Capt. Mervin John Lobo – a Traditionalist masquerading as a Catholic?


Capt. Mervin John Lobo – a Traditionalist masquerading as a Catholic?

Who or what is a Traditionalist?

Traditionalism: True and False,
By Colin B. Donovan STL [All emphases are the author’s]

To be a Catholic is to accept Tradition, both Divine and ecclesiastical. Divine or Sacred Tradition comes to us from the apostles and is built up, by way of dogmatic development, by the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church, exercised by the Apostolic College (the bishops in union with the Pope) or the Pope personally. Sacred Tradition requires the adherence of divine and Catholic faith and only the Magisterium has the supernatural charism to authentically interpret its content.


Ecclesiastical traditions, on the other hand, are not part of the Catholic faith but of the way of life of the Church, as determined by legitimate authority, in various ages and places. There is an ecclesiastical tradition for each of the over 20 Rites and Churches which make up the communion of the Catholic Church (Roman, Byzantine, Maronite, Ruthenian etc.). The ecclesiastical tradition of the Roman Church (the Latin Rite) encompasses such matters as the ceremonies and prayers of the Mass and sacraments (in those things not determined by Sacred Tradition), the Liturgy of the Hours, penitential discipline (laws of fast and abstinence), forms of sacred art and sacred music, clerical discipline (such as celibacy) and many other matters and practices that are mutable and which can thus be changed by the supreme ecclesiastical authority.

We can also speak of pious traditions which arise from the popular piety of the People of God. They often have some foundation in Sacred Tradition or ecclesiastical tradition, without having the authority of the Church behind them. An example might be the practice of sprinkling some holy water when taking it from a font as an act of suffrage for the Poor Souls. As expressions of the personal faith of the believer they have great value.

So being traditional in any of these senses is good not bad, as long as our practices are rightly ordered. Pious traditions must be subject to ecclesiastical tradition, which in turn must be subject to Sacred Tradition. It all cases it is the Magisterium of the Church which decides what kind of tradition it is and what the implications for Catholic faith and practice are. Today there are many who describe themselves as traditional Catholics in that they adhere to the Magisterium, as well as to ecclesiastical and pious traditions which many others seem to be abandoning. Such piety is the piety of the saints and doctors of the Church.


False or exaggerated traditionalism

Unfortunately, some today arrogate judgement in these matters to themselves. This can be out of ignorance, certainly. Taught a certain way as a child it seems to such persons that ALL the practices of the faith are of equal gravity. No distinction is made between teachings and practices based in Sacred Tradition and those of ecclesiastical origin or from popular piety. Any change, no matter how minor, in the familiar practices from before Vatican II is seen as a mortal wound in the fabric of Catholicism. Generally all that is required is education in the true theological and historical facts of the case.

A spiritually more dangerous variety is the intellectualized traditionalism of those who have rejected Vatican II, or some portion of it (such as liturgical renewal or ecumenism). This rejection is rationalized as obedience to “Tradition” as they understand it. The bishops and even the Pope are seen as being unfaithful to the deposit of the faith (at least in practical matters), with only the traditionalist remnant upholding to true Catholicism. Pope John Paul II has referred to this error as Integralism. This name was first used earlier in the century by the popes to describe certain super-orthodox persons who rejected any accommodation with intellectual movements outside the Church and who took it upon themselves to ferret out heresy and heretics within it. Such traditionalism, however, is really a distrust of the Magisterium and its ability to authentically deal with, and occasionally incorporate, new intellectual currents and movements into the Church’s life. Only by guarding and holding fast to the Integral Faith is one safe, rather than by holding fast to the living Magisterium. Had this been the attitude of the Church through the centuries we would not have the neo-Platonism of Church Fathers such as St. Augustine or the Aristotelian approach of Doctors such as St. Thomas Aquinas, among others. Both these “views” belonged “to the world” before they belonged to the Church. But under the guidance of the Magisterium they were “baptized” and have been of great value to the Church.



It should be noted that in the area of liturgy the Holy See has recognized the legitimate aspirations of those who love the Rites of the Roman Church as they existed before the Second Vatican Council. This was manifested by the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei granting the privilege of using the Missal of 1962 to those who desired it and who accepted the Vatican Council and the authority of the Holy See over the Liturgy. The Pontiff encouraged the bishops of the world to be generous in granting this privilege in their dioceses to those who wish it.

There is, however, a false traditionalism which does not remain in communion with the Magisterium. Divine Revelation and the documents of the Church make it clear that only the Magisterium can ultimately judge these matters and that the salvation of the faithful does not depend on having to privately interpret the Sacred Tradition or govern oneself in ecclesiastical affairs.


Mt. 16:18: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Lk. 10:16: Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”


First Vatican Council on Papal Primacy
We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of Christ must believe “that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.

… the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by a duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.” [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican Council I, DB1826-1827/DS3059-3060]


First Vatican Council on Papal Magisterium
To satisfy this pastoral duty [primacy], our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” [Luke 22:32].
So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell. [DB1836-1837/DS3069-3070]


1983 Code of Canon Law
Can. 331 The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise. [Canon 218 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law]

Can. 333

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office, not only has power in the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groupings of churches by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.



2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff. [Canons 218, 228 of the 1917 Code]

Whatever good, therefore, false traditionalism might seem to do in preserving the faith is undone by the attitude toward papal authority that it engenders by its overt and sometimes bitter criticism. This “fidelity” then becomes a “trap,” one which seems to offer security but instead offers only the security of one’s own judgment and one’s own will. Instead Catholics are willed by Christ the security of a living connection with Him through His Vicar. The texts of Vatican I cited above show that the purpose of the Petrine office is precisely to maintain a unity of faith, discipline and hierarchical communion that reflects in the world the unity of the Kingdom founded by Christ. Those who misinterpret the faith as presented by the Second Vatican Council and the recent Popes, or who through a spirit of disobedience violate the liturgical or others norms of the Holy See, distance themselves from Peter (in some degree). This is true for those who “hold the faith” in their own way on the right, as well as for those who “progress” in their own way on the left.

On the other hand, as St. Thomas teaches concerning scandal, those who adhere to the good do not falter, nor are they scandalized into rebellion themselves by those who do stumble [ST q43, a5]. This good of the unity of faith, of the discipline of the sacraments and of hierarchical communion, is obtained by adhering steadfastly to the Pope and thus to remain “one flock under one highest shepherd” (Vatican I).

Unfortunately, we see that while in Christ’s time Jesus Himself was the skandalon or stumbling stone upon which Israel was broken, today in the New Israel of the Church that “scandal” is given by Peter. We must therefore ask ourselves which character in the drama of the Passion are we: Judas (who betrayed our Lord), Peter (who relied on his own strength), John (who remained close out of love), Thomas (whose faith was shaken by doubts), Mary (whose total faithfulness and love merited her the highest participation in the mission of Her Son), the women (who sought to comfort the Shepherd), the priests and lawyers-theologians (who thought only of their own prerogatives), the soldiers (who were “only following orders”), or Pilate (whose human respect exceeded his respect for the truth). Something can be learned from all of them, but the principal lesson, I believe, is to have more loving adherence (piety), rather than less (impiety), to the teaching, sanctifying and governing decisions of Christ’s Vicar.

Finally, recalling the dream of St. John Bosco who foresaw our times, we know that those who remain in the barque of Peter with the Eucharistic and Marian Pope will be secure, whereas as those who act independently, even if on the winning side, risk being swamped. This may apply to men of good will in other religions, but it probably also applies to those in the Church who do not fully embrace the teaching and discipline of the Roman Pontiff, but want instead to decide for themselves the direction of the Church (i.e. be their own pilot). They do so at their own risk.


Traditionalist Catholics
EXTRACT [All emphases theirs]

Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics who believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentations of Catholic teachings which prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). They are most commonly associated with an attachment to the Mass liturgy in general use in that time period (often called the Tridentine Mass, the Traditional Mass, the Latin Mass, or extraordinary form of the Mass), but their theological and practical concerns are broader in scope.

Traditionalist Catholics are distinct from other Catholics who have a broadly “traditional” or conservative outlook.



Traditionalist Catholics generally prefer to be referred to either simply as Catholics or, if a distinction must be made, as “traditional Catholics” (with a lower-case T). However, since Roman Catholics in general consider themselves to be “traditional” in the sense of being faithful to historical Catholic teaching, the term “traditionalist Catholics” is used in this article as a means of clearly distinguishing them from other Roman Catholics.


Different types of traditionalists

Traditionalist Catholics may be divided into four broad groups.

Traditionalists in good standing with the Holy See

Since the Second Vatican Council, several traditionalist organizations have been started with or have subsequently obtained approval from the Catholic Church. These organizations accept in principle the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and regard the changes associated with the Council (such as the revision of the Mass) as legitimate, if often prudentially unwise, but celebrate the older forms with the approval of the Holy See.

—Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP)

—Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS),

—Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer

—Institute of the Good Shepherd (IGS)

—Servants of Jesus and Mary (Servi Jesu et Mariae, SJM)

—Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem (CRNJ)


—Canons Regular of Saint John Cantius (SJC)

—Canons Regular of the Holy Cross

—Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer

—Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney (PAASJV)

—Miles Christi (MC)


There are also multiple monastic communities, including

—Monastery of Our Lady of the Annunciation of Clear Creek

—Monastery of St. Benedict in Norcia

—Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel

See Communities using the Tridentine Mass for a more detailed list.

In addition, many traditionalist Catholics in good standing with Rome are served by local diocesan or religious priests who are willing and able to offer the traditional rites. Many other Catholics sympathize or identify as traditionalist who are not able to attend the traditional liturgy regularly because it is not offered in their area (at least not with regular canonical standing) and so they more or less reluctantly attend the Mass of Paul VI, the current ordinary or normal Roman Rite of Mass following the Second Vatican Council. There are also numerous local and international lay organizations of traditionalist Catholics, such as the youth-groups of Juventutem.

Catholics in good standing with Rome who attend the traditional liturgy have diverse worldviews and outlooks ranging from (modern concepts of) liberal to conservative.


Traditionalists not in good standing with the Holy See

Some traditionalists practise their faith outside the official structures of the Church, though they affirm their loyalty to the Church and to the papacy. The largest priestly society to fit this description is the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), which was established in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a founding figure of Catholic traditionalism. Members of this category view the post-Conciliar changes as being doctrinally and pastorally unacceptable. The fact that they recognise the official Church hierarchy while rejecting its decisions draws accusations of disloyalty and disobedience from the preceding groups — whom this group in turn accuses of blind, un-Catholic obedience. Discussions between the SSPX and the Holy See have been in progress for some years, and in January 2009 the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops remitted the excommunications which the Congregation had declared to have been incurred by the Society’s bishops in 1988. He further expressed the hope that the Society would speedily return to full communion with the Church by showing “true fidelity and true acknowledgment of the Magisterium and the authority of the pope”.



Sedevacantists hold that the popes have forfeited their position through acceptance of heretical teachings connected with the Second Vatican Council and consequently there is at present no true pope. They conclude, on the basis of their rejection of the revised Mass rite and of postconciliar Church teaching as false, that the popes involved are false also. This is a minority position among traditionalist Catholics and a highly divisive one, so that many who hold it prefer to say nothing of their view, while other sedevacantists have accepted episcopal ordination from sources such as Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục.

The terms sedevacantist and sedevacantism derive from the Latin phrase sede vacante (“while the chair/see [of Saint Peter] is vacant”), a term normally applied to the period between the death or resignation of one pope and the election of his successor.

Sedevacantist groups include the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) and the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI).



Conclavism is the belief and practice of some who, claiming that Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul I and other recent occupants of the papal see are not true popes, elect someone else and propose him as the true pope to whom the allegiance of Catholics is due. They are often classified as sedevacantists because they reject the official papal succession for the same reasons. Conclavist groups include the “true Catholic Church”, the Palmarian Catholic Church, and the followers of David Bawden (“Pope Michael”). The Palmarian Church has drastically altered its worship and doctrines and as such is no longer considered Catholic by other traditionalists.


Traditionalist positions

Traditionalist Catholics believe that they are preserving Catholic orthodoxy by not accepting all changes introduced since the Second Vatican Council, changes that some of them have described as amounting to a “veritable revolution”. They claim that the positions now taken by mainstream Catholics—even conservative Catholics—would have been considered “modernist” or “liberal” at the time of the Council, and that they themselves hold positions that were then considered “conservative” or “traditional”.

Many traditionalists further believe that errors have crept into the presentation and understanding of Catholic teachings since the time of the Council. They attribute the blame for this to liberal interpretations of the Conciliar documents, to harmful post-Conciliar pastoral decisions, to the text of the Conciliar documents themselves, or to some combination of these.



