Monday, May 16, 2016

Doubting Yourself---In The Extreme


 From time to time, Traditionalists will hear their clergy attacked as "invalid" or "illegitimate." Having been a member of the True church since 1981, I've heard these stories rise up, again and again, like a monster in a horror movie that can't be killed. No matter how well the arguments and objections against Traditionalist clergy are refuted, they come back to haunt us. The danger lies in those new to the Church, who might have their Faith jeopardized by specious arguments.

 Recently, I came across a website by one "Bishop Joseph Marie," who questions the validity of his Orders obtained through the Old Catholic sect. Why doesn't he get conditional ordination/consecration from a Traditionalist Bishop? Well, "Bp. Joseph Marie" doubts all their Orders as well! I sent him the following anonymous email:

"Sir,
After reading your articles, am I correct that you don't consider yourself a priest or bishop (having derived your orders from the Old Catholic sect)? You also reject all orders coming from Abp Levebvre and Abp Thuc. To whom do Catholics go to for valid sacraments?"

His reply to me:
" I am convinced that the proof of the validity my Holy Orders does not meet the Church's criteria of moral certitude. I may very well be a bishop, but moral theology is clear - one may not exercise Holy Orders unless they can be established as morally certain. To whom do Catholics go to for the Sacraments? I wish that I knew, but I don't.
In Jesus and Mary,
Joseph"

 I've decided to write a post against his article entitled, "Traditional Catholics - Do Your Clergy Possess Valid Orders?" (See http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html#no authority).  I have discussed some of these objections in the past. I will collect everything here. I will answer his objections to Abps.Thuc and Lefebvre's orders. There are those who only attack a specific episcopal lineage (Lefebvre, Thuc, Mendez, Dolan), those who attack the validity of all lineages, and those who attack all lineages as being "valid but illicit" due to a perceived lack of jurisdiction. I will limit myself to the two archbishops' validity. In so doing, I hope I may preserve the Faith of those Traditionalists who are given false and unreasonable doubts about their clergy. As "Bp." Joe's article is prolix, I will present the crux of his arguments with refutations. I provided the web address above for anyone interested in reading the whole monograph.

 The Case Against Abp. Lefebvre
As per usual, Lefebvre's Orders are attacked on the supposed lack of intention "to do what the Church does" on the part of his ordaining and consecrating bishop, Achille Cardinal Lienart, an alleged Freemason. For the sake of argument, I will concede that he was a Mason (but there is plenty of doubt if he was a member of the Lodge). 

First False Principle: Freemasonic membership = positive contrary intention
"Bp." Joe writes, "So the question naturally arises: If Liénart was a Freemason, what about Lefebvre’s Orders? Wouldn’t there be doubt concerning their validity? Fortunately, it is not necessary to “divine” the intentions of those who are Freemasons as to whether or not they would confer Holy Orders with the “intention to do what the Church does,” because nearly every pope since 1738 has published warnings about the Freemasons and their objectives. Here’s a sampling (emphases supplied):

“[T]hey [Freemasons] declare repeatedly that Christ is either a scandal or foolish; indeed, not rarely, that there is no God, and they teach that the soul of man dies together with the body: the codes and statutes, by which they explain their goals and ordinances openly declare that all the things which We have already mentioned, and which pertain to the overthrowing of Legitimate Rulers and totally destroying the Church come forth from them. And this has been ascertained and must be considered as certain, that these sects, although in name different, nevertheless have been joined among themselves by an impious bond of filthy goals.” (Quo Graviora – Apostolic Constitution of Pope Leo XII, March 13, 1826) ..."

There follows many more citations, NONE of which state that Masons have a positive contrary intention (i.e. not intending to do what the Church does when conferring a sacrament).

Compare the teaching of the Church about sacramental intention: When a bishop confers Holy Orders using correct matter and form, he must be presumed to have had a sacramental intention sufficient to confect the sacrament — that is, at least "to have intended to do what the Church does."

This is the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in his pronouncement on Anglican orders: "Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.” (Bull Apostolicae Curae,  September 13, 1896; Emphasis mine)

The theologian Leeming says this passage recapitulates the teachings of previous theologians who "...all agreed that the outward decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists.… The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash." (Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology [Westminster MD: Newman 1956], 476, 482.)

According to theologian Gasparri, a bishop is never presumed to have a positive contrary intention unless proven by those who assert such. "In performing an ordination the minister is never presumed to have such an intention of not ordaining, as long as the contrary would not be proved. For no one is presumed evil unless he is proven as such, and an act — especially one as solemn as an ordination — must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated." (Gasparri, Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione [Paris: Delhomme 1893], 1:970--Emphasis mine). Gasparri does not state that Masonic membership is a presumption of evil such that the minister would be "clearly demonstrated" as having a positive contrary intention.

Furthermore, a cleric enjoys the presumption of validity whenever the Catholic rite is employed:
“When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed.” (See W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)

"Bp." Joe counters: "The defenders of Lefebvre, however, would have us believe that if an enemy of Catholicism visibly used proper matter and form in their ordination and consecration ceremonies, then we have no choice but to accept that intention as good and the Sacrament as valid. This is not sound sacramental theology and a highly dangerous proposition, because in accepting this line of reasoning, one would have to enslave and subordinate the intention of the minister to the matter and form employed. Taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then if Anton LeVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, were to consecrate someone (supposing that he himself had obtained valid consecration, as Satanists sometimes did) by using proper matter and form, then we would have to accept that consecration at face value as being valid. But what intelligent person would accept this? What serious-minded Catholic would go to such a person for the Sacraments or entrust the welfare of their souls to him?"

As to the hypothetical concerning Anton LeVey, if he seriously performed the Catholic rite, we must accept him as having the requisite intention unless he specifically states the contrary. Is it crazy to think so? Hardly. Why wouldn't he want priests to confect the Eucharist so as to desecrate it? Why not ordain a priest that he knows to be unworthy and will bring scandal to the Church?

Second False Principle: "Wish upon a star" theology

"Bp. Joe" tells us: That "wish upon a star" theology is "...the certain truths we know about Masonry from the teachings of the Church:

Masonry is evil (and all that this entails) and the destruction of Catholicism is one of its main objectives.
Those who become Freemasons are automatically excommunicated from the Church.
Beyond this, the Church is essentially silent regarding Masonry. But the pro-validity group has determined that this silence is actually proof of something, i.e., that it proves that Masonic ordinations and consecrations are in fact valid. An interesting conclusion, but one void of merit.

Silence has evidentiary value, granted, but silence alone is proof of nothing except silence. That is why no court of law in any civilized country will ever convict a person based on silence alone. It is inconclusive.

That presumption favors the validity of a Sacrament is not debated. This is the general rule and I am unaware of anyone who denies this. The fact that the pro-validity group keeps making this an issue is bewildering and seems to serve no other purpose than to provide them with a straw-man to beat up. No one denies that in the ordinary course of events, that when a bishop performs ordinations and consecrations, that they are to be accepted as valid – that’s the norm. But many rules admit of exceptions; and as has already been noted in this article, Freemasonry is one such exception. This exception to the rule has not been directly stated about Freemasons, true; but that it can be derived from certain principles is obvious. In fact, it is so obvious that I am not in the least surprised that it has rarely been addressed – it is a self-evident truth.

