St Peter's Basilica

St Peter's Basilica

Subscribe to EverythingCatholicBlog

Search This Blog

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Francis now draws ire from his own camp showing that those he deceives are waking up on the wrong side of the bed.

Image result for Pope Francis

Within the Novus Ordo establishment, there are those who call themselves ‘catholic’ within this church of Satan. They pretend that Francis is pope and that he is the head of the Catholic Church. Such groups are SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) run a semi traditionalist organization within the ‘conservative wing’ of Novus Ordo religion. Also the bunch at Catholic Family News, in the same bed as SSPX also thinks in the same line with the SSPX.

Right now, these poor fellows at Catholic Family News have published a lengthy accusation against the man they acknowledge to be pope.

Although it is funny to learn about what they call theology, which I think they got from the moon, their accusations are right on the point.

But they still miss the point just like any one who rises up from the wrong side of the bed. They simply are not able to see that Francis is not pope and his religion is not Catholic. No Catholic can truly be accused of what they have written against Francis not to talk of a pope.

Somehow, these folks need to see a doctor so that he can get their heads examined.

But for the interest of debate, we need to look at what they have accused Francis of.

Surely, they things they say shows that Francis is a true scion of the devil just like all his predecessors since 1958. The other installments of this accusation will be published by us when they become available. Here is the first installment:

Your Holiness:

The following narrative, written in our desperation as lowly members of the laity, is what we must call an accusation concerning your pontificate, which has been a calamity for the Church in proportion to which it delights the powers of this world. The culminating event that impelled us to take this step was the revelation of your “confidential” letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires authorizing them, solely on the basis of your own views as expressed in Amoris Laetitia, to admit certain public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion without any firm purpose of amending their lives by ceasing their adulterous sexual relations.

You have thus defied the very words of Our Lord Himself condemning divorce and “remarriage” as adultery per se without exception, the admonition of Saint Paul on the divine penalty for unworthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament, the teaching of your two immediate predecessors in line with the bi-millenial moral doctrine and Eucharistic discipline of the Church rooted in divine revelation, the Code of Canon Law and all of Tradition.

You have already provoked a fracturing of the Church’s universal discipline, with some bishops maintaining it despite Amoris Laetitia while others, including those in Buenos Aires, are announcing a change based solely on the authority of your scandalous “apostolic exhortation.” Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the Church.

Yet, almost without exception, the conservative members of the hierarchy observe a politic silence while the liberals exult publicly over their triumph thanks to you. Almost no one in the hierarchy stands in opposition to your reckless disregard of sound doctrine and practice, even though many murmur privately against your depredations. Thus, as it was during the Arian crisis, it falls to the laity to defend the Faith in the midst of a near-universal defection from duty on the part of the hierarchs.

Of course we are nothing in the scheme of things, and yet as baptized lay members of the Mystical Body we are endowed with the God-given right and the correlative duty, enshrined in Church law (cf. CIC can. 212), to communicate with you and with our fellow Catholics concerning the acute crisis your governance of the Church has provoked amidst an already chronic state of ecclesial crisis following the Second Vatican Council.

Private entreaties having proven utterly useless, as we note below, we have published this document to discharge our burden of conscience in the face of the grave harm you have inflicted, and threaten to inflict, upon souls and the ecclesial commonwealth, and to exhort our fellow Catholics to stand in principled opposition to your continuing abuse of the papal office, particularly where it concerns the Church’s infallible teaching against adultery and profanation of the Holy Eucharist.

In making the decision to publish this document we were guided by the teaching of the Angelic Doctor on a matter of natural justice in the Church:

“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2: 11, ‘Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects’.” [Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 33, Art 4]

We have been guided as well by the teaching of Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, regarding licit resistance to a wayward Roman Pontiff:

“Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say, it is lawful to resist him,by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will…” [De Controversiis on the Roman Pontiff, Bk. 2, Ch. 29].

Catholics the world over, and not just “traditionalists,” are convinced that the situation Bellarmine envisioned hypothetically is today a reality. That conviction is the motive for this document.

May God be the judge of the rectitude of our intentions.

