WWW.CATHOLIC-SAINTS.

NET

Free DVDs and Books

Listing of Sections (CLICK ON ANY SECTION BELOW TO GO DIRECTLY TO IT) Important Christian Dogma You Must Believe to be Saved (Introduction) About Receiving the Sacraments From Heretics and Prayer in Communion With Heretics (Introduction) Important Spiritual Information You Must Know to be Saved (Introduction)

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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Churchs 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 NONCATHOLIC 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 Churchs official and infallible teaching. Theres 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, its another name for a mistaken Catholic. Its 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 Gods 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 churchbuilding, 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 dont 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 its 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 dont reject any Catholic dogma because they dont know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who dont 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 weve seen that its 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Gods sight; its 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 councils 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 anathemawe 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. Its 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 Christs 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 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 Gods

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 Christs doctrines is by getting men to recede (move away) from the Churchs 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 ones 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 Adams 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 Wyclifs 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 Fathers 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 dont 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 ones desire for the Sacrament of Baptism or ones 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Lords 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 dont 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 Churchs 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 whats 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 Lords 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 Christs 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 Churchs 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. Thats 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 peoples 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. Ambroses 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 didnt 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 Churchs 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 isnt), 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 doesnt have at least the desire/vow for water baptism. But 99% of the people who quote this passage in favor of baptism of desire dont even believe that one must desire baptism to be saved! They believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who dont 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 dont believe in it at all and are in heresy for teaching that nonCatholics can be saved who dont 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 doesnt. 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 ones 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 Catechisms 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 dont 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 didnt), it wouldnt make a bit of difference to the points Ive made. This is because a pope is only infallible when speaking magisterially. This catechism is not infallible because it wasnt 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 Gods 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 Lords 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 nonCatholic 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 arent 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? Isnt 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 wouldnt 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 Gods grace, keep the natural law and respond to Gods call, they can by Gods 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 IXs 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 nonCatholic 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 IXs 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 whove 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 dont hold the correct positions. Well, here are some interesting canons weve 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
INTRODUCTION 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. This concept, however, is false, and will be thoroughly refuted in this article. Important to understand is that a heretical or schismatical priest consecrate these 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: 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 are unaware of the priest being a heretic or schismatic]. 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 VIs 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 VIs 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 VIs 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 VIs new rite of ordination, consult this page: http://www.catholic-saints.net/vatican-ii/#Why-theNew-Mass-and-New-Rite-of-Ordination-are-Invalid]

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. 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 youre trying to convert a heretic or an unbeliever. In such a case, you can meet 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 notorious 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 sects 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, 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." 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. 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 lets 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." 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." For people then to claim (in spite of all the quotations above saying otherwise), 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, lets 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 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 are not obliged to

go to him, and can stay home. However, if the priest is a notorious heretic or schismatic, you may not approach him for the sacraments, and must stay home. One example of this would be if a priests heresy or schism was concealed to most people, and you perhaps were the only one who knew about it after speaking with 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 priests wicked and sinful deed, since you by showing external communion with him, profess to everyone present that you have the same faith as he do. A priest who is a heretic or schismatic sin 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, 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. This 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 isnt 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 wasnt 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 that one can approach for the sacraments, as long as he isnt 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 dont agree with this, then why dont you go to the apostate Benedict XVI and receive the sacraments from him? Hes 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 isnt that they are unaware of the priest being a heretic, but that they actually 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 ones own doctrines to justify ones 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? Isnt 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 cant 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 Jesus Christ, 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 a factor which determines if a priest is to become a heretic (that must be avoided for communion), is determined by the fact how many other people actually are aware of the priest being a heretic. They claim this by asserting that if only a few people are aware of the priest's heretical position, then that priest must not be a notoriously heretical priest, and may thus licitly be approached for the Sacraments. Thus they reason, for according to them, only a notorious heretic must be avoided; and a priest who isnt obviously known to everyone (or most people) must therefore not be a notorious heretic. 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. This is so since the priest by being a heretic 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, the condemnation, of course, 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 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 dont agree with this, then you must hold to the opinion that one could have licitly 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, or if only a few people knew about his evil intentions. Yes, according to this false position, (the illogical position of the heretics), one could even have approached him licitly for the Eucharist 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 possibly could have done in a lifetime, i.e., 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, one could have approached him licitly for the Sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist This is the inescapable and illogical conclusion from the

heretics' reasoning, but none, however, would ever dare admit to it! But if your position is the true Catholic position: namely, that one couldnt 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 isnt 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 Jesus Christ, by granting salvation to people who do not even believe in Christ. 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, its 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 doesnt 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 licitly (which it isnt); 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 reject 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 dont 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. Dont 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, licitly? They 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 ever to have lived in the history of mankind! 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 isnt 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, its 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 Gods 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 can never worship with people who are heretics, schismatics, or infidels. For a person 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 before other people. 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 lets 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 Councils 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 with new heretics, 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 licitly, 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 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 licitly, as we have proved! 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 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, 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!" 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 arent 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 doesnt 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. Thats 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 doesnt necessarily involve heresy or schism, one cannot conclude (as heretics do), that one can go to other excommunicated heretical or schismatical priests for the sacraments who you 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 isnt 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 doesnt 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 Churchs declaration to reveal the supporters inner intention. This is the reason why the Church doesnt 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." Thats why its 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) when the Council doesnt say so. In fact, it is a mortally sinful distortion of the truth taught in the Fourth Lateran Council.

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." Its 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 dont know that your priest is a heretic and you havent put much effort in finding out if he is, then find out if he is; and if he isnt a heretic, then you can go to him (as long as he isnt 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 doesnt 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 dont 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 hes 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. Its 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 Gods words because he cant 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. There are two situations in which we commit venial sin: We violate divine law with full or partial knowledge and consent.

 We disobey an objectively grave precept but due to ignorance we think the obligation is not serious. 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 persons 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 Gods justice. A soul that continues in venial sin without quitting his sinful occasions deserve to fall into mortal sin since he rejected Gods commandments. If the soul continues committing venial sin, it will always end in mortal sin, so its 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 Gods 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 seek after the truth nor prays to God 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. I will quote St. Alphonsus, who explains this better than me: 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. Thats why Catholics (real Catholics) dont 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. Its also a fact that people have been excommunicated in Church history both for sins as well as for heresy, so it's perfectly clear then that what St. Thomas was talking about here

are priests who have been excommunicated for personal sins. These priests who have been excommunicated for sins are thus not all debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power to perform the Eucharistic rite. Its also a fact that priests excommunicated for personal sins still have, by the authority of the Church in case of necessity the power to perform the Eucharistic rite and the Sacrament of Penance. Therefore, without a doubt, St. Thomas must have been talking about Priests who have been excommunicated for sins, and who are not all debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power to perform the Eucharistic rite. He was not talking about priests who have been excommunicated for heresy, apostasy or schism, unless, of course, one would like to argue that St. Thomas didnt know what he was talking about (since all heretics are outside the Church). One can only assume 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 and to show that St. Thomas really was speaking about sinners and not heretics, we will look at what St. Robert Bellarmine had to say on this matter: 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." Lets look again at what St. Bellarmine just said: "sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication""but the heretics exile themselves." So its 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 have been pronounced. Catholics have no obligation, however, to approach 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 (who have been excommunicated for other reasons than heresy, schism or apostasy), only in grave circumstances for the sacraments, 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. 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.

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 judgmentIn 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 consult this page: http://www.catholic-saints.net/vatican-ii/#Why-the-New-Mass-and-New-Rite-of-Ordinationare-Invalid] 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 Churchs 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. SSPX.) 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 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.) 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 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 cant get this fact through their obstinate heads. 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. Its 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 Lugos private opinions are not something to even be considered in light of all these dogmatic facts. 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. Thats 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 mustnt do, is to profess communion with them. Its 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. Even if this were speaking about heretics or schismatics, (which it isn't), it would hold no weight to the infallible definitions 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, 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 doesnt: 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 doesnt 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 Churchs 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 Gods 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 peoples 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 (IIII, 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 doesnt 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 ones 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 doesnt; thus, the 1917 Codes 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."

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 weve already shown, its 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 youll 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 its always a sin, and cannot be excused, since this law is written by God on every mans 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 TRENTS 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 havent 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 dont 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 shouldnt 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 dont, if you have a nonCatholic 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 nonheretical 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 Trents 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 dont 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 Trents 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 arent 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 dont 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 Trents 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 Trents 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 Coron", 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 Gods 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.

