Some More Consequences of the Protestant Heresy.

1) Puritanism and the slaughter of Catholics in England, Ireland, Scotland, the USA and Europe. Irish and Scottish Catholics were forced off their land, starved to death and sold into slavery. The martyrdom of priests and religious by Protestants and Puritans. The destruction of Catholic Churches, Monasteries, Convents, Libraries, sacred Art, Sculpture and Architecture. The puritans were iconoclasts.

It is ironic that the sedevacantistas and so-called ‘ traditional sects’ extoll and promote puritanism as a mode of behaviour for their deluded followers!

2) Calvinism and the consequent capitalist economic system with it’s mirror image, communism. In both systems man is reduced to a mere economic unit. Socialism, Fascism, Corporativism, Mercantilism, and Globalism are also consequences of the Protestant heresy.

3) The industrial revolution and the relegation of the majority of men to wage slavery for the benefit of the few.

4) The emancipation of the jews and the resulting creation of central banks, the debt based money system and the enslavement of generations to pay the usurious interest charged simply for the creation of government debt.

5) Communism, promoted by the jews, responsible for the Bolshevik revolution and the killing of millions of Catholic and Orthodox Russians, Hungarians, Ukranians, Poles, Spanish (in the Spanish civil war) and also countless millions of Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians etc.

6) Two World Wars promoted by the anglo-protestant /jewish alliance which resulted in the destruction of Catholic Europe and the victory of Communism. The invention of the atomic bomb which killed millions in Japan and deliberately dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both these Japanese cities were home to the largest Catholic communities in Japan and the detonation of the atomic bombs effectively wiped out Catholicism in Japan.

7) The jewish/communist Frankfurt School and the success of it’s policy to undermine every Catholic institution; Universities, Schools etc. to replace Catholic values with atheistic communist values leading to the destruction of the family through contraception, abortion the acceptance of homosexuality etc. etc. in order to make the implementation of their goal of world communism easier.

8) The destabilization of Muslim North Africa by the jewish/anglo-protestant alliance to create an influx of Muslim immigrants to complete the destruction of what little remains of Catholic Europe.

The world we know and live in is a world based on protestant and atheistic jewish values. We have no memory or even a vague conception of what a Catholic civilization was, or would be, like. Jews, Protestants and Muslims are the enemies of the Catholic Church and Faith. Not to recognize this and worse, to state that they are ‘our elder brothers in faith”, or “worship the same God” or can be saved by “baptism of desire’ is the vilest insult imaginable to the humble  redemptive sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, and we shall be deservedly punished for betraying the faith of our ancestors and the sacrifice of the Holy Martyrs.

The Protestant Heresy

I am so horrified by the recent revelations regarding the harvesting of organs of aborted babies for profit and, horror of horrors, the suspicion that these organs are being experimentally transplanted into other animals to see if complete organs can be grown to be used as a source for transplants in the future, that I decided to anticipate this post. I wanted to remind those who, either because they are ill-informed or who, out of misplaced compassion for Protestant neighbours, colleagues, friends or family, defend the heresy that Protestants can be saved by the Baptism of Desire, that the root cause of this abomination is the Protestant heresy.

‘Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. On the principle that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of revelation according to the dictates of private judgement, it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. Impelled by the law of its own impotence, through lack of any decisive voice of authority in matters of faith, it is forced to recognize as valid and orthodox any belief that springs from the exercise of private judgement. Therefore does it finally arrive, by force of its own premises, at the conclusion that one creed is as good as another; it then seeks to shelter its inconsistency under the false plea of liberty of conscience. Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and freely from the unrestricted exercise of the individual’s reason or caprice upon the subjectmatter of revelation. The individual or sect interprets as it pleases, rejecting or accepting what it chooses. This is popularly called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity on the same plea rejects all revelation, and Protestantism, which handed over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for it is clear that one, who under the plea of rational liberty has the right to repudiate any part of revelation that may displease him, can not logically quarrel with one, who on the same ground repudiates the whole. If one creed is as good as another on the plea of rational liberty, on the same plea no creed is as good as any. Taking the field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed and taken the very citadel of Protestantism helpless against the foe of its own making.

