Oh yes, we are all tested daily to determine if we are part of the current church crisis, or fighting against it.  We all, in turn, are graded daily, with our final grade a big part of our personal judgment after death.

What are we tested on?

1.    Are you fighting hard against the liberalism and modernism of the Second Vatican Council?

2.    Do you stand silent about liberalism in the New SSPX?  Or do you speak up against it?

3.    Are you doing your best to fight for Christ the King every chance you get?

4.    Are you ready to speak up against the heresy coming from Rome?

5.    Do you speak up against immodest dress and the evil use of God’s name in vain?

6.    Do you go to Mass and the Sacraments often (when available for uncompromising Catholics)?

7.    Do you challenge a priest or bishop who, in a sermon or retreat, leans liberal?

8.    Do you go along to get along with others when you’re away from home, rather than speak up against the many evils so common in society today?

9.    Are you also willing to stand alone against the majority when they accept the idea that the parish priest always knows best, and one has to follow him regardless of where he leads?

10. Are you unwilling to accept a compromising bishop or priest and their Sacraments or sacramentals?

11. Do you always speak up against liberal gradualism, which is the downfall of many?

Above is a partial list of the “test questions” asked daily of everyone for the salvation of his soul.  In most cases, one would feel alone because so few are in the fight as uncompromising traditional Catholics.  But for sure you should never feel alone, for your “Champion” is Christ Himself, Who tells us simply:

Follow Me.  I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  Without the Way, there is no going.  Without the Truth, there is no knowing.  Without the Life, there is no living.  I am the Way which you must follow, the Truth which you must believe, the Life for which you must hope.  I am the inviolable Way, the infallible Truth, the unending Life.[1]

With Christ to lean on, how can you feel alone?  From experience, I can assure you that is so.

You might ask what you can do to improve your test score?  You can study the Catholic Faith and inform your conscience, along with strengthening your prayer life.

Be advised that most people, rather than fight, go along with the crowd; it is easier that way.  But this leads down the treacherous path of believing that whatever the majority believes is always right.  Not true, not true!

Speaking up and speaking out for Christ the King has additional benefits other than just your salvation.  It is certain to help timid Catholics gather strength to join the fight.

I believe the downfall for most Catholics just after Vatican Council II in the ‘60s and ‘70s was accepting a little liberalism from their parish priest and local bishop.  As the floodgates of liberalism opened, because people had little knowledge of the Catholic Faith and studied their Faith little, most of them lost the Faith and joined the conciliar church.

If you are confronted with a questionable situation, then just seek light from our Lord.  What would He say to your informed conscience?

God is very much aware of your efforts to stand up for Him.  He can read your heart.  He is always ready to help and console, according to His Will.  So be confident that you will prevail in the end because He helps those who suffer abuse in His defense.

Take courage, brethren, let us go forward together and Jesus will be with us.  For Jesus’ sake we have taken this cross.  For Jesus’ sake let us persevere with it.  He will be our help as He is also our Leader and Guide.  Behold, our King goes before us and will fight for us.  Let us follow like men.[2]                                                                                                           

We are in a state of war in the human element of the Catholic Church.  Although the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church,[1] the current crisis is an all-out combat between the faithful members of the Church Militant and the modernist enemies of Christ.

Our fight is similar to the war in the Fourth Century, between Catholics and the Arian heretics.  The great historian, Cardinal Newman, tells us that during this Arian crisis, the pope, the bishops, and General Councils of the Church hid the truth and compromised the Catholic Faith.  Here is how Cardinal Newman recounted these events:

[I]n that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the ‘Ecclesia docta’ [i.e., the laity] than by the ‘Ecclesia docens;’ [i.e., the hierarchy]; that the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan,[2] or other great see, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth ….[3]

The same is true now, in the present Great Apostasy.  Pope Francis and the rest of the Church’s hierarchy as well as the Second Vatican Council, have hidden, compromised, and falsified the truths of the Catholic Faith.

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church, recounts how only heresy was loudly professed during Arian times and how true Catholics avoided the church buildings because those buildings were places of evil.  Here are St. Basil’s words:

Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven.[4] 

What was true during Arian times, is also true during the current Great Apostasy.  Faithful and informed Catholics are marginalized and ignored, while the so-called Catholic leaders in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres let loose their “blaspheming tongues” (as St. Basil called them). 

Moreover, as was true during Arian times, so it is also true now.  Faithful and informed Catholics would never go into a conciliar church (or other compromise church) to pray because those churches are “schools of impiety” (as St. Basil called them).[5]

St. Basil the Great recounts how, because they were driven out of the churches (which were occupied by a false religion), faithful Catholics sanctified the Sunday wherever they could worship in solitude, despite their sufferings.  Here are St. Basil’s words:

Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts, — a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid the most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun.  To this they submit, because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven.[6] 

Again, what was true during Arian times, is also true during the current Great Apostasy.  Faithful and informed Catholics sanctify the Sunday in their homes or wherever else they can pray in peace and solitude, wishing to have no part of the wicked conciliar leaven.

St. Basil the Great recounts how Catholic Tradition was banned but anything else was accepted.  Those Catholics who were faithful to Tradition were deprived of the churches and altars for Mass.  Here are St. Basil’s words:

Only one offence is now vigorously punished — an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries, and transported into deserts. The people are in lamentation, in continual tears at home and abroad. There is a cry in the city, a cry in the country, in the roads, in the deserts.  Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up, our altars deprived of the spiritual worship.[7]

As was true during Arian times, the same is true during the current Great Apostasy.  Anything is permitted except Catholic Tradition, and it alone is “vigorously punished” (to use St. Basil’s description).  Faithful and informed Catholics are deprived of their churches and altars for Mass.  We are also, in effect, “driven out” of the churches of liberal groups because it would be a compromise to enter there.

