Monday, March 26, 2018

The Profits Of Doom


 Fear is a great motivator, and what could be more frightening than the end of the world? Fear can cause people to do things they otherwise would not; like donate money to the "prophet" who warned you about (or can save you from) the coming onslaught. Such was the case in 2011, when Protestant preacher Harold Camping told everyone that the end of the world would definitely take place on May 21st of that year. Forget that Our Lord Himself said, "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (St. Matthew 24:36). Harold Camping was "special"--he knew the exact month, day, and year of the Second Coming. Needless to say, that never happened, and hundreds of people quit their jobs, gave away all their possessions (mostly to Camping and his "Family Radio" station), and waited for the end that never arrived.Camping revised the date to October 21st, and when that day came and went, many of his disillusioned followers were now homeless and jobless. Camping never even attempted restitution. He met his own end in December of 2013, at age 92.

"Fr." Nicholas Gruner (d.2015), was the Harold Camping of "conservative" Vatican II sect members, and unfortunately, of some calling themselves "Traditionalists." I use the term "Apparitionist" for those who exalt private revelations (approved by the Church or not) over Church doctrine. "Fr." Gruner has been derided as the "CEO of the Fatima Industry," and with good cause. In this post, I will shed light upon Gruner, his skewed theology, and his never ending quest for donations to "save the world." (N.B. I personally believe in the apparitions at Fatima. I wear the Five-Fold Scapular, pray the Rosary daily, and attend First Saturday Mass when I can. However, I refuse to quibble over the "true meaning" of alleged quotes attributed to Our Lady, and I will never exalt a private revelation over Church teaching, which we need to know and follow now more than ever).

Meet "Fr." Nicholas Gruner

 Nicholas Gruner was born in Montreal, Canada, the fifth of seven children in 1942. He obtained a post-graduate degree in theology from Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. He was invalidly ordained a Vatican II sect "priest" on August 22, 1976. Two years after his "ordination" he began publishing The Fatima Crusader, a magazine dedicated to promoting recitation of the Most Holy Rosary. By the early 1980s, Gruner changed the focus to consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested by Our Lady of Fatima. This would be the beginning of his unrelenting promotion of himself as the only one who understood the "true meaning" of Fatima, and how he needed money to "make the bishops and pope" consecrate Russia, thereby saving the world from catastrophe. 

Gruner became convinced (in good faith or not) that world peace and the prevention of calamities could only be prevented by a collegial  consecration of Russia (specifically named) done by the "pope" and all his "bishops" at the same time in their various cathedrals. Anything else was "against Fatima," and could not save the world. In Gruner's own words, "I have taken it upon myself to defend the truth of the message of Fatima, with a full-time apostolate dedicated entirely to promoting and defending this Message." (See Crucial Truths To Save Your Soul by "Fr." Nicholas Gruner, Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, NY, [2014], pg. 17).

I remember reading the Fatima Crusader back in the mid-1980s, at the height of Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. It scared me very much at the time, and I was wondering if he could be right about impending doom via nuclear war. The world was very evil, and punishment from God would be well-deserved. Every issue told the readers that "time is running out" to prevent all out thermonuclear war, and only Gruner's efforts to "get the pope and bishops to perform the consecration of Russia" could save us. It was never made clear to me exactly how he was "the chosen one" who understood what Fatima really meant, even when his own "pope" apparently didn't understand. It became evident as the years passed, and the dire warnings intensified, that Gruner was little more than an "ecclesiastical chicken little," asking for money by using scare tactics.

 In 1989, his magazine asked readers to, "Let Our Lady's hand guide you to write the largest check possible" in giving him a donation. That statement was the last straw. I threw the magazine in the garbage and refused to read it any longer, although I still kept some of his material from that era as a reference for what can happen when you make apparitions into "dogma." Gruner claimed about 400,000 readers and if they only contributed an average of five dollars each per year, that would be a cool two million dollars! How much does it cost to "petition" the "bishops" and the "pope"? Here's but a sample of Gruner's fear-mongering:

"Many bishops to this day do not know about the urgent necessity to consecrate Russia immediately. They do not know: 
(1) That world peace and the literal existence of various nations depends on it.

(2) That millions will die if it is delayed much longer.

(3) That the salvation of many souls depends on it.

(4) The we here in the "free" world will be overcome and enslaved by Communist Russia if it is not done in time." (See World Enslavement or Peace...It's Up To You, Gruner and other Fatima experts, The Fatima Crusader, Ontario, Canada [1990], pg. 45; quotes around the word free in the original, and the authors call themselves "Fatima experts"). 

Gruner kept questionable company. I had the displeasure of speaking with his friend and supporter Fr. Michael Jarecki (ordained 1944, d. 2012), a staunch Feeneyite and a member of "The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" in New Hampshire. In the early 1990s, I spoke with Fr. Jarecki on the phone about Fatima and Vatican II. He assured me that there was nothing wrong with either the Novus Bogus "mass," or Vatican II; there were just "abuses." He claimed anyone who thought differently was incapable of reading the Latin text of the documents and terribly "uneducated." When I asked him if  that would apply to my spiritual father, canonist Fr. Gommar DePauw, who attended the Council as a peritus (i.e., a theological expert) and spoke Latin fluently, he said Fr. DePauw was "touched in the head" and angrily hung up on me! 

Gruner was not a Feeneyite by the end of his life (if he ever was one, I'm not certain). His "apostolate" was also praised by the "chameleon" himself, Malachi Martin (for more on Martin, see my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-chameleon.html). 

Was Gruner "Suspended" By His Own Vatican II Sect?

 I would get phone calls from Gruner's people asking for donations. As soon as I said I was a Traditionalist, they hung up. In the early 1990s, they changed their tune and said Gruner celebrates the Latin Mass (it would be invalid regardless since he was invalidly ordained in the 1968 Vatican II rite of ordination). When I pressed the issue and asked about the heresy inherent in Vatican II, they hung up. (Do you notice a certain pattern? In the days before cell phones and iPhones, my right ear was ringing a lot!)

Gruner was making a lot of money, and becoming very popular in certain circles. He tried to be "traditional" yet remain attached to Vatican II. He started to get the Vatican II clergy angry. Here is a brief, but accurate, chronology of his troubles with the Modernist Vatican:

1976 – Bishop Pasquale Venezia ordained Fr. Gruner. He refused to serve the diocese of Avellino and left for Canada without permission.