We find as a result amongst the people of this country (excepting Catholics of course) that authoritative and positive religion has met with utter disaster, and religious beliefs or unbelief’s have come to be mere matters of opinion, wherein there are always essential differences, each one free to make or unmake his own creed or no creed.

Such is the mainspring of the heresy constantly dinned into our ears, flooding our current literature and our press. It is against this that we have to be perpetually vigilant. The more so as it insidiously attacks us on the grounds of a false charity and in the name of a false liberty. Nor does it appeal only to us on the ground of religious toleration.

The principle ramifies in many directions, striking root into our domestic, civil, and political life, whose vigor and health depend upon the nourishing and sustaining power of religion. For religion is the bond which unites us to God, the source and end of all good, and Infidelity, whether virtual as in Protestantism or explicit as in Agnosticism, severs the bond which binds men to God, and seeks to build human society on foundations of man’s absolute independence. Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:

1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.

2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself. 

3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.

4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press. Such are the radical principles of Liberalism. In the assumption of the absolute sovereignty of the individual, that is, his entire independence of God, we find the common source of all the others. To express them all in one term in the order of ideas, they are RATIONALISM or the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of human reason. Here human reason is made the measure and sum of truth. Hence we have individual, social and political Rationalism, the corrupt fountain head of liberal principles: absolute freedom of worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone, etc.; in one word, which synthesizes all, SECULARIZATION, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life (19) whether it orate or assassinate; whether it call itself Liberty or Government or the State or Humanity or Reason, or what not, its fundamental characteristic is an uncompromising opposition to the Church.

Liberalism is a world complete in itself; it has its maxims, its fashions, its art, its literature, its diplomacy, its laws, its conspiracies, its ambuscades. It is the world of Lucifer, disguised in our times under the name of Liberalism, in radical opposition and in perpetual warfare against that society composed of the Children of God, the Church of Jesus Christ.’ Link

The separation of Church from state that has occurred because of Protestantism has resulted in secular states and governments that promote and legislate policies that are positively evil. And after the Catholic Church succumbed to heresy at Vatican II, it seems as though states and governments were unleashed from any restraint whatsoever. Over the past fifty years we have seen the widespread use of contraception and subsequent toleration of sodomy; the imposition  of homosexual “marriage’; the almost complete breakdown of the family; the introduction of euthanasia, even for handicapped children; the ubiquity of pornography; in vitro fertilisation and the ‘renting out of wombs’; the legalizing of abortion and now the harvesting of the organs of aborted babies for profit etc. etc. Literally, all Hell has been let loose.

Any Catholic or Lefebvrista, who defends the heresy that Protestants can be saved by Baptism of Desire, implicitly condones the heretical protestant doctrines that have resulted in this situation and are just as responsible for the abortion of infants, as if they were personally wielding the scalpel or suction pump.

I joined an FSSPX community because of the Latin Mass but after four years, on learning that Dom Lefebvre and the FSSPX taught the heresies of salvation by Desire, Blood and Invincible Ignorance, I left immediately. Since then my purpose in life has been to combat these heresies whenever and wherever possible with, I might add, little success.

Soon after joining the community I attended a lecture where Bishop Williamson praised:- the energy of Protestants in combating the legalization of abortion and the decriminalization homosexual activity; the modesty of Muslim women and the strong family ties of the Hindus. I was completely astounded that any Catholic, never mind a Catholic Bishop would say this, and I looked around to see if anyone else was as shocked as myself, to discover that the whole audience was smiling and nodding in agreement! I wondered if I had misheard what the Bishop had said, and this was my first inkling that the FSSPX was not what it purported to be. The point is however, that if it weren’t for the protestant doctrine of the separation of Church and State, no government which recognized the sovereignty of God would have enacted such legislation. And ironically, Protestants who regard homosexual marriage as an abomination, are now being persecuted by the very governments whose independence from the Catholic Church they campaigned and fought for.


The evil teachings of Dom Lefebvre regarding baptism and salvation cont.

‘Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.’

