28 Mar 2015

On the Hyperdulia of the Most Holy Virgin Mary

                                               By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi


                                       
In the fifth century of the Christian era, St Augustine, the celebrated Bishop of Hippo, the greatest Christian theologian after St. Paul and Father of the Western Church, wrote:

“Excepta itaque sancta virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quaestionem—unde enim scimus quid ei plus gratiae collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum, quae concipere ac parere meruit, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum?” (De Natura et Gratia c. 39)

I have translated it thus:

“Therefore, except the Holy Virgin Mary, in whom there is none whatsoever because of the honour of the Lord, concerning sin therefore, I want a question to be had: For from where do we know her to whom more grace will have been conferred than was necessary to conquer sin completely, who deserved to conceive and make visible Him who existed to have had no sin?”

Protestants believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary is just an ordinary woman, like every other sinful woman on earth, hence they feel at liberty to speak all manner of blasphemies against Her as they wish. They should be pitied and prayed for!

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ, has been venerated by Christians since the apostolic times (1st century). This is because She is the Mother of God, Jesus Christ. Protestants blaspheme by saying that Mary had other children apart from Jesus, and they argue on this by citing some passages of the scripture which talk about Jesus’ brothers. (cf. Acts 1: 14; Gal. 1: 19). They are completely wrong.  The word “brother” in Greek (which is the original language of the New Testament Bible) is ἀδελφος, adelphos (the plural is ἀδελφοὺς, adelphous). The word in Greek has a wider meaning—it means not only  ‘‘brother’’ but also ‘‘cousin’’, etc. In Latin the word ‘‘brother’’ is ‘‘frater’’, which also has a wider meaning than the English word. Frater means ‘‘brother’’, ‘‘cousin’’, ‘‘friend’’, ‘‘ally’’, etc. Even the English word “brother” does not just have one meaning. The English word ‘‘brother’’, apart from meaning ‘‘a boy or man who has the same mother and father as another person’’, is also used when talking about other male members of an organization or other men who have the same ideas, purpose, and so on. It is also used for a male member of a religious group.

Protestants hold this blasphemous opinion, of course, because they do not have the grace of God in them. It should be noted that people who do not have the grace of God can even live in mortal sins without being conscious of that; and that is always the unfortunate case, not just of the Protestants, but also of all non-Catholics, that is, all who have not received Catholic baptism. They can blaspheme without knowing that they are actually blaspheming and that this can lead them to hell. Indeed modern Catholics must note, as the 2nd Council of Orange taught in 529 AD, that every man, living on this earth, as a result of the fall of Adam, is in such a condition that he can take no steps in the direction of salvation until he has been renewed in the divine grace given in baptism, and that he cannot continue in the good thus begun except by the constant assistance of that grace, which is mediated only by the Catholic Church. In other words, the grace of God, which makes us to always be conscious of the things of God, that is, to strive to please God in all things and to avoid sins, comes to all men and women only through the sacraments of the Catholic Church, the only Church founded here on earth by Jesus Christ.  Hence the Catholic Church insists that to really be saved, one must actually embrace Catholicism. In his works ‘On the Spirit and the Letter, On Nature and Grace, On Original Sin, and other works St Augustine argued that while Adam was created with the power not to sin, he lost it by sinning. Adam left bondage to sin as a heritage to his descendants—all humankind. Because humans are born with free will but not with the power not to sin, they need the grace of God and the redemption of Christ to be saved—and this grace and redemption come to us through the sacraments of the Catholic Church, a Church which is simply Corpus Christi—Christ’s Body.

Hence, in the Athanasian Creed, a solemn Definition, that is, a dogma which, as Catholics, we must believe in order to be saved, we read:

“Whoever wishes to be saved must before all else hold the Catholic Faith. Unless one keeps this Faith whole and inviolate, he shall most certainly perish in eternity.”

This dogma, however, was contradicted by the Second Vatican Council, and there is no time to go into that here. The same evil Council also contradicted the Church’s teaching on grace by declaring that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of (the Catholic Church’s) visible structure”  (Lumen gentium, 8). Today's pluralistic and godless society creates an environment of indifference in matters of religion in order to achieve a false and empty unity and liberty. It is said that everyone must be allowed to believe as they see fit and do what makes them happy. The implication is that God is not very concerned about whether one believes in what is true, for all will be saved as long as they are “nice.” Some come to this conclusion by asserting that there does not exist any objective truth for us to adhere to, which in turn leads to a denial of the existence of God. Others say that there exist only a few basic objective truths that we need to believe in order to be saved. Both opinions miss the plain reality of the order established by God—the Catholic Church is the unique divine institution given to us for the salvation of mankind. This assertion implies that all non-Catholic religions are false and that only the Catholic Church contains the entire deposit of Truth given to the Apostles by Christ. Although these statements are denied and scorned by today's world, they are fully in accord with common sense, and are simply the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.

Now back to our main discussion. It must also be noted that, when the Bible mentions James, Simon and Jude as the “Brethren of the Lord”, it never speaks of them as sons of Mary and Joseph, as the Protestants falsely hold. The Bible uses the word “brethren” in a wider sense—as male members of the Christian faith, or as cousin or near relative. St James the less, for example, who is called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1: 19), was the son of Cleophas and Mary—cousin of the Blessed Mother of Christ.

Protestants also claim that the Gospel of St Luke says that St Joseph knew her not until She brought forth Her first-born Son. This indicates, they claim, that after Jesus was born Mary and Joseph conducted themselves as normal married couple; and that Jesus was the first-born Son, indicating that other sons were born to Joseph and Mary afterwards.

However, the word “till” or “until” in sacred scripture does not necessarily mean a change of circumstances after a given event takes place. For example, in Psalm 109 we read: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at My right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool”. Does this mean that after God the Father makes the enemies of God the Son His footstool, the Son no longer sits at the Father’s right hand?

Also, in 2 Kings (6: 23), we read: “Therefore, Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death”.

Does this mean that the woman gave birth to a child after she died?

On their claim that first-born Son indicates that other sons were born to Joseph and Mary afterwards, the biblical scholar, St Jerome, himself the celebrated translator of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin, Secretary to Pope Damasus 1, points out that the scriptures frequently employ the term “first-born” to denote a mother’s first child, no matter if the child is followed by more children or not. 

If Jesus truly had “brothers and sisters”, who were they and what were their names? How many brothers did He have? And how many sisters? And what roles did they play in the history of our salvation, in the New Testament?

In the Gospel, we see what Jesus did, while He was hanging on the cross, just about to die: “When Jesus therefore saw His mother and the disciple whom he loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.” (cf. John 19: 26-27) This is the origin of Catholics’ veneration of Mary as the Mother of the Church, as their Mother. Why did Jesus hand over His mother to St John, a stranger, since He had other “brothers and sisters”? Could His “brothers and sisters” not take care of their mother after Jesus’ departure?

In the Catholic Church, Mary is honoured as the ‘‘Mother of God.’’ Protestants hold that this title is man-made. They are completely wrong. On the contrary, it was God Himself who first honoured her through the mouth of the Angel Gabriel, as we read: “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” (Luke 1: 28; carefully notice that these words, “Hail full of grace”, intact in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, simply exist no where in modern false Catholic Bibles which the priests read everyday in the Novus Ordo masses, having been replaced with the Protestants “hail highly favoured”!). Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, called Mary ‘Mother of my Lord’: “But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” she asks (Luke 1: 43). Mary herself testified: ‘‘Behold,…from now on all generations shall call me blessed: because He that is mighty has done something great for me, and holy is His name’’. (Luke 1: 48-49): These generations, who will call her blessed, we find only in the Catholic Church.

Protestants are wrong by saying that the Catholic Church “has substituted Mary for Jesus, in what is known as the hyperdulia of the Virgin Mary.” They are equally wrong by giving the impression that ordinary members of the Catholic Church—except the leaders—do not understand the meaning of this doctrine. Catholics do not worship the Holy Virgin because She is not God. Our catechism—which even well catechized Catholic children from age 7 know—teaches us that, “it is forbidden to give divine honour or worship to the Angels and Saints, for this belongs to God alone.” (cf. The Traditional Catechism of the Christian Faith, p.35). The same catechism also teaches that “we should pay to the Angels and Saints an inferior honour, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends of God” (ibid).   

Cult in general means honour paid in a spirit of submission and dependence to a superior because of his excellence.  Whether it be merely interior, or exterior as well, cult differs according to the position or excellence of the person to whom it is paid. Since the excellence of God is infinite, He being First Principle and Supreme Master of all things, the cult to which He has a right is supreme. It is known as latria and to pay it is an exercise of the virtue of religion. This same cult is due to the Sacred Humanity of Our Blessed Lord considered as belonging to the uncreated Person of the Word, and in a relative manner it is due to crucifixes and to pictures and statues which represent Him. Created persons who have a certain excellence are entitled to the cult called dulia: a cult of respect. Thus, in the natural order respect is due to parents, kings, teachers; in the supernatural order it is due to the Saints, the heroicity of whose virtues has been recognized. The latter cult paid to God’s servants honours God Himself, Who is revealed to the world in the Saints and draws us by them to Himself. It is commonly taught in the Catholic Church that the Blessed Virgin is entitled to a cult of hyperdulia, or supreme dulia, because of her eminent dignity as Mother of God.

There have been two opposed false tendencies in regard to the cult of Mary. According to the testimony of St. Epiphanius, the Collyridians wished to pay her divine cult and to offer sacrifice to her. This error might be termed Mariolatry. It was of brief duration. Opposed to it is the Protestant contention that the cult offered to Mary by Catholics is a form of superstition.

