Have you Ever been to the Catholic Holy Mass?

To cut the long story short, Freemasons took over the Catholic Church's structure in 1958 and created a false New Mass where people now go every Sunday, some everyday while claiming to be Catholics! Sorry, you have been led to worship Satan! What you mistake to be the Mass was created by Freemasons and Protestants!

The audacity of it all is mind bugling! Protestants were invited to help create a purported Catholic Mass? Give me a break! But it is true! The Homosexual anti pope, Paul VI, the criminal about to be falsely canonized by Francis come October, was the one who created the false New Mass where you go to! He did this and then imposed it on April 3 1969! 

Sorry, if you claim to be Catholic and claim that Francis is pope? John Paul II saint and pope?, you have never been to Mass in your life!

Nowhere is the apostate nature of the Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion more evident than in what it has done to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the true and perfect worship which alone is per se acceptable to the Most Holy Trinity. Thick tomes could be — and have been — written on the liturgical changes perpetrated by the Vatican II Sect, and certainly it is beyond the scope of this page to address them all. Rather, on this page we will present an overview of what has changed and then point you to resources that provide further details:

As the central act of Catholic worship, the liturgical actions, gestures, and prayers of the Holy Mass reflect the Catholic Faith to a tee. In all its details, the Catholic Mass reflects what Catholics believe, and vice versa: What Catholics believe is reflected in the Holy Mass. It therefore follows that if someone were to change the liturgical actions or prayers of the Holy Mass substantially, this would necessarily change or impact the belief of Catholics. 

A common Catholic adage is that the law of prayer is the law of belief: lex orandi, lex credendi. Therefore, whenever changes were made to the Catholic Mass in the past, these changes were minor and never substantial, and complete orthodoxy was always guaranteed so that the faithful would always be nourished with pure and sound doctrine in this principal act of worship of the Most Holy Trinity.

In fact, the Catholic Church teaches clearly that she is infallible and spotless in the promulgation of her sacramental rites and sacred laws imposed upon all. It is not possible for the Catholic Church to promulgate a sacramental rite that is intrinsically invalid, impious, evil, or otherwise harmful to souls. In fact, the Council of Trent under Pope Pius IV hurls an anathema (“let him be excommunicated”) at anyone who would dare to suggest that the Church’s sacramental rites are an incentive to impiety:

“If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema”.

(Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7)

Likewise, Pope Pius XII taught as follows:

“Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors”.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, n. 66)

There are many other examples of this kind, but these suffice to make clear that the sacramental rites of the Catholic Church are without blemish and are of themselves conducive to the salvation of souls. This should not be surprising, given that the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ Himself established the Catholic Church for the salvation of souls and promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against her. If this Church could promulgate sacramental rites that are harmful to souls and even invalid, the gates of hell would definitely have prevailed, and the Church would be worthless, nay dangerous!

The Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion suddenly said that the Catholic Mass does not promote piety any more and is irrelevant! So they created a false new Mass which they claimed is good! So they are saying that the Mass which the Catholic Church has been saying for hundreds of years and which has helped to make many great saints is not good? The good one is the one made by Protestants? Answer this question for yourself!

As all practicing Catholics assist at the Holy Mass at least once a week (on Sundays), as far as they are able, it is clear that the Faith is taught them principally and most often specifically in the liturgical rite of the Holy Mass. It stands to reason, therefore, that in order to change the faith of Catholics, to change what they believe and how they believe it, it was necessary for the enemies who had infiltrated Holy Mother Church to change the liturgical rites and prayers of the Holy Mass.

The Freemasonic/Modernist takeover of the Vatican in 1958 could never have been successful if they had only changed the beliefs on paper. Most Catholics are not familiar with papal encyclicals (which are addressed to clerics, anyway, and not to laymen), nor do they read conciliar documents; but all practicing Catholics assist at Holy Mass at least once a week. Just as the secular-sexual revolution of the 1960’s was transported into every home via rock music on the radio, and mostly thereby produced its evil fruit in abundance, so the New Faith of the Modernists could not spread into every Catholic heart and soul except by imposing on the faithful a “New Mass” that would no longer be an expression of the pure Catholic Faith of the ages but of the poisonous new Modernistic religion that had begun to be introduced and sanctioned by John XXIII and his successors, especially Paul VI.

