Monday, February 27, 2017

A Magisterium Unto Themselves


 The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), Bishop Williamson's "St. Marcel Initiative" and other "recognize and resisters" (R&R) wind up becoming an "uber-Magisterium." They acknowledge Francis as pope, yet they decide what they will and won't accept. Their "pope" makes a declaration (Amoris Laetitiae), or "canonizes" someone (John Paul the Great Apostate) and they decide if they will obey or accept them. This is not Catholicism, as I've demonstrated many times before. However, there is a far worse idea out there, namely, "we acknowledge Francis is not the pope, and we will decide what Church teaching is according to our own private interpretations of various Church documents." Rather than being guided by the approved pre-Vatican II theologians, which the Magisterium uses to expound Her teachings, they reject--and even condemn!--them. They are not an "uber-Magisterium;" they become their own teaching authority and you better follow them or stand "condemned." I'm thinking of Fred and Bobby Dimond, the fraudulent "Benedictine" Feeneyites  as a prime example.

 Last week, I was issued a challenge via the comments section of one of my prior posts. It came from "Jerome," the owner of a blog entitled "Against All Heresies And Errors." Rather than publish the comments and answer them there, I chose to dedicate a post to it. Why, you may ask? He takes the "self-appointed Magisterium" idea to new lows I didn't think possible. My readers know I try to be charitable to all, but Jerome might want to seriously consider re-naming his blog "Against All Reason And Logic." He exemplifies the craziness that takes place when you jettison the approved theologians of the Church for your own private interpretations. Jerome, your challenge is accepted below. WARNING! Jerome brings up moral topics of a sensitive nature that need to be addressed. Some graphic language/descriptions will be used. His blog post can be read at https://against-all-heresies-and-errors.blogspot.com/2017/02/are-pre-vatican-ii-approved-theologians-free-from-error.html. Jerome, while attacking me, did not have the courtesy to cite my web address.


Did Theologian Heribert Jone Teach Heresy?

 After an initial attack against the Traditional Catholic principle that the approved pre-Vatican II theologians must be followed, he quotes my response to one of my kind, intelligent, and regular readers in the comments section on one of my posts. This person had asked me who are the "good theologians" I recommend to study and what books to get. One of the theologians I cited was Fr. Heribert Jone and his one volume manual, Moral Theology

Jerome attacks theologian Jone as a "pervert" citing his teaching, "I. Imperfect Sodomy, i.e., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted: Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution…" (3. The Sins of Married People, Section 757)" 

Jerome comments: "Here we can see the pervert Fr. Jone say that rectal intercourse between a husband and wife is not a grave sin as long as the husband does not spill his seed when sodomizing his wife. And according to the pervert Fr. Jone, this is not even sodomy! One must ask, then, “What is it?” and “What is the purpose of this filthy and perverted act?” It is sodomy, plain and simple! And the purpose is to mock God and to degrade and disgrace the wife. Not only is this sodomitical act by the spouses contrary to nature and cries out to God for vengeance, but it is also physically destructive to the health of both spouses."

I have never claimed to be a theologian, and have therefore urged others to follow those experts approved by the Church. Here, an unknown blogger, with an (obvious) lack of any theological training opines that Fr. Jone, an erudite theological giant approved by the Church, is a "heretic" and a "pervert." Jone teaches that a married couple may begin intercourse in a rectal manner if and only if (a) there is no sodomitical intention (i.e., it is a means of foreplay), (b) the intention is to consummate intercourse the natural way and open to procreation, and (c) the act must not be placed in any danger of pollution (i.e., ejaculation). 

Why is this not considered sodomy? Because it is part of foreplay, with the intention to procreate naturally, and avoiding danger of pollution. There is no unanimous consent of the theologians in this matter. Being a Franciscan, Jone takes a stance that is more open to human liberty of action than would a Dominican like theologian Prummer.  I agree that since the time of Jone (1962) medical and scientific knowledge has progressed where we realize that using the rectum as foreplay is almost always unhealthy, and for such reason Jone (or the Church) most probably would have reversed that teaching. However, we have no magisterial authority, so it remains simply an opinion one may follow. There is absolutely no heresy. Jone does not deny openness to procreation, avoidance of pollution, and correct marital intention.

Jerome accuses Jone of contradicting himself. He again quotes Jone: "230. – II. Sodomy. 1. Definition. Sodomy is unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or of the opposite sex; the latter of heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercourse (imperfect sodomy). Either kind of sodomy will be consummated or non-consummated according as semination takes place or not."

Jerome comments, "Therefore, whether the seed is spilled during sodomy or not, it is still sodomy, but one is called consummated sodomy and the other is non-consummated sodomy. Hence in Section 230 he correctly teaches that a husband who sodomizes his wife but does not consummate the sodomy is still guilty of sodomy, which he correctly classifies as non-consummated sodomy. His teaching in this section contradicts what he teaches in Section 757 when he says that the husband’s non-consummated sodomy is not sodomy at all. Nature itself tells even a pagan that any form of rectal intercourse for any reason as well as any kind of sexual activity outside what is necessary for procreation is intrinsically evil and selfish."

To claim that a theologian as brilliant as Jone contradicted himself is laughable. Section 230, is the general definition of sodomy. The latter section (which Jerome places first in his post) qualifies the definition within the context of marriage open to procreation. Big difference. Before Jerome labels theologians "perverts" and "heretics," may I respectfully suggest that he learn to read texts in their proper context? Notice what he says at the end of the last sentence, "...any kind of sexual activity outside what is necessary for procreation is intrinsically evil and selfish." There will be plenty of wacky ideas Jerome and some others on a website he recommeds have that will be discussed later in this post. 

Rejecting the Theologians = Rejecting The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium

1.  Catholics are bound to believe the teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
 Proof: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed." Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792; Emphasis mine.

The Code of Canon Law (1917) imposes the same obligation. ( See Canon 1323.1)

2. The universal and constant agreement of the theologians that something belongs to the faith is not a case of some erudite priests or bishops who can be wrong, nor is it a fallacious appeal to authority. It is how the Church teaches us free from error. It is the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium at work.

Proof: "For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine)

Jerome must reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as a natural consequence of his position.

3. Jerome's pitiful objection
Jerome claims that the pope cannot read every book in the world (true enough) and cites to Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi. "Let no Bishop think that he fulfills this duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many others of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the Imprimatur elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or excessive confidence in the author as may sometimes happen in religious Orders." (Emphasis Jerome's). 

Yes, Jerome. We are not talking about some simple priest who writes a book, or a lower level theologians. The theologians who have their works approved for use in the seminaries are indeed reviewed by the Holy See.At the very least, their works are used in the seminaries of the world with the approval of the bishops and without censure from the pontiff or a Roman Congregation. Those are the theologians whom we cite. Also included are those whose works are published as part of their doctoral dissertation and are reviewed in detail by the entire theological faculty and the bishop. The decisions of the Roman Congregations (especially the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office) must have their decisions approved by the Pontiff. So in no case here is there a danger of a simulated (false) Imprimatur, an approval granted through carelessness, or confidence in a particular author by his Order. 

4. Who are the adversaries of the theologians?
Theologian Salaverri, after having explained the important and unique role of the theologians, goes on to list their adversaries, to wit; Humanists, Protestants, Rationalists, Modernists, and Jansenists. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa I B [1955], pg. 327-328). Jerome clearly places himself in their evil company.


