Thursday, October 10, 2013


The confusion on the baptism of desire continues and the MHFM will not address the issue of the baptism of desire being implicit and known to God only.So it cannot be relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The MHFM are not admitting that they made an error all along by assuming that the baptism of desire was explicit. This was the original error made by the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing.
The following letter is from their website( E- Exchanges).
Subject: Boggles my mind
Dear Brothers,
It boggles my mind how these heretic, so called "traditional", priests go to all the trouble of… embracing sedevacantist position yet retain the essence of the Novus Ordo faith by embracing Baptism of Desire.
This filthy doctrine destroys the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church, (it is assumed that BOD is explicit and visible for us in 2013 and so an execption to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) destroys the dogma of Original Sin (we do not know any BOD case for it to be an exception to Original Sin), embraces salvation through ignorance, distorts the mercy, grace and justification of our Lord, discredits the power and providence of God, etc.
 I was hearing a sermon by [one] criticizing those who reject Baptism of Desire. He called them false and stated that they only relied on ex-cathedra statements of popes. (Not enough?!) That Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors defended BOD and that people should study more about their faith. As usual he gave no exact quotes or evidence, just resorted to name calling.(Again the person giving the sermon was assuming that the baptism of desire was visible and so an exception)
I was so frustrated that I decided to look this up. So I grabbed my Source of Catholic Dogma book, which is as you know, a fat 700+ page, unmarked book. And then for some weird coincidence, I opened it up exactly to the Council of Trent Sacrament of Baptism. My eyes immediately fell to where it stated...
Can 2. "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit' (John 3:5) are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."
(The baptism of water is necessary for all for salvation in 2013 and we do not know any exceptions. So the baptism of desire is not an exception. This is a mistake made by Peter and Michael Dimond of the MHFM)
All those traditional priests out there who mock, snicker and laugh at Bergoglio and in their confidence and pride think they have the true faith, have better watch out! ( They are making the same error on the baptism of desire as is Peter and Michael Dimond).  The gates of hell are pouncing upon them. For it seems that even within the small group of sedevacantists who claim to be Catholic, the true remnant is even smaller.
Later, I read Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors and could not find anywhere that he stated Baptism of Desire or endorsed it.( Pope Pius IX did not mention it since it is not relevant to the Syllabus of Errors. It is not an exception to the Syllabus of Errors.) Just another lie.
God bless,
In Jesus and Mary

Apostasy of the religious orders

The following report is from the website of the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery. They wrongly assume that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so they reject the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
However they are correct in affirming that outside the church there is no salvation.However they are not aware that Vatican Council II (AG 7) is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as they affirm it. They wrongly assume that LG 16,LG 8 etc refer to explicit cases known in the present times.So they believe that the Council contradicts the Catholic Church's traditional treaching on other religions and Christian communties and churches.
They are correct in assuming however that  Catholics, reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus including religious.However the MHFM is not aware that they reject the dogma since they,also like the MHFM,assume there are known exceptions in the present times, an error being made by Pope Francis,  Catholic religious communities and traditionalists who are not sedevacantists.
With the error of the visible dead who are exceptions to the dogma on salvation not being checked all these years the pendulum has swung in the extreme direction, it can be seen from some of the statements of religious communities.
I accept Pope Francis as my pope and hope that the heretical rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14),which is agreement with the dogma  and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(846) which says all need to enter the Church 'as  through a door', will be corrected in future.

It is important to note that Mother Teresa was faithful to Jesus and the Church. However the interpretation on other religions, as reported here, is held by Missionaries of Charity superiors, men and women and so now they have made the fourth vow optional in their community. The fourth vow which Mother Teresa enshrined in the community was Fidelity to the Magisterium.It is no more obligatory for an MC Sister or Priest to make this vow.

Also novices are taught that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known exceptions to the need for every one to convert into the Church. So LG 16 contradicts AG 7. This is being described as a 'mystery' which Catholic novices have to accept to enter the MC community in Rome at their Religious House of Formation.
-Lionel Andrades

Apostasy of the religious orders