Monday, November 13, 2017

Distorting Sedevacantism


 The arguments against sedevacantism have grown increasingly weaker over the years. Having been a Traditionalist for 36 years, I've seen the arguments come tumbling down as more and more evidence proves that the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII. The apologists for the Vatican II sect have increasingly had to resort to "straw man arguments," i.e., "when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished. By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real man (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well." (See Hurley, Patrick J. "Informal Fallacies." A Concise Introduction to Logic. 9th ed. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, [2006], pg. 121).

 One of my readers sent me a link to an article entitled, "The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism." (See http://www.saintdominicsmedia.com/against-sedevacantism/).

It is a masterpiece of sophistry. The author, Mr. David L. Gray, has done the only thing left for Vatican II sect apologists to do, especially in the era of Bergoglio: (1) misrepresent our positions, (2) attack and tear down the position/argument they fabricated, and then (3) claim sedevacantism to be proven false.  It's harder and harder for me not to ascribe bad motives to these apologists. In the 1980s, when all this information (and its accessibility)was not available, I could understand how someone might construct poorly sourced and badly conceived arguments in favor of the Vatican II "popes" and then propagate them.  In 2017, the same cannot be said, and in the case of Robert Siscoe and John Salza, they are definitely not in good faith given their education and purposeful deceit in arguing.

I've decided to expose this particular article to (a) show just how much our enemies must misrepresent Traditionalism, and (b) possibly prevent someone doubting the Vatican II sect from staying there due to such false attacks on the True Faith. I would also like to call my readers' attention to the fact that Mr. Gray is what passes as a "theologian" in the Vatican II sect. According to the St. Dominic's media website:  Mr. David L. Gray is an American Catholic Theologian and a Historian on Black Fraternal History. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BS) from Central State University (Ohio) and a Masters of Arts in Catholic Theology (M.A.T.) from Ohio Dominican University. David is a convert to Catholicism by the way of Agnosticism and Protestantism. He currently resides in Columbus, Ohio with his wife and daughters, and is the President and Publisher of Saint Dominic's Media Inc. To learn more about Mr. Gray visit davidlgray.info

The "Four Fatal Errors" Exposed

 1. Disordered Mass Nostalgia. 
Mr. Gray (correctly) contends that sedevacantists hold the New "Mass" ("Novus Bogus" as I like to call it) to be evil and harmful. However, what he says next is incredulous:

Essentially, what Sedevacantists are arguing is that the Mass is evil because it’s not how it use to be. It’s really quite a sophistic and myopic argument once you follow the logic through to is reasonable conclusion. Their argument begs the question whether the Mass prior to the Tridentine Mass was also evil and harmful. Being that the Mass of Saint Paul that we find in 1 Corinthians 10 also lacked the form of the Tridentine Mass, what it also evil and harmful? That Mass, which seems to be very similar to what Justin Martyr (100-165) described in his Apology, seems to have been a simple blessing/consecration of the species; perhaps using same formula of words that the priest uses today from Luke 22:17-20.

I don't know of any sedevacantist (clergy or layman) who holds this preposterous view. The argument that the "Mass is evil because it's not how it used to be" is sophistic and myopic. Luckily, sedevacantists don't advance any such argument; it was manufactured by Mr. Gray. Notice that he doesn't cite to any sedevacantist claiming that the Mass cannot deviate from its structure imposed by Pope St. Pius V without being evil and harmful. The pre-Vatican II Eastern Rite Liturgies were very different from the Roman Rite, but every bit as Catholic. We reject the Novus Bogus for the evil and harmful elements introduced into it. Had "theologian" Gray read the rejection of the New "mass" authored by Cardinal Ottaviani and a group of (real) theologians (in 1969), now famously referred to as The Ottaviani Intervention, he would have discovered the following about the "new mass (sic):" 
  • A new definition of the Mass as an "assembly" rather than as a sacrifice offered to God
  • Omissions of elements emphasizing the Catholic teaching (utterly repudiated by Protestants) that the Mass makes satisfaction for sins
  • The reduction of the priest's role to a position approximating that of a Protestant minister
  •  Implicit denials of Christ's Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation
  • The change of the Consecration from a sacramental action into a mere re-telling of the story of the Last Supper
  • The fragmenting of the Church's unity of belief through the introduction of countless options [in prayers and rubrics--Introibo]
  • Ambiguous language and equivocation throughout the rite which compromise the Church's doctrines
(See The Ottaviani Intervention, Philothea Press, [2010], pgs. 11-12).

