Do you think you know ANY Catholic priest or Bishop? You do not know any!

It has been 50+ years ago, when on June 18, 1968, that the then head of the Novus ordo/Vatican II Religion — “Pope” Paul VI, whose real name was Bp. Giovanni Battista Montini — signed an “apostolic constitution” to change the Roman Catholic rite of ordination as part of the Masonic plot to destroy the Catholic Church from within! The purpose is to have laymen viewed as priests and Bishops and that is what has happened since 1968! 

So you may not know any priest or Bishop UNLESS the ones you know were ordained or consecrated before 1968! This means your parish "priest" and your diocesan "Bishop" are impostors posing as a  priest and Bishop!

They lack any priestly authority and can neither bless or give absolution in the confessional! It is that bad! The implication is unbelievable in terms of the souls that will be damned! 

The changes he introduced touched not only some of the more peripheral ceremonies but the very substance of the sacrament itself. The very words which Pope Pius XII, in 1947, had definitively decreed were necessary for the validity of the sacrament of holy orders, were changed by Paul VI in such a way as to render the ordination of priests doubtful and the consecration of bishops definitely invalid (although even a doubtful rite, in any case, must be considered invalid in practice, per Catholic teaching).

Since all sacraments other than baptism and holy matrimony ultimately depend on valid bishops, invalidating the rite of episcopal consecration was all the Novus Ordo Masonic apostates needed to do to ensure Catholics would be deprived of most of the sacraments in the long run, especially the Holy Eucharist/Mass and absolution in the confessional.

The document Paul VI released to change the sacrament of holy orders for the Roman rite is called Pontificalis Romani and purports to be an apostolic constitution. The full text can be read here:

Antipope Paul VI, “Apostolic Constitution” Pontificalis Romani (1968), original Latin

Antipope Paul VI, “Apostolic Constitution” Pontificalis Romani (1968), English translation

To prove the invalidity of Paul VI’s ordination rite, we provide a plethora of links further down below, but just to give you a quick preview, see for yourself how badly Montini butchered the essential form of the consecration of bishops, thus totally destroying the sacrament:

Traditional Roman Catholic form, per Pope Pius XII (1947):

“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.“

[Translation:] “Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”

Modernist Novus Ordo form, per Antipope Paul VI (1968):

“Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Iesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui.“

[Translation:] “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

Not only does the bogus Novus Ordo form totally replace the words decreed by Pius XII as essential to validity, they do not even in any way express that what is taking place is the consecration of a bishop! They do not even ask the Holy Ghost to make the ordinand into a bishop! Instead, even if one were to say that the totally vague and abstruse phrase “Spiritum principalem” (“Governing Spirit”) is a clear reference to the Holy Ghost, the fact remains that it is not stated just what the Holy Ghost is supposed to be doing.

God the Father is being asked to “pour out” the Holy Ghost (or at least that “Governing Spirit”) — but to do what? To what end? We’re not told. The Holy Ghost is poured out also in baptism, in confirmation, and in ordinations of deacons and priests, for example.

Paul VI’s claim that he was introducing these changes “in order to restore the texts of the rite to the form they had in the days of old or antiquity, to clarify expressions, or to bring out more clearly the effects of the sacraments” (Pontificalis Romani) is beyond laughable; it is, in fact, insulting to the intelligence of the informed reader. 

In any case, just over 20 years before these mad changes, Pope Pius XII had noted that “ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity” (Encyclical Mediator Dei, n. 61).

A sacramental form that does not express what it is supposed to accomplish is definitely invalid, as the articles about the invalidity of Novus Ordo ordinations below demonstrate.

In addition to changing the sacramental form of priestly and episcopal ordination, in his document Pontificalis Romani Paul VI also abolished the major order of subdeacon and all of the minor orders (acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter), none of which are sacraments, but whose denial was condemned by the Council of Trent and flies in the face of the Modernists’ favorite lie to seek to restore things to “antiquity”:

…[F]om the very beginning of the Church the names of the following orders and the duties proper to each one are known to have been in use, namely those of the subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, rector, and porter, though not of equal rank; for the subdiaconate is classed among the major orders by the Fathers and the sacred Councils, in which we also read very frequently of other inferior orders.

Can. 2. If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are in the Catholic Church no other orders, both major and minor, by which as by certain grades, there is an advance to the priesthood: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session 23; Denz. 958, 962)

Rome has spoken; the case is closed.

But before anyone suggests that somehow Paul VI’s constitution “isn’t binding”, we must point out that in it he clearly invokes his supposed (but non-existent) “apostolic authority” and requires that this new rite be used in place of the prior, Catholic one:

By our apostolic authority we approve this rite so that it may be used in the future for the conferral of these orders in place of the rite now found in the Roman Pontifical. It is our will that these our decrees and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.

