are they forbidden to go if they desire these sacraments. This is so because heresy automatically excommunicates every person guilty of it and puts him outside the Church; a person's own mortal sins, however, does not.

The Church further teaches that one may approach such a priest for the sacraments (who have been excommunicated for other reasons than heresy, schism or apostasy), only in grave circumstances, if no other reasonable option is available (more on this in the Fourth objection). For sin and heresy is not the same, and to be excommunicated for sin or to be excommunicated for heresy is not the same (although both cases lead the excommunicated soul to Hell). The Pope, even if he is a public mortal sinner, still remains Pope and has the same authority as any other Pope however sinful he may be. If, however, he was to become a heretic, schismatic or apostate, he would automatically cease to be the Pope and head of the Church, and would lose all his authority and ecclesiastical power.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

And really, when people use fallible quotes from fallible Saints and theologians to try to prove their position, you can know that they have lost track of the distinction between fallible and infallible words.

For other St. Thomas Aquinas objections usually presented by the heretics to support their heresies, please consult the following section in our new article: DOES ST. THOMAS REALLY TEACH THAT WE MAY RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS FROM EXCOMMUNICATED “UNDECLARED” HERETICAL PRIESTS?

CARDINAL JOHN DE LUGO

THIRD OBJECTION: "Cardinal John de Lugo, who was a respected theologian, and who was counted by St. Alphonsus himself as second only after St. Thomas Aquinas, and who was called "a light of the Church" by Pope Benedict XIV, said that one could go to a heretical priest whom you know to be a heretic for the mass and the sacraments."

ANSWER TO THE THIRD OBJECTION: Cardinal John de Lugo was simply wrong. He was also confused about certain points on which he taught (as we will show). This made him come up with a belief system of his own. This fact was even admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Cardinal John de Lugo," Vol. 9, (1910): “All his writings (Lugo), whether on dogmatic or moral theology, exhibit two main qualities: A penetrating, critical mind, sometimes indulging a little too much in subtleties, and a sound judgment…In several problems he formed a system of his own, as for instance about faith, the Eucharist, the hypostatic union, etc.”

John de Lugo even argued that the words, "This is My Blood", (or a similar short form), to be a complete sacramental form for the wine-consecration. De Lugo argued that the very existence of such (erroneous) liturgies in ancient times (based on non-approved and spurious documents) proved that those few words are enough for validity, and that ipso facto the additional words of the form, although used universally in the Church, are not essential. He thus argued (at his own time) as the Vatican II “Church” does today. This proposition by John de Lugo was of course condemned (the theory) as false (Salmanticenses 30-32, Disp. IX, dub. 3). The heretics however, would have us believe that a short form consecration would be a true and valid one, for why else would he (Lugo) have said so? But who amongst these heretics would ever admit to such a thing? Our guess is that none or very few ever would. This striking fact then reveals these people to in fact be bad willed heretics, since heretics only reject those articles of faith that do not fit them, or only believe in those they deem to be from the deposit of faith. Both of these terms is what makes up a heretic! This then should further prove these peoples absolute hypocrisy and bad will.

Now, Cardinal de Lugo was certainly not infallible, and he was even wrong on major theological subjects (such as regarding the mass and the form of consecration). In fact, the changes proposed by Cardinal de Lugo would have rendered the act of consecration (transubstantiation) invalid, as Pope St. Pius V makes clear:

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: "The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

This, yet again, shows us why real Catholics build their Faith, (not on saints or theologians) but on the infallible magisterium of the Church. This quote by Pope St. Pius V also proves the invalidity of the Novus Ordo mass (Vatican II mass) where the words of consecration have been changed.

FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE NEW MASS

“For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.”

First, the words THE MYSTERY OF FAITH have been abolished in the form of consecration in the new mass which in itself renders it highly doubtful. However, what absolutely renders the new mass invalid without a doubt are the following: The original form of consecration does not use the words “for all so that sins may be forgiven” but uses the words “for many so that sins may be forgiven”. The Vatican II sect uses the words for all, since they publicly and notoriously hold and teach and believe in the heresy of universal salvation or salvation for people in false religions. Thus, they have changed the wording from many (which indicates that not all are saved) to for all, which then fits their heretical belief system. The words for MANY, was used by Jesus Christ himself, and not even a Pope can change the words instituted by our Lord, as Pope Pius XII makes clear:

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947: "…the Church has no power over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign..."

It would neither make much a difference if they ever changed back to the traditional formula, since almost all of the Vatican II priests left in the world are invalidly ordained anyway and never consecrates the Eucharist. The hosts in the Vatican II churches are thus just a piece of bread. (If you want to learn more about the invalidity of the new mass, please read this article or watch this video.)

Therefore, in view of all these theological errors by Cardinal John de Lugo - especially concerning the mass - one can only conclude (when he was talking about approaching a heretical priest for the mass and the sacraments) that he also here, “in several problems… formed a system of his own, as for instance about faith, the Eucharist, the hypostatic union, etc.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia) and not that of the Church… Not that his opinion has any significance anyway, since real Catholics first and foremost follow the infallible magisterial teaching of the Church (and not first or foremost the fallible opinions of theologians).

We will now look at the following quotes by Cardinal de Lugo regarding the reception of the Church’s sacraments from heretics:

Cardinal John de Lugo: “The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in the Catholic rite, etc.

Notice that Cardinal de Lugo distinguishes between attending a heretical rite (which is never permitted) and attending a Catholic Mass or rite celebrated by an “undeclared heretic,” which is also never permitted, if one is aware of the priest being a heretic (e.g. a priest of the SSPX who celebrates the Catholic rite and claims to be Catholic but is actually a heretic who professes external communion with other heretics, e.g. Vatican II.)

Cardinal de Lugo: “But the opposite view is general and true, unless it should be illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.”

Notice that Cardinal de Lugo bases much of his conclusion on other theologians instead of on papal authority. This is the way error or heresy is begun. He also seems to have confused people who are guilty of an automatic excommunication (heretics, schismatics and apostates) with sinners (excommunicati tolerate) who are specifically excommunicated by the Church.

John de Lugo: “So as these heretics are not declared [formal?] excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their [automatic?] excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places.” (Cardinal John de Lugo S.J. (1583-1660), Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio.)

First, what he says here is simply wrong and one cannot follow his fallible opinion here since it is contradicted by many Popes. Thus, one cannot use the fallible and erroneous opinions of Cardinal John de Lugo, or any other theologian or saint for that matter as some kind of proof for receiving the sacraments from heretics when the Church teaching on this matter clearly speaks against it. This should be clear to any honest person, but the heretics simply can’t get this fact through their obstinate heads.

Second, it is also clear from his words: "So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric" that he was here referring to Pope Martin V’s bull Ad Evitanda Scandala, as his source—and which he, by the way, also interpreted wrongly! Ad Evitanda Scandala (which you can read about here) actually never refers to heretics or schismatics in Catholic communion but specifically to excommunicated tolerated sinners (Catholics) or people otherwise notoriously guilty of striking a cleric!

When considering the facts (and especially that John de Lugo didn’t even understand the very bull that he was citing when he came up with his position on receiving sacraments from heretics): should one even consider his opinion as having any worth whatsoever on this subject? Absolutely not!

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."