Mr. Gray responds to the Sedevacantist objection regarding the change in the Words of Consecration over the wine from "for many" to "for all" and back to "for many" in 2011 as follows:

  Although this issue would now seem to be resolved with the updated English language version of the Novus Ordo liturgy in 2011, in pressing the issue here, Sedevacantists would argue, using quotes from Pope Leo XII, Pope Eugene IV, Pope Saint Pius V., and the Council of Trent about what form of words must to be used to validly consecrate the Holy Eucharist. They argue that originally changing the form to “for all” changed the audience of the sacrifice, which changed the meaning of it, thereby, invalidating the sacrifice. While their issue would seem to have been corrected now, and was NEVER an issue outside of the English language versions of the Novus Ordo Mass, this doesn’t resolve their claim that only a false council could produce an invalid consecration formula. Of course the counter-argument to their time machine case is that the bad English language translation never intended to say something that was not union with the Universal Church or something other than what had been said in Latin prior to the Novus Ordo. Nor could they prove that Jesus stopped coming to the English language Novus Ordo Mass for 45 years as the Holy Eucharist, while that bad translation was in place.

Where to begin? First, since all the sacraments have been invalidated in the Vatican II sect except (some) baptisms and (some) marriages, there are very few valid priests left, so it doesn't matter what words a layman recites; they're all invalid. Second, it's just plain false that the translation of the Consecration was never an issue outside English speaking countries. Italy (to give but one example) also changed the words to "per tutti" (for all). Third, pre-Vatican II treaties on invalidating defects that occur in the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist, insist that the Words of Consecration must not be recited as part of an historical narrative. This is exactly how it is now done in the Novus Bogus "Institution Narrative" of the "Eucharistic Prayer." 

According to theologian/rubrician O'Connell: "Defects in the Form of the Sacrament...Any change in the form, by omission, addition or interpolation which would alter the meaning would make the consecration invalid...The Words of Consecration have to be said not merely as an historical narrative of words once used by Our Lord---as the Celebrant recites them, e.g., in the accounts  of the Last Supper which are read in the Mass during Holy Week.....but in a present affirmation, speaking in the person of Christ, and intending to effect something here and now, by pronouncing these words."
(See J. O'Connell, The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal   [Milwaukee:Bruce Publishers], 1941), pgs. 225-226)

Mr. Gray's objection might work against the "recognize and resistors" of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), who recognize Bergoglio as pope and his sacraments as valid. You could try and paint their Mass as nostalgia, because if a true pope promulgates a valid mass, all you have is a matter of preference, or you're claiming that a true pope can give a valid yet evil Mass (which is impossible due to the Indefectibility of the Church). However, his argument has no applicability to sedevacantists whatsoever.

 2.  Repetition of the Protestant Error
Here, Gray means the Protestant error of a non-visible Church. His objection is brief (and citation free!):

It appears to non-Sedevacantists that this teaching of theirs is essentially arguing that Jesus lied; that the Gates of Hell (Cf. Matthew 16:18) actually did prevail against the Church. Sedevacantists would attempt to sidestep that clear conclusion of their teaching by saying that the true Church is still without error, but that Church is no longer the institutional Church that is in union with the Pope.

By using that defense to avoid their first conclusion of their teaching against Vatican II, Sedevacantists only then fall into an even more grave conclusion. That is, if the true Church of Jesus Christ was not prevailed against by the Gates of Hell, but is actually still here, then where is it? Certainly, if the Catholic Church still contains the four theological marks of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and still contains the seven historical marks, then Sedevacantists should be able to point to it and say ‘there it is’.

Being that Sedevacantists cannot point to the true Church of Jesus Christ and tell us where it is now, then errantly they fall into the Protestant false teaching of the unscriptural invisible church.