(Antipope Paul VI, “Apostolic Constitution” Pontificalis Romani; 

According to a decree of the Novus Ordo Sacred Congregation of Rites dated August 15, 1968, Montini’s new rite of ordination became obligatory for the entire Latin church as of Easter Sunday, April 6, 1969. So we know for sure that since at least this date, the Novus Ordo church has not validly consecrated a single bishop in the Roman rite, and probably not ordained a single valid priest, either.

The repercussions are unfathomable — but they explain a lot about the state of the New Church. The sacraments are largely gone, so there is simply no grace there, and it shows.

But the true Catholic Church cannot give evil or harmful or invalid sacramental rites to her faithful. Such an idea would contradict the promise of infallibility and indefectibility given by our Blessed Lord. That Paul VI was able to invalidate a sacramental rite, therefore, is further evidence that he was not a true Pope and that the Vatican II Sect of which he was the head is not the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors.

Consider the following clear teachings:

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.

(Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7; Denz. 954)

Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] 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 Mediator Dei, n. 66)

The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.

(Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Try to apply this to the Novus Ordo Church, and you realize very quickly that it leads to absurdity. It is simply undeniable that the Vatican II Church has defected, has given evil, has destroyed the sacraments, and has been a scandal to the faithful rather than the embassy of salvation. 

In the CatholicChurch, however, the Pope is “the citadel and bulwark of the Catholic faith” (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Qui Nuper, n. 3). No one could seriously say this about the antipopes of the Vatican II Church. It follows with logical necessity, therefore, that Paul VI was not a true Pope but an impostor, as were his predecessor John XXIII, who started the false church, and his successors John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis I.

As the late Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, OFM Cap., is sometimes quoted as having said, “Once there are no more valid priests, they’ll permit the Latin Mass.” Think about that!

The many links we provide below will help you as you research these issues. You will also see claims and counter claims of those who insist that Paul VI was a pope and rites he promulgated are valid! But you will quickly see that these types of people are completely wrong! 

Invalid: The Unholy Orders of the Vatican II Church

Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration by Fr. Anthony Cekada

Examines the criteria for validity, Eastern Rite formulas, ancient Christian texts, early doubts about validity, “governing Spirit” vs. “fullness of the priesthood,” substantial change, arguments from context, papal approval. Answer to SSPX/Angelus and Sel de la Terre articles by Fr. Pierre-Marie favoring validity. Extensive bibliography.

Why the New Bishops are Not True Bishops by Fr. Anthony Cekada
A two-page summary of the above-linked study “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void”.

Still Null and Still Void: Replies to Objections by Fr. Anthony Cekada
Replies to objections from Br. Ansgar Santogrossi, OSB, Fr. Pierre-Marie de Kergorlay, OP, and Fr. Alvaro Calderon, SSPX, against the above-linked study “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void”.

New Bishops, Empty Tabernacle by Fr. Anthony Cekada
Response to an editorial by Abbé Grégoire Celier which employs some novel and bizarre principles to defend the validity of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration.

---

Saved by Context? The ’68 Rite of Episcopal Consecration by Fr. Anthony Cekada

Rejoinder to the popular objection that the larger context provided by the 1968 rite of bishops’ ordination gives clear expression to the sacramental form and hence suffices for validity.

The New Ordination Rite: Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church by Fr. William Jenkins, SSPV

A response to certain arguments advanced by Michael Davies in his book The Order of Melchisedech, this article examines the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination in light of Catholic theology and concludes that it is doubtful at best and therefore must be considered invalid in practice. Contains shocking information about how the “reform” of the rite came about.

The Validity of the 1968 Rite of Ordination by Mr. John S. Daly
A direct refutation of Michael Davies’ arguments for the validity of the Pauline ordination rite. This is Chapter 9, Section (B) of Daly’s book Michael Davies – An Evaluation, pp. 355-395 (free download at link above).

These are the documents you will want to read carefully if you wish to explore this important theological question for yourself. Though the subject matter is somewhat technical, it is not too difficult to follow. Print materials that discuss the new rite of ordination are the following (not all of which are by sedevacantist authors, so be careful):

Tumultuous Times: Vatican II and its Aftermath by Fr. Francisco Radecki and Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI

The Problems with the Other Sacraments: Apart from the New Mass by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy

Lex Orandi: Comparing the Traditional and Novus Ordo Rites of the Seven Sacraments by Mr. Daniel Graham (promotes recognize-and-resist error)

Relevant and Related Catholic Magisterial Documents:

Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (1947) on the validity requirements for the sacrament of Holy Orders

Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei (1947) on the Sacred Liturgy, condemning many liturgical practices found in the “New Mass”

Pope Leo XIII, Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896) on the invalidity of Anglican orders (most of which applies to the Novus Ordo rite as well)

What many may not know: The Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) considers the Paul VI rite of episcopal consecration to be valid (for proof, see their Angelus article on the matter here, but be aware that it has been refuted in the articles we link above). This means that if a Novus Ordo priest converts to the SSPX, he will not be re-ordained by the SSPX unless perhaps he personally insists on it. So, beware if you attend SSPX Masses (which you shouldn’t do, anyway)!