All apostates, heretics, or schismatics are outside Catholic communion and must be shunned, as the following dogmatic Council makes perfectly clear:

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

It’s a dogma that all heretics are outside the Church (de fide). Thus, no heretical priest can ever licitly administer the sacraments (unless we are speaking about baptism) and people who knowingly approach illicit sacraments, sins mortally. Thus, Cardinal John de Lugo’s private opinions are not something to even be considered in light of all these dogmatic facts.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by holding communion in Divine worship [with one who is excommunicated,] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church."

Heretics or schismatics are true spiritual murderers (which is far worse than physical murderers), and to give other people the impression that they (heretics and schismatics) are true Catholics, is truly abominable and shameful. However, the heretics, who brings forth every excuse possible that they can find, would love to stress just that (that heretics and schismatics are Catholics). And so, the only reason these heretics spend so much time and effort in proclaiming the fallible opinions of saints and theologians (as though it were the true and Catholic one) is because they know they have nothing else to back up their sacrilegious position with. These people’s conscience must be weighing down hard on them since all know one should not profess or show a friendship or communion with people who are spiritual murderers and enemies of Jesus Christ. That’s why these people must choose to overlook the dogmas which condemn their heresy of praying in communion with heretics and receiving the sacraments from them.

What you must do (instead of looking for excuses to go to them) is to denounce these murderers of souls (heretics and schismatics) before other people. And what you mustn’t do, is to profess communion with them. It’s really easy if you are honest with yourself. Unless you oppose heretics and schismatics, you will be condemned to an eternal hellfire, as the following quotes makes perfectly clear:

Pope St. Felix III (5th Century): "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men - when we can do it - is no less a sin than to encourage them."

James 4:17 “To him therefore who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin.”

Pope Leo XIII, Inimica Vis, 1892: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed… He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”

All non-Catholic religious services are crimes against the true God, the Catholic God, in the highest degree possible!

THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW

FOURTH OBJECTION: "The 1917 Code of Canon law teaches that one may attend the religious services of heretics or schismatics and receive the sacraments from them. Canon 2261.2-3, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states: “… the faithful may for any just cause ask the sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them (c. 2261.2)… But from an excommunicated vitandus [to be shunned] or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261.3).”"

ANSWER TO THE FOURTH OBJECTION: First, let's note that the 1917 Code of Canon law does not speak about heretics or schismatics. It explicitly speaks about excommunicated people. This canon is obviously excluding heretics, schismatics and apostates since it’s the Divine Law that forbids them from receiving or consecrating a sacrament. But even if this canon were speaking about heretics and schismatics (which it isn't), it would still hold no weight against the infallible declarations made by the Catholic Church. The 1917 Code of Canon Law is also not infallible, as will be proved further down.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra: "And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith."

Second, also notice how (as usual) the very quotation that the heretics use to prove their position, refutes them:

Canon 2261.2-3, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may ONLY IN DANGER OF DEATH ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261.3).”

So even if this canon was referring to heretical priests (the vitandus or shunned), which it is not, it would still mean that they could only be approached in danger of death! But the heretics doesn’t teach that heretics may only be approached for the Eucharist or Confession in danger of death, for they teach that they may be approached every time as long as they are not notorious.

Third, one needs to understand that excommunication can be incurred for many things. Historically, excommunications were distinguished by the terms major and minor. Major excommunications were incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins. Those who received major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church (as we have just proven at length). Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church's sacramental life. Pope Benedict XIV made note of the distinction.

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756: "Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19."

Minor excommunication, on the other hand, was incurred for things such as violating a secret of the Holy Office, falsifying relics (c. 2326), violating a cloister (c. 2342), etc. These are all ecclesiastical or Church penalties. Such actions, though gravely sinful, did not separate a person from the Church. And though the terms major and minor excommunication are no longer used, it remains a fact that a person could incur an excommunication (for something other than heresy) which would not separate him from the Church, and he could incur an excommunication for heresy which would separate him from the Church. Therefore, a Catholic who receives an excommunication for heresy is no longer a Catholic because heretics are outside the Catholic Church (de fide, Pope Eugene IV). But a Catholic who receives an excommunication for something else is still a Catholic, though in a state of grave sin. Thus, it is clear that the 1917 Code of Canon Law is speaking about sinners and disobedient Catholics of different kinds, and not about heretics.

MORE ON THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW

The 1917 Code was definitely not an ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) pronouncement because it does not bind the whole Church, but only the Latin Church (not the Eastern Rites), as stipulated in Canon 1 of the 1917 Code.

Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.”

A pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility…”

The 1917 Code is not infallible Church discipline either, as proven by the fact that it contains a law which directly contradicts the infallible discipline of the Church since the beginning on a point tied to the Faith. The actual Bull promulgating the 1917 Code, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, was not signed by Benedict XV, but by Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal De Azevedo. Cardinal Gasparri, the Secretary of State, was the main author and compiler of the canons. Some theologians would argue that only disciplines which bind the whole Church – unlike the 1917 Code – are protected by the infallibility of the governing authority of the Church, an argument which seems to be supported in the following teaching of Pope Pius XII.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29, 1943: “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors.”

This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the "Catholic" (i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church. It should also be remembered that it is of divine law that only the Popes are infallible when speaking ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter.) Thus, this proves that Pius XII was speaking about the infallible statements from the chair of Peter. Regardless, the 1917 Code doesn’t enjoy infallibility. This is further proven by the following canons.

1) THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW TEACHES THAT CHRISTIAN BURIAL CAN BE GIVEN TO UNBAPTIZED CATECHUMENS

The 1917 Code teaches in canon 1239, that unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial. This contradicts the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized persons can be given Christian burial.

Canon 1239, 1917 Code: “1. Those who die without baptism are not to be accorded ecclesiastical burial. 2. Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as baptized.”

Since the time of Jesus Christ and throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally refused ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism, as The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”

This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them. It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith. The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right. In fact, it is interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain canons were derived. Canon 1239.2 on giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition which supports it!

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) quotes an interesting decree from Pope Innocent III wherein he commented on the traditional, universal and constant law of the Catholic Church from the beginning which refused ecclesiastical burial to all who died without the Sacrament of Baptism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “The reason of this regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.’”

2) THE 1917 CODE TEACHES THAT HERETICS CAN BE IN GOOD FAITH

Canon 731.2, 1917 Code: “It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.”

A heretic, by infallible definition, is of bad faith and brings down upon his head eternal punishment.

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:"... all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

A person in good faith who is erring innocently about a dogma (loosely and improperly called a material heretic in theological discussions) is not a heretic, but a Catholic erring in good faith. So the statement in the 1917 Code about heretics and schismatics in good faith is definitely theologically erroneous and it proves that it was not protected by infallibility.

Objection: "A heretic can be in good faith about certain theological issues. A heretic may also be in good faith in some ways since, how else could a heretic turn from his errors and become a Catholic!"