Just as in Arian times, so also now in the present Great Apostasy, the conciliar Catholics have the churches but we have the Catholic Faith.  Here are the words of St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church, consoling his flock during the Arian crisis:

May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside.  It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the apostolic Faith.  They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith.  You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you.  Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith?  The true Faith, obviously.  Who has lost and who has won in this struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …  You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition.  And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded.  They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church.  They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.[8]

To quote St. Athanasius, who consoled his flock during the Arian crisis, we should also be consoled in the present Great Apostasy:

➢  We remain Catholic, whereas the conciliar revolutionaries “claim that they represent the Church, but in reality … are the ones who have broken away … in the present crisis”;

➢  Although small in number, “even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ”.

➢  As in Arian times, so now in our time, “we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.”

Why are/were Faithful Catholics willing to suffer greatly, both in Arian times and during the present Great Apostasy?

The spiritual life is inherently aimed at espousal of our souls as brides of Christ.[9]  For those Traditional Catholics who love Our Lord more, their sufferings during this present Great Apostasy are a joy because they suffer for the Bridegroom of their souls, Who is Christ.  This joy in suffering is explained in the Traditional Catholic Exhortation before Marriage, in these words:

Only love can make suffering easy; and perfect love can make it a joy. We are willing to give in proportion as we love.

However, even for the rest of us, we see that this suffering and ostracism from (the human element of) the Church is much better than committing a sin – even a venial sin – not to mention the grave sin of joining with the Masses or sacraments of the compromise groups.  Here is how Cardinal Newman states this truth:

The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one willful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.[10]

Conclusion

Let us Traditional Catholics bear our tribulations with joy – if our love for Christ makes us joyful in our sufferings, through the extra graces He gives during this present Great Apostasy.

Otherwise, let us at least firmly bear our sufferings with a strong heart and with peace of soul, “knowing that the same affliction befalls [our] brethren who are in the world.” 1 Peter, 5:9.

Catholic Candle note:  Occasionally, we analyze the problems in the liberal SSPX.  Someone could wonder:

Why mention the SSPX any longer, since they are unimportant as merely one of very many compromise groups? 

It is true that a priest (or group) is of small importance when he (or the group) is merely one of countless compromisers.  By contrast, an uncompromising priest is of great importance, even though he is only one.

However, regarding the “new” SSPX: we sometimes mention them for at least these four reasons, motivated by charity:

➢  New Catholic Candle readers might not be sufficiently informed of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to avoid that group.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these warnings to help these new readers appreciate the danger of the N-SSPX.

➢  Some longtime Catholic Candle readers might forget the N-SSPX poison or vacillate in their resolution to stay away from the N-SSPX, if they never received a reminder warning about the danger of the N-SSPX.  This is like the fact that all it takes for many people to become conciliar is to never hear about the errors of Vatican II and the conciliar church.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these reminders for readers who would otherwise “forget” the danger of the N-SSPX.

➢  The N-SSPX serves as an important study case to examine how leaving the truth often happens.  It is a warning to us all about a very common way to depart from the truth and become unfaithful.  Out of charity for ourselves we occasionally provide these insights about becoming unfaithful by taking this common road of compromise the N-SSPX is taking.

➢  Over time, the N-SSPX provides us with a thorough catalogue of liberal compromises and studying those compromises and errors with the contrasting Traditional Catholic truth is a helpful means of studying our Faith and guarding ourselves from the principal errors of our time.  This helps us to fulfill our duty of continually studying the doctrines of our Faith.  Out of charity for ourselves, we use the occasional of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to study our Traditional Catholic Faith better and the corresponding the N-SSPX liberalism.

For those readers who are resolute in their resolution to completely avoid all support for the N-SSPX, they can receive just as much of the substance of those Catholic Candle articles, if they substitute the phrase “a liberal could say” anytime they read “the SSPX teaches”.

 
I am referring to how Catholics reacted to the very liberal faith-destroying changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s and ‘70s, and how the current followers of the N-SSPX are reacting to the very liberal faith-destroying changes brought about by the current leadership.

In the ‘60s and ‘70s, Catholics who were not happy with the changes believed their Faith was strong enough that they could go along to get along and not lose their Faith.  They would fight for tradition when necessary, but fight from “within”.  They were wrong.  Liberalism and gradualism took over and their naiveté cost them dearly: they lost the Faith without even realizing it.  With liberalism and gradualism, you lose your Faith little by little, accepting changes you and others believe make sense and are necessary to be part of today’s world.  After all, you must stay relevant and on top of things in our fast-changing world.

This brings us to the followers of today’s liberal N-SSPX.  Perhaps their parents (or even grandparents) joined Archbishop Lefebvre in the late ‘70s, after he started the strongly-traditional Society of St. Pius X.  The SSPX did much good saving souls until the Archbishop died in 1991.  Then the popularity-seeking new leadership took over, gradually liberalizing and changing in order to be more acceptable to the (anti-Catholic) conciliar church in Rome.  They stopped fighting against it as the Archbishop had fought when he was alive.

Here again, liberalism and gradualism are taking over, and the N-SSPX followers are losing their Faith little by little, without realizing it.  They mistakenly believe that if they accept a little liberalism in order to have the sacraments, God will understand.  No, He won’t!  God does not accept compromise in the Faith under any circumstance.

