Monday, April 30, 2018

Slavery And The Catholic Church


 One of the biggest canards used against the Church is that She "supported slavery." Not only is this falsehood used by Protestants and atheists, but it's utilized even by members of the Vatican II sect, who go so far as to attribute "error" to Church teaching. (Ironically, they thereby tacitly admit that there is a contradiction pre- and post-Vatican II. Their sect, therefore, cannot claim to be the Mystical Body of Christ because it is dogma that the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members). In the 1975 book  Slavery and the Catholic Church:The History of Catholic Teaching Concerning the Moral Legitimacy of the Institution of Slavery by John Francis Maxwell, it quotes from the heretical Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes in support of the contention Vatican II "corrected" prior "erroneous" teaching on slavery: "Whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torture inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children... all these things and others like them are infamous. They poison human society, dishonor the Creator, and do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury...Human institutions, private or public, must serve man's ends and minister to his dignity. They should be bulwarks against any kind of political or social slavery and guardians of basic rights under any kind of government...Economic enterprise is generally an affair of collaboration- thus it is wicked and inhuman to arrange and organize it to the detriment of anybody involved. Yet it often happens even in our time that those who work are made slaves to their own work. No "economic tows" Can justify this. (pg. 12, citing para. #27, and 29, See the book online at anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaverycatholicchurch.pdf).

What is the truth about slavery and Church teaching? Did She teach that treating certain classes of people as "subhuman" (think: African slaves in the United States prior to the Civil War [1861-1865]) was acceptable? Was Vatican II the "great liberator" of human dignity which "corrected" prior teaching on the topic? These are the questions to be explored in this post.

Defining the Kinds of Slavery
 There are two kinds of slavery: pagan slavery and Judeo-Christian slavery. For the pagan, slavery meant that one person owns another person as one would own an animal or a piece of property. The slave has no rights and is considered (legally and morally) sub-human. In the Judeo-Christian view, slaves are not property; they do not lose their rights or status as human beings. What is owned, in this view, is not the person of the slave, but rather the labor of that slave. This is the only kind of slavery ever recognized as legitimate and moral by the Church. 

Someone can acquire the right to another's work in various ways. As one example, a man could sell his labor to a wealthy family thus becoming part of that household. Each person has the right to sell their labor, even labor he would perform for the rest of his life, if that is his choice. Humans may legitimately become slaves to another as punishment for a serious crime. Since the State has the right to impose imprisonment, and even death for certain crimes, it stands to reason that the State has the lesser included authority to put a criminal to work at some service for the common good (i.e., slavery) for a certain period of time--or even for life. There was a time when chain gangs were used to build roads, and prisoners made car license plates for the government.  Hence, in ancient times, captured soldiers were made slaves. 

Why such a difference in outlook on slaves? The worldview of the pagan sees people as greater or lesser according to what they possess. They also view manual labor with disdain. The ideal life was one of leisure: "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die!" In the Judeo-Christian worldview of the Old and New Testaments, people are created in the image and likeness of God. They have an eternal destiny for which they were created. Worth is based not on what you possess, but by how well you live in accordance to the Will of God. Manual labor is not to be despised because God Himself sentenced all to labor, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return." (Genesis 3:19). In the New Testament, most of the Apostles were simple fisherman. 

The Old Testament and Slaves

The title bondsman of the Mosaic Law, was really a kind of indentured servitude. Furthermore, the Book of Exodus lays down laws for the protection of the Hebrew slave:

"These are the ordinances that you shall set before them: When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him." (Exodus 21:1-3).

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her.  If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money." (Exodus 21:7-11)

"Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:16).

Other prescriptions involving slaves:

"If thy brother constrained by poverty, sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants: But he shall be as a hireling, and a sojourner: he shall work with thee until the year of the jubilee, And afterwards he shall go out with his children, and shall return to his kindred and to the possession of his fathers, For they are my servants, and I brought them out of the land of Egypt: let them not be sold as bondmen: Afflict him not by might, but fear thy God. Let your bondmen, and your bondwomen, be of the nations that are round about you." (Leviticus 25:39-44).

"When thy brother a Hebrew man, or Hebrew woman is sold to thee, and hath served thee six years, in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free: And when thou sendest him out free, thou shalt not let him go away empty: But shalt give him for his way out of thy flocks, and out of thy barnfloor, and thy winepress, wherewith the Lord thy God shall bless thee. Remember that thou also wast a bondservant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God made thee free, and therefore I now command thee this." (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)

The New Testament, The Early Church, and Slaves

  Christ lived for the first thirty years of his life as a simple Carpenter. He gave dignity to work and showed how God loved humble folk most especially. Catholicism established a supernatural equality among humanity with relation to God because all had to acknowledge their common duties to God, and common debt to Christ.

"For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink." (1 Corinthians 12:13). 

"The brethren who are with me, salute you. All the saints salute you; especially they that are of Caesar's household [in the household were slaves]." (Philippians 4:22; commentary mine)

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." (1 Peter 2:18). This "fear" is a reverential awe towards those in charge, even as today you must obey your employer, both those who are kind and those who are demanding. 

The Church Father, St. Gregory of Nyssa, disdained all forms of servitude:
"I acquired slaves and slave girls.’ What is that you say? You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and in doing so you lay down a law in opposition to God, overturning the natural law established by him. For you subject to the yoke of slavery one who was created precisely to be a master of the earth, and who was ordained to rule by the Creator, as if you were deliberately attacking and fighting against the divine command." (See Trevor Dennis, "Man Beyond Price: Gregory of Nyssa and Slavery," in Heaven and Earth : Essex Essays in Theology and Ethics Worthington, West Sussex: Churchman, [1986], 130).