Michael J. Matt
Editor, The Remnant

Christopher A. Ferrara
Columnist for The Remnant and Catholic Family News

John Vennari
Editor, Catholic Family News


By the grace of God and the law of Church, a complaint against Francis, Roman Pontiff, on account of danger to the Faith and grave harm to souls and the common good of the Holy Catholic Church.

What Sort of Humility Is This?

On the night of your election, speaking from the balcony of Saint Peter’s Basilica, you declared: “the duty of the Conclave was to give a bishop to Rome.” Even though the crowd before you consisted of people from around the world, members of the Church universal, you expressed thanks only “for the welcome that has come from thediocesan community of Rome.” You also expressed the hope that “this journey of the Church that we begin today” would be “fruitful for the evangelization of this beautiful city.” You asked the faithful present in the Saint Peter’s Square to pray, not for the Pope, but “for their Bishop” and you said that the next day you would “go to pray the Madonna, that she may protect Rome.”

Your strange remarks on that historic occasion began with the banal exclamation “Brothers and sisters, good evening” and ended with an equally banal intention: “Good night and sleep well!” Not once during the first address did you refer to yourself as Pope or make any reference to the supreme dignity of the office to which you had been elected: that of the Vicar of Christ, whose divine commission is to teach, govern and sanctify the Church universal and lead her mission to make disciples of all nations.

Almost from the moment of your election there began a kind of endless public relations campaign whose theme is your singular humility among the Popes, a simple “Bishop of Rome” in contrast to the supposed monarchical pretensions of your predecessors and their elaborate vestments and red shoes, which you shunned. You gave early indications of a radical decentralization of papal authority in favor of a “synodal Church” taking its example from the Orthodox view of “the meaning of episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality.” The exultant mass media immediately hailed “the Francis revolution.”

Yet this ostentatious display of humility has been accompanied by an abuse of the power of the papal office without precedent in the history of the Church. Over the past three-and-a-half years you have incessantly promoted your own opinions and desires without the least regard for the teaching of your predecessors, the bimillenial traditions of the Church, or the immense scandals you have caused. On innumerable occasions you have shocked and confused the faithful and delighted the Church’s enemies with heterodox and even nonsensical statements, while heaping insult after insult upon observant Catholics, whom you continually deride as latter-day Pharisees and “rigorists.” Your personal comportment has often descended to acts of crowd-pleasing buffonnery.

You have consistently ignored the salutary admonition of your immediate predecessor, who resigned the papacy under mysterious circumstances eight years after having asked the bishops assembled before him at the beginning of his pontificate to “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves’ To quote your predecessor in his first homily as pope:

“The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.”

A Selective Meddling in Politics, Always Politically Correct

Throughout your tenure as “Bishop of Rome” you have shown scant regard for the limitations of papal authority and competence. You have meddled in political affairs such as immigration policy, penal law, the environment, restoring diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba (while ignoring the plight of Catholics under the Castro dictatorship) and even opposing the Scottish independence movement. Yet you refuse to oppose secularist governments when they defy the divine and natural law by such measures as legalizing “homosexual unions,” a matter of divine and natural law on which a Pope can and must intervene.
In fact, your many condemnations of social evils—all of them politically safe targets—are continually belied by your own actions, which compromise the Church’s witness against the manifold errors of modernity:

• Contrary to the constant teaching of the Church based on Revelation, you demand worldwide total abolition of the death penalty, no matter how grave the crime, and even the abolition of even life sentences, yet you have never called for the abolition of legalized abortion, which the Church has constantly condemned as the mass murder of innocents.

• You declare that the simple faithful are sinning gravely if they fail to recycle their household waste and turn off unnecessary lighting, even as you expend millions of dollars on vulgar mass events surrounding your person in various countries, to which you travel with large entourages in charter jets that emit vast quantities of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

• You demand open borders for Muslim “refugees” in Europe, who are predominantly military-age males, while you live behind the walls of a Vatican city-state that strictly excludes non-residents—walls built by Leo IV to prevent a second Muslim sack of Rome.

• You speak incessantly of the poor and the “peripheries” of society but you ally yourself with the wealthy and corrupt German hierarchy and pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-homosexual celebrities and potentates of globalism.