IMPORTANT SPIRITUAL INFORMATION YOU MUST KNOW TO BE SAVED

MORTALLY SINFUL MEDIA! Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) Most people of this generation, even those who profess themselves Christian, are so fallen away in morals that even the debauched people who lived a hundred years ago would be ashamed of the many things people today enjoy. And this is exactly what the devil had planned from the start, to step by step lowering the standard of morality in the world through the media until, in fact, one cannot escape to sin mortally by watching it with the intention of enjoying oneself. Yes to watch ungodly media only for enjoyment or pleasure or for to waste time (which could be used for God), as most people do, is mortally sinful. 54 years ago (1956), Elvis Presley had to be filmed above the waist up on a tv-show because of a hip-swiveling movement. Not that it was an acceptable performance, everything tending towards sensuality is an abomination, but still it serves to prove how much the decline has come since then, when even the secular press deemed inappropriate what today would be looked upon as nothing. But even at that time, in major Hollywood films like The Ten Commandments, could be seen both women and men that are incredibly immodestly dressed. The fall and decline of morals have been in progress ever since the invention of motion picture. God allowed this deceit to be invented because of peoples sins, especially for sins of the flesh. The media have such power that it preconditions peoples mind in such a way - since people look at TV as reality - that what was shameful yesterday will be the norm today! So if the media shows immodesty as norm, norm it will become! TV-SERIES, FILMS, CARTOONS We already know that almost everything on television will have the most abominable impurities and abominations presented in them so that a parent should be appalled by it and refuse his children to even take part of it, but this, sadly, is not the case for most. You will be amazed at how far this goes. Even children cartoons which one could think was acceptable and modest, is far from acceptable or modest but even many times worse then the general media broadcasted for older viewers, which will be dealt with shortly. Firstly, you will almost always see fornication and adultery or other sexual impurities and sins of the flesh presented throughout the godless media as the norm to live, along with a

rejection of the traditional way that people lived in before the beginning of 19th century. The sexual suggestions and perversions are endless in these shows. To sit and watch such shows or to allow your children to watch such shows is not only insanity but a clear mortal sin. Secondly, there is a comedic part on almost every show which seems to hold no sin, but when examined closely will be revealed for what it really is. For gloating (also called disability humor) which is a most abominable and uncharitable sin will most certainly be impossible to escape if you watch TV-series! This odious sin of gloating prevails in every kind of media such as cartoons, films and shows, where people are beating each other or laughing at the different calamities or stupidities that another person will experience. Think about how evil this is: to laugh at another persons calamity or sorrow! Yet, you cannot escape seeing this when you watch TV! Do to others as you would have them do to you, was one of the commandments of our Lord! (Matthew 7:12) - You would not want someone laughing or making fun of your calamities and miss-happenings, yet we laugh and approve it when sad things happen to others? Then we have the constant jokes about the Christian religion with countless of derogatory words uttered in a most blasphemous spirit by the media when it tries to depict how utterly stupid, foolish, and out of date it is to be a firm Bible believing Christian. The constant ridicule and mockery of God and the Christian religion should be sufficient cause for rejecting this mortally sinful filth entirely! Again, you would not approve of a show that blasphemed you, a friend, child or wife, yet you watch shows making a mockery of God and religion which is worth infinitely more than weak human beings? Thirdly, we have the specifically evil sin of immodest clothing and make-up which every show holds as law to be followed, and there is no exception in cartoons for children. Most women-characters are half dressed or half naked in these cartoons showing off their whole body in a sexually suggestive way. This, in fact, is what the devil wants, for he preconditions children's sexuality to grow at a young age. The little mermaid for example, the main character in the Disney movie called The Little Mermaid, is completely naked from the waist up except for a small covering of sea shells over her breasts which is outrageous to say the least! Sadly, this is how most characters dress! The womancharacter in Aladdin the movie is immodestly dressed showing most parts of her body. She even sexually seduces one of the males in a scene for whatever reason, and this is what our kids are watching and learning, from Satan himself! If you have allowed your children to watch such things, you should be ashamed of yourself! There is a perfect reason why young children become sexually active at a young age. Young children watching such films and shows imitates the behavior, movements and way of acting by the characters; for example: the eye-rollings, the seducing of men or of women, the hip-swirlings and the seducing way of moving the body and the seducing way of walking, etc. Tinker bell, a character featured in many Disney shows, is considered to be one of the

most important branding icons of Disney, (according to Wikipedia sources). Tinker Bell is illustrated as a young (sexy), blonde haired, big blue eyed, white female, with an exaggerated hour-glass (model-shaped) figure. She is clad in a short lime-green (ultra revealing miniskirt) dress with a rigid trim, and green slippers with white puffs. She is trailed by small amounts of pixie dust when she moves, and this dust can help humans fly if they 'believe' it will (more of the magic fairy tale crap and 'belief' in the occult, all for our children to watch). Some critics have complained that Tinker Bell is too sexually suggestive. (And this is supposed to be a character for children movies. Outrageous to say the least, even the secular world agrees!) These are just some of the examples I can come to think of, and my knowledge about children shows is very limited. One with more knowledge could easily fill a number of volumes on the same subject. The sin of immodest clothing and make-up brings up innumerable impure and lustful thoughts, which is just what the devil wants when he incites people to commit these sins of immodest clothing and painting the face with makeup, as only harlots and heathens did until recently when Catholics started to follow this trend. Those who do these things, do them for the sole reason of making others lust at them, or for to make themselves seem more attractive to others. This is sinful to say the least and very displeasing to God. Billions of souls are burning now as we speak in the excruciating fire of hell since they were tempted to sexual impurities in their thoughts by the media they watched! Will you follow them or let your children follow them and be the cause of your greater sorrow, when on top of being condemned, you must endure to be tormented forevermore by your own child? Absolute madness! You must hinder your child to use makeup and immodest clothing at any cost! You can only hope to save yourself from hell if you do everything in your power to prevent your children going there. Are you? If they refuse to obey you, throw them out! If they are youngsters, why then don't they obey you? There is a perfect reason why sacred scripture commands chastisement in the education of our children! He that loveth his son, frequently chastiseth him, that he may rejoice in his latter end... Give thy son his way, and he shall make thee afraid: play with him, and he shall make thee sorrowful. Laugh not with him, lest thou have sorrow, and at the last thy teeth be set on edge. Give him not liberty in his youth, and wink not at his devices. Bow down his neck while he is young, and beat his sides while he is a child, lest he grow stubborn, and regard thee not, and so be a sorrow of heart to thee. Instruct thy son, and labour about him, lest his lewd behaviour be an offence to thee. (Ecclesiasticus 30:1-13) Don't be fooled by the world. You do no sin whatsoever before God if you chastise your children in the education of righteousness. The world, or in truth, Satan, who rule this world, has made laws that says chastisement of children are wrong. This is one of many

reasons he has succeeded to achieve a downfall of society! Remember that rebellious and ungodly children were one of the end times prophecies that the Bible mentioned. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) Fourthly, there is the abominable and mortal sin of blasphemy which is uttered in almost every TV- show, even going so far as to exchange the name of God, Jesus or Christ for curse words. A few hundred years ago, people would have been horrified to commit this sin since it was then rightly punished by execution. But now, people commit this sin constantly and without fear, without anyone raising an eyebrow. Yet, when death comes, all blasphemers will open their eyes and find that they are in a sea of fire to burn and be tormented for all eternity. If you watch things which contain blasphemy, which would be almost every film or show in this age, then you are literally sick and despicable and Hell will be long for you unless you repent immediately and resolve to never do so again. Death will come and grab you whether you like it or not. Fifthly, there is the universal acceptance of false religions, magic and occultism which was rightly punishable by death earlier in our history but which now is norm in the media. You will see the horrible sin of magic and occultism in every kind of TV-show; for example, in animated cartoons it's almost 'always' the norm; it is also a frequent occurrence on other shows broadcasted for the general public such as Buffy the vampire slayer, Charmed, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, etc! Many famous comedies are also making this evil filth seem fun and acceptable. But then again, the norm of comedian shows is to make fun of things that are abominable and sinful. A person cannot watch comedy-shows without being guilty of grave sin, for how can a person take delight and laugh about things which displease God? Just to show you how far the sin of idolatry, magic, new age and occultism have come in the media, the following will be presented about the major blockbuster movie hit, Avatar. This article will prove that a person watching media will be forced to agree or disagree with a number of events that unfolds throughout the storyline, and every time a person agrees with or fails to disagree with that which is against God, he in fact commits a grave sin. This is what makes the watching of media so deadly. People nowadays dont fathom the severity of this crime but it is easily understood to be a most evil crime when one realizes that God will judge our every thought as a deed. James Camerons, Avatar, is a movie where worshipping a tree and communing with spirits are not only acceptable; they are attractive. Avatar is also markedly pantheistic and essentially, the gospel according to James Cameron. This pantheistic theme that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe is outwardly depicted by the heroes and heroine in the movie who all worship Eywa, the "All Mother" Goddess, who is described as "a network of energy that flows through all living things. Overall, the movie is strewn with ritualistic magic, communion with spirits, shamanism, and blatant idolatry as it conditions the audience to believe these pagan occult lies. In addition, the audience is led to sympathize with the Avatar and even ends up pulling for him as he is