1978 – Bishop Venezia sent Gruner a letter saying that he could remain in Canada if a local bishop incardinated him. None did and no applications were made.Bishop Gerardo Pierro ordered him to return to his diocese. Fr. Gruner did not answer his letter.Cardinal Innocenti, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, wrote to him and ordered him to return to Italy and his bishop. Fr. Gruner refused.

1989 – Bishop Gerardo Pierro again sent Gruner a letter ordering him to return or find another bishop in 30 days.

1990 – Fr. Gruner went to Avellino and met with Bishop Pierro to give him time to seek incardination. This was granted but two years later he still had not started the process or found a receptive bishop.

1992 – Cardinal Sanchez and Archbishop Sepe stated in L’Osservatore Romano that Fr. Gruner and his Apostolate had not been approved by the competent ecclesiastical authorities (October 14, 1992).

1994 – The new bishop of Avellino issued a decree declaring Fr. Gruner a vagus priest. Such priests have no faculties and cannot publicly offer the sacraments. (See https://bloggerpriest.com/2014/03/28/the-sad-case-of-the-fatima-priest/).

Gruner appealed, and according to EWTN, also in union with his own Vatican II sect, "...the Congregation for the Clergy [decided] his priestly faculties (jurisdiction permitting celebration of the sacraments) have been suspended and his appeal of that suspension rejected by the highest Church court, the Apostolic Signature. However, I understand that he continues to publicly celebrant (sic) the sacraments, justifying it by arguments for the canonical invalidity of his suspension. What efforts he is making to settle this matter is not known."
(See https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/fr_gruner.htm)

Gruner: Recognize and Resist By Necessity

Gruner's entire "apostolate" revolved around the "pope" consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize if he became sedevacantist, his whole raison d'être collapses. Therefore, he became another SSPX, and parroted their whole theological line of off-kilter reasoning. "We are persecuted unjustly by true and valid bishops and a real pope, so we can resist them."  Gruner went so far as to use all the arguments of the SSPX.

In his book, Crucial Truths, he discusses the "fact" that Vatican II was "only pastoral" and not binding. On page 51, Gruner cites to a general audience held by Montini (Paul VI) on January 6, 1966 in which he said, "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility." There's a big problem. His citation does not end with a period. The rest of what Paul VI said (and Gruner conveniently omitted) was this:

"...but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme Ordinary Magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) Magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents." (Emphasis mine). If Montini was pope, all of Vatican II is binding on you and must be believed. On pages 57-60, he brings up the argument that the documents of Vatican II are not heretical, but only ambiguous. This is patently false. However, even if I were to concede, ad arguendo, that the documents were merely ambiguous this is enough to condemn the Council!

The Church teaches that God doesn't allow ambiguity to be taught by the Church:

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos,January 6, 1928:

"The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on Earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever in tact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." (Emphasis mine)

Pope Pius VI taught in Auctorum Fidei, of August 28, 1794:

"In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it. "

Private Revelations become..."Public Prophesies"?

 In his book World Enslavement(cited above), we read on page 105, "There may be 'private revelations' communicated to individuals for their personal good. But there are also 'public prophesies' given to the Church, affecting its conduct and the conduct of its members." From whence does this idea come? A Vatican II "theologian" and a "cardinal" are cited. What does the Church teach about private revelations? Pope Benedict XIV taught, "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pious belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II). What does the Church say about "public prophesies"? Nothing. It was made up.

Finally, Gruner seems to have settled on "resignationism" before his death. There is reason to believe he thought Ratzinger's resignation was invalid so he is still "pope," not Bergoglio. This would make him popular in "conservative" and (sadly) even some "Traditionalist" circles, while he can still have a "pope" to perform a consecration. He told people to stay "in the Church (sic)" regardless.(See http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2017/08/fr-gruner-in-october-2014-man-must-be.html). 

Some Serious Problems with Gruner's Position

  •  With all his doomsday predictions, we are still here. He never set a date, but "millions will die" if the consecration "is delayed much longer." This went on from circa 1982 with more and more urgent and dire predictions for the world until just before his death (2015).  
  • He constantly asked for money
  • In spite of all the money he took in and publications he distributed, how could he claim with a straight face that "many bishops" and the so-called "pope" don't know "the truth"?
  • His own sect rejected him and suspended him
  • He adopts the "recognize and resist" position to defend his theory
  • If the post-V2 "popes" are legitimate, wouldn't they know what to do? How does Gruner know more (and know better) than his own alleged "pope"?
  • He makes up a novel theological idea of "public prophesies" 
  • Told people to "remain in the Church (sic)" whether Ratzinger or Bergoglio is "pope"--keeping people OUT of the True Church and in the Vatican II sect
  • His idea of a consecration followed by peace or else the annihilation of millions is very difficult to square with the Apocalypse. The "Third Secret" was spoken of with "Three Days of Darkness;"another scary private revelation (See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/09/shedding-some-light-on-three-days-of.html)
  • The idea of bishops being "collegial" in the sense of needing to work with the pope to make something efficacious, or that something is lacking in the pope without the bishops, is the false theology of Vatican II 

Conclusion

We may be in the end times, but I don't know this for sure. Don't fall for fear-mongering clerics who seek donations. Stay close to the sacraments. We will have to meet God either at the Second Coming, or when we die, so always be ready to meet your Maker. The teaching of the Church is what matters, not private revelation, and not even when approved by the Church. If any Apparitionist tries to scare you, stay strong and don't listen because as Our Lord said of His return, "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (St. Matthew 24:36).

That "Fr." Gruner was a false prophet (making lots of profits) is evident in that he kept saying "the end is near," yet here we are. Remember the words of Scripture, "Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him." (Deuteronomy 18:22). 

93 comments:

  1. About Fatima taking away the part of devotions, such punishments have already occurred. If the Third Secret is the general apostasy of the nations, then it has already occurred. Therefore, taking away salutary devotions, Fatima is in the past, not in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That could very well be true, my friend. I won’t debate over the exact meanings of apparitions. What’s important, as I realize you know, is the teachings of the Church!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Exact. I speak of the historical facts arising from this Apparition that have already occurred and of the Pentecostal dispensationalistic scatological attachment that many traditional Catholics still have in it today. It seems even a kind of millennialism, as if Russia were to turn back its errors only because a future pope would consecrate it to Our Lady. And all the problems of the modern world would be solving this. Why Heaven, then, since we would live an era of peace and charity already here? Poor souls who put their hopes not in God more in the immediate response to their immanent sufferings and disappointments!