It is theological ignorance to suggest that you need a living pope on the throne of St. Peter as a  necessary requirement to have a visible Church. According to theologian Dorsch, "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)


 Second, 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)

 Moreover, there was a de facto interregnum for 51 years during the Great Western Schism from 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff. Prior to this, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or none) could be the true pope. Which one was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit? Was the Church a "three headed monster" during this time? If you chose wrongly (in an age of limited education with no Internet or daily papers) are you "schismatic" and damned to Hell? There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.

 Finally, let's not forget the Great Apostasy foretold in the Bible, and taught by the Church. According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119; Emphasis in original) Having no pope is therefore not incompatible with the visibility of the Church. Wherever the True faith and sacraments exist, there is the Church until the papacy is restored.

3. Sedevacantism is Unlikely to be Resolved

Here, Gray rejects the position because he doesn't like the result. If the position is true, we must deal with the consequences as they are, not reject a correct position itself and put our heads in the sand. He writes:

If Sedevacantism wants to tell us that it is a reformation movement, then it also has to tell us why it is quite different than every other just reformation movement of the Church. It is different in the first place because it breaks unity, and it is doubly different because it offers no path to heal the disunity it caused. That is, by holding that the Second Vatican Council was in error, the only resolution for Sedevacantism is for some future Pope or Ecumenical Council to decree that the Second Vatican Council and/or its particular documents and the new Mass were in error. That seems quite unlikely.

First, Traditionalists are not a "reform movement," we are what is left of the One True Church of Christ. Second, the Church never lacks unity because others fall away. Third, sedevacantism will be resolved either by the restoration of the papacy via imperfect general council, or perhaps sedeprivationism proves true, OR Christ will come again if these prove to be the end days. God resolves all problems eventually.

4. Repetition of Claimed Evil
Gray writes:
Sedevacantism posits that the new Mass is evil, but then it goes ahead and purports another evil itself by telling its adherents to avoid going to Mass and receiving the Sacraments in a Church that is in union with the Pope.

Am I the only one who sees the utter stupidity of this statement? It can be reduced to this: "People who reject Bergoglio as pope for sound theological reasons are themselves evil for telling people not to go to the Churches of Bergoglio, because he is the pope." If  Bergoglio is rejected as pope, why would his churches be considered in union with the pope? Gray claims sedevacantists are evil for rejecting the churches "in union with the pope" which begs the very question as to whether Bergoglio is pope, and he makes no attempt to refute the theological arguments that he cannot be pope. 

He then goes on:
Of course Sedevacantists would argue that the Sacraments of the institutional Catholic Church are no longer valid since Vatican II was in error and the new Mass is evil and harmful, but being that there is no way for them to prove that God hasn’t sustained His Sacraments (ex opere operato) even if the council was invalid, then there is no just cause for them to teach Catholics to avoid them. In fact, it makes this teaching of Sedevacantists the gravest of all evils.

Ex opere operato, means the sacraments work "by the very act of correctly performing them" and not on the beliefs or moral disposition of the minister or recipient of the sacrament. It does not mean that you can change the matter, form or intention of the sacrament (as the Vatican II sect did), and God will still make the sacrament valid. If this novel principle were true, then a priest who uses chocolate chip cookies and milk in place of bread and wine at Mass would offer a valid Holy Sacrifice, and the milk and cookies would become the Sacred Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. I know of not one theologian who teaches this absurdity, except "theologian" Gray himself.

Finally, sedevacantism is the "gravest of all evils"?  Really? How about:

  • "communion" for adulterers
  •  praying with witch doctors and all the false religions for "world peace"  
  • stating atheists can go to Heaven
  • claiming proselytism is nonsense
I guess they're not so bad! 

Conclusion
The ersatz "theologian" of the Vatican II sect, David Gray, has distorted sedevacantism beyond recognition. Traditionalists do not reject the Novus Bogus "mass" because it is not "like the Mass used to be." We do not repeat the Protestant  error of an invisible Church, as the teachings of the pre-Vatican II theologians clearly show. The situation will be resolved someday, and the fact he doesn't like the consequences does not make sedevacantism untrue. Lastly, how can we be guilty of telling people to stay away from churches in "union with the pope" when we reject Bergoglio as pope in the first place? 