I believe the followers of the liberal “new” Society of St. Pius X feel they are strong enough in their Faith that they won’t lose it.  After all, their families have been through a lot since the 1970s, fighting for tradition alongside Archbishop Lefebvre.  They think they will know when to push back or leave if the new liberal SSPX crosses their line in the sand.  They are confident that no one can take their Faith from them and that they will know when to leave.

Besides, they assume there is strength in numbers, and they are comfortable with other parishioners who think like they do.  They feel that they can look after each other and discuss any problems they detect, such as the SSPX constantly asking for money.  They are convinced that they are watchful and can act when necessary, and that gradualism can’t take their Faith away.

This approach of the N-SSPX’s followers regarding the loss of their Faith, is the same approach taken by most Catholics after the Second Vatican Council.  They are unaware that the “necessary” changes they made are gradually robbing them of their Catholic Faith.

So, it is eminently logical to fear that the final results will be the same as in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and that most of them will lose the Faith.  The problem, then as now, is that the necessity to act never actually comes, and gradualism takes their Faith before they realize it.  In fact, they never notice the point when they have lost the Faith.  Just as people in the ‘60s and ‘70s never noticed their loss of Faith, so the N-SSPX’s followers won’t notice it today.  That’s the power of the devil and gradualism.  They will never correct a problem (i.e., gradually losing the Faith) if they don’t even know they have the problem.  This is like an alcoholic never takes steps to change until he first recognizes that he has a drinking problem.

Wake up, followers of the liberal SSPX! – the same SSPX that accepts 95% of the evils of VC II.  The N-SSPX is liberal quicksand and those who are in it cannot see it.  Save your Faith and your soul!  Join the uncompromising Traditional Catholics in the Catacombs, for Faith-saving support and knowledge.

Catholic Candle note:  The article below pertains to another scandalous error of the conciliar church.  However, a reader would be mistaken if he assumed that grave conciliar errors somehow mean that we do not have a pope.

Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  On the contrary, we published a series of articles showing that sedevacantism is false (and also showing that former Pope Benedict is not still the pope).  Read the articles here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html 

Here is what St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, teaches concerning the need to recognize and respect the authority of a superior – such as the pope – even when he is bad:

Even should the life of any superior be so notoriously wicked as to admit of no excuse or dissimulation, nevertheless, for God’s sake, Who is the source of all power, we are bound to honor such a one, not on account of his personal merits, which are non-existent, but because of the divine ordination and the dignity of his office.[1]

However, even while recognizing the authority of the post-Vatican II popes and our duty to obey them when we are able, we know we must resist the evil they promote and do.  Read more about this principle here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html#section-7

Judas is in Hell.
The Conciliar Church says he might be in heaven.

Faithful and informed Catholics know that Judas is in hell.

Our Lord declared that it would have been better for Judas to have never been born.  Here are His words:

The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.[2]

Our Lord’s words tell us Judas is in Hell.  For if Judas were ever to go to heaven, even if (hypothetically) he were to first spend trillions of years in Purgatory, then it would be better for Judas to have been born, because trillions of years are finite and are as nothing compared to eternity. 

When trillions of years are over, eternity would be just beginning (to speak metaphorically).  Any amount of time in Purgatory – however long – is insignificant compared to unending eternity in heaven.  Thus, Judas must be in hell because it is good to have been born for anyone who eventually goes to heaven.

Also, we know Judas is among the lost.  Our Lord says that none of His Apostles are among the lost except Judas, the son of perdition.  Here are Our Lord’s words:

And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to Thee.  Holy Father, keep them in Thy name whom Thou has given Me; that they may be one, as We also are.  While I was with them, I kept them in Thy name.  Those whom Thou gavest Me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.[3] 

Thus, we know that Judas, the son of perdition, has been lost and is in hell.

The Doctors of the Catholic Church echo Our Lord’s clear declarations that Judas is in hell.

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, teaches that God could have saved Judas[4] but God knew that He would not save Judas and so He prepared a place in hell for Judas based on His (viz., God’s) foreknowledge that Judas would damn himself.  Here are St. Thomas’s words:

To save Judas would not be contrary to justice but rather would have been beyond justice.  Nonetheless, to save Judas would have been contrary to God’s foreknowledge and contrary to the fact that there was a place in hell for Judas because God knew Judas would damn himself [abusing his free will].[5]

Pope St. Leo the Great, Doctor of the Church, teaches that Judas never repented of his grave sin – but rather that he committed suicide out of despair, adding guilt to guilt. Here are St. Leo’s words:

The traitor Judas did not attain to this mercy, for the son of perdition (Jn. 17:12), at whose right hand the devil had stood (Ps. 108:6), had before this died in despair; even while Christ was fulfilling the mystery of the general redemption. Even he perhaps might have obtained this forgiveness, had he not hastened to the gallowstree; for the Lord died for all evildoers.  But nothing ever of the warnings of the Savior’s mercy found place in that wicked heart: at one time given over to petty cheating, and then committed to this dread parricidal traffic.  …  The godless betrayer, shutting his mind to all these things [expressions of the Lord’s mercy], turned upon himself, not with a mind to repent, but in the madness of self-destruction: so that this man [viz., Judas] who had sold the Author of life to the executioners of His death, even in the act of dying sinned unto the increase of his own eternal punishment.[6]

St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, declares Judas is in hell.  Here are St. Augustine’s words:

For if it is not lawful to take the law into our own hands, and slay even a guilty person whose death no public sentence has warranted, then certainly he who kills himself is a homicide.  …  Do we justly execrate the deed of Judas, and does truth itself pronounce that by hanging himself he rather aggravated than expiated the guilt of that most iniquitous betrayal, since, by despairing of God’s mercy in his sorrow that wrought death, he left to himself no place for a healing penitence?  …  For Judas, when he killed himself, killed a wicked man, and passed from this life chargeable not only with the death of Christ, but also with his own: for though he killed himself on account of his crime, his killing himself was another crime.[7]

