St Peter's Basilica

St Peter's Basilica

Subscribe to EverythingCatholicBlog

Search This Blog

Saturday, 19 August 2017

Condemnation of evil is a virtue: Women who dress badly condemn themselves to Hell, Forever!

Image result for indecent dressing

A few days ago a friend of mine who fancies herself as a doctrinal teacher in the Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion and who I have written extensively to showing her the differences in doctrines and sacraments between the catholic Church and Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion, confronted me and said that I condemn people too much!

Then she said that those I condemn will be in heaven before me!

Why was she so angry? She was angry because I pointed out so firmly, in a written treaties how different Novus Ordo religion is utterly different from Catholicism!

The evidence was overwhelming and she is bound in conscience to own up to the truth!

But alas, she changed the subject and said I condemn!

Surely the Church condemns errors EVERYWHERE and I follow the teaching of the Church which I presented and which she rejected!

Right now I am presenting again what the Church teaches about modesty!
In our days, most women wear scandalous clothing and which is evil! They show their tommy, emphasize their buttocks ( wearing tight skirts and trousers), show their breasts, and show their arm pits! At the same time, they claim to be Christians!

Indecent dresses offend God greatly since it is an occasion of sin for men and women alike!

These are to be taken seriously! Our Lady of Fatima told the three shepherd children that more people go to hell due to mainly the sin of the flesh!

Dressing provocatively is to sin in the flesh and the modern individual cherishes immodest dress. He glorifies it, promotes it even in children and ANYONE speaking out against it is regarded as a fool or ‘holier than thou’!

But still Catholics MUST speak out against this since it is one of the principal method the Devil uses to entrap souls!

The Vatican II religion has no qualms about indecency! The subtly promote it and keep silence about it! High ranking Novus Ordo/Vatican II clergy openly flaunt indecency as is seen below where 'Cardinal' Muller openly takes pictures with indecent 'punk' girls.

Gerhard Ludwig Muller with punks

Also indecency finds its way in sacred places now occupied by Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion!

What can make indecent dances be presented inside the church as is seen in the picture below. These naked dancers actually danced in a catholic church in Australia!

Erotic ballet in Brisbane - 01

What can we make of the pretender Pope, Francis welcoming publicly a staunch promoter of illicit sex and iridescent dressing at the Vatican and even holding her in a manner unbecoming of any Catholic?

Here in the following picture, we see the apostate, Francis indecently holding and welcoming the Model, Wanda Nara!

Pope embraces Wanda Nara 01

Here is the kind of work done by this model and be warned that the following picture is very dangerous.

Pope embraces hot model Wanda Nara 03

These pictures shows the same Wanda Nara posing, completely naked in an Argentine magazine for men! yet, Francis is very happy to welcome her in the Vatican without any qualms!

Indeed ANY man or woman who dresses as to expose his or her body, leading others to sin, will perish in hell UNLESS the person repents and turn a new leaf!
Catholic Modesty is important for holy life and so should be propagated for the good of souls. This has become VERY URGENT as more and more wicked fashion floods the market and people with happiness buy these evil fashions and wears them with relish.

Here is what Pope Pius XI taught about immodest dresses!

At the exhortation of His Holiness, Pope Pius XI, to counteract the indecent fashions, many Catholic bishops have made regulations in their dioceses and forbidden Catholic ladies to wear fashionable but unbecoming dresses at the sacred functions in church, and especially when receiving Holy Communion. Though they had to suffer the insults that a heathenized press hurled against them, they remained firm in their prohibition of the unchristian fashion. The Sacred Congregation praises them for their constancy and publishes the following regulations:

1. Pastors and preachers shall urge the Catholic women to wear modest dresses, and insist that the mothers stop their daughters from wearing unbecoming apparel.

2. The parents have the obligation to care for the religious and moral education of their children and they must take special care to instruct the girls in the principles of Christian doctrine, and by word and example foster in their souls a love for the virtues of modesty and chastity.