The SSPX did not always accept the 1968 ordination rite as valid, by the way. They announced their about-face in December of 2005, which just so happened to be a few months after Joseph Ratzinger became “Pope” Benedict XVI. The fact that Ratzinger himself was the first papal claimant to have been “ordained a bishop” in the Novus Ordo rite of Paul VI (on May 28, 1977) surely has nothing to do with the matter (wink, wink). One SSPX bishop, however, the Most Rev. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, to this day does not accept the validity of the Paul VI rite of holy orders. On June 29, 2016, Bp. Tissier stated in a public ordination sermon: “Obviously, we cannot accept this new, tampered-with ordination rite, which casts doubts on the validity of numerous ordinations [done] according to the new rite” 

(see “Bishop Tissier disputes Validity of Novus Ordo 

Ordinations” and “SSPX Bishops on Bishops and ‘Bishops'”).

At whatever stage in your efforts to make sense of the Vatican II mess you may currently find yourself, please do not neglect this all-important topic, no matter how emotionally disturbing you may find it. Nothing is gained by turning a blind eye to a real and far-reaching problem, but potentially everything may be lost. That this issue is not simply a “sedevacantist thing” is shown by the fact that the SSPX used to consider the Novus Ordo ordinations doubtful or invalid as well, and many other non-sedevacantists still do today.

Sometimes the objection is made that “Eucharistic miracles” in the Novus Ordo Mass prove the validity of Paul VI’s new sacramental rites (at least for Mass and ordinations). However, this objection is inadmissible for a number of reasons:

Unless and until the Catholic Church rules such a phenomenon as miraculous, it is not a miracle but only an alleged miracle. Obviously, any evidence from the Novus Ordo Sect is inadmissible since this would assume at the outset that the Novus Ordo Sect is the Catholic Church, which is the very issue under dispute. In other words: We could not possibly know whether any alleged Eucharistic miracle truly is a miracle because the proper Church authority that could rule on the matter is currently absent or hidden/impeded.

Sacramental validity is a matter of Sacred Theology.

But empirical data a posteriori (after the fact) is not admissible data. In theology, you proceed from general principles to particular conclusions (deductive method); you do not reason from particular cases to a general conclusion (inductive method).

Our Lord warned us against false miracles, the kind that would deceive even the elect if God did not prevent it. Interestingly enough, He spoke this warning in the context of people claiming that Christ is present where He is not: “Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand” (Mt 24:23-25).

The issue of sacramental validity in the Novus Ordo Sect is obviously a matter of most grave concern, and people who dismiss or ignore the issue do so at their own and others’ peril. Those who think this is a temptation to despair, couldn’t be more wrong. It should actually strengthen our Faith in the true Catholic Church because we are witnessing the fulfillment of prophecy:

The prophecies of the Apocalypse [book of Revelation] show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope; and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church.

(Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [Baltimore, MD: Mount St. Mary’s Seminary, 1955], pp. 65-66; underlining added; italics removed.)

It is very important that we view all these developments since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 in the overall context of the Catholic Church suffering her very own Mystical Passion, in imitation of her Divine Head before He returns in glory:

The Papacy and the Passion of the Church

Only in light of this do all these strange developments make sense.

But just as the true Catholic Church cannot die, neither can her sacraments. For those who are wondering what they are to do now, we have compiled a very helpful guide:

Now What? How to be a Catholic while the Church is eclipsed

God does not abandon us, even if we do not have easy access to the true sacraments. The love and mercy of God are for everyone, at all times, and if we cannot obtain sanctifying grace through the ordinary channels of the sacraments, we can always obtain it through perfect contrition:

Perfect Contrition: The Key to Heaven, especially for our Times

As our Blessed Lord said to Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, before rasing his daughter back to life: “Fear not, only believe” (Mk 5:36).

Paul VI’s invalid ordination rite of 1968 proves that the Vatican II Sect is a fraud.

Please watch the video above to be educated!

(Culled from NovusOrdowatch with lots of Editing) 

Presented by Malachy Igwilo, 1 August 2018, Feast of Chains of St. peter and Holy Maccabees! 

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