The Council of Trent Catechism teaches that Judas lost his soul and thus, is in hell:

Furthermore, no one can deny that it is a virtue to be sorrowful at the time, in the manner, and to the extent which are required.  To regulate sorrow in this manner belongs to the virtue of penance.  Some conceive a sorrow which bears no proportion to their crimes.  Nay, there are some, says Solomon, who are glad when they have done evil.  Others, on the contrary, give themselves to such melancholy and grief, as utterly to abandon all hope of salvation.  Such, perhaps, was the condition of Cain when he exclaimed: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon.  Such certainly was the condition of Judas, who, repenting, hanged himself, and thus lost soul and body. Penance, therefore, considered as a virtue, assists us in restraining within the bounds of moderation our sense of sorrow.[8]

The Council of Trent Catechism further teaches that Judas’s apostleship brought him only eternal ruin.  Here are the catechism’s words:

Some are attracted to the priesthood by ambition and love of honors; while there are others who desire to be ordained simply in order that they may abound in riches, as is proved by the fact that unless some wealthy benefice were conferred on them, they would not dream of receiving Holy Orders. It is such as these that our Savior describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this, that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction.[9]

In addition to the Doctors of the Church, the Church’s traditional, public prayers tell us that Judas is in hell.  Here is the traditional Collect both for Holy Thursday and Good Friday:

O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: grant unto us the full fruit of Thy clemency; that even as in His Passion our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each a different recompense according to his merits, so having cleared away our former guilt, He may bestow on us the grace of His resurrection: Who with Thee liveth and reigneth ….  (emphasis added).

Commenting on this Collect, Dom Guéranger explains that the Church “reminds our heavenly Father of His justice towards Judas and His mercy towards the Good Thief”.[10]  This “justice towards Judas” is Judas’s eternal punishment.

Conclusion of this section of the article

We know Judas is in hell from:

·         Our Lord’s words;

·         The teaching of the Doctors of the Church;

·         The Council of Trent Catechism; and

·         The Church’s Traditional public prayers.

The conciliar church says that Judas might have saved his soul

The conciliar church is a different and anti-Catholic religion.[11]  The conciliar church says that Judas might be in heaven or might go to heaven in the future.

On April 8, 2020, Pope Francis said that Judas might have saved his soul.  Here are his words:

Something that calls my attention is that Jesus never calls him [viz., Judas] “traitor”: [Jesus] says he will be betrayed, but he doesn’t say to [Judas], “traitor.”  He never says, “Go away, traitor.”  Never.  In fact, he calls him, “Friend,” and he kisses him.  The mystery of Judas ….  What is the mystery of Judas. I don’t know … Don Primo Mazzolari explains it better than me … Yes, it consoles me to contemplate that capital [viz., the heading of the article] of Vezelay [an author]: How did Judas end up?  I don’t know.  Jesus threatens forcefully here; he threatens forcefully: “woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”  But does that mean that Judas is in Hell?  I don’t know. I look at that capital. And I listen to the word of Jesus: ‘Friend.’”[12]

Pope Francis is here promoting universal salvation (i.e., everyone goes to heaven) by suggesting that even Judas might go in heaven. 

Although Pope Francis has a penchant for grabbing attention for his modernist pronouncements, his evil suggestion that Judas might be in heaven is not the first time the conciliar church has suggested that Judas might be saved.  In 1994, Pope John Paul II specifically denied the meaning of Our Lord’s words showing Judas’s damnation.  Here are Pope John Paul II’s words:

Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, “It would be better for that man if he had never been born” (Mt.26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.[13]

Conciliar (false) “theologian” Hans Urs von Balthasar, who was a close associate of Cardinal Ratzinger (former Pope Benedict XVI), also promoted the idea that Judas might be in heaven or might go to heaven.  In his book, Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved?”, von Balthasar stated:

I would like to request that one be permitted to hope that God’s redemptive work for his [sic] creation might succeed.  Certainty cannot be attained, but hope can be justified.  That is probably the reason why the Church, which has sanctified so many men, has never said anything about the damnation of any individual.  Not even about that of Judas ….  Who can know the nature of the remorse that seized Judas when he saw that Jesus had been condemned (Mt. 27:3)?”[14]

On December 11, 2019, conciliar (so-called) “archbishop” Vincenzo Paglia, the President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, goes so far as to declare that anyone who says “Judas is in hell” is a heretic.  Here are Paglia’s words:

I always celebrate funerals for those who commit suicide, because suicide is always a question of unfulfilled love.  We must also remember that, for the Catholic Church, if someone says that Judas is in hell, he is a heretic.[15]

It seems that the conciliar church’s only “heretics” are those that profess the Catholic Church’s traditional teachings.

Why does the conciliar church teach that Judas might be in heaven (or might go to heaven)?

The conciliar church promotes three of its goals by suggesting that Judas might be in heaven or might go to heaven:

1)    It promotes change:  This error (that Judas might be in heaven) is one of countless revolutionary changes which the modernists favor because the modernists despise the Church’s traditional teachings and have a “blind and unchecked passion for novelty”.[16]

2)    It promotes universal salvation:  This error (that Judas might be in heaven) promotes the heresy of universal salvation.  Judas’s damnation is an obstacle to the conciliar church promoting of the heretical “hope” that all men are saved.[17]

3)    It promotes acceptance of suicide:  The (supposed) salvation of Judas helps to reduce an obstacle to the conciliar church’s leaning toward accepting suicide and assisted suicide.[18]

Conclusion of this article

Judas is in hell, although the conciliar church promotes three modernist goals by suggesting that Judas might be in heaven.