3. The parents must keep the girls away from public gymnastic exercises and exhibitions; if their daughters are forced to take part in such affairs, the parents should see that they wear clothes that are absolutely modest and never allow them to wear immodest uniforms.

4. The heads of girls’ colleges and schools and the teachers must endeavor to instill into the minds of the girls such a love for modesty that they shall detest immodest dress.

5. The heads of schools and the teachers shall not admit to their schools girls who wear unbecoming dress, or whose parents wear them; if those already admitted do not heed the warning, they shall be dismissed from those schools.

6. The religious Sisterhoods shall not admit to their schools, colleges, chapels, or gymnasiums girls who do not dress in a manner becoming Christians, nor shall they tolerate girls already admitted.

7. Pious associations of women should be formed and fostered whose purpose shall be to counteract by example and practical efforts the abuses of the unchristian fashions and to promote purity of morals and decency in dress.

8. Into these associations are not to be received women who do not dress according to Christian modesty, and, if actual members violate the principles of the associations and do not heed the admonition to stop the abuse, they shall be expelled from the associations.

9. Girls and women who wear immodest dress shall be denied Holy Communion, and shall not be admitted as sponsors at Baptism and Confirmation, and, if needs be, shall be stopped from entering any church.

10. On those feast days during the year which present a special opportunity to inculcate Christian modesty, especially the feasts of Our Blessed Lady, the pastors and the priests in charge of women’s societies shall by appropriate sermons exhort the women to wear dresses that bespeak Christian modesty. On the Feast of the Immaculate Conception special prayers shall be offered in all cathedral and parochial churches and, if circumstances permit, an appropriate sermon should be preached.

11. The Diocesan Vigilance Committee, spoken of by the Holy Office on March 22, 1918, should at least once a year meet for the purpose of specially considering ways and means of promoting effectively Christian modesty of women.

12. In order to put these Instructions into effect, the local Ordinaries shall every three years, together with the report on religious teaching (cfr. Motu Proprio, June 29, 1923), inform the Sacred Congregation of the Council on the matter of immodest dress of women and what the Ordinaries have done to counteract that evil.

(Source: Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, Canonical Decisions of the Holy See [New York: J.F. Wagner, 1933], pp. 222-223; Latin original in Acta Apostolicae Sedis XXII [1930], pp. 26-28.)

Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, 19th August, 2017, feast of St. John Eudes

Friday, 18 August 2017

Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood!

Image result for baptism

In simple language, Baptism of Desire is done when someone is already converted to the ONE TRUE CHURCH of Christ, the Catholic Church but could not obtain Water baptism before death! The Church takes it that this person is already Baptized! This is Baptism of Desire!

On the other hand, Baptism of Blood is done when someone is already converted to the ONE TRUE CHURCH of Christ, the Catholic Church but was killed for the faith before the person could obtain water baptism! The Church takes this person to have been baptized and as a Martyr!

Some ‘Traditional Catholics’, those who are associated in particular with the ‘famous’ Diamond brothers who we have nicknamed Daimondians deny that the Church teach Baptism of Desire and Blood.

They insist that to hold such beliefs is heresy! They will then insist that we should show them where the Church defined these doctrines.
This is te second error of Diamondians as they believe in ONLY the defined doctrine of the Church!  

I used to ask them, but many saints held the position that Baptism of Blood and Desire are valid Catholic teaching, and were canonized. Why didn’t the causes for canonization of saints condemn these saints who held these views? They have no answer! Some of them foolishly claim that the canonization were not valid since Freemasons infiltrated the Church early!

This is laughable.
But from the documents presented here, it is obvious that many popes, saints, theologians taught Baptism of Blood and Desire!

 Here are teachings of BOD and BOB from the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology, the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church
1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto),through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”
Council of Trent Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):

“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”

2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water,the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind
 [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire,by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”

To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).

5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.

“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”

7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).

Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”

9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)
Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa”(Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).