Answer to the objection: No, a heretic cannot be of good Faith as long as he remains a heretic, and as long as he obstinately rejects God’s grace of conversion to the true Catholic Faith. The moment a heretic cease to be heretical, he is of good faith. Important to understand (for otherwise this might cause confusion) is that a heretic or a schismatic is a baptized person above the age of reason who have knowledge of and affirms a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, (the essential mysteries) but who rejects the full teaching of Christ and of His Church. A heretic is thus not a material heretic (a term used to describe a Catholic erring in good Faith), for a heretic is by definition a person who knowingly and obstinately rejects parts of the true Faith. A person can only reject what he have read, or heard about, and understood (unless we are speaking about the Trinity and the Incarnation and the natural law which all are bound to know explicitly without exception to be saved.) Thus, a heretic is by definition always of bad faith and will continue to be this as long as he remains in his heresy. That a heretic may desire the true faith is true, but that does not mean that he holds the true faith (until he actually has been converted).

This is further proven by an example. For if you were to say to an obstinate murderer and rapist: "You should cease to murder and rape people (remember that heresy murder souls)!" And the murderer would answer: "I am considering it since I see that it is wrong. I desire to change. Yet, I will continue to murder and rape for a bit more (he will continue to spread heresies and lies a bit more)." Would anyone be so mad as to say that he is in good faith even though he desires to cease doing evil? Of course not. Likewise, heretics are like murderers since they murder their own and other people’s souls eternally. In fact, they are worse than murderers and rapists. And as long as they are obstinate in their heresy, they are of bad faith and continue to murder souls.

The heretics are also not able to be in good faith about some parts of the faith, since the faith must be taken as a whole, or rejected as a whole, as Pope Leo XIII teaches:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has the following points to say about heresy:

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. "Heresy", the gravity of the sin (1910): “Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: "All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God. But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (unbeliever) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge does not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbelief (infidelitas) is the greatest sin in the whole range of perversity." And he adds: "Although the Gentiles err in more things than the Jews, and although the Jews are farther removed from true faith than heretics, yet the unbelief of the Jews is a more grievous sin than that of the Gentiles, because they corrupt the Gospel itself after having adopted and professed the same. . . . It is a more serious sin not to perform what one has promised than not to perform what one has not promised." It cannot be pleaded in attenuation of the guilt of heresy that heretics do not deny the faith which to them appears necessary to salvation, but only such articles as they consider not to belong to the original deposit. In answer it suffices to remark that two of the most evident truths of the depositum fidei [deposit of faith] are the unity of the Church and the institution of a teaching authority [The Popes] to maintain that unity. That unity exists in the Catholic Church, and is preserved by the function of her teaching body: these are two facts which anyone can verify for himself. In the constitution of the Church there is no room for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials: any such selection disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church; it strikes at the very source of faith. The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.”

3) THE 1917 CODE TEACHES THAT CATHOLICS MAY BE PRESENT AT NON-CATHOLIC FORMS OF WORSHIP, INCLUDING NON-CATHOLIC WEDDINGS AND NON-CATHOLIC FUNERALS!

Canon 1258, 1917 Code: “1. It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics. 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honor or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of scandal is absent.”

Note: this canon is talking about non-Catholic or non-Christian (false) worship and rites. This is outrageous! This canon allows one to travel to and attend a Jewish Synagogue or a Hindu Temple or a Lutheran Service, etc., etc., etc. for the wedding or funeral of infidels or heretics – just as long as one doesn’t actively participate! This is ridiculous, for to go out of his way to be present at such non-Catholic services where false worship is conducted (for the sake of honoring or pleasing the person involved in it) is a scandal in itself. It is to honor a person who is sinning against the First Commandment. To go to the funeral of a non-Catholic is to imply that there was some hope for him for salvation outside the Church; and to attend the wedding of a non-Catholic is to imply that God condones his or her marriage outside the Church. A Catholic can neither take part actively in false worship nor go out of one’s way to travel to the false worship or the non-Catholic ceremony to honor it with his “passive” presence. To have a passive presence at non-Catholic services, is actually to honor the devil and the demons, since Psalms 95:5 says that “all the gods of the Gentiles are devils.” To show to others that you are attending their religious houses, is to show formal consent to their religion and it is mortally sinful, and completely inexcusable. And as always, heretics must either state that the Church can contradict itself on a matter that is tied to the faith or be totally illogical. Here is the true infallible faith again:

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra: "And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith."

"Should be avoided in every way," is just not "clear" enough for the heretics. Hence, this canon also proves that this code is not infallible.

4) THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW TEACHES BAPTISM OF DESIRE

Again, a pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t; thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary “at least in desire” for salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility. The 1917 Code contradicts the immemorial Tradition of the Church on ecclesiastical burial for catechumens (unbaptized persons) and it holds no weight for a moment against the infallible declaration of the Chair of St. Peter (binding the entire Church) that no one can enter heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."

For numerous other objections and arguments (not covered in this article) commonly used by the heretics in favour of receiving sacraments from heretical ministers, please see our latest article: THE AMAZING LIES, HERESIES AND CONTRADICTIONS OF PETER DIMOND CAUGHT ON TAPE EXPOSED

AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION FOR ALL HERETICS, SCHISMATICS AND APOSTATES WITHOUT EXCEPTION

The declaratory sentence which follows an automatic excommunication is merely a legal recognition of something which already exists. If this were not true, the automatic excommunication would be meaningless. Canon 2314, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, although not infallible, is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.”

The heretical person is already severed from the Church. Most heretics are known to be heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be denounced as such. As we see here, the Catholic Church teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for ipso facto (by that very fact) excommunications to take effect. They are very often, as in the case of the heretic Martin Luther, formal recognitions of the ipso facto excommunication that has already occurred. This should be obvious to a Catholic.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”

As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that a heretic is automatically excommunicated (ipso facto) without any further declaration. It is a dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be a part of or govern the Church, since he is not a member of it. To state that Catholics should hold communion with a manifest heretic because no process against him had been completed, is contrary to Catholic teaching, Catholic Tradition and Catholic sense.

THE NECESSITY AND OBLIGATION FOR ALL TO JUDGE AND CONDEMN HERESY OR SCHISM

“We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church." (Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875)

Here we clearly see that Pope Pius IX gives every man and woman the authority to condemn and judge people who have separated themselves from the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. This is a command, and not something which people can choose to do. You must defend the true faith whenever your behavior, silence or omission would imply that you deny the faith or agree with heresy. Every evasion you’ll make from denouncing heresy or heretics will torment you for all eternity in the fires of hell, as the Catholic Church have always taught.

Pope St. Felix III (5th Century): "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men - when we can do it - is no less a sin than to encourage them."

Here is another quote from the Council of Trent which proves that one can and must decide what is and what is not of the Catholic Faith, by one's own judgment.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”

This proves that everyone are allowed to decide when someone have fallen in heresy or not, since the canon would never have said: “so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors,” without actually permitting people to judge what is a heresy, or who is a heretic. Without this truth, people are forced to profess communion with everyone: Protestants, Muslims, Devil-worshipers and so on. If you claim that you can judge a devil-worshiper to be outside the Church, then you can also judge someone who professes to be a Catholic, yet who holds to one or more heresies. But this is common sense, unless one is a liar.

THE NECESSITY TO STUDY AND KNOW THE CATHOLIC FAITH

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Prima Secunda Pars, Q. 76, Art. 2: "Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: Wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know."