initiated into pagan rituals. Even the lead scientist becomes a pagan in the end, proclaiming that she is "with Eywa, she's real," and goes to be with her upon her death. People nowadays dont fathom the severity of this crime of magic, idolatry and paganism but it is easily understood to be a most evil crime when one realizes that magicians and occultists are communing with the devil when they do their magical rituals or offerings, whether it be worshipping a tree or stone, or something made by human hand. We are constantly being bombarded throughout the media to accept, magic, paganism, spiritualism, occultists, etc, in other words, false religions, which clearly shows that Satan is involved here. Psalms 95:5- For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils 1 Cor. 10:20- But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. If someone were to make a show that presented child perversion paedophilia as a good and normal thing to do, everyone would be appalled, but now the worldly media present the communing with demons as something good and allowable and no one raises an eyebrow. To watch such filth is mortally sinful and your torment in hell will be eternal if you watch such things or allow your children to watch such things. Sixthly, there is the most evil sin of greed and love of possessions which is showed universally on TV as something good and praiseworthy to follow. You will see the most extravagant displays of worldly excesses! This is abominable first off, since every kind of excess is an affront against the many poor people who dont have enough money to even feed themselves with, and secondly since it tempts people to seek these useless and unnecessary things such as expensive cars, houses, and golden necklaces etc instead of being content with food, clothing and shelter as the Apostle tells us to be. If God judges even every thought that you will have, how much more will He not judge deeds which is what watching ungodly media is! It should also be understood that media gives the person who watches it a drug-like experience, an experience of false and unholy fire. The most dangerous effect from media is the dream state it puts a person into. After watching something worldly which made an impression, this is what will occupy your mind and your feelings for most part of the day or even weeks to come. From the blockbuster movie Avatar, this demonstration can be seen clearer. A news article published in the Economic Times reads as following: 'Avatar' driving us to suicide, say fans LOS ANGELES: 'Avatar' may have enthralled worldwide audiences with its imagery of an utopian alien world but movie-goers have complained of depression and even suicidal thoughts after watching the sci-fi hit.

Fans of James Cameron's 3D magnum opus are seemingly finding it hard to separate fact from fiction and Internet forums have been flooded with posts by movie-goers plagued with suicidal thoughts about not being able to visit the planet Pandora, reported CNN online. North American fan site 'Avatar Forums' has received 2,000 posts under a thread entitled 'Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible'. Forum administrator Philippe Baghdassarian said, "The movie was so beautiful and it showed something we don't have here on earth. I think people saw we could be living in a completely different world and that caused them to be depressed." Forum user 'Okoi' writes, "After I watched 'Avatar' at the first time, I truly felt depressed as I 'wake' up in this world again." It should be understood that this depression arise from a lack of faith in God. The world they really long for is not a fairy tale dream world as depicted in the movie Avatar, but in fact the realm of Heaven and the eternal vision of God for this is where all humanity were destined to come to had they abstained from sinning and loving the world through their five senses. No one can be happy without God, for God is happiness. Depression arises from a guilty conscience when a person refuses to do what he should to achieve salvation and the eternal vision of God. Satan is exchanging a longing of the real Heaven in peoples minds for a longing of fairy-tale-dreams in the media. Saddening to say the least! A Christian should be spending his time on growing in his faith by praying, reading, and other good works, but most people do instead the contrary, and wastes most of their time on useless tales and fables, which will occupy their minds instead of God. That is why evil media leads countless souls to eternal damnation and the torments of hell. And this is also a clear fulfillment of end times prophecies, which said many would turn from God unto fables and fairy tales. Are you one of those prophesied about? For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4) This prophecy also predicted the false theory of evolution which a Christian, of course, cannot believe in since it contradicts the biblical story of creation, with death entering into the world first after sin. CARTOONS The second greatest evil after the sexuality and immodesty in children's shows is the

constant bullying and fun making of the weaker characters, and the violence in both magazines, shows, films (and video games of course). Even the secular press acknowledges that children's shows oftentimes are more violent than other programs broadcasted for the general public! This article below was taken from the Daily Mail and clearly proves this point further. High levels of violence in cartoons such as Scooby-Doo can make children more aggressive, researchers claimed yesterday. They found that animated shows aimed at youngsters often have more brutality than programs broadcast for general audiences. And they said children copied and identified with fantasy characters just as much as they would with screen actors. The study also found that youngsters tended to mimic the negative behaviour they saw on TV such as rumour-spreading, gossiping and eye-rolling. The U.S. psychologists quizzed 95 girls aged ten and 11 about their favourite TV shows, rating them for violent content and verbal and indirect aggression. The shows included Lost, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, American Idol, Scooby-Doo and Pokemon. The researchers found that output aimed at children as young as seven, which included a number of cartoons, had the highest levels of violence. They recorded 26 acts of aggression an hour compared with just five in shows aimed at general audiences and nine in programmes deemed unsuitable for under-14s. 'Results indicated that there are higher levels of physical aggression in children's programmes than in programmes for general audiences,' the study said. The following story was taken from a Chinese newspaper further proving the point on how bullying, rebellion, disobedience, etc. is taught to children through anime/cartoons/magazines. Educators Worry About Influence of Cartoons on Children Like many other eight-year-olds, Liu Yimin's favorite heroes aren't great scientists, or the national soccer team, or popular Chinese icons like Lei Feng. (According to the worldly norm, one should idolize weak human beings.) His heroes are two Japanese animated characters who defy their parents and teachers. Local educators are worried and say that some of characters may be a bad influence on youngsters. Xin San, an arrogant kindergarten student, bullies the weak, battles the strong, and constantly lusts after women - lots of women. "I think the content of these shows is too mature for children," said Zhang Jinlian, director of the Shanghai Children and Juvenile Psychological Guidance Center. She said many students like to imitate the actions of these cartoon kids, causing trouble

in the classroom and at home. Zhang would like to see steps taken to prevent children from reading books and watching videos and VCDs about Xin San, but the cartoon kid is just too popular to be avoided. But today's kids don't want to be instructed, they want innovative cartoons with characters who are rebellious, Xu pointed out. Sales of books and VCDs of the two cartoon series, plus viewer ship levels of the "Chibi Maruko Chan" on Shanghai TV prove that rebellion is very popular with local youngsters. Unfortunately, children are picking up those rebellious attitudes. Zhang said that many children now bully their parents into buying them a new toy - a trick that they picked up from Chibi Maruko Chan (undoubtedly they also bully their weaker classmates as they have been taught). Even worse, she said, some young boys lustfully gaze at their girl classmates. A while ago, when the Catholic Church had a great impact on morality in the Christian society, people looked up to and adored our divine savior Jesus Christ, the blessed Virgin Mary, and the fame and virtues of the Saints. Every Catholic child had a patron Saint of his choosing to look up to and follow. What better examples in virtues and good manners can there possibly be? Satan has in fact exchanged an adoration of God for man through the media. This is why children nowadays look up to actors, artists, heroes or characters mainly found in media. What child today would not want to be as Superman, Spiderman or any other Superhero, who is depicted in the media as invincible, adored, and beloved by all? Why are both grownups and children nowadays so prideful and violent, unloving, disobedient, lustful and arrogant, etc., if not because we through media have been conditioned to act and behave in this way? With the devil as an example through his debauched actors and animated characters, it will always end badly. With holy examples, such as of our Savior himself and of the Saints, virtues such as humility, patience, charity and love flourish and is found. Therefore, learn to educate your children in the knowledge of Christ and of His Saints, give them Catholic books about Saints so that they can learn about virtues, and good Catholic films about the Saints. You can find a lot of different Catholic books from Saints at this site below, and more is added frequently! http://www.catholic-saints.net/ You cannot allow your children to watch anything unless you are 100% certain that the film, show or audio, they are viewing, have nothing in it that are against Gods law. Unless you keep this standard, you will have your children tormenting you for all eternity in hell since you allowed evil influences and sins to effect them at an early age. You are responsible for their spiritual well being as long as they live under your roof. This, of

course, should make every parent very nervous. For if you had a real live tiger in your bedroom, you would never allow your child in there since the animal could kill them and eat them. The TV or media is far more dangerous than a tiger ever will be since it kills the immortal soul of your precious child! Yet, most people allow their children to watch TV without any supervision. If you say that you cannot supervise their viewing of media, then throw out the TV and other media appliances that they use to access sinful things or prepare yourself to suffer the eternal consequences in the fire of Hell for your actions! Now a further examination will be made on the different kinds of programs that are presented throughout the media. Now, you might ask: So are you forbidding all media as wrong and sinful to watch? The answer is no. Not all media is bad, but almost everything on television is however. You might have to watch less at what the box has to offer for you. There are for example numerous great religious films and series which is totally acceptable and good for the Spirit to watch (even though, in many films, especially newer ones, there will be immodest scenes or scenes of impurity. A Christian must not look on films or series which they know have bad scenes that can tempt them). Religious films are the best since they direct your mind toward spiritual things and God, which cannot be said of worldly films. When I am talking about Religious films, I am not referring to these worldly films disguised as religious films, which really has nothing at all to do about spirituality but really about the world, for example, stories about a man falling in love with a woman or a woman falling in love with a man, or other worldly motives, with jokes, much vain talk, etc. This is complete and utter nonsense and serves nothing at all for the edifying of soul, mind or body, and should be totally avoided as the trash it really is! Most documentaries for example, (regarding on what documentaries you watch) can be watched even if most of them aren't good or edifying to the soul. Documentaries on prophecies, end times or doomsday, is acceptable since it draws your mind toward the end, death and coming judgment. Documentaries on animals, nature, space, etc. are in themselves not evil or sinful or contrary to God, and can be watched. However, they will many times be the beginning of great evil and sin. Whatever you watch or listen to, it is always a danger if you get too attached to it and allow too much time to be spent on it every day. As a rule, if you cannot stand a single day without visual and audible media, (television and music) this is a clear sign that you are addicted to media. So if you must watch something and if you can't abstain, you need to learn to watch programs that are not against God or Christian morals. But, the danger still of watching these are the same as with other bad shows since they will direct your mind toward worldly things, but at least it draws your mind towards God's creation which one may contemplate and draw fruit from, which cannot be said of fables and fairy-tale, pro-evolution anti-God films. People however, that always prioritize worldly activities before spiritual ones will most assuredly lose their souls. A person must be able to make a resolution to leave worldly activities for hours per day and offer up those hours for God in solitude by praying and