      Delete
  2. What's really strange to me is that he could make people think these prophecies of Our Lady had not yet been fulfilled. Our Lady said in the early 20th century that "millions of people would die" and "many nations would be annihilated" if people did not do penance. Fr. Gruner went around talking as if those two calamities have never happened. Did he not hear of World War Two?

    The warning was given to the human race, was rejected, and the promised chastisement has been received. Fatima is still a message of Our Lady, but I see no reason to think any part of that message, request or promise is still pending in any way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. There are also questionable statements reported such as “Portugal wiil always keep the Faith” (and variations of those words). In what sense? Portugal has become as pagan as the the rest of Europe and I don’t believe there are more Traditionalists there, in sheer numbers or proportionally. The spiritual message to reform oneself, pray the Rosary, etc is great. The rest is behind us—at least in my opinion.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I believe Portugal is symbolic there. That represents the small number of Catholics who would still remain faithful, given how small, however, this nation is valued and was instrumental in evangelizing the New World, Asia, and Africa centuries ago. The country actually actually got lost in apostasy like the others.

      Delete
  3. Don’t forget his promotion of the Skver rabbi, Mayer Schiller, in his movie ‘Heaven's Key to Peace’, Gruner’s conection to Bp. Williamson or his trip to Bayside, New York. What a sad, confused, and tormented person.
    http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2017/08/fr-gruner-goes-to-bayside-new-york.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the information!!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Speaking of Vatican 2 & Paul VI,this brief vid is absurd.
    https://youtu.be/5GA7eIEnygg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Above video link is entitled
      "Tumblar House Vatican 2"

      Delete
    2. It’s absurd. They deny the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Those two pseudo-experts couldn’t pass a first year seminary course pre-Vatican II.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. What I will never understand is the Novus Ordo Indult types (Nicholas Gruner being one of them) who obey the 1962 missal yet have zero problem with the new sacramental forms starting on June.18 1968 with revised (and extremely doubtful)
    "New Rite of Holy Orders."
    Their general ideology is
    "New Mass bad and everything else post 1965 is OK!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ve noticed that too. Strange, but so is their muddled theology and confused mindset.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. What did Gruner do with all the profits he swindled from people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question Joann! With all that money where did it end up? I don’t know, but it wasn’t for “petitions” to the “bishops and the pope “!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Here in Brazil this is called "Theology" of Prosperity. Practiced by Pentecostal "pastors" like Edim Macedo, leader of the "Universal Church of the Kingdom of God". Here is a modernist priest, Reginaldo Manzzoti, who does the same. That is, it is using God as a lucrative pagan idol.

      Delete
  7. Didn't John Vennari do some show with Mr. Gruner? I never could understand the Fatima obsession. It is not an article of faith necessary for our salvation, yet so many trads believe that we still need to consecrate Russia before she spreads her errors. Can you say that train already left the station.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Yes, Mr. Vennari And Gruner had collaborated on Fatima by doing shows together. They have both gone to judgement. I can only hope they died in the state of grace and were saved in the end. The train did indeed leave the station, but that doesn’t prevent dishonest conductors from trying to get as many as they can aboard the next train to nowhere at a hefty price.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. Dear Introibo, thanks for the article. Like Tom A above, I never got the Fatima obsession. Wear the brown scapular and pray the Rosary each day. What else can any of us do about it?

    All the guessing about secrets and the rest is pure speculation of things that are not public knowledge. We can't be bound by it. The teaching of the Church on the other hand is as obvious as the city on the hill, and that's all we are bound to and will be judged by in the final analysis.

    By the way, do you have an article on home alone sedevacantism? Or would you consider writing on the subject if you haven't done so before?

    Thanks and God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the kind words my friend! Good to hear from you again! As to Home Aloners, I did a post on them and the “lack of jurisdiction” argument here:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-church-can-supply-jurisdiction-but.html?m=1

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. Rev. Gruner was possessed by the devil. I know this because Fred & Bob Dimond made a video about Gruner in which they proved he was possessed by analyzing pictures of the unnatural curvature of his mouth. Yes, the curvature of his mouth gave the devil away. If you look at pictures of Gruner, he always has one side of his mouth higher than the other side and this is definitely a sign of diabolical possession.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sad thing is that I don’t know if you’re joking or telling the truth! Lol!!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I'm telling the truth. This is either on a video or an article of theirs. I'm sure one of their disciples who trolls this blog can dig it up for us.

      Delete
    3. Well, Gruner must surely have been demon possessed as the Dimonds stated. That “curvature” of the mouth evidently attracted wives of Mafia members in Canada who were his primary donors. (I read this in two different articles)!

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 5:13,
      I dug up the article on Gruner and the Dimonds. However, I am not a troll. I don’t like the Dimonds.
      mostholyfamilymonastery/catholicchurch/fr- Nicholas-Gruner- dies- of-a-heart-attack/#.WrpGRFopCHA

      Delete
    5. Wow! More alleged “demon possession.” The Dimonds are themselves the greatest allies of Satan.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. It goes without saying that the "two articles" were online. Can you vouch for the credibility of the websites and the authors and for the accuracy of the content, JoAnn? Can you link us to the articles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon@7:14,
      I hope it goes without saying that I was not being serious about the Dimond’s and “demon possession”. I do not believe he was demon possessed.
      As far as the articles go, I cannot vouch for anything. I can only tell you what I read and where I read them. The following are links to the two articles:
      olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/on_Fr_Gruner_1_pdf
      (Paragraph No. 2 talks about what some alleged ex-employees supposedly said).

      unitypublishing.com/apparitions/FATHER%20NICHOLAS%20GRUNER.html
      (See Paragraph entitled “History”).

      Delete
    2. JoAnn, For some reason both links came up as "404," but not to worry. The problem may be at my end. ?

      Delete
  11. I worked for Fr. Gruner for a few years. I can attest that he lived a life of austerity and simplicity, The first time I met him at his home, we had leftovers for dinner. He was a very frugal man,

    The money that was received went into publishing the Fátima Crusader and the many books published by the Center, such as Frere Michel and Frere Francois books among so many others. He mailed them for free to his supporters and also to every bishop of the world, The postage costs alone were enormous,

    Some of the other areas where the money went were the Fatima conferences where he paid the bishops travel and lodging expenses, and also, he employed well over 100 people for writing, editing graphic design for publications, and also tv production workers to handle the TV show.