Truly, one is bound to know the Catholic Faith well enough to be able to spot heresy when it is presented. So then - in accordance with the Angelic Doctor - if we know that our priest, bishop, etc. is heretical or schismatical, but we adhere to him anyway, then we indeed share in his sin of heresy or schism, whereby we would then be labouring OUTSIDE the true religion. Invincible ignorance on the other hand - ignorance that is not able to be overcome by any well ordered human effort - is a different matter, and is totally excusable, unless we are speaking about the essential mysteries (the Trinity and the Incarnation), and the natural law, which must be known explicitly by everyone above the age of reason for salvation. When people break the natural law it’s always a sin, and cannot be excused, since this law is written by God on every man’s heart. Ignorance of the Trinity and the Incarnation, however, is not a sin in itself, but God withholds this knowledge of the essential mysteries from many people since He foreknew that they would reject His offer of salvation.

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

BAPTISM; THE STEPS TO CONVERT TO THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC FAITH; THE STEPS FOR THOSE LEAVING THE NEW MASS; AND CONDITIONAL BAPTISM

CONTAINED IN THESE PAGES BELOW: -THE STEPS TO CONVERT TO THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC FAITH - THE COUNCIL OF TRENT’S PROFESSION OF FAITH FOR CONVERTS - THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN BY THOSE COMING OUT OF THE NEW MASS - THE FORM OF BAPTISM AND CONDITIONAL BAPTISM WITH EXPLANATION

The steps one must take to convert to the traditional Catholic Faith are actually simple. They are slightly different, however, depending upon whether one has or has not received baptism. Please consult this file carefully.

If you haven’t received baptism, the steps to convert to the Traditional Catholic Faith are as follows:

1) Know and believe the basic catechism (i.e. the basic teachings) of the traditional Catholic Faith. PLEASE READ THE CATHECHISM NOW One should also immediately begin to pray the Rosary each day (15 decades preferably). If you don’t know how, consult the How to Pray the Rosary section of our website. Always take time every day to read and study the Faith, and ask God for final perseverance.

2) Hold belief in all the traditional dogmas of the Church and the correct Catholic positions against the post-Vatican II sect (covered in detail in our material), including, for example, the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation (without exception), the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, the necessity of water baptism, etc.

3) After you know the basic catechism (which shouldn’t take very long), and are confident that you assent to all the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, and that you are not living in mortal sin, nor have a will to continue living in mortal or venial sin, receive baptism. There is no reason to delay this (see Acts 8:36-37) if you have completed steps 1 and 2. Normally this would be done by a Catholic priest at your local Catholic Church. Since we are in the Great Apostasy, and there are almost zero fully Traditional Catholic priests around, a layperson is probably the one who should do it for you. The Council of Florence (see below) declared that anyone can validly administer baptism. Thus, if you have a strong Catholic friend or, in case you don’t, if you have a non-Catholic family member or friend who could perform the baptism reliably with the proper intention, then that person can administer baptism for you using the form given below. Confession is not necessary for a person who has never received baptism, since baptism removes original sin and all actual sins. After baptism, however, one should get into the habit of going to confession to a traditional priest ordained in the traditional rite of ordination at least once a month if that is possible. Sadly, however, today there are virtually not a single non-heretical priest left in the world. One must go to confession if a non-heretical priest is available if he or she commits a mortal sin after baptism, which hopefully will not occur. A good practice is to write down your sins on a piece of paper so that you will have an easier time remembering the sins you have committed. This can also be done by those who have no priest and who confess directly to God, in order to facilitate that your confession to Our Lord will be as exact as possible. One could also make a confession of sins or heresies to any person or friend you feel you trust. This should generally be someone who is able to advice you on spiritual things, and not to any person you know.

Confessing our sins to each other, even though we cannot give absolution, is still a great tool to use in exposing the devil and in overcoming habitual bad habits or sins (reoccurring or habitual bad habits is in most cases what lead people to sin in the first place). The Saints had as a habit to confess their sins daily, and thus we should try to act in this way as much as we are able. For confessing our sins daily, breeds humility.

4) Make the profession of faith for converts from the Council of Trent, which is below. If there is a specific sect to which you belonged, or if you believed in a specific heresy, add at the end that you also reject that heretical sect or heresy. The Council of Trent’s Profession of Faith for Converts

For those who have received baptism, it is slightly different:

1) Know and believe the basic catechism (i.e. the basic teachings) of the traditional Catholic Faith. PLEASE READ THE CATHECHISM NOW One should also immediately begin to pray the Rosary each day (15 decades preferably). If you don’t know how, consult the How to Pray the Rosary section of our website. Always take time every day to read and study the Faith, and ask God for final perseverance.

2) Hold belief in all the traditional dogmas of the Church and the correct Catholic positions against the post-Vatican II sect (covered in detail in our material), including, for example, the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation (without exception), the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, the necessity of water baptism, etc..

3) Make the profession of faith for converts from the Council of Trent, which is below. If there is a specific sect to which you belonged, or if you believed in a specific heresy, add at the end that you also reject that heretical sect or heresy. The Council of Trent’s Profession of Faith for Converts

4) If a non-heretical priest is available to you, you must make a general confession to a priest ordained in the traditional rite of ordination after taking the previous 3 steps. This is a confession in which one mentions all mortal and venial sins committed after baptism that one can remember, including adherence to any sects or false religions or having spread a false sect or false religion. Beware to check carefully beforehand that the priest you approach for the sacraments is not heretical nor in communion with other heretics. Today, in the Great Apostasy, there is almost not a single non-heretical priest left in the world. The only alternative that is left for almost everyone today is to confess their sins to God directly and ask Him with tears or sorrow and true repentance to forgive them their sins. This will forgive your sins if you are sincere, if no other option is available. If you find a non-heretical priest, then as long as the priest says “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” the confession is valid. A good practice is to write down your sins on a piece of paper so that you will have an easier time remembering the sins you have committed. This can also be done by those who have no priest and who confess directly to God, in order to facilitate that your confession to Our Lord will be as exact as possible. One could also make a confession of sins or heresies to any person or friend you feel you trust. This should generally be someone who is able to advice you on spiritual things, and not to any person you know.

Confessing our sins to each other, even though we cannot give absolution, is still a great tool to use in exposing the devil and in overcoming habitual bad habits or sins (reoccurring or habitual bad habits is in most cases what lead people to sin in the first place). The Saints had as a habit to confess their sins daily, and thus we should try to act in this way as much as we are able. For confessing our sins daily, breeds humility.

For those who aren’t sure whether they are baptized, the order is:

1) Know and believe the basic catechism (i.e. the basic teachings) of the traditional Catholic Faith. PLEASE READ THE CATHECHISM NOW One should also immediately begin to pray the Rosary each day. If you don’t know how, consult the How to Pray the Rosary section of our website. Always take time every day to read and study the Faith, and ask God for final perseverance.

2) Hold belief in all the traditional dogmas of the Church and the correct Catholic positions against the post-Vatican II sect (covered in detail in our material), including, for example, the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation (without exception), the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, the necessity of water baptism, etc.

3) Make the profession of faith for converts from the Council of Trent, which is below. If there is a specific sect to which you belonged, or if you believed in a specific heresy, add at the end that you also reject that heretical sect or heresy. The Council of Trent’s Profession of Faith for Converts

4) Have someone perform a conditional baptism using the conditional form of baptism given below. If there is any doubt about your baptism, this should be done.