Without repeating everything in the above article, I will try to demonstrate this by giving a short synopsis of the pertinent controlling issues:


  • Every minister of the Sacraments has the capacity to destroy the validity of the Sacraments by an adverse intention alone.
  • Freemasons, as declared enemies of Catholicism, must be presumed to have an adverse intention to Catholicism.
  • In the normal course of events, one who possess the capacity to carry out his intentions, does so.

It’s so simple: Liénart, as a Mason, was a declared enemy of Catholicism. He had the capacity to destroy the Sacramental Orders of Marcel Lefebvre."

Keep in mind Modernism also seeks the destruction of the Catholic Faith:
"Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ has in this days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself." (See Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907). Therefore, if the Modernists want to "overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself," they too wish the destruction of the Church, like the Masons. Should we therefore consider any Modernist as having a positive contrary intention? Considering that a majority of the prelates in 1962 were Modernists (suspected of heresy, or "in the closet" until Vatican II) what doubt would that place on most sacraments the world over? Cardinal Frings was the de facto leader of the Modernist faction at Vatican II. Must we consider all his sacraments as being invalid for having a positive contrary intention since Modernists wish to destroy the Church also? Replace "Freemasons" with "Modernists" in his above syllogism, and we would necessarily have to hold all their sacraments "dubious" or "invalid" as well.  This would mean that the hierarchy would be suspect beginning in the latter half of the 18th century. Does he really expect any thinking person to accept this nonsense? 

Fact: Not all Masons wanted to destroy the Church.  Of the many French clergy involved with Masonry, historian Henri Daniel-Rops says: "There is no reason to think all were, or considered themselves to be, bad Catholics. On the contrary, there must have been a great many of them who saw no incompatibility between their faith and their Masonic membership, and who even regarded Freemasonry as a weapon to be employed in the service of religion. One of these, in Savoy, was Joseph de Maistre, orator of his lodge at Chambéry; he dreamed of creating within the bosom of Masonry a secret staff which would have made the movement a papal army at the service of universal theocracy." (Church in the Eighteenth Century, 63.)

No citation is given to the alleged death bed "confession" of Lienart wherein he asserts he held a positive contrary intention. The only place I found such stated (unsourced) was in a blog by Hutton Gibson, father of actor Mel Gibson, and one of the first "Home Aloners." I would put this in the same category as the supermarket tabloids with pictures of Bigfoot on a UFO. Abp. Thuc is alleged to have doubted Lefebvre's Orders at one point, but even if true, it merely shows that Thuc was fooled by those claiming Masonic membership equals a positive contrary intention--in much the same way he was fooled for a time by the false apparitions at Palmar de Troya, Spain. Translation: "Wish upon a star" means that he has not one pre-Vatican II theologian to back up his false presumption about Masonry and defect of intention. 

If the fact of Masonic membership makes sacramental intention lacking, one would expect theologians (especially the French where Masonry was virulent), making this argument or at least debating the issue. Instead we find nothing. French theologians and canonists such as Billot (De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Rome: Gregorian 1931, 1:195-205), Many (Prae. de Sacr. Ordinationae 585-591), and Naz ("Intention" Dictionnaire de Droit Canonque, Paris: Letouzey 1953, 5:1462), who otherwise discuss sacramental intention at length, have NOTHING to say about doubtful/invalid sacraments from Masons. However, good ol' "Bp. Joe" knows better than they do! In this case, Joe, silence screams. 


Yet Another Falsehood: Distorting the teachings of the theologians
"Bp." Joe is taking citations out of context to "prove" something the quoted theologians never taught. He writes: "According to the almost general opinion of modern theologians, an inner intention is necessary for the valid administration of the Sacraments… The mere external intention is not compatible with the concept of doing what the Church intends, or with the status of the minister as a servant of Christ, or with the religious determination of the sacramental sign…" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, 1955) 
What he conveniently left out was this, "Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices. The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite. It suffices if he has the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians (Catholics)." (See Ott, pg. 344--page number left out by "Bp" Joe!--word in parenthetical mine)

Why would Joe do this, you ask? Simple:It gives the lie to a later passage when he claims that consecrating bishops without Ordinary Jurisdiction would produce a defect in intention! He writes:

  We have already covered earlier in this article the Church’s minimal requirement for a valid sacramental intention, that of simply intending "to do what the Church does." This is not a difficult hurdle to get over. In fact, it is such a low hurdle, that one does not even have to know what is the Church’s intention regarding any particular Sacrament, it suffices simply to intend “to do what the Church does” in bestowing that Sacrament. That’s all that is required.

Nevertheless, "to do what the Church does" in conferring a Sacrament means to do it according to the mind of the Church. That is self-evident. If one intentionally does something differently than the mind of the Church, he cannot claim that he has the intention of "doing what the Church does."
Now the undisputed theological truth that the Sacraments "signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify" (Apostolicae Curae, Leo XIII, 1896) forces us to conclude that the Sacrament of Episcopal Consecration, which signifies the bestowal of the power to teach and to rule, actually bestows these two powers, else it would not effect what it signifies. Therefore, it follows that all validly consecrated Latin Rite Catholic bishops posses the three powers of sanctifying, of teaching, and of ruling. (The distinction between possessing the power and to have the authorization to exercise the power is not germane here because our Sacraments only bishops not only deny authorization [another topic], but they further deny possession.)

But our Sacraments only bishops don’t believe that this power to rule and to teach applies to them. They openly proclaim that they do not posses it. Therefore it stands to reason, that when they confer or receive episcopal consecration, that they do not intend to bestow or receive these two powers. This calls into question the sufficiency of their intention. The mind of the Church is to bestow the three powers of sanctifying, teaching and ruling, as the Sacrament of Consecration clearly shows. The mind of our Sacraments only bishops is simply to bestow the power of sanctifying while omitting the other two powers of teaching and ruling. In so doing, they clearly intend something different than what the Rite itself intends.

But, wait a minute--if you don't need to intend to produce the effects of the sacraments (such as forgiving sin in confession) as theologian Ott teaches, why would you need to intend to give bishops the power to teach and rule? 

He falsifies theologian Lehmkuhl:

This issue of Masonic Sacramental intention was indirectly addressed by a respected theologian, Augustin Lehmkuhl, in an actual case regarding a priest named Fabricius, who had become a member of a forbidden society. While Lehmkuhl does not specifically mention Masonry by name, that Masonry is a forbidden society is disputed by no Catholic, and so Lehmkuhl’s conclusion on the sacraments conferred by someone who had joined a forbidden society is justifiably and appropriately applied to Masonry as well, for no rational argument can be made as to why it would not apply.

"Lehmkuhl gives an interesting case of conscience on the point. A certain priest had lost his faith and had joined a forbidden society, after which time he began to perform his priestly duties in an external manner only. He religiously observed the correct and exact performance of the matter and the form in the sacraments he administered, but inwardly he intended not to do what the Church does and what Christ instituted. The solution of the case declares that the sacraments conferred by the priest were null and to be repeated absolutely." (The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments by Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L. 1949, referencing Casus Conscientiae, Vol. II, p. 14, Casus 7, Augustin Lehmkuhl, 1903)
There are two notable points of interest here.

Firstly, Lehmkuhl makes no exception for validity regarding any of the Sacraments: "the sacraments conferred by the priest were null." Every Sacrament that this priest ostensibly confected since his membership in the forbidden society was invalided. None of them took place.