reading his words. Many people have time, but they spend it badly and chose to watch media or doing other fruitless works of damnation. You would be a Saint if you had the same desire and longing for God as you have for worldly things. You can only receive a desire, love and longing for God as you have for worldly things when He is whom you desire and strive for above all other things. This will not happen as long as you are over-attached to worldly things. You must also be able - or at least have a desire to be able to - to come to the point were you want to give up watching media completely. For if a person doesn't even desire the better part, how then can he grow? God is the better and best part! All films and series that leads your mind toward fantasies and fables such as Lord of the rings, Heroes, Smallville, Avatar, etc, even if we were to say, for the sake of argument, that they have nothing in them against God (which is not true), should still be avoided, since they direct our minds from God, from the natural world we live in, toward fantasies and all kinds of thoughts referring thereto. This is the main cause for it being so dangerous and the reason why so many persons watching these shows have unwholesome unrealistic desires or depressions. For a person that spends much time on finding God, will evidently dream and long much for God and come close to Him. In contrast, a person that spends much time on the world, is far from God and dead before God! Now you might ask: May I then watch other worldly films or series if the story is fixed on realistic things or the creation of God? The answer to this question is that it depends on what movie or show you want to watch. I would say that one can watch movies and series about the end of the world, the afterlife and the paranormal, etc, since it leads your mind toward the judgment and the death of the body to come which is a good thing. From this can be understood that it depends on what fruit can be drawn out from it to begin with. Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire. (Luke 3:9) You will without a doubt bring forth bad fruit if you spend much time on bad things. So if the film or show is about worldly and vain things, then one should not watch such shows since the fruit thereof is empty and vain. This point can be further proved from sacred scripture. Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ... (Colossians 2:8) This pretty much rules out all the films, shows and series (anime series and video games as well) that has ever been made in the entire world. News in itself isnt evil or contrary to God or morals, but most newspapers today have totally unacceptable pictures which make them extremely unsuitable to read. To read newspapers which you know will contain many unchaste, immodest and sexual pictures and useless stories about sex, etc., is complete idiocy and will lead to sins of the flesh if

you cannot guard yourself. We advice you to never watch news on television or the like since it is so filled with sins that it is almost impossible to watch without seeing things that will injure your virtue like immodesty, make-up, blasphemy, gloating, lust, adultery etc... continuing in infinity. However, to watch news daily is hardly necessary and St. Alphonsus clearly rebukes people for this in his most excellent work, The True Spouse of Christ: St. Dorotheus says: "Beware of too much speaking, for it banishes from the soul holy thoughts and recollection with God." Speaking of religious that cannot abstain from inquiring after worldly news, St. Joseph Calasanctius said: "The curious religious shows that he has forgotten himself." It is certain that he who speaks too much with men converses but little with God, for the Lord says: I will lead her into the wilderness, and I will speak to her heart. If, then, the soul wishes that God speak to its heart, it must seek after solitude; but this solitude will never be found by religious who do not love silence." If," said the Venerable Margaret of the Cross, "we remain silent, we shall find solitude." And how will the Lord ever condescend to speak to the religious, who, by seeking after the conversation of creatures, shows that the conversation of God is not sufficient to make her happy? Hence, for a nun that delights in receiving visits and letters, in reading the newspapers, and in speaking frequently of the things of the world, it is impossible to be a good religious. Every time that she unnecessarily holds intercourse with seculars, she will suffer a diminution of fervor. You might ask: Could not this way of viewing media then be applied to all shows? The answer is no! Most shows are evil in themselves whether or not you fix your eyes on bad scenes. And the objects of discussion on those shows are often the cause of it being sinful, for it is vain, foolish or against God. News on the other hand is not unless you deliberately choose to delve in bad news or shows, such as celebrity news or celebrity shows such as 'Idol' and the like which is mortally sinful and complete and utter foolishness to watch and take delight in. For it is idol making of weak human beings. Its truly sickening to behold how people worship worldly fame along with sinful and weak human beings! We will not make much mention of films or shows like Prison break, Heroes, 24, Matrix, Terminator, 300, X-men, Transformers, Spiderman and the like, etc. For there should be no need of explanation about these shows. They are all against God, they are all based on breaking God's commandments and doing evil or violence, or enjoying others doing evil or violence. Whether or not the world or you claim its about good vs evil doesn't matter, for these shows in themselves are totally fruitless, often extremely violent, condoning crimes and sins, and often compels the viewer to agree or disagree with the actions of the characters, which more then often are more bad actions then 'good' if it is even possible to call them good. Every time you agree with or fail to disagree with something which obviously is against God, you committed sin! When you watch films or shows for pleasure which have the characters doing crimes and sins, you do in fact agree with them by your continual deed of watching and by your failure in renouncing it in the very same way a

politician that is speaking against abortion would be a pro-abortionist when continually voting for allowing abortion. Thus, you are in fact in favor of evil by not denouncing and renouncing it completely! Ask yourself, is it fitting for a child of God to take delight in such nonsense? Would God approve of these evil shows? Watching shows like this will only serve to stir you up towards wanting to watch more worldly and ungodly shows. Shows with much violence, superpowers, magic and fighting are the most dangerous since they excite our flesh and body in a false sensation or thrill exceedingly much. A person who does not cut this off from himself will lose his soul! There are so much blasphemy, adultery, lust, pride, vanity, immodest clothing, idol-making of mortal human beings, greed, gluttony and sinful deeds and speech among countless other sins in todays media, that it is a real abomination and sickening to behold! It is in fact a real and eternal spiritual slaughter of billions of people which is far more horrifying and lamentable than any physical slaughter will ever be which we observe happening in real time without anyone lifting an eyebrow! However, their laughter will turn into an eternal sorrow after the very moment their death will come! Then every word of mockery and blasphemy will have its special torment in hell for all eternity to come. Learn to meditate on Hell daily and you will not hesitate one second to quit watching evil and ungodly media! HOW TO CONTROL YOUR EYES The learning and controlling of your sight will be most necessary for salvation. You cannot fool God! Every time you look willfully with lust in your heart at an unchaste, enticing or unsuitable object, you have most assuredly committed a mortal sin! Therefore, whenever you come across something sinful (or even something licit but which is very beautiful) with your eyes, you must make a habit to look down or away for the sin of lust will not be far away making the sign of the cross and saying a Hail Mary, which is highly recommended and helps against impurities. Countless of Saints have rebuked people for the great error of failing to controlling their eyes. St. Ignatius Loyola for example rebuked a brother for looking at his face more than a brief moment. St. Bridget made a specific confession for every single face she saw during each day! This is true wisdom, for the world tells you to always watch the person you are with in the face. This will many times lead to sins and impure thoughts. HOW TO CONTROL YOUR SPEECH But shun profane and vain babblings: for they grow much towards ungodliness. (2 Timothy 2:16) To talk overmuch of worldly and unnecessary things is also considered vain babblings and should be totally avoided. If you have nothing good to say, referring to God or the edification of the soul, then one should keep quiet. Vain babbling will lead to ungodliness