Here, having dismissed the dogma of ‘Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’ as ‘ St Cyprian’s formula’, Dom Lefebvre states that those that those Catholics who do believe in the doctrine of EENS and that there is one baptism for the remission of sins do not understand, or are ‘insufficiently instructed” ( how patronising!)  as to  what baptism is. For Dom Lefebvre , the one baptism in the Creed is really three! (This must be the new math).

But in chapter VI he writes:- Our Lord Himself has said in a most clear manner, “No one, unless he be born again of water and the Holy Ghost can enter into the Kingdom of God.” 

As I do not trust one word that Dom Lefebvre wrote, I will give the quote from the Douay Rheims Bible which is slightly different:-  Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  Our Lord only teaches one baptism, HE never taught salvation by Blood or Desire, so according to Dom Lefebvre, Our Lord Jesus Christ , God Himself , was insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is!

And perhaps Dom Lefebvre himself was insufficiently instructed, in that salvation by Desire and Blood was specifically anathematized, along with every other heresy that had afflicted the Church up until that time, in the Bull  ‘Cantate Domino” of 1445.

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. Link





Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. Mt. 10:16

Dom Lefebvre on the Doctrine of EENS Baptism and Salvation.

I had never fully understood the meaning of this teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, until I had to analyse the writings of Dom Lefebvre. To deal with the devil you have to have to have some idea of how the devil works and thinks. Dom Lefebvre’s teachings are as slippery as snakes, you know they are wrong but it is very hard to pin down exactly what is wrong with them. They are like those wild mushrooms that unwary people gather, confusing them with edible mushrooms; in appearance, innocuous; fatal, if ingested.

We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it.  You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”–a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

The first thing that puzzled me about that sentence was the use of the word “dictum”. Why not use the word dogma (which it is) or infallible teaching? I looked it up and the legal definition of a dictum is:- Dictum has no binding authority and, therefore, cannot be cited as precedent in subsequent lawsuits. Link

You see how clever and deceitful Dom Lefebvre’s choice of words is. He states here that the dogma of the Catholic Church which is that ‘Outside the Church there is no Salvation’ has no binding authority!

He goes on to state that this dogma or “dictum ” seems excessively severe ( to contemporary minds), the implication being that Catholics are allowed to have an opinion about it. But a dogma of the faith is a Divinely Revealed Objective Spiritual Truth in which you either believe and are a Catholic, or deny and you are a heretic condemned to eternal damnation. Where is his condemnation of those who think that this dogma is excessively severe, in other words, those who deny the dogma, such as that contained in the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX?

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc. ( Condemned Error). Link

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

That first sentence is the most vile, disgusting insult to all the Holy Martyrs that were tortured and died at the hands of Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and animists rather than recant the Catholic Faith. Martyrs who went to their deaths willingly and joyfully because they sincerely believed that the “outside the Catholic Church there is no Salvation’

No, it would be a second error to think that.

What was the first error? The only meaning I can get from this is that he is referring to the Church as the one ark of salvation because in the next sentence he denies the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation, which according to him, is the second error.

Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,”

Here condemns those who believe in and preach the dogma of EENS as being intolerant! Thus he condemns Our Lord Jesus Christ,God Incarnate, the Apostles, Martyrs , Saints, Saint Athanasius and all the Popes who up until Vatican II condemned religious indifferentism as being intolerant!

St. Cyprian’s formula?  Why use the word formula instead of the word dogma or doctrine? Again, I looked it up and the first two meanings of formula in the I found were:-

a. An established form of words or symbols for use in a ceremony or procedure.
b. An utterance of conventional notions or beliefs; a hackneyed expression.
So for Dom Lefebvre the Divine Truth, the dogma of the Catholic Faith, that there is no Salvation outside the Church are simply words with no real meaning or even, insult of insults, a conventional notion or hackneyed expression.
Why St. Cyprian, why not Saint Athanasius ? I’m afraid that I had never heard of Saint Cyprian until reading this and I still don’t understand why Dom Lefevbre cited him here. But I know there is method in his madness and there must be a diabolical reason behind it. St. Cyprian seemed to have been involved in various disputes with Rome including the re-baptism of heretics which was condemned by Pope Stephen:-
This was not Stephen’s view, and he immediately issued a decree, couched apparently in very peremptory terms, that no “innovation” was to be made (this is taken by some moderns to mean “no new baptism“), but the Roman tradition of merely laying hands on converted heretics in sign of absolution must be everywhere observed, on pain of excommunication. This letter was evidently addressed to the African bishops, and contained some severe censures on Cyprian himself. Link
I haven’t had time to read the whole article on St. Cyprian to gain a better understanding of the issues and some insight into why Dom. Lefebvre would cite him. If anyone more knowledgeable than myself could help, I would be very grateful.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church v Dom Lefebvre on Original Sin.