5. A query answered
Jerome asks, "I would like to ask Introibo how he think the great apostasy even came into being if everything taught before Vatican II was safe and sound to follow? Is it not obvious that many teachings and practises (sic) before Vatican II must have been heretical, unsafe, and displeasing to God since He allowed the apostasy happen? Obviously. Why else would God allow the Vatican II apostasy to happen, unless, again, the majority of Catholics were displeasing to him?"

Answer: The Great Apostasy came about as the result of people (like Jerome) who don't know the Faith. The Modernists were driven underground, but not extirpated. People were "going through the motions" in the era just prior to Vatican II. The love of God had grown cold in many. Jerome wrongly assumes that "teachings and practices" of the Church were displeasing to God. This is impossible because the One True Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and is Indefectible. It is a dogma that the Church cannot teach error or give that which is evil. In addition, the proposition that the Church could err in Her universal disciplinary Laws was condemned by Pope Pius VI (Auctorum Fidei), Pope Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos and Quo Graviora), Pope St. Pius X (Pascendi Domenici Gregis), and Pope Pius XII (Mystici Corporis).  The Church cannot err in Her disciplinary Laws, much less Her dogmatic and moral teachings! To state otherwise is heresy.

Jerome rejects the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church.

Jerome's Substitutes For The Theologians 

  • Jacinta "The Prophetess." Jerome states, "Indeed, we learn from Jacinta herself – the Prophetess of Fatima – that even before Vatican II, almost all people were in a state of damnation; and it is just a fact that the people of that time were many times more virtuous than the "Catholics" of our own time. "Jacinta, what are you thinking of?" Jacinta, the prophetess and seer of Fatima replied: "About the war which will come. So many people will die, and almost all of them will go to hell!" Consider that this statement by Jacinta was made before the Vatican II revolution." Which pope declared Jacinta of Fatima a "prophetess"? Private revelations need not be believed by anyone. Even Church approved private revelations may be denied without sin (as long as it is not done out of contempt for ecclesiastical authority). I can literally pile a stack of books on Fatima several feet high, each of which contains different words attributed to the seers. How can Jerome be sure he has the accurate words? There are so many contradictory statements claimed for "what was really said" as if our salvation depends on getting private revelations correct! I refuse to even go down that useless path. 

  • More private revelations--La Salette. Jerome writes, "Also consider our Lady’s prophecy in the Church approved apparition of La Salette“In the year 1864 Lucifer, together with a great number of devils, will be loosed from hell; little by little they will abolish the faith, and that even in persons consecrated to God; they will so blind them, that without a special grace, these persons will take on the spirit of these evil angels; a number of religious houses will lose the faith entirely and cause many souls to be damned. Bad books will abound over the earth, and the spirits of darkness will everywhere spread universal relaxation in everything concerning God’s service: they will have very great power over nature; there will be churches to serve these [evil doctrines or] spirits... and even priests, because they will not have lived by the good spirit of the gospel, which is a spirit of humility, charity and zeal for the glory of God.” (Prophecy of La Salette, 19th of September 1846)" Isn't it interesting that Jerome goes out of his way to emphasize that the apparition is church approved? Is he sure the pope himself looked over every word? Where did he get that quote? Did the book have a valid Imprimatur? As a matter of fact, on December 21, 1915, The Holy Office forbade anyone to discuss, disseminate, or investigate ".. the so-called Secret of La Salette, its diverse forms and its relevance to present and future times" Poor Jerome!

  • A Website of Wacky--and False-- Ideas. Jerome recommends trusaint.com for advice on sexual ethics. The site is run by three anonymous persons (I don't know if Jerome is one of them). They are Feeneyites (no surprise there), and condemn (literally) everyone, except themselves and maybe Jerome, to Hell. Just a partial list of those condemned: SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, Novus Ordo Watch.Org, etc. They are sedevacantists and would seem to have the Home Aloner position since everyone is Hell-bound. They remind me of cult leader Richard Ibranyi (who is also on the list of those whose errors are sending them straight to Hell as heretics). Trusaint condemns Natural Family Planning or "NFP" (approved by the Church), using the following principle, taken out of context:
"The first reason is that the Natural Law teaches that “the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, #54) and that the act of marriage exercised for pleasure onlyis condemned as a sin for both the married and unmarried people alike (Pope Innocent XI, Denz. 1159). Since even the normal, natural and procreative “act of marriage exercised for [the motive of] pleasure only” is condemned as a sin even though this act is directly procreative in itself, and the only intention and motive that excuses the marital sexual act from sin is the procreation of children, according to teachings of the Popes, Saints and Doctors of the Church, it is totally obvious that every single marital sexual act must be excused by an explicit act of the will of having children before one performs the marital sexual act."(Emphasis in original). The idea that the marital act is sinful unless "excused" is abhorrent, un-Catholic and results in patent absurdity.

Let's take the example of a couple married thirty (30) years, and had ten children. The wife reaches her late 40s and goes through menopause. She can no longer conceive. Under trusaint.com and Jerome's strange "principle" they must abstain from the marriage act for the rest of their lives because it can't result in procreation and would be done "for pleasure only." Why has the Church always permitted the infertile and elderly who are widows/widowers to marry knowing full well they cannot procreate? Procreation is in the nature of the union. Apples are by nature good to eat. That fact that a particular apple may be rotten, does not detract from the nature of the apple. In this sense, marriage is procreative even when circumstances render a particular marriage barren. Of course, no married couple may, without sinning, purposefully exclude begetting children permanently by using NFP when they are capable of having children. This, however, is not what they are saying. 

Conclusion

 Jerome, by abandoning the teachings of the theologians has rejected the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. As a result, he becomes a magisterium unto himself.  On what does Jerome rely? Private revelations that no one must believe and no one can be sure what was said in many cases anyway. Websites that condemn everyone as heretics going to Hell and come up with strange and false ideas about marriage that will cause needless concern for good yet uninformed people thinking everything is a "sin," including the marital act, "unless excused"!

Pray for Jerome's conversion. Let him be a reminder why we must hold on to the teachings of the Church as explained by Her approved theologians. Otherwise you reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church to the detriment of your soul--and your sanity. 
          


77 comments:

  1. SSPX are the Magisterium in their own minds.
    'No salvation outside the SSPX' should be their motto.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi, Introibo,

    If my memory is correct, this blog claims traditional Catholic men do not and should not get married. Well, if my memory is wrong, just ignore it.

    http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2013/10/st-robert-bellarmine-and-baptism-of.html

    And regarding Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire, those Feeneyites just claim all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are wrong, whenever they disagree with Feeneyites. The link above is a good example.

    Let me imitate the Diomond style: "Saint" Robert Bellarmine (and/or "Saint" Thomas Aquinas) denies the Salvation Dogma, (then) goes to Hell.

    God bless,

    G.P.W.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. G.P.W.,
      This blog has NEVER claimed that Traditionalist Catholic men cannot or should not get married!

      I agree with the rest of your comment.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hi, Introibo,

      I have a question which is not tightly related to this article:

      In your opinion, who do you think are "proto-Scholastics"? By "proto", I mean someone who are kind of the "precursor" of Scholasticism, like using some methods similar and/or related to the Scholastic method. You know what I mean? Do you think some of the Fathers of the Church, such as Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Augusitne, and Saint John Damascene, can be considered as the "proto-Scholastics"?

      Gloria Patri,

      G.P.W.

      Delete
    3. I would tend to agree with you. I would also include later philosophers such as St Anselm.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Hi, Introibo, unless I'm mistaken, I would go as far as saying that St. Anselm is the Father of Scolasticism.