To answer this charge, the Catholic Church insists that the cult of latria or adoration can be and is offered to God alone. If we adore the Sacred Humanity, it is because of Its personal union with the Word; if we offer relative cult of adoration to the crucifix, it is because it represents Our Saviour, for it is quite clear that the crucifix and other representations of Our Saviour have no other excellence than that of representing Him. Were relative adoration to be offered to Our Lady because of her connection with the Word made flesh, it might easily be mistaken for adoration offered to her because of her own intrinsic excellence, and would therefore be an occasion of grave error and of idolatry, as St. Thomas remarks.

The cult due to Our Lady is therefore one of dulia. This statement is of faith, because of the teaching of the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church; hence the condemnation of the opposed propositions of Molinos.

The cult of hyperdulia is due to Mary formally because she is Mother of God, since the dignity of her divine motherhood belongs by its term to the hypostatic order and is therefore very much higher than that which follows upon her degree of grace and glory. If Mary had received only the fullness of grace and glory without having been made the Mother of God, if, in other words, she were higher than the other Saints only through her degree of consummated glory, a special cult of hyperdulia would not be due to her.

It is the more common and more probable opinion that hyperdulia differs from dulia not in degree only but in kind, just as the divine maternity belongs by its term to the hypostatic order, which is specifically distinct from that of grace and glory.

The cult of hyperdulia is offered to Mary since she is Mother of the Saviour. But we should remember that for the same reason she is Mother of men, universal Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix.

Protestants quote from Exodus: “Thou shall not make to thyself a graven thing” (Exodus 20: 4-5) and hence condemn us as idol worshippers because of the images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the Saints which we have in our Churches. They are completely wrong. This commandment does not forbid the making of images, but the making of idols; that is, it forbids us to make images to be adored or honoured as gods. If it forbids the making of images, why then did the same God ask Moses to make the images of cherubim—Angels in heaven—to be put in the sanctuary of the Lord? (cf. Exodus 36:1-2; 37: 6-9). Again, when snakes were biting the children of Israel on their way to the promised land, why did the same God ask Moses to make the image of a fiery serpent, so that whoever looked at it might be healed? (cf. Numbers 21: 8).

We must note that, by rendering Mary the cult of hyperdulia we move her to look down on us with immense love, and for our part are drawn to imitate her virtues. The cult of hyperdulia leads effectively to salvation, for Mary can obtain the grace of final perseverance for all those who pray faithfully to her for it. For this reason true devotion to Our Lady is commonly looked on as one of the signs of predestination: though it does not give absolute and infallible certainty of salvation—a possibility ruled out by the authority of the Council of Trent (Denz. 805)—it gives rise to a firm hope. This firm hope rests on Mary's great power of intercession and her special love for those who invoke her. In this sense St. Alphonsus asserts (The Glories of Mary, Part I, ch. viii) that it is morally impossible that they should be lost who have the desire to amend their lives and who honour the Mother of God faithfully and commit themselves to her protection. Those who have no serious desire to amend their lives cannot, of course, look on the fact that they keep up a certain appearance of devotion to Our Lady as a probable sign of predestination. But a sinner who tries to give up sin and turns to Mary for assistance will find that she will not fail him. This is the opinion of St. Alphonsus (Ib., ch. I, 4) and of most modern theologians.

Finally, Catholics, particularly in Nigeria which is a Muslim/Protestant country, must realize the fact that we live in a period of great heresies which many of the saints and ancient prophets predicted. In order to conquer the heresies of our time, both the priests and the lay faithful must cling to Our Lady, terror of demons and destroyer of all heresies. The cult of hyperdulia offered to Mary in the Church confirms in a general way the foundations of our Faith as Catholics, since it derives from the Redemptive Incarnation, and, thereby destroying heresies: “Cunctas haereses interemisti in universo mundo.” The same cult leads to holiness by suggesting the imitation of Mary’s virtues, and it glorifies the Son by honouring the Mother.




















24 Mar 2015

Jonathan, Northern Muslims and Boko Haram Saga!

                                                By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

I've marvelled most about the way the Islamic party (the APC) has turned the issue of insecurity in the country into an instrument of political campaign. In particular, the posters I saw in Lagos Island some days ago were simply irritating. In the posters were written the following: “No Equipment for Security Forces…But 4.3 Trillion Security Budget.” “Corruption over Security.” “Vote for Change!”

I've simply over-heard foreigners asking what the hell Nigerian people were doing over the past few years while Boko Haram murdered about 20, 000 innocent Nigerians! “Government can’t do this if not solidly backed by the people,” said one foreigner. “Can’t the entire citizens unite to defeat the evil forces?” he asked. Indeed they can’t!  Rather, many do not only feel less concerned, they have been busy joining their fellow selfish and unpatriotic cabal that make up the Islamic party to crucify the innocent Goodluck. Just about three weeks ago, French President, Francois Hollande declared that the battle to rout Boko Haram must be total and collective, adding that his country’s efforts to checkmate the sect in Nigeria was to stop their activities from engulfing the West Africa sub-region and beyond. The French leader who spoke while hosting a well-attended “Africa-France Economic Forum for a Shared Growth” in Paris on Friday, February 7, 2015, said France was not only concerned about preserving the world but committed to efforts to tackle insurgency in the world. His declaration came just as Jonathan insisted that his administration would have no respite until insurgency is defeated, assuring that the government had not given up on its commitment to rescue the abducted Chibok girls. On a number of occasions, France had led initiatives and hosted meetings of countries within the Lake Chad basin, including Chad, Nigeria, Cameroon and Niger Republic in an effort to adopt an integrated approach in stopping the activities of Boko Haram. Now Francois Hollande remarkably noted that achieving growth and development was a mirage in an atmosphere of insecurity.

These words of a mere foreigner touched me, particularly when I considered that, with the spate of insecurity on the increase, especially in a section of the North, attention is being shifted from the concrete efforts of the present administration to transform the economy, to the continued destruction of lives and property by Boko Haram terrorists who now pose serious security threat since they intensified their dastardly acts about five years ago. So foreigners are aware of the terrible kind of situation the present administration is facing and are finding ways of assisting, but here in Nigeria, everybody folds hands while hurling unimaginable diabolical accusations on Jonathan’s administration, accusations of not just being a weak system that cannot fight “insurgency,” but also—in fact—of being the very brain behind Boko Haram!

Indeed it is true that a democratic system—government by the people—is evil, but the Nigerian case under Jonathan, a system in which even a ten-year old child can insult the President and it is simply normal, has simply become extraordinary!

Goodluck Ebele Jonathan became the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2010 following the death of President Musa Yar’Adua. First, we recall the drama that took place when Yar’Adua died—I mean the physical battle that was fought before Jonathan was eventually sworn in as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, even though it was his constitutional right to be sworn in.

The first bomb explosion witnessed by Jonathan’s administration was the October 2010 Abuja Bomb Blast—the same October Lawal Kaita said (on behalf of Northern Elders Political Forum) that “We’ll make Nigeria ungovernable for Jonathan.” The same Lawal Kaita recently stated that “North Will Confront Jonathan,” that “Anything short of a Northern President is tantamount to stealing our presidency. Jonathan has to go and he will go. Even if he uses incumbency powers to get his nomination on the platform of the PDP, he will be frustrated out.” In the same 2010 Junaid Mohammed declared that “It must be a Northerner or no Nigeria.” Asked what he expected would happen if Goodluck Jonathan won the PDP’s endorsement to contest the 2011 presidential election, Junaid said, prophetically: “There would be violence. First, the PDP would never be the same again. People would desert the PDP in droves; secondly, the north is not going to take it hands down. I want to assure that I want you to hold me to this after seeing the way the events shape.” (The Guardian, November 2, 2010).

The October 2010 bomb blast claimed over scores of lives as the country was celebrating its golden jubilee independence anniversary in Abuja on October 1, 2010. The so-called Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta, MEND, claimed to be responsible. It is important to note here that the same MEND is now said to be opposing the re-election bid of Goodluck Jonathan while supporting Mohammadu Buhari!

Now we recall here that Jonathan then exonerated MEND from the attack. He did that certainly because to him, it must have been certainly unthinkable for his own people, the Niger Deltans, to do such, and this is perfectly reasonable.  In his first public reaction to the bomb blasts which took place less than a kilometre away from Eagle Square where he was inspecting a military parade in commemoration of the nation’s 50th independence anniversary, Jonathan said terrorists were behind the deadly explosions and not MEND. “What happened yesterday was a terrorist act and MEND was just used as a straw; MEND is not a terrorist group,” he said. He added that the people of the Niger Delta are aware of the efforts of the present administration to address the deprivation of the past and will not do anything to jeopardise the opportunity. “It is erroneous to think that my people who have been agitating for good living will deliberately blow up the opportunity they have now,” Jonathan said.

However, MEND did not only claim responsibility for the bomb blasts, the militants had in an e-mail messages to some media houses warned of the impending attacks and advised people to evacuate areas close to the venue of the independence celebrations about an hour before the explosions went off. We pause here to note that this is exactly the same kind of warning always given by Boko Haram before launching attacks in certain areas. It is also interesting to note that while Boko Haram in its various video messages has threatened Niger Delta militants such as those headed by Asari Dokubo, the Niger Delta People's Volunteer Force, it has never at any time said anything bad against MEND!  In fact, Asari Dokubo has rightly stated that MEND, just like Boko Haram, is a faceless organization; that MEND is a faceless organisation which no longer exists as far as the struggle for people's emancipation in Niger Delta region is concerned. Speaking against the background of the controversial statement issued in January 2010 by MEND endorsing the candidacy of the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), General Muhammadu Buhari, the former militant leader described the acronym, MEND as pseudonym being used by the imprisoned Henry Okah to extort money from ignorant persons. This is true because even Henry Okah convicted for the October 1, 2010 bombing at Eagles Square, has denied being the leader of MEND in court under oath. Have you ever wondered why MEND leaders are not known anywhere like other organisations such as the Ijaw Youth Council, OPC and so on?