Consider the parallel between Judas and the modern hierarchy:

·         Judas was one of the original twelve bishops and “princes of the Church”.

·         Judas’s betrayal did as much as he could do to destroy Our Lord.

·         Judas’s reputation is being whitewashed by the modern “Judases” who are the current princes governing the Church and who are doing as much as they can do to destroy Our Lord in His Mystical Body (viz., the Church).

Although we cannot pray for Judas (since he is in hell), let us pray for the modern “Judases” who are betraying Our Lord’s Mystical Body! 

Let us also do reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, for the great evil those modern “Judases” do, which offends God so much and which brings so many souls to damnation!

As we fight for the true Traditional Catholic Faith, we must not use “weapons” or tactics which seem expedient at the moment but which really do more harm than good. 

Don’t quote false teachers to defend the truth

One such “weapon” that does more harm than good, is to use the authority of false teachers when they happen to state the truth on the particular issue for which we seek an authority to support the truth.  For example, we should not quote the “authority” of a sedevacantist, even when he accurately decries the liberalism of the “new” SSPX.

To take another example, if we are defending Our Lady’s sinlessness, we should never cite Martin Luther as an authority for this truth, even though Luther taught this truth in these words:

God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Ghost, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus.[1]

 Quoting a false teacher (like Luther) to support the truth of our position does more harm than good.  When we quote a bad teacher, we implicitly tell our listeners that they should accept a particular truth (e.g., Our Lady’s sinlessness) because the person we use as an authority is a teacher worthy of belief.  We implicitly tell our listeners that they should seek the truth from him on other issues.[2]  For if that teacher were not worthy of belief in general, then why accept his authority on the one particular issue?

Thus, when we quote a false teacher even for the truth, we endanger our listeners on many issues on which they might accept his false teaching, and we gain (if at all) in the defense of the truth on only a single issue.

Further, if we were to tell our listeners that the false teacher’s particular statement (e.g., of Our Lady’s sinlessness) is the only one on which he is worthy of belief, this would completely undermine that false teacher’s authority even on that one issue.  Who would accept the “weight” of a teacher’s authority if that teacher were only correct on one point and wrong about everything else?

Apart from the danger of our listeners accepting the errors taught by the particular false teacher we quoted, there is also the scandal to our listeners that they would believe we accept the authority of other false teachers who are similar to the false teacher we quoted.  For example, if we quote conciliar revolutionary, Pope John Paul II, as an authority, it can create the danger that our listeners will also accept the authority of other conciliar teachers, as suitable authorities in religious matters. 

It is reasonable to quote a false teacher to show he contradicts himself and is not a worthy authority

Although we should not use false teachers as authorities for the truth, we can quote a false teacher to show he is inconsistent with himself and so is not worthy of belief.  Taking the example of Martin Luther (above), suppose someone (e.g., a Lutheran) used a different quote from Luther to show that Luther taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a sinner.  We can use the quotation (given above) to show that Luther contradicted himself and that he also taught that she was without sin.  In that case, our quoting Luther does not give him the status of an authority worthy of belief.  Instead, we show that Luther’s inconsistency is one reason he is not worthy of belief.

It is acceptable to quote a false teacher to prove a matter he admits against his own interests

Although we should generally not use false teachers as authorities for the truth, we can quote them when they make an admission against their own interests, concerning their own bad character or conduct.  This exception is common sense and has always been used.  For example, when the police suspect a particular man of murder, they give little weight to his denial of the crime.  However, if the man admits to the murder, this admission is usually more worthy of belief.  The principle is that a murderer usually denies his crime, but his admission is more likely to be true because it is against his interests.

Similarly, Luther admitted his own drinking, dissipation, and his deliberate ignoring of the Ten Commandments, as a (supposed) way to fight the devil.  Here are his words:

Be strong and cheerful and cast out those monstrous thoughts. Whenever the devil harasses you thus, seek the company of men, or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing.  Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, aye, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you, “Do not drink,” answer him, “I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to.” One must always do what Satan forbids. What other cause do you think that I have for drinking so much strong drink, talking so freely and making merry so often, except that I wish to mock and harass the devil who is wont to mock and harass me. Would that I could contrive some great sin to spite the devil, that he might understand that I would not even then acknowledge it and that I was conscious of no sin whatever. We, whom the devil thus seeks to annoy, should remove the whole Decalogue from our hearts and minds.[3]

Although Luther is not a worthy authority for the truths of the Faith and Morals, his admissions concerning his own dissolute life are reasonable grounds for believing his own bad conduct.

Conclusion

Let us not use the authorities of bad teachers to defend the truth because that does more harm than good.  However, we can quote unworthy “authorities” to show their own bad character, bad conduct, or logical inconsistencies.

We are soldiers of Christ, in the Church Militant.  In the present Great Apostasy, we must fight for the true Traditional Catholic Faith and Morals against errors all around us.

The citadel of the Church is under attack.  The knights and professional soldiers all seem to be gone – either slain or gone over to the side of Christ’s enemies.  Christ and His truth must be defended.  Because those who have the most responsibility to defend Christ are not fulfilling their duty, the duty to defend Christ’s Truth falls all the more upon the laity.  We must do our best to defend the truth because someone must defend it and it is every Catholic’s duty to do so!