    I can attest to you that he did not live in any sense a lavish lifestyle, quite the opposite, and to the best of my knowledge, all of the money went to the cause. He drove an old car, never ate out, etc. if you worked for him you were either a volunteer with a small stipend, or paid a meager wage, No one, from maagnement to technical staff to every other worker made any real money from working there. The dedicated Catholics were not there for the money, and gave their time and a lot of it for the cause of Our Lady of Fatima. As volunteers, we were paid a very small stipend, and the technical workers were paid a reasonable wage for their work.

    Fr. Gruner’s inner circle were all volunteers, making a trivial stipend, His executive director, #2 in the organization under him, also lived a frugal life, drove an old car and lived in a small apartment in an old house.

    I am not going to get into the other aspects of your post here, but I hope that this will clear the record on the money part. All of what I wrote here can be verified by any of the volunteer Catholics who worked for Fr. Gruner at the Fatima Center.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough anonymous but can you PROVE his crooked mouth was not a manifestation of diabolical possession?
      I'd like to see proof to the contrary because Freddy and Bobby Dimond have a strong argument based on pictures.

      Delete
    2. For anyone who knew Fr. Gruner, such as myself, the allegation is just plain stupid. He showed absolutely no signs of demonic possession. There are all sorts of genetic causes for deformities, and it’s rash and ignorant to say that a deformity is proof of possession by a demon.

      Delete
    3. I agree the charge of demonic possession is absurd. I believe anon@11:21 was being sarcastic regarding the misfit “monks” of New York.

      Anon@ 10:55:
      Thank you for a charitable reply with an intelligent point of view. However, even if what you say is true, that just makes Gruner a disturbed individual (not possessed).

      He is putting out massive amounts of literature and paying bishops to travel for what purpose? To exalt a private revelation? Yet he can still maintain that the “bishops and pope” don’t know the truth.

      He was friends with Feeneyites, and sensationalists like Malachi Martin. He used SSPX arguments to persuade others he wasn’t suspended. He attended the evil and false Bayside “apparitions” Of “Our Lady Of the Roses. He kept saying the end was near for over 30 years.

      It was wasted money on scare tactics and kept people in the Vatican II sect. Whether he really bought into his own baloney is known but to God. Objectively, he was a detriment to the Faith.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. Introibo --- Why did
    you post the ridiculous reply of an anon poster to a seemingly sincere post about Gruner?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it was misplaced sarcasm. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have published it, but if something like that happens again, I will not be publish it. I’m human and make errors in judgement like everyone else. As you can see I have a sincere reply.

      Mea culpa,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I am the poster. It had nothing to do with Gruner. The Dimonds did write an article that featured pics of his mouth for the purpose of mentioning that it was a sign of demonic possession. I'm sure you can find it on their website. As for Gruner? I know a lot about his fraudulent enterprises but he is dead now so I won't get into details. I also know his disciples were all brainwashed fools to the degree of the Manson family. Don't expect to hear anything but tales of his sanctity from these sorry fools. They were too stupid to realize the great con, even after Sister Lucy gave a public interview and confirmed that JPII's consecration was accepted by heaven. That should have been the end for the Fatima Fraudster but by that time he was much too big to fail.

      Delete
    3. Anon@5:58,
      You talk tough against Gruner, as do I, but without the facts to back it up. Please give specifics. Also telling is your reference to Wojtyla. He performed the consecration? Ergo, you are not Sedevacantist?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. I have thought for a long while that the reason people go looking into private revelations etc is simple.

    For the past 50 odd years, nothing but ambiguous, verbose drivel has come from the Vatican. They have conditioned ordinary people that the (purported) Church has nothing really at all to say, and it's not worth listening to.

    Reading the pre-Vatican II popes and approved theologians is a real eye opener. Unfortunately, most never go back this far, as they have been conditioned to think there's no point dredging through what they think will be merely more of the same garbage they have been fed from the Vatican. So they look to private revelations for clarity and certainty.

    The damage these modernist mongrels have done to the good name of the Church is incalculable. Long after they've gone to their reward, and the Church has come out from the eclipse (if God permits this to end) the ordinary person trying to be a Catholic will not be able to trust the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your insight is incisive as always Mike! I wish we had more logical Traditionalists like you. What you wrote is another reminder that only God can end this mess. We are all—to one degree or another—-Victims of Vatican II.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. Introibo @ 4:16 pm

    No worries. I understand. Thanks for replying.

    Any day where there's an environment on a Catholic blog where people can express their point of view without fear of a barrage of ad hominem is a good day. This place has the opportunity to set the example.

    It's great that you're keen to do the right thing and post what's submitted. I know it's difficult to decide what to allow at times; it depends on how you like to run your blog. To my mind, criticism is acceptable whereas ridicule isn't. If one can't articulate their arguments without resorting to pettiness, sniping, ridiculing, sarcasm etc., it's they who have the problem. However, at times some ad hom is well placed and acceptable. Some blogs allow wholesale insults/ad hom. Generally it lowers the tone. It can lead to "tribalism" and a hostile atmosphere which is off-putting to newcomers. If this is the case usually a situation develops where there are "protected" bloggers or "blog owners' pets." This type of blog or forum usually fails.

    Feel free not to post this comment if you so choose.

    Have a nice evening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the feedback. I try to foster comments from all that will add to the discussion. Blasphemy and vulgarity are never permitted. I try to publish everything else. Obviously, I don’t want personal attacks and people who just want to argue for the sake of arguing, but knowing exactly where to draw the line can be difficult at times.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  15. Introibo - This question is off topic. I have noticed lately signs for ”Taize” being offered at various Novus Ordo and Protestant Churches in the area. I realize that it must be something pagan. Do you know anything about it or what it is exactly?
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Taize is an ecumenical monastic community that believes all so-called Christian sects are equal and lead to salvation. One member of Taize was on the Commission that composed the Novus Bogus “mass” along with 5 Protestant ministers!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Therefore, Taize is some ecumenical prayer service type abomination!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  16. Introibo - This person (Dr. Chojnowski) is taking cash for a "Sister Lucy investigation" being performed by a private investigator. Have you heard of him or this investigation? Can you give us a rundown on Chojnowski? Thanks.


    http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/full-investigation-after-reviewing.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Chojnowski holds a doctorate in philosophy from Fordham University and is an SSPX adherent. He writes well and has some good and interesting things to say. However, the whole “Sr. Lucy investigation” is more of the same “only Fatima can save us.”