Here then, we see how the “insurgency” issue was systematically started. The name of a “Niger Delta militant group” was used so that gullible Nigerians would attribute future attacks to Jonathan and his people, and since then, this has been working!

A serious war was fought before Jonathan eventually contested the 2011 election. Then of course he had the sympathy of many Nigerians (whose minds have now been successfully poisoned) and so these merchants of death could do nothing to stop him; knowing that, they asked him to promise he would run for just a term. Out of frustration, Jonathan promised. But then, after the 2011 election, Jonathan began to show signs of wishing to contest come 2015.

Again, Abu King Shuluwa exploded: “Any attempt by Jonathan to run for the election would plunge this country into total anarchy or revolution because the people feel betrayed by a president who told them that he would run for one term and thereafter return power to the North…I saw a vision of the country disintegrating by 2015, but the only person that can save Nigeria from the impending disintegration is President Jonathan and he can do that by not contesting the 2015 presidential election. If he does, then he is calling for the total revolution, which will affect every household. That revolution will start the day Jonathan is announced as the candidate of the PDP. If he dares win the election, he will hardly be sworn-in because of the revolution”. (Vanguard Newspapers, Sunday, May 5, 2013).

Northern Muslims manifested their most terrible kind of wickedness when they started circulating the news that Jonathan himself is behind Boko Haram attacks. First, on the over 200 Chibok girls: We recall that Governor Shettima of Borno State was advised by the Federal Government to relocate those girls to Maiduguri to write their WAEC examination due to security concern in Chibok. Governor Shettima refused but instead gave assurance that he had security for the girls. But in reality he had none except an old “maiguard” in the school. After an exam session the girls were abducted by Boko Haram, but before then, the Principal of the school and her daughters who are Muslims had disappeared from Chobok. Thereafter, it took Mr. Governor 18 days to inform his President of the Chibok girls’ abduction. Till date, no Nigerian has been honest enough to ask Shettima to account for those girls or vacate his office, having deceived the nation and which deceit resulted in the abduction of the girls. Today Mr. Shettima is in the forefront of those seeking for “Change.”

The Chibok girls were kidnapped on the 14th of April, 2014. Then in August 2014 we heard of the same Northern Elders Forum (of which Lawal Kaita is a member) giving Jonathan an ultimatum till the end of October 2014 to bring back the Chibok girls. The elders also “ordered” Jonathan to end the Boko Haram “insurgency” with immediate effect, threatening that failure to do so meant he was not fit to seek a re-election in 2015.The forum alleged that the FG’s failure to put an end to the insecurity in Yobe, Borno and Adamawa States was a plot to weaken the North’s political and economic potentials ahead of the 2015 elections. Hear them:

“We are convinced that most of these conflicts are being engineered to weaken the North politically and economically by interests which intend to exploit such weaknesses for electoral benefits. In the light of our firm conviction that the insurgency and related security challenges pose threats to the 2015 elections and the survival of our nation, we strongly advise President Jonathan to bring to an end the insurgency in all its manifestations and produce the Chibok girls before the end of October, 2014.” Their logic is that by failing to secure the release of the girls, “Nigerians (i.e., the Northern Elders) would be left with the only conclusion that he had forfeited his right to ask for their mandate beyond 2015.”

“Their diagnosis of the Boko Haram insurgency is, to say the least, bizarre,” writesKiikpoye Aaron. “According to them”, continues Kiikpoye, “what fuels the Boko Haram insurgency is a ‘“lack of a strong will at the level of the Presidency, deep-seated corruption, incompetence in governments and in the management of security challenges.” I would contest this logic and argue instead that what fuels the Boko Haram insurgency is the political opportunism the North makes of Boko Haram. More to the point, a calm reading of the complicity so manifestly expressed in that Kaduna ultimatum validates the instincts of many non-northerners, namely that the Boko Haram insurgency   is inseparable from a larger northern agenda to frustrate President Jonathan and recapture power.”
Since then, northern leaders have been spreading the falsehood fast in the region that Jonathan’s administration is fuelling the Boko Haram “insur­gency” in parts of the North to enhance his chances of re-election in the 2015 general elections. From Katsina to Kaduna, Bauchi to Kano and so on, virtually all the leaders Saturday Sun spoke to on the strong feelings spreading like wildfire that the Federal Government was conniving with some factions of Boko Haram to wreak havoc in the North, said the paper, gave the same verdict. They accused Jonathan of working clandestinely to use the “insurgency” to depopulate the North ahead of the February 2015 elections. In fact, former Commissioner of Police in Lagos State, Abubakar Tsav, accused the presidency of using Ni­ger Delta militants to carry out the November 28, 2014 bombing of Kano Central Mosque!

Similarly, in late December 2011 we heard of the former Kaduna State Governor, Alhaji Balarabe Musa exonerating Boko Haram from the 2011 Christmas Day bombings that killed dozens of Catholics at St Theresa's Catholic Church in Madala. For him, Jonathan is simply behind the bombings. Despite claim by Boko Haram to be responsible for the blasts, Musa argued that government’s bad policies could lead groups to act against them. Hear him:

“I doubt if the bombings are done by Boko Haram. I very much doubt it. I think it is something more organised. Definitely it is something subversive.  Something directly related to the government. We are yet to know who is directly responsible for these acts. You know that the state of the nation is bad in every respect. There is protest against the government and its policies from various sources. So you don’t know which particular source is responsible for this unfortunate incident. I think when one goes through the statement of the sect and the so-called spokesman, there is no coordination. Secondly, this particular identification of churches on Christmas Day, I don’t understand it. There is no reason for any person or group to do this. The world over, there is no reason for such attack on a celebration day like this. Why should they target churches? So, I very much doubt if this is caused by Boko Haram. Some people of course can claim this is Boko Haram, but, again if you listen to their statements, you will find out that there are contradictions. So, the government has to really sit down and find out the true situation.”

He further insisted: “I very much doubt if this incident is Boko Haram, I think it is something more national…The government has a problem, it has legitimacy problem, it is not performing, and the leaders are not cohesive in many ways. These are the undoing of the government we have today.”

In November 2014, Musa repeated, “Some of us believe that Boko Haram is not a religious problem. It is more of a political problem. Boko Haram is a problem created by the government deliberately to destabilise Nigeria and divert the attention of the people from the failures of the government. With Nigeria destabilised, starting from the North, when the 2015 elections come, the level of insecurity will be so much that Nigerians will not be concerned with the elections. Instead, they’ll be concerned primarily with peace. That will make election rigging easy.”

Again, we also heard of the former minister of the FCT, Malam Nasir El-Rufai, having a field day on Twitter taunting the Federal Government and hurling veiled insults at Goodluck, tweeting every negative message against him by his followers on Twitter. Many Nigerians had expressed disgust that El-Rufai, who received public sympathy after the death of his own daughter, could turn around and use the deaths of innocent worshippers as propaganda to further his antagonism against Goodluck after he lost out in the power scramble after his return from exile. The same El-rufai had earlier then called on Goodluck to negotiate with the terrorists.

Again, in August, 2014, we heard of the Australian character named Stephen Davis, the so-called “crisis negotiator”, setting the media ablaze with his allegations regarding Boko Haram sponsors. Davis aroused our sleeping consciousness when he alleged in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) that Islamic terrorist sect, Boko Haram, was being funded by Nigerian politicians. But this wasn’t the main news as many Nigerians were aware of that fact. In a subsequent interview with Arise TV, Davis went further to name former Borno State Governor, Modu Sheriff and former Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Azubuike Ihejirika, as sponsors of the group! The question many Nigerians asked was this: how has Ihejirika, a non-Muslim, become a Boko Haram sponsor? Asked to explain why Mr. Ihejirika, a non-Muslim who hails from the predominantly Christian south eastern part of Nigeria, became a Boko Haram "sponsor," Mr. Davis said: "Boko Haram commanders and some connected with them told me on several occasions that Ihejirika was one of their sponsors." This is fantastic, and interesting too! It is equally interesting that Boko Haram members didn't tell Davis any other thing about why they are fighting, the need to rule Nigeria according to the tenets of Islam, etc, except revealing their sponsors!

Angered by this amazing allegation, the Ohanaeze Ndigbo Youth Wing threatened to label the All Progressives Congress, APC, an ‘anti-Igbo political party’  if it failed to apologise to former Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Azubuike Ihejirika, within 48 hours. The threat, which the Ohanaeze Youth Wing issued in a statement jointly signed by its National Secretary, Emmanuel Nnabuike, and Publicity Secretary, Obinna Adibe, followed the APC’s demand for Iherjika’s prosecution over alleged sponsorship of the Boko Haram sect. The APC demanded Ihejirika’s prosecution in the wake of claims made by Australian negotiator, Mr. Stephen Davis.

In the statement entitled, ‘Ongoing Attempts To Brand Gen. Ihejirika a Boko Haram Sponsor’, the Ohanaeze youths described the negotiator’s claims as “spurious.” The group expressed regrets that the APC did not bother to ascertain the veracity of his allegations before calling for Ihejirika’s prosecution. Ohanaeze youths noted that Ihejirika deserved an apology from the APC since the Department of State Security absolved him of any involvement with Boko Haram. It said: “It is on record that the same people trying to frame up Gen. Ihejirika are the same people who claimed they would make Nigeria ungovernable for President Jonathan, in the aftermath of the 2011 presidential election. We view the call for Ihejirika’s trial by the APC through its spokesman, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, without bothering to confirm the authenticity of the statement, as malicious and premeditated. Now that the Director of State Security has officially absolved Ihejirika of any complicity in the matter, we ask the APC to issue an apology to Gen. Ihejirika and Ndigbo within 48 hours. If they fail to do so, the APC shall be formally labeled an anti-Igbo party and other sanctions shall follow.”