Interestingly enough, something very similar occurred when the Anglican heretics broke with Rome in the 16th century. They changed the Mass and sacraments to express the new faith they were preaching. In his magisterial document declaring the invalidity of the Anglican “priesthood” and “Masses,” Pope Leo XIII pointed out what could very well be said of the Modernist revolutionaries of the 1960’s:

“Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying” [lex orandi, lex credendi], under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the [Protestant] reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out”.

(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Constitution Apostolicae Curae, n. 30)

Note how Pope Leo emphasizes the connection between faith and worship — it is essential! 

The infamous founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, once said: “Tolle Missam, tolle Ecclesiam” — “If you take away the Mass, you take away the Church.” 

He was right on this point, in a certain sense. Note also that Leo XIII says that the Anglicans made changes to the Mass “under the pretext of returning to the primitive form,” which is precisely what Paul VI and his cohorts claimed they were doing when introducing the New Mass, and which is precisely what Pope Pius XII had condemned in 1947 as “antiquarianism”:

“Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

…Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise….”

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, n. 62-64; underlining added.)

Does this not sound familiar?

On a side note: It is probably not insignificant that the New Mass was promulgated on April 3, 1969, which was not only Holy Thursday but also the first day of the Jewish Passover (recall that Christ established His True Sacrifice of the Mass at the same time when the Jews were celebrating Passover, in 33 AD). 

On that fateful day, the papal impostor Paul VI introduced what he claimed was simply a “reform” of the Catholic Mass based on “more ancient liturgical sources” (see Paul VI, Missale Romanum). He called it the “new order of the Mass,” or, in the Latin original, the “novus Ordo Missae.” This “new order of the Mass,” a term perhaps more pregnant with meaning than he then realized, gradually came to be known as the “Novus Ordo Mass,” or simply the “New Mass.” The term “Novus Ordo” (“new order”) has since come to be used to describe not only the liturgical worship of the Vatican II religion but the entire new religion that this New Mass expresses as well. 

Therefore, we use “Novus Ordo” as an adjective to refer to the entire Neo-Modernist religion that was begun by John XXIII, openly manifested itself at Vatican II, found its perfect expression in the New Mass, and continues to masquerade as Catholicism to this very day.

So IF you are in a place where you call "Catholic Parish" and they "priests" there believe in "Pope" Francis, you have never been to Mass!

Watch the video Above to see the true Mass!

If you wish to study the New False Mass, where you go every Sunday, and why it is evil, click here for extensive study of the ideas and the spirit behind it. 

Also for a video tutorial of why the Mass you attend every Sunday under "Pope" Francis is EVIL, please watch these series of videos!

VIDEOS 

Presented by Malachy Igwilo, 26 July 2018, Feast of St. Anne, Mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Is the “Catholic Church” in Rome the Catholic Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

To make a long story short: What is today known as Roman Catholicism is in fact not the Roman Catholicism of Our Lord Jesus Christ which he founded on the Apostles. You can verify this for yourself just by looking at Church history, and virtually all disinterested historians will confirm this. 

The big rupture occurred first at the rogue election of Angelo Roncalli as John XXIII and then at the Second Vatican Council, a gathering of all Catholic bishops called in 1959 by the newly-elected “Pope John XXIII”. It was held from 1962 until 1965 in Vatican City. John XXIII died in 1963, and his successor, “Pope Paul VI”, continued and concluded the council, making it legally effective for the entire church.

The long-term effect of the council has been a complete revolution of Catholicism, one that has been most visible in the changes in Catholic worship, specifically in the Catholic Mass, which went from being a solemn, dignified, and otherworldly rite of Sacrifice being offered to the Most Holy Trinity in the sacred Latin tongue by a priest facing God and therefore having his back to the congregation, to being a pedestrian service in which the priest is reduced to the status of a mere presider over a meal, often acting even as an entertainer, reading dull prayers in English or another vernacular, while facing the people.