      The only upshot would be to prove a coverup that the Third Secret was about the Great Apostasy. As Traditionalists we can pretty much agree that this was most likely the real secret, and Ratzinger lied when he “revealed” it. To those who are not Sedevacantist, it would only lead to more divisiveness about apparitions, and I really don’t see anyone converting from this endeavor. Save your money!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, Thank you for your assessment. I can't disagree. I don't know much about him, except that at times he (Dr. Chojnowski) seems to have a very conflicted position.

      Delete
  17. All errors begin with a false assumption. The Novus Ordite begins his descent into error by misunderstanding the meaning of "the gates if Hell will not prevail." For them, no matter what they hear or see from their clergy, it is all filtered thru this false assumption so everything that they hear that sounds like heresy must go thru a process of adjustment to sanitize the error and place it along the Catholic continuum. The SSPX resister has been conditioned that sedevacantism cannot be true and Abp Lefebrve was justified in his disobedience. There is no higher truth for them other than this. This was Abp Lefebrve's position so it must be theirs too. They will simply let the modernists destroy all that is Catholic while they maintain that somehow they must resist their authority. They have painted themselves into a corner that they find growing smaller by the day. Likewise, the Fatimista is a creature that has faith that one day a Pope will consecrate Russia. That's it. Anything that seems opposed to that plan has to be false. A sedevacantist, on the other hand, starts with the faith as handed down by Christ thru the Apostles. Anything we hear or see or read that contradicts previous Church teachings is automatically assumed as not coming from the Church and those offering such contradictions themselves cannot be of the Church. I believe the sede view is the proper one because it is the only one that preserves the faith first. The other false assumptions preserve something else rather than the faith. Fatima for instance preserves the hope of a consecration of Russia. The NO preserves the believe in a Church organization enduring thru the ages. And the SSPX preserves their justification for disobedience.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Fatima schmatima. Was Gruner deluded? Is 'Introibo' deluded? A couple of commenters invoke the Dimonds as a source (of anything other than self-perpetuating falsehood is useless because, yep, they are definitely deluded - their website shows them to have a nail in their religious foot called Wojtyla and they spin on it.) We live in times where the Mass has mostly disappeared. 99% of those presenting as Catholic Priests and 100% of those parading 'popes' are false. Gruner is dead - R.I.P. Ferrara and Matt are still alive, however. The SSPX is still very much alive. The Novus Ordo is the most clever version of Judaeo-Protestantism yet devised by Freemasonry (y'know the anti-Christ Globalist dream of Voltaire?). The very name 'Fatima' has been no small cause for Novus Ordo adherents' sympathy for the Islamic devil. The 'very Christian idea', is continuing to be wiped out by directing one's gaze to the haze of Novus Ordo ‘entertainment’. Meanwhile, how many folks who comment here, and the site owner included, adhere to this truth: https://inveritateblog.com/2018/03/27/a-frequently-asked-question/

    But I guess individual discernment of the lay outweighs the discernment of Real Bishops who carry the cross in a world and time, when it has all but been summarily rejected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I endorse the Faith as always. I am not an Apparitionist. I agree with most of what Bishop Sanborn has stated in your link. I do not completely agree with his assessment of the SSPX.

      Whom are the "Real Bishops"? Does Bp. Sanborn have Ordinary jurisdiction to teach? Unfortunately, in this time of the Great Apostasy, we must make our own Catholic way the best we can. Bp. Dolan said the starvation and dehydration of Terri Schiavo was moral!! No, it was MURDER. Proof that WE must learn to discern and not follow bishops without teaching authority.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. 'I-A-A-D' - you don't need the Church, you need a secular Judge to put your mind to rest.

      Delete
    3. PS. Surely, dude/ette who runs this site, realises that politics exploiting the 'right to die', are not doing it for individuals...Kyrie eleison. Someone in a gone state is whatever the pundits will make. Shame on you. Your stance, is Protestant. Lets shuffle off every 'authority' and make the unknown handler who posts as introibo ad altare Dei the authority - from what I've heard, a secular lawyer.

      Delete
    4. I've never been able to understand the claim that Terri Schiavo was murdered. If someone is unconscious and on life support, and their doctor believes there is very little chance they will ever recover, the normal thing for people to do is to pull the plug. Not only is this not murder, but it is not considered morally reprehensible by either Catholic theology, the civil law, or any other system of philosophy or religion that I know of. This happens to hundreds, maybe thousands of people every single day, and I've never heard of anyone objecting to it except in this one case. The whole thing smells very fishy to me. I think that whole tragic story was used for emotional manipulation purposes by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Fortunately for me, I don't get my knowledge of Catholic moral principles from the likes of them.

      Delete
    5. For the correct application of Catholic principles (as stated by Fr DePauw as well) See Dr. Thomas Droleskey:

      http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/ten-years-later

      Delete
  19. I agree with Introibo, except that I don't agree with anything Bp. Sanborn is saying regarding valid priests and the reception of *private* sacraments.

    "Proof that WE must learn to discern and not follow bishops without teaching authority."

    Hear, hear!

    Introibo has just shown an example of a sede bishop (Bishop Dolan) concluding incorrectly.

    To blindly follow bishops without authority to teach is folly in the extreme.

    ReplyDelete
  20. PS. Dude/ette, no one knows who the hell you are. Only some of your views, and that those views cast shadows over the Catholic Bishopry that is actual. You use media tripe to rip against the Catholic clergy that is. I really don't know what your gripe is. With regards to some old case you obsess over, if you Introiadre, end up in a situation where you can't keep yourself alive without a drip in a comatose state for more than a decade, ask me what should be done. Then it is up to God.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "To blindly follow bishops without authority to teach is folly in the extreme." Hmm. Which Bishops would those be? The Bishops of Rome till 1958? Oh, hear hear, to the anonymous NYC lawyer who pontificates as Introibo AD. Hear hear. Give your real name, your actual status in 'Catholic' life, if you have one, or practice a little more discretion.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In point of facts...who the hell are you, Introibo etc.? If you cannot announce yourself before Christ, let alone the world...My name is Sonia. I am a Catholic. There's a start. You next...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dearest "viterbo," which equates to nothing more than "anonymous",

      Introibo has shared p-l-e-n-t-y about himself; far more than should be expected. He is to be judged on what he writes, period. He owes you nothing.

      Sorry to say, but you seem unbalanced and a tad judgmental - not to mention rather ignorant. There's no way I'm sharing my information here. And I'm positive I speak for the majority as far as that goes.