Ironically, Mr. Gray's "Four Fatal Errors" are themselves fatally flawed.  Before the Great Apostasy, theologians could only be clerics of the highest learning. Now, a married layman with a Masters degree can purport to be a "theologian." He misrepresents his opponents' position, and has almost no citations to any authorities except a couple of Bible passages and his own ipse dixit.  Does Mr. Gray really think as poorly as his slipshod article? I don't know, but I actually (and charitably) hope he does. If he falls into the bad faith category with Siscoe and Salza, I wince thinking of their fate when I recall the words of Our Lord, "He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God." (St. John 8:47). 

55 comments:

  1. Dear Introibo.
    It's true, I've always held that at least know your opponent's position & portray that position accurately before you even begin to debate/tackle it. Most people I've met have never examined sedevacantism thoroughly & publicly calumnize sedevacantist clergy, while knowing literally zero about them. Further, the thing that makes my heart bleed, being a sedevacantist for many decades as are you, Introibo, is that the Remnant-esque & SSPX'ers teach the children that a reigning Pontiff can actually put forth error. This is a scandal beyond description. It is so heart-rending. SSPX'ers, I've noticed,often mention the large families that turn out at their parishes. Yes, large numbers of children taught horror & untruth about the Primacy of Peter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You speak the truth, Linda. Numbers without the Truth just means many people led astray. Gray’s article facilitates the lies and distortions.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. Jolly good article as usual. I have long considered Salza, Siscoe, Matt and Bishop Fellay to be 'controlled opposition' whose function is to keep traditionally minded Catholics within the ambit of the novus bogus church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting you say that Dr. Lamb. On Gray’s website it says he was a Mason until he converted to the Vatican II sect. Sound like a certain Wisconsin attorney named John Salza? I think Salza is STILL a Mason, keeping people trapped in Bergoglio’s sect. Perhaps the same for Mr. Gray! Salza doesn’t claim to be a theologian like Gray, but he does a better hatchet job.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. Simply superb article. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Tom! Always glad to hear from my readers that I'm producing worthwhile material for the One True Church and they get something out of it. It keeps me writing.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. It's this type of nonsense propounded by the likes of the Bogus Ordo apostasy's theologian, David Gray (what does that tell you about theological expertise within that outfit?), that actually reinforces the sedevacantist position, more than anything else. Thank you, Mr. Gray!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never thought about it like that, but you make an excellent point! I'm just afraid for those who know little of theology, may be scared away from the Truth.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Any gift ideas for the Bishop who is conditionally confirming me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Mass offered for him or perhaps something needed for the Church/Chapel. A modest monetary gift could also help pay the bills. If any of my readers would like to make a suggestion, please do so!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. I enjoy Tumblar House YouTube channel but their latest video tackles part of the Sedevacantist opinion.
    In all due respect it was utterly horrendous and they played stupid.
    These 2 men are much smarter than their answer.It was somewhat of a major let down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their video was downright idiotic. Empty assertions and nothing more. That's about all most of our enemies have these days.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Charles Coloumbe literally said something to the effect of...
      "Outside the Sedevacantists,most Catholics throughout history haven't ever thought the Pope was perfect."
      This is a classic
      non-sequitur which neatly avoids the true reasons why Catholics hold the Sedevacantist opinion.
      Either Vatican 2 is correct or Jesus Christ our Blessed Lord is a liar.
      I won't hold my breath waiting on his response to that question.

      Delete
  7. @Anonymous 6:10PM
    That's an excellent point Brother.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I read this article by Grey when I was new to the sede thesis. Even though I was very green, I picked through all these ridiculous assertions he makes one by one.

    As someone else commented above, the sheer paucity of his "refutation" only strengthened my convition that the thesis is true.

    Just one question please, Introibo. I was baptised in the early 70's in the new rite of Baptism. You say "some" novus baptisms are valid. How on earth would I know if mine was or wasn't? My godmother has passed away, and my godfather is a full blown heretic and apostate, who embraced the novus ordo with a lot of enthusiasm, so there's no point asking him if everything was done properly. It doesn't bother me too much, but every now and then I see people saying what you say above, and I have a bit of a wonder about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,
      To remove all doubt, you should receive conditional baptism. The SSPV now does them for those baptized in the new rite (in effect after May 1969). If you can't find a Traditionalist cleric who will do it, any layman can do so minus the exorcisms and surrounding ceremonies which are good to have but not necessary to salvation.