5) After your conditional baptism, make a general confession to a non-heretical priest if one is available, mentioning all mortal and venial sins committed after your first possibly valid baptism that you can remember. A good practice is to write down your sins on a piece of paper so that you will have an easier time remembering the sins you have committed. This can also be done by those who have no priest and who confess directly to God, in order to facilitate that your confession to Our Lord will be as exact as possible. One could also make a confession of sins or heresies to any person or friend you feel you trust. This should generally be someone who is able to advice you on spiritual things, and not to any person you know.

Confessing our sins to each other, even though we cannot give absolution, is still a great tool to use in exposing the devil and in overcoming habitual bad habits or sins (reoccurring or habitual bad habits is in most cases what lead people to sin in the first place). The Saints had as a habit to confess their sins daily, and thus we should try to act in this way as much as we are able. For confessing our sins daily, breeds humility.

People leaving the New Mass or adherence to the Vatican II Counter Church also need to make a confession (to a validly ordained and non-heretical priest, if one is available) that they attended a non-Catholic service and for however long they attended. If they participated in other things at the New Mass (e.g. were a lay-minister, dressed immodestly, etc.) or accepted false ecumenism or denied some other dogma or if they practiced NFP, these things should also be mentioned in confession. This must be done before receiving Communion at the Traditional Mass (if there is an acceptable one for you to attend in your area). Those leaving the New Mass and adherence to the Vatican II false Church should also make that same profession of faith from the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent’s Profession of Faith for Converts

BAPTISM AND CONDITIONAL BAPTISM

The form of baptism is: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” or
“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

If there is some doubt about the validity of your baptism, the conditional form of baptism is: “If you are baptized, I do not baptize you again, but if you are not yet baptized [pour water on the head, making sure it touches the skin] I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Since there are barely any true Catholic priests in the whole country, you can have a Catholic friend perform a conditional baptism, and you can administer baptism to your own children.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denz. 696)

BAPTISMAL VOWS

According to the Roman Ritual, at present in use, three questions are to be addressed to the person to be baptized, as follows: "Dost thou renounce Satan? and all his works? and all his pomps?" To each of these questions the person, or the sponsor in his name, replies: "I do renounce". The practice of demanding and making this formal renunciation seems to go back to the very beginnings of organized Christian worship. Tertullian among the Latins and St. Basil among the Greeks are at one in reckoning it as a usage which, although not explicitly warranted in the Scriptures, is nevertheless consecrated by a venerable tradition. St. Basil says this tradition ascends from the Apostles. Tertullian, in his "De Coronâ", appears to hint at a twofold renunciation as common in his time, one which was made at the moment of baptism and another made sometime before, and publicly in the church, in the presence of the bishop. The form of this renunciation as found in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 4) reads as follows: "Let therefore the candidate for baptism declare thus in his renunciation: 'I renounce Satan and his works and his pomps and his worship and his angels and his inventions and all things that are under him'. And after his renunciation let him in his consociation say: 'And I associate myself to Christ and believe and am baptized into one unbegotten Being, the only true God Almighty, the Father of Christ, the Creator and Maker of all things, from whom are all things; and into the Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, the Firstborn of the whole creation, who before the ages was begotten by the good pleasure of the Father, by whom all things were made...
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

St. Justin Martyr testifies that baptism was only administered by those who, together with their profession of faith, made a promise or vow that they would live in conformity with the Christian code. Hence the generally employed formula: syntassomai soi, Christe, "I surrender myself to thee, O Christ, to be ruled by thy precepts". This took place directly over the apotaxis or renunciation of the devil, and was variously described by the Latins as promissum, pactum, and votum. During this declaration of attachment to Jesus Christ the person to be baptized turned towards the East as towards the region of light.

The practice of renewing the baptismal promises is more or less widespread. This is done under circumstances of special solemnity such as at the closing exercises of a mission, after the administration of First Communion to children, or the conferring of the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is thus intended as a way of reaffirming one's loyalty to the obligations taken over by membership in the Christian Church.

PROFESSION OF CATHOLIC FAITH

Promulgated solemnly by Pope Pius IV and the Council of Trent

● I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church uses; namely:

● I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in

● one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten not made, of one substance (consubstantial) with the Father, through whom all things were made;

● who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

● He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, died, and was buried; and

● He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven;

● He sits at the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end.

● And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who equally with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.

● And I believe that there is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

● I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

● I resolutely accept and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and the other practices and regulations of that same Church.

● In like manner I accept Sacred Scripture according to the meaning which has been held by holy Mother Church and which she now holds. It is Her prerogative to pass judgment on the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. And I will never accept or interpret it in a manner different from the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.

● I also acknowledge that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and that they are necessary for the salvation of the human race, although it is not necessary for each individual to receive them all.

● I acknowledge that the seven sacraments are: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of the seven, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be repeated without committing a sacrilege.

● I also accept and acknowledge the customary and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of these sacraments.

● I embrace and accept each and every article on Original Sin and Justification declared and defined in the most holy Council of Trent.

● I likewise profess that in Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.

● I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received under each separate species.

● I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful.

● I likewise hold that the saints reigning together with Christ should be honored and invoked, that they offer prayers to God on our behalf, and that their relics should be venerated.

● I firmly assert that images of Christ, of the Mother of God ever Virgin, and of the other saints should be owned and kept, and that due honor and veneration should be given to them.

● I affirm that the power of indulgences was left in the keeping of the Church by Christ, and that the use of indulgences is very beneficial to Christians.

● I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and…

● I unhesitatingly accept and profess all the doctrines (especially those concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching authority) handed down, defined, and explained by the sacred canons and ecumenical councils and especially those of this most holy Council of Trent (and by the ecumenical Vatican Council I). And at the same time:

● I condemn, reject, and anathematize everything that is contrary to those propositions, and all heresies without exception that have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church.

● I, N., promise, vow, and swear that, with God’s help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold. With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects or those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it. So help me God and His holy Gospel.

CHASTITY, HUMILITY, OBEDIENCE, AND LOVE

The word of God proclaims that all who wants to obtain Salvation must strive to live in Chastity (according to one's state in life), Humility, Obedience, and Love of God, in the true Catholic Faith, by renouncing all kinds of heresies and heretics.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess 14, Nov. 11, 1563, on Matrimony: “If anyone says that the married state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and happier to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony (Matt. 19:11; 1 Cor. 7:25): let him be anathema.” (Denzinger 980)

St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 392: “That virginity is good I do agree. But that it is even better than marriage, this I do confess. And if you wish, I will add that it is as much better than marriage as Heaven is better than Earth, as much better as angels are better than men.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1116)

You should fast often with moderation and abstain from eating superfluous food and drink in order to crucify your fleshly lusts and desires. Fasting is in truth one of the greatest ways to be victorious against fleshly lusts and desires along with the Rosary and spiritual reading.

Let every man understand that whenever he sins or speaks ungodly words and blasphemy, he murders himself and gives scandal to his brothers and sisters who beholds this behaviour in a spiritual way. To give others occasion of sin is the worst of all sins! Remember this and you will always fear the Lord and remain in humility! No one should think himself better than his neighbour; for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God! It is of great importance not to attend any kind of dance, ball, discotheque or the pub. Your eternal soul depends on it.

Be sure to not associate with worldly and ungodly people who refuse to obey the will of God, for they will tempt you with their sinful and ungodly life, and you will not escape punishment for being a friend with an unrepentant sinner, unless for the express purpose of his conversion. As all saints exclaim: most people that go to hell, go there because they sought human approval and friendship rather than friendship with God!