Continuing, the group described Davis as a “fraudulent character and mercenary.” It said: “Security is too weighty a matter to be politicised. Therefore it is unpatriotic for political leaders to embark on character assassination based on unsubstantiated and misguided rumours. Dr Stephen Davis has shown himself to be a fraudulent character and a mercenary, whose stock in trade is the distortion of information in order to cause chaos, thereby creating more business for him.” Ohanaeze youth wing added that Davis employed “cheap propaganda tactics” by naming Ihejirika alongside former Borno State Governor, Ali Modu Sheriff, who has been consistently linked with the emergence and sponsorship of Boko Haram as the sect’s sponsor in order to lend credence to his claims in the eyes of “gullible members of the public.” The group noted that Davis did not provide any evidence or motivation for Ihejirika, a Christian and an Igbo from the South East, to sponsor Boko Haram.

Now anyone in this country who has been following the trend of events is certain that among all Nigerian soldiers that ever fought Boko Haram, Ihejirika is simply their number one enemy. And why? Because he was the most brave and the most brutal who really meant business in dealing with the terrorists. In fact, this was the main reason why the same northern Muslims pressurized Jonathan to remove him—despite the lies we were told.

Again, in May 2014, Buhari described Boko Haram terrorists as “mindless bigots, and not followers of God.” He said: “Over the past few weeks, the abduction of the schoolgirls at Chibok, Borno State has underscored the threat we have been facing as a nation in recent times from the actions of misguided persons masquerading as adherents of Islam. That horrific video posted on the internet is a clear manifestation of the mindlessness of the bigots. It shows them for whom they are, such men cannot threaten nor should they be allowed to violate our sovereignty. It is clear from what they profess that they are not followers of God. They do not mean well for our country and her citizens. I am a Muslim, I am versed in the teaching of Christianity and I understand both religions to seek peaceful co-existence of all humanity…We are glad that the Federal Government has accepted international support in the search for the missing girls and for an end to the insurgency in parts of the country.”

Now we recall here that Jonathan then welcomed Gen. Buhari’s call on all Nigerians to remain steadfast and work in unity to overcome “terrorists and other merchants of death, who currently threaten national security.” Consequently Buhari was attacked by Boko Haram terrorists in July 2014 for betraying Islam even publicly.

However, in October of the same year, after he had been attacked by Boko Haram for his negative comments about them, and as the 2015 election drew near, the same Buhari contradictorily asked the Federal Government to stop the clampdown of Boko Haram “insurgents”, saying Niger Delta Militants were never killed or properties belonging to them destroyed. Buhari, who spoke on a Liberty Radio programme, accused the government of killing and destroying houses belonging to Boko Haram members while the Niger Delta militants got special treatment. He said that unlike the special treatment given to the Niger Delta militants by the federal government, the Boko Haram members were being killed and their houses demolished by the government. While accusing Jonathan of failing from the beginning to address the security situation in the country, Buhari said he had never been in support of the state of emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states. According to Buhari, “what is responsible for the security situation in the country is caused by the activities of Niger Delta militants. Every Nigerian that is familiar with what is happening knows this. The Niger Delta militants started it all. What happened is that the governors of the Niger Delta at that time wanted to win their elections, so they recruited youths and gave guns and bullets to them to use against their opponents to win elections by force. After the elections, they asked the boys to return the guns, and the boys refused to do so. Because of that the allowance that was being given to them by the governors was stopped.”

These comments on Boko Haram, indeed, give us an insight on how Buhari will “fight” the terrorists if elected. He had even asked the Federal Government to “rehabilitate them, grant them amnesty and pay them every month,” concluding that any attack on the Boko Haram sect was “a declaration of war on the people of Northern Nigeria.” This, according to Chief Fani-Kayode, raises the question of the true nature of Buhari’s relationship with these groups and its international affiliates. (See more at: http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/news/national-news/193387-nigerians-should-interrogate-the-relationship-between-mend-boko-haram-buhari-says-fani-kayode#sthash.jBlIKT8v.dpuf).

Chief Femi Fani-Kayode has called on Nigerians and members of the international community to interrogate the relationship between Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND) as well as Boko Haram and the All Progressives Congress (APC) with its presidential candidate, General Muhammadu Buhari. I think that call should be taken seriously. “It is on public record that Buhari had announced to the whole world that it was unfair and unjust for the Boko Haram, which has killed over 20,000 innocent Nigerians, mostly women and children, after burning their homes and destroying their communities, to be tackled,” says Fani-Kayode. “It is also on record that Buhari has severally and consistently criticised government for protecting Nigerians against the attacks of Boko Haram and has gleefully announced that government forces should stop attacking the Boko Haram, and in fact, should treat them like the Niger Delta militants.” He further stated that the APC’s presidential spokesperson, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, whom he described as a friend, had supported Buhari by stating that the proscription of Boko Haram by the Federal Government after they had murdered 20,000 Nigerians in cold blood was unjust and unconstitutional. “I think it is relevant and something of interest for all Nigerians and the members of the international community to begin to ask questions about the nexus between Boko Haram, MEND and all these terrorist organisations that find it easy to kill people and the leading opposition presidential candidate and the APC. This is the question Nigerians should seek answers to, because insecurity is one of the fundamental issues of the campaign for the office of President and Nigerians must be wary of any person seeking to be President and has such public sympathy for terrorist organisations, in spite of the obvious damages that they inflicted on the country,” he said.

Similarly, former minister of information, Labaran Maku, has said that governors and not Jonathan should be held responsible for Boko Haram menace. Maku told newsmen in Awka, the Anambra State capital, that as chief security officers of their respective states who are “unaccountable to the Presidency, the governors are autonomous and closer to the people and as such, should know better than the Presidency what goes wrong in their domains.” According to Maku, Jonathan should not be held responsible for the insecurity in the country, rather the governors should be in charge as chief executives of their various states and take responsibility of any problem there. Maku particularly urged those behind the political violence in the country to desist from it as such was no longer fashionable, adding that superior argument and ideas should rather be their greatest political campaign weapons. Maku condemned the recent attacks on Jonathan in Bauchi and Katsina states when the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate and his team went to the areas to campaign for votes, describing the attacks as “unruly and unfortunate.” “The president was not supposed to be attacked in any part of the country because he has demonstrated quality leadership which every geo-political zone would attest to. Therefore, no right thinking person would have carried out any form of attack on him. His humility and liberal mindedness has come to bear by his condoning the attack with calmness,” he said.

In April 2014 a popular clairvoyant in Adamawa State, Alhaji Alhassan Mohammed Goni, a.k.a. AMG, threatened to expose the sponsors of Boko Haram terrorism if the group did not suspend their bloodletting and hostilities in the country within two weeks. Goni expressed sympathy for Jonathan, saying the president is a good man and that those that are targeting his administration would fail woefully. He said having been disturbed by the bloodletting and seemingly inexorable hostilities by the group, he deemed it fit to come forward, and warned that if those behind Boko Haram fail to change their ways, he would soon expose them. Goni added that among those sponsoring Boko Haram activities are top politicians and traditional rulers with the sole aim of causing confusion in the country. He said he was aware of the various nocturnal meetings held by the sect before launching attacks but was not able to curtail their attacks as he had not been permitted to do so. “My vision always tells me whenever the Boko Haram are about to launch attacks but I was always incapacitated to stop them because I was not given express permission by the authorities to do so; but through my intervention, the intensity of the attacks is minimal.”

Similarly, according to Tell magazine, “it was revealed that many of the Borno politicians shouting at the Federal Government for not solving the insurgency problem are paying monthly retainership ranging from N2 to N4 million each to Boko Haram.” (Tell, May 26, 2014, pp. 25, 27). Thus Muslim politicians in the north pay their monthly “fees” to these terrorists to continue carrying out Jihad on Christians and the security personnel.

Whether we know these merchants of death or not is not a problem, because we are aware that Muslims’ belief that “unbelievers” like Christians must be converted by the sword is not a myth. We read the following in the Quran (Sura 47 verse 4):

“…Thus (you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam and are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire or at least come under your protection), but if it had been Allah’s will, he himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight) in order to test some of you with others. But those who are killed in the way of Allah, he will never let their will be lost.”

Again we read (Sura 9 verse 123): “O you who believe! Fight those of disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find hardness in you; and know that Allah is with those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious).”

Again, in Sura (2:193; 2: 244) we read: “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah). And fight in the way of Allah and know that Allah is All-Hearer, All-knower.”

Again, in part of the verse quoted above (Sura 47 verse 4), we read: “So, when you meet (in fight—Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them…”

Jonathan on Thursday, January 29, 2015, said those accusing him of backing Boko Haram were insane. He stated this during his campaign rally in Yola, the Adamawa State capital. Jonathan said that he had no reason to sponsor the killing of children, women and the aged as he had nothing to benefit from such actions. “In 2011, I had two times the number of votes I had in Bayelsa State. Why should I want to reduce that number of votes?” Jonathan quipped. “Only a mad person can insinuate that the president is supporting Boko Haram.”

Nigerians—and particularly non-Muslims—who blindly follow the devilish APC propaganda, do so because none of their loved ones has been killed by these merchants of death. These gullible—and indeed wicked--Nigerians blame Goodluck for what they call “insurgency.” They also believe that all we need to win this war is simply a “good” leader who, unlike Jonathan, will properly equip the soldiers to fight the war. It is amazing, however, that nobody has been honest and courageous enough to comment on the religious dimension of Boko Haram, let alone criticize it.  The greater number of the Nigerian soldiers are the Hausa Muslims. Yet, nobody has ever reasoned that these soldiers may, after all, have sympathy for their brothers fighting a “holy war”, let alone call to mind the unwritten belief in Islamic circles that an Islamic soldier should not shoot at a Muslim jihadist. We have just seen, for instance, the huge success recorded by the soldiers within the last few weeks, now that the presence of the foreign soldiers has made it difficult for the betrayal to persist.