as stated above, for that which a person talks much about, that he is full of in his heart. If God is not in the heart of man, then Satan must occupy that place, and you cannot serve both God and man! VIDEO GAMES Almost every kind of game that exists in our sad time has numerous mortally sinful things in them which make them impossible to play without going to hell. The younger generation especially, but also older people, is so perverted and drugged by these new games that they seem to live for nothing else! Firstly, there are the countless games who have a person going around killing or hurting other humans or creatures for fun; for example, Counter-Strike, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Starcraft, Modern Warfare, Gears of Wars, Tekken, etc. To play such a game is not only sick but abominable. Think about it: to play a game for fun or pleasure which is constituted of the murder or hurt of another being! God solemnly declares that he will judge our every thought, how much more then will he judge our deeds? When we in our mind take delight and enjoy killing or hurting other beings, God takes this as an act in the very same way as he judges us as murderers if we hate our brother, or, as an adulterer if we look at a woman with lust in our heart. What then will God judge you to be when you in your heart love abominable things? Secondly, there is the constant danger of hate, uncontrollable wrath, and pride in games when it doesn't go as people would like it to go, and this is more true when playing games online. For when people think of themselves that they are good in the game they play, they are puffed up and deceived into thinking that this victory in a worthless game actually makes them someone. This is truly pathetic! But if someone then beats them, their pride and arrogance gets hurt, and they get mad, angry and wroth. Who have not had experience of this in online-gaming? Sure, these things happen on single player games as well but it isn't as common. Online games are by far the worst and sinful of all the games, since they not only affects you, but the others you play with as well. Do you understand now why online games are the most dangerous of all the games? Do you realize now that every person you have affected by your gaming will demand just vengeance over you, unless you blot these sins out by penance, repentance and confession? Giving others a bad example and being the cause or accessory of another persons damnation is the worst of all the sins one can be guilty of in this life. Every single thought, word, and deed will be carefully judged and avenged the moment you die. You cannot hide from death. Thirdly, there are countless of games who try to display magic and the occult as not only acceptable but even good and praiseworthy; for example, World of Warcraft, Diablo, Oblivion, etc. Yes in those games, one is even awarded by magic and occult themes for murdering or hurting the opponent. Eternal Hell will be the home of all you who plays such games, for they are all against God, they are all based on breaking God's commandments and doing evil and violence, or enjoying others doing evil and violence. Whether or not you

or the world say its good vs evil, or whether it be humans or monsters you are murdering or hurting, does not change the fact that the games in themselves are totally evil and fruitless, often extremely violent, and as with movies, often compels the player to take actions, agree or disagree with occurrences, which in godly terms are unacceptable and abominable. Playing these games will only serve to stir you up towards wanting to play more. Games with much violence and fighting, or with the ability of sinning in pride by show-offs, or with much usage of magic-powers of the occult, or with the ability to achieve personal fame in a fantasy land, or the show-off with skills, as with online-games, are all the most dangerous since they serve to stir up the flesh and body the most in a false and unholy fire of pleasure and thrill. A person that doesn't cut this off from himself will in fact lose his soul! PRO-SPORTS Pro-sports may seem to have no sin in it, but countless of mortal sins will be exposed when one examines it carefully: First, almost every kind of pro-sports supports the mortal sin of gambling, and it is just a fact that these teams or players get a large portion of their pay-check from gambling. Prosports is in fact one of the biggest, if not the biggest generator of the mortal sin of gambling, which has destroyed countless of families and lead millions of poor souls to despair, suicide and hell. Thus, those who watch these games, watch people who are getting paid for supporting and making the mortal sin of gambling exist. To enjoy the eternal soul killing of other human beings is a clear cut mortal sin. Second, almost every kind of pro-sport is played on Sundays which is a clear mortal sin since it is a work for these players and they get a pay-check from it. Therefore, they are breaking one of Gods Ten Commandments, and there is no excuse for such things. It is a clear mortal sin to enjoy someone committing mortal sin. Third, as we can see from the Book of the Machabees, the Jewish people neglected the divine worship in order to attend to different sport festivities at the arena. This is now prophetically fulfilled in many people who call themselves Catholic. For instead of praying the Rosary, reading the word of God and playing with and educating their children in good Christian morals as the Sunday is intended for, they watch these sinful games while placing their children in front of another TV set, neglecting their spiritual well being. Many saints teach that sports in of itself is no sin - which it of course isnt - but when it becomes too serious and more than a fun game between friends or when one take too much delight in it or makes too big thing of that which has no value, then they unanimously teach that it becomes sinful. St. Francis de Sales- Sports, plays, festivities, etc, are not in themselves evil, but rather indifferent matters, capable of being used for good or ill; but nevertheless they are dangerous, and it is still more dangerous to take great delight in them.

St. Francis de Sales- Walking, harmless games, music, instrumental or vocal, field sports, etc., are such entirely lawful recreations that they need no rules beyond those of ordinary discretion, which keep every thing within due limits of time, place, and degree. So again games of skill, which exercise and strengthen body or mind, such as tennis, rackets, running at the ring, chess, and the like, are in themselves both lawful and good. Only one must avoid excess, either in the time given to them, or the amount of interest they absorb; for if too much time be given up to such things, they cease to be a recreation and become an occupation; and so far from resting and restoring mind or body, they have precisely the contrary effect. After five or six hours spent over chess, ones mind is spent and weary, and too long a time given to tennis results in physical exhaustion; or if people play for a high stake, they get anxious and discomposed, and such unimportant objects are unworthy of so much care and thought. But, above all, beware of setting your heart upon any of these things, for however lawful an amusement may be, it is wrong to give ones heart up to it. Not that I would not have you take pleasure in what you are doing,it were no recreation else,but I would not have you engrossed by it, or become eager or over fond of any of these things. Fourthly, people are spending billions of dollars on something that is supposed to be a game of fun. They have made a worthless game which holds no significance whatsoever, to become something serious. Think about it. People say: This or that person runs so and so fast or won this or that game. And people think about it as though it is some kind of achievement worthy of praise, when it in fact is saddening and abominable since it leads souls to hell. It is grown people valuing a worthless game or sport as something that holds significance or value: it is truly pathetic. They waste their money and time on this filth when they could be trying to help souls that are falling daily to the eternal fire in hell. And so the human heart which is cumbered with useless, superfluous, dangerous clingings becomes incapacitated for that earnest following after God which is the true life of devotion. No one blames children for running after butterflies, because they are children, but is it not ridiculous and pitiful to see full-grown men eager about such worthless trifles as the worldly amusements before named, (SPORTS, balls, plays, festivities, pomps), which are likely to throw them off their balance and disturb their spiritual life. (St. Francis de Sales, Introduction into the Devout Life) Fifthly, most of the different athletes or players are very immodestly dressed in clothes that are absolutely abominable for God since they are tight and reveal so much flesh. Only a few hundred years ago, women would have been arrested and jailed for wearing the clothes that athletes or players wear now. To watch any game or sport that supports or condones the five reasons mentioned above is totally sinful and any honest person who has not refused to meditate on hell and who realizes that it is possible that he or she may go to hell will agree as long as he thinks about this issue in a rational and calm manner. Dont allow your dependency on sports to trivialize clear cut mortal sins that are acted out

in front of everyone. Repent before it is too late! ON MUSIC It is just a fact that all kinds of popular music are mortally sinful trash that is made by the Devil for the sole reason to drag your soul to an eternal hell fire. There will be countless of impure suggestions toward sin along with a rejection of any kind of morality and decency. Popular music praises sin, and oftentimes speak against God and morality. In short, it contains the same errors and sins that worldly media have, such as: immodest clothing, adultery, blasphemy, foul language and cursing, greed, fornication, make-up, vanity, gloating, magic, occultism, acceptance of false religions, idol-making of mortal humans etc and are many times even worse. Popular songs that doesn't praise the idolatry and worship of man is hard to find today, and its even harder today to find popular songs which does not praise or worship sin and worldliness as norm. But worse still are the music-videos. A person cannot even listen to these songs without grave sin, but how much more then does a person sin when watching these sinful music-videos with half naked women/men worshiping sin and the occult by deed and example? This is sadly what many of your children are watching daily on the TV you have given them! You must reject this evil music entirely and not accept this to be played in your home. Not all music are bad or sinful, you can for example listen to religious music, instrumental music, classical music or other music in line with decency and morals. But the highest good is of course not to listen to music at all. Giving up ones own will is always the highest good. The best music which one may listen to is of course religious music, since it draws your mind and heart toward our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary, the joy of Heaven, etc. The next best music which one may listen to is classical music and instrumental music where no singing is involved, for this will not affect your mind toward worldly things as worldly songs always otherwise do. The worst kind of music one could listen to is music which sings about worldly affairs. A person that listens much to music should avoid listening to worldly songs, otherwise he or she will be drawn toward these worldly things and affairs which are sung about. It is also very necessary to test yourself if you are addicted to music in any way, even totally acceptable music. This is easily done by going a few days without music so that you can test if some withdrawal symptoms effect you. All addictions of earthly things are evil and effect the soul in a harmful way. Just because you dont see or understand the effect doesnt mean that it isnt happening. Spiritual sloth and depression among other things are common attributes of an addiction to media or music. The effects from the wrong kind of music, and secular songs are very dangerous. There are numerous quotes from the secular world that can be brought forth to prove this point. "Music directly represents the passions of states of the soul-gentleness, anger,