10. Roman Martyrology
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.

11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quadam, 1854:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”

12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958)
— Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly... For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”

13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II - 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.

14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:
“Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
“Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
“Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment...”

15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:
“Baptism of Desire... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition...”
“These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
“...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith....”

16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).

17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. 
— Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.

18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II,1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).

19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.

20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...
From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water... Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).

21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II), Tractatus XII, 1902
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.

Please note that NONE of these sources quoted above are from Vatican II religion! They are ALL Pre-Vatican II sources and NO Pope condemned these teachings or condemn the theologians, saints and doctors teaching them. The Diamondians are wrong!

Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, 18th August, 2017. Feats of St. Agapitus and Helena

Friday, 11 August 2017

‘Pope’ Francis is NOT a Pope: Introduction to Sedevacantism 2

Image result for sede vacante

Given what we have already shown, that is that a heretic who is NOT a member of the Catholic Church cannot therefore obtain the papacy, we will now show some part of the fundamental errors of these pretenders to the papal throne.

These people promote ideas and teachings that were previously condemned by the Catholic magisterium and that make them non-Catholics!

All those who claim to be members of the catholic hierarchy under these false popes are false members and cannot be accorded any respect for the offices they claim to occupy. These include ALL Novus Ordo 'priests', 'Bishops' and 'Cardinals'. 

These people share in the heresies and so are NOT members of the Church and cannot occupy offices in the Church. apart from this, a large majority of them were ordained or consecrated with invalid rites which were designed by Paul VI, another anti pope!

The principal source of their errors has been the Second Vatican Council, a robber council that is the intellectual tour de force of the Masonic institution of Novus Ordo/ Vatican II religion!

We can show some of these heresies now: 


Convoked by John XXIII for the purpose of “updating” the Church, this council (held from 1962-65) decreed and implemented teachings which had been previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. The Second Vatican Council’s heretical teachings were primarily in the areas of religious liberty and false ecumenism. These were previously condemned by:

THEREFORE, the Second Vatican Council is to be rejected as a false council because it has erred in its teachings on faith and morals.


Following the Second Vatican Council, various commissions were established to modernize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the traditional rites of the Sacraments. The particular commission established to modernize the Mass included well-known Protestant theologians. Think about Protestant theologians being invited to help craft a Mass for Catholics? Such a Mass will be evil and offends God greatly.

To use the words of a well-known Cardinal, Alfredo Ottaviani, in 1969: “(The Novus Ordo Missae) represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” 

The results of this modernization were a new definition of the Mass (reflecting Luther’s concept of the Last Supper), the alteration of the Offertory prayers to delete the concept of propitiatory Sacrifice, and the substantial alteration of the very words of Consecration (this alteration occurs in the vernacular translations). 

This new mass, known as the Novus Ordo Missae, contradicts previous infallible teachings and decrees of the Catholic Church, such as:

THEREFORE, the Novus Ordo Missae, when offered with the altered words of Consecration or offered by a priest ordained with a doubtful or invalid rite, is an invalid Mass and in all other cases it is of doubtful validity. It always is a clear danger to one’s faith. For all these reasons, active participation in it would be a grave sin for anyone.


That which has been said of the Novus Ordo Missae can, in the same respect, be said of the new Vatican II rites for the seven sacraments. To the degree that the matter, form and intention of each of the sacraments has been substantially altered, to that degree their validity must be questioned except the sacrament of Baptism and Matrimony. 

The Catholic Church has, most certainly, always taught what the proper matter, form and intention are in the confecting of the sacraments.

THEREFORE, where the new rites have been employed, traditional priests should administer the Sacraments sub conditione (conditionally) as the situation may demand.


The Catholic Church is identified as the ONE true Church of Christ by her four marks (Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity). 

Since the heretical teachings of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, and the new rites of the sacraments have manifestly been a departure from the Catholic Church’s traditional teachings, it must be concluded that this modern so-called “Catholic” Church no longer possesses the first two marks of the true Church — namely, Unity and Holiness. It is a new religion.