There will be no friendships in hell. In hell everyone will hate one another, and the more a person knew another, the more will that person hate the other, since that person was the greater cause of his eternal damnation. If this is so with friends, what then, will it be in regards to your own family? Accursed be you my wife, who led me to these sins of lust! Accursed be you my children, who after following my bad examples, fell headlong down to hell to my greater sorrow! Accursed by you my father and mother, for giving me bad advice, and accursed be me, wretched and sad, forever more in this lake of eternal fire!

In hell there will be perfect hatred for one another. One would rather be alone in hell if the option was given him, but this will not be. You will torment each other to the utmost in hell for all eternity, since you led each other down to this place of torments by your bad living and example. How much a person will hate another in hell is indeed impossible for us still living to understand, but that the hatred will be perfect, infinite and eternal, is easy to grasp!

"Most people fail to see that the sin of the Angels was a thought of revolt, and as a result a third part of those glorious spirits lost their thrones in Heaven. It was the eating of a little fruit by our First Mother, Eve, that proved the undoing of the human race. Was it not an act of disobedience that deprived Saul of his throne, and was it not a sinful glance that led holy David to the commission of a heinous crime? An act of vanity too, lost him 70,000 of his subjects. Did not the venerable Eleazar sacrifice his life rather than eat swine's flesh? And what about the death of Oza and Ahio for daring to touch the Ark? You fail to see that it is not the trifling act which is wrong, but the principle involved: the malice of the offence against an infinite God, to whom we owe our love, our gratitude and our allegiance. Surely, if God died on account of sin, sin must be dreadful. If sin is punished by Hell-fire, sin must be enormous. When you make light of sin, you judge not Catholics, but God Himself."

Sadly, only death and hell will serve to wake up the majority of the people reading this! You will read this and then continue in your sloth and worldliness, or you will have a short lived spiritual fervor that will cool as times goes by! The greatest error among those people that are condemned to hell are that they presume that they are in the state of grace and fit for heaven, thus showing of their pride and arrogance in that they do not even consider themselves as great sinners, who really do nothing at all to better themselves and their bad living, and who do not even consider their unworthiness of heaven, and the possibility of them actually being on the road to destruction. God condemns such presumption. We are sinful creatures who are able to fall into sin at every moment of our life. We must always trust in God and his mercy, not on our own strength. A person who is really humble will never think of himself that he is already saved while still living on earth. He will have death before his eyes and the constant thought of the possibility of losing God though sin. These and like thoughts will make him constant in the prayers to God for help to achieve salvation, and the grace to avoid sin. A person who does not pray to God for help to achieve salvation, is already condemned and will not make it!

INFORMATION ABOUT US AND OUR MISSION

God Bless You! We are three unworthy servants of our God and Lord Jesus Christ who, by the grace of God, live like monks, in chastity and humility and in dedicating our lives to love God above all, while spreading Jesus’ words all over the world. Our mission is to gather brothers and sisters who have the good will to preach, teach and spread these Holy Revelations to our beloved brothers and sisters in the world. Please put a link to our homepage and tell all your friends, relatives and everyone you know about this site and the wonderful words of our Lord for the salvation of souls. If you are a preacher, we hope and pray that you will preach these words from the Holy Spirit to your whole congregation.

Matthew 12:30 “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” This verse clearly teaches that in order to be saved you need to save yourself and others from hell. It also clearly teaches that if you are not trying to save souls, you are, in fact, damaging and scattering souls. And Christ says that those who do not try to save souls are his enemies. So, are you really doing all you can?

We humbly ask you all to print out copies of these books with a link to our homepage and give them free of charge to all your brothers and sisters. Go to the churches and hand them out or place them on vehicles parked for church services. We also suggest that you ask your congregation leader if he is willing to buy The Prophecies and Revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden for his whole congregation at a discounted bulk rate. We also ask you to place copies of these great revelations everywhere: on doors, trees and other places where they can be seen by all in order to save as many souls as possible for our Lord Jesus Christ!

We are looking for willing translators who have the skill to make a good translation of St Bridget's Revelations into different languages. We are also in need of translators of other important articles into different languages for the salvation of souls. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us at info@catholic-saints.net. We are also looking for someone who can make an audio book in mp3. We wish to have at least 50 translated languages, one day, with the help of you, the reader. Please help us find more books of Saint Bridget's Revelations in other languages. You will be rewarded greatly by our Lord Jesus Christ if you make an effort to spread His divine words to others in any way you can. You can help to spread the word of God in many ways: for example, by writing about our website and quoting the Revelations of St. Bridget or the things said in our videos with our link or our hyperlink added to the text on forums and blogs and the like so that people can find the wonderful words by Our Lord and His Mother and our videos. You can upload our videos to different video sites, embed them on your own site or on forum sites and the like, and share them with your friends and even your enemies so that they may grow in the true faith or come to the true faith. You can also contact book salesmen and book publishers in order to ask them to buy these books from us or print these books for us. Please give out and share our books and DVD’s free of charge and send e-mails to people about our site. We also beg you to pray the Rosary for their sake and plead with them to also begin to pray the Rosary. For a hardened heart will become soft by continuing praying the Rosary. No prayer is as powerful as the Holy Rosary! If you are able and willing to help us with the salvation of souls, please contact us and we will give you further instructions. For by helping other people’s souls, you help yourself!

Saint Bridget was canonized by Pope Boniface IX in the year 1391 and confirmed by Pope Martin V in the Council of Constance in the year 1415.

The Revelations of St. Bridget were accorded an exceptionally high degree of authenticity, authority and importance from an early date. Pope Gregory XI (1370-78) approved and confirmed them and judged them highly favorably, as did Boniface IX (1389-1404) in the papal Bull Ab origine mundi, par. 39 (7 Oct 1391). They were later examined at the Council of Constance (1414-18) and at the Council of Basel (1431-49), both judging them to be in conformity with the Catholic faith; The Revelations were also strongly defended by numerous highly regarded theologians, including Jean Gerson (1363-1429), Chancellor of the University of Paris and Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468).

Saint Bridget was born of a noble and rich family. Her family was good in their faith according to our Lord Jesus Christ and they gave a lot of their riches to the uprising of churches and monasteries and also a lot to the poor. Once, at the age of ten, she saw the Lord crucified, and the Lord Jesus Christ said: “Look, how I suffer!” She thought it had happened at the same time and answered: “O Lord, who has done this to you?” The Lord answered: “Those, who despise me and forget my great love.” When her husband died she became a nun and gave away all of her riches. All of her prophecies have been fulfilled to this day and there are still a few left that shall be fulfilled.

Please do not forget to read these revelations of St. Bridget and other scriptures of God everyday to grow in spirit and virtue, because the devil will be doing everything in his power to make you stop reading God's word so that you will forget them and fall into sin. Do not forget to print out copies of these great revelations so that you always have them in your hand for when the great disasters which the Holy Bible warns about come to pass, and so that you don’t rely (for example) on electricity that will not always be available.

This book is a mirror in which the soul can see its stains and learn what is pleasing to God and what displeases him. Read this book again and again and you will learn how you must love God and your neighbor, despise what is earthly and transient, striving after the everlasting and heavenly, enduring for Christ's sake the adversities of this world and despising its prosperity and enticements, thanking God in sickness, not taking pride in good health, not becoming presumptuous in good fortune nor downcast in trials.