      My doubts about baptism in the V2 sect was expressed in this post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-laver-of-regeneration-no-more.html?m=1

      I know of a young man (b. 1970), who was conditionally rebaptized to remove the same doubts you have. Good luck and God bless Mike!

      Let me know if there’s anything else I could do to help you in this situation.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I was baptized Novus Ordo in the 1970's.
      A Thuc line priest recently gave me a Supplemental Baptism after I had confirmed my baptismal rubrics were properly performed.

      Delete
    3. Do I ask my wife to conditionally baptise me, and then I her, and then conditionally exchange our marriage vows in private with no witnesses, so as not to cause scandal? Or does it have to be public?

      Oh, my. What a rabbit hole. So what if the SSPV Priest, or an SSPX Priest was baptised in the Novus Ordo, but then went to a traditonal seminary, and got ordained by a real bishop in the old rite? If the novus baptism was not valid, then nothing else afterwards is valid - his Masses, his Absolutions, his blessings of Sacramentals, even those used in the old rite of Baptism etc.

      Do we have to check what rite each Priest was baptised in? Where does it end? Is this why some sedes stay home? This is worse than the effects of new rite of Episcopal Consecration!

      Delete
    4. I would consult a Traditionalist priest, but yes, you and your wife could conditionally baptize each other. You are married and no renewal of vows is necessary. After baptism it becomes sacramental. Don't do anything without consulting a Traditionalist (sede) priest. As far as Traditionalist priests are concerned, all are investigated as to the validity of the Sacraments they received. Only the SSPX has begun ignoring this since about 2009 when the “excommunications” were lifted. Any of their priests ordained prior to 09 are certainly valid.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. Great article as usual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you David! You, and all my readers, might be interested to know Mr Gray responded via Twitter as follows:
      “What a BRILLIANT exercise in making strawman and never responding to the crux of the issue. Sedes lean on their own understanding. They don't trust the Holy Spirit. They are like Martin Luther really, by setting up an outside sect.”

      I tweeted back:

      “ I responded to each of the alleged “Fatal Flaws.” You are either culpably ignorant or lying about our positions regarding the Mass, etc. I demonstrated how each allegation was false. The only one attacking staw men is you. I would LOVE to see you reply point by point to me!”

      I won’t be holding my breath!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I have never understood the crux of any RR opinion. In order to accept Bergolio and other conciliar imposters as Pope, they either deny an article of dogma or deny the Catholic teaching in the Papacy. The NO sect decided to deny dogmas of the Church while the RRs deny the essence of the Papacy. This fight over the Papacy has been going on since Luther's time. It is sad to see fellow trads pick up where Luther and the other heretics left off in destroying the Papacy. Even the NO types are trying to make tge Papacy relevant again by interjecting it into secular matters. The RR types want all to accept an absolutely irrelevant and even unnecessary Papacy that can be ignored when conscience overrules his teaching.

      Delete
    3. You’re on target as usual, Tom!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. Mr. "Intoibo" you are a very cowardly person. I have no respect for people like you and I don't even care if you right in a given debate. At least the people you criticize are real people who are not afraid to be known. You are cowardly and there is no other name for it. Come out and debate people like a man should because you make traditional Catholics look like whimps. - Sal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok “Sal.” I guess we know exactly who YOU are right? Funny how you want my identity and accuse me of cowardice, but you do the same. By your own standard not only are you a coward but also a hypocrite.

      I keep my identity secret because (a) I dont wish to subjugate my family and friends to ramifications from my beliefs and the views expressed on this blog (b) the arguments I make should stand or fall on their own merits and (c) any good that comes from this blog, the glory should belong to God alone.

      When you reveal your full identity, then come back.

      Jejune comments like yours add nothing to this post or blog.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Excuse me but I am not the one with a blog engaging in hide and seek debates with identifiable people. You are such a wimp. And what sort of ramifications are you afraid of anyways? the rack? the dungeon? burning at the stake? I think you are embarrassed by your Sedevacantism? You really are a coward.

      Delete
    3. Another (and final) comment from the “reason-challenged” to show my readership who we are really up against. They have nothing but ad hominem and lies.