Lots of lay participation in the sanctuary contributes to an already-desacralized service. The results have been catastrophic: exceptionally low Mass attendance, an unprecedented crisis in vocations to the priesthood, and a “Catholic” populace ignorant of some of the most basic tenets of Catholicism.

But the “New Mass” or Novus Ordo Missae, as it is called, is merely one visible symptom of the fundamental problem, which is that the religion you see today as “Roman Catholicism” is not the Catholic religion of ages past but is basically the religion of the Second Vatican Council, usually abbreviated as “Vatican II” (the First Vatican Council, or Vatican I, had taken place from 1869-70 under Pope Pius IX).

A great many ideas today promoted as Roman Catholicism, are actually rooted only in Vatican II and were not known or accepted before — and that’s a pretty long “before” — around 1,900 years. Things like ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, interfaith prayer services, opposition to the death penalty, religious freedom as an ideal for every society, the notion of “human rights”, declaring all war to be evil (even the just kind), claminf that non-catholic “churches” can save — all these are examples of Vatican II ideas, not Catholic ideas.

Now here’s the rub: According to perennial Catholic teaching, it is not possible for the Catholic Church to undergo a substantial change. Her teachings cannot change in essence; she cannot contradict or abandon what she taught before; she cannot offer a “new religion” to her followers. There can never be ANY modification of the Catholic faith to suit the world or follow the world. But that is precisely what Vatican II did! It created new doctrines to follow and appease the world!

In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation.

This is not now the place or time to critique or justify any of them. For now, we want to just describe them: (1) despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect; (2) we must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points; (3) because it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. 

In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.

The first line of thought described above is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “conservative Catholic”, “orthodox Catholic”, “Novus Ordo”, “conservative Novus Ordo”, or “indult”. Prominent organizations and individuals which can be said to promote or be associated with this position would include Catholic Answers, EWTN, Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Franciscan University of Steubenville, National Catholic Register, The Wanderer, Latin Mass Magazine, Church Militant, Vericast, Fr. Kenneth Baker, Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Michael Voris, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Steve Kellmeyer, Dave Armstrong, Mark Shea, and many others. You do not need to know all these groups or people. But you can search for them on google.

The second line of thought described above is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “traditionalist”, “traditional”, “resistance”, “recognize-and-resist” (“R&R”), or “SSPX”. Proponents of this position include the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fatima Network, Tradition In Action, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, TradCatKnight, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Bp. Richard Williamson, Rev. Paul Kramer, Rev. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Louie Verrecchio, John Salza, Robert Siscoe, Eric Gajewski, and many more. But their position can really referred to as “recognize-and-resist”, “neo-traditionalist”, “pseudo-traditionalist”, or “semi-traditionalist”.

The third line of thought is the one we espouse at Catholicmap, and it is a theological position known as “Sedevacantism”, from the Latin sede vacante, “the chair being empty”, referring to the Chair of St. Peter that is occupied by the Pope — when there is a legitimate Pope reigning. Sedevacantism is by far the least popular position in dealing with this apostasy, the “black sheep” no one wants to be “tainted” with. Besides us, many other groups or individuals who promote or share this position include True Restoration, the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, Sodalitium, Daily Catholic, The Four Marks newspaper, Bp. Geert Stuyver, Bp. Donald Sanborn, Bp. Mark Pivarunas, Bp. Clarence Kelly, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Fr. Michael Oswalt, Fr. William Jenkins, John Daly, Thomas Droleskey, Stephen Heiner, John Lane, Michael Cain, Mario Derksen, Griff Ruby, Steve Speray, and many others.

As for the term “Novus Ordo”, in its most general application it simply refers to the new, pseudo-Catholic religion of Vatican II described above.

The main purpose of this web site, then, is two-fold: It is to demonstrate how the first two lines of thought are false and how only the third one corresponds to reality; and it is to monitor what the false “Catholic” authorities in the official Catholic structures are up to and demonstrate how what they teach and promote is at odds with the authentic, genuine, traditional Catholicism of the ages.