Freedom put to the test

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.”276 The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image – that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”290

403  Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.


Dom Lefebvre on Original Sin

What is dignity? According to Catholic tradition, man derives dignity from his perfection, i.e, from his knowledge of the truth and his acquisition of the good.  Man is worthy of respect in accordance with his intention to obey God, not in accordance with his errors, which will inevitably lead to sin. When Eve the first sinner succumbed, she said, “The serpent deceived me.” Her sin and that of Adam led to the downfall of human dignity, from which we have suffered ever since.

Firstly, it is NOT Catholic teaching that man derives dignity from his perfection! Man’s dignity according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church is solely due to the fact that of all created visible beings he is the only one ‘ to know and be able to love his Creator’


356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.


Secondly, Adam’s disobedience, his distrust in God, his scorning of God and his preference for himself over God and the resulting tragic consequences for mankind is reduced by Dom Lefebvre to a mere loss of dignity? That the dogma of the Immaculate Conception simply means that Our Lady retained her dignity on conception whereas the rest of fallen mankind lost it?

And then in Chapter 8 of the “Letter”, Dom Lefevbre criticises one of the new catechisms by saying :-Orignal sin (printed between quotation marks) is “an illness from birth,” “an infirmity going back to the origins of humanity,” something very vague and inexplicable. 

I cannot imagine anything more vague or inexplicable as Dom Lefebvre’s contention that the result of Adam’s disobedience was the downfall of human dignity!


Thus Dom Lefebvre, complying with the strategy marked out by God’s enemies, minimises the gravity of Original Sin to mankind’s mere loss of dignity and consequently negates the enormity of Our Lord God, Jesus Christ’s redemptive sacrifice.

To be continued.

He who wishes to persuade men, is led to act tortuously and insincerely, and to employ deceit and falsehood, in order to engage the assent of his hearers. But he who addresses himself to God, and desires to please Him, needs simplicity and purity of mind, for God cannot be deceived. St. John Chrysostom Homilies on the Epistle to the Galatians.

The tortuous logic and deceit of Dom Lefebvre.

I groaned inwardly when I realised I would have to read Dom Lefebvre’s ” An Open Letter to Confused Catholics ” again to write this post. The idea of having to wade through that verbiage of obsfucations, sophistry, logical fallacies, half truths, downright lies and bad arithmetic again, repelled me. If you were not a Confused Catholic at the beginning of the book, you certainly are at the end! When reading his deceitful words and sly, dissembling sentences and paragraphs, I get the impression that Satan is whispering in my ear and I feel physically sick. His modus operandi is to cite the doctrines of the Church which he claims to uphold and which he then goes on to attenuate, qualify or deny outright a few paragraphs or pages later, or sometimes even in the same sentence!

What particularly disgusts and angers me, are his humbugging lamentations, hand wringing and crocodile tears over the state of the Church today, coupled with his refusal to identify clearly and condemn severely the cause of this destruction which were the heretical teachings of the documents produced in Vatican II; Link ; heresies which, he mendaciously affirms in his ‘Letter’, were always the doctrines of the Church. He describes meetings with Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, purportedly lamenting the state of the Church, when in reality they must have been congratulating each other on the success of their strategy to destroy the Catholic Church, the Catholic Faith and hoodwink the faithful.

to be continued.

The War Against God

The Military Strategy of God’s Enemies.

What truly is the point of departure of the enemies of religion for the sowing of the great and serious errors by which the faith of so many is shaken? They begin by denying that man has fallen by sin and been cast down from his former position. Hence they regard as mere fables original sin and the evils that were its consequence. Humanity vitiated in its source vitiated in its turn the whole race of man; and thus was evil introduced amongst men and the necessity for a Redeemer involved. All this rejected it is easy to understand that no place is left for Christ, for the Church, for grace or for anything that is above and beyond nature; in one word the whole edifice of faith is shaken from top to bottom.  Link

The Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The HERETICAL doctrines of  salvation by Baptism of Desire, Blood and Invincible Ignorance

Hence heretical doctrines, and works inspired by them, constitute the greatest of all sins with the exception of the formal hate against God, of which only the demons in hell and the damned are capable.


The Means of Delivery.

To effect a confusion of ideas is an old scheme of the Devil. Not to understand clearly and precisely is generally the source of intellectual error. In time of schism and heresy, to cloud and distort the proper sense of words is a fruitful artifice of Satan, and it is as easy to lay snares for the intellectually proud as for the innocent. Every heresy in the Church bears testimony to Satan’s success in deceiving the human intellect by obscuring and perverting the meaning of words. Arianism was a battle of words and owed its long continued success to its verbal chicanery. Pelagianism and Jansenism showed the same characteristic, and today Liberalism is as cunning and obscure as any of its heretical predecessors. (64)


‘Hence they regard as mere fables original sin and the evils that were its consequence’ Pius X. Ad Diem Ad Laetissnum. Feb 2nd 1904

When I started defending the doctrine of EENS, I had assumed that the heresies of salvation by desire, blood and invincible ignorance had been propagated to appease the sentimental sensibilities of those Catholics and followers of other religions who could not believe that God would be so MEAN as to condemn so many people to eternal perdition.

But on further reflection I realised that these heresies were the chosen weapons of God’s enemies to destroy the whole foundation on which the Catholic Faith was built, that of the reality of Original Sin and the necessity our Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate’s, redemptive sacrifice.

By affirming that men in a state of Original Sin could go to heaven they negate the gravity of Original Sin. By negating the gravity of Original Sin they debase, demean and diminish the enormity of God’s loving sacrifice to redeem fallen mankind and in doing so deny the Unity and Trinity of God, God the Creator, God The Redeemer and God the Sanctifier, they deny God Himself. Link

Our Lord Jesus Christ is reduced to a mere mythical figure like any other god in the pantheon of gods invented by mankind to make sense of our existence; His Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection reduced to the level of a mere fable.   Since Vatican II, the Popes have reinforced this idea with their ecumenical prayer meetings; God is now just one of the many gods on offer from which to pick and choose.

I used to be bemused by so many Catholics who would put on their facebook page a prayer to Our Lady, followed by a reflection from Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Gandhi, Martin Luther King or any other self-help guru. I now understand that they are only following the example set by the post-Vatican II Popes.

This policy of the deliberate negation of the gravity of Original Sin has been so successful that even a devout, pious, intelligent Catholic had been led to believe that mortal sin was more serious than Original Sin.

Ironically however, with the the negation of the doctrines of Original Sin and EENS at Vatican II, the FACT and the REALITY of Original Sin has never been more evident. As Joe Sobran put it, after Vatican II, the world seems to have lost its centre of gravity. Abortion has been legalised in many countries; euthanasia has been legalised in some ex-Catholic countries, whose example the rest of the world is now determined to follow; sodomy has become generally accepted and homosexual marriage been pushed down the throats of many people whose faith and ability to resist has been severely compromised by the inaction of religious leaders; pornography is ubiquitous; they are pushing for the legalisation of polygamy and incest; environmental and ecological legislation means we worship at the temple of Gaia. Every single government, both national and supranational, is corrupt. Every single arm of government, eg. the police and military is corrupt. Every single profession, the legal, medical and the teaching, has been corrupted.  Our world today must be very similar to the world that existed before the Incarnation and I am sure worse is to come.





Original Sin, Mortal Sin and the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

I was trying to convince one of the members of the community I used to belong to, of the Church’s dogmas regarding baptism, faith and salvation, when I had this, initially perplexing, but, ultimately illuminating, exchange with him.

This man asked me if an unbaptised person (i.e. someone who was in a state of original sin) who had not committed a mortal sin would not be saved? I replied, quoting the dogmas, with excerpts from scripture, the Church Fathers etc. saying that No, he wouldn’t be saved. Obviously, my explanations were unsatisfactory because he kept coming back to me with the same question and I kept repeating the same answer. This man is a very intelligent and pious man for whom I have an enormous respect, and I knew that something was really bugging him otherwise he wouldn’t keep insisting with the question, but for the life of me, I couldn’t understand what it was.

Then, (I remember clearly because it was the eve of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception), the light dawned, that for this Catholic, a mortal sin was more serious than original sin!

Obviously, this was the rational conclusion to arrive at given the FSSPX’s teachings that a man in a state of original sin could be saved if he were ‘invincibly ignorant’ or had the ” implicit desire to do God’s will”, whereas a baptised Catholic in a state of mortal sin would go to Hell.

And this too is the only conclusion to be drawn from this statement by Dom Lefebvre:- Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

To demonstrate the difference in the severity of the two states, I reminded him that a Catholic in a state of mortal sin can be absolved by a priest, through the sacrament of Confession, by an act of sincere repentance and a desire to amend, but the redemption of mankind from original sin required the humble Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Our Lord God, Jesus Christ.

Then it occurred to me that if, as the Church and the ‘traditional sects’ now believe and teach, that men in a state of original sin, who are ‘invincibly ignorant’ or have ‘the desire to do God’s will’, can go to Heaven without being baptised and professing the Catholic faith, then the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ was totally unnecessary; for what was the state of mankind before the Incarnation of Our Lord but of invincible ignorance?

These heresies also have implications for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, because, if original sin is not as bad as mortal sin and men in a state of original sin can go to Heaven because of their ‘invincible ignorance’ or ‘desire to do God’s will’, whilst men in a state of mortal sin are condemned to Hell, then the fact that Our Lady, Mother of God Incarnate, was conceived without the stain of original sin is not such a unique distinction!

The Diabolical Implications of Dom Lefebvre’s Heretical Teachings

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5

 Dom Lefebvre:- This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

  1. Dom Lefebvre here affirms that Our Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, lied or, at least, didn’t really mean what he was saying, when he taught that to enter the Kingdom of God a man needs to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost. Dom Lefebvre denied the dogmas of the faith:- that God is absolute veracity and that baptism of water (baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation. Link
  2. If men in a state of original sin, can be saved through the ‘desire to do God’s will’ or ‘invincible ignorance’, then the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Our Lord, God Incarnate, was totally unnecessary, for what was the state of mankind before the Incarnation of Our Lord but of ‘invincible’ignorance’ and original sin.  These heresies negate the whole of the Church’s teaching regarding Original Sin and the humble, redemptive sacrifice of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, God Incarnate.
  3. The martyrs were complete and utter fools! They could have recanted their faith in order to save their lives, because if it were true that God knows that “amongst Protestants, Muslims and Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will” who deserve to be saved, it would surely not be beyond His powers to identify those baptised Catholics amongst them, who were only pretending to follow the faith of idolaters but who sincerely, in their heart of hearts, believed and professed the Catholic faith and thus merited salvation?
  4. Most Protestant sects with their heretical belief in Sola Scriptura believe that baptism with water is necessary for salvation and all believe that Buddhists, Muslims and animists are idolaters. Dom Lefebvre not only denied the dogmas of the Faith but the First Commandment ‘Thou shalt not have other Gods before me.’
  5. According to Dom Lefebvre a person can hold the following beliefs all his life and still be saved by the implicit desire to do God’s will:-  amongst other heretical beliefs, Buddhists are pantheists and they believe in karma and the transmigration of souls and that the material world is intrinsically evil; Muslims, amongst other heresies, deny the Trinity, the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ,  believe in predestination and deny that man has been given free will; Protestants believe in the heresies, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, amongst others. They deny the primacy of the Pope, the authority of the Church as the deposit of faith, the institution of the priesthood , the Mass and the Sacraments and oppose the veneration of Our Lady, the Mother of God.
  6.  Ironically, the only belief that Dom Lefebvre does not accept is that of EENS!  Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Link