Secondly, and more importantly, he declares that all of the Sacraments conferred by this priest to be repeated “absolutely.” In stating that they are to be repeated "absolutely" rather than repeated "conditionally," Lehmkuhl is making it clear that he considers the Sacraments conferred by Fabricius, since his membership in a forbidden society, to be not simply doubtfully valid, but rather certainly invalid. For according to Church law, if there was a prudent doubt as to their validity, then they would be repeated "conditionally," not "absolutely"

I have fully referenced the citations. Lehmkuhl appears in DeSalvo's work on page 103 as an example of a merely external intention being insufficient to confect a valid sacrament. Lemkuhl NEVER declares sacraments conferred by those in secret societies to be invalid or dubious. 

In the case of Fabricus ("fabricating" sacraments? Sorry, I couldn't resist!) of course all his sacraments were invalid; not due to his membership in a secret society or even his loss of faith, but because he withheld his intention and manifested it! 

He once more conveniently omits DeSalvo, pgs. 23-24:
" in the Sacrament of Matrimony the contract cannot have validity in the internal forum without the intention of the contracting parties. Even the internal withholding of the consent of one of the parties would be sufficient to vitiate the contract in the sight of God, though in the external forum it would be considered valid UNLESS THE SECRET LACK OF INTENTION COULD BE PROVED." (Emphasis mine) 

Furthermore, the theologian DeSalvo does not draw the same conclusion as the ersatz "theologian" "Bp" Joe.  Having cited Lehmkuhl, he concludes on page 107 with this following principle:
" Provided the minister seriously performs all the sacramental rites, there is no need for being doubtful about the validity of the sacraments, for it is presumed that the minister has the requisite intention, unless he externally manifests the contrary."

I'll go by DeSalvo's conclusion over Joe and the pseudo-theologians whom also go around propagating this nonsense. They also commit the logical fallacy of "post hoc, ergo proper hoc" ("after this, because of this"). They wrongly assume that it was Fabricus joining the secret society that caused his contrary intention. This is analogous to saying, "The rooster crowed when the sun rose, so it was the rooster that caused the sunrise." No such principle of membership in secret societies and automatic lack of intention was stated by either Lehmkuhl or DeSalvo. 

Finally: Distorting history

"Bp." Joe comes up with all kinds of fanciful theories as to why the Church accepted the bishops consecrated by Freemason Talleyrand; e.g., he was reconciled to the Church and then Church authorities secretly re-ordained/consecrated them, he allegedly declared before he died that he did not withhold his intention, etc. As to the fanciful theories (hypotheticals, actually) advanced regarding Talleyrand, a few comments are in order:

Talleyrand died reconciled to the Church. But isn't it possible he lied about not withholding his intention to make it SEEM like he was reconciled to the Catholic Church, thereby fooling people into thinking his consecrations must have been valid, and thereby better serve Satan?

Possible explanations do not equal probable ones. Its possible that Elvis is still alive at 81, but I won't be trying to see if I can locate him in my local supermarket. This idea of various "solutions" to save invented principles is pure speculation. The practice of the Church is in conformity with Her teachings, as in this case.
Finally, Bp. Saurine of France never wrote about having the requisite intention, yet the Church considers him a bishop without reconsecration, and the orders and sacraments that derive from him to be valid, even though he belonged to the most Catholic-hating Masonic Lodge in Europe.

The Case Against Abp. Thuc

 The case he presents against Abp. Thuc is easier to refute since he concedes him to be a true bishop. The entire case boils down to (a) his mental state and (b) his integrity because he allegedly "simulated" sacraments. He writes: Much of what I present below is an attempt to counter-balance the factual misinformation which seems prevalent everywhere regarding Bishop Thuc. So far, it's been amply demonstrated that all the misinformation has been coming from you, "Bp." Joe. 

1. Abp. Thuc's Mental State

Almost all Traditionalist bishops in the Thuc lineage derive from the consecrations of Guerard des Lauriers and Moises Carmona, both in 1981.The fact that he consecrated unworthy candidates has nothing to do with the issue. Abp. Lefebvre ordained Fr. Juan Fernandez Krohn, who was seriously disturbed and  attempted to assassinate John Paul II with a bayonet. This has no bearing on the validity of the archbishop's sacraments. 

We must ask: 
  • Did the Catholic ceremony take place? (It did, and no one seriously disputes it.)
  • Did Archbishop Thuc have enough mental awareness? (Yes. Only a virtual intention is necessary. You must perform the sacramental action intentionally, even while being distracted/not paying attention. This suffices according to all pre-Vatican II theologians. That Abp. Thuc was lucid in 1981 was testified to by Fr. Noel Barbara and by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, a Board Certified psychiatrist, among others)
  • Conclusion: The Archbishop validly performed the consecrations of these worthy and properly trained candidates.
2. Did he simulate sacraments?
In a word; No. The only proof offered for his alleged simulation of a consecration is a hearsay statement made in The Angelus, an anti-sedevacantist publication of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX). As to his simulating the Novus Bogus, a false charge. He refused to receive "communion" at the service and therefore, "simulated" it. Thuc simply misspoke. He NEVER claimed to have withheld his intention or had a positive contrary intention. As a matter of fact, since the service was concelebrated by a Vatican II bishop (validly consecrated), assuming ad arguendo  that the Novus Bogus is vaild, there is nothing that Thuc could have done to invalidate it. The intention of the bishop alone suffices, and Thuc holds a doctorate in theology, so he knows this fact. He simply misspoke.



Summary and Conclusion
  • There is no reasonable doubt as to the validity of the episcopal lineages of both Abps. Thuc and Lefebvre. 
  • We can therefore be morally certain of the orders derived from them through worthy candidates (Bps. Carmona, des Lauriers, Fellay, Williamson, de Galarreta, and Tissier de Mallerais) 
  • The Church will exist until the end of time. The gates of Hell shall not prevail. 
  • I'll write about jurisdiction at a later date. Please avail yourself of the sacraments from Traditionalist priests and bishops without worry.
 Don't let "Bishop" Joseph Marie, and other "Home Aloners" keep you away from Christ in the sacraments. As theologian Halligan teaches, every sacrament "may possibly be invalid or valid." (See The Administration of the Sacraments, NY: Alba House [1962], chapter 1, pg. 23--emphasis in original). We don't live in fear of mere possibilities; we act upon that which is highly more probable than not. It is possible that I could slip and fall in the shower and be paralyzed for life. Is it probable if I'm careful? Need I worry about it? We can have moral certainty of our Traditionalist clergy's orders, and that's all we ever need. Otherwise, you'll end up a sad person sitting at home, like "Bp." Joe, who is only certain about his doubts. 

53 comments:

  1. Would it be all right with you if I solicited a response to this article from Fr. William Jenkins, SSPV?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course. Thankfully, no one knows my identity and I keep it that way so I have no problem with any clergy. Feel free to give him this web address and ask his response to what he found. If you pass it along, I'll be happy to publish it unedited and respond to him.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hello. I follow your blog together with www.novusordowatch.org for some time now and it got me thinking. First some information about myself: I came to the Catholic faith 5 years ago after a horrible depression, but in all these years I could never take the step to attend Mass in my parish (that is the Novus Ordo) and now I know why. Two years ago I heard speaking about the FSSPX and Mgr. Lefebvre and also read about Summorum Pontificum. I first wanted to go to a FSSPX chapel, but then changed my mind and went to one of those motu proprio masses instead. The reason for this was that the motu proprio was closer to my home... Anyway, when I attended this Tridentine Mass (although still not the real deal I know now) I found what I was looking for. The last two years I came to accept the position of sedevacantism, but this causes a lot of hardship for me. That's why I want to ask you for advice! My first problem: a lot of good and pious people I know are modernist to the core, but they don't deem anything wrong with it. I even think they don't know they are in error. I don't dare to lecture them (even if I want to ) and thus keep my theological position hidden under all circumstances. They know I came back to the faith, but I guess they wonder why I don't attend Mass in our parish. How should I act properly in front of them? My second problem: where should I receive valid sacraments? I know I have to choose between a sedeprivationist chapel and the few FSSPX chapels in our country, but only the FSSPX chapels are an option for me. The reason for this is purely geographical: I can never get there on time by train. My third problem: I only attend a Tridentine Mass (motu proprio) once and never went to confession before. Should I be afraid of it? I heard that traditionalists priest are extremely harsh...or is this a modernist lie? Thank you in advance!