We invite you to think these things through and do your own research since IF you have the grave misfortune of remaining with the false Catholic Church occupying Rome, you may lose your soul in hell for all eternity.

Presented by Malachy Igwilo, 25 July 2018, feast of St. James the greater and St. Christopher

(culled from Novusordowatch, with editing)

Bishop Fellay of SSPX declares for Heresy!

Recently, the pseudo catholic organization, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) help a meeting at which the removed its current head, Bishop Fellay! 

The elected officials shows how divided the organization is in terms of whether or not they should join the Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion now ruled by Mr. Jorg Bergolio aka Francis or not!

The new head of the SSPX is against joining Novus Ordo, at least for now!

But some days after the meeting, Bishop Fellay was selected as an adviser to the Superior General! Mind you all Fellay wants is to mix the organization with Novus Ordo! Now he will be advising the Superior General! This is very interesting!

Recently, the same Fellay gave an interview in which he denied that there are heresies in the Vatican II documents!

So Fellay is inching closer to coming out to accepting Vatican II fully but he is doing it in style using the modernist tactics of saying nothing in particular, directly!

A true Catholic, Bishop Donald Sanborn has responded to Fellay's acceptance of the heretical Vatican II. This response once again shows the full extent of the heresies of Vatican II which define Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion! 

Here are Bishop Sanborn's response:

Bishop Fellay, who has been, until recently, the head of the Society of Saint Pius X for the past twenty-four years, gave an interview to Tagespost in which he said a few things which deserve attention.

The first is this: “We have never said that the Council directly taught any heresies. But it took away the wall of protection from error, and thereby permitted error to show itself.”

Is this an accurate statement? Did Vatican II merely expose the Church to error? Or did it actually contain heresies? Answer: It contained heresies.

The first heresy of Vatican II: ecumenism. The document Unitatis Redintegratio, or the Decree on Ecumenism, contains a glaring heresy against the Catholic dogma which teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Council states:

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3] [Emphasis added].

The Catholic Church teaches as dogma — it was called a “most well-known Catholic dogma” by Pius IX — that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Council states the precise contradictory of the Catholic dogma, namely that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, that these non-Catholic religions can deliver salvation to their adherents, and are indeed the means by which they are saved. This is heresy.

The second heresy of Vatican II: religious liberty. The Catholic Church, professing to be the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ, and outside of which there is no salvation, understands religious liberty to be the liberty of the Catholic Church to carry out its mission in the world, to establish itself everywhere, to function freely as an entity distinct from the State. It also claims the liberty of its adherents to profess and practice their Catholic faith without harassment or molestation.

It condemns the idea, as being contrary to Sacred Scripture, that all religions have these same liberties and these same rights. For to assert such a thing would be the same as saying that a person or organization would have a right to do something wrong. But this is contrary to the natural law, and therefore contrary to the Church’s teaching. You can have a right only to do something right, and never a right to do something wrong.

Liberty is the power of electing the good. License is the freedom falsely accorded to the will to elect evil. In order that there be the exercise of true liberty, it is necessary that it not detract from any duty. For liberty does not exist for evil, but for the good. Therefore, for as often as man abuses liberty for the purpose of committing evil, it should not be called liberty but instead license.

Liberty of conscience is absolutely impious. For man is by a most strict duty bound to think correctly about God, and concerning those things which regard both speculative and practical religion. But to go against a most strict duty of nature is license, not liberty. If we are talking about a voluntary transgression of our duty toward God, the aforesaid license is impiety. Because, therefore, through liberty of conscience the right is given to man to think concerning God however he pleases, this liberty, this right, is truly an impiety.

The liberty of religions, considered in itself, is absurd. This proposition is proven by what has been already said. For the liberty of religions is inferred only from the liberty of conscience. Because liberty of conscience is absurd, it follows also that the liberty of religions is absurd. But more must be said. If one concedes the liberty of religions, one takes away from God the power of imposing a determined worship upon men, and one imposes upon God a certain obligation of accepting or at least of approving any form of worship shown to Him by human reason. But God has commanded a form of worship — the Catholic religion. Consequently He is not obliged to accept just any form of worship that human beings give Him. It follows that men cannot, without obvious irreligion and impiety reject the precepts of God, and be the arbiters of their own worship. On the other hand, it is an impiety to deny to God the faculty of determining worship, and to impose some kind of duty upon Him of approving all forms of worship indiscriminately. Therefore the liberty of religions is absurd.