What I have briefly demonstrated here is what we already know, namely, that to every true Muslim, it is simply a sin for an “infidel” like Jonathan to rule over Muslims. All true Muslims in Nigeria—whether Yoruba or Hausa—do not want Jonathan to rule over them simply because he is not a Muslim. The few that want him are simply fake Muslims, and that is why Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram leader, has been hunting for them and killing them. As Shekau himself boasted: “…Yahaya Jingir…the cleric of Jos, the advocate of ‘Boko Halal’, right? We are Boko Haram, you are Boko Halal. You will see, bastard…We killed Albani of Zaria. We killed Albani of Zaria. Shekau killed Albani of Zaria. Tomorrow he will kill Jingir, the day after tomorrow he will kill Dapchia, the next day he will kill Wapchama, next he will kill Shehu of Borno, Ado Bayero. We rebel against you, between us and you is enmity and rancour until you believe only in Allah…All these infidels we are the ones killing them. We enjoy shedding their blood. The Quran must be supreme, we must establish Islam in this country. Not only in Borno, we will henceforth destroy any school wherever we see them.”

Boko Haram menace is a mere practical manifestation of Nigerian Muslims’ religious beliefs. “We Jama’atu Ahlissunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad are fighting Christians wherever we meet them,” says Shekau. On the contrary, Buhari said (quoted above): “I am a Muslim, I am versed in the teaching of Christianity and I understand both religions to seek peaceful co-existence of all humanity.” This shows that Buhari is not a man of integrity which many mindlessly and fanatically attribute to him. He is rather simply a manifest liar. The word integrity simply means “honesty.” If Buhari is a honest man, and he is “versed in the teaching of Christianity”, as he claims, then why has he not become a Christian?

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also,” says the Christian Bible. (1 John 2: 23). “Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son,” says the Muslim Quran. (Sura: 4: 171). How then can ‘Integrity Buhari’, versed in the teachings of the Bible and the Quran, reconcile these teachings? At the same time, if he is versed in the teaching of Islam, which according to him “seeks peaceful co-existence of all humanity,” how then can he defend Islam from the mindless, gruesome and diabolical killing of innocent Christians by true Muslims not just in Nigeria but simply all over the world—and I mean a killing simply as old as Islam itself?

“O you who believe! Fight those of disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find hardness in you; and know that Allah is with those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious).” (Sura 9 verse 123). Again: “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” (Sura 9:5).

What interpretation can ‘Integrity Buhari’ give to these passages—and numerous others?


                            FAITH IS SUPERIOR TO OBEDIENCE           
                                      
                                           By Father Gregory Chukwudi Obih

INTRODUCTION:

Traditional Catholics all over the world are already familiar with the recurrent charge of being disobedient. Many a time after trying to explain the crisis in the Church since the Second Vatican Council to our interlocutors we end up hearing things like: Yes, but you still have to obey the pope, and the bishops and priests. If not then you are outside the Church! This insistence on obedience at all costs is due to an improper understanding of the distinction between true and false obedience. According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess which are disobedience and false obedience. The apparent obedience of many Catholics today to the modernist Church leaders comes under false obedience, not true obedience. But we know from scripture and sacred tradition that faith is superior to obedience. Obedience is the servant of faith.

BACKGROUND TO THE CRISIS OF OBEDIENCE:

Ignoring all the warnings of the freemasons to infiltrate and corrupt the Catholic Church through an ecumenical council in the 20th century, Pope John XX111 went ahead to convoke the Second Vatican Council in 1962. This council was hijacked as soon as it started by a small group of determined modernists who wanted to reform the church and bring it closer to the expectations of the modern world. This was achieved through the baptism and acceptance into the Church of the three principles of the French revolution of 1789: Liberty, equality and fraternity; freemasonic principles previously condemned by the Church. Religious liberty was accepted to mean the right of each person to worship as he chose. This destroyed the mission to unbelievers since all religions are now valid means to God. Collegial equality destroyed papal authority and gave democratic power to bishops’ conferences who now checkmate the pope at every turn. Ecumenical fraternity destroyed all efforts to convert Protestants to the true Catholic faith, since they are said to have means of salvation. Everything in the church was changed in order to realize these revolutionary principles which negated Catholic principles of the past 1,900 years. The traditional Latin Mass was cast aside because it was too Catholic and anti-ecumenical. It is an obstacle to ecumenical fraternity. A new protestant-friendly Mass was composed with the help of 6 Protestant pastors in order to foster false ecumenism. This new Mass is open to innovations, experimentations, adaptations, inculturation and all imaginable novelties. It favours heretical opinions and leads to loss of faith. But it was imposed on Catholics in the name of obedience. Catholics were asked to accept this new Mass because it was decreed by the ecumenical Vatican 11 council. But the Second Vatican council was a pastoral, not a dogmatic council. As such, it demands only assent of obedience, not assent of faith. Since it did not define doctrine as previous councils have done, it dispensed with the help of the Holy Ghost and committed many errors in making prudential judgements that opened the Church to evil influences. Even Pope Paul V1 acknowledged this: ‘We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God; it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation...we thought that after the council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.Perhaps we have been too imprudent.’(June 29, 1972, Homily on the 9th anniversary of his coronation).

WHAT IS OBEDIENCE?

Faced with a situation in which a post Vatican 11 hierarchy, infected as it is by the ‘smoke of Satan’ which has eclipsed Catholic truth, (Cf. Our Lady of La Salette, 1846: ‘Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist...the Church will be in eclipse.’) what is the state of obedience today? What should be the response of Catholics to false teachings coming from official Church leaders who are determined to implement the modernist teachings of Vatican 11? Obedience is the carrying out of orders from one’s lawful superiors with the intention of carrying out their will. Catholics prize obedience because of Christ’s own example, and because in their lawful superiors they see the representatives of Christ Himself. It is the teaching of the Church that obedience is part of justice, one of the four cardinal virtues, which are in turn subordinate to the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. Faith is greater than obedience! Therefore if obedience acts to harm the faith, then a Catholic has a duty not to obey his superior. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: ‘Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.’(Summa Theologica 11-11Q. 104). Cardinal Juan de Torquemada(1388-1468) was an influential theologian responsible for the formulation of the doctrines defined at the Council of Florence. On the issue of obeying shepherds whose teachings mislead the faithful he gave this rule to be followed by Catholics for all time: ‘Were the pope to command anything against Holy Scriptures, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, HE OUGHT NOT TO BE OBEYED, but in such commands he is to be disregarded. Thus it is that Pope Innocent 111 states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey the pope in all things as long as he himself does not go against the universal customs of the Church. But should he go against the universal customs of the Church, ‘‘he need not be followed.’’ St. Paul himself had warned in Scripture: ‘But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema’ (Gal. 1:8).

FAITH AND TRADITION:

The truths of the Catholic faith were received even by Jesus Christ Himself as a tradition or handing down from His Father. (Jesus answered and said to them: ‘My doctrine is not mine but His that sent Me’ John7:16; Jesus said to them: ‘Amen, Amen I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing: for what things soever He doth, these the Son also doth in like manner’ John5:1-9; ‘For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent Me. He gave Me commandment what I should say and what I should speak’ John 12:49.)
In the same way, Our Lord hands the faith down to us as a tradition through those of our lawful superiors who are obedient to the faith, Cf. John17:8, ‘Because the words which Thou gavest to Me, I have given to them.’

But many Catholics, forgetting that Catholic obedience is relative to the Faith and Tradition, think obedience is an absolute, with only one opposite, disobedience. They are mistaken. True obedience has two opposites, disobedience and false obedience.

DISOBEDIENCE:

Disobedience is error by defect. It is the sin of our first parents and the origin of all sin in the world. The disobedient person says: My own conscience is my absolute authority; the pope has no authority over me; I owe no respect to any superiors; I will not obey men, even pretending to be servants of God, be they bishops or priests; I protest against the leaders of the Church claiming to have authority; Church punishments like excommunications and suspensions are meaningless; I will attend no Catholic Mass.

FALSE OBEDIENCE:

False obedience is error by excess. The person who practices false obedience says: The Church hierarchy is the absolute authority. Obedience has no limits; the pope is infallible in everything he says and does; I may never criticize any superior under any circumstances; I will obey the bishops and priests even when they disobey God by forsaking Tradition; whoever protests against anything a Church official does or says is a Protestant; even unjust or improper suspensions or excommunications are legally binding; I will attend even a protestantized and pentecostalized Mass if my superiors tell me to.

Those who practice false obedience make the boast of the freemasons come true: ‘We will destroy the Catholic Church through holy obedience.’