Most traditionalists view the Council as a valid, albeit problematic, Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, though most sedevacantists regard it as wholly invalid. It is common for traditionalists in dispute with Rome to affirm that the Council was “pastoral”, and hence that its decrees were not absolutely binding on Catholics in the same way as the dogmatic decrees of other Ecumenical Councils. Support for this view is sought in Pope John XXIII’s Opening Address to the Council, Pope Paul VI’ closing address, statements from Pope Benedict XVI, and the lack of formal dogmatic definitions in the Conciliar documents.

Pope Benedict XVI contrasted the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” which many traditionalists (and modernists alike) apply to the Council with the “hermeneutic of reform” put forward by the Church authorities, quoting with approval Pope John XXIII’s statement that the Council was intended to “transmit [Catholic] doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion”. He made a similar point in a speech to the bishops of Chile in 1988, when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

[Archbishop Lefebvre] declared that he has finally understood that the agreement he signed aimed only at integrating his foundation into the ‘Conciliar Church’. The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the ‘Conciliar Church’ which has broken with its own past. It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II belongs to that. There is some tension between different traditionalist groups at the official level: the SSPX, for example, condemns the FSSP and attendance at its Masses. The SSPX itself also is often in conflict with other traditionalists. In fact, the only common denominator that is held by all the groups identifying as traditionalist is love of the traditional liturgy and, usually, suspicion of modern “neoconservative” Catholicism, which is viewed as shallow, ahistorical, and intellectually dishonest. On other questions, there are a variety of opinions.

Many traditionalist Catholics associate themselves with a particular priestly society. Other small groups of traditionalists sometimes form around an individual “independent” priest who has no ties with any particular organisation.

Some leaders of Independent Catholic Churches also claim to be traditionalist Catholics and to be preserving the Tridentine Mass and ancient traditions. Examples are the Apostolic Catholic Church, the Canonical Old Roman Catholic Church, and the Fraternité Notre-Dame.


Traditionalists’ claims of discontinuity and rupture

Traditionalists’ claims that substantive changes have taken place in Catholic teaching and practice since the Council often crystallise around the following specific alleged examples, in which others see not what Pope Benedict XVI called “discontinuity and rupture”, but what he called “renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us”:

—A new ecclesiology which they claim fails to recognise the Catholic Church as the one true church established by Jesus Christ, and instead holds that the true church “subsists in” the Catholic Church in an unclear way. They claim that this contradicts Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi and other papal documents.

—A new ecumenism which they see as aiming at a false pan-Christian religious unity which does not require non-Catholics to convert to the Catholic faith. They see this as contradicting the teachings of the Bible, Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis and other documents.

—Acceptance of the principle of religious liberty, based on one interpretation of Second Vatican Council’s decree Dignitatis Humanae, allegedly in contradiction to Pope Pius IX’s teachings in Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors.

—A revision of the Mass liturgy of the Roman rite. They affirm that this revision de-emphasises the central Catholic doctrines that the Mass is a true sacrifice and that the bread and wine are changed through transubstantiation into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, that it has been stripped of important prayers, that it is centered on the congregation rather than on God, that it is less beautiful and spiritually edifying, and that it omits certain Bible readings that mention subjects such as hell, miracles, and sin. Traditionalists hold differing opinions on the validity and acceptability of the revised rite of Mass:

-Some see it as valid, and as acceptable when necessary, though the older rite should be attended when possible.

-Some, including the leadership of the Society of St Pius X, hold that it is in principle valid as a sacramental rite but maintain that the revisions in the liturgy are displeasing to God, and that it is often celebrated improperly to the extent of being sacramentally invalid. They therefore generally refuse to attend it.

-Some, including many sedevacantists, see it as categorically invalid in principle and entirely unacceptable.

-Some hold that celebration of any modern-language translation even of the Tridentine Mass would have to be presumed invalid.

—An inappropriate emphasis on the “dignity of man”, which they claim ignores original sin and the need for supernatural grace, and which they also claim has led to a utopianism that sees world peace as possible without recognising the kingship of Christ. They see this orientation as contradicting Pope Pius XI’s Quas Primas, Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, and other papal and conciliar documents.

—A teaching on collegiality that attributes to the bishops of the world a share, with the Pope, of responsibility for the Church’s governance in a way that they claim is destructive of papal authority and encourages a “national” church mentality that undermines the primacy of the Holy See. They also claim that national bishops’ conferences, whose influence was greatly increased following the Council, “diminish the personal responsibility of bishop[s]” within their dioceses.

—A new and critical attitude towards the Bible that, they say, contradicts Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, among other documents.




—A departure from the traditional belief that the Church and the world are at variance with one another to some degree, and that the Church has enemies. They believe that Pope Pius X’s warnings in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus and other papal warnings against Freemasonry and other alleged enemies of Christianity have gone unheeded.


Responses to traditionalists’ claims

Those who in response to these criticisms by certain traditionalists defend the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent changes made by the Holy See make the following counterclaims:

—They say that the criticisms are false, exaggerated, or lacking appreciation of the organic character of Tradition, and give as examples traditionalist criticisms that Dignitatis Humanae contradicts the Church’s earlier teaching on religious liberty, and that the revised rite of Mass represents a break rather than a prudent development of the earlier liturgy.

—They say that traditionalists who claim that there has been a break from and discontinuity with the Church’s traditional teaching are displaying a Protestant attitude of “private judgement” on matters of doctrine, instead of accepting the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church.

—They say that such traditionalists fail to distinguish properly between changeable pastoral practices (such as the liturgy of the Mass) and the unchangeable principles of the Catholic faith (such as the dogmas surrounding the Mass).

—They say that traditionalists of this kind treat papal authority in much the same way as the dissident, liberal Catholics whom traditionalists claim to oppose. While liberals believe that, on sexual matters, “the Pope can teach whatever he wants… but whether or not he should be listened to is very much an open question”, the stance of certain traditionalists on the reform of the Mass liturgy and contemporary teachings on ecumenism and religious liberty amounts to the view that, on these issues, “faithful Catholics are always free to resist [the Pope’s] folly…. As theories of religious dissent go, Catholic liberals couldn’t ask for anything more.”

—The traditionalist claim that the Second Vatican Council was pastoral is often countered by referring to Paul VI subsequently emphasising the authoritative nature of the Council’s teachings.

Sedevacantists’ criticisms of other traditionalists

Sedevacantists claim that they avoid much of the mainstream Catholic critique of traditionalism because their view is that, beginning with John XXIII or Paul VI, one or both of whom and all their successors they consider to be heretics, there is no valid Catholic Pope or body of bishops to whom allegiance or obedience is owed. They criticise non-sedevacantist traditionalists for recognising the recent Popes, on grounds such as the following:

—By declaring that the revised liturgy of the Mass promulgated and defended by these popes is evil, they teach that the Church can decree evil and has decreed evil.

—By declaring that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council contradict the Church’s Tradition, they either repudiate the teaching of the First Vatican Council on the infallibility of even the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Pope and the bishops, or they implicitly deny that the Pope and bishops at the Second Vatican Council were truly the Pope and truly Catholic bishops.

—By refusing subjection to a supposedly legitimate pope, they contravene the famous Bull Unam sancta in which Pope Boniface VIII stated: “… we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Compounding the problem, according to the sedevacantists, is the revising of the rite of Holy Orders in 1968; many believe that priests and bishops consecrated according to the new rite are invalid and could not administer traditional sacraments even if they wanted to. They say this problem applies to the FSSP and even to many SSPX priests, since the SSPX accepts priests ordained in the new rite, although it ordains its own new priests in the old. According to this line of reasoning, Benedict XVI is only a priest, and was never consecrated a bishop validly, and therefore has been given no true authority to be Pope, i.e., the Bishop of Rome.


Traditionalist practices

Rite of Mass

The best-known and most visible sign of Catholic traditionalism is an attachment to the form that the Roman Rite liturgy of the Mass had before the liturgical reform of 1969–1970, in the various editions of the Roman Missal published between 1570 and 1962. This form is generally known as the Tridentine Mass, though traditionalists usually prefer to call it the Traditional Mass. Many refer to it as the Latin Mass though the Mass of Paul VI that replaced it can also be celebrated in Latin (Latin is the original language of all liturgical documents in the Roman Rite). In his 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict XVI relaxed the regulations on use of the 1962 Missal, designating it “an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite”. Some refer to it, less exactly, as “the extraordinary form”.

Different traditionalist priests use different editions of the Roman Missal to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Most, not only those in good standing with the Holy See but also such as those in the SSPX, use the 1962 edition, the only one that the Holy See authorises. A series of modifications to the 1962 liturgy introduced in 1965 are used by some traditionalists in good standing with Rome. This version of the liturgy is sometimes referred to as that of the “1965 Missal”, though no new edition of the Roman Missal was in fact published in that year.

Since the 1962 edition was promulgated by Pope John XXIII, sedevacantists and some other independent chapels reject it and generally use the 1920 Missal, with feasts updated perhaps to 1954, before Pope Pius XII’s changes to the calendar.




Those who follow the 1954 calendar also reject the same Pope’s revision of the rites of Holy Week. To put it more simply, these traditionalists reject both John XXIII’s 1962 rite and Pius XII’s changes, since they led to the Novus Ordo Missae. There are no reports of priests regularly using any edition of the Missal earlier than that of 1920, which incorporated the rubrical and calendar changes made by Pope Pius X in 1910.

Linked with the celebration of the Tridentine Mass is the observance of the liturgical calendar of saints’ days as it existed before the revision of 1969 (see General Roman Calendar of 1962). Some also ignore the revisions of 1960 by Pope John XXIII, and of 1955 by Pope Pius XII, and use instead the General Roman Calendar of 1954.


Individual and private devotions

Traditionalist Catholics lay stress on strict following of customs prevailing immediately before the Second Vatican Council, such as the following:

—Abstaining from meat on Fridays. Present discipline maintains Fridays and Lent as days and times of penance, declares that abstinence from meat or some other food as determined by the local episcopal conference is to be observed on all Fridays (excluding solemnities) and on Ash Wednesday, and allows episcopal conferences to permit other practices of personal penance to take the place of abstinence from meat.

—Fasting from midnight before receiving Holy Communion. This discipline was modified in 1953 by Pope Pius XII, who reduced the fast period to three hours, and this modification is accepted by many traditionalists. Few accept the one-hour rule promulgated by Paul VI in 1966, which is that laid down in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

—Kneeling to receive Communion directly upon the tongue, under the Host species alone, and from the hand of a cleric rather than a layperson. Some would refuse to receive even from deacons, who, before the reforms of Pope Paul VI, were allowed to give Holy Communion only if there were a serious reason for permitting them to do so. Many traditionalists regard the practice of receiving communion in the hand, though ancient and authorised by the Holy See, as an abuse and as sacrilegious.

—Women wearing a head covering in church, a practice that was widespread, but not universal, before the Council, and that also is not universal among traditionalists today.

—Frequent confession, a practice that grew in the first half of the twentieth century, when increasingly frequent Communion led to more frequent confession.

—Prayers such as the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary in the form in use before the late twentieth century, and so without the alterations in the number and identity of the Stations that became common, though by no means universal, in the time of Pope Paul VI and without the addition of the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary recommended as an option by Pope John Paul II.

These practices are, of course, not confined to traditionalists; many mainstream Catholics also follow them.


Relationship with the Holy See

The Holy See recognises as fully legitimate the preference that many Catholics have for the earlier forms of worship. This was apparent in Pope John Paul II’s 1988 apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei and Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Naturally, however, the Holy See does not extend its approval to those who take a stand against the present-day Church leadership.


Ecclesia Dei Commission

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei was founded in July 1988 in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei. Pope Benedict XVI was a member of the Commission during his tenure as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Speaking on 16 May 2007 to the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, Cardinal Castrillón, the current head of the Commission, stated that his department had been founded for the care of those “traditionalist Catholics” who, while discontented with the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council, had broken with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “because they disagreed with his schismatic action in ordaining Bishops without the required papal mandate”. He added that at present the Commission’s activity is not limited to the service of those Catholics, or to “the efforts undertaken to end the regrettable schismatic situation and secure the return of those brethren belonging to the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to full communion.” It extends also, he said, to “satisfying the just aspirations of people, unrelated to the two aforementioned groups, who, because of their specific sensitiveness, wish to keep alive the earlier Latin liturgy in the celebration of the Eucharist and the other sacraments.”