courage, temperance...if one listens to the wrong kind of music he will become the wrong kind of person..." (Quote from Aristotle) Brain specialists, Dr. Richard Pellegrino declared that music has the uncanny power to "...trigger a flood of human emotions and images that have the ability to instantaneously produce very powerful changes in emotional states." He went on to say: "Take it from a brain guy. In 25 years of working with the brain, I still cannot affect a person's state of mind the way that one simple song can." Dr. Allan Bloom is quite correct when he asserts that "popular music has one appeal only, a barbaric appeal, to sexual desire... but sexual desire undeveloped and untutored ... popular music gives children, on a silver plate, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up ... Young people know that rock and popular music has the beat of sexual intercourse ... Never was there such an art form directed so exclusively to children...(Every Catholic should understand that masturbation is a clear mortal sin!) The words implicitly and explicitly describe bodily acts that satisfy sexual desire and treat them as its only natural and routine culmination for children who do not yet have the slightest imagination of marriage or family." (Dr. Allan Bloom, Closing of the American Mind, pp. 73-74). Dr. Allan Bloom: "Today, a very large proportion of young people between the ages of 10 and 20 live for music. It is their passion; nothing else excites them as it does; they cannot take seriously anything alien to music. When they are in school and with their families, they are longing to plug themselves back into their music. Nothing surrounding them - school, family, church - has anything to do with their musical world. At best that ordinary life is neutral, but mostly it is an impediment, drained of vital" Dr. Paul King, medical director of the adolescent program at Charter Lakeside Hospital, in Memphis, TN, says more than 80% of his teen patients are there because of rock music. Dr. King says, "the lyrics become a philosophy of life, a religion." To allow yourself or your children to have any kind of music like rock, pop, rap, techno, trance, or any kind of music that is even remotely similar to this is mortally sinful and really idiotic when presented with these facts. Billions of souls are burning now as we speak in the excruciating fire of hell since they refused to stop listening to bad and sinful music! You will have your children eating your heart out for all eternity in hell, because of the violent hatred they will have against you, since you could have hindered them in their sin, but refused to do so. ON BOOKS

"Bad books will abound over the earth, and the spirits of darkness will everywhere spread universal relaxation in everything concerning God's service... (Prophecy of La Salette, 19th of September 1846) According to Catholic Prophecy, bad books would dominate in the end, and we can now see this happening right in front of our eyes with the worldly school system and with worldly evil books like the Harry Potter series which teaches kids that magic and the occult is something good and praiseworthy to do or enjoy. Magic is an abominable mortal sin which was rightly punished by execution when the Catholic Faith was in control of Europe and South America. But now, blinded Catholics not only tell their kids that being a magician or an occultist is fine, they also buy these books to their kids. Think about it: If someone made a game on how to make contact with demons and on top of this sold this for your children to play with in stores, then every Christian would be appalled, for every Christian know that making contact with demonic spirits are possible. Yet, many parents let their children read filth or watch movies which portray magic and channeling with demonic spirits as normal and good. Believe it or not, the example used has now in fact become a reality because of parents as yourself, whom says that bad is good and good is bad. Satan has no limit, he would do even worse if the world or God would allow him. Sadly, as time goes on however, worse things will become a norm. Ouija board a controversial toy for tots Toys R Us is selling Ouija boards, promoting them as acceptable for children as young as eight years old. The pink edition of the Ouija board is listed for girls eight-years-old and up while the regular version is designated for all children eight and up. Stephen Phelan, communications manager of Human Life International, checked the website and reports that the findings are disturbing. "It is just troubling that these things are treated as casually as any other game, like Monopoly or anything else on this Toys R Us site -- and I think it's something Christians should be aware of and really not support," he states. "If you go to the comments section on the Toys R Us [web]site, you'll read comments from people who talk about being obsessed with it, talk about missing school for it, talk about the spirits they spoke to on the other side and how creepy it was," Phelan describes. The communications manager adds that the primary groups that deny the evils of the Ouija board are the ones who deny the spirit world entirely. He goes on to say Christians have a biblical mandate.

"We're supposed to deal with the truth only," he notes. "We're supposed to have nothing to do with dark spirits. We're not supposed to dabble in anything that would compromise our souls, and that's exactly what this does." The manufacturer of the product is Hasbro. Lord of the Rings is another famous book series which presents magic, occultism, fairy tales and fables as something good and praiseworthy but is in reality just another abomination before the Lord. Sadly, many Catholics refuses to accept these facts and still believes that Lord of the Rings is good or even Catholic. You can fool yourself, but you cannot fool God! For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4) St. Teresa even confessed that reading books which in themselves was not evil, was still a beginning of great harm and lukewarmness on her part. What then are one to say about evil media, evil video games and sinful stinking books? A person cannot do these things without becoming completely lukewarm and cold in the service of God exactly as it also happened to the glorious St. Theresa, for those who always seek after worldly things are in fact diminishing in the fervor of God! The following quote further proving this point was taken from the Life of St. TeresaWhat I shall now speak of was, I believe, the beginning of great harm to me. I contracted a habit of reading books; and this little fault which I observed was the beginning of lukewarmness in my good desires, and the occasion of my falling away in other respects. I thought there was no harm in it when I wasted many hours night and day in so vain an occupation, even when I kept it a secret from my father. So completely was I mastered by this passion, that I thought I could never be happy without a new book. Doesn't this sound familiar? Don't we all think as Teresa did, that we cannot be happy without our daily media, our evil movies and series, our bad video games or bad books? If the effect on this Saint was the start of a great harm, what then will it be for you, when what you do in comparison with her is infinitely more damaging and dangerous to your soul? How utterly stupid and foolish is it not to spend one's time reading bad worldly books, when one can spend time reading good Catholic books about virtue that would edify soul, mind and body? You will find innumerable good Catholic books if you just look for them, one good place to start is here: http://www.catholic-saints.net/ 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..." St. Alphonsus Burn every book, film or music album immediately which can be accounted to be sinful, and repent, do penance, and confess of this evil. As you would throw away poison in order that it may not be able to hurt yourself or your child, do the same here. Think about pleasing God first and not yourself or your child. Life is too short and Hell is too long and painful to refuse to follow Gods law. HOME-SCHOOLING For the Love of God, keep your children away from public school, (if that option is available for you) and the company of other bad men. You must do everything in your power to hinder the worldly school-system from indoctrinating your children, even going so far as moving from your country if your country forces public school on children. The responsibility of an eternal soul that is greater than the universe must not be lightly dealt with. If you can home-school your kids but doesn't do it, then you really don't care for the spiritual well being of your children. How can a Catholic parent with good conscience let his kids go to public school where he know they will be exposed to bad influences by other children, and brainwashed by teachings such as evolution and sexual education? Most of the things we learn in school is superfluous anyway and will never be needed. We are bombarded with unnecessary teachings that will occupy much of our time. This will lead souls to forget God and their own spiritual well being! The school system before was very different from today, for back then most states was Christian, and God and the Bible was not banned from school. Will you allow your children to go to public school and go out with worldly or ungodly friends? Then sadly, you will in fact lose them to the world! God does not tell us as much as to be on guard against demons as with men (Matthew 10:17), for men are oftentimes more harmful to us then the devils are, for demons can be expelled by invoking the most holy names of Jesus and Mary, but man on the other hand cannot be expelled in the same way. And if a man tries to change his life, he will be reviled, despised, and called a most miserable fool, a good for nothing and a man of no education. Many weak souls sadly turn back to the vomit from such and like reproaches out of fear for the loss of human respect! ON MASTURBATION Since so many are coming out of mortal sin and are convincing themselves that certain things are not sins, we must preach against those sins with some specificity lest people perish in their ignorance. Masturbation is definitely a mortal sin. There are about three places where St. Paul gives a list of some of the main mortal sins which exclude people from Heaven. These lists do not comprise every mortal sin, of course, but some of the main ones. Well, it always

puzzled many people exactly what is being referred to in the following passages by the sin of uncleanness and effeminacy. St. Paul says that these sins exclude people from Heaven. Does effeminacy refer to acting like a homosexual? What does uncleanness refer to? Galatians 5:19-21- Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11- Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Ephesians 5:5-8- For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: St. Thomas Aquinas identifies masturbation as the biblical uncleanness and effeminacy. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. II-II, Q. 154, A. 11: I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation. Thus, not only is masturbation a mortal sin, but its a mortal sin which is identified in three

different places in Scripture as one which excludes from the Kingdom of God. Its also classified by St. Thomas as one of the sins against nature, for it corrupts the order intended by God. Thats probably why its called effeminacy. Though its not the same as the abomination of Sodomy, its disordered and unnatural. We believe that this sin since its contrary to nature and is classified as effeminacy and the unnatural vice is the cause of some people being given over to unnatural lusts (homosexuality). Therefore, people who are committing this sin need to cease the evil immediately and, when prepared, make a good confession. If people are really struggling in this area, then they are not near the spiritual level where they need to be. Gods grace is there for them; but they need to pray more, pray better, avoid the occasions one of sin (bad media being one of them) and exercise their wills. They need to consistently pray the 15-decade Rosary (i.e. daily). They need to put out more effort spiritually and then it shouldnt be a problem. VANITY, IMMODEST DRESSING, AND MAKEUP Our Lady of Fatima: "The sins of the world are too great! The sins which lead most souls to hell are sins of the flesh! Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much. Those who serve God should not follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same. Many marriages are not good; they do not please Our Lord and are not of God." "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women [and men] of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful." (1 Peter 3:3-6) The divine authority of Gods word demands that you always dress humbly by not wearing tight clothes that show your breasts or your behind or by showing too much skin that leads to temptation, and that you also abstain from using any kind of makeup, jewelry, and accessories (except for Rosaries or Brown Scapulars and the like which is a very great way to protect oneself against the devil) in order not to give a bad example or tempt your neighbor into carnal lust and sin. For every single person you have tempted with your immodest appearance will demand that God executes his righteous vengeance on you since you tempted them into lustful thoughts! Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches in St. Bridgets revelations, that all who uses make-up or immodest clothing will be especially tormented for every single person that have seen them in their entire life unless they amend before the moment of their death, which is, sad to say, impossible to know when it will be. That can be thousands and thousands of people executing vengeance on you in hell for all eternity! What a horror! That of course means you cannot go and bathe in public since that would be even more immodest and immoral!