TRUE OBEDIENCE:

He who practices true obedience knows that the demands of faith are superior to the demands of obedience. True obedience recognises that God, through His Catholic Church has absolute authority over my conscience, BUT in the last resort God meant me to judge if His hierarchy is departing from His teaching. Obedience to men has limits. Cf. Galatians 1:8-9; the pope as the vicar of Christ is given by Christ direct authority over the whole Church, BUT he is not infallible in everything he says or does; lawful superiors are to be respected as the representatives of Christ, BUT if they depart gravely from the Catholic faith, I may even rebuke them in public. Cf. Galatians 2:11-14. This is why the layman, Eusebius, openly rebuked Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, when the Archbishop was falsely teaching on Christmas-day of 430AD that Mary cannot be called Mother of God. A truly obedient Catholic will gladly obey the appointed servants of God, legitimate bishops or priests, BUT not when he knows they are leading men away from God; he will always respect the Church authorities as such, BUT need not follow Church leaders who violate the traditions of the faith; Church punishments are terrifying instruments of God’s law when valid, BUT when they are without foundation they are not valid. Cf. 1917 Code of Canon law, 2242 and the 1983 Code 1321. A truly obedient Catholic must attend the Catholic Mass BUT knows he is not obliged to attend the Paul V1-Bugnini Mass, or new Mass of 1969, also called the Novus Ordo or Vatican 11 Mass, because it favours heresy and destroys the Catholic faith. In this matter, he must obey God, rather than men, cf. Acts 5:29. Pope Leo X111(1878-1903) upheld this true obedience when he wrote: ‘And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.’ (Diuturnum Illud).

Some may object: But by defending disobedience to modern church officials in some cases, are you not encouraging anarchy and confusion in the church? Reply: By no means! It is the modernists who are causing anarchy and confusion by disobeying sacred traditions. Modernists believe that dogma can change to meet the expectations of different epochs in history. They always strive to bring church teaching ‘up to date,’ forgetting that God does not change and His truths are always the same. Modernism was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in PascendiDominiciGregis of 1907.

CATHOLIC OBEDIENCE MUST ALWAYS BE TO THE FAITH! 

So it was in the days of St. Peter:

‘Where there is a proximate danger to the faith, prelates must be rebuked, even publicly, by subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly.’ (From the Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Epistle to the Galatians 2:14. So it must still be today: ‘ All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances.’ (Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand in,The Devastated Vineyard. Chicago, 1973, pp.3-5)

CONCLUSION:

Listen to the warning of Paul V1 on the smoke of Satan that has spread widely within the official Catholic Church since Vatican 11: ‘The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church EVEN TO ITS SUMMIT. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and INTO THE HIGHEST LEVELS WITHIN THE CHURCH.’(Pope Paul V1. Address on the 60th Anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima, Oct. 13, 1977).     Today, Catholics are those who are faithful to Tradition and reject all the errors opposed to it. You remain IN THE CHURCH if you keep the Catholic faith, not if you a part of a modernist parish or diocese adulterating the faith in the name of Vatican 11. Those who keep the Catholic faith, whole and entire, constitute the Catholic Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. When it was objected to St. Athanasius(296-373), ‘You have the bishops against you’ he answered with faith: ‘That proves that they are all against the Church.’ Ponder the advice of St. Vincent of Lerins: ‘When a foulness invades the Church, we must return to the Church of the past.’

FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY; FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE!

July 20, 2014


PARALLELS BETWEEN THE APOSTASY OF ISRAEL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE APOSTASY OF THE VATICAN 11 CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

A wise man has noted that the history of mankind is the history of repeating old mistakes. In 1962 (October) a group of Cardinals, archbishops and bishops, with the support of some modernist theologians advising them inaugurated a revolution in the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council, on the watch of Pope John XX111. We are still living the consequences of this revolution: universal apostasy from the Catholic faith, pursuit of false ecumenism, replacement of conversion with dialogue and an adaptation of Church institutions to the standards of this world. Who inspired this revolution within the Church? Satan. He is the eternal rebel, the instigator of every act of disobedience to God and His established order, the inventor and master of all deceit. He it is who always instigates man to disobey God, reject God’s governance and do things his own way. His cry before his expulsion from heaven: ‘Non serviam!’ continues to reverberate through all history.

At Vatican 11 Satan tempted Catholic leaders. We can see a parallel in this temptation with his temptation of the Israelites to reject God’s direct governance(theocracy) and accept monarchical form of government. God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, and by the hands of Moses led them through the Red Sea. To achieve this He inflicted a heavy damage on the Egyptians due to the stubbornness of the Pharaoh. He led them into the promised land—a land flowing with milk and honey. He overthrew many powerful kings and nations for their sake, so that they will live in peace and security. He warned them against unhealthy associations with godless and pagan nations, so that their religion will not be contaminated, but may remain pure. He wanted them to be one, holy nation, under one God. Through them He intended to bring other nations to the worship of the one, true God. He ruled them through the judges: Moses, Joshua, Deborah (Jgs.4:4), Gideon, Abimelech, Thola, Jephte, Samson, Samuel, etc. To maintain purity of worship and unity of cult He chose priests to minister before Him in Shiloh, and later, Jerusalem. This ensured that the people had a central place where they could gather at different times of the year to participate in religious festivals.

The important point to note is that while Israel was a theocracy, religious tradition was maintained, the law of Moses was observed and the sense of God’s presence was always felt. Then the temptation came. Satan tempted them to desire a change of government: ‘Then all the ancients of Israel being assembled, came to Samuel to Ramatha. And they said to him: Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: make us a king, to judge us, as all nations have’(1 Kings 8:4). When Samuel complained to God about this request of the people God said: ‘Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee.  For they have not rejected thee, but Me, that I should not reign over them’(1 Kings 8:7).

Israel, God’s chosen people, rejected God reigning over them because they wanted to be like others. They reasoned: Why can we not have kings like other nations around us? Why should our ways continue to be different? Let us be like others. Let us do away with this exclusivity and apartness. When we are like others, we can enter into meaningful dialogue, cooperation and alliances with them for our mutual peace and happiness. Other nations are laughing at us because we have no kings as they do. They think we are queer. We will enjoy many advantages when we lower our standards to meet up with theirs...

To make sure that the people had a clear idea of the implications of their choice, God asked Samuel to warn them: ‘But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel, and they said: Nay: but there shall be a king over us’(1kgs8:19). God has created us with freewill. He sets fire and water before us and allows us to make a choice. If we make a wrong choice He allows us to suffer its effects. Perhaps, we might realise our errors and return to Him.

The people got their wish. Saul became the first King and he ended up in disaster, rejected by God who originally chose him, and dying in battle. David succeeded him. Although he took Uriah’s wife and had him murdered(cf. ii kings 11and 12) he was Israel’s best King. In his days there was civil war in Israel and unrest and mutiny within the royal family. A lot of blood was shed. These are all part of the consequences of Israel’s desire for a King in opposition to God’s will. There was a time of confusion, unrest, harassment and dangers for many in the land. At the death of David his son, Solomon, succeeded him. Despite all his wisdom and good qualities(such as building a temple for the worship of the true God in Jerusalem, and promotion of the Divine cult), he ended up in disgrace. He fell into disobedience to God’s laws, incontinence, idolatry and attempted murder. Again he imposed heavy taxation on his people to maintain his grandiose palace. In iii kings 11:1ff it is written: ‘And King Solomon loved many strange women besides the daughter of Pharaoh, and women of Moab, and of Ammon, and of Edom, and of Sidon, and of the Hethites. Of the nations concerning which the Lord said to the children of Israel: You shall not go in unto them, neither shall any of them come in to yours: FOR THEY WILL MOST CERTAINLY TURN AWAY YOUR HEARTS TO FOLLOW THEIR GODS. And he had seven hundred wives as queens, and three hundred concubines: And the women turned away his heart. And when he was now old, his heart was turned away by women to follow strange gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. But Solomon worshipped Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, and Moloch the idol of the Ammonites...’

Thus Solomon became a great ecumenist, to the disadvantage of the true faith. He wanted to create alliances, and to be one with all people. He wanted to bridge the gap between the exclusivity of the chosen people and other nations. He was ready to trample on the sacred traditions of Israel in order to please the nations and become one with them. To achieve this he committed religious fornication, offering incense to false deities to please those who worshipped them, and to appear as a great and respected world leader.

Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam, a young man brought up in the corrupt environment of his father’s court. Under him ten Israelite tribes rebelled, forming the Northen Kingdom under Jeroboam, with a capital in Samaria. Under the reign of Rehoboam, ‘Judah did evil in the sight of the Lord, and provoked him above all that their fathers had done, in their sins which they committed. For they also built them altars, and statues, and groves upon every high hill and under every green tree: there were also the effeminate in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the people whom the Lord had destroyed before the face of all the children of Israel.’(iii.kgs 14:22-24). Note that during the reign of Rehoboam, homosexuality became popular(the ‘effeminate’) and idolatry spread.

Things fared worse in the northern kingdom. Jeroboam was a complete apostate and led his people into apostasy. He stopped the custom of holding Jerusalem as a centre of worship, and of going there to offer sacrifices, and set up two golden calves. For him any type of prayer is prayer, no matter what one is praying to, and any type of worship is worship, no matter what one is worshipping. Thus, Jeroboam became the father of religious indifferentism. In iii kings 12:28-30 we read: ‘Go ye up no more to Jerusalem: Behold thy gods, O Israel, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other in Dan: and this thing became an occasion of sin: for the people went to adore the calf as far as Dan.’ All the 18 kings who succeeded Jeroboam on the throne continued with the apostasy.

One of the symptoms of the apostasy from the true faith was the multiplication of false visionaries in the land. When King Ahab was preparing for battle against Syria, 400 false prophets saw flattering visions for him and encouraged him to go into battle against the Syrians. Only one, Micheas, who is hardly consulted because he was a true visionary, not a praise-singing prophet, predicted disaster and warned the king against fighting the Syrians. He was ordered put in prison and fed on the bread of affliction, and water of distress. (iii kgs 22:1ff) Ahab died in battle. In 721 B.C, Salmanasar, king of Assyria, destroyed the northern kingdom and took away its inhabitants as captives. He brought in foreigners to settle in the land. Chapter 17 of the 4th book of Kings makes it clear that this is a punishment allowed by God for their apostasy and rebellion against Him: ‘And they worshipped strange gods. And they walked according to the way of the nations...And the children of Israel offended the Lord their God with things that were not right...and they did wicked things, provoking the Lord. And they worshipped abominations, concerning which the Lord had commanded them that they should not do these things...And they rejected His ordinances and the covenant that He made with their fathers,...and they followed vanities, and acted vainly...’