In the same speech Cardinal Castrillón indicated that it was intended to make the Commission an organ of the Holy See for the purpose of preserving and maintaining the traditional liturgy; at the same time he stated that this was not with the purpose of “going backward, of returning to the times before the 1970 reform…. The Holy Father wishes to preserve the immense spiritual, cultural and aesthetic treasure linked with the old liturgy. Recovery of these riches goes together with the no less precious riches of the Church’s present liturgy.”


Summorum Pontificum

Following months of rumour and speculation, Pope Benedict XVI issued the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in July 2007. The Pope ruled that priests of the Latin Rite can freely choose between the 1962 Roman Missal and the later edition “in Masses celebrated without the people”.



Such celebrations may be attended by those who spontaneously ask to be allowed. Priests in charge of churches can permit stable groups of laypeople attached to the earlier form to have Mass celebrated for them in that form, provided that the celebrating priest is “qualified to [celebrate] and not juridically impeded” (this would exclude traditionalist priests not in good standing with Rome).

The document, as well as being welcomed by the traditionalist groups that have been in good relations with Rome, has been considered by groups such as the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, which have been in dispute with Rome, to be sufficient grounds for seeking an agreement. The Society of Saint Pius X welcomed the document, but referred to “difficulties that still remain”, including “disputed doctrinal issues” and the notice of excommunication that still affected its bishops. Sedevacantists of course consider all documents issued by Benedict XVI to be devoid of canonical force.


Validity of holy orders of traditionalist clergy


Catholic doctrine holds that any validly ordained bishop can ordain any other baptised male as a priest or a bishop, provided that he has the correct intention and uses an acceptable ordination liturgy. This remains the case whether or not the ordination is performed with official approval, and even if the individuals involved are not Catholics. The conferring of holy orders may therefore be valid but illicit. The Catholic Church obviously considers the orders of traditionalist clergy who are in good standing with the Holy See, such as the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, to be both valid and licit. It sees as valid but illicit the orders of the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, and accordingly considers them to be forbidden by law to exercise priestly offices. As for the “independent” traditionalists, whether bishops or priests, it certainly sees their ordination as illicit, but its judgement on the validity is less clear. The Holy See declared devoid of canonical effect the consecration ceremony conducted by Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục for the Carmelite Order of the Holy Face group at midnight of 31 December 1975, while expressly refraining from pronouncing on its validity. It made the same statement with regard also to any later ordinations that those bishops might confer, saying that, “as for those who have already thus unlawfully received ordination or any who may yet accept ordination from these, whatever may be the validity of the orders (quidquid sit de ordinum validitate), the Church does not and will not recognise their ordination (ipsorum ordinationem), and will consider them, for all legal effects, as still in the state in which they were before, except that the … penalties remain until they repent.”

Traditionalists themselves are divided on the question of the validity of the orders conferred using the rite promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968. Those who deny or put in doubt the validity of the sacramental liturgies as revised after the Second Vatican Council pass the same negative judgement on all such ordinations. The Society of Saint Pius V split from that of Saint Pius X for reasons that included Archbishop Lefebvre’s acceptance of priests ordained according to the revised sacramental rites as members of the traditionalist Society that he founded.


Number of traditionalist Catholics

According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, the Catholic Church’s worldwide recorded membership at the end of 2005 was 1,114,966,000. Estimates of the number of traditionalist Catholics vary. Catholic World News reported that “the Vatican” estimated the number of those served by the Fraternity of St Peter, the Society of St Pius X and similar groups at “close to 1 million”. A poster on Yahoo GeoCities, put the number of traditionalist Catholics (in good standing with the Holy See or not) “somewhere around the six or seven million mark”, and a sedevacantist site put them at “60 to 120 million worldwide”. Various sources estimate the adherents of the Society of St Pius X alone at 1 million. No major religious survey has ever made an attempt to sample and enumerate subsets of Catholics by their position on a liberal to mainstream conservative to traditionalist and sedevacantist continuum, so any figure on the numbers of traditionalist Catholics must by necessity be more or less educated guesses.

The two most prominent societies of traditionalist priests – the SSPX and the FSSP – claim to have a presence in 31 and 14 countries respectively. A large share of their members in each case are stationed in France. Two other societies, the SSPV and CMRI, are based in the United States and also claim a presence in many countries, especially the CMRI. Traditionalist Catholics in English-speaking countries and Germany are more likely to be sedevacantist than those in France and other Latin countries.

For purposes of comparison with mainstream Catholic organisations, the Knights of Columbus in the United States are stated to have 1.7 million members, the Neocatechumenal Way is reported to have around 1 million members, and Opus Dei is claimed to have 87,000 members.

Another comparison is that Eastern Rite Catholics number 16 million. Approximately 7,650,000 belong to the fourteen Catholic Churches of Byzantine Rite, whether they attend the Divine Liturgy in that liturgical rite or in another, and 8,300,000 belong to other Eastern Catholic Churches of Armenian, Coptic and Syriac traditions.


Traditionalists Indicate Definitive Break with Catholic Church

By Catholic News Agency, June 28, 2013

The Lefebvrist bishops announced that the dialogue with the Vatican is over.

VATICAN CITY — On the 25th anniversary of the illicit ordination of four bishops by traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X indicated a definitive break of talks with the Catholic Church.

In a statement June 27, three of the four bishops originally ordained expressed “their filial gratitude towards their venerable founder, who, after so many years spent serving the Church and the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to safeguard the faith and the Catholic priesthood, did not hesitate to suffer the unjust accusation of disobedience.”

The document — titled “Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations (30th June 1988 – 27th June 2013)” — is signed by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Alfonso de Galarreta.

Bishop Richard Williamson, also ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, was expelled last year from the society.

The group was founded in 1970 by the French native Archbishop Lefebvre in response to errors he believed had crept into the Catholic Church following the Second Vatican Council, which took place 1962-1965.

Interpretation and legacy of the Second Vatican Council was a major stumbling block for the society in their ongoing negotiations with the Vatican, aimed at healing their 24-year rift.

The society has also had a strained relationship with the Church since its founder ordained four bishops against the will of Pope John Paul II in 1988.

In their statement Thursday, the group contradicted now-retired Pope Benedict XVI’s stance on Vatican II. The letter made explicit reference to the “hermeneutic of continuity,” rejecting the interpretive lens by which Benedict XVI saw the conciliar documents in light of the Church’s Tradition.



The bishops say that the documents themselves have grave errors and that they cannot be interpreted without clashing with Tradition.

The “cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the Church does not reside in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts — a ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ which would be opposed to a ‘hermeneutic of reform in continuity,'” they wrote, “but truly in the texts themselves, by virtue of the unheard-of choice made by Vatican II.”

The group also claims that the Second Vatican Council “inaugurated a new type of magisterium, hitherto unheard of in the Church, without roots in Tradition; a magisterium resolved to reconcile Catholic doctrine with liberal ideas; a magisterium imbued with the modernist ideas of subjectivism, of immanentism and of perpetual evolution.”

The document argues that “the reign of Christ is no longer the preoccupation of the ecclesiastical authorities” and that the liberal spirit in the Church is manifested “in religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and the new Mass.”

Because of religious liberty, they claim, the Church is being “shamefully guided by human prudence and with such self-doubt that she asks nothing other from the state than that which the Masonic lodges wish to concede to her: the common law in the midst of, and on the same level as, other religions which she no longer dares call false.”

Because of interreligious dialogue, “the truth about the one true Church is silenced,” they also say, while the spirit of collegiality “represents the destruction of authority and in consequence the ruin of Christian institutions: families, seminaries, religious institutes.”

The Lefebvrist bishops save their harshest criticism for the Novus Ordo Mass, promulgated in 1969 by Pope Paul VI. “This Mass is penetrated with an ecumenical and Protestant spirit, democratic and humanist, which empties out the sacrifice of the cross.”

The traditionalist bishops announce that, in practice, the dialogue with the Vatican is over and that, from now on, they will wait “either when Rome returns to Tradition and to the faith of all time — which would re-establish order in the Church” or “when she explicitly acknowledges our right to profess integrally the faith and to reject the errors which oppose it, with the right and the duty for us to oppose publicly the errors and the proponents of these errors, whoever they may be — which would allow the beginning of a re-establishing of order.”

The statement concludes: “We persevere in the defense of Catholic Tradition, and our hope remains entire.”


4 selected out of 123 comments

I say shut the SSPX down for good and send them away from the public eye.  Thank God that some priests and bishops left to form the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and may their order grow large and strong. -Andrew B

This Mass is penetrated with an ecumenical and Protestant spirit, democratic and humanist, which empties out the sacrifice of the Cross.

While the Novus Ordo certainly has its problems, there is nothing more Protestant than breaking off from the Church. -JS

So they are Protestants then. And they give the masons way too much credit. -Nadster

While I sympathize with many of the SSPX’s concerns, none of those issues justify breaking with the Church.  JS said it most concisely above.-CL


I received a packet of papers by snail mail from Capt. Mervin John Lobo containing a Traditionalist list of Freemasons in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, against which I wrote to him; his wife Meg replied:

prabhu To:
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:56 PM Subject: FROM MICHAEL

Dear Mervin,

Thanks for telephoning. You promised me that you would write, but you didn’t.

Could you tell me about the late Cardinal Suenens? You have shown that he was a Freemason, but what about his being the leader of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal for so many years?

Could you explain that and tell me some more?


Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:55 AM Subject: FROM MICHAEL

mervin lobo
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:59 AM Subject: Cardinal Leo Suenens

Dear Michael,

Praise the Lord… I was just filing my mail and came across your request. Mervin is sailing, and I think that he did send you something about Cardinal Leo Suenens. Anyway I am sending you something I have on him. Below in red is what it is said about Suenens. Scroll down the list of Freemasons to his name. God Bless, 

Meg [Margaret]


An EXTRACT from Capt. Lobo‘s papers and Meg Lobo‘s email attachment:

107. Suenens, Leo. Cardinal

Title: Protector of the Church of St. Peter in Chains, outside Rome.

Promotes Protestant Pentecostalism (Charismatics)

Destroyed much Church dogma when he worked in 3 Sacred Congregations: 1) Propagation of the Faith; 2) Rites and Ceremonies in the Liturgy; 3) Seminaries

Date initiated into Masonry:

Code number:

Code name:



Capt. Mervin John Lobo, a resident of Mahim [St. Michael’s parish in the Archdiocese of Bombay] has been circulating this information for years, both in print and by email. He is a Master Mariner who claims to have done biblical studies in Jerusalem*. This information usually accompanies his published articles which are about spiritual warfare, the Hinduisation of the Church through the incorporation of pagan elements [symbols and rituals] in the Church’s liturgy, the spiritual dangers of New Age meditations like yoga and vipassana [both of which are institutionalized and rampant in his archdiocese] and New Age alternative therapies like reiki and pranic healing, Freemasonry, liturgical errors with particular emphases on the abuses that accompany the [Rome-approved] practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand, etc. Apparently this is not very different from the ministry that I conduct. Capt. Lobo has also attended charismatic retreats, and the last time that I ran into him was at Steve Ray’s apologetics seminar in Mumbai, Jan-Feb 2010.

Since at least fifteen years, I have come across his articles in charismatic magazines like Divine Voice and Vachanotsavam, Charisindia, Renewal Voice and Shalom Tidings. In January and February 2009, I wrote to the publishers of each of these magazines giving them the above information circulated by Capt. Lobo on the charismatic leader Card. Suenens. None of them responded and they continue to publish his articles till date.

*He has “studied the sacred scriptures for a while, in Jerusalem in 2000” according to


Mr. Cyril John, Chairman of the National Service Team of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and publisher of CHARISINDIA monthly magazine, New Delhi

To:; nco
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:28 PM


Dear Bro. Cyril, Attached is a document that may interest you:

Freemasonry_Suenens, sent to me by Capt Mervin John Lobo by hard copy and his wife by email […] 

He circulates this information that the late Cardinal, leader of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal was a Freemason.

I wonder why he secretly works AGAINST the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.


Love and Prayers, Michael


Benny Punnathara,
publisher of Shalom Tidings monthly magazine, Peruvannamuzhi, Calicut

Shalom ; Benny Punnathara ;
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:43 AM


Dear Bro. Benny, Attached is a document that may interest you:

Freemasonry_Suenens, sent to me by Capt Mervin John Lobo by hard copy and his wife by email. He writes for your Shalom Tidings magazine.

He circulates this information that the late Cardinal, leader of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal was a Freemason.

I wonder why he secretly works AGAINST the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.


Love and Prayers, Michael


Fr. Augustine Vallooran VC, Divine Retreat Centre,
publisher of Divine Voice monthly magazine, Muringoor

Divine Retreat Centre
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:43 AM


Dear Fr. Augustine,

Attached is a document that may interest you:

Freemasonry_Suenens, sent to me by Capt Mervin John Lobo by hard copy and his wife by email. He writes for Divine Voice and Vachanolsavam magazines.