Vatican II, however, teaches that liberty of religion for the individual and for religious organizations is a right which flows from the notion of human dignity. Furthermore, it says that this teaching concerning human dignity is contained in revelation, but gives no reference where in revelation God guarantees the right to believe and practice whatever religion you want.

Vatican II teaches in Dignitatis Humanæ, no. 2:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Some try to defend the Council by saying that the only thing it means is that no one should be converted to Catholicism by the sword. The Church has always taught that conversion should not take place in such a manner, and has condemned any attempt to do so. That this is not the intention of the Council can be seen from the paragraphs subsequent to the one cited above:

The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transfer-ral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.

Those of us who have lived in a country such as the United States, where the religious liberty described in these paragraphs is considered a normal, even sacred, civil right, fail to see the malice of these words. If we substitute “abortion” for “religion,” the point might become clearer: “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to an abortion.” “Abortion clinics are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of abortion itself.” “Provided the just demands of public order are observed, abortion clinics rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, publicly perform abortions, assist their members in the practice of abortion, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their abortion principles.”

Need I go on? It should be pointed out here that, as heinous a crime as abortion is, the profession of a false religion is far more heinous in God’s sight, being directly contrary to His solemn rights. It is not to be forgotten that in Exodus (chapter 32) God ordered the slaying of all those who had participated in the worship of the golden calf, and who had not repented of it. The number of those slain was 23,000. This momentous event was to demonstrate to the Hebrew people the necessity of adhering to the true religion, and of shunning false religions. According to Vatican II, Moses should have proclaimed religious liberty for all of the calf-worshippers.

Religious liberty, as it is taught by Vatican II, is in-deed a heresy. It is solemnly condemned by Pope Pius IX as being against the Scriptures. Furthermore, Archbishop Lefebvre considered religious liberty to be a heresy. He said exactly this to Fr. Cekada in a dinner conversation at Oyster Bay.

The third heresy of Vatican II: The new ecclesiology. By ecclesiology we mean the Church’s doctrine concerning its own nature, that is, its essence and characteristics. Vatican II teaches a heretical ecclesiology. It is contained in Lumen Gentium.

The traditional dogma of the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church, and it alone, is the one true Church of Christ, and that therefore any entity outside of itself is a false religion. This includes even those schismatic religions of the East which may have a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. If you are cut off from the center — the pope — you are nothing but a dead branch that has fallen off the vine.

Vatican II altered this doctrine in order to include other Christian denominations in the Church of Christ, saying that the Church of Christ, as an organized body, subsists in the Catholic Church.

What does it mean to subsist in? Subsistence is a perfection of a thing whereby it exists on its own, and not in something else. For example, a color cannot exist on its own, but must always exist in something else, e.g., paint, a flower, a cloth. That “something else” must have its own subsistence.

Applying this to ecclesiology, if the Church of Christ does not subsist on its own, but must subsist in something else, it means that the Church of Christ is really distinct from what it subsists in, namely that they are by nature two different things. It means that the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. If they were by nature not two different things, then they would be the same thing, and it would be necessary to say the the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, which is precisely the dogma of the Catholic Church.

The “subsists in” doctrine also means that the Church of Christ could subsist in something else, like the Lutheran Church, for example.

While this doctrine does wonders for the heresy of ecumenism and religious liberty, it destroys the Church’s teaching that the Catholic Church is exclusively the Church of Christ, and vice versa. The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same, and exclusively so, meaning that no other “Christian” organization can call itself the Church of Christ in any way whatsoever. The only appropriate name for them is a heretical or schismatic sect.