      Delete
    5. That's pretty much on the mark Father!

      Many thanks,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. For that trusaint.com website, I am pretty sure it is not ran by the Dimond brothers. Otherwise, it will not condemn them.

      http://www.trusaint.com/most-holy-family-monastery-exposed/

      However, it is quite sure that it is another Feeneyite website. I saw several Feeneyites who were followers of the MHFM, but then somehow left (reasons unknown), and then condemn them but still copy and paste their materials.

      Delete
  3. The SSPX are a theological disaster.
    I will give examples if anyone so desires.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who would need to ask for examples is a fool!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Wait, I do not completely understand what you are arguing here. Are you saying that we should believe "imperfect sodomy" is not a grave sin because a pre-Vatican II theologian said that? I agree with Jerome that that teaching is perverse. I am sure not all theologians believed that. I looked up the opinion of Saint Alphonsus Liguori on the internet and found his opinion and he said that it was truly sodomy and was truly a mortal sin. I am not agreeing with everything Jerome says but just on that one point.

    This is the website I found Saint Alphonsus' opinion on after doing a google search:

    https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/saint-alphonsus-liguori-on-marital-chastity/

    I am not recommending this website because I only read this one post, just giving the address here to show where I found St. Alphonsus' opinion after doing a google search.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not unanimous opinion. The opinion of St Alphonsus is not dispositive. Where there is disagreement among the theologians, and the Magisterium has not settled the issue, you may follow either opinion.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. In the link that Matthew gives, in the comments section of that article, the author of the article makes the following outrageous statement: "My considered theological opinion is that passionate kissing for an unmarried couple is not necessarily sinful."

      I wouldn't read anything written about moral theology by a man who would make such an erroneous statement, since moral theologians all agree that such an act is indeed sinful, and gravely so.

      Delete
    3. I agree. However, to be fair, Matthew stated he was not endorsing that website, only quoting the citation on a different matter given by the Great Doctor and theologian St Alphonsus Liguori.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. That trusaint website is bizarre and evil. Did anyone else notice that they copy all of the Dimond brothers things and post them as if they were theirs? There are other crazy Sede sights like that one and you know what they all have in common? They are all spinoffs of the Dimond retards but each one takes the craziness a little further than the last.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're correct--who can "send the most to Hell," and make up sin and doctrine---is the hallmark of these sites!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. I came across the Trusaint website once and I thought from what I read that it was another website run by the Dimonds as it sounded just like them. These websites need exposed for the errors they perpetrate on unsuspecting souls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Joann--hopefully one such website got exposed today! It wouldn't surprise me if Bobby and Freddy Dimond were behind it--or perhaps followers even more extreme. It seems even worse than their usual claptrap. All these websites do is hurt the faithful by making everything seems sinful, and they scare away converts who think we have strange beliefs.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Ha JoAnn, you might just be right. Freddy may very well have numerous websites and I suspect he does. Why not since they use other people's money to run them right? several years ago I discovered Fr. Nicholas Gruner did that. If I remember correctly, he had around a hundred spin-off sites run by his illicit operation but nobody knew it. Freddy probably does the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Nothing surprises me about the Dimonds but Gruner was making up phony websites? Interesting. Do you remember any such site? How did you find out he was behind them?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Yes what I said is truth. Gruner had lots of fake sites all designed to spread propaganda and generate revenue streams. It was quite an intricate operation. I'd have to consult my notes tucked away somewhere but I'm not completely confident these anonymous comments are truly anonymous. We are dealing with liars and charlatans who will sue at the drop of a hat. Gruner's dead, but his organization lives on. Dimond, once a friend of Gruner is of a similar mindset.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. Gruner was known (pejoratively) as the "CEO of the Fatima Industry." I have mailings from him going back to the late 1980s telling us the sky was falling and "let Our Lady's Hand guide you in writing the largest check possible" so he could ostensibly save the world.

      I don't know if he was a Feeneyite, but he did keep company with Fr. Michael Jarecki (ordained in 1944) and died recently in his 90s. Fr Jarecki was a Vatican II Feeneyite (the worst kind if you ask me), and a nasty individual. I spoke with him on the phone once back in the early 1990s about one of Gruner's claims about Fatima. A heated discussion took place during which I told him that I held Gruner's ordination as invalid (1976). He told me only an ignorant man with no understanding of Latin, theology and canon law could say such things. When I pointed out that the conclusion was reached by Fr. DePauw (my spiritual father) who held a doctorate in canon law (JCD earned in 1955), and was professor of canon law, Latin and Moral Theology at Mt St Mary's Seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore before going to Vatican 2 fighting the Modernists as a peritus (theological expert; I asked him if he qualified as "ignorant" as well. He hung up on me. Need I say more?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. @Introibo I too have had validily ordained priests who belong to the Novus Ordo turn into sarcastic patronizing insulting "men" when confronted with facts about the V2 documents,sacraments,'mass', etc..

      Delete
    3. Can you elaborate as to the issue with Fr Gruner's ordination?

      Delete
    4. Tom,
      The new rite of ordination is dubious at best. The form of the sacrament was changed. The episcopal consecration rite was invalidated in 1968. Hence, anyone "ordained" by one of those bishops is invalid. Mr Gruner was "ordained" in the defective rite in 1976.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Thanks, I was thinking he was in the Thuc line and thought that was your objection.

      Delete
    6. I accept the Thuc line as valid, except for the Palmar de Troya lineage. Under Dominguez ("Pope" Gregory) they changed most all the Rites of the Church, and none had formal ecclesiastical training of knowledge of Latin. The lines descending from Carmona and de Lauries are certainly valid and comprise most all Thuc bishops.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. I ran across another website a while ago which I suspect is another of the Dimonds sites, or connected to them. It is called the societyofdivinedogma.com. The site is loaded with the Dimonds articles and videos. It purports to be located in Australia and I believe one of the people the Dimonds have that answer their 800 number is from Australia. Introbio - If you haven't checked out the societyofdivinedogma.com site already will you take a look at it? It is definitely Feeneyite. When new people start searching for the truth of the faith due to the errors of Vatican II and the notorious false Pope Francis, it is easy to run into these Dimonds/Feenyite websites as they advertise all over the place. They do some good insofar as exposing Vatican II, the Novus Ordo and the Anti-Popes, but it ends there as they are so off the mark in other areas.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Excellent post once again!
    Here is a quote from Fr. Halligan O. P. Regarding the issue you discussed:
    Principle (my word): " As long as there is no danger and intention of losing the seed outside of marital intercourse, all imperfect venereal acts of lovemaking, whether mutual or solitary, are lawful, such looks, touches........."

    He then warns,:"spouses should refrain from truly obscene actions, such as rectal penetration, application of the mouth or tongue to the genitals, etc., because these frequently present a danger of pollution, causing a lessening of conjugal shame and make it easy for a venial to become a mortal sin. Merely to rouch or penetrate the rectum (mouth or other part) without danger of pollution, or to begin intercourse in such a manner with the intention of consummating or completing it in the proper place is probably not more than a venial sin; it is no sin at all if it is a necessary means in the individual case and with sufficient reason is undertaken to secure the lawful exercise of marital rights"

    Halligan was a Dominican, and so most likely a Thomist, whose position is the the middle between the Franciscans and St. Alphonsus.