He circulates this information that the late Cardinal, leader of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal was a Freemason.

I wonder why he secretly works AGAINST the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.


Love and Prayers, Michael


Renewal Retreat Centre,
publisher of Renewal Voice monthly magazine, Bangalore

Renewal Voice
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:14 PM Subject: FW: For your information

Bro. Eric Paul

—–Forwarded message—–

From: Master Ocean Odyssey <>
To:,*,**, Miscellaneous others
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 12:16 PM Subject: FW: For your information

My Dear Brothers and Sisters

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ!
Kindly send this message to all your Christian friends above all pray that this movie will be banned.
Inform your Parish Priest and have soaking prayers.
Your Brother in Christ

Capt. Mervin John Lobo,
Master M. V. Ocean Odyssey


Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:53 PM


Dear Bro. Eric Paul,

1. I thank you for your forward of Mervin Lobo’s email.

This forward has been doing the rounds for at least two to three years, if I remember right. People have questioned its authenticity.

2. Attached is a document that may interest you: Freemasonry_Suenens, sent to me by Capt Mervin John Lobo by hard copy and his wife by email, earlier. He writes for several charismatic magazines like yours.

HOWEVER, he PRIVATELY and SELECTIVELY circulates this info that the late Cardinal Suenens, a long time international leader of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, was a Freemason.

I wonder why he secretly works AGAINST the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

Also, see my letter to Fr Augustine Vallooran and letters from a priest and a senior lay leader in ministry in Bombay, in the attachment. Love and Prayers, Michael Prabhu, Chennai

*The email address of Fr Augustine Vallooran VC, Divine Retreat Centre, Divine Voice monthly

**The email address of Benny Punnathara, Shalom Tidings monthly


I also marked copies BCC of the above to a few senior leaders in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and these are some of the responses:

Senior leader in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:43 PM


Dear Michael, […] Please pray a lot before you make a decision about your ministry. It is a gift of God and you cannot be faulted for your love for the Church and your zeal to correct errors. I appreciate it that you keep in touch although I am such a poor correspondent!! God bless you and Angela. Assuring you of my continual prayers for you both.


Priest in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:22 AM


Dear Mike, I do not know much about Cardinal Suenens but I definitely know much about this man Capt. Mervin and agree that there is something fishy and suspicious about him.

The church needs to be careful about him irrespective of his educational qualifications.

Reasons: 1) type of company he keeps 2) pro-Lefebvre 3) abusive language 4) in the church but working against the church.


Senior leader in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:09 AM


The little I remember of Mervin can be termed as “odd”.  Not seen him or heard of him in years. 

The list of persons/hierarchy involved with Freemasonry – wow – how did he get his hands on such a list***.  What way does anyone have in ascertaining that the same is genuine/fabricated/concocted/something that Lefebvre’s people have done? If genuine, Suenens could never say “Jesus is Lord” or open the Church to the Holy Spirit. There will be some people you should not waste your time with. One of them is Mervin, from what you have written. From the looks of it he probably needs deep deliverance himself. Mumbai

***There are lists available. Capt. Mervin John Lobo‘s source, an anti-Catholic site, is immediately below:

A List of Masons in the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church

July 16, 1996/Ninth update March 14, 1997 by “The Enddays” Ministry


A List of Masons in the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church
December 15, 2009

List of Masons in the Catholic Church


Lay person, Mumbai
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:24 AM Subject: RE: CAPT. MERVIN JOHN LOBO

Dear Prabhu, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. He seemed odd and fanatical to me.

If I were you I would just leave him alone. I remember him forcing me to buy a book which was written against the church and I refused to. He freaked out because I did not agree to his pint of view. Such people are just not worth it. I delete his mails and don’t even glance thru them.


Priest in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:03 PM


Dear Michael,

I have written to u earlier about this man. He is a Traditionalist (Lefebvre), and as rightly observed by you he works from within the Catholic Church to wreck it!



Miscellaneous correspondence concerning Capt. Mervin John Lobo:

1. From:
Lucio Mascarenhas****
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:18 PM Subject: Your website EXTRACT

Dear Mr. Prabhu, 

I have been viewing your website, and wish to make a few comments: 

You must know that Capt. Mervin Lobo is a Judaizer and a Zionist.  Catholicism has historically had its own separate and distinct program for the Holy Land, distinct from those of the Greeks, the Moslems and the Jews.  It is as much treason against Christ to identify with the program of the modern Jews, who are actually apostate Pharisees as it is to identify with that of the Moslems or others. You may find this page exposing Jewish descent from the Pharisees and hatred and conspiracy against Catholicism here:

****Mascarenhas is himself a sedevacantist and follower of “Pope Michael”/David Bawden, see page 4


2. From:
CC [Mumbai/Canada] To: All Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:46 PM


CC Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:54 PM


It seems that one Mervin Lobo forwarded this to you. Is it CAPT. MERVIN LOBO from Mahim? Is he really Catholic? I doubt. I feel that he is a closet traditionalist. Do you know anything about him? Seem this id of his is NEW! I have been keeping a close watch on him for the last three years and I have very strong suspicions. I have never been wrong. Love, Mike

Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 6:28 PM Subject:

Yes, he is Capt. M. Lobo from Mahim. I don’t know anything about him .Lets not judge, rather let’s pray and be united…

CC Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:11 PM Subject: MERVIN LOBO

I am surprised that you would think I might be “judging” the man. I think you know me better. The fellow has been secretly spreading misinformation about the Catholic Church, and I can confirm that because his wife Meg POSTED it to me! From:
CC To: prabhu Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:49 PM Subject: Re: MERVIN LOBO

Dear Michael, I am sorry I did not know that part of it. In fact I don’t know this person. He’s just a mailing contact.
I did not know that they were doing this. […]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 7:31 AM Subject: Re: MERVIN LOBO

I did not get hurt in the least, and certainly not with you who have become so close to me. I just wanted to clarify with you that I know this particular case well. He has come to our home when his ship docked here a couple of times. Whenever he talks about the priests he uses terms that no decent person would, very coarse and vulgar. I’m afraid that I do not believe his stories about his having done Bible Studies in Jerusalem.

A few months ago he got out of an auto in my city and stopped me on the road and asked me for directions. He did not recognize me. When I asked him, “Aren’t you Captain Mervin John Lobo?” he said “Yes”. I asked, “Don’t you recognize me, I’m Michael Prabhu”. Like Peter with Jesus, he said, “No, I do not know any Michael Prabhu” – not once but twice.

Yet I have received email correspondence and postal packets directly from him! I am VERY suspicious about the man.


3. From:
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:03 PM Subject: IS MERVIN OKAY?

My dear Meg,

I trust that all is well with you, and also with Mervin.

On the evening of December 29, at about 7:00 pm, Angela and I were driving in our car down GN Chetty Road, T. Nagar in Chennai, on our way to a wedding reception, when we pulled over to ask for directions. At the very same time, an auto rickshaw pulled over, and a gentleman alighted [he was sharing it with another passenger going in the same direction], and he asked me for directions to a hair cutting salon which he named. I immediately recognized him as Mervin.

He has come home twice when his ship docked, I see his photograph in every issue of SHALOM TIDINGS, and he has called me from Bombay at least once and talked to me, so I could never mistake his appearance or his voice, which you will agree, are both unique.

When I identified myself to Mervin, and recalled some of our past association, TWICE, he was categorical that he neither knew me by sight or name, nor any Michael Prabhu in Chennai. This concerns me very much. He has found my house in an auto rickshaw at midnight, and called me over to his hotel [Woodlands or Savera] and has written me so many emails and sent me several packets of papers. Surely he cannot forget all that?

How is Mervin able to serve as a responsible Master Mariner if he has a memory problem like that?

I expect to be in Bombay soon, and I would like to come to your place and see you both, to ensure that Mervin is safe and well.

Love and Prayers, Michael and Angela Prabhu, Chennai


4. From:
Derrick D’Costa
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 4:31 PM


Dear Michael,

I went through the attachment provided. All I have heard is that Capt. Mervin Lobo is pretty well known in Mahim and is part of the charismatic movement based on what I hear from my parents…
I am clueless why he should be circulating traditionalist conspiracy theories or refusing to recognise you.



All I remember from my childhood is that Mahim had always a large number of dissenters (traditionalists, etc. etc) who used to regularly do the rounds with a host of signature campaigns… It does seem like many move with the winds as far as theological preferences go.  Attaching two articles on Capt. Lobo from the net. God bless, Derrick, Bahrain



On January 27, 2011, MumbaiLaity, a Mumbai-based blog carried an article that held that Freemasons “control the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church”. It came to my attention when one Prakash Lasrado circulated an email on July 22, 2013 to a large mailing list that he maintained till he unilaterally closed it a few days ago. Through Prakash Lasrado’s intervention, the trail of the origin of the MumbaiLaity article led to the computer of Capt. Mervin John Lobo. How that discovery was made almost two-and-a-half years after its publication is detailed on page 17 immediately after the said article which is reproduced herewith:


Masons Control the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church

January 27, 2011

Compiled by Rev. F.J.G. Ragelis (1976)

Pope John Paul I 

His reign lasted only 33 days 1978 August to 1978 September. According to some sources he was murdered

Although Liberalist and Marxist infiltrators have been more active in the Roman Catholic Church in the past 50 years, with selected agents entering the seminaries as candidates for the Priesthood, the disciples of the Church kept these infected intellectuals underground, restraining any open activity.

Pope John XXIII knew there were dangerous elements in the Church, and specifically to bring them out in the open, he convened the Second Vatican Council. The Council had no sooner opened when the secret elements took control. The conservative Council Fathers were unprepared and could not foresee that they would be the losers.

When the documents of Vatican Council II were published, they became a tool in the hands of progressivist elements. Special commissions were created to work out what was to be changed and how the changes must be enforced under obedience. The special commissions were of course controlled by the same secret elements.

Listed below are the names of Monsignors, Bishops and Cardinals who are Masons and who are working in the Vatican. From the number of them – and from the exalted posts they hold it is easy to see how they completely control the Holy Father, the Vatican and the entire Church. These are some of the men responsible for the detested changes being forced upon good Catholics all over the world today.




Giovanni Battista – Pope Paul VI, after his mother’s name: Maria Montini known as the Montinian or “Jewish pope” His reign in the Vatican 1963-1978

1. Cardinal Villot, Jean (Protector of the Church Ss-ma Trinita al Monte Pincio), Archbishop of Bosporo. Birthplace: Saint-Amant-Sallende, Diocese of Clermont; October 11, 1905; ordination April 19, 1930; consecration October 12, 1954; created and proclaimed Cardinal on February 12, 1965. Cardinal Villot is Secretary of Vatican State of His Holiness and Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church. Residence. Vatican City State. Cardinal Villot is Prefect of: The Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes; (president) Administrator of the Patrimony of the Holy See. Practically, Cardinal Villot controls Vatican foreign affairs and the most important Sacred Congregations.  He became a Mason on August 6, 1966. [Note: El Universal daily in Mexico City on 10th of August 1976 published articles of the International Committee of Defense of Catholic Tradition about Cardinal Villot. It says Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Villot is one having come forth from a French family that produces, from father to son during the last two centuries Grand Masters of Freemasonry and the Rosicrucians Cardinal Jean Villot is Camerlengo. What does the Camerlengo position mean? After the death of Pope Paul VI, Villot will govern the Church until a new Pope is elected]

2. Cardinal Poletti, Ugo, Titular Bishop of Medelizi, Birthplace: In Omegna diocese of Novara, April 19, 1914; ordination June 29, 1938. Consecrated as Bishop, Sept 14, 1958. Created and proclaimed Cardinal March 5, 1973. He is the Vicar of His Holiness Pope Paul VI for the diocese of Rome and districts since March 6, 1973. Archpriest of Patriarchal Basilica of Lateran; Great Chancellor of the Pontifical University of the Lateran; member of Sacred Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship, member of Sacred Congregation for Priests and Religious; President of Pontifical Works and Preservation of the Faith; President of Pontifical Works and Preservation of the Faith; President and Protector of Liturgical Academy. Became a Mason on February 17, 1969.

3. Archbishop Bugnini, Annibale. Birthplace: In Civitella del Lago, diocese of Todi, June 14, 1912; was ordained in 1936 and consecrated on February 13, 1972. Bugnini was Consultant in Sacred Congregation of Propagation of the Faith; in the Sacred Congregation of Holy Rites in the section of Sacred Liturgy with commission; in the administrative tribunal he was a perito. Bugnini was the father of the Novus Ordo (New Order). He joined the Masons on April 23, 1963. [Note: Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, author of the New Mass, was sacked in July 1975, when unquestionable proof of his being a Freemason was submitted to the Holy See. He has not even been publicly reproved, despite his being subject to automatic excommunication because of his being a Freemason. Archbishop Bugnini continues to exercise a diplomatic function in Iran on behalf of the Vatican.