      You commenced the conversation by stating that Bp. Sanborn's opinion on a certain matter is "truth." That is risible. Introibo responded by giving you an example of a sede bishop who, when it came to the Schiavo case, had cotton in his head. He then went on to caution people to be careful when it comes to the pontifications of the sede bishops whom have no jurisdiction. All VERY reasonable. He DIDN'T insult them by opining, for example, that in a real ecclesiastical structure they may not even have become priests.

      So chillax, and have a happy Easter.

      Delete
    2. @Anon 6:04
      Thank you for the great reply which basically sums up what I would have written! Happy Easter!

      @viterbo
      My arguments stand or fall on their own merits. No one knows my identity as (a) any good I do is thanks to God, and He, not I, should get the praise. I also preserve my family and friends from those who would hold my writings about the faith against them.

      I would just like to add that your position is evidently wrong, since it inevitably devolves to the laity to discern among disagreements between the Traditionalist Bishops.

      For example, Bp. Kelly and Bp. Santay hold all Thuc clergy to be dubious and refuse Communion to those who attend their churches. Do you agree? I don’t.

      Bp. McKenna was sedeprivationist. Is he right?

      CMRI uses the 1958 rubrics and Missal Of Pope Pius XII. SSPV uses 1954 rubrics and Missal Of Pope St Pius X.

      Which real bishop(s) do you follow?

      The fact is no Traditionalist bishops possess Ordinary Jurisdiction. We must discern the best we can until the hierarchy is restored or Christ returns.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  23. Well, kudos to you blogger because at least you don't do a 'mundabor' (honestly, it's wrong that you guys pick Latin liturgical phrases as blog-handles. Anyway, no more blogger pseudonyms. At the very least state where you attend Mass, if you attend Mass, or have no access to Mass. Are you a collaborator? (PS. Had to try and delete 'viterbo' name as was being used by others. Whatever.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I attend the Most Holy Sacrifice with the SSPV mostly. I also attend Ave Maria Chapel where Fr DePauw (my spiritual father) used to be pastor.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  24. Introibo,
    I find it hard to believe that you are actually siding with “Bishop” Sanborn regarding confession and valid Novus Ordo Priests. “Bishop” Sanborn cannot bind anyone. He can only give his opinion. Valid Novus Ordo Priests are “a Priest forever”. (Psalm 110) and “ordained to the Order of Melchizedek”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you put the word bishop in quotation marks? You doubt Bp. Sanborn’s validity?

      You are correct that Bp Sanborn has no Magisterial authority. You are also correct that a validity ordained priest is a priest forever, as the Sacrament of Holy Orders imprints an indelible character on the soul.

      Validity is not the issue. I agree with Bp Sanborn because the Vatican II sect is a new man-made religion. An elderly priest validly ordained has broken his Anti-Modernist Oath and sided against the Church. Outside the danger of death, it is my opinion that you would be going for the Sacraments in a false religion, which you cannot do just like you cannot confess to valid Eastern Schismatics.

      Going to an Eastern Schismatic for confession outside the danger of death would be mortally sinful, and you would come out of that confession more sinful than when you went in. It is against the First Commandment.
      Additionally, even some of the elderly valid priests in the V2 sect have been known to substantially change the words of absolution.

      I agree with Bp Sanborn on that point.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,
      I asked Fr. Cedaka a few years ago about going to Confession to a valid Novus Ordo Priest and he told me it was fine.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 1:10 am

      I'm not meaning to butt in, but I'm very interested in what you had to say. Did Fr. Cekada give you his reasoning why it's acceptable? If not, are you n a position to ask him and let us all know?

      Delete
    4. I don’t doubt that. Fr. Cekada used to consider the Thuc Consecrations invalid, then changed his position. Given his treatment of the Una Cum issue as dogma, I really don’t see how he can maintain that position today with a straight face. In his blog excoriating me for my position on the Una Cum, he claims it’s permissible to go to an SSPX priest (valid) only if there is no occasion of scandal (!)

      If he thinks it’s “scandalous” to go to Confession to a SSPX priest (not in actual communion with Bergoglio), then how can he consider it ok under any circumstances (outside danger of death) to approach any elderly V2 sect priest IN ACTUAL UNION WITH BERGOGLIO??

      Furthermore, how could you follow anything the priest told you in confession given the fact he broke his Anti-Modernist Oath??

      I hope this is not Fr’s position. He gets too much wrong these days and his opinions become “doctrine,” with anyone who disagrees being derided as sinful and benighted.

      ——Introibo

      Delete
    5. Anon @6:31,
      I was new to Tradition and didn’t know where to go to Confession as I had read various opinions on the matter. I knew enough to stay away from Priests who had been ordained in Vatican II. I knew 2 Priests ordained pre-Vatican II. I emailed Fr. Cekada and asked him if it was alright to go to them for Confession. He emailed me back and said it was fine. He did not elaborate on why it was fine. Being new to Tradition, I did not think to ask why and just took him at his word. It was about 2 years ago or more that I contacted him and I have not contacted him since. If anyone wants to judge me as being in mortal sin for going to these 2 Valid pre-Vatican II Priests for Confession, so be it. I thank God that he is my judge and not man.

      Delete
    6. Introibo,

      Firstly. Happy Easter to you and yours!

      You say that Fr. Cekada gets too much wrong these days. What do you mean? He changed his mind on the Thuc consecrations. According to you he's now got it right. His opinion is that one cannot attend una cum Masses, and he gives his reasoning. You may think he's wrong, but that's not to say he is wrong. Can you show us where he specifically stated one cannot approach a SSPX cleric for confession?

      If you think Fr. Cekada is "dogmatic," what about Bp. Sanborn on una cum? And on this latest proclamation regarding confession? Talk about dogmatic and binding people's consciences! (on both issues).

      Now, insofar following advice given in the confessional. Your flavor of the month comes into play - "discernment." Just as one would ignore the SSPX priest insofar advice to do with approaching the SSPX "Marriage Tribunal," one would similarly ignore any unorthodox advice given by the elderly priest (One should also ignore CMRI priests' advice regarding availing oneself of their Marriage Tribunal").

      Confession is a private sacrament. It's not public worship in communion with a false pope. The elderly priest caught in the Novus Ordo cannot be deemed a non-Catholic. Who's going to make that judgment? There is no potential for public scandal - it's a private sacrament. It doesn't involve assenting to Bergoglio being Pope, etc.

      I'd like to hear Fr. Cekada's reasoning as to why one is free to approach elderly priests for confession.

