An Effective Response to Protestants about Praying to Mary

Protestant sects all belong to the devil, although many individual protestants do not know that fact.  One of the devil’s deceptions is to cause them to refuse to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary and also to seek to dissuade others from praying to her.

For example, one of the Catholic Candle Team was silently praying his morning rosary on public transportation, when a protestant woman sat down next to him.  She looked him in the eye and declared: “You don’t have to pray to Mary.  I go right to Jesus.”  This woman was Hispanic and was plausibly an apostate Catholic.

Of course, when attempting to lead people to the Holy Catholic Faith, there are different approaches suitable for different situations based on what principles and “starting points” such people will acknowledge.  But when a protestant (or a protestantized Catholic) declares to you that we should not pray to Mary but instead “go right to Jesus”, try responding to that protestant, saying:

The next time you are talking to Jesus, ask Him if He also wants you to talk with His Mother, or whether He prefers that you ignore her.”

It is our experience that the protestant looks thoughtful, perhaps surprised, and has a new perspective to “take home” and think about.  After that, pray for that protestant, that this “seed” will germinate and flourish.


Is Liberalism a Sin?

Many people have no trouble at all understanding that liberalism is an unwise philosophy on which to base a system of governing or a way of life.  But is it actually a sin?

The word liberal comes from the Latin word “liber”, i.e., “free”.  Up to the end of the eighteenth century, this word commonly meant “worthy of a free man”.  Thus, “liberal arts”, “liberal occupations”, and “liberal education” were desirable and good. 

The term “liberal” was applied also to those qualities of intellect and character which were considered becoming to those who were on a higher social scale because of their wealth or education.  Thus, “liberal” meant intellectually independent or broadminded, magnanimous, generous, frank, or open.[1]

In the way of our ever-changing language, though, liberalism has also come to mean a political system opposed to centralization and absolutism.  In this sense, liberalism is not necessarily in opposition to the spirit and teaching of the Catholic Church.[2]

However, for the past two hundred years or so,  the term “liberal” has been applied increasingly to certain tendencies in intellectual, religious, political, and economic life which implied a partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order.[3]  It is at this point precisely that liberalism’s opposition to God becomes sinful.

Think of what those last two sentences are saying: emancipation of man from God’s laws – freeing man from the obligation of obeying God!

The underlying principle (of liberalism) asserts an absolute, unrestrained freedom of thought, of religion, conscience, creed, speech, and politics.

The necessary consequences of this are … the abolition of the Divine right and of EVERY KIND OF AUTHORITY DERIVED FROM GOD.[4]

Indeed!  All authority comes from God.[5]  So liberalism denies all of God’s true authority over us.

So, yes, Liberalism is a sin mainly because it opposes God and the Truth.  Here is how this is summed up in the masterful work, Liberalism is a Sin:

We may then say of Liberalism: in the order of ideas, it is absolute error; in the order of facts, it is absolute disorder.  It is, therefore, in both cases a very grievous and deadly sin, for sin is rebellion against God in thought or in deed, the enthronement of the creature in the place of the Creator.[6]

There are a host of other exceedingly-injurious repercussions from sliding into liberalism.  But if one didn’t know anything else about the scourge of liberalism, the information above should be more-than-enough to make it clear that it is totally incompatible with Catholicism. 

Yet, understanding this error in principle is one thing, but recognizing this error in particular circumstances is another thing, and many Catholics are fooled here.

For example, unfortunately, most Catholics have accepted the extremely liberal teachings of Vatican II (such as the false idea that “everyone goes to heaven”).  They’ve “gone along to get along”.  It might make them feel more comfortable in mistakenly believing that there is safety in numbers, saying such things as: “Many of my friends think this way” – supposing therefore, that such thinking is correct.

They do not realize, right then and there, that by doing so, they are being liberal, and thus are ignoring God’s laws and rights.  

People have in mind that going along with the group consensus sometimes makes life a little easier, and that they can avoid criticism, stress in their social life, problems at work or with their families or friends.  These people might tell themselves that it is not their job or their “place” to question liberal priests and the leaders in the Catholic Church (e.g., the Pope and cardinals).  Such people tell themselves that fighting liberalism is the leaders’ duty.  Further, it is certainly easier to accept liberalism than to fight it. 

Maybe such people are not so different from the many SSPX parishioners who see no need to look too closely at various proposals and changes that the Society makes to conform with Rome’s demands.  

It is so much easier to accept what is said from the SSPX pulpit, beginning with just a liberal point or two – for example, that the Catholic Church is much the same as the VC II Conciliar church.  Accepting this false position is the “first stop” on the road to developing into an unqualified liberal who progressively comes to accept small liberal points of doctrine that gradually bring him in line with the average Novus Ordo church-goer. 

If this is you, then regardless of what the SSPX leaders maintain, you, too, are a liberal! 

Yet, if by God’s grace you suddenly have this epiphany (i.e., discovering your liberalism) and realize you have allowed yourself to be lulled by the comfort of frequent SSPX Masses and regular access to the Sacraments, you need to change now and find your way back to the traditional Catholic Faith. 

It will not become easier for you to do this by delaying.  Every month makes it harder.  God expects much effort and prayers from His friends, to fight evil and to earn salvation.  If you have confidence in God’s love, He will give you the help you need.

[1]           1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia Press, 1913, p. 212, col. 1.  

[2]           1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia Press, 1913, p. 212, col. 1.  

[3]           1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia Press, 1913, p. 212, col. 2.  

[4]           1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia Press, 1913, p. 212, col. 2 (emphasis added).

[5]           Here is how St. Paul teaches this truth:


[T]here is no power but from God:  and those [powers] that are, are ordained of God.  Therefore, he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.  And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.  …  For [the ruler] is God’s minister.  …  Wherefore, be subject of necessity, not only for [the ruler’s] wrath, but also for conscience’s sake. 


Romans, ch.13, vv. 1-2 & 4-5 (bracketed words added).[17]


Pope Pius IX faithfully echoed St. Paul:


[A]ll authority comes from God. Whoever resists authority resists the ordering made by God Himself, consequently achieving his own condemnation; disobeying authority is always sinful except when an order is given which is opposed to the laws of God and the Church.


Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846, §22.


[6]               Liberalism is a Sin, by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, 1886, ch.3.

The Human Element of the Catholic Church Has Been Trending Liberal

Yes, it has been trending liberal to a degree that after three visits to earth by the Blessed Mother, requesting that the faithful return to religious fervor, penance, and a greater focus on the Traditional Catholic Faith, she has been almost completely ignored.