God sent to them prophets and seers from the days of Jeroboam until their captivity, warning them to forsake their evil practices and return to God. But the warnings of these true prophets were rejected.

The southern kingdom of Judah did not fare better. Unlike in Israel however, some of their kings were good men: Asa, Josaphat, Hezekias and Josias. But they had bad kings such as Rehoboam, Abiam, Ochozias, Achaz, Manasseh, Amon, Joachaz, Joachim and Zedechias. (Judah had 18 kings in all) Manasseh was the worst of all the kings of Judah. He built pagan altars within the house of God in Jerusalem, including altars for all the host of heaven. He used divination and observed omens, appointed pythons and multiplied soothsayers. He also shed much innocent blood. He gave scandal and encouraged his subjects to rebel against God. In his days God promised to allow Jerusalem to be destroyed by their enemies, and punish the inhabitants of Judah. God also promised to leave only a remnant—‘the remnants of my inheritance’(iv.kgs21:14).

In 583 B.C the kingdom of Judah was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzer, king of Babylon. The magnificent temple built and sumptuously furnished by Solomon was burnt to the ground, including the royal palace. Treasures of the temple were taken away to Babylon. Many lost their lives and others became captives. King Zedechias, the 18th and last king of Judah underwent the torture of seeing his sons killed in his presence in Babylon, and then his eyes were plucked out. (cf. iv.kgs25:7) Israel and Judah ended up having false shepherds who misled them and finally brought misfortune on their subjects.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Catholic Church was instituted by Jesus Christ as the new Israel. Christ purchased her at the price of His Precious Blood shed during the passion. Organized in this world as a visible society she is governed by the pope who is the vicar of Jesus Christ, and the successor  of the apostle Peter. Just as the Israelites of old were saved from bondage in Egypt and led through the Red Sea to the promised land, so Christ has delivered us from the bondage of the devil and from sin, washed us in the waters of baptism and led us into the promised land which is the Catholic Church—a land flowing with milk and honey. The Catholic Church is the Ark of salvation. Outside the Catholic Church no one can be saved. In her is contained all that is necessary for salvation: the seven sacraments, scripture and sacred Tradition, holy doctrines, etc. As the Israelites of old constituted the kingdom of God on earth so does the Catholic Church. St. Peter speaking to Catholics says: ‘But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare His virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light’(i. Pet2:9).

Like Israel of old the Catholic Church received from God the mission to convert the nations from their false religions to the one true religion which is the Catholic Church(cf.Mt.28:19-20; Mk.16:15-18). Up to the time of the Second Vatican Council Catholic missionaries were to be found all over the world doing just that. She is the only true religion founded by God Himself. Therefore others are false: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, Protestantism, Russian and Greek Orthodox churches, the many traditional religions, etc. Their followers, in order to be saved, must abandon these religions, repent of their sins, submit to the authority of the Catholic Church and be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Catholics are those who are baptised, profess the same faith and submit to the Roman Pontiff as the visible head of the Church. Catholic teachings are uncompromising. She is radically exclusivist, because her divine founder is a jealous God! According to the teaching of St. Paul: ‘Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore, go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and will be a Father to you; and you shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (ii.Cor.6:14-18).

Catholics are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt.5:13-16). Christ is the Head of the Church and the pope is His vicar on earth. The gods of the heathens are devils (cf.Psa.134:15). Rome is the new Jerusalem, being the seat of the pope. The Church is divided into dioceses governed by bishops who are in union with the pope. The Roman Catholic Church is therefore a divinely instituted monarchy as well as being a form of theocracy. The pope is not an absolute monarch. He governs only in the name of Christ whose vicar he is. The bishops receive their powers from the pope. It is the best organized institution on earth and the most enduring, because of its divine origin.

VATICAN 11

The decision of Pope John XX111 to call the Second Vatican Council was a temptation; a bait offered by the devil who had already prepared the ground for his foot-soldiers to hijack the Council and re-direct the ship of the Church to a new, uncharted course. As soon as the Council convened on October 13, 1962 Satan presented his temptation to leaders of the Church through the agency of his partisans: a small but determined group of modernists. The temptation went along these lines: The world is changing, and we cannot afford to remain exclusivist and triumphalist. We must go out and meet the men and women of our age on their own ground. Let us convince others that we are one with them so that they may accept us as equal partners in the search for world peace and prosperity. We must keep away this old insistence that only us have the truth, and appear to the people of our age as enlightened Catholics who have come to realise that all men, including Catholics, are in a continual search for the truth. We must stop teaching that ‘Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.’ That is outdated theology. We must now pursue ecumenism with our separated brethren in order to achieve unity in reconciled diversity! Not conversion and return to the Catholic Church. People are generally good. So there is no need to continue the old methods of missionary zeal. What we need today is dialogue with the followers of other religions. This dialogue is more important today than conversion. Conversion shows that my religion is superior to yours. Therefore I make effort to get you abandon yours and join mine. This is antiquated arrogance which will not go down well with men of our age! We need to engage in dialogue as equals, and acknowledge all that is good in other religions. We must no longer condemn anybody. In fact, we must now become champions of religious liberty. In this way we shall be accepted as partners in progress and we can cooperate in the effort to achieve world peace. We need to do away with the teaching that error has no right to exist, to be promoted, or to be practised. Our Council must proclaim freedom of religion. Catholic states whose constitutions protect the Catholic religion as the state religion must change them. We must now acknowledge the right of everybody to worship whatever type of god he pleases. This will prove to the world that we are enlightened. This Council must change our liturgy. The traditional Latin Mass is too exclusivist and triumphalist. Why should we continue to say Mass in Latin, facing the altar? We must make it more people-centred so that we can move closer to the Protestants. This will promote ecumenism. All our religious orders and institutes need to change their constitutions and adapt them to the modern world. We need to be loved, welcomed and accepted by the world in which we live. We need to be seen as co-operators with all men of goodwill in the pursuit of integral humanism. This is the time to emphasize what unites us with other men. We must emphasize all that is positive in human culture, and avoid condemnations...

The new ideas proposed by the liberals triumphed at the Council. There were voices of reason who warned about the implications of these new orientations for the Catholic faith. But like Prophet Samuel of old, they were shouted down. Again, like in the case of the old Israelites, God allowed human freewill which rejected Him to run its course. This liberal orientation became official policy in December 1965 when pope Paul V1 signed the ambiguously-worded documents of Vatican 11. In 1969 he effectively suppressed the Tridentine Mass and imposed the Novus Ordo Mass.

CONSEQUENCES

Since then we have seen the multiplication of evils within the Church. The hierarchy has led the way in the apostasy of millions from the Catholic faith. We have seen popes shying away from teaching the integral Catholic faith. We have seen them pray together with Jews in their Synagogues, Moslems in their Mosques, Protestants in their prayer—houses, and pagans in their shrines. We have seen them defend morality based on natural law without defending the Catholic faith which acts as a strong motive to keep the natural law in the first place. We have read their encyclicals in which they had spoken in general terms without defending the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation, baptism, and submission to the Roman pontiff. We have witnessed popes, bishops and priests celebrate scandalous masses: facing the people, with one altar cloth instead of three, without relics on the altar, no crucifix but an empty cross with the image of the Risen Christ, lay readers, altar-girls, indecently-dressed men and women, communion received standing and in the hand, hugging and kissing at mass, or exchanging handshakes. We have witnessed the lack of reverence, loss of the sense of the presence of God, poor catechetical formation. We have listened to their empty sermons designed to offend no one. We have seen them use doubtful words of consecration, and equally doubtful matter. We have seen priests and their congregations singing choruses, clapping and dancing to the beating of drums and gospel band.

Like in the time of King Manasseh of Judah, we have seen tables set in opposition to the traditional Catholic altar in our Churches. Abominations are effected on this new altar of the people, set up in opposition to the one altar of God.

We have also witnessed the multiplication of false teachers, false prophets, false apparitions and false visionaries, just like in the days of the apostate, King Ahab. In the days of Pope John Paul 11(1978-2005) they mushroomed all over the world. Claiming to be inspired by God or Our Lady, they sang the praises of John Paul 11, promoted the cult of his personality, presented him as ‘Mary’s pope,’ ‘the chosen one,’ ‘Our Lady’s beloved son,’ etc. Such false visionaries included Veronica Lueken of Bayside, New York, Dr. Mary Jane Even of Lincoln, Nebraska, the two Patricks in Ireland, Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests and a host of others. They encouraged adherence to the teachings of John Paul 11 and presented him as a great missionary pope. All these were lies. We all know that John Paul 11’s papacy was the most scandalous in the Vatican 11 period. He was the first pope to enter a Mosque and pray with Moslems, having removed his shoes as in Islamic custom. He was the first pope to pray with Jews in the Synagogue and bowed his head as they prayed for the coming of their Messiah. He scandalised Catholics further by giving communion in the hand, allowing altar girls and having them serve his mass, inviting the leaders of all religions to Assisi, 1986 to pray to their various deities for world peace! He celebrated masses which incorporated pagan rituals and boasted about worshipping a snake-god in Togo.

During the reign of the apostate, King Rehoboam of Judah, homosexuality grew in the land. So too homosexuality invaded the Catholic priesthood, secular and religious, during the pontificate of Pope Paul V1. Good priests were punished and the bad ones were promoted. Breaking of priestly and religious vows became commonplace. Thus we have witnessed the loss of priestly identity, closing of convents, monasteries and Catholic schools, and the drying up of vocations, especially in the affluent West. In Africa and Asia we have seen the growth in vocations, and the poor quality of formation given which produces modernist clergy lacking the qualities characteristic of a sacrificing priesthood in the Catholic sense.