      Delete
    3. Hello my friend,
      Congratulations on your conversion! May Christ and His Mother strengthen you in the Faith and watch over you!

      First, unless you have serious reason to do so, you must not hide your Faith or be ashamed to profess it out of human respect. Remember the words in 1 Peter 3:15, "but in our hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"

      As to where to go for Mass, I direct you to two of my previous posts: "What To Do When You're Home Alone But Not By Choice" of 12/28/15, and "Can A Traditionalist Attend Mass At SSPX?"
      Of 11/14/13. After reading them, please feel free to ask me any further questions.

      Finally, you have nothing to fear from a Traditionalist priest in Confession. He's there to help you. Fear God's judgement if you don't go!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Thank you for your great advice, Introibo! God bless you! I think I will visit one of the FSSPX chapels in our country and try to get some answers from a priest there. Of course I'm not going to expose myself as a sedevacantist; they probably will deny me the sacraments. Well, if the priest strictly follows the partyline that is. Maybe more FSSPX priest became crypto-sedevacantists now Bergoglio is "pope" and makes such a mess of things? I have some more questions for you by the way. My first question: I have two catechisms one from the 1940s and the other from the 1950s. Can I be sure that they are completely error free? I read somewhere that modernist errors were starting to slip through in official documents as early as the 1930s... I already know which "theologians" and their works I have to avoid like the plague: Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar etc. My second question: which pope should I recognize as the last reigning one? Most sedevacantist websites (including yours) acknowledge that Pius XII was the last true vicar of Christ. Others keep bragging over the fact that John XXIII was supposedly more traditional than Pius XII... I'm a Pius XII "supporter" myself, because I always try to go by the evidence... What is your opinion on this disagreement between sedevacantists? My third and last question: do you think we will ever see the restauration of real Catholicism or is this "the Great Apostasy" foretold in Holy Scripture? Thank you in advance!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. For your Catechism, I strongly recommend the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Approved by Pope St. Pius V!

      2. I accept Pope Pius XII as the last true pope. Roncalli (John 23) was suspect of Modernism. We can be morally certain there has been no pope since November 21, 1964 when Montini signed the heretical document "Lumen Gentium." For many reasons Pope Pius XII is the last pope.

      3. I really don't know the answer to that one my friend! Let's always be ready when Our Lord comes "like a thief in the night."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous, Welcome! I know exactly what you are going through. I had my Damascus moment about 3 years ago. I was cut dead - and I mean stone dead - the first time I announced I was looking seriously at sede by all my NO friends of many years standing. My own children reacted violently - one even calling me a loon and consigning me to hell. We will see what time and the Rosary does for the conversion of my family. As their father, it is my duty to guide them to the truth, whether they like it ,or not. I am the only sede in my city. After extensive reading I made contact with Fr. Cekada at St. Gertrude the Great and became a virtual member of that parish with regular live simulcasts of Mass. Fr. Cekada referred me to Fr. Francis Miller O.F.M. who was about to visit a sede family in Durban. Fr. Miller included me in his visit and has returned every six months since. Little did I imagine that 3 months after my contacting Fr. Cekada, I would have a real Priest saying the real Mass in my home! Through blogging, I have made sede pals in New Zealand and New York. We are now trying to set up a skype group with Fr. Miller so we can all hook up together for Mass. Father travels about 5000 miles a MONTH (believe it, or not) driving to his Mass venues in America. Just last week he was saying Mass for 3 lonely sedes in some little town. He set his laptop up so I could see the altar and I served! Can you imagine the wonder of it? Him saying the Mass in America and me ringing the bell for the Elevation in Africa! You would be very welcome to join our little group on our skype hook up, if you would care to. When the Bishop clopped us on the cheek, he made us soldiers of Christ, so we fight the NWO apostasy regardless of cost.

      Delete
  3. I think the statement: " It suffices if he has the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians (Catholics)." solves/settles the question in a nutshell.
    Whether the action was performed according to Catholic liturgy, or not, is objectively discernible and the matter settled accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Dr. Lamb,
      Unfortunately, not all people are as rational as you. Some have their minds made up and refuse to let the facts confuse them!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. How about the not so confusing fact that Bp. Thuc admitted to witholding intention for the Palmerians? Everyone wants to bury this letter, why isn't anyone looking in to seeing if it is legit? Because you Thuc line folk don't really want to know! Deny, ignore, maybe it will go away and no one will notice?

      Delete
    3. Asked and answered see thucbishops.com, the tremendous work of Mario Derksen.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. I would definitely say the same of Communists. "must" and "could" are being thrown around here willy nilly.

      No one can prove the inner thoughts of a man, but this is not what is being asked here.

      You claim the Church teaches we "MUST" always assume valid intention when externals are performed. This is absurd when "evidence to the contrary" is manifest.

      You expect me/us that the Church teaches... that we MUST accept a fresh cocktail from a known enemy who has professed to murder me by poison... simply because he has gone through the EXTERNAL motions of making said drink in so clever a fashion that I cannot detect the poison?

      I think you are in error sir. Common sense demands it.

      Delete
    5. Masonic and even Communist membership does not constitute an external manifestation of a positive contrary intention. No theologian teaches this novel idea. The history of the Church as I stated above supports the contention that Masonic membership does not equal defective or withheld intention. See the case of Bp Saurine above. See my post "Sophistry On Steroids" for more on this topic and why common sense demands we accept orders as valid unless the defect of intention is proven---and not by mere membership in Masonry.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Have you read the work you so blissfully divert me to?

      Mario does not even mention this letter from the Angelus claiming that Thuc admitted to withholding intention during the "consecrations" of the Palmerians.

      Ignore, deny, hope it will go away. How about investigate, verify and shut down instead?

      This letter is a big problem if its true.
      So far its an indirect blanket statement quote on Angelus... see here... http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=639

      But if true... its a silver bullet against the Thuc line! Why does everyone ignore this instead of shutting it down?

      Delete
    7. Your "historical" reference to Bp. Saurine is not sourced. How do you know "he never wrote about having the requisite intention"? How do you know "the Church considers him a bishop without reconsecration, and the orders and sacraments that derive from him to be valid". Can you source this? According to who?

      Were inquisitions never held privately?

      Perhaps no theologian has ever mentioned Masons and Communists by name directly but the evidence that has been made public about these groups did not exist until recently as to the specific vows and practices particular to these groups to destroy the sacraments from within the Church etc. We now know this... and if there were any theologians left, they'd have to re-evaluate... which is what happens when the situation changes... new info means re-evaluation... not put your head in the sand and hope.

      You'd think this would be worthy of a council.

      Delete
    8. Ok, I will address each of the comments above.