    In practice, priests are careful not to dwell much on this in the internal and external fora. Decency and what works for the couple determine the norm in these things. (if you consider this quote too explicit, I'll understand if you don't post it.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the citation to theologian Halligan. It puts to rest the lie that the approved theologians can teach heresy. Just as theologians moved away from the teaching that Unbaptized infants suffer in Hell, and correctly developed the doctrine of Limbo, so too, the theologians (guided by the Church) correctly bring to light truths of moral theology as well. The principle expounded by theologian Halligan sums it up nicely!

      God bless you and your work Father!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. I am pretty much shocked and disgusted by this post today. Rectal intercouse is an oxymoron. Foreplay? No sane well-ordered Catholic man can believe this. Even pagans must surely know such an act is disgusting, even from a purely naturalistic point of view. What a horror for a woman, as this is a cold act, meant to please only one person, and it ain't her. If a Catholic man asked this of a Catholic wife she would be within her God-given right to say NO. Catholic women must have this totally clear. And that man had better get to a good true priest and get himself sorted out. There is absolutely no love in this act, and Catholic men do certainly not honor their wives or God by engaging in it. What selfisness!! I am sorry, but if a man needs this, he has a big problem. This is not a natural impulse nor what God intended by the mutual love of spouses,This is just so shameful! No woman wants this! Nor should have it forced upon her. Shame! I think it was in Afghanistan where there was an entire village where the women were not having babies, Some medics took note and discovered that this was the only sex act Afghan men were engaging in with their wives. They had been abused as boys, and had absolutely no clue what healthy natural relations Were. Catholic husbands cannot oblige their wives to sin. Remember the words of Jacinta at Fatima, Our Lady told her many marriages were not pleasing to God. I can just imagine some puffed up trady Catholic husband who thinks he has the right to get whatever he wants from his wife, no matter how disgusting. where is the repsect!? And a good wife wants to be obedient and be pleasing to her husband, that is an honor both to him and to God. But God comes first. Please! How many women have commented here? Really, what a horrible post to begin Ash Wednesday, if you have to spilt hairs on whether seed falls or not, it reminds me of Bill Clinton. Wives obey your husbands YES, but husbands LOVE your wives. There's is no dignity for a woman in this no matter what she says. Rectal intercourse is not love, it is pure selfishness, like an animal. Husbands, LOVE your wives! Just even to talk of this is horrible, and an occasion of sin. I would bet men saw this in porn, if not, they have been tainted by the modern world and have no idea what beautiful true and mutual is. Am I judging? You had better believe it! It is the duty of Catholics to do so and protect the Majesty of OLJC. This post I sent horrible because it gives women the idea that they have to tolerate this. Shame!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To My Readers,
      I'm pretty sure the above comment is from Jerome. The part about what Jacinta allegedly said is a give away.

      Regardless, you notice there is no reasoned refutation of what was written. Upon what do they rely? Private revelations and their own personal feelings about the issue, nothing more.

      A few observations:
      --No sane person would do this (so now he's a psychiatrist? )

      --He ignored the comments from Joann (a woman) and a Traditionalist priest quoting theologian Halligan

      ---There's no love (says who?)

      ---To compare foreplay to abused men in Afghanistan is so off the mark it's ridiculous

      ---Judge? Sure! But not by YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS, Private revelations, and private judgement. You must judge by the standards of Christ's One True Church as explained by Her approved theologians!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Just to be clear, my above posts were concerning websites such as the Dimonds and Feeneyites that teach such errors. My own personal opinion concerning the above article is that sodomy is against the natural law. I really don't like to even think about it or talk about it as I think it is disgusting. My PERSONAL OPINION!

      Delete
    3. I share your opinion Joann! At least we both realize it's an opinion and not a "magisterial declaration"!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. I am not Jerome, whoever he is, I am a married Catholic woman living in Europe who knows that unnatural sex is a MORAL SIN, not my opinion but this is what Holy Mother Church says, starting with St. Paul. My spiritual director has told me this. Honestly, if you think that is marital love, then you haven't begun to understand the Gospels. I cannot believe a true Catholic man is defending this!!!! Disordered "love" ( Treating your beloved spouse like a dog), is an abomination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not the teaching of the Church. Show your spiritual director (not an approved theologian) what Jone wrote. Show him this quote from theologian Halligan: "Excellent post once again!
      Here is a quote from Fr. Halligan O. P. Regarding the issue you discussed:
      Principle (my word): " As long as there is no danger and intention of losing the seed outside of marital intercourse, all imperfect venereal acts of lovemaking, whether mutual or solitary, are lawful, such looks, touches........."

      He then warns,:"spouses should refrain from truly obscene actions, such as rectal penetration, application of the mouth or tongue to the genitals, etc., because these frequently present a danger of pollution, causing a lessening of conjugal shame and make it easy for a venial to become a mortal sin. Merely to rouch or penetrate the rectum (mouth or other part) without danger of pollution, or to begin intercourse in such a manner with the intention of consummating or completing it in the proper place is probably not more than a venial sin; it is no sin at all if it is a necessary means in the individual case and with sufficient reason is undertaken to secure the lawful exercise of marital rights"

      That is a safe opinion approved by the Church. If not Halligan and Jone would have been censured by Holy Mother Church. They never were condemned but praised.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. Dear Introibo, The question of NFP has long caused me confusion. I speak from memory, but I think it is safe to say that Casti Connubii absolutely prohibits any form of contraception, whilst Pope Pius XII, in his letter to Italian Midwives makes clear provision for it under certain circumstances. (NFP clearly being a form of contraception, both in intent and practice.) Hence my confusion. I read somewhere that Fr. Cekada considered the matter to be still under theological discussion and therefore not yet definitely resolved until we again have a Pope to settle the issue. You state above that NFP is approved by the Church. Please explain. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also understand that Pius XI stated that there is no reason for contraception, whether natural or artificial. Now, in both types there is the clear intention of contraception. How, then, could the NFP be tendered? Before reading Casti Connubii, he understood that the only compelling reasons for using natural methods would be illness on the part of the woman and family misery. How then are these two conditions in the light of Casti Connubii?

      Delete
    2. Dear Dr Lamb and Mr Riberio,

      Fr Cekada clearly took the Dimonds to task for condemning NFP. While it's true that all the details have not been expounded due to the Great Apostasy, the theologians have come to certain general conclusions regarding NFP.

      A nice summary I found gives the Catholic position regarding the teaching of Pope Pius XI:
      asti Connubii. Paragraph #53 reads: 53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by FRUSTRATING THE MARRIAGE ACT. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances. “Virtuous continence” = NFP; “frustrating the marriage act” = contraception.

      Paragraph #54 explains further the evil of contraception: 54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

      Paragraph #59 reaffirms periodic abstinence and NFP: …. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of NATURAL REASONS EITHER OF TIME OR OF CERTAIN DEFECTS, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. “Natural reasons of time” = infertile periods; “or of certain defects” = after menopause or natural infertility"

      I hope this helps!!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Actually, Introibo you have totally solved the problem. It all hangs on the meaning/interpretation of "virtuous continence", "frustrating the marriage act" and "natural reasons of time". Of course artificial means (thermometer etc.)are used to determine the "natural reasons of time". My interpretation of Casti was incorrect and the "contradiction" between Casti and Letter is removed. Many thanks.
      For interest a collection of earlier quotes: Chop it, or leave it out if too long. :)

      Tobias 6:16-17 “Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”

      St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” (The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.–On the Procreation and Education of Children)

      St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 468-542): “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN…WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233)

      St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, A.D. 419: “It is one thing not to lie [with one’s wife] except with the sole will of generating [children]: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of the flesh in lying, although within the limits of marriage: this has venial fault [that is, venial sin as long as one is not against procreation].” (Book I, Chapter 17.–What is Sinless in the Use of Matrimony? What is Attended With Venial Sin, and What with Mortal?)