      And, this is not to be interpreted as an attack on you. It's merely raising some points for consideration.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @ 9:02 am
      Thank you very much for your reply. It has established that this advice you were given by Fr. Cekada was in the recent past. I think I know his rationale, but it'd be good if he wrote a short article on the subject.

      Btw, I'm judging you as a good Catholic who's setting a good example when Novus Ordites see you entering a confessional. The statistics show that Novus Ordites aren't regularly going to confession. The decline has been the case for decades. So, a Novus Ordite seeing you entering a confessional is, if anything, seeing a good example - the exact opposite of being scandalous.

      I agree with Fr. Cekada's position.

      Thank you again for your response.

      Delete
    8. Anon@9:02–You acted in good faith upon the counsel of a priest. I wouldn’t worry about sin in your case. You are very right that God—not any human—will be your Judge. Use your rightly formed conscience in obedience to the teachings of the Church in order to proceed.

      Anon@9:07

      Happy Easter to your family and you! I don’t mind disagreements and don’t take offense to these kinds of discussions which are necessary for all of us to clarify our positions in this time of the Great Apostasy.

      I agree that Bp. Sanborn has really made Dogma two opinions that cannot and do not bind anyone.

      As to Fr. Cekada:
      1. He agreed with Bp Dolan that it was moral to starve and dehydrate (read: MURDER) Teri Schiavo. Even when it was pointed out by a highly qualified doctor very familiar with PVS, that many of his basic assumptions were wrong, he did not apologize or correct his opinion. He dug his heels in and made Traditionalists look bad. To the best of my knowledge and belief, he has yet to publicly admit his (literally) deadly error.

      2. He treats the Pope Pius XII changes as “introducing erroneous principles.” This is impossible if approved by a True Pope. To say you prefer pre-1955 Rites is one thing, to declare them “inferior” is another.

      3. Making Una Cum Masses “sinful.” If True, he has yet to explain why he doesn’t condemn Bp. Pivarunas and the CMRI for telling people they can attend if no other option is available. They (in his mind) would be telling people to sin mortally.

      4. Tells people that they should follow their clergy because of their superior training. Traditionalist priests are acting in time of necessity and no one should follow anyone blindly. We can see what happens right in these comments! My spiritual father, Fr Gommar DePauw, JCD was a real approved pre-Vatican 2 canonist. Fr Cekada cannot claim such erudition.

      Fr declares that SSPX May only be approached if their is no occasion for “scandal.”

      See
      http://www.fathercekada.com/2017/09/20/some-questions-on-una-cum-masses/

      Finally, why do we shun the Vatican 2 sect? It is a false religion. Why don’t we go to Eastern Schismatics for confession? It is a false religion. Outside the danger of death, how do you justify going to Confession to either?

      Discernment would apply to intelligent people like yourself, but I fear for those not well versed and new to the Faith. Lastly, how do you feel about confessing to a man who broke his Anti-Modernist Oath? I wouldn’t confess to a cowardly traitor (at best) or an outright Modernist (at worst) If the latter, he may even substantially alter the words of absolution thereby invalidating the Sacrament.

      God Bless and Happy Easter once more!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. To anon@11:34
      So going to the V2 sect is setting a good example? Most of their priests are invalidly ordained. They will not make that distinction. Why not receive the Novus Bogus “Communion” by taking it respectfully on the tongue?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. Anon @11:34,
      Just wanted to let you know whenever I have gone to Confession with the Valid N.O. Priest that I have been the only person in the Church!! I guess I am the only sinner in the vicinity!!

      Delete
    11. I attend a traditional chapel which obeys the pre-1950 traditions & have held the sedevacantist opinion since 2011.

      I say this so people know this isn't from an apathetic Novus Ordo perspective.

      Personally,I think the world is in a state of unprecedented Godlessness and valid sacraments are becoming very difficult to find.

      With this said,if someone can find a priest or Bishop that received Holy Orders pre-August 1968,I think their absolution,if recited properly,is better than not going to confession.

      I have confessed to 3 different Novus Ordo priest's ordained in 1953,1958,and 1964.

      Draw your own conclusion but this is my view.

      Delete
    12. Introibo,

      Thank you for the Easter greeting.

      'I agree that Bp. Sanborn has really made Dogma two opinions that cannot and do not bind anyone.'

      Agreed.

      'As to Fr. Cekada:
      1. ...'

      Agreed. I believe he erred. But he hasn't publicly admitted his error because he doesn't think he is in error. I'm sure you can see the logic here.

      '2. He treats the Pope Pius XII...'

      Agreed. And it's debatable whether it's licit to use superseded rites. Canon Law would suggest it isn't.

      '3. Making Una Cum Masses “sinful.” If True, he has yet ...'

      If he's saying they're (i.e., una cum Masses) mortally sinful he's implicitly condemning CMRI for giving bad advice. We're agreed that one can't bind consciences, but on the other hand Fr. Cekada would be negligent if he didn't alert people to something he truly believes is sinful. We both know and agree that it's a very complicated issue.

      '4. Tells people that they should follow their clergy because of their superior training ... and no one should follow anyone blindly ... Fr Cekada cannot claim such erudition.'

      I haven't seen Fr. Cekada telling people that they should follow their clergy because of their superior training, so I cannot pass comment. However, we both agree that blind adherence in this day and age is beyond dangerous.

      'Fr declares that SSPX May only be approached if their is no occasion for “scandal.”'

      In light of the advice Fr. Cekada gave to the gentleman (or lady) above regarding confessing to validly ordained NO priests, it would seem that he doesn't consider procuring the sacrament of penance from either the SSPX or validly ordained priests in the NO to pose any problems of scandal.

      'Finally, why do we shun the Vatican 2 sect? It is a false religion. Why don’t we go to Eastern Schismatics for confession? It is a false religion. Outside the danger of death, how do you justify going to Confession to either?'

      We shun them, as you say, because the sacrament of Holy Eucharist has been invalidated, because we can't be sure of their holy orders etcetera (By the way, Fr. Jenkins wrote a very good article on the invalidity of the new rite of ordination).

      We don't know if they're all heretics and apostates and therefore not Catholics. Justice dictates that they are necessarily presumed to be Catholics until proven otherwise, and so as long as they have valid orders and are giving the old form of absolution which contains what are thought to be the essential words, it's a valid absolution.

      We avoid the eastern orthodox schismatics precisely because they're not Catholics. Valid, perhaps, but not Catholics.