St. Louis De Montfort (+1710): “Blessed Alan de la Roche who was so deeply devoted to the Blessed Virgin had many revelations from her and we know that he confirmed the truth of these revelations by a solemn oath. Three of them stand out with special emphasis: the first, that if people fail to say the 'Hail Mary' (the Angelic Salutation which has saved the world – Luke 1:28) out of carelessness, or because they are lukewarm, or because they hate it, this is a sign that they will probably and indeed shortly be condemned to eternal punishment.”

We highly recommend that all 15 decades of the Rosary be prayed daily. Our Lady repeatedly emphasized the importance of praying the Rosary each day in her messages at Fatima. She even said that Francisco would have to pray ‘many rosaries’ before he could go to Heaven. You should prioritize reading the word of God and praying before other activities to grow in the spirit. Praying all 15 decades of the Rosary each day can be accomplished in a variety of ways. However, for many it is best accomplished by praying a part of the Rosary at different times of the day, for example, the joyful mysteries in the morning, sorrowful mysteries at midday, and glorious mysteries in the evening. ‘Salve Regina’ only needs to be prayed at the end of the entire day’s rosary. An essential part of the Rosary is meditation on the mysteries, episodes in the life of Our Lord and Our Lady. This means thinking about them, visualizing them, considering the graces and merits displayed in them, and using them for inspiration to better know and love God. It is also common to focus on a particular virtue with each mystery.

Our Lady to St. Dominic (1214): “Dominic, do you know which weapon the Blessed Trinity wants to use to reform the world? ‘Oh, my Lady,’ answered St. Dominic, ‘you know far better than I do…’ Then Our Lady replied: ‘I want you to know that, in this kind of warfare, the battering ram has always been the Angelic Psalter (the Rosary) which is the foundation stone of the New Testament. Therefore if you want to reach these hardened souls and win them over to God, preach my Psalter (the Rosary).” (The Secret of the Rosary, p. 18.)

“Ever since Blessed Alan de la Roche re-established this devotion, the voice of the people, which is the voice of God, called it “The Rosary”. The word Rosary means "Crown of Roses," that is to say that every time people say the Rosary devoutly they place a crown of one hundred and fifty-three red roses and sixteen white roses upon the heads of Jesus and Mary. Being heavenly flowers, these roses will never fade or lose their exquisite beauty. In truth, they will stand before you for all eternity and bring you happiness and delight! Our Lady has shown her thorough approval of the name Rosary; she had revealed to several people that each time they say a Hail Mary they are giving her a beautiful rose and that each complete Rosary makes her a crown of roses.

The well-known Jesuit, Brother Alphonsus Rodriguez, used to say his Rosary with such fervor that he often saw a red rose come out of his mouth at each Our Father and a white rose at each Hail Mary. The red and white roses were equal in beauty and fragrance, the only difference being in their color.

The chronicles of Saint Francis tell of a young friar who had the praiseworthy habit of saying the Crown of Our Lady (the Rosary) every day before dinner. One day for some reason or other he did not manage to say it. The refectory bell had already been rung when he asked the Superior to allow him to say it before coming to the table, and having obtained the permission he withdrew to his cell to pray.

After he had been gone a long time the Superior sent another Friar to fetch him, and he found him in his room bathed in a heavenly light facing Our Lady who had two angels with her. Beautiful roses kept issuing from his mouth at each Hail Mary; the angels took them one by one, placing them on Our Lady's head, and she smilingly accepted them.

Finally two other friars who had been sent to find out what happened to the first two saw the same lovely scene, and Our Lady did not go away until the whole Rosary had been said.” (The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis De Montfort)

“Show me a new road to our Lord, pave it with all the merits of the saints, adorn it with their heroic virtues, illuminate and enhance it with the splendour and beauty of the angels, have all the angels and saints there to guide and protect those who wish to follow it. Give me such a road and truly, truly, I boldly say–and I am telling the truth–that instead of this road, perfect though it be, I would still choose the immaculate way of Mary. It is a way, a road without stain or spot, without original sin or actual sin, without shadow or darkness”. (True devotion to Mary by St. Louis De Montfort)

We also recommend you read the Word of God at least one to two hours every day until the moment of your death if it is possible. If you do not read enough everyday, your prayer will become empty since an ignorant person does not know what to ask and pray for in virtues and spiritual blessings. If you are unable to accomplish this right away, you should slowly but surely take steps to move to this point by making a resolution in your heart to never read or pray less than you have decided. Then when you have grown accustomed to maybe one hour reading and one hour praying per day, you can slowly try to add to this until you have reached your goal. It is much wiser to do it in this way and the goal will be reached much easier. For spiritual exercises are like most activities of the world: the more practice you have, the better you get. The best time for prayer is in the morning, since the mind is more clear from the thoughts and discussions of the world, so we advise you to always dedicate time in the morning for the Rosary. The Rosary is the most powerful weapon in existence against the devil and those who neglect it will indeed be eternally sorry for refusing to honor our Lady as she deserves! Think and reflect upon what greatness it is to be able to speak with the God of the whole creation and His Mother whenever we want. It is almost impossible for a man to be able to speak with a king or queen of this world, and yet the King of kings and his beloved Mother hear your every word. In truth, I tell you, that even one good word of prayer has more worth than all gold and jewels and an infinite amount of universes, for they will all perish, but God’s words will never perish. Think about how much you would concentrate and fight against distracting thoughts if someone were to tell you that you could have 10,000 dollars or a new car if you prayed a Rosary with full concentration and without yielding to distracting thoughts. This example should shame us all since we humans are, by our very nature, wicked at heart and are inclined to search for filth rather than gold (worldly things rather than heavenly ones). Everyone should try to remember this example, and then we will all be able to pray better which will bring us an everlasting, heavenly reward! The devils concentrate exceedingly much on getting a person to despise prayer in these ways: either they try to make you bored by it, or to have a difficulty in concentrating when praying, or to pray a little; for they know that prayer is the only way to salvation. The devices the devils use to distract you and lead you to hell in this age is are obviously worldly and ungodly media and video games and the like, but sins like the lust of the flesh, vanity, immodest clothing, gluttony, greed and pride among others also give them more power over the mind since the person searches for earthly comforts instead of heavenly ones.

St. Alphonsus (1760): “To a spiritual life the reading of holy books is perhaps not less useful than mental prayer. St. Bernard says reading instructs us at once in prayer, and in the practice of virtue. Hence he concluded that spiritual reading and prayer are the arms by which hell is conquered and paradise won… Hence St. Athanasius used to say that we find no one devoted to the service of the Lord that did not practice spiritual reading.” (T.S., p. 513)

'Wherefore, children, let us hold fast our discipline, and let us not be careless. For in it the Lord is our fellow-worker, as it is written, "to all that choose the good, God worketh with them for good." But to avoid being heedless, it is good to consider the word of the Apostle, "I die daily.'' For if we too live as though dying daily, we shall not sin. And the meaning of that saying is, that as we rise day by day we should think that we shall not abide till evening; and again, when about to lie down to sleep, we should think that we shall not rise up. For our life is naturally uncertain, and Providence allots it to us daily. But thus ordering our daily life, we shall neither fall into sin, nor have a lust for anything, nor cherish wrath against any, nor shall we heap up treasure upon earth. But, as though under the daily expectation of death, we shall be without wealth, and shall forgive all things to all men, nor shall we retain at all the desire of women or of any other foul pleasure. But we shall turn from it as past and gone, ever striving and looking forward to the day of Judgment. For the greater dread and danger of torment ever destroys the ease of pleasure, and sets up the soul if it is like to fall. 'Wherefore having already begun and set out in the way of virtue, let us strive the more that we may attain those things that are before. And let no one turn to the things behind, like Lot's wife, all the more so that the Lord hath said, "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and turning back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven. (St. Athanasius, The Life of Anthony)

Catholics must also understand that few are saved.Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed that the road to Heaven is straight and narrow and few find it, while the road to Hell is wide and taken by most (Mt. 7:13).