We have seen Catholics and Protestants praying together. We have seen Catholics who do not accept Church teaching on contraception, abortion, sodomy, purgatory, hellfire, sacrifice, mortification, etc. We have seen the new rites instituted by Paul V1 for celebrating all the sacraments. These new rites have a watered-down Catholicism. Concepts like pains of hell, sins of thought, mortification of the senses, fires of purgatory, merits of the saints, judgement of God, detachment from the world, sacrifice of the Mass, transubstantiation, eternal punishment, infirmities of soul, our weak will, enemies of soul and body, etc have disappeared. In their places we have new concepts that are neither pleasing to God nor helpful to man’s salvation; concepts intended to offend no one.

Like in the days of King Jeroboam 1, we have seen Catholics worship at the altars of the gods of the new age: the flesh, money, power, transcendental meditation, yoga, eastern mysticism, freemasonry, liberalism, indifferentism, agnosticism, etc. We have seen the disappearance of the Catholic sanctuary, abominations committed in the churches and the triumph of pentecosto-charismatic sentimental religion over reason and commonsense.

In the days of the apostate, King Ahab, his wife Jezebel, became more powerful than the king himself. The king became weak and appeared effeminate while his wife took decisions, demanded and got her wishes, and became a terror in the kingdom. Following the implementation of the apostate agenda of the Second Vatican Council we have also witnessed Catholic clergy become effeminate; sacrificing their manly qualities on the altar of lay participation and democracy. Women have taken over many chanceries, sacristies, rectories, priories, lord it over bishops and priests, formed pressure groups to get their wishes and have become a power to be reckoned with in the conciliar Church. They have requested for and obtained many concessions to grease their feminine pride. Today women serve Mass, teach in seminaries, distribute communion, act as lay readers in church, give retreats and days of recollection to novus ordo priests and seminarians, take communion to the sick in hospitals and at home, conduct communion services and run parish offices. Some of them have formed pressure groups asking to be ordained priests. This de-masculinization of the Catholic priesthood is one of the symptoms of the apostasy. As Jezebel persecuted Elijah and the true prophets of God, so these new women in today’s church persecute true Catholics who wish to restore Tradition. They see in this an attempt to deprive them of their newly acquired power over the hierarchy and faithful. Many Episcopal conferences today have women in positions of power and influence. This is unprecedented. Even the pope has joined in this surrender of authority to women in the church by appointing women to some important posts. The effects of this feminization of the conciliar church has been the loss of true masculine authority, the turning of the clergy and male faithful into puppets, the effeminization and emasculation of the priesthood, the loss of priestly vocations, the sentimentalization of authentic worship, giving way to group delusions and frenzies.

It is not my intention to disparage women. Surely women have made and will continue to make valuable contributions in the life of the Church. Examples of such women includes the Virgin Mary Herself, Mary Magdalene, Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena, Jane Frances de Chantal, Elizabeth of Hungary, Theresa of Avila, Joan of Arc and a host of others. But they always worked in deference to men and without usurping masculine authority. They were true Catholic women who recognised the natural differences between the sexes and the complementarity of men and women. In living within the order established by God they attained sainthood and their praises are sung for all ages. Today’s takeover of the church by women however is motivated by pride, new age ideas of sexual equality, a mistaken reading of church history which pretends that women were somehow ignored and maltreated in the past,  a sense of feminine emancipation and new political ideas of democracy and women empowerment. In other words, it is not inspired by God. It is a truncation of a sense of order within the church caused by the raging apostasy inaugurated at Vatican 11.

In the fourth book of Kings 11:1ff, Athalia, mother of Ochozias king of Judah, seeing that her son was dead, got up and killed every member of the royal family and reigned for 6 years as queen. Only Joas was spared because he was hidden by his nurse during the massacre. This intemperate and unscrupulous woman was the sister of Ahab. Her crimes and her six years reign of terror is another consequence of the disobedience of Judah in rejecting God’s ordinance under which their fathers lived. Today we have seen women also promote every imaginable abomination in the novus ordo church where they hold authority. Just like in the case of Eve, it is always easy for Satan to deceive a woman who is proud, filled with a sense of her own importance, prey to vain curiosity and intemperate. Then having deceived her he uses her to destroy an institution. Thus, like in the cases of Jezebel and Athalia, Satan is using women today in his battle against the Catholic Church. Have we not seen some of them ganged together to champion an ‘inclusive church,’ inclusive language in liturgy, ordination of women, artificial contraception, gay unions and other forms of the apostate agenda?

RESTORATION

It is due to their infidelity to the covenant they entered into with God that the Israelites were conquered by their enemies and led into exile. While they were suffering the effects of their apostasy some of them reflected on their condition and what led to it. They repented and did penance. And God accepted them and allowed them to return to the Holy Land, and to rebuild it during the reign of King Cyrus of Persia. These returnees were the remnants of God’s inheritance as He promised. (cf. iv.Kgs21:14)

Today we are suffering the effects of our apostasy from the true religion. Many shepherds have turned into wolves, and a great part of the sheep is scattered in the wilderness of heresy, apostasy and schism. Many churches have become empty shells, abandoned by true worshippers; deserted vineyards. But even now God is preparing a remnant. He is preparing them in silence, meditation, mortification, penance, sacrifice, withdrawal from the world and above all, fidelity to the Roman Catholic faith and Tradition, and the immemorial Latin Mass that expresses this faith. When the time comes, these remnant Catholics, now ignored, laughed at, pushed aside, reprimanded, cajoled, mocked, excommunicated, and treated as a band of integrists and fanatics, out of touch with the modern world, will be the ones to restore the Church. These will be the remnant which will survive modern Babylon—represented by the modern world and the new churchmen who support it—to rebuild and restore the new Jerusalem; the Catholic Church.

We have seen that as the apostate kings of Israel and Judah promoted syncretism—mixing true worship of God with false worship borrowed from the false religions of the nations, and putting the true faith on the same level with false faiths—so have the post-Vatican 11 popes, their bishops and priests attempted to reconcile light and darkness, to marry Christ with Belial and to achieve unity between the temple of God and the synagogue of Satan, and to enter into a compromise between the followers of Christ and the partisans of Satan. But this scheme is already doomed to fail, because God cannot be mocked. He has granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary the final victory over Satan. ‘In the end,’ She said to Sister Lucia of Fatima, ‘My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.’(Our Lady of Fatima, July 13, 1917)

Just like in the days of King David we now have civil war within the Church. We have cardinals pitted against cardinals, bishops against bishops, priests against priests and lay people fighting among themselves. All are divided on what is the authentic Catholic teaching on many issues. The pope is not spared thanks to the checkmate which Vatican 11’s  collegiality has instituted. We have dissident theologians adding to the confusion by giving conferences and publishing works in opposition to the perennial Magisterium. We have traditionalists pitted against Novus Ordo conservative Catholics and liberal neo-Catholics, and Novus Ordo conservative Catholics fighting against traditionalists and leftist Catholics. We also have devotees of our Blessed Mother Mary pitted against the Charismatics. All these battles are being fought within the Church. This is a consequence of the rebellion against God and Roman Catholic Tradition openly adopted at Vatican 11. Like in the days of King David, many souls are lost, confused, harassed and exposed to many spiritual dangers.

In the days of King David, a certain rebel named Seba, the son Bochri, rose up against the king and started a rebellion in which he attempted to divide the kingdom. When the army of King David led by Joab was pursuing him, Seba took refuge in a city named Abela. Joab gave the order to throw down the walls and destroy the city. While the soldiers were engaged in trying to break the city walls, a wise woman from the city whose name is not mentioned called to Joab, spoke peacefully with him and interceded for the city. She promised to deliver to Joab the head of the rebel, Seba, in exchange for the life of the city. Joab agreed. This woman went and spoke to the elders of the city who accepted her counsel. The rebel was caught and beheaded and his head thrown out of the city walls into the hands of Joab’s men. This ended the rebellion and the city of Abela was saved from destruction. (Cf. ii.Kgs20:1-2,13-22)

This unknown woman whose intercession saved the city of Abela from destruction is a figure of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Today the archenemy of mankind, the eternal rebel named Satan has been allowed into the walls of the city of God on earth which is the Catholic Church. Thanks to the general acceptance of his temptation to give up the yoke of the Lord, relax disciplinary rules and become one with the world, he is now cuddled and treated as an honoured guest within the walls of the city of God.

However, like the unknown woman of David’s day who is referred as ‘a wise woman’(ii.Kgs20:16), the Blessed Virgin Mary, Seat of Wisdom, has perfected plans to finally crush the head of Satan. Like Her scriptural figure She has already interceded for the Church with Her angry Son in heaven and has obtained the terms of a truce. But the elders of the city of God on earth must cooperate with Her, (that is the Pope and the bishops). On July 13, 1917 at Fatima in Portugal She said:

I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the communion of reparation on the first Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

On June 13, 1929 at Tuy, Spain, Sister Lucia had a vision of the Most Holy Trinity and Our Lady of Fatima who said to her:

The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.

The pope and the bishops are yet to obey this command from God. Therefore the havoc inaugurated by Satan at the Second Vatican Council continues to claim casualties. Perhaps, unlike the elders of the city of Abela, the leaders of the Church today are yet to wake up to the reality of a looming chastisement against them and the Church they govern. As soon as they do, Our Blessed Mother will fulfil Her own part of the bargain. She will personally overthrow Satan and inaugurate a new Pentecost which will see the conversion of the nations to the Catholic faith and a new era of peace.
                                                                                              
Rev. Fr. Gregory Chukwudi Obih, March 29, 2011.