      St. Jerome, Against Jovinian, A.D. 393: “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? … He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his God and of his wife].” (Book 1, Section 20; 40)

      St. Augustine, De Conjugiis Adulterinis, A.D. 396: “Since, therefore, the institution of marriage exists for the sake of generation, for this reason did our forebears enter into the union of wedlock and lawfully take to themselves their wives, only because of the duty to beget children.” (Book II, Chapter 12)
      Pope St. Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.): “But this kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. And since this observance is found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a shame if it be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshiping God.” (Recognitions of Clement, Chapter XII, Importance of Chastity)

      Athenagoras the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.” (A Plea For the Christians, Chapter XXXIII.–Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage)

      Delete
    4. St. Finnian of Clonard (470-549), The Penitential of Finnian #46: “We advise and exhort that there be continence in marriage, since marriage without continence is not lawful, but sin, and [marriage] is permitted by the authority of God not for lust but for the sake of children, as it is written, ‘And the two shall be in one flesh,’ that is, in unity of the flesh for the generation of children, not for the lustful concupiscence of the flesh.”

      St. Athanasius the Great (c. 296-373), On the Moral Life: “The law of nature recognizes the act of procreation: have relations with your wife only for the sake of procreation, and keep yourself from relations of pleasure.”

      St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): “For it [the Holy Scripture] regards it not right that this [sexual intercourse] should take place either in wantonness or for hire like harlots, but only for the birth of children.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XVIII.–The Mosaic Law the Fountain of All Ethics, and the Source from Which the Greeks Drew Theirs)

      St. Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30, A.D. 400: “For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.”

      Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 5:8, A.D. 307: “There would be no adulteries, and debaucheries, and prostitution of women, if it were known to all, that whatever is sought beyond the desire of procreation is condemned by God.”

      Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Moreover, the passion of lust is implanted and innate in us for the procreation of children; but they who do not fix its limits in the mind use it for pleasure only. Thence arise unlawful loves, thence adulteries and debaucheries, thence all kinds of corruption. These passions, therefore, must be kept within their boundaries and directed into their right course [for the procreation of children], in which, even though they should be vehement, they cannot incur blame.” (Chapter LXI.–Of the Passions)

      Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Let lust not go beyond the marriage-bed, but be subservient to the procreation of children. For a too great eagerness for pleasure both produces danger and generates disgrace, and that which is especially to be avoided, leads to eternal death. Nothing is so hateful to God as an unchaste mind and an impure soul.” (Chapter LXII.–Of Restraining the Pleasures of the Senses)

      St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to “be fruitful and multiply.” [Gen. 1:28] He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word of Ezekiel: “Put away your fornications.” [Eze. 43:9] Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.” (The Paedagogusor The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.–On the Procreation and Education of Children)

      Delete
    5. St. Augustine, On The Good of Marriage, Section 11, A.D. 401: “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity [of begetting children] no longer follows reason but lust.”

      Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604): “The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure.” (St. Gregory the Great, “Pastoral Care,” Part 3, Chapter 27, in “Ancient Christian Writers,” No. 11, pp. 188-189)

      Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 597 A.D.): “Lawful copulation of the flesh ought therefore to be for the purpose of offspring, not of pleasure; and intercourse of the flesh should be for the sake of producing children, and not a satisfaction of frailties.” (Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli [English], Book XI, Letter 64)

      St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “Again, vice is the wrong use of our conceptual images of things, which leads us to misuse the things themselves. In relation to women, for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her. And the same is true with regard to other things and one’s conceptual images of them.” (Second Century on Love, 17; Philokalia 2:67-68)

      St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “There are also three things that impel us towards evil: passions, demons, and sinfulness of intention. Passions impel us when, for example, we desire something beyond what is reasonable, such as food which is unnecessary or untimely, or a woman who is not our wife or for a purpose other than procreation.” (Second Century on Love, 33; Philokalia 2:71)

      St. John Damascene (c. 675-749): “The procreation of children is indeed good, enjoined by the law; and marriage is good on account of fornications, for it does away with these, and by lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to be inflamed into unlawful acts. Marriage is good for those who have no continence; but virginity, which increases the fruitfulness of the soul and offers to God the seasonable fruit of prayer, is better. “Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” [Hebrews 13:4].” (St. John of Damascus, also known as St. John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chap. 24)

      Gratian, Medieval Marriage Law (c. 1140): “Also, Jerome, [on Ephesians 5:25]: C. 14. The procreation of children in marriage is praiseworthy, but a prostitute’s sensuality is damnable in a wife. So, as we have said, the act is conceded in marriage for the sake of children. But the sensuality found in a prostitute’s embraces is damnable in a wife.”
      Venerable Luis de Granada (1505-1588): “Those that be married must examine themselves in particular, if in their mind thinking of other persons, or with intention not to beget children, but only for carnal delight, or with extraordinary touchings and means, they have sinned against the end, and honesty of marriage.” (A Spiritual Doctrine, containing a rule to live well, with divers prayers and meditations, p. 362)

      Delete
    6. Dear Dr. Lamb,
      Thank you for your input! It is always greatly appreciated!

      God Bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Introibo, I believe Mr Lamb misunderstood what you said. He wrote at 3:14, "Of course artificial means (thermometer etc.)are used to determine the "natural reasons of time". My interpretation of Casti was incorrect and the "contradiction" between Casti and Letter is removed."

      Using a thermometer to determine the natural reasons of time is not one of the artificial means that Pius 11 was alluding to as contraception. I think Lamb thinks the two documents agree because he thinks they both condemn NFP.

      If my understanding of Mr Lamb's first paragraph is incorrect then I offer a sincere apology.

      Delete
    8. The good doctor understood; he realized how the teaching is consistent when theological terms are understood.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. Introibo has not proved at all that the Theologians are unanimous teaching that anal intercourse might be acceptable, even accompanied by all the conditions he describes.

    On the contrary, there is a huge dissent among them, which allows us to retain the opinion expressed not only by Jerome, but by many others.

    Trying to make believe that those disagreeing with Fr Jones are contrary to Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and like the heretical adversaries of Catholic theologians is no less than a gross abuse of the authority of the Church.

    Now, if you consult theologians older than those of the XX century, you would notice that they are nearly unanimous teaching that any kind of sexual anal intercourse, wether perfect or not, losing seed or not, is intrinsecally evil and gravely sinful, because contrary to the laws of nature, and calls upon the perpetrators the wrath and curse of God, with consequences even for the progeniture they may engender through such a sinfully begun intercourse.

    They would be inmensely scandalized seeing that theologians dared teaching otherwise.

    I would recommend all faithful, married and/or theologians, go to the Holy Scripture, read the Book of Tobías, and learn with what purity and reverence a husband must approach the body of his holy spouse, as a holy vessel that doesn't permit such a profanation, if they don't want having the demons unleashed as a punishment for committing a sin even fallen angels are ashamed of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Stuart,
      May I respectfully suggest you go back and read my post again. You have seriously misrepresented my position.

      1. Theologians are not in agreement which does indeed allow you not to ENDORSE the act under the specified conditions. However, Jerome claims it to be "heresy." Analogously, there is disagreement over the title "Co-Redemptrix" for Our Blessed Lady, but that doesn't mean someone who accepts (or denies) the title is a "heretic." In Dogmatic Theology, when there is no consensus, there is freedom to believe. In Moral Theology, we have freedom to act.