Its obvious departure over the past fifty years from what the Catholic Church has always held can lead to only one conclusion: a new ecumenical religion has been established which stands in contradiction to the true Catholic Church.


In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the modern hierarchy who have approved and implemented the errors of Vatican II no longer represent the Catholic Church and her lawful authority. This most certainly includes the one who confirmed, approved, decreed, and implemented these heretical teachings, namely Paul VI (Montini). Likewise included are his successors, namely, John Paul II (Wojtyla), Benedict XVI (Ratzinger), and Francis (Bergoglio), who have continued to implement these heretical teachings. 

Despite the lack of canonical warning and formal declaration of loss of office, their repeated acts of ecumenism and their enforcement of the heresies of Vatican II and the new code of Canon Law, which are injurious to faith and morals, are manifestations of their pertinacity in heresy.

THEREFORE, as the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches: “‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these words are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted...the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord.” Further, since John Paul II has manifestly taught heresy, promoted ecumenism and fostered interfaith worship, he clearly cannot be recognized as a successor of St. Peter in the primacy.


In order to implement the teachings of Vatican II, it was necessary that the modernists change the Code of Canon Law (1917), as it contradicted their designs by reflecting the mind of the Church in her past doctrine and discipline. The new code contains a matter which should be most disturbing to the informed Catholic. According to the new law of the Modern Church, non-Catholics can, under certain circumstances, petition the “sacraments” from a Catholic priest (without the non-Catholic abjuring his heretical beliefs), and the priests must administer them. 

The Council of Florence, as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), strictly forbids this.

THEREFORE, as the universal laws of the Church are protected by her infallibility and cannot impose obligations opposed to faith and morals, the New Code must be considered as lacking all force of law. Moreover, it has been promulgated by those who no longer represent Catholic authority.


Due to the unprecedented situation in the Catholic Church and the moral responsibility of the faithful to receive certainly valid sacraments, traditional priests most certainly can and must continue the mission of the Catholic Church by sanctifying the faithful through the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the administration of the Sacraments, and other pastoral works. The mind of the Church is that “the salvation of the people is the supreme law.” The 1917 Code of Canon Law will continue to be the priests’ guideline.

Some people will say, that not recognizing Francis and other anti-popes is merely personal interpretation of the church magisterium akin to the Orthodox schism from the catholic Church!

Nothing can be further from the truth. The Orthodox are heretics since they deny many dogmas and doctrines of the church. In the case of Catholics denying submission to anti popes, they are simply affirming what the Church has always taught according to the sense of faith, sensus fidei.

It is the duty of ALL Catholics to know that ANY doctrine or dogma not in accordance with the sense of faith, must be rejected as new since revelation comes complete.

Presented my Malachy Mary Igwilo, 11th August 2017, Feast of St. Philomena

‘Pope’ Francis is NOT a Pope!: Introduction to Sedevacantism 1

Image result for sede vacante

It is obvious to those who wish to look critically to see that the current religion at the Vatican is NOT the Catholic church of Our Lord Jesus Christ!

It is a religion that has been crafted by international Freemasonry which was designed to deceive Catholics into thinking it is catholic. It is NOT Catholic and cannot be Catholic since the Catholic Church cannot teach errors, officially.

To this extent, the Catholic Church is in the state of Papal Interregnum, Sede vacante! The Seat of St. Peter is EMPTY! It has been empty since the death of the last known pope, Pope Pius XII, in 1958.

So this means that ALL the papal claimants since 1958 have been criminal anti popes! The have stolen what does not belong to them!

These include John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now, Francis.

These men are NOT Catholics not to talk of being popes! We know this from what they have taught, officially and from what the Catholic Church teaches about the papacy, principally, that a heretics cannot be pope since a heretic is not a member of the Church!

Many objections have been submitted about this catholic position!