The first appearance of the Blessed Mother was in La Salette, France, on Sept. 19, 1846, 174 years ago.  Our Lady warned that Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ.  This warning was ignored, and Rome has lost the Faith, as demonstrated by the results of the evil Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

VC II gave us the anti-Catholic Novus Ordo mass which does not give grace.  Without grace one loses the Faith and the ability to avoid sin.  The leaders in Rome (i.e., Masons and their servants) were not satisfied with the liberal Benedict XVI.  Thus, yielding to their pressure, he abdicated and they elected the more liberal Pope Francis.  This present pope has been as liberal as possible without exposing the end plan of destruction of the Church’s human element, especially in the matter of papal authority.  The Masons are not far from completely achieving their goal of solidifying their power in Rome, the seat of the Anti-Christ.[1] 

The second and third apparitions by God and His Mother – to save souls and recall Catholics from their straying path – were at Lourdes in 1858, and at Fatima in 1917.  At Fatima, she spoke of Three Secrets (or three parts to a Secret) to the three small children.  The first was a vision of hell to emphasize how many souls go to hell forever.

The second Secret was how the pope and all the bishops of the world could save souls and ensure peace in the world by a very easy and simple plan to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Simple and easy if they all still had the Faith.  But without the Faith, that request of the Blessed Mother has yet to be fulfilled in the 103 years since Fatima.

The third part of the Message remained secret at the request of the Blessed Mother.  However, she directed it to be revealed no later than 1960.  Several popes read that Secret, as written down by Lucy at the request of her spiritual adviser.  The popes never disclosed its content because it predicted that Rome would lose the Faith.[2]  As stated above, it was to have been revealed in 1960, which appears to be an effort to stop the Second Vatican Council, which took place in the early ‘60s and which resulted in the anti-Catholic conciliar church.  All three appearances were to urge sacrifice and prayers for the salvation of souls and the return of Rome’s focus to the traditional Catholic Faith.

Her appearances were almost completely ignored, bringing on a religious crisis and the consequent loss of many, many souls.  We should have expected this because we were warned by our heavenly Mother.  I believe the worst of the great chastisement is yet to come. 

What can we do now to help save souls?  Although no longer urged by the human element of the Catholic Church, we can do what Our Lady told us to do at Fatima and at La Salette: spread her instructions and warnings, far and wide, as listed below:

At Fatima:

1.    Fashions: “Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend My Son very much!”  (Our Lady said this in 1917!) 


2.    Hell: “More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason!”  (Sins against the 6th Commandment)


3.    Bad marriages: “Many marriages are not good; they do not please Our Lord and are not of God.”


4.    Punishment of the world: The Blessed Mother can no longer restrain the Hand of Her Divine Son from striking the world with just punishment for its many crimes.


5.    Five warnings: “If my requests are not granted, Russia will scatter her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church.  The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be destroyed!”  (Remember, Our Lady told us this in 1917!)


6.    Amend: “I have come to warn the faithful to amend their lives and ask pardon for their sins.  They must not continue to offend Our Lord Who is already deeply offended.”


7.    Rosary: “Say the Rosary every day, to obtain peace for the world.  Add after each decade the following prayer: ‘Oh, my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.’”


8.    Pray: “Pray, pray a great deal, and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to hell because they have no one to make sacrifices and pray for them.”


9.    Immaculate Heart devotion: “God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to My Immaculate Heart.  If people do what I tell you, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.”


10. World peace: “Tell everybody that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them to ask graces from her, and that the Heart of Jesus wishes to be venerated together with the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for the Lord has confided the peace of the world to her.”


11. War: “War is a punishment from God for sins!”


12. Final peace: “In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace!”


13. First Saturday devotion: “I promise to help at the hour of death, with graces needed for salvation, whoever, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes, while meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary with the intention of making reparation to My Immaculate Heart.”


14. Sacrifice:  Our Lord appeared to Lucy in 1943.  He complained bitterly and sorrowfully that there are so few souls fulfilling Our Lady’s requests, saying: “The sacrifice required of every person is the fulfillment of his duties in life and the observance of My Laws!  This is the penance I now seek and require!”


15. St. Joseph:  The only saint who appeared at Fatima besides Our Lady.  St. Joseph held the Child Jesus in his arms and blessed the 70,000 people three times.  It is he of whom it has been said: “The sound of victory will be heard when the faithful recognize the sanctity of St. Joseph.”


16. Brown scapular:  On October 13, 1917, at the last apparition, Our Blessed Mother appeared, dressed as Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.  Silently she held out to the world the brown scapular – the sign of personal consecration – the sign of eternal salvation.  Lucy of Fatima explained: “The scapular and the Rosary are inseparable.”


17. Adoration before the Blessed Sacrament: Our Lady of Fatima asked for reparation.  The Angel of Fatima showed the children how to make reparation by adoring Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.  (Making Holy Hours, or half hour, or 15-minute visits in Church (when an uncompromising one is available[3]) during the week is fulfilling the adoration request.       

The Causes of Mary’s Tears at La Salette; Our Resolutions to Console her:

1.    Revolt against God and His Church, sins of impiety and obstinacy.  Resolution:  Submission to God, cooperation with Divine grace.


2.    Profanation of the Lord’s Day.  Resolution:  Sanctification of this Holy Day through works of piety and charity.


3.    Taking the Lord’s name in vain, cursing and swearing.  Resolution: To honor and bless the name of the Lord, especially when it is blasphemed.


4.    Missing Mass on Sundays or Holy Days (when one is available).  Resolution: To assist at Mass faithfully and respectfully.


5.    Violation of the laws of fasting and abstinence.  Resolution: Faithful observance of these laws; spirit of mortification.


6.    Neglect of prayer.  Resolution:  Fidelity to morning and evening prayer; family Rosary.


7.    Indifference and ingratitude towards Our Heavenly Mother herself.  Resolution: Childlike confidence in Mary; zeal to spread the teachings of her merciful apparition.

Above, Our Lady spoke of bad marriages.  It is much worse now, with so many couples living together without benefit of marriage.  It has come to the point that they wear this mortal sin as a badge of dubious “honor.”  There is also no shame when the children are born, nor do people have any concept of sin and morality.

We are in a battle for souls.  The battle is against:

1.    Atheistic communism


2.    The efforts to destroy the Catholic Church’s human element


3.    International Masonry


4.    Modernism


5.    Liberalism


6.    Pervasive evil pop culture


7.    The devil’s efforts put forward through the conciliar church

We can no longer rely on the clergy of the Catholic Church.  They seem to be the first to accept the anti-Catholic changes from Vatican II.  It was said in Traditionalist circles, during the ’70s, that the Church would be destroyed from the “Top” and restored by the few good priests and laymen from the “Bottom.”  The liberal N-SSPX will not help to solve the problems of the crisis in the Church because they are part of the problem.

Because we are not listening to Our Lady, God has left us on our own, on the path to destruction.  Unquestionably, we are a long way down that path, to a point that we can almost see the future climax of the current great chastisement.  There is hope, though, with the coming supreme confrontation between the City of God and the Synagogue of Satan, (i.e., the decisive battle between the Virgin and the devil.[4]  The Virgin will crush the head of Satan and there will be peace, and the Church will triumph again.  We can help by following her Fatima 17-point Plan, and the 7-point Plan of La Salette.




