I, ______________________________________________________ profess that Vatican II and the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical reforms which have proceeded from it are substantial alterations of the Catholic Faith. I profess that these heretical, evil, and blasphemous reforms can in no way proceed from the Roman Catholic Church, since she is infallible in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. I therefore profess that the members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, despite any and all appearances of authority, do not possess the authority to rule, for they are the authors and promulgators of the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical abominations which have invaded our holy places. I hold that they are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such. I furthermore hold that the members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy constitute the Catholic hierarchy only materially, that is, that they are in possession of legally valid designations to receive jurisdiction, although they remain deprived of this jurisdiction until such time as they recant the apostasy of Vatican II and its reforms.
I hold that the Second Vatican Council and its reforms constitute an entirely new religion, a dogma-less religion of humanity, which differs essentially from Roman Catholicism as it has been taught, known and practiced from the time of the Apostles to the present day. I hold, by Catholic faith, that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible in its ordinary universal magisterium concerning faith and morals. I hold that it is theologically certain that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible in its universal laws, universal disciplines, and universal liturgical practices, inasmuch as it cannot promulgate to the whole Church anything which is false or sinful in these matters. I also hold that the Roman Catholic Church is indefectible, that is, it will endure as the institution founded by Christ until the end of time, and that it cannot undergo any substantial change in dogma, moral teaching, liturgical practices, or essential disciplines. I therefore hold that the hierarchy which promulgates and promotes this new and false religion has no authority to teach, rule, and sanctify the Roman Catholic Church, and that their very promulgation and promotion of this new and false religion is positive proof that they do not represent Christ, the Head of the Church, nor act with His authority. For it is impossible, by Catholic faith, that those bearing the authority of Christ could promulgate a new and false religion to the Catholic faithful and in Catholic institutions.
I consequently hold that it is a certain theological conclusion, flowing directly from the infallibility and indefectibility of the Roman Catholic Church, that the hierarchy which promulgates the new and false religion of the Second Vatican Council and its reforms, does not have the authority to teach, rule, and sanctify the Church. I hold that it is necessary to conclude that the modernist hierarchy, the promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms, is formally a false hierarchy, and must be regarded as such, and treated as such, by every Catholic. I hold that the modernist promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms are stripped of any ecclesiastical authority owing to their intention to promulgate to the Roman Catholic Church the substantial transformation of her doctrines, liturgy and essential disciplines, and that those elected or appointed to positions of authority, however legitimately, must be regarded as false popes and false bishops. I consequently reject those known as John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis as false popes, as well as anyone in the future who may claim to be pope but who, at the same time, intends to promulgate Vatican II and its reforms.
Accordingly I reject the notion, commonly known as opinionism, that the formal vacancy of the Roman see and the episcopal sees in the aforementioned circumstances is merely a theological opinion, as if the opposite opinion had theological merit, namely the opinion which holds that these same promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms constitute the true Catholic hierarchy, and could be held by a Catholic with impunity. For to assert, even as an opinion, that the promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms constitute the true hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, is to assert implicitly that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, in the name of Christ and by His divine authority, could promulgate to the universal Church false doctrine, evil laws and disciplines, and a false and blasphemous liturgy. To even hold this as an opinion is to implicitly deny the infallibility and indefectibility of the Roman Catholic Church, which is heresy.
I also reject as false the notion of those who allege in support of opinionism, that priests do not have the authority to require the faithful to assent to the formal vacancy of the Roman see and the episcopal sees in the present circumstances. For it requires no ecclesiastical authority to insist that the faithful be consistent in their rejection of Vatican II and its reforms, and that they avoid the implicit heresy of associating the promulgation of Vatican II and its reforms with the authority of Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, vested in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. It requires no authority to require that Catholics regard as a false pope him whom they reject as the living rule of faith.
I hold, moreover, that the solution to the aberrations of Vatican II is the complete rejection of this council as a false council, including its decrees and enactments. The Second Vatican Council manifested itself to be a false council, and devoid of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, by the fact that it promulgated doctrines which were previously condemned by the Church. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by (1) the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, and other documents; (2) the series of abominations perpetrated by Paul VI and his successors against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases; (3) the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service; (4) the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, including episcopal consecration, labor under doubt or invalidity; (5) the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis; (6) the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage; (7) the fact that Paul VI and his successors are in communion with manifest heretics, have openly declared themselves to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and have recognized an apostolic mission in the clergy of non-Catholics, all of which destroys the unity of faith.