Matthew 7:13- “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it!”

Luke 13:24- “Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.”

Scripture also teaches that almost the entire world lies in darkness, so much so that Satan is even called the “prince” (John 12:31) and “god” (2 Cor. 4:3) of this world.

1 John 5:19- “We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness.”

It’s the sad fact of history that most people in the world are of bad will and don’t want the truth. That’s why almost the whole world lies in darkness and on the road to perdition.This has been the case since the beginning. It was the case when only eight souls out of the world’s entire population (Noah and his family) escaped God’s wrath in the deluge that covered the entire earth, and when the Israelites rejected God’s law and fell into idolatry over and over again. Only two men out of the whole population of Israelites (Joshua and Caleb) made it into the Promised Land since the people opposed God time upon time even though they had seen such miracles as the world had never seen!

Saint Leonard of Port Maurice [A.D. 1676-1751], on the fewness of the saved: “After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he [Suarez] wrote, ‘The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Catholics, there are more damned souls than predestined souls.’ Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone. Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, "Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom." Saint Anselm declares, "There are few who are saved." Saint Augustine states even more clearly, "Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned." The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: "Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence."

Vision of Archdeacon of Lyons, who died the same day as St. Bernard (1153): "Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell." (Told to St. Vincent Ferrer)

Think about how almost the whole of Europe was fully Catholic and how the kingdoms outlawed false religions at this time, making this moment of time much more spiritually beneficial for souls than we see today! If so few were saved at this moment of time, how many are saved now? One can only shudder and cry at this thought!

Christ speaking about all the monks of the world and the fewness of them being saved from hell: “They are in truth slaves, and there are very few who are different, yea so few that you hardly can find one in a hundred!” (The Prophecies and Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 6 - Chapter 35)

If Christ says that not even one in a hundred monks will be saved, how many do you think will be saved of normal people who do not even try to renounce the world and its pleasures! Sadly, only death and hell will serve to wake up the majority of the people reading this! You will read this and then continue in your sloth and worldliness, or you will have a short lived spiritual fervor that will cool as times goes by! We pray with tears that you are not one of these Judases that will suffer for all eternity in hell!

“Hell is so hot inside that if the whole world and everything in it were on fire, it could not compare to that vast furnace. The various voices heard in the furnace all speak against God. They begin and end their speech with laments. The souls look like people whose limbs are forever being stretched without relief or pause.” (The Prophecies and Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 4 - Chapter 7)

“Nicholas of Nice, speaking of the fire of Hell, says that nothing on earth could give an idea of it. He adds that if all the trees of the forests were cut down, piled into a vast heap and set on fire, this terrible pile would not be a spark of Hell.”

“For the smallest sin, lusted after, is enough to damn anyone from the kingdom of Heaven, who does not repent.” (The Prophecies & Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 1 - Chapter 32)

“Other Christians accepted Hell on faith, because Christ had said repeatedly and with solemn emphasis that there is a Hell, but Jacinta had seen it; and once she grasped the idea that God’s justice is the counterpart of His mercy, and that there must be a Hell if there is to be a Heaven, nothing seemed so important to her except to save as many souls as possible from the horrors she had glimpsed under the radiant hands of the Queen of heaven. Nothing could be too hard, nothing too small or too great to give up.” (Our Lady of Fatima, p. 89)

Below is an interesting quote from St. Alphonsus concerning the idea of conversion to the Catholic Faith at the end of one’s life. Although these types of conversions are possible, they are extremely rare. St. Alphonsus states that these types of conversions proceed out of necessity, and that it would be very difficult for God to pardon such a person:

He that lives in sin till death shall die in sin. “You shall die in your sin.” (John 8:21.) It is true that, in whatsoever hour the sinner is converted, God promises to pardon him; but to no sinner has God promised the grace of conversion at the hour of death. “Seek the Lord while he may be found.” (Isaiah 55:6.) Then, there is for some sinners a time when they shall seek God and shall not find him. “You shall seek me, and shall not find me.” (John 7:34.) The unhappy beings will go to confession at the hour of death; they will promise and weep, and ask mercy of God, but without knowing what they do. A man who sees himself under the feet of a foe pointing a dagger to his throat, will shed tears, ask pardon, and promise to serve his enemy as a slave during the remainder of his life. But, will the enemy believe him? No; he will feel convinced that his words are not sincere–that his object is to escape from his hands, and that, should he be pardoned, he will become more hostile than ever. In like manner, how can God pardon the dying sinner, when he sees that all his acts of sorrow, and all his promises, proceed not from the heart, but from a dread of death and of approaching damnation.” (Sermon 38: On the death of the sinner, par. 8)

Many people today do not care about helping other souls. They waste their time watching worldly tv, series, movies, playing video games and only searching for earthly pleasures rather than saving their own and other people’s souls. They do not spend even an hour a day on trying to save their own selves and others from the eternal hellfire. These heartless sinners will not enter into heaven for they did not really care about other people’s souls but only about what their next pleasure or enjoyment would be. (Mt. 12:30) Our Lord will surely cast them into an eternal hell fire for their lack of charity!

Imagine seeing your friend or family member being mercilessly tortured and you not being able to prevent this. Most people would do almost anything to prevent this situation from happening. Yet, this is exactly what will happen unless you make an effort to save your friend. (Mt. 7:13-14) So, if you really care about your family and friends, please tell them about the Word of God and the great Revelations of St. Bridget. A single soul has more worth than an infinite amount of universes, for the material universe will cease to exist, but your friend's soul will never cease to exist. Always remember: A true friend is the one who tells the truth. As a Catholic, one has an obligation to attempt to convert friends and family members. Thus, if one is completely unaware of what his or her friend believes, then that person is not evangelizing the way he or she must evangelize. Therefore, let us all invite people to the marriage feast of our Lord as we have been bidden to do by Him! If we are satisfied that we have the faith, and are not zealous to spread it to others, how can we ever expect to be saved?

If you are able to do so, please make a donation in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to help us spread the Prophecies & Revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden and the true Christian Faith all over the world to save our beloved brothers’ and sisters’ souls. To be able to reach this goal with your help, we need financial help to reach out to people, publish these books in different languages, and much more. We humbly ask you all to give from your abundance to help us save souls from the eternal hellfire. Your financial support could possibly make part of the difference where a person will spend eternity.

It is written: “And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.” (Matthew 10:42)

We need your help, make a donation here please. We also need your prayers! We pray that God will bless you all and strengthen your spiritual life through his precious words found in the Revelations of St. Bridget!

More important information will be added soon!

We are looking for translators. Please contact us at info@catholic-saints.net.