The world has indeed changed very much the last 100-200 years; yet, no one should think that he could do these things just because they are universally accepted. Do you want to go with the majority? Then, sadly, Hell awaits you for all eternity! "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." (Deut 22:5). Women should not dress or act like men, for this is an abomination in God's eyes. God created the human race with two genders, intending each to have his and her proper place in Creation. Men and women are not meant to behave or dress the same manner. Part of the beauty of the human race is found in the differences between men and women. We each live within a larger society. We are each influenced by the culture around us. Yet society and culture often teach us false things, which lead us away from God. Most women (at least in Western society and culture) dress and act very much like men. They seek the same roles in society, the family, and the Church. They are following a popular teaching of our culture today, that women and men are meant to have the same roles, and especially that women are meant to take up roles formerly held only or mainly by men. They are displaying their adherence to this teaching by dressing like men. This teaching of our culture is contrary to the teaching of Christ. God wants men and women to act and dress according to their gender and the place God has given each one in Creation. Clothing and hairstyles are expressions of one's thoughts, behavior, and attitude. Women are not meant to behave like men, nor to have the same roles as men, therefore they should not dress or groom themselves like men. And vise versa. "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 5:17-19). Saint Padre Pio used to refuse to hear the confession of women who were wearing pants or an immodest dress. PADRE PIO ON MODERN-DAY FASHIONS 1 Timothy 2:9: In like manner I wish women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety Galatians 5:19: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication,

uncleanness, immodesty Padre Pio had strong views on female fashions in dress. When the mini-skirt craze started, no one dared to come to Padre Pios monastery dressed in such an inappropriate fashion. Other women came not in mini skirts, but in skirts that were shortish. Padre Pio got very upset about this as well. Padre Pio tolerated neither tight skirts nor short or low-necked dresses. He also forbade his spiritual daughters to wear transparent stockings. He would dismiss women from the confessional, even before they got inside, if he discerned their dress to be inappropriate. Many mornings he drove one out after another ending up hearing only very few confessions. He also had a sign fastened to the church door, declaring: By Padre Pios explicit wish, women must enter his confessional wearing skirts at least eight inches (20 cm) below the knees. It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them for the confessional. Padre Pio would rebuke some women with the words, Go and get dressed. He would at times add: Clowns! He wouldnt give anyone a pass, whether they were people he met or saw the first time, or long-time spiritual daughters. In many cases, the skirts were many inches below the knees, but still werent long enough for Padre Pio! Boys and men also had to wear long trousers, if they didnt want to be kicked out of the church. The immodest have in truth a special place in hell waiting for them since they are the source of the most abominable sins of the flesh, as St. Paul teaches us in First Corinthians, Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body! (1 Cor 18) This should of course be understood in the sense of literal fornication as well as fornication in the mind which also is a mortal and damnable sin! You will be held accountable for every eye that have seen you if you use make-up or immodest clothing. That can account for thousands and thousands of people executing vengeance on you in hell for all eternity! Even if you don't use any make-up or dress vainly, God will still judge you to hell if you take delight in vain thoughts or have vain opinions of yourself. If a single thought can damn a person, how much more should tempters with immodest clothing and makeup be damned! This accounts for all kinds of makeup a person may use for vanity. How abominable to want to be accepted for your appearance rather than for your opinions! Oh, vanity, you shall soon rot in the grave, but your soul shall burn for ever more in hell since you thought to make your exterior beautiful, and, in so doing, perverted your interior. ON BAD THOUGHTS But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)

God solemnly declares that he will judge our every thought, how much more then will he judge our deeds? When we in our mind take delight in sinful thoughts, God takes this as an act in the very same way as he judges us as murderers if we hate our brother, or, as an adulterer if we look at a woman with lust in our heart. What then will God judge you to be when you in your heart love abominable things? No one can escape to have bad thoughts, for we are not yet angels but mere men. We cannot escape these bad thoughts, but we can refuse to enjoy them. Don't be surprised if you have all kinds of abominable thoughts. Many people are unlearned and do not understand that this is Satan tempting and giving them these thoughts. Sure, many bad thoughts arise from various bad occasions you have put yourself in during the course of the day or life, but still, if you do not think about these thoughts willfully and it still assail you, then it must be Satan tempting you! Every time you get bad thoughts against your own will, and you resist them, you have not committed any sin. When you get bad thoughts against your will and you enjoy them a little, and repents almost immediately, you have still committed sin. If you however, willfully delve in bad thoughts and enjoy them, you have without a doubt committed mortal sin! A clearer demonstration of this can be seen in 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... http://www.prophecyfilm.com/revelations/book3/b3_chapter19.htm DANCES, PUBS, BALLS There is not a commandment of God which dancing does not cause men to break! Mothers may indeed say: Oh, I keep an eye on their dress; you cannot keep guard over their heart. Go, you wicked parents, go down to Hell where the wrath of God awaits you, because of your conduct when you gave free scope to your children; GO! It will not be long before they join you, seeing that you have shown them the way so well! Then you will see whether your pastor was right in forbidding those Hellish amusements. (The Cur DArs, St. Jean-MarieBaptiste Vianney, p. 146) St. Alphonsus (c. 1755): In the year 1611, in the celebrated sanctuary of Mary in Montevergine, it happened that on the vigil of Pentecost the people who thronged there profaned that feast with balls, excesses, and immodest conduct, when a fire was suddenly discovered bursting forth from the house of entertainment where they were feasting, so that in less than an hour and a half it was consumed, and more than one thousand five hundred persons were killed. Five persons who remained alive affirmed upon oath, that they had seen the Mother of God herself, with two lighted torches set fire to the inn. (The Glories of Mary, p. 659.) From these quotes, everyone can see how evil dances are. Dancing causes thousands of tempting and lascivious thoughts that leads countless of lost souls to hell. To obstinately defend dances between boys and girls or between men and women is absolutely despicable, and those parents who allow their children to go to such events or those who even at times force their children to such events, will experience the most excruciating

torment in hell unless they amend immediately. To go to pubs which only sell alcohol or which propagate gambling or other mortal sins is absolutely unacceptable and sinful. These places were fervently preached against by St. John Vianney, and he called them real hell holes and the cause of countless of mortal sins! KEEP HOLY THY SABBATH DAY OR SUNDAY Since many people who are reading this have not been taught these concepts by modernist heretics, we must point out a few other things in this regard: servile works are forbidden on Sundays; people should not do laundry on Sundays; people should not do yard work (such as mowing the lawn, etc.) on Sundays; people should not shop food on Sundays unless they are starving etc... Exceptions to this would be work that absolutely must be done. For example, making a fire in your home so that you can be warm and survive is works that are completely acceptable. If you are able to make your food for the whole family before the Sunday, you should do so. One should not spend the Sunday on making food for the family which may take several hours of the day. You may of course (if you don't have any prepared food) take time to make something small for you or the family which does not require much of your time or take some food that you already have and warm it up. You cannot cut wood on Sundays and you must restrict yourself to only do things that are absolutely necessary for survival. This, of course, implies some preplanning, but no one should refuse to obey the divine commandments since this action will undoubtedly lead to eternal damnation. An obedient person will see the beauty of God forcing man to rest from physical works. To do other unnecessary works on Sundays is completely unacceptable unless you starve and don't have the means necessary to support your family. In the richer countries, even going so far as begging or receiving social welfare checks every month is far better than to do unnecessary work on Sundays, since this not only damns yourself, but also damns your employer. Your employer will in fact be punished for every single person he has allowed or forced (by threatening with layoffs) to work on Sundays. That can be thousands and thousands of people attacking one man for all eternity! What a horror! If you have exhausted all the options for receiving an income, for ex: looking for another job or moving to another place, or any other lawful means of receiving an income, (like receiving social welfare checks for the support of the necessities for you or your family, as long as this do not imply that you have to compromise your faith in any way,) then you are not obligated to stay away from work and can safely work on Sundays as long as it is your last option. Below are some examples of acceptable reasons of why you can work on Sundays. If you cannot continue home-schooling your children for example, this would be an acceptable reason with continuing to work on Sundays, another example would be if you had to move to a bad neighbourhood with much drugs, violence or lasciviousness that would influence you or your family in a sinful way, or if by quitting your work, you may be