      First, to the comment re: Abp. Thuc:

      Yes, I read the work I divert you to, but it's not my problem you can't understand it. Mr. Derksen lays out the fundamental Catholic principles and applies them to Thuc.

      There is no "silver bullet" if (ad arguendo) the letter is authentic. It would only mean THOSE ordinations/consecrations were invalid, and no others. The Catholic principle remains that if a bishop performs the Catholic rite correctly the intention is presumed. Only positive evidence to the contrary (like a letter) can overturn the presumption. Not Masonic membership, not Communist membership, not having simulated a sacrament in the past.

      When the South American bishop admitted on his deathbed to having a positive contrary intention on the Indian deacons he ordained to the priesthood, ONLY those priests were re-ordained. Not the others in the same ceremony! Not any in the past was re-ordained either, only those particular priests at that particular ceremony to which he confessed as not having the requisite intention.

      You might want to say, "But if he simulated a sacrament before, what if he did it again? How can we trust him?" That is not what the Church teaches.

      Comment right below Thuc comment:
      Pope Leo XIII didn't know of the machinations of Masonry? Popes Pius XI and XII didn't know the machinations of the Communists? Please. Bella Dodd told of the Communist plot while Pius XII was gloriously reigning, and nothing was said (or warned about) regarding Communists= dubious sacraments.

      There is nothing to re-evaluate, only Catholic teaching to follow which the authors of both comments clearly do NOT.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. As to Bishop Saurine, his membership in Masonry was quite well known and discussed by several historians, including Daniel-Rops. However, it doesn't matter. You turn Church teaching on its head, "prove you didn't say something at an inquisition." You presume facts not in evidence, and want Masonic bishops presumed guilty of a crime unless proven innocent; the OPPOSITE presumption of the Church!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Well said arguments. And I will consider them.
      1. BUT, the South American Bp who withheld intention for the local aboriginals did so out of racism and bigotry. The Church had no other reason to suspect his other ordinations as they were all done to non-aboriginals. His intention was stated in specificity.
      2. Your argument about Communists being known to the popes via Bella Dodd is strange, as Pius XII was likely our last pope. It would appear he had no time to get around to "re-evaluate" being as he died and was immediately succeeded by a Masonic anti-pope. HMMMMMMM. That's convenient... for the Communists & Masons! Oh and your argument.

      You: "You might want to say, "But if he simulated a sacrament before, what if he did it again? How can we trust him?" That is not what the Church teaches."

      Me: Where does the Church "teach" that previous history of admitting to falsifying sacramental intention is NOT ADMISSIBLE as external MANIFEST evidence? I'd like to see that quote.

      Also... you use so-called history to your arguments advantage... but when I ask for specifics you say it doesn't matter??? They why bring it up?

      PS. Sorry for posting all over the place, my interface is weird on your site. I tried to put them in their respective reply's but it came out scrambled in a lump.

      Delete
    11. 1. Then why not ordain the Indians from prior ordinations? It wasn't done.

      2. If I concede Pope Pius XII, what of Pope Leo XIII and Masonry? No time for the Vatican under Pope SAINT Pius X to act and evaluate?

      3. The Church teaches that if a bishop performs the Catholic rite correctly the intention is presumed. Only positive evidence to the contrary (like the aforementioned letter) can overturn the presumption. Simulation of the sacraments was known for centuries and NEVER was it declared or taught that past simulation cast doubt on future sacraments. The Sacred Roman Rota has declared (S.R.R. XXVI (1934), 467, n.3) that It is impossible to establish the existence of an internal intention UNLESS THAT INTENTION HAS BEEN REVEALED IN SOME MANNER TO OTHERS. There must be positive proof that this particular sacrament was simulated.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    12. BTW, I say it doesn't matter about the history because you will insert speculation about Inquisitions, etc. I could just as well speculate that Tallyrand's assertion of having the correct intention was FALSE! He lied to make others think his sacraments were valid and better serve Satan by letting those invalid clergy persist! He faked being reconciled to the Church--he was. a Mason on a mission! These speculations go nowhere and they get there fast.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    13. 1. Do you know that he ordained other Indians that did not require re-ordination or are you assuming this?

      2. The previous popes i.e. Leo XIII etc did know the EFFECTS of masonry in politics and anti-religious goals for the state as this was manifest at the time publicly. But KEY word here on secret societies is SECRET. The information about satanic rituals and satanic oaths did not come out until after the deaths of these popes. How could they have known?

      3. You: "UNLESS THAT INTENTION HAS BEEN REVEALED IN SOME MANNER TO OTHERS."
      Me: So... lets say Fr. Mason makes an oath to destroy all sacraments he can possibly destroy... signed and dated... witnessed etc. Do we still have to assume his sacraments are valid??? According to your interpretation of "what the Church teaches"?

      Delete
    14. 1. It is an inference, but here's another case: a bishop confessed on his death bed that he had a positive contrary intention when ordaining Jesuits (no this isn't a joke--it was reference at Novus Ordo Watch some time ago). Only the JESUITS were re-ordained NOT any others! This is not bigotry, he didn't like the order.

      2. The intention of the minister was well known for centuries, at least fleshed out since Trent. Its evil deeds WERE known quite well; if not why the fuss over Talleyrand? If you're claiming the effects weren't known until the 20th century, why discuss Talleyrand's alleged letter claiming he had the correct intention? Wouldn't this be proof that the Church knew of Masonry's aims at least as far back as Pope Pius VII?

      3. Herein lies the problem: Like Feeneyites, YOU interpret Church teaching as you see fit and reject the teachings of the approved theologians and decisions of the Holy See (unless ex cathedra). The words I quoted were from a decision of the Sacred Roman Rota, approved by His Holiness Pope Pius XI in 1936. That's hardly **my** interpretation.

      Let's take your hypothetical "Fr. Mason." If it is revealed that Fr. Mason did sign such a letter, it would satisfy the CHURCH's rule of positive evidence. Do you know of any such letter?

      This is a case of "I have a bad feeling" vs. Church teaching. You can never prove a sacrament valid, only invalid. You can have moral certainty. This certainty is attained when a Catholic cleric sets out to seriously perform the sacrament, and the Church teaches that proper intention is presumed unless and until an invalidating intention has been revealed in some manner to others. The theologians, and the Sacred Roman Rota teach this, and it is confirmed by the practice of the Church.

      Now, what if Fr. Mason were to go before the Holy See (in 1910 under Pope St. Pius X) and confess himself a Mason, rip up the letter in front of the pope, and beg to be forgiven and admitted back into the Church? Would he "win back" the presumption of a valid intention? What if he lied about his repentance? What if the pope made him swear a special oath? Couldn't he lie about that to with the aim of being able to better infiltrate the Church? Maybe he can become a bishop (the fearless priest who left the Masons!) and do more damage with no one suspecting.

      I have articulated the teaching of the Church. "Bp." Joe and "Masonic fear-mongers" just have a bad feeling. Joe asks if I owned a bank, would I hire a former bank robber. He plays on the human fear (justified) of recidivism. However, the Church's teaching is not about reformed bank robbers or our bad feelings. If the Church teaches we must presume ordinations/consecrations (and the other sacraments) valid unless a positive contrary intention is revealed in some manner to others, that is what Traditionalist Catholics must do--follow and trust Christ' One True Church, not their uneasy feelings.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    15. 1. It would appear that the only examples anyone can furnish to support your interpretation "church teachings" is DEATHBED confessions. We have NO IDEA what the Church did in the past with these type of situations when the priest/bishop/liar didn't die. They'd have probably been stripped of all ecclesiastical title via Deposition. See canon law on "desecrate consecrated particles". This is a similar crime, desecrating a sacrament. And would never again be in the position to commit a similar crime.