4. Msgr. Biffi, Franco, Chaplain of the Holy Father and since Oct. 29, 1970. Rector of the Pontifical University of the Lateran. He was initiated into the Masonic Rite on Aug. 15, 1959.

5. Archbishop Casaroli, Agostino, Titular Archbishop of Cartagine. Birthplace: In Castel S. Giovanni, in the diocese of Piacenza, Nov. 24, 1914; ordained on May 29, 1937. Consecrated July 16, 1967, prelatus Domesticus, Secretary of Public Affairs of the Church; Consultor of Sacred Congregation of Bishops; member of the Commission for Russia; Consultor of Pontifical Commission for Revision of Canon Law; member of Pontifical Commission for Latin America; member of Pontifical Commission for Emigration and Tourism; Sub-secretary of Vatican State on Extraordinary Affairs. Initiated in to the Masonic Rite on Sept. 28, 1957

6. Msgr. Macchi, Pasquale, Prelate of Honour of the Holy Father since June 13, 1964. Minutante of the second class, minor official of 1st grade of Vatican State. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on April 23, 1958. Msgr. Macchi is the private Secretary of the Pope, on whom he depends in order to write speeches and private correspondence.

7. Msgr. Rizzi, Mario, Prelate of the Holy Father since January 21, 1969.  Chief of the Office; major official of 2nd class of Sacred Congregation of Oriental Church. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on September 16, 1969

8. Archbishop Brini, Mario. Birthplace; in Piombino, diocese of Massa Marittima, May 11, 1908; ordained June 29, 1938; consecrated Jan. 28, 1962. Secretary of Sacred Congregation of Oriental Church; member of Pontifical Commission for Russia; Consultor of Commission for Christian Union; Consultor of Pontifical Commission for Revision of Canon Law and for Canon Law of Oriental Church; member of Administration for Convertites; Prelate of all Sacred Congregations. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on July 13, 1969.

9. Msgr. Pinto, Pio Vito, Attache of Secretary of State of Second Class. Notare of 2nd Section of Supreme Tribunal and of Apostolic Signature. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on April 2, 1970 and has monogram initials V.I.P. as very important person.

10. Msgr. Marschiasano, Francesco (from Turin), Prelate of Honour of the Holy Father since Feb. 29, 1972. Sub-secretary of Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities of Study. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on Feb. 4, 1961.

11. Msgr. Virgilio, (Levi) Lovino, Prelatus Domesticus, President of Commission of Sacred Art. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on July 4, 1958. Fr, Virgilio is Assistant Director of L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican daily paper.

12. Fr. Virgilio, Noe, Vicar General of Fratres de Misericordia. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on June 13, 1959

13. Fr. Alessandro, Gottardi (G. Dv. Pietro). Procurator and Postulator General of Fratelli Maristi. Initiated into the Masonic Rite, on June 13, 1959

14. Bishop Angelini, Fiorenzo, Titular Bishop of Messene. Birthplace: In Rome, Aug 1, 1916; ordained February 3, 1940; consecrated July 19, 1956.  Commendator di Spirito Sancto; delegate of Cardinal Vicar of Rome for hospitals. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on Oct, 1957.

15. Cardinal Baggio, Sebastiano (efeso), Protector of the Church Angeli Custodi, Titular Archbishop of Caglari. Birthplace: In Rosa, diocese of Vicenza, May 16, 1913. Ordained Dec. 21, 1935; consecrated on July 26, 1953. From 1964 was in Brazil as Apostolic Nuncio. Created and proclaimed as Cardinal on April 28, 1969. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on Aug. 14, 1957. Cardinal Baggio is the Prefect of the Roman Curia Congregation of Bishops. He controls Bishops.

16. Cardinal Pellegrino, Michele (Turin), Protector of the Church SS-mo Nome di-Gesu, Archbishop of Turin. Birthplace: In Centallo, diocese of Fossano, April 25, 1903; created and proclaimed as Cardinal on June 26, 1967. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on May 2, 1960.

17. Cardinal Suenens, Leo, Josef. Birthplace: In Ixelles, archdiocese of Mechelen Brussels, July 16, 1904; ordained Sept. 4, 1927. Consecrated March 19, 1962, with title and Protector of St. Peter in Chains; created and proclaimed as Cardinal March 19, 1962.  He worked as Cardinal in Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, Congregation of Rites and Ceremonies, and Congregation of Seminaries and University Studies. Was in Pontifical Commission for Revision of Canon Law; was delegate and moderator of Vatican II Council; had been affiliated with Pentecostalism. Initiated into the Masonic Rite on June 15, 1967.



A. An election must begin between the 16th day and the 19th day after the death of the Pope (Canon 84)

B. The Cardinal Dean asks the elected Cardinal if he will accept the office

C. During the Vacancy, the exercise of supreme authority in the Church is suspected.

D. The Cardinal Camerlengo with three Cardinals composes a special congregation (Canon 85). NOTE: The Cardinal Camerlengo presides over the Apostolic Camera. After having assured himself of the death of the Pope, and after having published the death notice, he takes possession of and assumed the government of the Apostolic Palace. He also sees to the safeguarding of the rights of the Holy See.

E. At the vacancy of the Holy See, the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia have no other power that that of the Constitution of Pius XII (see Canon Law, Text and Commentary, pg. 153.) The Constitution abrogates all other previous ordinances.

A. The Cardinals cannot change Church Laws

B.  Two special congregations of Cardinals, one general and one special are to transact business

in order to arrange the Conclave

C. The following Cardinals retain their powers:

(a) The Cardinals Camerariou. At their head is the Cardinal Camerlengo J. Villot)




(b) The Major Penitentiary, for urgent cases; forum conscientiae

(c) The Cardinal Chancellor

(d) The Cardinal Vicar of Rome

(e) The Legates

(f) The Nuncios

(g) The Apostolic Delegates

(h) The Papal Almoner

D. The Secretary of State expires and is taken by the Secretary of the Sacred Colleges

E.  The Sacred College governs the Vatican State

F.  The Sacred Congregations have no power (see pg. 153 of Canon Law)

G.  The Tribunal of the Rota and the Signature retain their jurisdiction (no. 24228). Msgr. Pinto Pio Vito is the Mason who holds power of Signatura and does not lose power during the Sede Vacante, i.e. after the Popes death

H. The right to elect the Pope belongs exclusively to the Cardinals

I.  Simony is severely condemned under excommunication, but does not invalidate the election

J.  Immediately upon his acceptance, the elected Cardinal acquires, by Divine Law, the full power of Jurisdiction




Geneva (Agence France Presse). High-ranking Church officials in the Vatican and Archbishops and Bishops of different countries are militant members of Freemasonry, as was denounced yesterday here by the International Committee of Defence of Catholic Tradition. Among them figure none other than some of the principal collaborators of the Pope, such as the Secretary of the Holy Father, Msgr. Pasquale Macchi, the Vatican diplomat Agostino Casaroli and the Secretary of State of the Holy See, Msgr Jean Villot.

This presence of the enemies of the Church, in the internal structure of the Church forms a part of the mystery of iniquity and should be unmasked, the international organisation affirmed.

The list of prelates accused of being Masons was published by the International  Committee of Defence of Catholic Tradition which is formed, as it is affirmed, by  renowned personalities of different nations who are identifies in all the force of their Faith as theologians in unity with Catholic Tradition

The Integralists, who propose for themselves (to defend the Traditional Church), directly mention the Vatican Secretary of State, Jean Villot, as one having come forth from a French family that produces, from father to son during the last two centuries, Grand Masters of Freemasonry and the Rosicrucians

Other high-ranking dignitaries of the Church accused by the International Traditionalist Organisation are the Primate of Belgium, Leo Suenens; the Vicar of His Holiness for the diocese of Rome, Ugo Poletti; the Archbishop of Turin, Michele Pellegrino; and the Prefect of the Roman Curia Congregation of Bishops, Cardinal Baggio.

The International Committee of Defense of Catholic Tradition, after indicating that the Bishop of Lille (Nord, France), Achille Lienart, also belongs to Freemasonry, publicly gave out the same accusation against other bishops. The well-known Vatican diplomat Msgr. Agostino Casaroli and the Private Secretary of the Pope, Msgr. Pasquale Macchi, are also both Masons, according to the International Committee of Defence of Catholic Tradition. Msgr. Casaroli is qualified as the Kissinger of Vatican diplomacy, the great artisan of the opening up to the (Communist) East and all of the scandalous destitution of Cardinal Mindszenty

2. El Universal of Mexico, August 10, 1976 Paris (Agence France Presse). Some French literary personalities sent a letter to Pope Paul VI, published yesterday here by the conservative Le Figaro, asking him to reconsider the sanctions applied to the Traditionalist Bishop Archbishop Lefèbvre. They added that Pope John XIII “esteemed and loved” Lefèbvre, and they indicated later on in the letter: “They are being celebrated everywhere and with impunity certain strange Masses, sometimes ecumenical ones, that have absolutely nothing to do with the Mass of Pope Paul VI.” — Then it would seem that any and all Eucharistic celebrations be tolerated, save the traditional Mass.

Prepared by Rev. F.J.G. Ragelis


II. Masons in the Catholic Church

Masonry undermines all religion. Numerous Popes have spoken and written about the great evils of this secretive and infiltrative organization. In this article, we present our third exposé on Masonry and Freemasonry in an effort to alert the Faithful to a sobering fact: Masonry has entered the Church; or as Pope Paul VI himself said: “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.”
We make no claim to be the authors of the information below. Rather, we have collected it from books and other reliable sources, all of which we give credit to accordingly. The reader is free to draw his own conclusions.

We begin with an excerpt from Humanum Genus, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on Freemasonry:

— “If other proofs are wanting, this fact would be sufficiently disclosed by the testimony of men well informed, of whom some at other times, and others again recently, have declared it to be true of the Freemasons that they especially desire to assail the Church with irreconcilable hostility and that they will never rest until they have destroyed whatever the Supreme Pontiffs have established for the sake of religion.






— “If those who are admitted as members are not commanded to abjure by any form of words the Catholic doctrines, this omission, so far from adverse to the designs of the Freemasons, is more useful for their purposes. First, in this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless, and can induce a far greater number to become members. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age — that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions.”

Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), a German Augustinian nun, stigmatist (bore the wounds of Christ), and miracle-worker, who subsisted entirely on water and Holy Communion for many years, received numerous visions of the future crisis in the Church and the infiltration of the Masons. In her visions, she describes men in aprons destroying the Church with a trowel, The Masons wear aprons and their symbol is the Mason’s trowel. The following excerpts are from page 565 of Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Vol. 1, by Rev. K.E. Schmöger, Tan Books, 1976:

— “I saw St. Peter’s. A great crowd of men was trying to pull it down whilst others constantly built it up again. Lines connected these men one with another and with others throughout the whole world. I was amazed at their perfect understanding.

— “The demolishers, mostly apostates and members of different sects, broke off whole pieces and worked according to rules and instructions. They wore WHITE APRONS bound with blue riband. In them were pockets and they had TROWELS stuck in their belts. The costumes of the others were various.

— “There were among the demolishers distinguished men wearing uniforms and crosses. They did not work themselves but they marked out on the wall with a TROWEL where and how it should be torn down. To my horror, I saw among them Catholic Priests. Whenever the workmen did not know how to go on, they went to a certain one in their party. He had a large book which seemed to contain the whole plan of the building and the way to destroy it. They marked out exactly with a TROWEL the parts to be attacked, and they soon came down. They worked quietly and confidently, but slyly, furtively and warily. I saw the Pope praying, surrounded by false friends who often did the very opposite to what he had ordered…”

The following is a list of Masons reprinted with some updates from the Bulletin de l’Occident Chrétien Nr.12, July, 1976, (Directeur Pierre Fautrad a Fye – 72490 Bourg Le Roi.) All of the men on this list, if they in fact be Masons, are excommunicated by Canon Law 2338. Each man’s name is followed by his position, if known; the date he was initiated into Masonry, his code #; and his code name, if known.