• You deride greedy corporate profit-seeking and “the economy that kills” while you honor with private audiences and receive lavish donations from the world’s wealthiest technocrats and corporate heads., even allowing Porsche to rent the Sistine Chapel for a “magnificent concert… arranged exclusively for the participants,” who paid some $6,000 each for a Roman tour—the first time a Pope has allowed this sacred space to be used for a corporate event.

• You demand an end to “inequality” as you embrace communist and socialist dictators who live in luxury while the masses suffer under their yokes.

• You condemn an American candidate for the presidency as ‘not Christian’ because he seeks to prevent illegal immigration, but you say nothing against the atheist dictators you embrace, who have committed mass murder, persecute the Church and imprison Christians in police states.

In promoting your personal opinions on politics and public policy as if they were Catholic doctrine, you have not hesitated to abuse even the dignity of a papal encyclical by employing it to endorse debatable and even demonstrably fraudulent scientific claims regarding “climate change,” the “carbon cycle,” “carbon dioxide pollution” and “acidification of the oceans.” The same document also demands that the faithful respond to a supposed “ecological crisis” by supporting secular programs of environmentalism, such as the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, which you have praised even though they call for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health,” meaning contraception and abortion.

A Rampant Indifferentism

While hardly a pioneer respecting the destructive post-conciliar novelties of “ecumenism” and “interreligious dialogue,” you have promoted to a degree not seen even during the worst years of the post-conciliar crisis a specific religious indifferentism that practically dispenses with the mission of the Church as the ark of salvation.

Respecting the Protestants, you declare that they are all members of the same “Church of Christ” as Catholics, regardless of what they believe, and that doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants are comparatively trivial matters to be worked out by agreement of theologians.

Given that opinion, you have actively discouraged Protestant conversions, including one “Bishop” Tony Palmer, who belonged to a breakaway Anglican sect that purports to ordain women. As Palmer recounted, , when he mentioned “coming home to the Catholic Church” you gave this appalling reply: “No one is coming home. You are journeying towards us and we are journeying towards you and we will meet in the middle.” The middle of what? Palmer died in a motorcycle accident shortly thereafter. At your insistence, however, the man whose conversion you deliberately impeded was buried as a Catholic bishop—a mockery that was contrary to the infallible teaching of your predecessor that “ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.” [Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae (1896), DZ 3315]

As to other religions in general, you have adopted as a virtual program the very error condemned by Pope Pius XI only 34 years before Vatican II: “that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.” You have been utterly heedless of Pius XI’s admonition “that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” In that regard, you have suggested that even atheists can be saved merely by doing good, thus eliciting delighted praise from the media.

It seems that in your view Rahner’s heretical thesis of the “anonymous Christian,” embracing virtually all of humanity and implying universal salvation, has definitively replaced the teaching of Our Lord to the contrary: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; and he that disbelieves shall be condemned (Mk 16:16).”


Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, on the feast day of St. Matthew 21th September 2016

Monday, 19 September 2016

John Paul II Loved the Devil! He destroyed the Exorcism rite to allow the Devil free hand!

 Image result for John paul II and the devil, images
Anyone who knows about the rite exorcism in the Catholic Church knows that Demons fear this august rite. Once this rite is used, the Devil flees!

There have been many cases of successful exorcism done on many people and which were recorded by the Church. Today, the Devil and his minions runs wild. 

Many people are deceived by what protestants call ‘Deliverance’. 

Deliverance in Protestantism is the Devil’s joy stick which he uses to deceive people and confirm them in their error. The Devil goes away momentarily in Protestant deliverance and ask a smaller Devil to hold place until he returns! This is a fact which the deceived are not able to confirm. 

The Devil piloting the Protestants gives them small reprieves to confirm them in their heresies and give impression of the Presence of the Holy Ghost. But nothing could be further from the truth.

In today’s world demonic possessions are rife simple because of the many atrocities committed in terms of Black Masses celebrated and many evil incantations and Ouija board manipulations. 
Also, horror movies and vampire movies (emphasis added) make room for the Devil to come and inhabit a soul and constantly living in mortal sin and consulting sorcerers and joining secrete societies welcome the devil. 

Young people even do blood covenant throwing the doors of their souls wide open for the Devil. They then move about like normal people without knowing that they are possessed.

Simply put, the Devil runs wild and the more he runs wild, the less people believe in possession! What an irony! 

The Novus ordo religion is of the devil and so they do all they can to give him ample room to operate and take more souls. They do this skillfully so that people will not notice.

It was John Paul II, of unfortunate memory, that destroyed Catholic Exorcism rite in the Novus Ordo religion for obvious reasons!
If he had left the rite alone, the devil will be restricted within that false religion and so he truncated the rite and introduced a new one.

Also, the Jewish Freemasonic infiltrator Paul VI made sure that few of his false priests known anything about exorcism. He completely removes the order of exorcism from the ordination of priests!
Well and good for those who continue, blindly and obstinately, to be inside Novus Ordo religion! These people have no access to fighting the Devil. They simple go to ‘deliverance’ and have a marriage with the devil.

Last Week, the Novus Ordo Exorcist Fr. Armoth (yes he was ordained validly in 1950) died and the blog Introibo are done a great article(Exorcise in Futility) which is published here to help us all see how John Paul II killed exorcism in Novus Ordo religion to allow his master the devil free hand!

 On September 16, 2016, Fr. Gabriel Amorth passed on at the age of 91. Fr. Amorth was the exorcist for Rome and wrote two books, An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories. Fr. Amorth claimed there were "members of Satanic sects" in the Vatican including some "cardinals." Why a man who performed so many exorcisms (and ordained in the 1950s) didn't see the devil as the post-Vatican II "popes" baffles me. He was a very controversial figure, but one thing he said (and with which I completely agree), was his contention--supported in sound theology--that the new Rite of Exorcism imposed by John Paul the Great Apostate in 1999 was "useless" in battling demons. This post will demonstrate why this is so.
The New Rite Of Exorcism Examined

In January of 1999, "Pope" John Paul II promulgated De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam, a new Rite of Exorcism, supplanting the venerable and traditional Rite of 1614 AD. 

I.  A New (and false) Definition of Exorcism
The new Rite is based on the Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church of 1992, which defines exorcism as, "When the Churchasks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism." (#1673; Emphasis mine). An exorcism is NOT a prayer asking God to release someone from the power of the devil.  Exorcism is a command issued to Satan in the name of God. The very word exorcism tells you that – exorcizo, I adjure. The Traditional Rite states, "Exorcizo te, immundissime spiritus…in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi" – "I exorcize you, unclean spirit…in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is a command issued to the demon in the name of Christ. The new Rite gives the Vatican II sect "priest" a choice of "deprecatory" and "imperative" exorcisms. The "deprecatory" is simply a prayer to God asking for His help. The "imperative" is commanding the demon in the name of Christ. According to the new Rite's rubrics, the deprecatory must always be used, and the imperative is an "option" rarely, if ever, to be used.

II.  Twelve (12) of the Twenty-one (21) Directives to the Exorcist are Omitted in the New Rite

Here are the old directives (with their former numbers) that are totally omitted:

4. In order to better test these signs [of possession], the priest should question the demoniac after one or other exorcism as to what he feels in his mind or body, so that in this way he can also learn which words more greatly disturb the demons, so as then to bear down on them and repeat them all the more.

5. The priest should stay alert for tricks and deceptions that demons use to mislead the exorcist. For they will give false answers as much as possible, and show themselves only with difficulty, in order that the exorcist at length become worn out and give up the exorcism; or the ill person might appear not to be harassed by the devil.

6. Occasionally, after they appear, the demons hide and leave the body almost free of all disturbance, so that the ill person might think he is completely freed. But the exorcist should not stop until he sees the signs of liberation.

8. Some demons point out an act of witchcraft which has been done [to cause possession], by whom it was done, and the way to undo it; but the demoniac should be careful not to have recourse to sorcerers, fortune-tellers, or other such persons, on this account, but should go to the ministers of the Church rather than use any superstitious or otherwise illicit means.

9. Sometimes the devil grants the sick person relief and permits him to receive the Holy Eucharist so that he might seem to have departed. In short, there are countless devices and tricks of the devil to deceive man, which the exorcist should beware, lest he be deceived.

13. …Also relics of Saints, where available, safely and properly fastened and covered, may be reverently applied to the chest or head of the possessed. Care must be taken that the sacred objects are not improperly handled or harmed in any way by the demon. Because of danger of irreverence, the Holy Eucharist should not be placed upon the head of the possessed person or elsewhere on his body.

14. The exorcist should not engage in a great deal of talking or ask unnecessary or curious questions, especially concerning future or secret matters not pertaining to his task. But he should command the unclean spirit to be silent, except to answer his questions. Nor should he believe the demon if he pretends to be the soul of some Saint or deceased person or a good Angel.

15. However, there are necessary questions, for example, concerning the number and names of the possessing spirits, the time and reason they entered, and other things of this sort. The exorcist should restrain or spurn the rest of the devil’s nonsense, laughter and foolishness, and advise those present, who should be few, that they must not pay attention to these things nor question the possessed person, but rather humbly and earnestly pray to God for him.

16. The exorcist should read and carry out the exorcism with strength, authority, great faith, humility and fervor, and when he sees that the spirit is especially tormented, then he should persist and bear down all the more. And whenever he sees that the possessed person is being disturbed in some part of his body, or stung, or that a swelling appears somewhere, he should make the sign of the cross on that area and sprinkle it with holy water which should be on hand.

17. He is also to observe at which words the demons tremble more, and then he should repeat these words more often. When he reaches the threatening words, he should say them repeatedly, always increasing the punishment. If he sees that he is making progress, he should continue for two, three, or four hours, or even longer if he can, until he obtains the victory.

19. If he is exorcising a woman, he should always have persons of integrity with him to hold the possessed person while she is agitated by the demon. These people should be close relatives of the suffering woman if possible. Mindful of decency, the exorcist should be careful not to say or do anything which could be an occasion of an evil thought to himself or the others.

20. While he is exorcising, he should use the words of Sacred Scripture rather than his own or someone else’s. He should command the demon to tell him if he is held in that body because of some magic, or sorcerer’s signs or devices. If the possessed person has consumed things of this sort orally, he should vomit them up. If they are elsewhere outside his body, he should reveal where they are, and once found, they are to be burned. The possessed person should also be advised to make known all his temptations to the exorcist.

III.  Other Omissions

The Traditional Rite of Exorcism had a three-fold sequence of exorcisms, which is now a single "prayer for relief."

Traditional Rite Of Exorcism (1614):
Exorcism #1
151 words (in the Latin)
6 Signs of the Cross
13 negative appellations for the devil
7 commands
4 Old/New Testament references

New Rite of Exorcism (1999):
Exorcism #1 (optional)
193 words
4 Signs of the Cross
9 negative appellations for the devil
9 commands
4 Old/New Testament references

Traditional Rite of Exorcism (1614):
Exorcism #2
442 words 
23 Signs of the Cross 
Signing of breast and forehead 
14 "Imperat tibi" (direct commands)
3 "Adjuro te" (I adjure you)
Mention of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary 
Biblical images of demon-animals being trodden upon

New Rite of Exorcism (1999):
Exorcism #2 (the only one mandated by the rubrics)
162 words 
3 Signs of the Cross 
No signing of breast and forehead
0 "Imperat tibi" references
3 "Adjuro te" (I adjure you)
No mention of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary 
No Biblical images of demon-animals being trodden upon

Traditional Rite of Exorcism (1614):
Exorcism #3 
389 words
12 Signs of the Cross 
11 Old/New Testament images 
14 commands (Give place-Depart-Be gone)
Eject-Expel-Repel sequence
Threat of Hell-fire

New Rite of Exorcism (1999):
Exorcism #3 (optional)
142 words 
1 Sign of the Cross 
1 mild New Testament image
8 commands
No Eject-Expel-Repel sequence
No threat of Hell-fire 


 As you can see, the New Rite of Exorcism is really no exorcism at all. Just as the sacrament of Extreme Unction has become a "spiritual get-well-soon card" in the Vatican II sect's "Anointing of the Sick," exorcism is little more than asking for God's help while downplaying all the sacred signs of our Faith. Even when a validly ordained priest uses it, like the late Fr. Amorth, it proves useless. Not satisfied with the elimination of the priesthood, Wojtyla (John Paul II) had to destroy the Rite of Exorcism itself. After all, why would the Modernist Vatican want to keep those traditional prayers asking their new and infernal master to leave them? 

Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, on the feast Day of St. Eustace and His companion, 20th September 2016

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

Vatican II council was an Evil Council: Questions and Answers

Image result for vatican II images

Many people are wondering what could be wrong with Vatican II Council which held from 1962 to 1965? Many people fancying themselves Catholics do not even have a rudimentary knowledge about this council.

It was a council called by anti-pope john XXIII which served as an intellectual backbone of the false religion of Novus Ordo which eclipsed the official Catholic Church.

Many attentive people will hear their “priest” quote Vatican II with fondness. Note that Vatican II was an evil council whose teachings cannot be Catholic.

Here I present to you some answers given by Bishop Sanborn on some of the issues raised by people concerning Vatican II.

You can raise more questions from this and contact me.

1. What is wrong with the Second Vatican Council?

The Second Vatican Council taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to the Church's teaching and constant practice.

2. What doctrines did it teach which were already condemned?

There are four major errors concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty; (4) collegiality.

3. What false doctrine does it teach concerning the unity of the Church?

Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the heretical 1983 Code of Canon Law which was enacted by the Apostate, John Paul II, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Novus Ordo Ecumenical Directory.
 It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in SatisCognitum of Pope Leo XIII, MortaliumAnimos of Pope Pius XI, MysticiCorporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX.

4. What false doctrine does Vatican II teach concerning ecumenism?

The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism, which states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is overtly heretical. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope Pius IX “a most well-known Catholic dogma.” In addition, the ecumenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.

5. What false doctrine does it teach concerning religious liberty?

The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in the document DignitatisHumanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post TamDiuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in MirariVos, by Pope Pius IX in QuantaCura, and by Pope Leo XIII in LibertasPraestantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society. This teaching state that each individual is at freedom to worship anything he so please if, through the light of human reason he deems correct. In other words, if Catholicism does not appeal to your sense of reason, you can dish it and adopt Scientology or Buddhism and all is well. People should simply follow their conscience, it says.  

6. What false doctrine does it teach concerning collegiality?

The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, not the pope ALONE, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I. In other words, the Pope is NOT the head of the Church or Vicar of Christ, he is head of a college of Bishops who together with the pope heads the Church.

7. What is wrong with the disciplines which have emanated from Vatican II?

The 1983 Code of Canon Law contains the heresy of Vatican II concerning the Church, mentioned above. It also permits sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament, by approving of its reception by non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin, and permits communicatio in sacris (common public worship) with non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. In addition, the Ecumenical Directory of 1993 permits ecumenical practices which have always been taught by the Church to be mortally sinful.

8. What does all this mean? What is the implication of Vatican II?

It means that Vatican II and its subsequent reforms have given us a new religion, a religion which is substantially different from the Roman Catholic Faith founded by Christ.
The reformers have substantially altered the three main components of religion: doctrine, worship, and discipline. The result is that the reformers are promoting a religion of ecumenism in place of the Roman Catholic religion, which has always taught that it alone is the one, true Faith, and that all other religions are false. The Vatican II religion teaches doctrines which have been condemned by the Church in the past. It has instituted rites and disciplines which are Protestant in nature.
As a result, the religion which Catholics find in their local parishes and schools, although in name Catholic, is a new, non-Catholic religion already condemned by the Catholic Church.

9. Could it be that you are merely giving a bad interpretation to Vatican II?

 No. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by:

the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;

the series of abominations perpetrated by John Paul II against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases;

the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service;

the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or invalidity;

the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the 
Church as their theoretical basis;

the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage;

the fact that John Paul II is in communion with manifest heretics, has openly declared himself to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and has recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and Lutheran bishops, all of which destroys the unity of faith. He has even kissed the Koran, which explicitly denies the Incarnation and the Trinity. He has also publicly prayed that St. John the Baptist protect Islam.

10. What Should be done?

A Catholic MUST under the pain of hell, reject Vatican II and all its reforms and those that gave it starting from John XXIII and his successors and their hierarchy.

Presented By Malachy Mary Igwilo, on the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, 15th September 2016