      2. I did not say Jerome rejects the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium over this issue. Jerome rejects the teachings of the theologians and replaces them with apparitions and private interpretations. That IS rejection of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

      3. There is development of doctrine that is Catholic, unlike the Modernist notion of "development." Consult St. Augustine and almost all theologians prior to Trent, and they believed that babies who die without baptism burn in Hell. Does that mean the doctrine of Limbo should be rejected? Granted, Limbo is not dogma and you could believe as St. Augustine, but don't denounce those believe the post-Tridentine theologians on the basis of what the earlier theologians taught. In the 1950s a case could be made for Limbo to be the proper subject for a dogmatic definition, as it was taught nearly unanimously.

      4. The older theologians who disagree with Jone and Halligan "would be scandalized," even as their teaching was approved under the watchful eye of the pope? No, they would disagree or perhaps change their minds but they would not have the temerity to denounce opinions permitted to be taught by the Holy See.

      5. Read the book of Tobias and learn how you are to behave. Interesting. Don't Protestants tell you to read this or that passage and come to conclusions apart from Church authority? By following Church teaching you'll be protected from the demons reserved for those who become "a magisterium unto themselves."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Every Sedevacantist is also a "Magisterium unto himself." That is what makes this post so hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hardly. We follow all teachings of the Church before the Great Apostasy. Which Magisterium do you follow? The one that teaches "Outside the Church there is no salvation" or the one that teaches non-Catholic sects are also a means of salvation? The one that insists that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church, or the one that teaches they are two separate entities with one dwelling in the other and the Church of Christ is present in false religions according to how many "elements" they possess ?

      Traditionalists are not hypocritical, but those who accept Vatican II must believe that what was once error is now truth or try mental gymnastics to reconcile mutually contradictory ideas. That's schizophrenia.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. I follow the living magisterium whereas you became your own. You may not like mine but at least you can't say I became my own like you did. By the way, what is the exact date of this "great apostasy?" That would also be the date you became a magisterium unto yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So your "living Magisterium" can say what was once wrong is right and vice-versa? What if they declared 6 Sacraments? Or 5 Commandments? Was St Thomas Moore a fool when he died for the sanctity of marriage that Frankie spits upon by allowing "Communion" for those living in open adultery? If you believe in unchanging Truth, you must reject the false Magisterium and hold on to the truth until the papacy can be restored.


      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. You can't win the argument. Like I said, you don't have to like my magisterium but you can't say I became my own like you did. As for Thomas Moore, I wasn't aware that he rejected his pope and living magisterium and declared sede vacante. Also, you didn't answer my question, what is the exact date of the "great apostasy?" This is the date you became a magisterium unto yourself. It is interesting that many other sedevacantists have their own special dates of the great apostasy, when they too became magisteriums unto themselves. So what is yours?

      Delete
    3. I have a Magisterium in the teachings of the theologians and popes through Pope Pius XII. All Traditionalists can agree that the Great Apostasy was morally certain and *continuous* since the signing of Lumen Gentium on November 21, 1964, although Roncalli was a Modernist not a Catholic, so we must follow the last True pope--Pius XII.

      As far as your claim of having a Magisterium, by the same logic, so does the Church of Satan. You need not just any teaching authority but the True authority! St Thomas Moore died in vain! "Communion" for adulterers!

      Now please answer my question. Prior to Vatican II non-Catholic sects were considered a means of damnation. Now they are a means of salvation. Who was wrong? Popes pre-Vatican II or post Vatican II? Someone got it wrong!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. 1. Let’s be clear: you don't have a magisterium. You have a book. For that matter so do Protestants so my point is made a third time.
      2. No, all traditionalists do not agree with your date of 11.24.64 when you became your own magisterium and teacher / leader of fundamentalist schismatics. Many of your kind go back much much further.
      3. Only a lunatic fringe sect would consider the Catholic Church on par with the church of satan.
      4. St. Thomas Moore was not a Sedevacantist and he did not establish himself as a magisterium unto himself like you.
      5. The magisterium thought it was appropriate to change its teachings on some matters and did it. If you claim Vatican II was the first time you are a liar.
      6. The Church used to teach that heretics should be burned but later changed its mind. Which church was the "real" one, the church that "got off" on burning heretics or the one later that condemned and abhorred the practice?

      Delete
    5. Sorry, but you make a refutation too easy! I'll respond to each of your numbered points with the same number.

      1. Lets be more clear. Theologian Dorsch teaches "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

      According to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448). So the Church Herself teaches the Magisterium does not depend on their being a pope---the papacy could be vacant for YEARS and the Magisterium continues we don't have "just a book." Your contention is refuted by the Church's own theologians!!

      2. My "kind" does indeed recognize the signing of Lumen Gentium as the. Morally certain and continuous beginning of the Great Apostasy. Those, such as Richard Ibranyi or conclavists, deny one or more tenents of the Catholic Faith. We do not.

      3. Go back and learn to read. I never said the Church of Satan was on par with the True Church. My point was that the Church of Satan has "a teaching authority" insofar as they have someone in charge, just as does your Vatican II sect. Just because you have **a** teaching authority doesn't mean you have the correct authority. When a "pope" tells you "proselytizim is nonsense," that's false and doing the work of the devil by Preaching Indifferentism. Understand? Probably not.

      4. Once more, learn to read. My point in mentioning St Thomas Moore was not to show him as a sedevacantist. There was a true pope during his life. However, he died for the sanctity of Marriage, something Frankie denies. Bergoglio would have given "communion" to Henry VIII, so St Thomas Moore died in vain! Understand? (I get the feeling you don't).

      (CONTINUES BELOW)

      Delete
    6. 5. Please give me just ONE pre-Vatican II citation to any pope, council, catechism or theologian who taught that the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using non-Catholic sects as a means of salvation as Vatican 2 teaches in Unitatis Redintegratio paragraph # 3. I'm no liar, so I won't hold my breath for your citation.

      6. The Church never taught as a truth of faith that heretics should be burned at the stake. Give me a citation to a papal decree or Roman Congregation, etc. that allegedly teaches such. (Won't be holding my breath once more!). The Church did teach:

      "In this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (See Pope Pius XI, "Mortalium Animos" # 11)

      And your sect (posing as the Catholic Church) teaches:

      "For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though the communion is imperfect..." (See "Unitatis Redintegratio" # 3, Vatican Council II)

      Here you have two OFFICIAL teachings at odds with one another. Are baptized non-Catholics "in no way" part of the Church of Christ, or are they in some "imperfect communion"?

      Good luck with citations to prove your (non-existent) case. And please try to comprehend what was written. Don't repeat that St Thomas More wasn't sedevacantist (not my point) or the Church of Satan is like the Church of Christ (not my point either).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. 1.Dorsch is not talking about Sedevacantism liar. He is talking about papal interregnums. Is that the best you have?
      2. All Sedevacantists deny one or more tenets of the catholic faith, you included. Nice try scapegoating Ibranyi. My point is there are many Sedevacantist schools and many also condemn you based upon their also being magisteriums unto themselves!
      3. I have a Roman Catholic teaching authority under a pope and you have yourself. No comparison.
      4. “Frankie” would have prevented Anglicanism over an offense that had been “unofficially” sanctioned by the Catholic Church for centuries before Henry VIII’s time. There are no shortage of books that describe the Church’s own violations of this law.
      5. I don’t have to. My point, which you want to weasel around, is that the Church has often changed its positions / teachings on many subjects throughout the centuries. Sedevacantists just pick the ones they like and build cult followings around them.
      6. The Church sanctioned buring heretics for many centuries and you want to argue that it never taught this as a truth of faith? “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” – Condemned. (Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine, June 15, 1520, The Errors of Martin Luther, # 77). Well, so much for all of the trash over many centuries that were murdered under papal authority huh Introibo? Thankfully these murders were not under the Church’s infallibility right?