Readers’ comments

If this so-called list came from a reliable source, I would be very concerned; BUT, as it came from the so-called traditionalist people outside of the Roman Catholic Church, then, it should be ignored and trashed. Any Catholic that belongs to the masons will have to answer to God, not man, and anyone making up false lies will lose their place in Heaven. God have mercy on us. –JMJ, March 29, 2011

I hate to disclaim the above comments. But all the above research is truth. Masons did take over the Catholic Church. Thank goodness for the Society of Pius X. Cardinal Villot had a imposter pope in place of Pope Paul. There is an exorcism which names three evil cardinals and the imposter pope. You Tube “Devil in the Vatican” great video. All the above mason Catholics should be excommunicated. And the true Vicar of Christ elected from the Society of Pius X. –James, October 24, 2012

NOTE: There seems to be no other information on the World Wide Web from or about the mysterious “Rev. F.J.G. Ragelis” other than the above “Masons Control the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church“.

Ragelis’ article has been reproduced by a number of web sites. –Michael


MY COMMENTS on how the Freemasonry article trail led to Capt. Mervin John Lobo continued from page 14.

Here are three of Prakash Lasrado’s successive emails which were also copied by him to the President of the CCBI and CBCI, Archbishop of Bombay, Cardinal Oswald Gracias:

1. From:
Prakash Lasrado
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 8:05 PM

Subject: Rebuttal to Mumbai laity-Masons control the Catholic Church

Please do not believe the below article. I find it false and without evidence.

Many Cardinals are accused of being Freemasons.

Also the so called source links quoted by above Mumbai laity web link do not work.


We need to be aware of false rumours floating around trying to discredit the Church




2. From:
Prakash Lasrado
Patrick D’Souza
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:58 AM

Subject: Fwd: Please do not expect reply to any queries in future


Please tell the fellow laity not to believe the rumours that Cardinals are Freemasons without evidence.

If you refer spurious websites you will find that Traditionalists have attacked Pope Benedict as a Freemason. Will you believe such stupidity? Pope Benedict was one of the most doctrinally conservative Popes.

Mervin Lobo writes articles without thinking and applying his mind.



3. From:
prakash lasrado
To: ; Fr. Augustine Vallooran VC ; Archbishop Oswald Gracias PVT ; Cardinal Oswald Gracious
Patrick D’Souza ; prabhu ; Christian Reforms ; ALL

Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:31 PM Subject:
Rebuttal to Mervin Lobo– Was Cardinal Bugnini a Freemason?

Was Archbishop Bugnini a Freemason?

Did Freemasons create the New Mass (Novus Ordo)?

The answer to both the above questions is No.

There was no evidence that Bugnini was a Freemason and that the Freemasons created the New Mass as per below web link. See detailed analysis below.

Accusations of clergy being Freemasons is nothing but a dirty trick by the Traditionalists to divide the clergy and the laity in my opinion.


MY COMMENTS on how the Freemasonry article trail led to Capt. Mervin John Lobo continued from page 17.

One of the recipients of Prakash Lasrado’s private correspondence with certain others, Name Withheld forwarded to me Prakash Lasrado’s letters to Capt. Mervin John Lobo. John Menezes is a Traditionalist.

Selected portions of the letters are reproduced below:


4. From:
Mervin Lobo <>; and others

Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 12:26 PM Subject: Rebuttal to John Menezes and Arthur D’Mello

Dear John […]


5. From:
Mervin Lobo <> and others Date: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 10:51 AM Subject: Re: Is the Vatican New Mass Lutheran?
Dear Mr. Lasrado,

I am sorry that your knowledge of sacramental theology is very poor. You are advised to read Mediator Dei (20/11/1947) of Pope Pius XII where he has foreseen already the coming of the New Mass and has dealt with several aspects including “concelebration” which destroys the very notion of the priest acting in the singular person of Christ in a Catholic Mass. Besides, “concelebration” is an occasion of grave fraud because priests individually accept mass stipends and pool them into one concelebrated Mass which, in any case, is not a Sacrifice of Propitiation.  Pope Pius XII, in the same document, has also condemned the Resurrefix which has since been installed in many churches of the archdiocese. 

To know that the New Mass is Lutheran you may like to invest in “Work of Human Hands” by Fr. Anthony Cekada at and pay with your credit card, a book lauded by Vatican officials for its research and level of detail even though the author is a sede vacante apologist, or simply access Google YouTube “Work of Human Hands” and listen to the introduction to the various chapters to know that it is NOT a Catholic Mass at all. Its Lutheran character, as also Eucharistic Prayer No.2, is told in the introduction to one of the chapters.

For a short study of only the Ordinary of the New Mass, I send attached herewith The Ottaviani Intervention by a Group of Roman Theologians led by late Fr. Louis Michel Guerard des Lauriers OP, professor at a Vatican university and confessor of Pope Pius XII. This also shows that it is NOT a Catholic Mass. You may also, very easily, Google “The Great Sacrilege” of Rev. Fr. James F. Wathen OSJ and read it online to know how stunning it is in proving that the New Mass is a massive Sacrilege.

For other sacrilegious aspects of the New Mass including the recently researched fact that the Preparation of the Gifts is derived from the Jewish “hate Christ” book called the Talmud, you may read, attached herewith, the Open Letter of “Catholics for the Preservation of the Faith” to the newly appointed bishops of this archdiocese, contents of which stand un-refuted to this day. This letter deals, inter alia, with the revised ordination rites as also that every Catholic loyal to this New Church receives a parting kick on his deathbed because there is no longer a rite of Extreme Unction which prepared the soul for the nest world. It was abolished in 1970 by Paul VI.

Sorry, this is not the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ but a New Church and a New Religion. To know the mischief at the Second Vatican Council in bringing about this change, you are advised to Google search and buy “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen SVD, an accredited reporter who had access to all the Council Fathers and to all the documents.

Best wishes, John Menezes


6. From:
Mervin Lobo <> and others
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:02 AM Subject: Is the Vatican New Mass Lutheran?



Dear John,

      I refer to your email below. You allege that the Vatican II mass is Lutheran.

      Please PROVE that the Vatican II mass is Lutheran and not Catholic. 

      What is wrong with concelebration and what is wrong with Eucharist prayer no. 2?  Please let me know specifically what is wrong.

      In which Vatican document has Pope Pius XII condemned concelebration?

      I did not quite understand what you mean

7. From:
Name Withheld;
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 10:12:12 -0700 Subject: Withdrawal of blogs from The Laitytude

Dear Mr. Lasrado,

Your message to Name Withheld and a host of other people* has been graciously sent to me by him and I am taking the liberty of writing to you.

In the first place I appreciate your concern that Protestants should not be scandalized with the publication of what is happening in the Catholic Church.

I take the responsibility of having sent
Name Withheld
for publication the article of Captain Mervin Lobo, a good friend of mine, on the Prophesy of Daniel which, inter alia, mentions about Lucifer having been enthroned in the Vatican.

Captain Lobo has studied Holy Scripture extensively in Jerusalem and can quote chapter and verse. He is very well read and when he writes, it is responsible writing with a sense of responsibility because Catholics who are not privy to the sources he has access to can come to know through him what exactly is taking place in the Catholic Church, and must indeed know it.

The sources of information Capt. Lobo has relied on for his information are impeccable and have been available to and accessed by Protestants long before The Laitytude was born.

Moreover, with the exception of few Anglican groups seeking entry into the Catholic Church because of abuses in their own churches, it is the Catholic Church that has been moving steadily into the Protestant camp so much so that with the publication of the new Catholic-Lutheran document in Geneva named “From Conflict to Communion” in May of this year, the cat is officially out of the bag that the Church of Rome has embraced Lutheranism. In fact, the Vatican II New Mass is so Lutheran in character and theology especially with concelebration (condemned by Pope Pius XII) and Eucharistic Prayer No.2 that Lutherans have stated that it is as good as their own communion service.

Captain Mervin Lobo would like to have a talk with you over the telephone. If you can please give me your number/s I shall communicate the same to him. On the other hand, his landline is 24455066 and he has assured me that he will welcome your call.

I am of the opinion that none of the articles identified by you should be withdrawn from The Laitytude because they are genuine and because Protestants already know about them, and much worse (and the Indian Catholic must be alerted on the same). For instance the book, “Rite of Sodomy” by Randy Engels, was published way back in 2006 and the sodomy of a Vatican II “pope” that figures in it  has been in the world press including the Indian press way back from 1976, and Protestants are abundantly aware of it even though The Laitytude has never referred to it. 

I am sharing this message with Name Withheld and Captain Mervin Lobo.

With compliments and best wishes,

John Menezes


8. From:
Name Withheld
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:31 AM

Subject: FW: Has Lucifer been enthroned in the Vatican?


Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:37:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Has Lucifer been enthroned in the Vatican?
Dear Mervin,

   What proof do you have that many Cardinals are Freemasons and Lucifer has been enthroned in the Vatican?

   As a preacher, you should refrain from making such defamatory and derogatory statements without basis.

   On the one hand, you use the church platform to preach the gospel. On the other hand you backstab the church with derogatory comments.

   We Christians (both the clergy and laity) are kind hearted and quick to forgive mistakes and do not drag each other to court.

   Had you written such things against a politician in US or Singapore on a blog he would have mercilessly dragged you to court and sued you.

   Do not use Malachi Martin’s fiction novels as fact. Malachi Martin left the Jesuits and wrote fiction novels because fictions novels sell better just like the fiction novel Da Vinci code. We all make mistakes.  I understand your mistake is inadvertent. Kindly rectify this mistake and withdraw your articles from the blog.


A couple of days later, Prakash Lasrado folded up his chain-email writing with the email below. Despite having been harassed with emails — in excess of 1000 from him in six months — I had never responded.




prakash lasrado
Name Withheld; john menezes ; prabhu ;
Prakash Lasrado
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:16 PM Subject: Kindly remove my name from your distribution list and respective blogs

Name Withheld, John, Michael, PB D’Sa,

   Kindly remove my email ids from your distribution list.

   Please do not send any email either to or

   I am not interested in continuing any discussion and would like to avoid inadvertent confusion and friction in future.

   Meanwhile just as Mr. P.B. D’Sa has agreed to remove posts on his blog pertaining to me, please remove my name from your respective blogs and oblige.

Incidentally, this is the third such letter from him in under a month. Like the proverbial bad penny, he always returns.


MY COMMENTS on how the Freemasonry article trail led to Capt. Mervin John Lobo continued from page 18.

It is pertinent to note that Capt. Mervin John Lobo remained hidden, using a Traditionalist as cover to propagate his the-Church-is-run-by-Freemasons story. I have no issues with anyone’s choosing to be a Traditionalist. There are a few who write to me or send me forwards every now and then. One of them removed me from her mailing list about a month ago. I have never blocked the emails of a Traditionalist or of anyone else for that matter. However I do have a problem with people like Capt. Mervin John Lobo who masquerade as Catholics while working to subvert the Church from within. I am about to expose another such person this week. Recently, after I became fully convinced of the same about another person who has even hosted me at his home, I suggested to him that he remove me from his mailing list which he did.

I have noted that Capt. Mervin John Lobo is on the mailing lists of several individuals — including a founding father of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, a diocesan priest from Goa — who are either Traditionalists or who empathise with Traditionalist ideologies.

Some Traditionalists are long-time members of Catholic-run yahoo group fora such as Konkani Catholics, owned by Austine Crasta of Mangalore, who continues to allow them to post comments and information on his blog despite my having alerted him to them on a couple of occasions.


MumbaiLaity had carried a Church-is-run-by-Freemasons article earlier too:

List of Masons in the Roman Catholic Church

June 3, 2010


Source accredited by MumbaiLaity: “Light of Life Ministries”

The article dated March 28, 2004, is also available at

“Light of Life Ministries” is a fundamentalist Protestant rabidly anti-Catholic site. THE ARTICLE’S CONTENTS ARE THE SAME AS THE MUMBAILAITY’S JANUARY 2011 ARTICLE’S LIST.


Freemasonry conspiracy theories and false private revelation undiscerningly published in MumbaiLaity:

THE LAITYTUDE | Bombay’s Catholic Laity Wakes Up!

The Church under Attack by Paolo Reyes

Posted on August 4, 2013

The messages of Our Lady to Fr. Stefano Gobbi, contained in the book “Our Lady Speaks to Her Beloved Priests” bear an imprimatur and nihil obstat from the Church, and have spawned a worldwide Marian Movement of Priests and Laity that counts hundreds of cardinals, bishops, and priests, as well as millions of laity, as members.
In a message dated June 13, 1989, Our Lady told Fr. Gobbi that “the beast like a lamb” prophesied in the Book of Revelation is none other than freemasonry that has infiltrated the Catholic Church… …

Much more on Freemasonry in this article -Michael

The “Untold Portion” of the Third Secret of Fatima

Many analysts and commentators who have studied the third secret of Fatima have concluded that the full content of the third secret has still not yet been revealed.…

Finally, we have the modern-day messages of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the prophet “Maria Divine Mercy” contained in the website, which warn of a schism in the Church brought about by the False Prophet and the Antichrist… …



While it is a good thing that Paolo Reyes alerts Catholics to the evil of Freemasonry, it is quite another thing to certify private revelation by attributing to the Blessed Virgin the disclosure that the beast “prophesied in the Book of Revelation is none other than freemasonry that has infiltrated the Catholic Church“.