In his magnificent work, The Liturgical Year, Dom Guéranger recounts a similar example of how a simple layman stood in the breach of the Church’s “citadel wall”, defending the Catholic Faith, because someone needed to do so:

[O]n Christmas Day, 428, Nestorius [the arch-heretic who was then Patriarch of Constantinople], taking advantage of the immense concourse [crowd] which had assembled in honor of the Virgin Mother and her Child, pronounced from the episcopal pulpit the blasphemous words: “Mary did not bring forth God; her son was only a man, the instrument of the Divinity.”

The multitude shuddered with horror.  Eusebius, a simple layman, rose to give expression to the general indignation, and protested against this impiety.  Soon a more explicit protest was drawn up and disseminated in the name of the members of this grief-stricken Church.  …  This generous attitude was the safeguard of Byzantium, and won the praise of Popes and Councils.[1] 

This layman, Eusebius, publicly defended the Catholic Faith against the heretical Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, because someone had to do it.

Like Eusebius, we are not scholars or theologians.  We are just laymen doing the best we can for Christ the King.  Dom Guéranger teaches us this guiding principle:

When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.  It is usual and regular, no doubt, for doctrine to descend from the bishops to the faithful, and those who are subject are not to judge their superiors. 

But in the treasure of revelation there are essential doctrines which all Christians, by the very fact of their title as such, are bound to know and defend.  The principle is the same whether it be a question of belief or conduct, dogma or morals.  Treachery like that of Nestorius is rare in the Church, but it may happen that some pastors keep silence for one reason or another in circumstances when religion itself is at stake.

The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.[2]

We are sheep obliged to defend against wolves, because we cannot stand idle while the Church is attacked.  We all must do this as best we can, walking by the light of our baptism (as Dom Guéranger phrases it).  Seemingly without the help of any “professional soldiers”, all of us must fight in our own little corners of the battle, with whatever weapons we have.  We are farmers fighting with pitchforks.  We are carpenters fighting with the hammers on our tool belts.

We would prefer that this fight would be left to the “professionals”.  But whatever faithful “professional soldiers” might remain are also busy (somewhere) in this fight.  Like Eusebius, all of us must stand in the breaches of the citadel wall because someone needs to do it.  In truth, at all times, all members of the Church Militant should be part of the fight.  However, in our extraordinary times, our responsibility has increased because of the lack of large armies of faithful “professional soldiers” in the Church Militant, to help us and to defend us.

Conclusion

So, let us fight the best we can, although we are ill-equipped for this fight.  We must choose the best weapons we have – e.g., a pitchfork, because we have no gun. 

As true Soldiers of Christ, we must not be deterred because we are outnumbered, ill-equipped or “out-gunned”. 

We must keep fighting, even though we are “nobodies” and are our King’s “unprofitable servants”.[3]

As true Soldiers of Christ, we must never stop fighting because we are tired and want peace with the world. 

If we are Soldiers of Christ who are worthy of the name, we must fight for love of Christ the King, each in his own way, each doing the best he can in the “battles” Christ sends us to fight. 

Let us go forth to battle!

When we mislead other people – even innocently – we must correct the harm we caused by telling them (i.e., warning them) of our previous error.  This is like crashing into our neighbor’s car with our own car.  Justice requires that we must restore the loss we cause our neighbor, even if we caused the accident innocently.

Similarly, if we recommend a handyman to a neighbor (who is looking to hire one) and then we discover that handyman is a thief or is incompetent, we must warn that neighbor and not ignore this duty on the excuse that we did not know of the handyman’s dishonesty or incompetence at the time we made our innocent recommendation.  In other words, we caused our neighbor the harm of receiving false information and we must correct the harm we caused.

Not only does justice require us to correct the harm we caused when we misled someone (however innocently), but charity also requires this, because we would want our neighbor to do this for us.  We must love our neighbor as ourselves. 

Just as we have this duty to one person when we harm one person with false information, likewise we have the duty to many people, when we give false information to many.  Similarly, when we publicly give false information (however innocently), we must correct the harm we caused the public by correcting our error publicly.

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches this truth: viz. that everyone has a duty to publicly correct his public errors.  Here are his words:

A public fault calls for a public remedy.[1]

Notice that St. Thomas does not teach that a public retraction (correction) of our public error is only required when we knowingly and culpably committed the public error.  We must publicly correct our public falsehoods, misleading statements, and other wrongs even when we commit them innocently.

One might think, either through ignorance or false humility, that because we are not the pope (or at least a bishop), we should not “set ourselves up in judgment” regarding whether the conciliar hierarchy is teaching the truth or not, or whether the conciliar hierarchy’s teachings are consistent with the traditional teaching of the Church.  One might wrongly think that, failing to believe whatever the current hierarchy tells us, shows a “Protestant mentality”, i.e., deciding for ourselves what to believe. 

This ignorance or false humility is contrary to the consistent teaching of the Church that every Catholic has the duty to discern whether the members of the hierarchy, without exception, are teaching what the Church has always taught.  For example, St. Paul writes to his converts to whom he taught the Faith:

Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 

Galatians, 1:8.

And St. Paul emphasizes this point by immediately repeating it:

As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a Gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Galatians, 1:9.

But the Galatians might have objected, why should we believe your Gospel on your first visit to Galatia and not an eventually different one on your second?  St. Paul immediately gives a first reason:

The Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.  For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians,1:11-12. 

And St Paul confirms this by narrating how little contact he had with those who might have taught him (viz., the other Apostles) before he began preaching.  Galatians, 1:15-19.  The Galatians could verify the facts and St. Paul swears an oath to the Galatians that he is not lying.  Galatians, 1:20. 

He gives a second reason a little later, which is the miracles and experience of the Holy Ghost [Galatians, 3:2-5] that the Galatians themselves had witnessed as the direct result of the preaching of St. Paul’s first visit.