I further profess and adhere to by divine and catholic faith everything which is contained in divine revelation, whether written or handed down, and which has been proposed by the Church as having been revealed by God either by her solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium. I furthermore accept all of the decrees of all of the ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church, of the Holy Office, and of the Biblical Commission.
I wholeheartedly reject the heretical teaching of Vatican II concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Ecumenical Directory. It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the “Branch Theory” made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX.
I reject the teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism as overtly heretical, which states that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which doctrine was calle by Pope Pius IX a notissimum catholicum dogma. In addition, the ecumenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.
I also reject the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanæ, which nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Præstantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.
I moreover reject the teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality, which attempts to alter the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of the Vatican Council of 1870.
I adhere to the Catholic liturgy of the Roman rite, pristine and untouched by liturgical Modernists. Consequently I reject the Ordo Missæ of Paul VI as an evil liturgical discipline, because (1) it contains a heretical definition of the Mass; (2) it was composed with the express purpose of making an ecumenical liturgy, pleasing to Protestants, stripped of Catholic truths concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist; (3) it was composed with the help and input of six Protestant ministers, which shows the heretical spirit in which it was conceived and formulated; (4) its authors systematically deleted from its prayers and lessons doctrines which would be offensive to heretics; (5) it teaches, both by its omissions and its symbolism and gestures, heresies and errors concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist; (6) it is most probably invalid owing to a defect of intention which it causes in him who celebrates it, inasmuch as the reformed missal refers to the essential words of consecration as an “institution narrative”.
I reject the Vatican II reforms of the other sacraments, which participate in the same spirit of ecumenical apostasy. Notable among these is the Vatican II rite of Orders, which has deleted the notion of a sacrificing priesthood and has changed the form of the sacrament from that set down by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, and the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration, the essential words of which fail to indicate the essence of the Catholic episcopacy, reducing it to merely a jurisdiction to found local churches.
I also reject the reforms of the Missal and Breviary made in 1955 and thereafter, because they were designed and concocted by the same Annibale Bugnini, the author of the Ordo Missæ of Paul VI. When seen in the subsequent light of the ultimate reforms of Vatican II, it is clear that the 1955 reforms of the Mass and of Holy Week in particular are inchoately the same reforms as those of Vatican II. I hold that the legal justification for the rejection of these rites, which were promulgated by a true Roman Pontiff, is the principle of epicheia, since if there were a Pope reigning at the present time, it is reasonable to presume that he would not want these inchoative changes to be used by the Church.
I adhere to the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
I consequently reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law because (1) it is promulgated by John Paul II, a false pope, who has no jurisdiction to make any laws for the Catholic Church, owing to his promulgation of the Vatican II heresies and errors; (2) it contains the heresy of Vatican II concerning the Church, mentioned above; (3) it permits sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament, by approving of its reception by non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin; (4) it permits communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin.
I hold that the only solution to the problem of Vatican II is to condemn it as a false council which was dominated by heretics, and to discard and ignore its decrees and enactments. Consequently, I do not seek to be recognized by the heretical hierarchy which promulgates Vatican II, nor do I seek to work with the Novus Ordo clergy, or to consider myself co-religionists with them. I repudiate the idea of celebrating the traditional Mass under the auspices of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, as well as the notion of a group or fraternity of priests which has received permission or seeks permission from the Novus Ordo hierarchy to function in communion with the Modernist heretics.
I hold that in addition to the Sacrament of Baptism, there is Baptism of Blood, whereby an unbaptized person is justified by means of a bloody martyrdom for the Catholic Faith. I furthermore hold that there is a Baptism of Desire, whereby an unbaptized person can achieve justification if, (1) through no fault of his own he cannot receive the Sacrament of Baptism; (2) he desires the Sacrament of Baptism, at least implicitly; (3) by the grace of God he receives supernatural faith and supernatural charity; (4) that he explicitly believe some truths of the Catholic Faith, at the very least that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him, (5) he has perfect contrition for his sins.
Finally I hold that the traditional Latin Mass which is offered together with (una cum) the Novus Ordo hierarchy is objectively sacrilegious. Consequently I affirm that active participation in Masses or services in which the name of a Novus Ordo hierarch is mentioned is objectively a mortal sin.
All these things I hold to be certain and true.
(There follows the signatures of the member and of the Superior General).