We address some major objections, using Church documents and Church approved Theologians, here to show that those holding them do not understand Catholic theological principles and so they hold that heretics are popes! That is not possible as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.

We must remind ourselves that to submit to a false pope is to be outside the Catholic Church! To be outside the Catholic Church is to lose one’s soul!

Objection I: 

Pope Pius XII lifted all ecclesiastical penalties during the conclave to elect the pope. So even if the Vatican II popes were heretics before their elections, they would still be validly elected.

Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.

Proof for this answer:

A. Institutiones Iuris Canonici , by (approved theologian) Matteo Coronata, 1950
— “Appointment to the Office of the Primacy — What is required by DIVINE LAW for this appointment... Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded...”

B. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], Marato
— “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.
C. Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV
— “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:

— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.

— “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.

— “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way....

— “Each and all of their words, acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected — and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.

— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

D. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], C. Baldii

— “The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:...

— “Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics....”

Objection II: 

Vatican Council I taught that St. Peter has perpetual successors; therefore, long vacancies in the See of Peter are not possible.


Nowhere does the Church determine how long a vacancy may exist in the See of Peter. Between the death of Pope Clement IV (November 29, 1268) and the election of Pope Gregory X (September 1, 1271), there was an interregnum of nearly three years. During the Western Schism, there were three claimants to the See of Peter; theologians teach that even if none of them were pope, that would not be against the promise of Christ or the teaching of perpetual successors.

Proof to the answer:

A. Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis [1929], Rev. A. Dorsch

— “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet].”

B. The Relations of the Church to Society [1882], Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J.

— “In the first place, there was all throughout from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope—with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”

C. The Catholic’s Ready Answer [1915], Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J.

— “If during the entire schism (nearly 40 years) there had been no Pope at all—that would not prove that the office and authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next Pope duly elected.”

D. The Defense of the Catholic Church [1927] Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.
— “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: 'A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: 'At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope.... Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all....’”

Objection III: 
If all the Vatican II popes were invalid, then there would be no cardinals to elect a future pope. Thus the Papacy would come to an end which is impossible.

During the Western Schism, three men claimed to be pope (the true pope in Rome, one in Avignon, one in Pisa) In order to heal the nearly forty-year schism, the Council of Constance determined that with all the cardinals, delegates from each country would participate in the papal election (Pope Martin V was elected). Theologians teach that in doubt of or in absence of cardinals, the Church has the right to choose its Head.
Proof to the answer:
A. De Potestate Ecclesiae, Vitoria
— “Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him ... If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father.

— “Hence such an election should be carried out by all the Church and not by any particular Church. And this is because that power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.”

B. De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, Cajetan, OP

— “.. . by exception and by supplementary manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism.”

C. De Ecclesia Christi, Billot

— “When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council.”

— “Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.”
D. The Church of the Incarnate Word [1954], Msgr. Charles Journet

The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See

— “We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous. But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven ... But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.

— “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap.xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power 'of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.”

Objection IV: 
Even if a pope fell into heresy, he would remain pope until the Church declared him a heretic and no longer pope.
Pope Paul IV, in Cum Ex Apostolatus, Pope Innocent III in Si Papa, and theologians teach that a heretical pope is deposed by God.
Proof to this answer:
A. Bull: Cum Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV

— “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:

— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void... Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

B. Si Papa [1198], Pope Innocent III

— “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”

C. Institutiones Juris Canonici [1950] - Coronata
— “If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
D. St. Robert Bellarmine [1610]

— “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.”

E. St. Antoninus [1459]

— “In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
F. St. Francis de Sales [1622]

— “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...”
G. Canon Law - [1943] - Wernz-Vidal

— “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church ... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.

H. Introductio in Codicem [1946] - Udalricus Beste

— “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See (i.e., the See of Peter) is judged by no one ... The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head.”

I. Epitome Juris Canonici [1949] - A. Vermeersch
— “At least according to the more common teaching the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”

Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, 11th August 2017, Feast of St. Philomena