I make that point (in the title), after 50 years of observing well-intentioned Catholics try to retain their Faith while under attack by the errors of Vatican II and liberal church leaders. They never realize how the evils of liberalism subtly cloud their minds. This changes their perspective on what to hold fast to and when to reverse course to save their souls.

The only way to save your soul, when under attack by liberalism, is to draw a line in the sand (or set a benchmark) so you don’t lose track of how tolerant you could become without realizing it.

In the 1960s it was becoming clear that most Catholics were unknowingly beginning to accept liberalism. I cautioned a friend to establish a benchmark in order to avoid a complete loss of faith. I suggested he select some outrageous change that he believed couldn’t possibly happen (e.g., changing the Sacraments), and use it as his benchmark. That way, when that change occurred, he’d begin to realize that the Faith was indeed under attack. He failed to take heed, which resulted in him and his wife and eight children (and later many grandchildren) losing their Faith.

I thought long and hard on how to bring this point home to those “tolerators” still in the New SSPX. I decided an analogy might help. Consider the flawed mindset of an alcoholic or out-of-control gambler. They both think they can handle their destructive problem. The alcoholic believes he can drink large amounts of alcohol without a problem, and the out-of-control gambler thinks he knows when to stop before he forces his family into poverty. And the tolerator believes he can handle an indefinite amount of liberalism without being affected by it.

They are hopelessly wrong. The trouble lies in trying to convince them they have a life-destroying problem or a soul-destroying problem (or actually, both). Each has a problem that subtly overtakes prudent limitations they have set for themselves. They’ll need a line in the sand to survive destruction. The only hope for an alcoholic is to set a limit and stick to it or stay completely away from alcohol; and for the gambler, to set a limit and stick to it. (Or better yet, to never gamble at all.) Likewise, the only hope for the tolerator, as well as the others, is to draw a line in the sand. That means to set parameters beyond which they will not tolerate the toxic waste of alcohol, gambling, or liberalism.

Liberalism is very deceptive. It has the ability to affect your thinking about something without you knowing it. It’s amazing what one will accept if everyone else seems to be accepting it. To survive with a Modernist Rome and a new liberal SSPX, one has to be more vigilant than ever, with a well-defined line in the sand. The line will tell you just what liberalism you have started to accept without being aware of it. Thus, you acknowledge it and reverse course. Without that line you will accept more and more liberalism without realizing it—with your salvation at stake.

Of course the line must be drawn at a time before you are overpowered by liberalism. Also, you don’t allow that line you set to move to the left, as it is so easy to do and so often does. It is also important to understand and fear gradualism. That is the death of so many souls.

If you are still in the new liberal SSPX, it seems almost too late for your line in the sand because you have already tolerated so much liberalism. But better late than never.

Here are a few examples of where the line should be drawn. (I’ll bet some of the points may seem a little unreasonable to you because you have already tolerated so much liberalism which you didn’t recognize and so, accepted.) To name just two points you’ve already tolerated if you’re still in the N-SSPX: the fallacy that 95% of VC II is acceptable (as Bishop Fellay has agreed); and the claim that most texts of VC II are traditional—both totally false.

Currently, there is an effort being made to get you used to accepting dealing with the local indult or Novus Ordo parish, and eventually cooperating regularly with the Conciliar Church.

To avoid this gradualism:

I’m sure there will be many other ways to get you to accept and tolerate liberalism little by little, and eventually, the trap is sprung.

To return to our analogy: The alcoholic doesn’t consider the amount of alcohol he consumes, and thus he loses control. The tolerator doesn’t consider the amount of liberalism he has accepted without a line in the sand. The gambler, alcoholic, and the tolerator must have a way to measure what “poison” they have consumed so that they don’t lose control of their stability or traditional footing. The more an alcoholic consumes alcohol over the years, the more he can tolerate. So too, the more a tolerator accepts liberalism over time, the more he thinks he can tolerate—without concern for his salvation and that of his family. The gambler loses track of his losses and ensures a disastrous life of poverty for himself and his family.

For an alcoholic to recover, he must stay away from alcohol completely. Not a drop. Likewise, for the gambler. He must completely stay away from gambling, not one more bet. The tolerator must draw a firm line in the sand, from which there can be no deviation. With an immovable line in the sand, liberalism can be noticed, avoided, and not accepted. Not even the smallest amount.

I’m sure Bishop Fellay thought he could escape harm while negotiating with Modernist Rome. But history has already proved him wrong. He surely had no immovable line in the sand, based on how many liberal positions he has forced on the N-SSPX priests and laymen.

Don’t think you can survive the attacks of liberalism without a line in the sand because I personally have witnessed countless well-meaning Catholics for the past 50 years who did not survive and thus gambled with their salvation.

So if you don’t already have an immovable line in the sand, and you are still in the liberal N-SSPX, draw that line NOW and save your soul, as well as those in your family. Then, join the Resistance before that line is crossed.

Catholic Candle Addendum: Among countless other signs of gradualism which could have been listed in the article above, we could have added: entering into conciliar churches to pray.

An example of this is in the October-November 2016 newsletter of the Massena Dominicans, who enthusiastically described taking their girls to all three local conciliar parish churches because it was a good day to pray.

That is un-Catholic! Conciliar churches are very unfitting places to pray, because of the evil that occurs there.

May God have mercy on those poor, blind sisters, who are blinding their students. Thus, the blind are leading the blind and they both fall into the pit. St. Matt. 15:14.