      Delete
    8. 1. And sedevacantism is a papal interregnum that has lasted many years! So, yes, it's better than what you have which is nothing! Dorsch claerly states that an interregnum lasting "many years" and the Magisterium endures. You seem to think unless there's a pope you have no "living Magisterium" and this simply isn't true.

      2. Please tell me what tenet of the Faith I deny.

      3. Begging the question. All pre-Vatican II theologians (and even Pope Pius IV) have taught that a heretic can not be pope, but would fall by DIVINE LAW. "Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather, he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly‘loses his savor’ in heresy. For he who does not believe is already judged." [Sermo 4: In Consecratione PL 218:670.] The question is, "Do you have a pope?" You beg the question by assuming it proven, despite the manifest heresies of both Vatican II and the post-Pius XII "popes."

      4. So a violation of Divine law (that marriage is indissoluble and to remarry is adultery) voids the Divine Law? There were always priests who were sodomites. Does this sanction homosexual relations?

      5. "I don't have to" (i.e.cite the any pre-Vatican II teaching that Christ uses non-Catholic sects as a means of salvation).
      Translation: "I don't have any because the Church never taught that.

      6. I was anticipating Exsurge Domine! (It's proposition # 33--there is no # 77)Here's what you fail to understand:
      To be completely accurate in assessing this question, it should be noted that there is a difference between:

      (a) condemning a proposition that heretics being burned is always against the will of the Holy Ghost

      (b) endorsing a proposition that heretics being burned is the will of the Holy Ghost

      The first is merely asserting that it is possible that at some time and place burning of heretics may not have been against the will of the Holy Ghost, whereas the second proposition (your interpretation of the first) claims that burning of heretics is the active will of the Holy Ghost. The second statement is not implied by the first.

      Let's look at a similar pair of propositions that might shed light on the subject. It is possible that God may permit the capital punishment of some offenders and so to assert that capital punishment may not be against the will of God is quite a different assertion to claiming that God simply wills capital punishment.

      Again, the first says nothing about when or where the Holy Ghost may tolerate the burning of heretics, the second implies that the Holy Ghost wills or is never against the burning of heretics. They are not the same claim.

      If you wish to assess the real issue, then it is necessary to understand the full implications of what you are claiming.

      It is possible that proposition (a) is true, that there may be times when burning of certain heretics may not be contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost, but still insist that every specific case of burning heretics, as these have occurred in history, have always been contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost. It may be that only a certain severity of heresy could result in the Holy Ghost permitting the burning of that individual, but it is possible that such a severity has never occurred.

      There is a difference between an "in principle" condemnation and a "de facto" one. In principle, burning heretics is a form of capital punishment, because their evil doctrines kill the soul, which is WORSE than killing the body (murder). But, just as you don't NEED to be in favor of capital punishment, as long as you don't condemn it in principle--the same applies here. hence, there was no change in Church teaching!

      I hope you're not an attorney, like me. Your poor clients wouldn't stand a chance with "arguments" like yours.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. Ok, if you really think: the church is in a state of papal interregnum since 1958, that the Church's magisterium is some sedevacantist bishop without jurisdiction, and that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself and reversed its longstanding positions before vatican 2,then what more can I say? God bless you man.

      Delete
    10. To my readers:
      Notice how my Vatican II sect adversary leaves unanswered the contentions I put forth. I need to summarize what I've written.

      1. Theologian Dorsch among others, shows that an interregnum can last many years and the Church remains intact.

      2. The Church does not have a functioning hierarchy. The Magisterium is what the Church has taught until the Great Apostasy until the papacy is restored. Traditionalist bishops do not have (or claim) Ordinary Jurisdiction. They perpetuate the Sacraments.

      3. The Church can (and has) changed long standing positions regarding disciplinary matters (e.g. Fasting regulations for Lent). However, this person is talking about changes in DOGMA, not some "long standing position" on a matter of discipline. It is of Faith that a sacramental marriage once ratified and consummated is indissoluble. The bond can only be broken by death of a spouse. Anyone who puts away his/her spouse to "remarry" lives in the state of adultery; and habitual mortal sin. It is equally of Faith that the Blessed Sacrament cannot be worthily received by those in mortal sin but they "eat and drink damnation unto themselves." No priest may give Communion to a notorious public sinner. Yet this Vatican 2 sect apologist thinks that some evil people who ignore the Divine Law is "proof" it can change. The Magisterium is powerless to change Divine Law. Moreover, it would cease to be a teaching authority if it can alter teachings at will or because they are ignored. You could never be certain of anything. Maybe abortion will no longer be murder. They can receive "communion" too!

      Let's pray for his conversion--and understanding--of the One True Church!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    11. Different Anonymous here....

      Well, let's just say I'm not going to be trying to cross THAT guy's bridge any time soon!

      Delete
    12. Just look at the state of the World,families,govts,children,and culture,once Pius XII,John XXIII,and Paul VI went on their rampage of destruction to the Catholic Church.
      Immoral Rock n Roll/Rap music,drugs,abortion,high divorce/murder/rape rates,
      homosexual marriage (including a Novus Ordo presbyter "married to his partner" in Ireland)God being removed from schools and society,feminism,Transgender people,the new demographic time bomb (women not having children) etc..
      NONE of these abominations were legal nor mainstream until starting in the mid 1950's.
      If this isn't a guilty verdict for the Novus Ordo I don't what it would take to open ones eyes.

      Delete
  17. Dear Introibo, You may sit at the front of the class on Monday and give out pencils, for your great patience. I have been subjected to a persistent, ignorant, idiot like this called "Mark Thomas" many times on another site. They are not interested in honest, or sincere debate. They simply derive a perverse pleasure from being obtusely argumentative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, thanks for condescending to speak to one of us "idiots" who refuses to take your asinine protestant church serious. Just do everyone a favor by keeping us informed of your next sedevacantist approved Vicar of Christ. The next one will be the real deal right Pete?

      Delete
    2. Dear Dr Lamb,
      Thanks, I try and help people see the light. You can see how our Vatican II sect opponent is frustrated and revels in his position despite the manifest weight of the credible evidence. There's an old saying for people like him, "Immaturity is outgrown, youth ages, drunkenness can be sobered , and ignorance educated, BUT STUPID LASTS FOREVER!"

      God bless you Dr Lamb,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Frustrated by your "evidence?" Who is the one frantically scrambling for quotes to “prove” his asinine positions? You quote a theologian describing how the church gets on after the death of a pope and the election of the next one and that is your “evidence” for sedevacantism? You are delusional. Should I continue taking on a delusional person point by point? You think you are the remnant church and base it on a quote from a theologian? Guy, you don’t even have bishop with authority anywhere in the world, let alone a magisterium and you call it a papal interregnum? Look, I began the exchange by pointing out the hypocrisy of the original post because you deserved it. All sedevacantists are magisteriums unto themselves and that is how most people see it. And thanks for doing God’s work in trying to help us idiots "see the light." As I said to Pete , just keep us apprised of your next papal election. We can’t wait to see the next Holy Father your sect produces. After the first 30 or so, it can only get better right?