forced to take another work that is sinful or immoral. This would be another reason to continue to work on Sundays until you have found another work where you are not forced to work on Sundays or forced to put your family's spiritual wellbeing in jeopardy. This goes to say if the work you do is acceptable before God. If you sin against God by the specific work you do, such as selling contraception, porn, bad newspapers with immodest images or stories about sex or other sins etc, then you cannot go to that work even if you starve or don't have the means to support yourself or your family. In such cases you have to put your entire trust in God. You cannot be the cause of your brothers mortal sins without yourself being guilty of mortal sin! Therefore I say to you: Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. The life is more than the meat: and the body is more than the raiment... seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you. (Lk. 12:22-24, 27-28, 31) However, in the poorer countries where there is no chance of getting social welfare or income in any other way, it is totally acceptable to work on Sundays as long as the person must do it in order to survive. Many people do not operate under these conditions but work on Sundays in order to have more money than they need to survive. Yes, many people have the means necessary to stay away from work on Sundays, but only go to work to receive more abundance in riches. This is a clear mortal sin! The following example on this can be seen clearer from St. Bridget's revelations, in the book rightly entitled the Book of Questions. It is composed of questions which Our Lord and Judge give wonderful answers to: Third question. Again the monk appeared on his ladder as before saying: "Why should I not exalt myself over others, seeing that I am rich?" Answer to the third question. The Judge answered: "As to why you must not take pride in riches, I answer: The riches of the world only belong to you insofar as you need them for food and clothing. The world was made for this: that man, having sustenance for his body, might through work and humility return to me, his God, whom he scorned in his disobedience and neglected in his pride. However, if you claim that the temporal goods belong to you, I assure you that you are in effect forcibly usurping for yourself all that you possess beyond your needs. All temporal goods ought to belong to the community and be equally accessible to the needy out of charity. You usurp for your own superfluous possession things that should be given to others out of compassion. However, many people do own much more than others but in a rational way, and they distribute it in discreet fashion. Therefore, in order not to be accused more severely at the judgment because you received more than others, it is advisable for you not to put yourself ahead of others by acting haughtily

and hoarding possessions. As pleasant as it is in the world to have more temporal goods than others and to have them in abundance, it will likewise be terrible and painful beyond measure at the judgment not to have administered in reasonable fashion even licitly held goods." http://www.prophecyfilm.com/revelations/book5/b5_interrogation7.htm The third commandment is that thou have mind and remember that thou hallow and keep holy thy Sabbath day or Sunday. That is to say, that thou shalt do no work nor operation on the Sunday or holy day, but thou shalt rest from all worldly labour and intend to prayer, and to serve God thy maker, which rested the seventh day of the works that he made in the six days before, in which he made and ordained the world. This commandment accomplish he that keep to his power the peace of his conscience for to serve God more holily. Then this day that the Jews called Sabbath is as much to say as rest. This commandment may no man keep spiritually that is encumbered in his conscience with deadly sin, such a conscience can not be in rest nor in peace as long as he is in such a state. In the stead of the Sabbath day which was straightly kept in the old law, holy church hath established the Sunday in the new law. For our Lord arose from death to life on the Sunday, and therefore we ought to keep it holily, and be in rest from the works of the week before, and to cease of the work of sin, and to intend to do spiritual works, and to follow our Lord beseeching him of mercy and to thank him for his benefits, for they that break the Sunday and the other solemn feasts that be established to be hallowed in holy church, they sin deadly, for they do directly against the commandment of God aforesaid and holy church, but if it be for some necessity that holy church admitteth and granteth. But they sin much more then, that employ the Sunday and the feasts in sins, in lechery, in going to taverns in the service time, in gluttony and drinking drunk, and in other sins, outrages against God. For alas for sorrow I trow there is more sin committed on the Sunday and holy days and feasts than in the other work days. For then be they drunk, fight and slay, and be not occupied virtuously in Gods service as they ought to do. And as God command us to remember and have in mind to keep and hallow the holy day, they that so do sin deadly and observe and keep not this third commandment. (From the Golden legend or the Lives of the Saints, volume 1, page 122-123) From the above quote can be learned that man should not do the things on a Sunday as he would do on the other days. The Sunday is intended for God to be kept in holiness. Thus, if the only difference for you on Sundays is that you keep away from servile work, and do not give any of your time to God, what profit is there for you? God commanded at least one day off for man so that man could rest from the world and use it for his spiritual well being, in praying, reading and doing other good works for the soul. You should thus spend the Sunday in abstaining from your own will, such as watching the tv, playing games, listening to music or the radio, etc, and instead strive to know God in solitude, prayer and meditation. SMOKING AND DRUGS

We dont know if smoking in very small amounts once in a while is a sin. But we believe that smoking habitually or regularly is a sin, and it definitely cuts out graces from peoples lives. We dont see how those who smoke habitually, for example throughout the day, would be any different from people who eat candy all day and thus try to constantly gratify themselves in that way. This is not even to get into the issue that we know its horrible for health and leads to death. If you are smoking, you are giving a horrible example to people, tempting them to start smoking which is highly addictive and lethal. Smoking is so addictive that medical scientists have compared the addiction to Heroin addiction. Most people who get addicted to cigarettes will never be able to stop and will be life long slaves under a most filthy, evil and grace diminishing habit. The same can be said of all addictive substances that you don't need to survive, such as: coffee, candy, chips, cookies, soda, good meats etc... If you can't abstain from these substances for even a few days, then you are addicted to them and need to learn to abstain from them. Good days for learning to abstain from one's own desires are Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Fridays has always been a day of abstinence in the Catholic Church since Our Lord suffered and died on that day which means that one cannot eat anything containing meat under pain of mortal sin (there is no obligation of fast or abstinence on a holy day of obligation such as Christmas, even if it falls on a Friday). One should of course also abstain from other superfluous substances. While some substances may appear to be harmless, grace is highly diminished in people who always uses things which are superfluous. EXPLAINING THE LAWS OF FAST AND ABSTINENCE, FOR DAYS OF FAST AND ABSTINENCE On days of fast, only one full meal is allowed, at which meat may be taken. Two other meatless meals, which together are less than the full meal, are also permitted. Only liquids may be taken between meals. The law of fast must be observed by all between the ages of 21 and 59 inclusive If fasting poses a serious risk to health or impedes the ability to do necessary work, it does not oblige. There are also certain days of abstinence. On days of complete abstinence, meat (and soup or gravy made from meat) may not be taken at all. On days of partial abstinence, meat (and soup or gravy made from meat) can be eaten only once. The law of abstinence must be observed by everyone age 7 and older. There is no obligation of fast or abstinence on a holy day of obligation, even if it falls on a

Friday. Eucharistic Fast 1. Priests and faithful before Mass or Holy Communion whether it is the morning, afternoon, evening, or Midnight Mass must abstain for three hours from solid foods and alcoholic beverages, and for one hour from non-alcoholic beverages. Water does not break the fast. 2. The infirm, even if not bedridden, may take non-alcoholic beverages and that which is really and properly medicine, either in liquid or solid form, before Mass or Holy Communion without any time limit. Priests and faithful who are able to do so are exhorted to observe the old and venerable form of the Eucharistic fast (from foods and liquids from midnight). All those who will make use of these concessions must compensate for the good received by becoming shining examples of a Christian life and principally with works of penance and charity. (Pope Pius XII, Sacram Communionem, 1957)

NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING IS SINFUL BIRTH CONTROL (NFP)

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 its birth control; its against conception. Its a refusal on the part of those who use it to be open to the children that God planned to send them. Its no different in its purpose from artificial contraception, and therefore its 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 ones 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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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). Gods Word Its not a complicated matter to understand that using Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy is wrong. Its written on mans 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 worlds 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. Catherines 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 allpowerful God is the will of His puny creatures; for He will not force offspring on anyone, just as He will not violate anyones 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: Weve already responded to this objection above. We wont 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 1950s. However, this does not justify NFP. Pius XIIs 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 dont 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 XIIs 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 theyre 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 1950s, 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 its 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 cant married couples use NFP during the whole marriage and have zero children? If NFP isnt 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. Its 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 Vaticans 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. Its written on their hearts.

They dont need a priest to tell them its wrong. Yes, the priests who obstinately instruct people that NFP is okay and defend this birth control method are also guilty, but this doesnt 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 dont 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. The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), pp. 399-400. The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 394. The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 399. The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 394. http://www.seattlecatholic.com

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.

Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2 (The Building of Christendom), Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1987, p. 387.
11 12

The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 399. The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 394.

13

This NFP article will be updated soon.

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 in 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 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 8:48). 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 angels 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 wifes 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.

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 DVDs 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 peoples 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 dont 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 days 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 sayand I am telling the truththat 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 Gods 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. Its the sad fact of history that most people in the world are of bad will and dont want the truth. Thats 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 worlds entire population (Noah and his family) escaped Gods wrath in the deluge that covered the entire earth, and when the Israelites rejected Gods 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 Gods 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 ones 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 sincerethat 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 peoples 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 peoples 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 here.

WWW.CATHOLIC-SAINTS.NET

Free DVDs and Books