The fourth heresy of Vatican II: Collegiality. This doctrine, also contained in Lumen Gentium, holds that the subject (possessor) of supreme power in the Church is the college of bishops. Listen to the Council:

The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.

This is heresy. For the Catholic Church teaches that the Roman Pontiff is the head of the Catholic Church. Listen to the Council of Florence: “We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that the full power was given to him in Blessed Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.” (Decree for the Greeks, July 6, 1439)

Pope Pius VI condemned this doctrine: “All the bishops together and in one body govern the same Church, each one with full power.”

Some try to save Vatican II from heresy by saying that the Council states that the pope is the head of the college, and that it cannot act without him. But this does not save it from heresy, because the pope in that case simply becomes another member of the college of bishops, and merely a condition of their power, but not the source of their power.

Others try to save the Council by pointing out that the document asserts that the Pope is the head of the Church: “In virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church.”This is a futile attempt, however. No organization can have two heads, two supreme legislators. For example, it is impossible that both king and parliament be the supreme legislator. One must have the last word, to whom the other is subservient. King Charles I of England lost his head by upholding the supremacy of the king over parliament.

Yet others try to save the Council by citing the Preliminary Note of Explanation (the Nota Prævia), but this is worthless, since it is not part of the document accepted by the bishops. The modernist theologian Yves Congar was swift to point this out when he was a peritus at the Council. Besides, there is nothing in the Nota Prævia which cancels out the conciliarist heresy in the document.

The Catholic doctrine is that the pope, as supreme head of the Church, may invite the bishops into a general council, in which, by his consent, they participate in his power to rule the Church. Apart from these general councils, the authority of bishops is confined to their dioceses. The power to rule the diocese is from Christ, but comes to them through the Roman Pontiff, who may remove the power from them whenever he will. Pope Pius XII taught in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis: “Yet in exercising this office they [the bishops] are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” (no. 42)

Bishop Fellay sells out to the Modernists on the Council. About a year ago, the Vatican told the Society of Saint Pius X that there could be no hope of reconciliation unless the SSPX accepts Vatican II and the post-Vatican II magisterium. By saying that there is no heresy in Vatican II, Bishop Fellay is saying that Vatican II is orthodox, that is, Catholic, and is not offensive to the Catholic Faith.

If that be so, then what have we been doing for the past fifty years?

Bishop Fellay also sells out on the question of the New Mass. Bishop Fellay makes this remark-able statement: “Not every New Mass is a scandal directly, but the repeated celebration of the New Mass leads to a weakening or even a loss of faith.”

Question: how could it not be a scandal if it leads to a loss of faith? How could an infallible and indefectible Church, the Church of Christ, assisted by the Holy Ghost, the pillar and ground of truth, as St.Paul calls it, promulgate to the whole world a rite which leads to the loss of faith? Bishop Fellay’s statement falls under the anathema of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety, let him be anathema.”

Bishop Fellay states in this same interview that the traditional Mass is like a silver trumpet, whereas the New Mass is like a brass trumpet:

I say only that if you are receiving a head of State, and you have the choice between a silver trumpet and a brass trumpet, would you choose the brass trumpet? It would be an insult. You would not do it. Even the best New Masses are like trumpets of brass, in comparison to the traditional liturgy. For God, we would choose what is better.

The only conclusion to draw from this statement is that the New Mass is a Catholic Mass but it is merely inferior to the traditional Mass. After all, they are both trumpets! The silver one is merely nicer than the brass one. I think a better analogy would have been to compare the New Mass not to a brass trumpet, but to a giant elephant passing gas.

Bishop Fellay, until recently, was the head of the organization which purports to be the bulwark of tradition, the single hope of the Catholic faithful who want to be protected from Vatican II and its reforms. Yet he is all mixed up in regard to the highest guiding principles of resistance to Vatican II. On the one hand he says that the New Mass weakens or destroys your faith — which means that it is poison — and then a few lines later says that it is a brass trumpet and not a silver one, indicating that there is merely a difference of quality between the two Masses.

It is for this reason that we rejoice over our separation from the SSPX in 1983. We saw the seeds of this utter theological confusion, this theology à la Maxine Waters, and wanted no part of it.