      To my antagonist, no you don’t have a blog so why not start one and go away? As I stated, arguments stand or fall based on their merits. A bad argument remains such whether or not the person making it is known. Ditto for a good argument.

      What ramifications? I’m an attorney in NYC, as are most of my friends and family members. Traditionalists are seen as a “hate group” by idiots such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. If clients thought that their attorney was racist or associated with racists, they would lose clients and their ability to bring in new ones would be severely hampered. Hence, they could lose their jobs and I don’t want that to happen because of me.

      Now go do something useful like collaborating with Mr. Gray on a new article; “The Four Fatal Errors of Rational Thinking and Argumentation.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. This article alone would send me to a traditional Catholic chapel (Sedevacantist) even if I didn't know anything about Vatican 2 etc
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
  12. If those who know better refused the 'una cum' position, which, after all these years, has been shown to keep the poison going, it may be that there would be more folks who know better supporting the clergy who know better.

    ReplyDelete
  13. PS. Practically speaking, anyone attending an 'una cum' Mass, is simply a Novus Ordite (R&R maybe). The SSPX have non-priest Novus Ordite presiders amongst their ranks these days, so confection is hit and miss, even before the blasphemy of calling a JPII or a FrankieI, Christ in proxy during Holy Mass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have an office or jurisdiction from the Church?
      Just today I watched a separate Catholic order make a refutation of the Thuc line on YouTube.
      Do you all ever tire of arguing fighting and causing division amongst Traditional Catholics?

      Delete
    2. No Catholic clergy in their right Catholic mind would claim jurisdiction in these times – this long unprecedented interregnum. As to the rest, it is wearying, yet edifying, for all of those of us with a sense of the faith, that Archbishop Thuc is still so hated, and his legacy so despised (Archbishop Thuc, a real deal Roman Catholic Archbishop, with clear intention, and precise Roman Rite Latin - referring to his ordinations). It is also wearying, yet edifying, for those of us who keep the faith, that some who conclude rightly that the Chair of Peter is empty, still teach folks that they may magically (as opposed to mystically) not be participating in an abomination by communing (una cum) before the Throne of the Almighty with an anti-Catholic heresiarch during Mass.

      But the ‘Mystery of Iniquity’ and the ‘operation of error’ are facts we cannot get away from. Those in and of the world are ‘loved’. Those in, but not of the world, are Christ’s and hated.

      Delete
    3. Keep the divide and conquer strategy going,it's working out well.
      Traditional Catholics are more divided now than in any other era.

      Delete
    4. The consistency, the Rock, the reliable One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith is so evident. What is also wearying, yet edifying, is those think ecumenism is 'division'. 'Catholics' are not divided. Would be Catholics, because of the poison are confused (http://www.sgg.org/2017/11/19/it-all-hangs-together/). Lord have mercy, that we see. You, me, and those for whom We are bound to pray. Our Lady, Hammer of Heresies, intercede.

      PS Dude who runs this site, why not post the 'gallows humour' thing? Before the English antichrists crushed the Scots, the Scottish Catholics (some great poets called the Makars) were brilliant at flouting falsehood with words; and gallows humour was a big part of the hardship.

      Delete
    5. To clarify, ecumenism, as espoused by Lucifer via VII, is most certainly divisive and antichrist. Catholicism is not divisive. There are scatterers, and gatherers.

      Delete
  14. PS. to the previous response about all the wearisome, yet edifying happenings, I will concede that the lack of humour descending upon us in the Great Apostasy is grievous indeed. Gallows humour is a thoroughly Catholic virtue.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Viterbo you keep going on & on and it's losing me.
    The Una Cum controversy is self created by men with no office or jurisdiction from the Church.
    Sgg.org and Bishop's Dolan/Sanborn ARE NOT the Vatican in exile.
    All those prelates accomplish is divide & conquer in one of the worst times of the Planet.
    How about trying to reach and convert the millions upon millions of lost Souls instead of writing academic prose which only divides and fractures the extremely small remnant of true Catholics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must agree with you.
      Viterbo,
      As “the dude who runs this site” (“DWRTS” for short), my readers know that I try to follow the evidence where it leads in this time of the Great Apostasy. I hold allegiance to the Church and not to any particular clergy NONE of whom possess jurisdiction. We must attempt to get together or we will remain in this state. Many clergy adopt the “follow me or die” attitude on issues where faithful Traditionalists can disagree. This plays into the hands of the infernal enemy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  16. Dear Introibo, this is completely off topic, but I thought you or the readers might be interested in the following link. Perhaps I'm the last cab off the rank, and everyone else already knows of this site, but just in case, I'd like to put it up here. It is John S. Daly's excellent sedevacantist site, Romeward.