      2. The satanic oaths and rituals were not necessarily known back then. The anti-Catholic state policies and anti-monarchy policies were enough to be a true threat to society back when there was no separation between Church and State. Back when the world made a bit more sense. If you have different info.. I'm all ears.

      3. Its not very charitable to accuse me of being "like Feeneyites" "interpreting as I see fit". How am I doing this? What are you even talking about? What do I have to gain by any of this nonsense? It would be a WHOLE LOT EASIER if I could trust the validity of Thuc and Lefebrist "ordinations" but I can't. WHY? Common sense. I'm not a canon lawyer, nor a theologian... and you know what? NEITHER ARE YOU. Feeneyites deny the ordinary magisterium and basic Catechism teachings. They are ridiculous. I deny NOTHING out of the Catechism. You're accusation is perhaps out of frustration because I don't fall for your spin doctoring. It's a nice story, but it has holes.

      In times like this, with no clear hierarchy... "having a bad feeling" is all we have! Who can I go to for authentic expert VALID advisement? You? HA! You're a layman who's already thrown his lot in with questionable "clergy". You have an angle in this argument already.

      You can condemn all you want... do your worst. Fine. I'm saying there are doubts. And Joseph... is not being uncharitable or ridiculous. There are doubts all around and we're all doing the best we can.

      God save us.

      Delete
    16. You are correct that I am not a theologian or canon lawyer. I'm also not a psychologist and I don't know why people like yourself will trust the proven teachings of the Church over their bad feelings and speculations. I had a friend many years ago who was being beaten by her boyfriend. She asked me what she should do. I gave her all the reasons why she should leave him and get an order of protection. What did she do? Followed "her feelings" and married him. Needless to say, it didn't end well.

      That being said, I AM a lawyer and I know how to formulate valid, sound arguments as well as assess evidence for a case.

      "He who asserts must prove." This is the principle for both legal cases and basic logic.

      (a) I have asserted (and proven by the teachings of the theologians) that the Church demands that there is a presumption of validity every time a Catholic cleric seriously undertakes to perform a sacrament. Not even Joe denies this principle.

      (b) I have asserted that this presumption can only be overcome when that intention has been revealed in some manner to others (proven by the decision of the SACRED ROMAN ROTA in 1936 under POPE PIUS XI)

      (c) The practice of the Church of only re-ordaining clergy where the bishop has specifically revealed to others his intention not to ordain THEM, goes to show that a positive contrary intention ONLY affects those ordinations and no others.

      Therefore, the ordinations and consecrations of THUC and LEFEBVRE must be presumed valid under Church teaching.

      YOU assert:

      (1) That Masonic membership means dubious sacraments, and Thuc cannot be trusted because he (allegedly) simulated a sacrament (which, by the way, is not the same as the desecration of a sacrament).

      Your "proof": Speculation as to the authenticity of a letter by Thuc, and speculation as to the Church not fully realizing the extent of the Masonic plot and oaths.

      Even if the letter of Thus was authentic, it has no bearing on the ordinations/consecrations of OTHERS. This was PROVEN above by the Sacred Roman Rota (declaring positive evidence revealed to another necessary to overcome Church presumption of validity) and Church practice.

      You keep asserting that the extent of the Masonic conspiracy wasn't known well enough. When, exactly, did enough evidence come out, and what are the sources of this evidence? You cite nothing. Did "THE GOLDEN BOOK OF MASONIC PLOTS AND OATHS" get published in 1959, and before that the Church was clueless? Do those oaths include one to invalidate sacraments through a positive contrary intention? On what page?

      We have much more than "bad feelings," we have the teaching of the Church. That is where you are like a Feeneyite. They reject Church teaching for their own.

      I have presented Church teaching. I have made assertions and backed them up with strong evidence as proof. You have made assertions based on bad feelings and speculations. That does not trump church teaching. While fully admitting that I am neither theologian or canonist, "Common sense" is clearly on my side as any dispassionate reading of the arguments will show. The manifest weight of the credible evidence proves that the Church gives a presumption of validity regarding the sacramental intention unless there is positive proof revealed in some manner to another.

      Joe is being both uncharitable and ridiculous in presenting assertions without evidence other than hypotheticals and bad feelings to keep others away from the sacraments.

      This will not deter Joe. Like the Feeneyites he will find ways to try and discredit the teaching and practice of the Church. Like my friend of years gone by, he will allow himself to be spiritually beaten up. It seems like you are prepared to do the same.

      Very Sad.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    17. None of what you "assert" is actually "Church teaching". You take a collection of examples that suit your, and your so-called clergy's agenda... that they are safe and securely valid.

      That's cute but it isn't "Church Teaching". Quote me a council or even a catechism... perhaps a canon law book or canon law commentary? NOPE. You take a couple examples and call it "Church Teaching". Thats pretty THIN. It doesn't have to be "infallible" either. Just actual Church teaching. You can't because it does not exist. More lies... exaggeration of authority and SPIN instead.

      You say your a lawyer. Anyone can say that. You also claim to be a superhero at some point. So now I'm suppose to believe you're superman... or was it spiderman? Who cares. Why would I accept your claim. And even if you are a lawyer... what's your case record? Do you do criminal, divorce or tax law? Doesn't really matter however because none of it is verifiable. Don't waste your super secret identity on me.

      Feelings... more lack of charity from Introibo man... is anyone surprised? So you have the gall to say that a "gut feeling" from our God given instincts and common sense, that alerts us to something being wrong and that we should avoid something, to protect ourselves.... is the same as the hippy feelings based emotionalism your friend and the rest of the world is suffering from... the one being beaten by her criminal boyfriend. I hope she's not Catholic, because that sounds like a sinful relationship.

      But you're not behaving like a Catholic in using such insidious techniques to smear the truth of the situation. Being in an emotionally abusive relationship and having a bad feeling? In the same category??? You must have a head injury if you can't see the difference. Maybe if you'd paid attention to your gut feelings you could have avoided said head injury. VERY SAD.

      I already agreed that the "letter" is crap unless the Angelus puts up or shuts up about it. But you have to argue the absurd that "if it were true it doesn't matter" kind of nonsense and it DOES MATTER. I don't care if you are a lawyer. A trial has a prosecution and a defence. You're acting as if you're judge. You're not. You're NO ONE.

      On "masonic plots"... you don't care.. you already delved into the absurd. It doesn't matter what I produce since you think the DEVIL will offer proper sacraments if he's a priest and we MUST accept them as valid. I don't know how you come up with this retarded crap but its dangerous and people believe it... and you're culpable for spreading these kinds of lies. People buy them too, hook line and sinker, because they want to believe so bad. Very Sad.

      Without a love of Truth, you are not worthy of the Truth and you are a part of the problem. It might be time to re-write your critique and this time TRIM THE FAT... i.e. the ABSURD. State your case and try not to be a self righteous so-called authority about it... because YOUR NOT.

      Also... why such animosity to Joseph? Did he say anything that is untrue? NOPE. You've become "emotional" about it because if he's right your life turns upside down and you have no access to valid sacraments. That's scary stuff and I feel for your situation, but that doesn't give you a licence to be a jerk about it. What was it you said about "dispassionate something or other"? Hypocrite! Pull the beam out of your eye.