Thus, St. Paul confirms that God taught him the Gospel which he had already taught to the Galatians.  St. Paul tells them that they can, and they must, distinguish it from false doctrine.  Each Catholic has this duty.

Many other Catholic authorities have repeated St. Paul’s teaching.  Here is another one:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.  As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of Faith, to pass judgment on their superiors.  But every Christian, by virtue of his title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them.  The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is, of dogma or morals.  Treachery such as that of Nestorius is rare in the Church; but it can happen that, for one reason or another, pastors remain silent on essential matters of faith.  The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.

The Liturgical Year, Vol. IV, Dom Guéranger; see the entry for the Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, February 9^th (emphasis added).

Here is another authority: St. Vincent Lerins, in his Commonitorium:

What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith?  What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member, the whole of the body that is sound.  And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty.

Emphasis added.  Note that St. Vincent gives this rule to all Catholics, not only to the bishops or doctors of theology.

We do not give more quotes from authority here because the type of person who suffers under this ignorance or false humility is a prisoner unable to free himself by reference to the consistent teaching of Church authority, because his very error is that his mind is too lowly to discern what those authorities say.  Therefore, we present the following argument of reason instead.

Humans can understand the Catholic Faith, though not perfectly as God does.  Our Faith is presented as a series of statements in each of which a predicate is said of a subject.  Even though the faithful Catholic cannot prove by natural reason, this link (i.e., connection) between the subject and predicate, he knows by Faith that the link exists and thus, that the opposite statement must be false.

If one were to (wrongly) say that a Catholic is forbidden to compare current teachings of the hierarchy, with the consistent teaching of the Church of all time, this would mean that a Catholic is forbidden to understand what he is saying (and believing) when he is professing his Faith.  This position would instead substitute a blind obedience which accepts a mere formula of sounds – devoid of meaning – when professing the Faith.  The Catholic Church has never professed such nominalism.  Instead, the Church wants (and requires) Her children to understand the Faith, not merely memorize sounds or words by rote.

Thus, whereas the Protestants set their own private judgment as the measure and rule of all faith, faithful Catholics set the revealed truth of the Church of all time, as the measure and rule of Faith.  This is infallible Catholic Tradition.  Because the Catholic is allowed (and required) to understand his Faith, the current post-conciliar problem exists because an understanding of the Faith shows plainly that the modern conciliar teachings are the opposite of what Catholics have been required to understand and believe since the earliest times. 

That is, a Catholic who knows his Faith today is merely understanding what the Church has always taught.  By knowing what the Church has always taught and knowing what the post-Vatican II hierarchy teaches, he notices that they are often opposites.  To say that a Catholic is forbidden to notice this opposition is simply to say that Catholics are forbidden to understand, and must simply memorize the sounds of words without understanding that they have any meaning.  In other words, the Church of the past (i.e., the Church of all time), judges the present conciliar hierarchy’s teachings.  Faithful Catholics are doing their duty by noticing this fact.

Further, the very fact that Catholics are taught the distinction between infallible and non-infallible magisterial teachings, is because Catholics are taught that the infallible ones cannot conflict with the Catholic Faith but are part of it, whereas non-infallible magisterial teachings might conflict with the Catholic Faith.  This distinction is a warning to Catholics to accept all of the infallible teachings without possibility of error, but to accept the non-infallible ones only provided that they do not conflict with the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church through the ages.  This distinction also shows that Catholics are required not only to understand their Faith but also to understand when current churchmen contradict infallible Catholic Tradition.

Conclusion

Let us stand against the countless conciliar errors which attack the Catholic Faith!  Let us study our Faith so we can truly understand it and pass it on to the next generation!

Catholic Candle note:  The following article helps to explain how salvation is surely possible for uncompromising Traditional Catholics, who for a time are without the Mass and Sacraments, at least in most places.  One doesn’t have to compromise his principles and overlook liberalism just so that he can have the Sacraments and the Mass (with a compromising priest).

If a person responds to the above question that he has to overlook some liberalism to “secure the sacraments” (at least in most places), then this person is really compromising, along with:

     1.  seven bishops;

     2.  hundreds of priests;

     3.  thousands of gullible followers of the liberal N-SSPX; and 

     4.  other liberal religious communities, (like the Fraternity of St. Peter).

These groups say that those Catholics who are truly uncompromising, are too strict and are wrong.  I ask: Is it, then, also wrong to be too loyal to Our Lord?

Currently, uncompromising Traditional Catholics are without an uncompromising priest or bishop (at least in most places).  God will provide in His own good time for the needs of the loyal soldier in the battle against corrupt conciliar church leaders in Rome and Catholics who are (objectively) compromising.

It’s not easy to live in the catacombs, but there are compensations – like extra graces – as those in the catacombs can attest.  One will also feel grateful and happy that he is doing his part in this great worldwide fight for Christ the King, when so many have abandoned Him.  (“This part” might include speaking often against liberalism, wherever you find it.)

Also, uncompromising Traditional Catholics find they have a closer friendship with Christ and want to do more, e.g., setting a most-needed good example for others to follow in a world that has rejected Christ.

Many clergy who are (objectively) compromising were on the right track but then weakened, I believe, because of pride.[1]  Or perhaps because they lacked the moral courage to resist the liberal direction their N-SSPX leaders (or others) had taken.  Also, the N-SSPX leaders were too concerned about the number of followers they had and were anxious to avoid defections.  This is a critical consideration in order to make a deal with the anti-Catholic conciliar church in Rome.  Rome doesn’t want the mass defection (from the liberal N-SSPX) of persons who would fight against the conciliar church and liberalism in order to return Rome to tradition.