      'Discernment would apply to intelligent people like yourself, but I fear for those not well versed and new to the Faith. Lastly, how do you feel about confessing to a man who broke his Anti-Modernist Oath? I wouldn’t confess to a cowardly traitor (at best) or an outright Modernist (at worst) If the latter, he may even substantially alter the words of absolution thereby invalidating the Sacrament.'

      We're in agreement, somewhat. I wouldn't confess to a raging SSPX Modernist (I could tell you stories) or to a valid, raging Novus Ordo Modernist (read as manifest heretic). I handled the invalidating the sacrament objection above. As far as breaking the Oath Against Modernism: How do we know they all broke the oath? The short answer is we don't. There are many reasons why priests stayed in the NO. Uncertainty, obedience, humility, ignorance etc. All this is not to say that I don't understand what you're saying and why you're saying it. I'm happy to leave our discussion at this, but if you wish to reply I'll read what you have to say and let your words on this subject be the last as far as our discourse.

      'God Bless and Happy Easter once more!

      —-Introibo'

      Likewise!

      Delete
    13. It’s always a pleasure to have a meaningful exchange of ideas with someone like yourself! I hope you will continue to read my blog and comment. People reading your comments will thereby be enriched as you add insight to the discussion.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    14. Introibo @ 3:54 pm.

      Thank you. Be assured that the feeling is mutual. I have your blog bookmarked and I read it every week. Not unlike yourself, I enjoy a good discussion so I daresay we'll chat again soon.

      All the very best!

      Delete
  25. Happy Easter Introibo! And to Sonia the Catholic, whose tone and language would indicate otherwise, Happy Easter to you as well. Perhaps were not blessed with the opportunity to assist at all Holy Week services or make a good Easter confession, as if you did, you won’t have had time to bully Introibo whilst Our Lord was resting in the tomb, and spiritually, you won’t have had the inclination to do so, either. Read the Mystical City of God, and learn from Our Lady how a lady should act. You can disagree and have questions, but resorting to such a toxic tone and harsh language is not all becoming for someone who claims to be Catholic, male or female.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy Easter my friend! To all my readers Happy Easter! (Yes, you too Sonia).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  26. "To anon@11:34
    So going to the V2 sect is setting a good example? Most of their priests are invalidly ordained. They will not make that distinction. Why not receive the Novus Bogus “Communion” by taking it respectfully on the tongue?

    —-Introibo"

    Introibo,

    I think there's been a massive misunderstanding here. I DID NOT say or suggest that going to the Novus Ordo in general is setting a good example. I thought I'd made my meaning crystal clear. I'll try again.

    When a Novus Ordite happens, without a thought in his/her mind of going to confession, to be in a church and sees a person (he doesn't know that person he sees is a traditionalist) going to confession it reminds him/her that there is such a thing as "Confession" (as I explained previously, since Vatican II participation in Confession has dropped off dramatically), and seeing that person (the traditionalist) may spark his/her conscience and as a result he/she may go to confession with this same elderly, valid priest and be absolved of his/her sins. This is a scenario which could transpire as a direct result of the GOOD EXAMPLE the (albeit hidden) traditionalist is giving. Is it clearer now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you’ve now stated it, I can understand how it could (under those limited circumstances) be a good example. However, as the person himself admits—THERE WAS NO ONE THERE! Sin doesn’t exist—along with Hell as per Bergoglio.

      Thanks for the clarification.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  27. You're welcome. And no problems, Introibo. However, I've been in the same situation many times and there have been between 3-12 hanging about. Sometimes more.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry this question is completely unrelated to topic but I can't find an answer online.

    Are traditional Catholic married couple forbidden from having marital relations after midnight Saturday night turn Sunday morning up until an hour or 2 before Holy Mass Sunday morning?

    A traditional priest once told me Catholic married couples can't have relations after midnight up until Holy Mass is over and they've returned Home.

    Sorry if this is uncomfortable but we can't find any info online.

    Thank you.
    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no restriction on the time of rendering the marital act. As long as the married couple are open to procreation there is no problem. Always ask a cleric for a citation to the authority when told something you’re unsure about or doesn’t seem right. In this case, he will not be able to cite Canon Law, the teachings of the approved theologians, or papal decrees. It’s probably something from a saint twisted out of context by a Neo-Manichean. It sounds like something Ibranyi or the Dimonds would write. I would avoid this priest, and if he belongs to a Society (CMRI, etc.) If report him to his superiors.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. If does say this in the Roman Catechism.

      Delete
    3. The Catechism Of The Council of Trent makes such a claim? Please gives the exact citation, Melanie.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  29. “Q LVI. - By him who wishes to communicate, some attention should also be paid to the Body. Nor should our preparation be confined to the soul, but should also extend to the body....The dignity of so great a sacrament also demands that, for some days previous to communion, married persons abstain from the marriage-debt, admonished by the example of David...”. Sorry, it does say that though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just looked it up and you are correct. However,
      1. The 1917 Code Of Canon Law superseded anything to the contrary involving marriage and

      2. Pope St Pius X wanted DAILY Communion, something not done in the 1500s. Married people could not Communicate on a daily basis under that old rule, which was NOT the intention of Pope St Pius X or the Code.

      I hope that clears it up Melanie!

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. So 1917 Code of Canon Law says you can or can not have marital relations after midnight before receiving Holy Communion?

      Delete
    3. All legislation regarding marriage was superseded by the 1917 Code. There is no requirement to abstain from martial relations prior to receiving Communion. Pope St Pius X and the Code encourage daily Communion for all—an impossibility for the married if the old legislation was in effect.

      So yes you can have marital relations at any time.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  30. I can understand abstaining from relations after midnight for
    Holy Communion.
    Fasting after midnight for
    Holy Communion from food liquids and relations increase your respect/devotion to the real presence.
    I didn't know about the venerable after midnight fast until 2014.
    In this era of blasphemy and sacrilege more attention to fasting is a great idea.

    ReplyDelete
  31. To my readers: I accidentally erased this comment from Junior Riberio:

    On the lack of trust in the Church, I read the account of an Australian woman who was abused by a network of pedophiles who included the high hierarchy Novus ordo there from that country, having even witnessed the ritual sacrifice of another young woman inside the Cathedral of Santa Maria in Sydney. She ends the account by saying that she only trusted God and wanted to distance herself from what she considered the Catholic Church. If there is one thing I think that sedevacantists should focus more on than on high theological discourses, it is to show simple people the ugliness and depravity of the Novus Ordo Sect. A pity not to see this.

    ReplyDelete