      Delete
    18. To my readers:

      I usually don't publish rants with vulgarity and ad hominem claptrap. Here I make a notable exception to show how people who deny Church teaching when confronted with valid, sound arguments have nothing to offer but "feelings" and hot air!

      I will answer his accusations ("arguments" would be a meaningless term here):

      He says: "That's cute but it isn't "Church Teaching". Quote me a council or even a catechism... perhaps a canon law book or canon law commentary? NOPE. You take a couple examples and call it "Church Teaching". Thats pretty THIN. It doesn't have to be "infallible" either. Just actual Church teaching. You can't because it does not exist. More lies... exaggeration of authority and SPIN instead."

      Reply: OK. Here are your citations. From the great canonist Gaspari (who helped compose the Code Of Canon Law promulgated in 1917):"In performing an ordination the minister is never presumed to have such an intention of not ordaining, as long as the contrary would not be proved. For no one is presumed evil unless he is proven as such, and an act — especially one as solemn as an ordination — must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated." (Gasparri, Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione [Paris: Delhomme 1893], 1:970) He admits no "Masonic exception" as an automatic presumption of a positive contrary intention.

      Again, from theologian Doheny:

      "When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed.” (See W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)

      How is this presumption of validity overcome? According to the decision of the SACRED ROMAN ROTA (binding upon the consciences of all Catholics) "It is impossible to establish the existence of an internal intention UNLESS THAT INTENTION HAS BEEN REVEALED IN SOME MANNER TO OTHERS." (S.R.R. XXVI (1934), 467, n.3)
      What part of that official decision doesn't he understand? It was approved by Pope Pius XI and is Church teaching. I would like him to please explain how the ruling of the Sacred Roman Rota, approved by Pope Pius XI, is NOT Church teaching. (I won't be holding my breath). But, like a Fenneyite, I'm sure he'll come up with some bologna to say "It's not enough" or "It must be mistaken because..." This is not what Catholics do when presented with an authoritative decision of a solemn theological body approved by a true pope. They accept it.

      He says:"You say your a lawyer. Anyone can say that. You also claim to be a superhero at some point. So now I'm suppose to believe you're superman... or was it spiderman? Who cares. Why would I accept your claim. And even if you are a lawyer... what's your case record? Do you do criminal, divorce or tax law? Doesn't really matter however because none of it is verifiable. Don't waste your super secret identity on me."

      Reply: I won't waste anything on him, just expose his "sophistry on steroids" to cite the title of my follow-up post to this one. I am a NYC lawyer and former NYC science teacher. Whether he believes me or not is irrelevant. It's obvious I can build a case on evidence; he can't. My arguments can stand on their own merit, his ad hominem attacks notwithstanding.
      My claim in my post to be a superhero was evident **sarcasm.** Obviously, he's never heard of it (There I go again!).

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    19. He says: "Feelings... more lack of charity from Introibo man... is anyone surprised? So you have the gall to say that a "gut feeling" from our God given instincts and common sense, that alerts us to something being wrong and that we should avoid something, to protect ourselves.... is the same as the hippy feelings based emotionalism your friend and the rest of the world is suffering from... the one being beaten by her criminal boyfriend. I hope she's not Catholic, because that sounds like a sinful relationship."

      Reply: The Catholic knows that Faith is “the adherence of the intellect to the truth revealed by God.” We believe in a truth that comes from outside and which is not in some way produced by our own mind. We believe it because of the authority of God who reveals it to us through His Church, and there is no need to seek elsewhere.

      This man adheres to a Modernist definition of faith which was condemned in the early 20th century by Pope St.Pius X. According to Modernists, faith is an internal feeling: there is no need to seek further than man to find the explanation of religion: "It is therefore within man himself that it is to be found; and since religion is one form of life, it is found in the very life of man"--something purely subjective, an adhering of the soul to God, Who is inaccessible to our intellect. It is everyone for himself, in his own conscience.
      This is what he advocates, "God given instincts and (alleged) common sense" take the place of decisions from the Sacred Roman Rota! He is not that far removed from the Evangelical Protestants (do I hear an "Amen," my brothers and sisters?).
      (Continued below)

      Delete
    20. He states: "But you're not behaving like a Catholic in using such insidious techniques to smear the truth of the situation. Being in an emotionally abusive relationship and having a bad feeling? In the same category??? You must have a head injury if you can't see the difference. Maybe if you'd paid attention to your gut feelings you could have avoided said head injury. VERY SAD."

      Reply: Does anyone see an argument here? Nope! Pure ad hominem attack.

      He says: "I already agreed that the "letter" is crap unless the Angelus puts up or shuts up about it. But you have to argue the absurd that "if it were true it doesn't matter" kind of nonsense and it DOES MATTER. I don't care if you are a lawyer. A trial has a prosecution and a defence. You're acting as if you're judge. You're not. You're NO ONE."

      Reply: Not too bad if no one can beat someone in an argument because of someone's inability to produce the evidence to prove his assertions!! (sarcasm again!)

      He states: "On "masonic plots"... you don't care.. you already delved into the absurd. It doesn't matter what I produce since you think the DEVIL will offer proper sacraments if he's a priest and we MUST accept them as valid. I don't know how you come up with this retarded c**p but its dangerous and people believe it... and you're culpable for spreading these kinds of lies. People buy them too, hook line and sinker, because they want to believe so bad. Very Sad. “

      Reply: Translation: "I can't cite when this 'Masonic information' with secret oaths that invalidate sacraments became known and by what source(s)because it's an empty assertion. Therefore, I will accuse him of being crazy and use vulgarity." I'll ask him a simple question NO ONE on his side will answer: "Why WOULDN'T the devil use priestly powers to desecrate the Eucharist?" What better way to spew hatred on the God-Man Himself?

      He states: "Without a love of Truth, you are not worthy of the Truth and you are a part of the problem. It might be time to re-write your critique and this time TRIM THE FAT... i.e. the ABSURD. State your case and try not to be a self righteous so-called authority about it... because YOUR NOT."

      Reply: Neither he nor Joe are authorities, but the Church is THE authority and She has spoken.
      I don't need to be an authority to prove what the Church has taught by (a) her theologians and (b) the Sacred Roman Rota and (c) by Her practice.

      He states: "Also... why such animosity to Joseph? Did he say anything that is untrue? NOPE. You've become "emotional" about it because if he's right your life turns upside down and you have no access to valid sacraments. That's scary stuff and I feel for your situation, but that doesn't give you a licence to be a jerk about it. What was it you said about "dispassionate something or other"? Hypocrite! Pull the beam out of your eye."

      Reply: Yes, Joe has said plenty that is untrue, if anyone reads my two posts. I'm not scared of sophistry and Modernist feelings overcoming the proven teaching of the Church which I accept with my intellect!

      Now, I will end by sounding uncharitable, but this old aphorism rings so true:

      "Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, drunkenness can be sobered, and ignorance can be educated...BUT STUPID LASTS FOREVER!"

      ---Introibo


      Delete
  4. I commend Bishop Joe, who is no bishop in the RCC. Too bad the other traditionalist "bishops" don't have his integrity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you call "integrity," is little more than duplicity. Purposefully twisting the citations of theologians and leaving out pertinent information to keep Traditionalists away from the sacraments is evil. You put quotations around "bishops"---the burden is on you to prove them false. I have yet to see an argument of ANY worth. Why "Bp." Joe would keep himself and others under "spiritual house arrest" is mind boggling and to be pitied, not admired.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Integrity is defined as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. In my opinion this man has it. Duplicity is defined as deceitfulness; double-dealing. I think this perfectly describes sedevacantist clergy in general, especially the ones who stole episcopal consecrations. You can have the last word.