Fr. Stefano Gobbi‘s locutions are riddled with theological errors and false prophesy. See



The anonymous Maria Divine Mercy and the site claim that Pope Benedict was the final pope and the next one [who is now Pope Francis] is the False Prophet of the Book of Revelation. To put it mildly, they are anti-Catholic. See


Paolo Reyes maintains that the Church has withheld from Catholics the entirety of the Third Secret of Fatima. The Church insists that it has not; see


Traditionalists’ contributions undiscerningly published in MumbaiLaity:

Lumen Fidei, product of brawn and brain – JOHN MENEZES

Posted on August 4, 2013

For the first time in the history of the Roman Church has an encyclical been written jointly by a sitting incumbent, Francis I (who styles himself the Bishop of Rome), a Jesuit, and a retired Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI. It brings to light, again for the first time in the last 400 year history of the Roman Church, at least, the inability of a reigning “pontiff” to put together any solid matter of the class of Catholic teaching, let alone doctrine,  relevant to the present time, and so Benedict’s brains had to be borrowed… …


Dissenting priests’ [Subhash Anand is a dissident] contributions undiscerningly published in MumbaiLaity:

May God Give Us Some More John Vianneys‏ –

Posted on August 3, 2013

I am sending you the report on Neo-Pentecostalism. You may not have enough time to read it. So I am drawing your attention to a part of the conclusion that needs our very urgent response.

The data reveal a widely shared perception that the clergy of the mainline churches are responsible in several ways for the exodus of the believers to the Neo-Pentecostal sects. This is particularly true of the Catholic clergy…  Clearly, pastoral care in the Catholic Church leaves a lot to be desired.

Honestly, for me it matters little whether people are Catholics of Neo-Pentecostals, Christians or not. What is important is that we are decent humans. What worries me is why people are leaving the Catholic Church. Our priests have the longest formation. What are they busy with – busy at all. In many dioceses they are present for many functions where they are not required at all, especially at birth- and feast-day parties, where very often a lot of hard liquor flows. How can we respond? […]


Below, we find Capt. Mervin John Lobo in the mailing list of a virulently anti-Roman Catholic Traditionalist:

1. From:
Ann DSouza
john menezes ; Olive Lobo ; Ashley Nunes ; Vineet Samson Pereira ; Sunil Samson Lopes ; Nestor Carvalho ; ; Leon Despres ; Maria DCruz ; daphne sobrinho ; Father Kevin Vaillancourt ; Fathers Domnic and Francisco Radecki ; Archie Rodrigues ; Lysander D’Lima ; Riseley D’Souza ; Margaret Desilva ; Helen DSouza ; Veera Nazareth ; Kathy Heckenkamp ; Rev. Mother Marie de Montfort Catholic Research Institute ; Janice Lobo ; Franco Adessa ; Jackie DSouza ; Narry Neef ; Fabiola Lobo ; Bishop Bonaventure Strandt ; Bishop Giles Butler ; Lovie & Gus Pereira; Fleurette and Oscar PimentaBenny Athaide; Cyrus Pereira; Damson; Gilbert Nunes ; Valentino Joachim Fernandes
; Merwin Lobo ; Milind DSouza ; Mathew Andrades ; Anil Pereira ; ; ; Robert Carriapet
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:37 PM Subject: 2nd Sunday After Easter – Good Shepherd Sunday


2. From:
Ann DSouza
Sunil Samson Lopes ; Vineet Samson Pereira ; Benny Athaide ; Rufinus Barboza ; Cyrus Pereira ; Milind DSouza ; Mathew Andrades ; Damson ; Anil Pereira ; Osden Fereira ; Tony Fernandes ; Jerson Pereira ; john menezes ; Olive Lobo ; Ashley Nunes ; Nestor Carvalho ; ; Leon Despres ; Maria DCruz ; daphne sobrinho ; Father Kevin Vaillancourt ; Fathers Domnic and Francisco Radecki ; Archie Rodrigues ; Lysander D’Lima ; Riseley D’Souza ; Margaret Desilva ; Helen DSouza ; Veera Nazareth ; Kathy Heckenkamp ; Rev. Mother Marie de Montfort Catholic Research Institute ; Janice Lobo ; Robert Carriapet ; Franco Adessa ; Jackie DSouza ; Narry Neef ; Fabiola Lobo ; Lovie & Gus Pereira ; Bishop Bonaventure Strandt ; Fleurette and Oscar Pimenta ; Bishop Giles Butler ; Valentino Joachim Fernandes ; Merwin Lobo ; Tito Fernandes ; Kurt DSouza ; Francis Alvares
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:54 AM


3. From:
Ann DSouza
Bishop Bonaventure Strandt ; Bishop Giles Butler ; Father Kevin Vaillancourt ; Fathers Domnic and Francisco Radecki ; Rev. Mother Marie de Montfort Catholic Research Institute ; Franco Adessa ; john menezes ; Olive Lobo ; Vineet Samson Pereira ; Sunil Samson Lopes ; Nestor Carvalho ; ; Leon Despres ; daphne sobrinho ; Maria DCruz ; Archie Rodrigues ; Lysander D’Lima ; Riseley D’Souza ; Margaret Desilva ; Helen DSouza ; Veera Nazareth ; Kathy Heckenkamp ; Janice Lobo ; Robert Carriapet ; Fabiola Lobo ; Narry Neef ; Jackie DSouza ; Lovie & Gus Pereira ; Fleurette and Oscar Pimenta ; Benny Athaide ; Cyrus Pereira ; DamsonAnil Pereira ; Milind DSouza ; Valentino Joachim Fernandes ;
Merwin Lobo ; Rufinus Barboza ; Mathew Andrades ; Tito Fernandes ; Osden Fereira ; Jerson Pereira ; Gregory Gonsalves Vasai ; Gregory Dias Vasai ; Anil Francis Pereira Vasai ; Joel Pereira Vasai ; John Nicholas DSouza Vasai ; Charles Coutinho Vasai ; Steven Coutinho Vasai ; Elias Pambujya ; Primus Colaco
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:55 AM Subject: How Jesus must weep watching this wicked generation !!…


This report was emailed to the retreat centres that publish the articles of Capt. Mervin John Lobo:

Michael Prabhu
To: ; ;**;*; ; ; National Charismatic Office ;;
Cc: ; Archbishop Bombay ; Archbishop’s House ;;
BCC: One address that corrects errors that are brought to their attention

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:29 PM


Dear Reverend Fathers Augustine Vallooran VC and Michael Payyapilly VC, DIVINE VOICE and VACHANOLSAVAM,

Dear Cyril John and the CHARISINDIA team,

Dear Benny Punnathara and SHALOM TIDINGS,

I had cautioned you about this man who contributes articles to your magazines but you had not responded to me. Here now is my report which also contains my letters to each of you.

Michael Prabhu

Catholic apologist

Copy to:

Bishop Kalist Francis, Episcopal Advisor to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal

Cardinal Oswald Gracias, Archbishop of Bombay/Fr KT Emmanuel, his secretary

Attached report:

7 AUGUST 2013, 21, 1.07 MB



Michael Payyapilly
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:51 PM


Kindly refrain from sending me further mails. 

Michael Prabhu
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:50 PM


Dear Father Michael,

Does everyone who points out genuine and serious spiritual [uncorrected] error automatically become your adversary?

Please read further below the response that I got from another retreat centre preacher like yourself. This is the THIRD time that we have pointed out error and the THIRD successive time that he has written back in Christian charity and humility. But look at you!

I have not had to publish any report on the errors of his retreat centre as I have of yours about which I have only reached no. 8 out of a possible 15 to 20.

I often wonder how priests like you and Fr Augustine Vallooran exhibit one face in public and another quite the opposite in private.

While preaching to us, don’t you ever think of your judgement? Will you not have to answer to God for spurning fraternal correction and prophetic forth-telling and persisting in error upon error? You treat one and all, barring an elite few, like spiritual beggars.

You [when I say you, I mean priests like yourself] are living in ivory towers. I can give you a long lecture, but I restrain myself, praying instead that God will have mercy on all of you and open your eyes to what you are too conceited to see.

Do not do this to yourself and limit the far greater things that God has in His plans for in you and your Retreat Centre.



Michael Payyapilly
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 1:20 PM


Dear Michael,

I hope you will read this mail with a calm mind.

I really don’t know who you are. I have never met you personally. But from the mails that have been sent out, it has never been a pleasant experience. Your mails might be genuine. But there is a way in which we mail out things. And I don’t even feel like opening your mails because of it. 

I am a simple priest and with simple knowledge. I deal with my faith and the way I preach it in a simple way. Honestly I have seen enough of broken people and families in my ministry to be too bothered by apologetic issues. My ministry is different from yours. Bless you for yours. But sometimes it is nice to realise that not everyone need agree to or be as interested in a particular topic as we are. I get back to my room from my ministry at 11pm, sleep at 12 am up by 4:30 am. When I come back at 11pm the last thing I want to read is something like this. Not because it is not good. But because I have just had a day filled with broken people and their lives. My mindset at that moment is different. It’s just that our ministries are different and I need not have the same interest in some things as you have. 

And just a few things Michael. You have never met me to make judgements about how I live my life. Your words in all your mails have been cutting unless a person agrees that you are in the right. Along the way as you do your ministry maybe it is good to see if there is any love approach in it. Because the Lord’s approach has always been love. Maybe it is good to see as to how many people have you hurt on your journey in the ministry. I personally know of many people who have felt very hurt by the way you have approached them or portrayed them in your words. In ministry we might not be able to please everyone. That is not needed. But we need not hurt everyone.



If you need to know why I never answered your mails it is this: I found that you were putting up personal emails in public forums. You were copying and pasting private mails sent to you in public forums to justify/prove your arguments and points. That was shocking!! I have never seen anyone do something like that. I really don’t know if this mail will also go up on your site!! But this habit is not good and it degrades a person and the trust he/she has in sending an email to you.

From what I guess, your informations about what people said or did are hearsay. Half truths can be a dangerous thing.

And for your information, I am not in Divine, Muringoor now. So sending those mails to me don’t make meaning.

Once again please don’t send those mails to me hence forth. 

Bless your ministry.

Fr. Michael


Michael Prabhu
Michael Payyapilly
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:37 PM


Dear Fr. Michael,

I thank you for your detailed and kind explanatory letter. You addressed me by Christian name unlike in your first letter of January 06, 2013. It makes a great difference.

As requested by you, I will not write personal letters to you again.

However, that does not mean that I will not mark copies to you of my reports that concern Divine Retreat Centre, etc.

Allow me to explain, while at the same time clarifying some issues against a few of your statements.

True, we have never met, but that is the case with over 90% of the priests and lay Catholics who correspond with me.

I am well aware that you are not in Muringoor now, but you are associated with the Divine Retreat Centre and you are one of its well-known preachers. Hence, you might want to be informed through my reports so that you can possibly correct some of the errors that are initiated or propagated by others in the same way that the Renewal Retreat Centre preacher did, as you have seen.

I do not expect and never expected that my ministry and my manner of carrying it out will be accepted by all Catholics.

However, it has never been rejected by any priest or lay leader who is truly Catholic and unwaveringly loyal to Rome.

I have published several hundred reports indicting Cardinals, Archbishops, powerful heads of institutions and organizations but no one, NOT A SINGLE ONE of them has even TRIED to refute them/me.

If there were any doctrinal or factual errors or humbugging in any of my reports, someone high up in the Church would have publicly reacted a long time ago. The fact is that my research is fairly thorough, my documentation as perfect as I can make it, and my personal integrity is beyond any question. I am not saying that I cannot or do not make incidental errors; there have been few.

When in the months of May/June I wrote to hundreds of Catholics worldwide asking if they want to be unsubscribed from my mailing list, some did not reply, but others from whom I had not heard in 2 or 3 years hurriedly wrote me asking me to NOT de-list them. Only one person from London asked for her name to be removed from my mailing list because she is now a grandmother of three, but she would be visiting my web site.