    https://romeward.com

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is pope of mr. Gray, a wicked denier of last things.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/worlds-end-update.-the-last-things-according-to-francis

    ReplyDelete
  18. To Anonymous who said: The Una Cum controversy is self created by men

    Yeah. With God is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those clerics who created this controversy have no office or jurisdiction from the Church.
      You keep ignoring this point.
      All they're doing is dividing and fracturing the already divided Traditional Catholic Chapels!
      Please stop there is already enough division!!

      Delete
    2. We should all pray for
      the Thuc line clergy and SSPV to accept each other and work together.
      We should also pray both SSPX camps accept the Sedevacantist opinion and work with Thuc and SSPV chapels.
      For the valid Duarte-Costa line clergy that's available (without any Anglican orders disrupting apostolic succession) we should pray they accept Traditional Catholicism.
      Enough with the arguing, division,insults,etc...
      We need unity not a non-stop Catholic version of National Enquirer.

      Delete
  19. You wrote: "Moreover, there was a de facto interregnum for 51 years during the Great Western Schism from 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff. Prior to this, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or none) could be the true pope. Which one was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit? Was the Church a "three headed monster" during this time? If you chose wrongly (in an age of limited education with no Internet or daily papers) are you "schismatic" and damned to Hell? There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith."

    I find this argument a bit weak, since there actually was a valid reigning pontiff during all this time. So the argument that there was "no pope" or "interregnum" during this time is false.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If a Priest is consecrated by a married Bishop and the priest being consecrated has no idea the bishop is married,would that priest being consecrated be considered a valid Bishop?
    (The married Bishop had a novus ordo annulment and was married just once.He lived as a hermit after annulment for 20 yrs.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Validly is not affected by the marital status of the Consecrating prelate. As long as the bishop uses the piper matter, form, and has the intention of doing what the Church does, the consecration is valid, even if the priest knows of the marital status.

      It would, however, be irregular.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you for responding.
      One more question if possible?
      Is it sinful for clerics to receive Conditional Ordination and/or Consecration if they've already received holy orders in Traditional rites from a valid Bishop?

      Delete
    3. The church requires a presumption of validity every time a Catholic clergyman performs a sacrament. To repeat Holy Orders, as in the case you just mentioned, WOULD be a mortal sin of sacrilege UNLESS there is a strong theological reason for doing so that can be proven in the external forum. For example, if there are priest witnesses who assert (under oath) that the consecrating bishop omitted part of the form of the sacrament, or garbled the words so they were incoherent, this would be enough to overcome the presumption of validity and require a conditional ordination or consecration. In the absence of a compelling theological reason, it would be a mortal sin of sacrilege to have a conditional ordination and/or consecration.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. The church requires a presumption of validity every time a Catholic clergyman performs a sacrament. To repeat Holy Orders, as in the case you just mentioned, WOULD be a mortal sin of sacrilege UNLESS there is a strong theological reason for doing so that can be proven in the external forum. For example, if there are priest witnesses who assert (under oath) that the consecrating bishop omitted part of the form of the sacrament, or garbled the words so they were incoherent, this would be enough to overcome the presumption of validity and require a conditional ordination or consecration. In the absence of a compelling theological reason, it would be a mortal sin of sacrilege to have a conditional ordination and/or consecration.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Thank you God bless you.

      Delete
    6. I'm sorry but I have 1 more question.
      Would it be a mortal sin for a valid Catholic bishop (Thuc or pre-June 1968) to
      conditionally consecrate this Bishop?(sub-conditione)

      Delete
    7. A conditional ordination and/or consecration must be based on a serious theological reason as I explained previously. To perform a conditional consecration "just to be sure" would be a sacrilege without a serious theological reason for doing so.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Ok thank you very much Sir.
      God bless.

      Delete