      Delete
    3. As a politician from NY once said, "You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts." "Bp." Joe has "moral uprightness" by twisting the words of renowned theologians out of context to fit his personal agenda? Stealing consecrations? The Traditionalist bishops are keeping the True Mass and sacraments alive in this unprecedented time of near universal apostasy.

      You have offered nothing but an "ipse dixit" ("I said so") for support your assertion that sedevacantist clergy are "deceitful" as a general matter. You might know how to look up definitions of words, but you certainly don't know how to use them correctly.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Great entry & thank you for writing this article.
    If the 'sedevacantist' clergy are wrong,it means the Lord lied and abandoned his children.
    The Lord definitely is not in the novus or do and his church will stand till the end of the of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're best hope is that sedevacantist clergy are the Catholic Church, it means the Church lied and abandoned her faithful.

      Delete
    2. Not in the least. Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail, not that His Church would be with a live pope to fill the perpetual chair of St. Peter. This is taught by all pre-Vatican 2 theologians. Christ also said, "When the Son of Man returns, will He find any Faith on earth?" A rhetorical question clearly implying that the members of His Church would be reduced to a small remnant.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Correction
    If staying home alone on Sunday's and Holy Days of Obligation is all we're allowed to do,that means the Church lied and abandoned her children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I get it. So if I make myself a bishop the problem is solved. I might try this. Will you be in my flock if I become a shepherd?

      Delete
    2. Think harder. If you are properly trained and validly ordained/consecrated you can become a "sacramental" bishop--one not endowed with Ordinary Jurisdiction to be considered a "shepherd of souls." Any man who is unfit canonically must be avoided such as someone with no formal theological training, a married man, etc.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Could you please enlighten your readers as to what a "sacramental" bishop is and where such an office can be found and researched?

      Delete
    4. I'd be happy to do so. A "sacramental bishop" is one who, in a time of emergency, is needed to provide True Catholics with the sacraments and keep the apostolic succession going.

      It has historical precedent. Prior to Vatican II, the longest interregnum was from 11/29/1268 to 9/1/1271 (2 years and 10 months)between the death of Pope Clement IV and the election of Pope Gregory X. Several Diocesan Bishops died during this time. Ordinary jurisdiction can only be granted by the pope. However, nearby bishops consecrated a priest of the diocese to act with supplied jurisdiction (not a "Shepherd of souls" only supplying the sacraments) until the papacy could be restored. What happened when Pope Gregory X was elected? He praised the bishops who so acted (by consecrating those priests) thereby giving the people access to Bishops and the sacraments. The bishops so consecrated, he ratified and then supplied them with Ordinary jurisdiction.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. You: "If staying home alone on Sunday's and Holy Days of Obligation is all we're allowed to do,that means the Church lied and abandoned her children".

      Me: That's not even remotely true. Tell that sophism to the Catholics of England during the persecutions under Henry VIII, or any other persecution. How about the early Church in Rome? Just because YOU can't go to mass, doesn't mean there's not a mass out there somewhere. Just that you're not at it.

      Japanese Christians didn't have mass for around 200 years. Did Christ fail them? Nope. The world does not revolve around you, or whatever country you live in.

      Delete
    6. Your analogy is inapposite. In both England and Japan there were indeed Catholic Masses elsewhere. In "Bp." Joe's wacky world of theology, ALL sacraments and Masses are dubious, not just in a particular area. A distinction with a difference.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Aha, and the distinction you fail to see is that Lefebvre, Thuc & Schuckardt are not the only lineages offering mass today. There are a few hold out priests from Pius XII bishops. So there are still masses somewhere. You're just not at them! Point stands.

      Delete
    8. Point falls. I asked Joe where a person could receive valid sacraments. He said he didn't know! Maybe those elderly priests were ordained by bishops who were secret Masons! The wacky "theology" of Joe is exactly that---wacky! Furthermore, the Church cannot perpetuate herself without valid BISHOPS! Point, game, match.

      ---Introiibo

      Delete
  7. I don't think "sacramental bishop" exists in the Roman Catholic Church. I think it is most likely a sedevacantist innovation to justify their actions. Nevertheless, I invite you to prove me wrong by showing me something indicating such an office exists. Thank you my friend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please see my post for this coming Monday, May 30, 2016. If that does not satisfy you, leave a comment, and I'll dig deeper for you.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. I spent a lot of time reading "Bp."'s arguments, and despite his fancy footwork I just didn't see how he got around the simple teaching of Leo 13. His teaching was perfectly clear: if a sacramental minister performs the ceremony correctly, his intention is presumed. To say that just because someone is supposedly a freemason means that he didn't perform the ceremony "seriously" in the sense that Leo 13 used this term seems to be nothing more than make-it-up-as-you-go-along theology.

    This poor man seems to be intelligent and well-intentioned, but he's making this whole question vastly more complicated than it really is. And he's making a huge number of gratuitous assumptions along the way, first among them being that a freemason would explicitly withhold his sacramental intention, which as far as I can tell is something he just made up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's it in a nutshell.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Uncharitable and dishonest... possibly denial? So... you mean we are suppose to disregard all the manifest evidence that shows Masons as being satanists bent on uprooting and destroying the Church from within.. ON PURPOSE, not through error?

      Come on. You have got to be kidding me.

      Delete
    3. Then the same must be said of Comminists, but it isn't. Not even of those whom Bella Dodd said we placed there to infiltrate and destroy the Church. Anyone COULD have a positive contrary intention, but that doesn't mean it MUST, not even Masons and Communists.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. I have attended all these groups,SSOX,SSPV,Sandborn, all I saw is that they are nothing but cults , based on pride to become bishops (without being canonically appointed by a true pope). They are noting but contradictions. They were agaisnts Lefevbre themselves, now to keep their cults going they defend it only on points that threatened their false clergy and episcopacy. Moreover they don't have the spirit of Christ, lack charity and have done nothing but divide the church of Christ. Children who attend these cults do not end up practice their faith but become liberals. If they do come back and stay they practice a "watered down" Catholicism which will eventually be like Nuvos Ordo, filled with divorcees, immodesty, pride and greed. Some of them have gone against canons suing their "Bishops" over properties. Some have auctioned their churches to anyone online, such as the case in Ohio by Cekada and Fort Lauderdale by SSPV. Now tell me if it make sense that this division comes from our Lord Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost. May God have mercy on their obstinacy to keep their titles. It is against canons for a layman to perform Holy Mass. it is a matter of excommunication. I have respect for Mr. Joseph Marie to have the humility and courage to renounce to his title and denounce it for the sake of truth and holy mother church. The rest are too much attached to their love of themselves, of their images and love for money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone once quipped, "A cult is any religion except for mine." Notice I call the Vatican 2 sect, just that, "a sect" not a cult. A cult is any religion which forces people to join or prevents members from leaving. Bp. Santay of the SSPV is a very good and holy bishop. So are all other Traditionalist bishops I've met. Without a pope, of course there will be dissention because "when the Sheppard is struck the sheep are scattered." Mr. Joseph Marie is a joke. See my post "Sophistry On Steroids" as to the validity of Traditionalist bishops.

      ---Introibo

      Delete