[1]           Shortly after Pope Francis’ election, the Masons declared that he was a plan (i.e., “a design”) fulfilled.  Here are the words of Nicola Spinello, Adjunct-Vicar Grand Master of the Masons of Piazza del Gesù:


I believe that this pope [viz., Francis] is the realization of a design that has long wanted to be adopted.


Quoted in the book, Vaticano massone. Logge, denaro e poteri occulti: il lato segreto della Chiesa di papa Francesco, by Giacomo GALEAZZI – Ferruccio PINOTTI, Edizioni Piemme, Milano 2013, p.83, as quoted here: (bracketed word added to show the context).

[2]           The Whole Truth About Fatima, by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite,

    Vol. III, Ch.3, p.676.


[3]           Concerning why we should never enter a compromise church in order to pray, read this article:


[4]           Ibid, p. 745.

The Evil of Comfortably Tolerating Heresy

The Apostolic Fathers Rebuke the Conduct of Bishop Williamson’s Followers

Bishop Williamson continually increases his “collection” of heresies he promotes, as shown regularly in Catholic Candle


Read Bishop Williamson’s own words on many issues on which he teaches heresy (cited to his own sources) on our website.

and elsewhere. For example, Bishop Williamson promotes the heresies that:

Maybe Bishop Williamson’s followers disagree with his heresies. But they maintain a cowardly


Catholics must judge words and deeds objectively. But we must never judge a person’s interior, subjective culpability for sins, because that would be the sin of rash judgment. Read the explanation found here: Against sedevacantism

A person might have the superficial opinion that it is a sin of rash judgment for us to call “cowardly” the silence of Bishop Williamson’s followers. However, that opinion would be wrong.

The word, “cowardly” means:

being, resembling, or befitting a coward, e.g., a cowardly retreat. (emphasis added).

Thus, “cowardly” is a fair description of the silence of Bishop Williamson’s followers, when he teaches heresy and scandal, because their silence resembles and befits a coward (since they fail in their objective duty to stand up for the true Catholic Faith). But we don’t judge their internal, subjective culpability for these objective mortal sins of silent betrayal of the Catholic Faith.

silence and cordial relations with him. This is un-Catholic!

The Rule of St. Paul

Faithful Catholics must avoid teachers of heresy. Here is what St. Paul commands us to do:

Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent.


Romans, 16:17-18 (emphasis added).

Faithful Catholics boldly and openly oppose teachers of heresy. Here is how St. Irenaeus summarizes the Catholic attitude:

Such caution did the apostles and their disciples exercise that they might not even converse with any of those who perverted the truth; as [St.] Paul also said, “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Titus 3:10-11).


St. Irenaeus teaches this in his book Against Heresies, Book III, quoted in Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Penguin Classics, p.116-117.


The Example of St. John the Evangelist

Here is how St. John treated teachers of heresy:

[St.] John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe in Ephesus and seeing [the heretic] Cerinthus within, ran out of the bathhouse without bathing, crying, “Let us flee, lest even the bathhouse fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”


St. Irenaeus gives this account in his book Against Heresies, Book III, quoted in Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Penguin Classics, p.116-117.


Bishop Williamson’s followers do the opposite! They lavishly praise him and comfortably tolerate his heresies.

Bishop Williamson’s followers banquet with him. They laugh when he scoffs at St. John Chrysostom’s warnings about hell.


Read Bishop Williamson’s own words, cited to his own sources, here: Bishop Williamson Scoffs at St. John Chrysostom’s Frightening Warning about Going to Hell

See, e.g., this frame from a video of Bishop Zendejas’s consecration banquet, showing Bishops Faure and Zendejas smiling while Bishop Williamson mocks St. John Chrysostom. Id.

Where are the soldiers of Christ among Bishop Williamson’s followers? Did even one of them imitate St. John the Evangelist, crying out when he saw Bishop Williamson in the banquet hall:

Let us flee this banquet hall (the “bath house”) lest it fall, because Williamson the enemy of the truth, is within!

The Example of St. Polycarp

Here is how St. Polycarp treated teachers of heresy:

[St.] Polycarp himself, when [the heretic] Marcion once met him and said, “Knowest thou us?”, replied, “I know the first born of Satan.”


St. Irenaeus gives this account in his book Against Heresies, Book III, quoted in Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Penguin Classics, p.116-117.


How many of Bishop Williamson’s followers rebuked him as St. Polycarp rebuked other teachers of heresy? Did even one follower call this heresy-spewing bishop a “first born of Satan”?

The Fake Resistance’s Pattern of Lacking Zeal for the Faith

The Fake Resistance lacks zeal for the true Faith. Bishop Williamson tells his followers not be “too concerned” to convert souls to the Catholic Faith.


Read Bishop Williamson’s own words, cited to his own sources, here: Faithful Catholics Have a Missionary Spirit; Bishop Williamson Tries to Destroy this Spirit.

His followers respond by not being “too concerned” to bring their own leader to the truth.


Let us pray for Bishop Williamson’s weak followers, that they begin to faithfully and boldly stand up for the Truth, without human respect for Bishop Williamson!

Human respect will not help Bishop Williamson. Praying for him and boldly opposing his errors, will help him convert.

Vatican II Teaches the Heresy that Everyone Receives Grace

Catholic Candle note:

If only warned once against the principal errors of our Time, most people will lose their Faith.  They must be reminded periodically about each of these errors and the opposing Catholic Truth.  They will appreciate these reminders if they love the Faith, just like a man loves hearing people praise his spouse, if he loves her.  

People are continually bombarded with liberalism from all sides.  They will gradually and imperceptibly succumb to liberalism if they simply are not regularly warned and reminded about these errors which are foisted upon them repeatedly.  

Below, is an article about the error that everyone receives grace.  This article is an expanded version of an article we printed in February 2017.  A few weeks before that earlier article, Bishop Richard Williamson published the error that God gives grace to all men.  Here are Bishop Williamson’s words:

[T]o all men He [i.e., God] gives grace sufficient for them to know Him and love Him and so get to Heaven.[1]

The present article does not mention Bishop Williamson because he has changed his position.  He now correctly refers to men “possibly” receiving sanctifying grace, showing he no longer holds that everyone receives grace.  Here are his words:

And men are torn between the two from conception until death, because they receive from God their basic human nature and possibly sanctifying grace which both incline them to God, while from the Fall of Adam their nature is wounded with original sin which inclines them to Satan and to evil. Nor can any man alive avoid this conflict.[2]

Thus, to his credit, Bishop Williamson did his duty and publicly corrected his previous public error and scandal on this issue.  Please pray for him that he corrects his other errors too.[3]  When those errors are corrected, we will enthusiastically and gratefully welcome him and support him!

A person might be tempted to hold the feel-good belief circulating in our modernist age, that everyone receives grace.  This false belief agrees with our democratic mentality that everyone deserves equal opportunity to achieve his goals.  However, grace is a free, undeserved gift of God’s generosity, which He does not give to everyone.  

As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, it is not unfair or unjust that God does not give all men grace because grace is not a debt that God owes in justice.  Here are St. Thomas’s words, in which he contrasts debts owed in justice, to the gratuitous nature of God’s free and undeserved gift of grace:

There is a twofold giving.  One belongs to justice, and occurs when we give a man his due.  In this type of giving, [the sin of] respect of persons takes place [viz., fulfilling (or not fulfilling) our duty of justice based on the status of the particular person].  

The other giving belongs to liberality, when one gives gratis that which is not a man’s due.  Such is the bestowal of the gifts of grace, whereby sinners are chosen by God.  In such giving, there is no place for respect of persons, because anyone may, without injustice, give of his own as much as he will, and to whom he will, according to Matt. 20:14 & 15: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?  …  Take what is thine, and go thy way.”[4] 

Modernists (e.g., de Lubac) promote acceptance for the heresy of universal salvation by teaching that God gives grace to everyone.  For, if God gave everyone grace, then it would appear to narrow the chasm between all men and salvation.

The error that everyone receives grace also promotes the heresy of naturalism.  If a person (wrongly) considers grace as something given to every man simply because he is human, then this confuses the supernatural order with the natural order.  That is why Pope Pius XII, as part of his condemnation of heretical naturalism, insisted that God has no obligation to call all persons to salvation (which would require Him to give them grace).  Pope Pius XII condemned the modernist Henri de Lubac (who became a Cardinal after Vatican II), in these words:

Some [persons] … destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. 

Humani generis, §26 (emphasis added).[5]

This “calling them to the beatific vision” would require God to give them grace because (as St. Thomas explains) “no one can come … to the glory of the vision of God … except through grace”.[6] 

Further, as St. Thomas teaches, “the very least grace is sufficient to … merit eternal life.”[7]  Thus, in effect, Pope Pius XII condemned the naturalist heresy that God cannot create mankind without giving all men the grace “ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.”

Because grace and the call[8] to the beatific vision are free, undeserved gifts of God, God gives these gifts to only some men.  God does no injustice to those men to whom He does not give grace.[9] 

Vatican II Teaches the Error that God gives Grace to Everyone

As one of its countless errors, Vatican II teaches that God gives all men grace.  For example, in Lumen Gentium, the council teaches: “Christ … communicated truth and grace to all.”  Lumen Gentium, §8 (emphasis added).

As explained above, Vatican II’s error destroys the gratuitousness of God’s free, undeserved gift of grace.  As shown below, one of the most obvious ways to see this error, is by considering that a baby cannot go to heaven without baptism.

Everyone Who Dies Without Baptism and Before the Use of Reason, Dies Without Grace and Cannot Save His Soul

St. Thomas explains the teaching of the Catholic Church:

[M]an is not justified from sin[10] [including original sin] except by grace … [and] the very least grace is sufficient to … merit eternal life.[11]

But babies can only receive grace through Baptism (because they cannot use their reason and so cannot have Baptism of Desire[12]).  As the Summa explains:

[S]ometimes Baptism cannot be omitted without loss of eternal salvation, as in the case of children who have not come to the use of reason.[13]

Because a baby cannot get to heaven without grace and cannot obtain grace without baptism, the Church insists on prompt baptism.  As St. Thomas explains:

[W]e must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults.  For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred.  First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion.  Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.[14]

Summary of the Above Explanation

We see that God does not owe grace to anyone as a matter of justice.  Rather, grace is a free, undeserved gift of God and He chooses to give it to some persons and not to others.  God could choose to give baptism (and grace) to all unbaptized babies who die before the age of reason, but He does not.

It is a heresy (promoted by conciliar revolutionaries such as de Lubac) that God must call all intellectual beings to beatitude (and thus give them the grace required for this call to beatitude).

Unbaptized babies (who die before the age of reason) are obvious examples of persons to whom God never gives grace.   If they received grace, no one would be in Limbo. 

This suffices to show that Vatican II plainly teaches heresy[15] when it says that God gives grace to everyone.

It is Rash to Declare that God gives Grace even to All Adults.

It is rash to say that God gives grace to all adults.  Such a statement ignores that grace is a free, undeserved gift of God and that God gives grace only to whom He wills.  As St. Thomas explains, following St. Ambrose:

[T]he extrinsic and chief cause of devotion is God, of Whom [St.] Ambrose, commenting on Luke 9:55, says that “God calls whom He

deigns to call, and whom He wills, He makes religious; the profane

Samaritans[16], had He so willed,[17] He would have made devout.”[18]

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Greatest Doctor of the Church, follows St. Augustine, who is the Doctor of Grace, in teaching that God does not give grace to all adults.  Here are St. Thomas’s words, quoting St. Augustine:

If we understand those things alone to be in a man's power, which we can do without the help of grace, then we are bound to do many things which we cannot do without the aid of healing grace, such as to love God and our neighbor, and likewise to believe the articles of faith.  But with the help of grace we can do this, for this help “to whomsoever it is given from above it is mercifully given; and from whom it is withheld it is justly withheld, as a punishment of a previous, or at least of original sin,” as Augustine states.[19]

Note that St. Thomas, quoting St. Augustine, explains that God withholds grace from someone (although that person cannot obey all God’s commands without grace), either because that person has actual sins or at least because of original sin.

Prior unfaithfulness and actual sin are only further reasons (in addition to original sin) why God might never give grace to some adult, just as He also chooses to give no grace to unbaptized babies.

Summary of the Reasons so far, showing that Vatican II Teaches Heresy

The Catholic Faith teaches us that grace is a free, undeserved gift that God owes to no one and does not give to everyone.  

Vatican II falsely teaches that everyone receives grace.  Its teaching is false for at least five reasons:

  1. The council’s error means all unbaptized babies go to heaven, because those babies would receive grace (along with everyone else).  But those babies cannot lose grace because they cannot commit actual sin and so unbaptized babies who die, must all go to heaven because they all die with grace.  The Catholic Faith teaches the opposite, viz., that no unbaptized babies go to heaven.

  1. The council’s error destroys the gratuity of God’s free and undeserved gift of grace.
  2. The council’s error promotes the heretical naturalism condemned by Pope Pius XII.

  1. The council’s error promotes universal salvation, by appearing to narrow the chasm between all men and salvation.

  1. The council’s error rashly contradicts the great Doctors of the Church, and claims that all adults receive grace.

In teaching that God gives grace to everyone, Vatican II teaches an error about the Catholic Faith.  In other words, it teaches heresy.

Another reason it is clear that not everyone receives grace

When a person receives grace, he receives the Catholic Faith because grace causes the Catholic Faith in our souls.[20]  In other words, if a man has grace, he has the Catholic Faith also.[21]

It is the Catholic Faith which causes a person to become (or remain) Catholic.  If the person loses grace (and charity) through mortal sin but still has the Faith, then he becomes a dead member of the Church but remains Catholic.

If it were true that everyone receives grace, then it would be true that everyone receives the Catholic Faith, because grace causes the Faith.  If everyone receives the Catholic Faith, then everyone becomes a Catholic.  

But it is false that everyone becomes Catholic.  The Catholic Church differentiates apostates (who reject the Catholic Faith which they previously held) from other non-Catholics, e.g., Jews and pagans (who never had the Catholic Faith).[22] 

Thus, it is false that everyone receives grace, because it would make them all Catholics, and make all non-Catholics into apostates when they then reject the Catholic Faith (which is caused by grace).

Does this mean that non-Catholics go to hell without their own fault?

No.  We cannot get to heaven without God’s help.  However, anyone who goes to hell, goes there through his own fault.  God judges and blames him for the sins he committed freely, not for lacking the free gifts of grace God chose not to give him.  

The Natural Law is in every man’s heart and a man goes to hell because of his sins against the Natural Law, even if he did not have knowledge of the true Catholic Faith.[23]

If it were supposed that a man would somehow live his whole life without committing any mortal sin, yet he did not have any grace (and so could not go to heaven), then he would go to a place of natural happiness, the Limbo of the Babies.  The reality, though, is that, without grace, such a man commits mortal sin by his own free will and so goes to hell.

Using a Vatican Holy Office condemnation from 1690, to falsely support the error that everyone receives grace

Some people might wrongly suppose that a Vatican Holy Office condemnation from 1690, supports the error that everyone receives grace.  Here is that statement condemned by the Holy Office in 1690:


Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace.[24]

To infer means to “derive as a conclusion from facts or premises”.[25]  The Vatican Holy Office condemns the idea that from the bare fact that a person is not Catholic, we can rightly conclude he has not received grace.  This condemnation tells us that some non-Catholics receive grace (otherwise we could rightly conclude none receive grace).  Of those non-Catholics who receive grace, they either reject that grace or use it to begin a Catholic life.  

Through this condemnation, we know that some non-Catholics receive grace.  But this does not allow us to conclude that all non-Catholics receive grace.  This is like when we know that some members of a family are female, this does not allow us to conclude that all members of the family are female.  

The Jansenists were wrong when they said that no non-Catholics receive grace.  Although this Jansenist statement is justly condemned, it does not pertain to the issue at hand because the truth is that grace is a gratuitous (free) gift which God gives to whom He wills, including to some non-Catholics.  However, God does not give grace to everyone, as is clear from the explanation in this article and from the existence of the Limbo of the Babies; (no one would be in limbo if everyone received grace).

It is a mystery of God’s Providence what graces He does (and doesn’t) give, and to whom He gives (and doesn’t give) them, according to His Will.[26]


Let us thank God with all our heart for the precious gift of grace, through which the Catholic Faith, the Catholic life, and salvation are opened to us!  

How much more we should be grateful for this blessing, because we see that the gift of grace is not given to everyone and that God first gave it to us as His free, undeserved gift, not because of our prior merits!

[1]          January 14, 2017 Eleison Comments #496 (emphasis added; bracketed word added for clarity).

[2]          April 6, 2019 Eleison Comments, #612 (emphasis added).

[3]          Bishop Williams teaches errors on many subjects, e.g., he says that Traditional Catholics can go the new mass if it helps them.  Read his words cited from his own source, here:

[4]          Summa, IIa IIae, Q.63, a.1, ad 3 (emphasis and bracketed words added; ellipsis in original).

[5]          The connection between de Lubac and this condemnation, is set forth in Si Si No No issue #5, December 1993, in an article entitled They Think They’ve Won, Part three.

[6]          Here is the longer quote: “the holy Fathers [of the Old Testament] were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come except through grace; according to Rom. 6:23: ‘The grace of God is life everlasting.’”  Summa, III, Q. 52, a.7, respondeo; the quote from St. Paul is in the original.

[7]          Summa, IIIa, Q.62, a.6, ad 3.

[8]          Not only is the Beatific Vision itself a gratuitous gift of God but even the call itself to the beatific vision is a free, undeserved gift of God, which He does not give to all men.  Our Lord teaches us that “many [not all] are called but few are chosen.”  St. Matthew, 22:14 (bracketed words added).

[9]          St. Thomas gives an example of men not given grace, when he teaches: “God hid [true] wisdom from the [worldly] wise by not giving them grace.”  Quoted from Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas, ch.11, §960.  St. Thomas is explaining the Gospel verse “because Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent” (bracketed words added to reflect the context).  

Because grace is a free, undeserved gift of God, these worldly-wise men have no cause to claim that God was unjust by withholding His grace.

[10]          i.e., so that his sins are forgiven.

Summa, III, Q.62, a.6, ad 3 (bracketed words added).

         Contrary to the Feeneyite errors, the Catholic Church teaches the possibility of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.  Read the explanation here:

Summa Supp., Q.8, a.1, ad 2.

Summa, III, Q.68, a.3, respondeo (emphasis added).

[15]          Heresy is an error about the Catholic Faith.  Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this truth:

We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian Faith.  Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith.

Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.2, respondeo (emphasis added).

[16]          The Samaritans were heretics who lived between Judea and Galilee.  See, St. John’s Gospel, ch.4.

[17]          One might think that God gives everyone grace because God “will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”  1 Timothy 2:4.  However, God wills all men to be saved upon a condition which was not fulfilled, viz., that there be no sin.

Because sin entered the world, God’s unconditional will is that some persons are not saved and are not even “called” through grace.  For “many [not all] are called but few are chosen.”  St. Matthew’s Gospel, 22:14 (bracketed words added).

Among the examples of men that God could have saved but chose not to save (or even give them any grace), are babies who die without baptism, and also “the profane Samaritans [whom], had He so willed, He would have made devout”.

[18]          Summa, IIa IIae, Q.82, a.3 (emphasis added).

[19]          Summa, IIa IIae, Q.2 a.5. ad 1, emphasis added, quoting St. Augustine from De Corr. et Grat. v, vi [Cf. Epistle 190; De Praed. Sanct., viii.].

[20]          Here is how St. Thomas explains this important truth:

Grace causes faith not only when faith begins anew to be in a man, but also as long as faith lasts.  For it has been said above (I:104:1; I-II:109:9) that God is always working man’s justification, even as the sun is always lighting up the air. Hence grace is not less effective when it comes to a believer than when it comes to an unbeliever: since it causes faith in both, in the former by confirming and perfecting it, in the latter by creating it anew.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.4 a.4, ad 3 (emphasis added).

[21]          As the First Vatican Council teaches:

[Faith is] a supernatural virtue by which, under the inspiration and the aid of the grace of God, we believe that which He has revealed to us to be true: we believe it, not because of the intrinsic truth of the things seen by the natural light of our reason, but because of the very authority of God who has revealed us these truths, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Vatican I, Session 3, ch.3, Denz. 3008 (emphasis added).

[22]          For example, here is St. Thomas Aquinas, distinguishing between those non-Catholics who had previously been Catholic, and other persons who had never been Catholic:  St. Thomas explains:

[T]he unbelief of heretics, who confess their belief in the Gospel, and resist that faith by corrupting it, is a more grievous sin than that of the Jews, who have never accepted the Gospel faith.  Since, however, they accepted the figure of that faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false interpretations, their unbelief is a more grievous sin than that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.10, a.6.

[23]          The Natural Law is what we know we must do by the light of the natural reason God gave us. One example of the Natural Law is that we must never tell a lie.  We naturally know this because we know that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth and so we naturally know that telling a lie is abusing the purpose of speech.

Here is how St. Thomas explains what the Natural Law is:

[L]aw, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure. Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine Providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above [in Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.1]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine Providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: “Many say, Who showeth us good things?”, in answer to which question he says: “The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us”: thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

[24]          Statement condemned in a Decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690, 2305 Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum #1295, °5 (emphasis added).

[26]          The Jansenist statement is also justly condemned for a second reason: it says that no non-Catholics “receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ”.  There are many ways Our Lord influences various non-Catholics.  For example, He gives some of them grace.  Some, He influences through His Church by sending missionaries to them.  To some, He gives Catholic neighbors.  Some, He causes to attend a Catholic school.  There are countless other ways too, that Jesus Christ influences non-Catholics.  However, we do not discuss this further because we have already shown above that the condemned Jansenist statement does not pertain to the issue whether everyone receives grace.

The Conciliar Church Abuses the Phrase “People of God” to Promote Heresy

Catholic Candle note: When you read the word “conciliar” in the following article, think “anti-Catholic” or “anti-Christ”.

The devil and evil men in the conciliar church know that they can control people’s thinking if they control how people speak.  For example, “Christian” truly means one who follows Christ.  But only Catholics truly follow Christ and so only Catholics are really Christian.[1]

One who truly follows Christ enters heaven.  No one truly follows Christ unless he is a Catholic in the state of grace.  It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church!  If a person is not Catholic, he is not a Christian and cannot save his soul.[2]

The conciliar church abuses the word “Christian” by calling heretics and schismatics “Christian”, to promote the heresy that non-Catholics can go to heaven.

To promote Heresy, the Modernists adopted the phrase “the People of God”

Just as the conciliar church abuses “Christian” to corrupt people’s thoughts by corrupting speech, so also the conciliar church abuses “the People of God”.  Although one can use this phrase in a Catholic way (viz., to refer only to Catholics), the modernists have hijacked this phrase to promote two conciliar errors: ecumenism and collegiality.

Whereas Catholics seldom called the Church “the People of God” before Vatican II, the conciliar church has been continually using this phrase since the 1960s.


The conciliar church claims this phrase, “the People of God” as its own.

Vatican II (and the conciliar church it caused), increased the use of “the People of God” so dramatically that the conciliar church claims this phrase as its own innovation.  Pope John Paul II remarked that “the doctrine in which the Church is presented as the People of God” is a “novelty of the Second Vatican Council”.[3] 

Although the phrase is not completely new, nonetheless, because Vatican II widely popularized the phrase to promote heresy, a faithful and informed Catholic risks confusing and scandalizing others by using “the People of God”.

Vatican II’s use of this expression is traceable to the writings of a 20th Century Lutheran heretic.

Former Pope Benedict XVI (who served as a peritus, i.e., an expert, at Vatican II) traces the origin of Vatican II’s usage of the phrase “the People of God” to a Lutheran heretic, Ernst Käsemann.  Here is how this former pope explains Käsemann’s influence upon Vatican II:

There is a third factor that favored the idea of [using the phrase] the “People of God”.  In 1939, the Evangelical exegete, Ernst Käsemann, gave his monograph on the Letter to the Hebrews the title, The Pilgrim People of God. In the framework of Council discussions, this title became right away a slogan because it made something become more clearly understood in the debates on the Constitution on the Church [i.e., Lumen Gentium] ….[4]

The conciliar usage of the expression “the People of God” promotes heretical ecumenism with non-Catholics.

The conciliar church falsely teaches that the Church of Christ encompasses more than just the Catholic Church, and that therefore one need not belong to the Catholic Church to save one’s soul.  The conciliar church uses the phrase “the People of God” to spread this heresy (viz., there is salvation outside the Catholic Church).[5]

Here is the way former Pope Benedict XVI explains how the phrase “the People of God” promotes Vatican II’s ecumenism with the heretics and schismatics:

[T]he Council introduced the concept of “the People of God” above all as an ecumenical bridge.  It applies to another perspective as well: the rediscovery [sic!] of the Church after the First World War that initially was a phenomenon [sic!] common to both Catholics and Protestants. …

[T]he phrase “People of God” … expresses the ecumenical dimension, that is, the variety of ways in which communion and ordering to the Church can and do exist, even beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church.[6]

The conciliar notion of the Church as “the People of God” allows the conciliar church to falsely posit different degrees of “communion” with the Church.  Here is the way former Pope Benedict XVI explains how the phrase “the People of God” promotes the conciliar idea of degrees of “communion”:

If we use the image of a body to describe “belonging” we are limited only to the form of representation as “member”.  Either one is, or one is not, a member; there are no other possibilities.  One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.  

The Constitution on the Church [viz., Lumen Gentium] found it helpful for this purpose to use the concept of “the People of God”.  It could describe the relationship of non-Catholic Christians [sic] to the Church as being “in communion” and that of non-Christians as being “ordered” to the Church where in both cases one relies on the idea of the People of God (Lumen Gentium, nn. 15, 16).[7]

The conciliar usage of the expression “the People of God” promotes the heretical notion of a “horizontal”, non-hierarchical church.

This emphasis on “the People of God”, instead of the Mystical Body of Christ, de-emphasizes the hierarchical nature of the Church, since a body is hierarchical (with some parts more exalted and which control other parts) but “the people” is non-hierarchical.   This de-emphasis of hierarchy panders to the Protestants, as well as to the “we are church” modernist Catholics.[8]

Whereas priestly and Episcopal orders, and the delegation of Divine authority distinguish the clergy from the laity, describing the Catholic Church as “the People of God” obscures these differences.  For example, in Lumen Gentium, §13, Vatican II lumps together the hierarchy and clergy along with laymen as “members of the People of God”.[9]

Here is how former Pope Benedict XVI explained (with approval) how the phrase “the People of God” deemphasizes the hierarchical nature of the Church:

The expression does not lend itself easily to a description of the hierarchical structure of this community, especially if “People of God” is used in “contrast” to the ministers ….[10]


One can correctly describe the Catholic Church as “the People of God”.  However, Catholics seldom used this phrase.  Beginning at Vatican II, the modernists hijacked this phrase, and the conciliar church has used it ever since to promote two heresies.  

The “New” SSPX now uses the phrase “the People of God” as an additional step accustoming their followers to the way the conciliar church speaks

Because the SSPX formerly differed greatly from the conciliar church, to merge the SSPX into the conciliar church required enormous changes in how the SSPX thought and spoke.  

Thus, the leaders of the revolution in the SSPX had to tell its followers that they must “continually reposition”[11] themselves, i.e., continually change.  Bishop Fellay declared that the SSPX will try to maintain the support of its followers for a deal with Rome, by working hard to get its followers to understand the “new reality” in the Church.[12]

The “new” SSPX is steadily adopting the vocabulary of the conciliar church so that its followers will get used to how the conciliar church speaks.  The N-SSPX meters out its new conciliar terminology slowly enough to accustom its followers to hearing and using conciliar terms – without waking up those followers.  

The SSPX now speaks of “the People of God”, to accustom its followers to this conciliar lingo so they feel comfortable with it.[13]

But the SSPX also now uses many other conciliar phrases as part of its ongoing revolution against Catholic Tradition.  Here are a few more examples of the N-SSPX’s shift to conciliar terminology:

  1. Just as the conciliar church does, the N-SSPX describes the true Catholic Faith together with false heretical faiths, as “the Christian Faith” (in the singular).[14]

  1. The “new” SSPX promotes what it falsely calls “tradition”, by expanding this term to include groups that promote the new mass, the Assisi ecumenical gatherings, and the writings of Pope Francis.[15]

  1. Following the conciliar church by promoting the heresy of naturalism, the N-SSPX now defines the Catholic term “sacred” to include things such as any kind of bread and any eating together,[16] as well as all human life.[17]  Faithful and informed Catholics know that these are all only natural goods and are not sacred.

  1. The “new” SSPX follows the conciliar church in falsely saying that heretics and schismatics are “Christians”.[18]

  1. The “new” SSPX follows the conciliar church by falsely describing as “martyrs” those heretics who are killed for their heresies (e.g., by Muslims).[19]

  1. The “new” SSPX uses the phrase “faithful Catholics” to include those who attend the new mass.[20]

  1. Like the conciliar church, the “new” SSPX heretically teaches the vice of presumption, calling it the Theological Virtue of Hope.[21]

  1. The N-SSPX uses the conciliar jargon “Catholic Community” to refer to a parish, just as the conciliar church does.[22]        

  1. The N-SSPX uses the conciliar lingo degrees of communion (viz., full communion and partial communion), just as the conciliar church does.[23]

  1. The N-SSPX has begun to call the Traditional Mass by the conciliar name “Extraordinary Form” (just as the conciliar church does).[24]

  1. The N-SSPX follows the modernists by using the conciliar lingo “New Evangelization”, which is a program of indoctrination into conciliar errors.[25]


After Vatican II, most people who disliked the changes nonetheless stayed in their parishes, assuring themselves and each other that they would be strong enough to continue secretly rejecting the changes.  Those people gradually became conciliar.  

In the same way, most SSPX followers who dislike the SSPX’s changes have stayed in their local SSPX parish, assuring themselves and each other that they are strong enough to secretly reject the changes.  These people are gradually becoming conciliar.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it!

[1]        Read the explanation of this Catholic principle here:

[3]          Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, 25 January 1983 (emphasis added).

[4]          The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at (bracketed words added for clarity).

[5]          For a thorough explanation of this Vatican II heresy about a (so-called) “Church of Christ” which the conciliar church teaches is broader than the true Catholic Church, read the explanation in Lumen Gentium Annotated, by the editors of Quanta Cura Press, © 2013, p.47 et seq.  This book is available:


[6]          The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at: (emphasis and bracketed words added).

[7]          The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at: (parenthetical citation is in the original; bracketed words added for clarity).

[8]          When promoting the non-hierarchical expression, “the People of God”, former Pope Benedict XVI stated:

  1. “[S]omeone should ask what must I do to become Church and to grow like the Church”;
  2. [E]ach one of us can and ought to say, ‘we are the Church’”; and

  1. “[W]e must be the Church.  We are the Church”.

The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at:

Promoting conciliar collegiality, former Pope Benedict the XVI also warned that there is always a danger that the papal monarchy could have too much power.  Here are his words:

The idea of reform became a decisive element of the concept of the People of God, while it would be difficult to develop the idea of reform within the framework of the Body of Christ.  …  yet above and beyond all distinctions, all are pilgrims in the one community of the pilgrim People of God. … It is certainly true that there are imbalances that need correcting.  We should watch for and root out an excessive Roman centralization that is always a danger.

The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at: (emphasis added).

[9]         For a thorough explanation of the hundreds of heresies in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, read: Lumen Gentium Annotated, by the editors of Quanta Cura Press, © 2013.  

This book is available:


[10]          The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at:

[11]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

[12]          When Bishop Fellay was asked if the SSPX [can] be confident of the support of SSPX churchgoers for reconciliation (i.e., a “deal”) with Rome, he stated:

It will be quite a work, and it will take time to be able to bring the faithful to realize this new face in the history of the Church, this new reality ….

In other words, Bishop Fellay recognizes that, over time, he has to change the way the priests and laymen see things, and get them accustomed to accepting the “new reality” of the conciliar church.  How else could the “new” SSPX ever fit into the conciliar church?  Reflect for a moment: how often has he and the “new” SSPX assured us that “nothing has changed”, while the revolution advances?

[13]          For example, liberal Fr. Jurgen Wegner, N-SSPX U.S. District superior wrote a recent letter which stated:

It is hard to imagine such strong medicine for grave moral ills being prescribed by Rome today, yet that is what the Church requires if she is ever to recover.  In the meantime, the People of God cannot sit idly by waiting for a new Pius V to ascend to the Papal Thone with a divine mandate to secure the faithful and drive the unrepentant from the temple.

Quoted from Fr. Wegner’s undated letter mailed to the N-SSPX’s U.S. mailing list in late October 2018 (emphasis added).

[14]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

[15]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

[16]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

[17]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

[18]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

[19]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

[20]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

[22]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

[23]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

[24]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words from its own source here:

[25]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

New doctrines are not Catholic. They are heresy.

Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist. In fact, we published a nine-part series setting out the errors of sedevacantism (and also why it is wrong to believe that former Pope Benedict XVI continues to be pope).

A reader would be mistaken to believe that the article below gives any support to sedevacantism. This article simply shows that Vatican II’s teachings, because they are new, cannot be Catholic and must be rejected. In this way, Vatican II’s teachings are like any other erroneous teachings of a pope or bishops. See, e.g., Pope John XXII’s denial (in the 14th century) of a doctrine that the Church has always taught infallibly (although this denial did not prevent him from being pope).

The First Vatican Council infallibly teaches that new teachings are not the proper subject matter for the guidance of the Holy Ghost:

For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Sess. 4, ch.4, #6 (emphasis added).

The Council of Trent Catechism teaches:

[The Catholic Church’s] doctrines are neither novel nor of recent origin, but were delivered, of old, by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the world. Hence, no one can, for a moment, doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed, as they are, to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church.

Council of Trent Catechism, under Creed: Apostolicity (emphasis added).

New doctrines are so foreign to Catholicism that St. Thomas Aquinas defines heretics as follows: A heretic is someone who devises or follows false or new opinions. Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.1 Sed contra (emphasis added). Notice St. Thomas does not say “false and new opinions”. The newness of a doctrine is already sufficient reason to reject it.

The Second Council of Nicea, in 787 AD, condemned doctrinal innovators and rejected all innovations, with these words:

[W]e declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us. … Therefore, all those who … devise innovations or who spurn anything entrusted to the Church …, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people.

Emphasis added.

Pope St. Pius X describes modernists in terms of their break with tradition and their embrace of novel doctrines:

[T]hey pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the Holy and Apostolic Traditions.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, ¶13, quoting from the encyclical Singulari nos of Pope Gregory XVI, June 25, 1834 (emphasis added).


It is clear that the Holy Ghost is not promised as a guide for the teaching of new doctrines. Further, the Catholic Church has always taught that Her doctrines are not new. Rather, the Catholic Church condemns new doctrines and considers them heresy.

As Admitted by the Conciliar Revolutionaries, Vatican II’s Teachings Are New, Which shows that Those Teachings are False.

Having seen above that the Catholic Church rejects new doctrines and certainly does not teach them infallibly, we next look at whether Vatican II’s teachings are new. If they are, then they cannot be infallible and must be rejected. Below, we set forth the testimony of the hierarchy that the teachings of Vatican II are new. (This is merely one “level” of proof among many, showing that we must reject the teachings of Vatican II.)

The testimony of Pope John Paul II:

[W]hat constitutes the substantial “novelty” of the Second Vatican Council, in line with the legislative tradition of the Church, especially in regard to ecclesiology, constitutes likewise the “novelty” of the new Code [of canon law].

Among the elements which characterize the true and genuine image of the Church, we should emphasize especially the following: the doctrine in which the Church is presented as the People of God (cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 2), and authority as a service (cf. ibid., no. 3); the doctrine in which the Church is seen as a “communion”, and which, therefore, determines the relations which should exist between the particular Churches and the universal Church, and between collegiality and the primacy; the doctrine, moreover, according to which all the members of the People of God, in the way suited to each of them, participate in the threefold office of Christ: priestly, prophetic and kingly. With this teaching there is also linked that which concerns the duties and rights of the faithful, and particularly of the laity; and finally, the Church’s commitment to ecumenism. …

[T]he Second Vatican Council has … elements both old and new, and the new consists precisely in the elements which we have enumerated ….

Pope John Paul II, Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, January 25, 1983 (emphasis added).

As quoted above, Pope John Paul II specifically identified key doctrines of Vatican II as novelties. Among the chief novel teachings of Vatican II (and which are contained in the 1983 code of canon law), he lists: the Church, the universal sacrament of salvation [meaning everyone goes to heaven] is shown to be the People of God and its hierarchical constitution to be founded on the College of Bishops together with its head. Pope John Paul II, Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, January 25, 1983.

We have other warnings that the conciliar doctrines are novelties, (for which the Holy Ghost was not promised). Pope John Paul II admitted the council’s novelties in these words:

Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

Ecclesia Dei, (1988), ¶5b.

The pope is calling for deeper study because 23 years after the council, he acknowledges that Vatican II’s continuity with Sacred Tradition is still not shown (nor can it be)!

The testimony of Pope Benedict XVI:

In the first year of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI said:

[W]ith the Second Vatican Council, the time came when broad new thinking was required.

December 22, 2005 Christmas address (emphasis added).

Before he became pope, Cardinal Ratzinger taught:

If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. … Let us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789 [by the Masonic French Revolution].

Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, translator, Sr. Mary Frances McCarthy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press 1987), pp. 381-382; French edition: Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique – Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427 (emphasis added; bracketed words added; parenthetical words are in the original).

Note: Obviously, whatever is the opposite (that is, the “countersyllabus”) of the Catholic Church’s prior teaching, must be a novel teaching which the Church did not previously teach. Yet this is how Pope Benedict XVI described some of the main teachings of Vatican II! Thus, clearly, Vatican II’s teachings contain novelties (which are therefore false).

The testimony of Pope Paul VI:

The new position adopted by the Church with regard to the realities of this earth is henceforth well known by everyone …. [T]he Church agrees to recognize the new principle to be put into practice …. [T]he Church agrees to recognize the world as ‘self-sufficient’; she does not seek to make the world an instrument for her religious ends ….

August 24, 1969 Declaration of Pope Paul VI, L’Osservatore Romano; (emphasis added).

Further, Pope Paul VI also referred to the “newness” of the doctrine of the Second Vatican Council, in a general audience on January 12, 1966.

Statements Made by other Members of the Hierarchy

Other members of the hierarchy have also made clear statements concerning the novelty and rupture of the teachings of Vatican II.

Near the close of the council, Cardinal Congar stated:

What is new in this teaching [regarding religious liberty] in relation to the doctrine of Leo XIII and even of Pius XII, although the movement was already beginning to make itself felt, is the determination of the basis peculiar to this liberty, which is sought not in the objective truth of moral or religious good, but in the ontological quality of the human person.

Congar, in the Bulletin Etudes et Documents of June 15, 1965, as quoted in I Accuse the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre, p. 27, Angelus Press, 2009 (emphasis added; bracketed words added).

Yves Cardinal Congar was made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II in recognition for Cardinal Congar’s lifelong dedication to the conciliar revolution. Cardinal Congar likened Vatican II to the triumph of the communists in Russia, calling Vatican II the “October Revolution” in the Church. Yves Congar, The Council Day by Day: Second Session p. 215, (1964).

By this parallel, Cardinal Congar is telling us that Vatican II was an overthrow of the established order in the Catholic Church. Note that, by making this particular comparison, Cardinal Congar saw fit to compare Vatican II to the triumph of the anti-God communists in Russia!

Cardinal Suenens compared Vatican II to a different anti-God revolution. He made the same parallel as Cardinal Ratzinger did (quoted above), comparing Vatican II to the anti-God, Masonic French Revolution, saying that Vatican II was the “1789” in the Church. Quoted in the Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, Pt., 5, by Fr. M. Gaudron, SSPX.

In all three of the cardinals’ comparisons of Vatican II with a communist or Masonic revolution, it is clear that they are stating that Vatican II’s teaching is revolutionary, and thus it is new and false.

Conclusion Regarding the Non-Infallibility (and Falsity) of Vatican II’s Teachings based on their Newness (Novelty)

We have seen that the Holy Ghost is not promised for the teaching of new doctrines. Further, the Catholic Church has always taught that Her doctrines are not new and cannot change. Rather, the Catholic Church condemns new doctrines and considers them heresy.

We have also seen that Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI (as well as some cardinals), have all stated that Vatican II’s doctrines are new. Therefore, Vatican II’s teachings cannot be infallible (and further, they must be rejected because they are new and heretical).