We may be small in comparison to the SSPX, but we are not mixed up. As Garrigou-Lagrange put it: “A thousand idiots do not equal one genius.” Likewise a thousand mixed up priests do not equal one priest with his head screwed on right.

Presented by Malachy Igwilo, 23 July 2018, feast of St. Appolonarius 

The Return of the Catholic Church to Nigeria!

There is a huge religion calling itself the Catholic Church but which is a totally false religion ruled by the devil through various agents!

The Chief agent of the devil currently ruling this huge religion is Mr. Jorg Bergoglio who tells the world that he is “Pope Francis”! This man is truly of the devil just like his five false predecessors namely John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI!

These men have been ruling this huge false religion since 1958 when this criminal religion was finally established and superimposed on Catholic structures!

In Nigeria, this evil religion has created 44 odd dioceses ruled by various false Bishops, with thousands of invalid priests, with Awka Dioceses in South Eastern Nigeria producing the highest invalid priests!

This gigantic false religion is mainly well established in Southern Nigeria with few struggling diocesan outposts in Northern Part of the country, constantly under threat by the Muslims! The work of these dioceses is to keep as many people in darkness as possible! They all swear allegiance to the man calling himself “pope Francis”!

We pray that those millions of Nigerians trapped in this huge false religion, the counterfeit Catholic Church, will flee from this evil much like someone flees from a burning building!

A brief History of the Catholic Church in Nigeria

The Catholic Church came to Nigeria in the 19^th century. It is believed that the first priest in Nigeria was the Irish Fr. Lutz, who arrived and started the mission immediately in 1885. A few Catholic priests came to this massive land during the European exploration of Africa.

They initial settlements were in Calabar, then Onitsha, Owerri, Umuahia and then Lagos and further inland. These priest-missionaries came to a VERY difficult terrain and hundreds of them died in the mosquito infested virgin forests of Southern Nigeria. But they did not stop due to the necessity to bring the true Gospel to Nigeria.

While they were at it, the false religionists like the Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists were also making forays. But the Catholic Church took the upper hand as people began to see that the Catholic Church was the true thing and those who joined or remains in the Anglican Church for instance, when the truth of the Catholic Church became known, were mainly unreasonable rebels who sought mere difference and cheap assess to the “white mans” goods!

The Catholic missionaries suffered all sorts of dangers and ostracism. But as the colonial project took hold, they were able to do their work unmolested from the pagans who sought ways of eliminating them. The concept of “evil forests” were forbidden places where, according to prevailing superstitions, evils spirits will easily eat up anyone who dare to enter it. Those who died without burials, having been banished into the “evils forests were believed to be roaming these places seeking merciless revenge on anyone daring to enter.

It is these “evil forests” that were given freely to the white missionaries for them to enter and die, naturally as expected. But these men, protected by God and zealous for the task at hand cleared these forests and made great mission centers out of this. The fact that the missionaries did not die as expected made many people to abandon paganism and joined the Church. So many were baptized and the Church was firmly established.

However, given the political turmoil of colonialism, real catechesis did not take place. Not enough people, in particular the lay men were able to know the faith inside out. Indeed there was no enough critical mass firmly established in the people to solidify and entrench the faith.

The faith started to take roots in the late 1950s when natives were ordained priests! These priests started to evangelize the people in the language they could understand! A generation of people knew the faith well enough to evangelize the whole country.

But sadly, the turmoil of independence struggle and the eventual civil war stunted the growth of the faith in Nigeria!

As the Biafran war of secession came in 1967, too many Easterners, the usual Catholics, left their places throughout Nigeria to run back to the South East for safety after they were methodically slaughtered by the Hausa-Fulani Muslim over lords! The killings were so massive and shocking that they can best be described as ethnic cleansing, a concept that did not exist at that time. So those who perpetrated these killings of millions of people are left unmolested to this day. Many of them remain alive and pilot the Nigerian political scene. These killings are unprecedented to the extent that the only real preoccupation for the Southerners is survival NOT the faith!