      Delete
    4. Take your lithium. I'm not "scrambling for quotes" --An interregnum can last MANY YEARS. See my response to my readers concerning you right above Dr Peter Lamb. By the way we are not conclavists. At least get THAT right! Lol

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. To my readers:
      This exchange with the Vatican 2 sect apologist is instructive. Notice how he (a) presents Strawman arguments (sedevacantism based on a quote from a theologian), begs the question (we have a pope while ignoring the automatic loss of office from heresy and assumes as true the very point in contention), and, of course ad hominem ( he won't argue because "we are delusional", meaning he can't refute my arguments so I'll accuse him of being crazy).

      Welcome to Vatican 2 "apologetics"!!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Sedevacantism claims to be based on a papal interregnum but there are no similarities between sedevacantism and papal interregnums. This is a huge sedevacantist lie. Refer to the quotation of your favorite theologian above and you will see that he is specifically writing about papal interregnums (normal vacancies between the death of a pope and election of the next) and in which the form of the Church remains intact. Even if the Church were enduring a papal interregnum, which it isn't, you don't even have a church. If you want to prove me wrong, instead of proof texting theologians and twisting their words to support your schism from the Roman See, just go ahead and have your "intact" church elect a pope and I'll shut up.
      2. The Catholic Church is governed my a living magisterium period. You don't have one. Huge problem. What more need be said? I don't think I have to keep refuting this nonsense. Just know I'm only scratching the surface of the holes in your sedevacantist church.

      Delete
    7. Here we go again:

      There are no similarities between sedevacantism and papal interregnum? In both cases there is no pope. In both cases the Church functions as stated by theologian Dorsch and theologian Salaverri, instead of the papacy being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

      There is nothing that prevents an interregnum from lasting MANY YEARS. Furthermore, there is no dogma that the Church needs ordinary jurisdiction to survive. Supplied jurisdiction is very real and bishops can consecrate, priests can administer the Sacraments and the Church functions. Does there always need to be a pope as you think? No. The office of Peter is perpetually over the Church regardless if it is filled with a living man. In other words, the teachings of the past popes remain the steadfast head of the Church. Never does a past teaching become equal to or less than a mere bishop or some other person. There is no Church teaching that there is a time limit on the time between popes. Every theologian who spoke to the issue, gave no limit. So you put a limit in time where none exists. Did the Church cease during the Great Western Schism when there were three rival claimants to the papal throne from 1378 to 1417? No one could be sure who, if anyone, was pope. So who, if anyone, do you follow? What if you follow the wrong "pope." Would you be in schism, even if you reject the real one--or perhaps all of them--due to having good reasons to doubt their legitimacy?(Rhetorical questions, don't answer, just TRY and think!)

      You wrongfully accuse me of twisting the words of a theologian, but sedevacantism is nothing more than an extended interregnum. (You didn't even understand Exsurge Domine "#77"). There was De facto no pope for almost 40 years during the Great Western Schism.

      As far as the ability to elect a new pope, this was answered by the following comment in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: “No canonical provisions exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romanâ impeditâ,
      i.e. in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history.” (“Cardinal,” CE 3:339)
      Moreover, an inability at present to determine exactly how
      another true pope would be chosen in the future does not somehow make John XXIII and his successors into true popes by default.
      Nor does it change what we already know: that the post-V2 popes promulgated errors, heresies and evil laws; that a heretic cannot be a true pope; and that promulgating evil laws is incompatible with possessing authority from Jesus Christ. You theological ignorance is appalling.

      And finally, why should Traditionalists be worried? Vatican II teaches that non-Catholic sects are a "means of salvation"! in the 1992 CDF Letter on Communion, the 2000 Declaration Dominus Iesus, the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the 1997 Catechism,

      *Schismatic bodies are “particular Churches” united to the Catholic Church by “close bonds.”

      * Each “particular Church” is “Catholic,” but some are “fully Catholic.”

      Frankie goes so far to tell us people need not convert, "Proselytism is nonsense," and even atheists can go to Heaven! So if you're right, we get to Heaven anyway and it doesn't matter!

      As you can see, you've refuted nothing and poked holes in your Strawman arguments.
      Just remember; if WE are right, it's YOU that has a HELL of a lot about which to worry!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Here we go again:

      There are no similarities between sedevacantism and papal interregnum? In both cases there is no pope. In both cases the Church functions as stated by theologian Dorsch and theologian Salaverri, instead of the papacy being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

      There is nothing that prevents an interregnum from lasting MANY YEARS. Furthermore, there is no dogma that the Church needs ordinary jurisdiction to survive. Supplied jurisdiction is very real and bishops can consecrate, priests can administer the Sacraments and the Church functions. Does there always need to be a pope as you think? No. The office of Peter is perpetually over the Church regardless if it is filled with a living man. In other words, the teachings of the past popes remain the steadfast head of the Church. Never does a past teaching become equal to or less than a mere bishop or some other person. There is no Church teaching that there is a time limit on the time between popes. Every theologian who spoke to the issue, gave no limit. So you put a limit in time where none exists. Did the Church cease during the Great Western Schism when there were three rival claimants to the papal throne from 1378 to 1417? No one could be sure who, if anyone, was pope. So who, if anyone, do you follow? What if you follow the wrong "pope." Would you be in schism, even if you reject the real one--or perhaps all of them--due to having good reasons to doubt their legitimacy?(Rhetorical questions, don't answer, just TRY and think!)

      You wrongfully accuse me of twisting the words of a theologian, but sedevacantism is nothing more than an extended interregnum. (You didn't even understand Exsurge Domine "#77"). There was De facto no pope for almost 40 years during the Great Western Schism.

      As far as the ability to elect a new pope, this was answered by the following comment in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: “No canonical provisions exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romanâ impeditâ,
      i.e. in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history.” (“Cardinal,” CE 3:339)
      Moreover, an inability at present to determine exactly how
      another true pope would be chosen in the future does not somehow make John XXIII and his successors into true popes by default.
      Nor does it change what we already know: that the post-V2 popes promulgated errors, heresies and evil laws; that a heretic cannot be a true pope; and that promulgating evil laws is incompatible with possessing authority from Jesus Christ. You theological ignorance is appalling.

      And finally, why should Traditionalists be worried? Vatican II teaches that non-Catholic sects are a "means of salvation"! in the 1992 CDF Letter on Communion, the 2000 Declaration Dominus Iesus, the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the 1997 Catechism,

      *Schismatic bodies are “particular Churches” united to the Catholic Church by “close bonds.”

      * Each “particular Church” is “Catholic,” but some are “fully Catholic.”

      Frankie goes so far to tell us people need not convert, "Proselytism is nonsense," and even atheists can go to Heaven! So if you're right, we get to Heaven anyway and it doesn't matter!

      As you can see, you've refuted nothing and poked holes in your Strawman arguments.
      Just remember; if WE are right, it's YOU that has a HELL of a lot about which to worry!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  18. Interesting link to an article that states even anti-reform cardinals 'want the Pope to quit'.
    www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-reform-cardinals-want-the-Pope-to-quit-z3h75h22v
    People are blinded if they can't see that Francis is a fake!!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Anonymous @ 6.16, Introibo is correct. I misunderstood the theological terms, not the artificial means, but thank you for your comment, because if I had misunderstood the latter, you would have helped me right. No apology necessary. :)

    ReplyDelete