Many lay followers were not concerned about small compromises with liberalism and so they gradually abandoned Archbishop Lefebvre’s stand for tradition.  These followers mistakenly believed that to be saved you must have the Mass and Sacraments without interruption.  It’s easy for a person within a large group to rationalize his defection from tradition and from Christ, by falsely believing God will understand because He knows people need the Mass and Sacraments.  Oh, no He won’t!  He really expects and wants loyalty and sacrifice.

The last fifty-five years show the majority of religious leaders were quick to abandon tradition and succumb to the liberalism of Vatican II, much the same as the apostles abandoned Christ during His Passion.  If one has to choose between the path of being loyal to Our Lord (including uncompromising tradition), and the path of overlooking liberalism in a compromise group in order to receive the Mass and the Sacraments, I know which path really leads to salvation!

Those who compromise are sure to ask how does one expect salvation without a priest and confession?  Well, with God’s help, where there’s a will there’s a way.  One surely doesn’t have the luxury of giving in to his passions or temptations and then being “excused” by a Saturday afternoon confession.  However, since we are all sinners, and we could possibly fall into grave sin despite extra graces at the time of death, the prospect of dying without (an uncompromising priest for) confession  would be horrifying were it not for the knowledge that a merciful God has provided for this with a perfect Act of Contrition.[2]  This prayer, said sincerely and with God’s help, is literally a God-send.  United with a pledge to go to (an uncompromising priest for) confession when available, this heartfelt prayer restores the dying person to grace at once. 

Uncompromising Traditional Catholics who are currently without an uncompromising priest are given extra graces and spiritual strength to help fight against evil and temptations, as those persons can attest.

We must avoid compromises such as accepting sacraments and sacramentals from a compromising priest or bishop (although we must not judge their interior culpability).  Accepting even one such compromise is the start of gradualism, the seat of liberalism and damnation.  Such situations give apparent approval to the compromising bishop or priest.  It is important to be consistent in all our actions.  If not, one bad concession causes a person to lose his credibility and his ability to set a good example – maybe forever.  

Let’s pray hard, be happy, and confident that we are in the right place by not compromising, and by doing what we can for Christ the King, Who is in charge and will triumph in the end!

One of the most effective tools in the devil’s toolbox is the small compromise.  Not just any type of compromise, but the smallest of compromises – one that can be rationalized as insignificant, unimportant, and certainly nothing to worry about.  It allows one to take comfort in the fact that others are also compromising in the same situation.  There is comfort in numbers.

The devil has been using the smallest compromises since the beginning of time.  How could it be wrong just to eat that certain apple?  They are grown to be eaten; nothing to worry about.  I remember in the 1960s when some of the Church hierarchy was preparing the faithful to accept Vatican II, and they began with small compromises.  They eliminated the Last Gospel and the prayers after a Low Mass, for the conversion of Russia.  These changes were considered inconsequential.  And besides, (so the rationalizing would go), shortening the Mass would allow more people to have more time and to come more often. 

Another example, is changing the Canon by adding St. Joseph’s name.  Who wouldn’t want to honor good St. Joseph?  But small compromises always lead to large compromises, as shown by the slide after VC II. 

It is easy to see how the many small compromises over the years have brought the SSPX priests and laymen to a point of being willing to accept very BIG compromises, such as:

1.    Accepting a “priest” ordained with the questionable Novus Ordo rite of ordination, and “bishops” from the questionable consecration rite.  This is a huge compromise because it ignores the positive doubts in these bastard rites, flowing from a Council responsible for the conciliar destruction of the priesthood and the true Mass.  Such compromise is breathtaking, to say the least!

2.    Having accepted these doubtful sacraments, the SSPX and Bishop Fellay then use more small compromises to further “soften up” the priests and laymen for the next big compromise.  Bishop Fellay is an expert at metering out liberalism at an “acceptable level”.  He appears successful because only a few people are leaving the SSPX.  All those who stay rationalize that the small compromises over the years, are insignificant and unimportant.  (Big mistake!)  The SSPX priests and laymen have come to the point where they are now ready to compromise their salvation by accepting subordination to the practical control of Modernist Rome.  They say it is far too early to leave because they see no change in their parish “community”.[1]

3.    A recent outrageous compromise was Bishop Fellay and the Society participating with Modernist Rome, in the so-called “Year of Mercy” celebrating 50 years of VC II!  That’s on a par with his assuring Rome that “We accept 95% of Vatican II.”  

Do you compromising priests or laymen still believe it is far too early to leave?  If so, is there anything faith-destroying enough to spur you into leaving the Society’s “safe cocoon” (which is really just collective compromise).

One thing we can be sure of is that the saints knew very well the dangers of small compromises leading to big compromises and eternal damnation.  And they acted accordingly.

A sure sign that the devil’s best tool (viz., the small compromise) works, is that priests and laymen still in the SSPX know deep down that something is wrong, but yet take no action as they wait for “instruction.”  (See below.)  As Dom Gueranger declared:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself ….  The true children of Holy Church [in times of crisis…] are not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be [i.e., those in charge,] delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions ….

However, before one compromises, he really does get his conscience’s warning (i.e., instructions) to leave, for the sake of his soul (since God never tempts anyone beyond his strength).  But one can’t hear these inspirations of God, while the devil is shouting in his ear to stay, as did 99% of Catholics after Vatican II.

Compromising fence-sitters:  Have you ever stopped to realize how successful the devil and the Masons have been since VC II, in their efforts to destroy the Catholic Church?  Christ the King needs uncompromising front-line fighters for tradition.

Can He count on you?