Although the native priests remained to take care of the faithful, they took care of mostly their material wellbeing through the help of Catholic Relief Organization, CARITAS! Caritas made use of local clergy to distribute relief to the hinterlands where people were hiding in the lurch green forests of Southern Nigeria. It was when the criminal Nigerian government blockaded the Seas in the South that CARITAS’ operations winded down leading eventually to the end of the war.

CARITAS made effort through air drops to continue its relief operations despite the blockade, by the British, Russian and American governments aided the murderous Nigerian government making it impossible for the reliefs to continue and eventually the war ended in 1970.

It was this war that distracted people from the evil Council, Vatican II which was held in 1962 to 1965. This council was the intellectual tour de force of the new false religion which usurped Catholic parishes and dioceses in Nigeria.

The Vatican II Council and Nigeria

Nigeria was largely a sparsely populated massive land by the time the Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion was established upon the structures of the Catholic Church! Many people were not aware of the massive takeover of the Catholic structures by Masonic forces. Many native priests were busy trying to evangelize the people. Unknown to them the Church has been hijacked by the dark forces of the Devil!

While the priests were yet trying to understand the Vatican II council and the takeover, a terrible war broke out leaving no time for doctrinal discernment. Too many died including those that knew the faith. By the time the war ended in 1970, the roots of the new religion has been planted in Nigeria through “papal nuncios” and agents of the false Vatican!

So the native priests went into apostasy like the rest of their colleagues worldwide! They did not resist the apostasy! They simply joined the false new religion with fear and trembling most of them lacking the training to know the full effects of this new religion! So Catholicism in Nigeria gradually faded!

When the new false Mass of Novus Ordo religion started, many people continued to celebrate the true Mass, the Tridentine Mass until their Bishops, usually white men, went to Europe to learn fully how to implement the devilish religion! So Catholicism ended in Nigeria, sadly!

The return of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church has returned to Nigeria! God works in mysterious ways! He sent out a single seminarian, called Bede Nkamuke, a young Engineer to travel to the Most Holy Trinity Seminary to be trained for the Catholic priesthood under the firm hands of Bishop Donald Sanborn!

While this young engineer was undergoing training in the seminary, a Novus Ordo conservative group called Society of Saint Pius the Tenth (SSPX) occupied Nigeria deceiving many people that their coming is the return of the true faith! They came with the true Mass and color! They came and entrenched themselves at Enugu, in Eastern Nigeria and many believed them to be Catholic!

But as time went by, thanks to the information explosion called the internet, many people saw the SSPX for what they are truly, a band of deceivers linked to the false religion of Novus Ordo! Many people abandoned them and waited on God to return the Church urgently to Nigeria!

As God wants it, the young Engineer, was ordained a priest in USA on 6^th November 2013, after an astounding training at a true Catholic Seminary, Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Brookeville Florida, USA!

Not long after his ordination, he returned to Nigeria as the first missionary priest here to return Nigeria to Catholicism!

He is making astounding success after decades of the Novus Ordo assault on the souls of Nigerians! Today, about 200 people are part of this true Catholic Church which has returned to Nigeria and these are scattered in the various towns in Southern Nigeria mostly in Lagos, Port Harcourt, Owerri, Agenebode, Onitsha, Umunze, and Enugu!

A few persons have converted in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria but there is just this ONE priests taking care of these many missions! This is even a preparatory seminary in Nigeria now under the tutelage of Fr. Bede Nkamuke, made up of 5 seminarians who get preliminary training here in Nigeria before going to the Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Florida, USA to be trained under the watchful eyes of a true catholic Bishop, Bishop Donald Sanborn. One of these seminarians is a from Ghana! Perhaps from Nigeria, the Catholic Church will return as well to Ghana! It will be a glorious day!

There is video posted above which you need to see, posted with this piece, for you to see the extent this priest-engineer is going in Nigeria!

We pray that the true faith will continue to spread throughout Nigeria. Amen.

If you are in Nigeria and wish to learn about the new faith call this number: 07038611282.

Presented by Malachy Igwilo, 22 July 2018, Feast of Mary Magdalene