Again, about my using people’s letters in my reports, it is clear to all who visit my web site that that is one of the ways my reports are documented. I write about the errors of bishops and priests, religious and lay persons who are in PUBLIC ministry and whose words and actions influence — for the better or worse — large numbers of Catholics. If there is error, I have hardly found two or three or four preachers in the Indian Church who confront, condemn and expose it. Most preachers and others in ministry want to be popular with their hosts as well as with their listeners and thus preach a compromised Gospel. I should know. I am in the renewal [founder-member of the Delhi Service Team] since June 1981 and there are few preachers whom I have not moved with closely. There is a lot of prophecy in the renewal, few or no prophets; a lot of fore-telling, little forth-telling. I have heard leading preachers criticise certain aspects of Divine Retreat Centre but go back to preach there every summer; that is simply pitiable.

On the other hand, Fr. Augustine Vallooran can confirm that it was because of my intervention and “reporting” to him [he hated me for using that word] that Thankachan [Praise and Worship leader] was exposed for surreptitiously selling alternative medicine powder at Rs 500 per packet, that reiki- and pranic-healing practising full-time counselors were exposed, that fake-doctor Paul Ganesh Iyer was exposed and ejected, that couple-ministry Kochi-based preacher Vinoo Philip’s testimony was one big lie, and much more. If my claims sound far-fetched, the hard copy documentation will be provided in forthcoming reports from this ministry. All this report publishing could have been avoided if Fr Augustine Vallooran had written to me in a proper way, my being in a ministry which he had himself identified using Jeremiah 1:4, 5 when I was a stranger to him.

I have issued eight reports so far on errors of/at the DRC but no one has written in to me with evidence to refute my charges!

People who express their solidarity with me agree that those whose letters attack issues in my ministry are attacking the related Gospel values, the Truth and the Church since my ministry is in 100% fidelity to Rome, and hence should be exposed because they are a threat and a danger to Catholics. On the other hand, those in public ministry who agree with me by private email should not fear to let the faithful at large read their email contents in my reports; if they are fearful, then they are simply not genuine.

My ministry in general, as well as my writing ministry, commenced under very exceptional circumstances which I would avoid relating here, the latter after much prayer and discernment through the Scripture verse Isaiah 30:8 that I received.




Among the eminent priests who discerned my special/prophetic calling even when they did not even know my name, identity or background are the saintly Fr. Irenaeus dos Santos [late, of Delhi], Fr Jim Borst MHM, Fr. Francis Rebello SJ [late, of Mangalore], Fr. I. Solomon Raj [late, Malaysia/Chennai] Fr. Augustine Vallooran VC [DRC], Fr. John Parokaren CMI [Chalakudy], Fr. James Manjackal MSFS [Bangalore, now in Munich], Fr. Jose Vettiyankal VC [Bangalore], to name only a few. Even now, I work in close association with conservative priests in India and overseas, including a couple in Rome.

I greatly appreciate that you finally recognised that I am in a ministry in the Church. And for the Church.

To tell you the truth Father Michael, I don’t like it any more than some of its detractors do; I have often cried out to the Lord to “take this cup from me”. I would love to preach, to be in healing or counseling ministry or in apologetics, all of which I had engaged in at different times in the past. But I am only doing what I discern is God’s will for me. A prophet cannot choose an alternative.

And I might add that my working hours are far, far more demanding than yours. Physically handicapped, half-blind and completely dependent on Providence for day-to-day living as well as ministry since twenty years now, there are nights that I do not go to bed because of the sheer extent of work that comes my way from all corners of the world. Apart from the ministry, I have to manage a home. I am also active in my parish. I too have to deal with broken and damaged people and families, Catholics who are exposed to spiritual and pastoral error by priests and nuns whom they trusted — and left incomplete after retreats. Let me explain that here:

Now, I have to say that I disagree strongly with one thing that you wrote which is that you cannot “be too bothered by apologetic issues”. My experience has been this: that it is the almost total lack of proper catechesis/apologetics that has ruined the Indian Catholic charismatic renewal. It has spawned thousands of individuals who flit from retreat to retreat, often focusing on individual preachers and owing fealty to them and to particular retreat centres. The contents of retreats and of individual preachers’ talks have hardly changed over three decades. Generally speaking with few exceptions there is nothing that any one preacher teaches that cannot be duplicated by replacing him or her with any other leading preacher. People in the renewal are still receiving mostly milk, not solid food. They flock to healers, to seminars on deliverance, to hear words of knowledge, to be slain in the Spirit, for the phenomenal gifts. I have given seminars on the New Age and Catholic apologetics but few are drawn. Big names, however, especially foreign preachers, bring in the crowds. So people are not really coming to learn more about the Faith and emerge as ministers themselves and evangelizers in whatever capacity they have. One can observe the huge number of former Catholic charismatics that have joined Pentecostal churches and New Religious Movements because of poor catechesis and apologetics.

Some of these cases have been preachers, even leading ones, at Divine Retreat Centre!

I should know all this because of my vast all-round exposure and experience and the particular, distinct charisms that the Lord has endowed me with. At the risk of being accused of spiritual pride I say that I can give the same Bible-based talks as any other leading preacher, but there is no preacher in India today, not a single one, who can give the complete all-encompassing Catholic talks that I give, covering the entire gamut of the Catholic faith, and of course including current social concerns, pro-life, liturgical issues, apologetics and catechesis, sects and cults, prosperity gospel and Word-Faith theology, Church documents, the Early Church Fathers, inculturation, New Age, etc. etc. etc., because I am involved with them on a day-to-day basis.

If our catechesis and apologetics were better than what they are, you wouldn’t be dealing with so much brokenness, Father.

Most of our retreat centres and lay ministries are churning out followers not leaders, not new and gifted preachers. It is almost that the powers that be WANT it that way. Look around. There is hardly a new face on the Indian charismatic scene in three decades!

What was essentially a lay movement is taken over by the clergy and religious; there are new faces there. They control much of what the lay preachers say or cannot say, and the bishops exercise control over what all of them say and do. With the intention of ensuring/maintaining orthodoxy in preaching, the Spirit has been stifled along with many charisms and prophetic preaching, but maverick Protestant-influenced so-called Catholic preachers are all over the place, even with episcopal and charismatic renewal leaders’ support as my reports have exposed.

Under all these circumstances, with the faithful domesticated into accepting mediocrity and worse as routine, a prophet can be expected to be persecuted. I know several who have been and today hide in their homes because there is nowhere for them to go.

The entire system is controlled. The mainstream renewal is in conflict with other streams and with retreat centres.

This is not the situation in India alone. I reported recently that the Italian CCR boycotted an ICCRS programme — or something to that effect — in Rome. Power-hungry individuals, families and groups control sections of the regional renewal centres. Many of the leaders themselves are into New Age, priests included. When it is just this one man, this one ministry exposing them, why wouldn’t we be hated by charismatics who know little or nothing about what goes on in the Church or the world outside their cocoons?

I write the truth; the truth can hurt only those who are outside it.

Why would a Father Vallooran give an unknown man Jeremiah 1: 4, 5, confirm that God has called him to a prophetic ministry, and later condemn the same man for speaking prophetically to him? It’s like your telling me, “God is calling you to be a prophet, but when you exercise your ministry don’t come prophesying to me, don’t correct me and my institution.” Sounds ridiculous? It is.




Father, I get letters and telephone calls from all types of people, all types of Catholic ministries. I treat each one as a unique opportunity to share with them my experience of Jesus and of being Catholic. I don’t turn away any call, reject any email, saying that my priorities are something else, my interests are different. Everyone who encounters me in my ministry I hope leaves my sphere of influence, is not under my control, and goes forth to be that much more capable of ministering to someone else.

I do believe that I had come across badly to some people in the distant past. While not wanting to offer any excuses for my failure, it cannot be denied that I was that way due to inadequate or improper formation. For instance, I am still suffering from the effects of condemning others for drinking and smoking; I used the same language and showed the same disposition to people that I picked up from the preaching that I had received at dozens of DRC retreats at Muringoor and elsewhere. Moreover the catechesis in the mainstream renewal is poor as compared to even DRC standards so I had to educate myself in the Catholic Faith while weaning myself away from the Protestant- and private revelation-based influences that I had acquired from certain sections of the Renewal.

I was interrupted for fifteen minutes by a first time caller, a Chinese Canadian who wanted to know about deliverance opportunities in the States or in Canada, etc. It is not exactly my ministry but I accorded her call the same importance and evinced the same interest as if it were you or a bishop.

Father, “judgements” are based on premises, not facts. I believe that I do not judge. My reports are based over 99.9% of the time on my personal witness and printed evidence, not even on the hearsay of reliable Catholics. The New Testament clearly exhorts us to “judge” our brothers in love for their own spiritual good and the good of the Church. I can write an essay on that.

And as I said earlier, my ministry can hurt only those who are closed to correction and wish to persist in error or whose errors are exposed by my reports. Since I endeavour to write and speak with the mind of the Church, “sentire cum ecclesia”, those who knowingly and intentionally oppose me, usually end up opposing the Church.

You are right, Father Michael. Your letter and my response will go up on my site. That’s how I do it. I don’t make exceptions except in the case of those who write to me asking before hand to be kept anonymous. In the early days of my Internet ministry I did not know the pros and cons of the social media and I did publish even the email addresses of people. I refrain from doing that now except in the case of figures of authority that encourage or propagate or condone error. But the names are almost always there in my reports, once again with the exception of certain priests who have been standing by this ministry for many years and who may face the wrath of their superiors if it is known that they are consorting with the likes of me.

I do not remove from my mailing list, even on request, the names and email addresses of priests and leaders in ministry. I believe that they, for the sake of those whom they minister to, must be given the opportunity to read what I report in this unique ministry.

But, I will not write casually to you again, that is my assurance, unless you specifically ask me something. I pray that it may happen some day.

Thank you for the time that you invested in reading this email from me which I wrote almost continuously except for incoming calls.

May God bless in ever greater abundance all that you do, Father Michael.

I remain, at your service in Jesus’ Name, Michael


**RESPONSE 2: From:
Fr. Augustine Vallooran VC – Divine Retreat Centre
Michael Prabhu

Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 6:46 PM


Dear Michael,

Thank you for your mail and the information and shall surely look into it and discern.

IN Christ 

Fr Augustine Vallooran V C
Divine Retreat Centre
P O Muringoor,
Chalakudy, Kerala 680309, India
Tel : 0480-2708098/2708193/2702613
Viait us at :





Is it OK to receive the Sacraments from a Sedevacantist?

July 23, 2008




Is it ok to receive sacraments from a priest who is a sedevacantist? He is an old friend, and wants to give my mother who is in a nursing home the last rites. She has already received the sacrament from 2 parish priests, one who says the Novus Ordo mass and one who says the traditional Latin mass. –Meg

While a sedevacantist priest is technically excommunicated from the Church, as long as he was validly ordained the sacraments he administers are valid, though he administers them illicitly.

I personally would not receive the Sacrament from this fellow unless there were no licit priests around and I was in danger of death. But, since he is a friend and this is not about rebellion against the church on you or your mother’s part, I do not see the harm. The Sacraments from him are valid. It should be okay in this instance. -Bro. Ignatius Mary OMSM

July 25, 2008

Section 2 of canon 844 from the Code of Canon Law states that this lady’s mother may not receive the sacrament from this heretic/schismatic priest as there is no physical or moral impossibility to approach a Catholic minister. Not to mention you are assuming that the priest in question is validly ordained. A lot of these sedevacantists are ordained by whack job bishops who have doubtfully valid orders.

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful FOR WHOM IT IS PHYSICALLY OR MORALLY IMPOSSIBLE to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. –Michael

As is typical with people who are unfamiliar with the law, you have misinterpreted this Canon. These Canons are talking about Catholics receiving the Sacraments from a non-Catholic priest from another Church with valid Sacraments, such as the Orthodox. This Canon has nothing to do with Catholic priests who are in heresy or schism. A Catholic in heresy or schism is still a Catholic. An excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic. They do not morph into Orthodox or Old Catholic or whatnot.

These canons have nothing to do with this situation.

In terms of this priest I have assumed nothing. My answer says “as long as he was validly ordained”. You need to read.

Under the circumstances there is no harm as she has already received the Sacrament legitimately from priests in communion with Rome. This is just a gesture given to a friend. -Bro. Ignatius Mary OMSM




Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


The greatest site in all the land! Testimonies

EPHESIANS-511.NET- A Roman Catholic Ministry Exposing Errors in the Indian Church Michael Prabhu, METAMORPHOSE, #12,Dawn Apartments, 22,Leith Castle South Street, Chennai – 600 028, Tamilnadu, India. Phone: +91 (44) 24611606 E-mail:,

EPHESIANS-511.NET- A Roman Catholic Ministry Exposing Errors in the Indian Church

Michael Prabhu, METAMORPHOSE, #12,Dawn Apartments, 22,Leith Castle South Street, Chennai - 600 028, Tamilnadu, India. Phone: +91 (44) 24611606 E-mail:,

%d bloggers like this: