St Peter's Basilica

St Peter's Basilica

Subscribe to EverythingCatholicBlog

Search This Blog

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: 


I. VATICAN COUNCIL II: 

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.


II. NOVUS ORDO MISSAE: 


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.

III. NEW RITES OF THE SACRAMENTS: 

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.

IV. MODERN VATICAN II CHURCH

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.


V. MODERN HIERARCHY OF THE VATICAN II 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.


VI. THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW: 

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.


VII. COURSE FOR TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC PRIESTS

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.

Answer: 
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.

Answer: 

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.
Answer: 

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.
Answer: 
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 

Thursday, 3 August 2017

Return to ‘pope’ Francis and to Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion? Impossible!


Image result for Bishop Sanborn

It is quite baffling that many people still think that Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion is indeed the Catholic Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ and they ask me to stop ‘attacking the church’ and submit to Francis as pope! Oh Come on! To submit to a false religion and an agent of the Devil is IMPOSSIBLE is I wish to save my soul!


Whenever I get this call, I feel so sad and angry at a go! Sad that normal people are yet to discover the Catholic truths and angry that people are willfully allowing themselves to be manipulated by the Devil and his agents!


Now the great Bishop Sanborn, one of the few remaining true catholic bishops, was also invited to return to Novus Ordo religion!
His friend invited him to come back to the ‘church’ and submit to Francis.


Bishop Sanborn has given a worth-reading response to this friend and we wonder what that friend will feel now. Bishop Sanborn’s response is called Ecclesiastical Materialism!


Ecclesiastical Materialism
Introduction:  From the title, one might expect that I would be writing about avarice among the clergy. I am not addressing that at all, however.

Recently I received from an old friend, who is a Novus Ordo conservative, a note in which he invited me to come back “to Rome — and the true Church — outside of which there is no salvation.”


His invitation, although made with all good intentions, nevertheless prompted me to write this response. What he means is that I should give up my repudiation of Vatican II and its subsequent reforms, submit to the local bishop, and be somehow “regularized” within the structures of the Novus Ordo.


First response. My first response is the following. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is one true Church of Christ, and only one, which is the Roman Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo teaches that the Church of Christ merely “subsists in” the Catholic Church. (Lumen Gentium) The Roman Catholic Church teaches that outside of the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation. The Novus Ordo teaches that outside the Roman Catholic Church there is salvation, namely that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. (Decree on Ecumenism, Catechesi Tradendæ of John Paul II) The Roman Catholic Church condemns religious liberty. The Novus Ordo teaches religious liberty. (Decree on Religious Liberty) The Roman Catholic Church condemns the idea that the college of bishops has supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church. The Novus Ordo teaches this condemned doctrine, known as collegiality. (Lumen Gentium) The Roman Catholic Church condemns adultery and fornication in all cases. The Novus Ordo teaches that these are morally acceptable in certain cases. (Amoris Lætitia) The Roman Catholic Church condemns as a mortal sin of sacrilege the giving the Holy Eucharist to non- Catholics. The Novus Ordo approves of it. (1983 Code of Canon Law) The Roman Catholic Church condemns the use of birth control devices as mortally sinful and intrinsically evil. The Novus Ordo permits birth control devices for prostitutes. (Ratzinger, “Benedict XVI,” in a published interview)


What I have responded above is only a smattering of the myriad dogmatic, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary contradictions between the Roman Catholic Church and what we call the Novus Ordo. We could provide the endless list of heresies and blasphemies of Bergoglio. But these things are well known.


The four marks of the Church.

 I will add to this first response the four marks of the Church.  (1) The Roman Catholic Church is one in faith, that is, in order to be Catholic all must profess the same dogmatic and moral teachings which are taught by the Roman Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has no unity of faith, and as we have seen, has no continuity with the Catholic past in any of the essential aspects of the Church’s unity. (2) The Roman Catholic Church is catholic, that is, universal, since it preaches a single doctrine to the whole world. Since the Novus Ordo lacks unity in doctrine, and lacks continuity with the Church’s past in matters of doctrine, it cannot have the mark of catholicity. For catholicity presupposes unity. (3) The Roman Catholic Church is holy. The Novus Ordo is unholy, because it condones evil disciplines, preaches condemned doctrines and heresies, leads people into error and sin, and promotes the evil New Mass, promotes abominable ecumenical acts with non-Catholic religions, and condones sacrilegious liturgical practices. (4) The Roman Catholic Church is apostolic. The Novus Ordo has abandoned apostolic doctrine and discipline, and teaches and does what is contrary to this sacred apostolic deposit.


Come back to what? My friend’s invitation makes it sound as if the Catholic religion is intact in the institutions he wants me to embrace. It is as if it is the year 1950, and that I have wandered off into schism because of my pride. If this were true, I would return immediately. 

But there is an elephant in the room. The elephant is this: The Novus Ordo is innovation, is heresy, is alien to the religion revealed by God and taught by the Roman Catholic Church. It is as much a break with the past as the heresy of Martin Luther was. 


What is different, however, between Martin Luther and the Novus Ordo? There is this significant difference: Martin Luther was excommunicated and subsequently founded his own church. The Novus Ordites have never been excommunicated, and have never founded their own church. This difference is the key to understanding the present problems in the Catholic Church.


Ecclesiastical materialism. Now I will explain ecclesiastical materialism. The Roman Catholic Church has a visible aspect and an invisible aspect. What is visible is the external profession of faith, the administration of the sacraments, and the visible government. What is invisible is the grace and assistance of the Holy Ghost which infuses the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the authority to govern, and the indelible character on the soul in Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. The Holy Ghost, furthermore, assists the Church by an invisible influence in its promulgation of doctrine, morals, liturgy, and discipline, in such a way that these things are free from error. It is this invisible assistance which guarantees the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church.


All of these qualities are invisible, but are nonetheless what make the Catholic Church the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. These invisible qualities have made the Catholic Church for two thousand years the unchanging, permanent, always consistent and coherent institution of divine truth in a sinful, ignorant, and ever-fluctuating  world.


Even the administration of the sacraments has an external and internal aspect. The external aspect is the visible rite itself. The internal aspect is the validity of the sacrament, whereby it confers the grace it signifies. It is therefore possible that the external rite be observed and administered, even though, through some internal and invisible defect, the sacrament is not valid.


In our discussion here, we are saying that what is left of the authority of the Church in the Novus Ordo is merely the material or visible aspect of authority, that is, persons designated to receive authority. What is lacking to them is the divine authority, and the  divine assistance which necessarily accompanies it.


Body and soul. Just as the soul is the life of the body, so it is authority which gives life, so to speak, to the person who is designated to be pope or bishop. It is to say that a mere election or appointment is not sufficient. The authority must come to him from Christ, the Invisible Head of the Church, in order that he be a true pope or a true bishop. This authority is transferred only on condition that the designated person have the intention of promoting the objective and proper ends of the institution over which he is placed. It  is for this reason that the president-elect of the United States does not obtain power in November when he is merely elected, but in January when he is inaugurated, and only on condition of swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He must swear that he intends to lead the country to its objective and proper ends. Were he to fail to so swear, he  would fail to obtain the power, and would remain a president-elect, a president only materially, until such time as the Congress removed the election from him.


What has happened to the Church since 1958. What we are facing in the Novus Ordo is this: Modernists, by remaining secretive for decades, managed to obtain by the normal and legal process of appointment and designation, a position in the Church to which authority is normally connected. So John XXIII was elected pope in 1958. By a defect, however, the authority,  which is invisible and which is given by Christ the Head of the Church, was never transferred to John XXIII and his successors. What  was this defect? It is that they intended to pervert the Church, and to lead it in a direction contrary to its nature and purpose given to it by God. In a word, they wanted to transform the structures and institutions of the Roman Catholic Church into a huge vehicle of their  Modernism. This evil intention is what has blocked the flow of authority from Christ into them. Without this authority they remain non-popes, false popes. The bishops who have embraced this perversion of Catholicism are also false bishops for the same reason.



That the authority of Christ and the assistance of the Holy Ghost are lacking can be seen from the Hiroshima effect of Vatican II. The Novus Ordo religion — essentially Modernism — has wrecked all of the institutions of the Catholic Church. What is left is only a lifeless shell of these institutions. There are the same physical buildings. There are the same institutions of government. There is still a functioning Vatican. There is still a diocesan bishop. There is still a chancery. There are pastors appointed. 


There are functioning parishes. There are rectors of seminaries, the few that are left.
What we are seeing here, however, is merely a carcass of the Church’s authority. It is something like a dead whale which has washed up on the shore. These institutions, both the buildings and the government, constitute, from a purely material and visible point a view, a continuity with the past. Internally and invisibly, however, they are full of doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary corruption. The stench of death rises from them, that is, the stench of heresy and all of its effects. Everything is infected with gangrene: the Mass, the rites of the sacraments, the catechism, doctrine, morals, attitudes. We see the effects of this infection, as well, in the emptying of the seminaries, convents and religious houses of all kinds, in the breathtaking decline of religious belief and practice, especially among the young, in the nauseating and disgusting conduct of the clergy, even to the point of sodomitic orgies in the Vatican, enhanced with both drugs and liquor, which recently took place, and was reported in the major newspapers, e.g., the London Times.



The Novus Ordo popes, consequently, are mere “cadavers” of real popes, inasmuch as they sit in the chair of Peter, wear the uniform of a pope, but have no power from Christ to teach, rule and sanctify in His name.


My second response. My second response, therefore, is that the Novus Ordo conservatives are ecclesiastical materialists. They can see only the continuity of lifeless institutions from pre- to post- Vatican II, and from that they conclude that salvation consists in adhering to these lifeless institutions. They see only the material side of the Church, its visible side, and turn a blind eye to the absence of the invisibles of the Church, especially the assistance of the Holy Ghost in keeping the Church free from error and defection.


The Novus Ordo religion is one big error and defection. The fact that error and defection can be found in it is an infallible sign that the invisible assistance of the Holy Ghost is not with the Modernist “popes” and “bishops.” They have no authority to rule, no matter if they are maintaining the buildings and governmental institutions of the Church.


An analogy. To illustrate my point, I will make an analogy to a hijacked airplane. Imagine a scene in which terrorists, who have come through the ranks of the airline as uniformed, licensed, and authorized pilots, one day show their true colors by announcing that the airplane will be flown into the side of a building. They slit the throats of anyone who tries to stop them.

From the outside, the plane is flying as normal. Inside there is chaos, terror, and horror.
The Novus Ordo conservative could be compared to the passenger who would say: “For as long as we are still flying, and the pilots are authorized and uniformed pilots, and the airline logo is still on the plane, there is nothing to fear.”


The sedevacantists are those who have done something to stop the evil pilots, and who have had the common sense to declare that if the pilots intend the ruination of the aircraft and its passengers, they do not have the authority to pilot the plane. These sedevacantists are considered “extreme” and “misled” by the passengers who are consoled — indeed blinded — by the purely external signs of the normal functioning of the plane. These are the Novus Ordo conservatives.


A carcass of authority. The Novus Ordo conservative looks merely at the carcass of  authority and government, which is really the only thing left intact since Vatican II, and from it concludes to the identity of the pre- and post-Vatican II religion. He fails to understand that if the invisible qualities of the Church do not vivify the visible institutions of the Church, then these institutions are dead in the practical order.


The Catholic Church, as the Church founded by Christ and assisted by the Spirit of Truth, always retains these institutions of the papacy and episcopacy and her faithful are always attached to them. Therefore in this present hijacking of these institutions, the Church does not lose her power to teach, to rule, and to sanctify, for these pertain to her divine constitution. Just as the solution to the hijacked airline is to wrest the control of the aircraft from those who would pervert its function and destination, so the solution for the Church is to wrest control of these sacred institutions from the 




Modernists so that once again the government of the Church may function normally.
In order to wrest control, however, it is first necessary to identify the hijacker  and to proclaim what is common sense: that he who intends the destruction of the  aircraft and its passengers does not have the authority to pilot the aircraft. Likewise the Modernist, though sitting in a papal or episcopal throne, does not have the authority to pilot the Church.


The worst thing anyone could do in such a case is to reassure Catholics that because we find these Modernists sitting in the papal throne or episcopal throne, then for that reason they must have the authority to rule the Church. It is as absurd as to say that because the hijacking pilots are seated in the cockpit, they have the authority to pilot the plane and we must obey them.


The Novus Ordo conservative, in remaining loyal to the Modernist “authorities,” stymies and paralyzes a proper and efficacious reaction to the problem in the Church. He invites everyone to rally to the Modernists, and to spurn and condemn the sedevacantists as schismatics. If the four Novus Ordo cardinals who presented the Dubiato Francis had the courage to declare him a non-pope, for reason of heresy, the Catholic Church would be on the road to recovery. Instead, they were careful to tell Francis that they were not sedevacantists. Cardinal Burke, one of the Dubia cardinals, stated in an interview in December that if Francis were a public heretic, he would no longer be the pope.


Leave Rome? Who has left Rome? It is not to leave Rome, the one true Church, to be faithful to Catholic doctrine, liturgy and discipline. It is not to leave Rome to denounce as Modernism, the worst heresy to assail the Church according to Saint Pius X, the aberrations of Vatican II in doctrine, liturgy, and discipline. It is not to leave Rome to declare that those who deviate from the true faith cannot rule the Catholic Church.
It is to leave Rome, however, to embrace the new religion of Vatican II, and to associate with the authority of Christ those who have devastated, in a matter of  fifty-nine years, counting from 1958, the magnificent Catholic Church, built up for centuries by true popes and bishops with the assistance of the Spirit of Truth. For Rome is  the Church, and the Church is the Faith.


All of these discussions always revert to a single question: Do the reforms of Vatican II constitute a new religion, different from the Catholic religion? If they do, then the position of the sedevacantists is correct. For it is impossible that the Church, assisted by the Holy Ghost, could promulgate to the whole world a false religion. If, on the other hand, they do not constitute a new religion, if indeed there is continuity of true doctrine, liturgy and discipline, then the sedevacantist is wrong and the Novus Ordo conservative is right. So it is pointless to talk about anything else unless this single burning question is answered.


Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, Feast of Finding the Body of St. Stephen, 3rd August 2017