St. Augustine wrote, "The state of slavery is rightly regarded as a penalty upon the sinner; thus the word slave does not occur in the Bible until the just man Noah branded with it the sin of his son. It was sin therefore, which deserved this name; it was not natural."

Papal Decrees Against the Pagan Notion of Slavery

Pope Eugene IV  in 1435 issued the Bull Sicut Dudum ordered that Catholics free all enslaved natives of the Canary Islands within fifteen days and failure to do so would incur automatic excommunication. Thus, fifty-seven years before Columbus’s first voyage, the pope unequivocally prohibited the enslavement of native peoples.

In 1537, Pope Paul III promulgated Sublimus Dei, which taught that native peoples were not to be enslaved. In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV promulgated Cum Sicuti, which was addressed to the bishop of Manila in the Philippines and reiterated his predecessors' prohibitions against enslaving native peoples. In the seventeenth century, Pope Urban VIII decreed in Commissum Nobis (1639) support for the Spanish King Philip IV's edict prohibiting enslavement of the Indians in the New World.


The need for cheap and abundant labor in the colonies is what led to the African slave trade. This renewed form of pagan slavery was also condemned by the popes, beginning with Pope Innocent XI. In 1741, Pope Benedict XIV  issued Immensa Pastorum, which reiterated that the penalty for enslaving Indians was excommunication. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI's decree In Supremo condemned the enslavement of Africans.

The popes approved two religious orders dedicated to ransoming Christian slaves from the infidel Mohammedans; the Trinitarians, and the Mercedarians (Order of Our Lady of Ransom). The latter took vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, plus a vow "to become a hostage in the hands of the infidels, if that is necessary for the deliverance of Christ's faithful."

Pope Leo XIII declared in his encyclical In Plurimis, addressed to the bishops of Brazil:
 "Amid the many and great demonstrations of affection which from almost all the peoples of the earth have come to Us, and are still coming to Us, in congratulation upon the happy attainment of the fiftieth anniversary of Our priesthood, there is one which moves Us in a quite special way. We mean one which comes from Brazil, where, upon the occasion of this happy event, large numbers of those who in that vast empire groan beneath the yoke of slavery, have been legally set free. And this work, so full of the spirit of Christian mercy, has been offered up in cooperation with the clergy, by charitable members of the laity of both sexes, to God, the Author and Giver of all good things, in testimony of their gratitude for the favor of the health and the years which have been granted to Us." (May 5, 1888, para. #1).

It's been made abundantly clear that the Church never condoned pagan slavery, permitted Judeo-Christian slavery, and moved towards eliminating it altogether.

Vatican II's  Heretical Notions
From the aforementioned book by Maxwell, there are some blasphemous and heretical ideas about the Church. It's no wonder, because to make Vatican II good, the True Church as it was before the Council, must be depicted as fallible and capable of defection. Here's just a few samples from the book that contains both a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur from a valid bishop who himself defected to the new religion that is the Vatican II sect.

Maxwell: "The process of human development involves making mistakes and using the ability to learn from past mistakes. It would be surprising if the same process of human development did not apply to the Church and her pastoral and moral theology. Indeed it would be surprising if the use of the ability to recognize and admit and accept the fact of past mistakes were not one of the remedies for "triumphalist" attitudes in the Church."(pg.11; Emphasis mine)

Translation: The Church "develops" and "makes mistakes" in theology.

Reality Check: CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution. (Lamentabili Sane, Pope St. Pius X against the errors of the Modernists).

Maxwell: "When any large-scale mistake of the fallible ordinary magisterium has been made, it is surely not
sufficient quietly to drop the erroneous teaching and hush it up and whitewash its past history."

Translation: The Church can err except in declaring infallible dogmas ex cathedra. 

Reality Check: According to theologian Van Noort: "The subject-matter of divine- Catholic faith are all those truths proposed by the Church's Magisterium for our belief as divinely revealed...The principle laid down above is contained almost verbatim in this declaration of the [First] Vatican Council: 'Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.' [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith]" (See Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press 3:220-221[1960]; words in brackets and emphasis are mine).

Maxwell: "In 1965 the common Catholic teaching concerning slavery was officially corrected by the Second Vatican Council." (pg. 125)

Translation: The Church was wrong until Vatican II.

Reality Check: CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places. (Lamentabili Sane, Pope St. Pius X against the errors of the Modernists).

Conclusion
The fact that most people don't know the distinctions involved when it comes to slavery and servitude, makes the issue one that the enemies of the Church will use to attack Her. The Church has always stood strong against pagan slavery, and even advocated for the elimination of all forms of permissible servitude as unnecessary. The Vatican II sect has adopted a heretical ecclesiology, one in which the Church can give evil and teach error. This is clearly demonstrated in post-Vatican II theology books teaching that the Church "taught error" on the subject of slavery until "corrected" by the Robber Council in 1965.

The real problem of slavery, is the slavery of humanity to sin. When not in the state of sanctifying grace, a person is a slave to sin and Satan, making himself an enemy of God. The Vatican II sect is spreading the worst slavery of all, a slavery which if not broken will last forever in Hell. Satan is the cruelest of owners. Break free from the bonds of Bergoglio and his sect. Join (or remain ever faithful in) the One True Church, and stay in the state of grace at all times. The only real freedom anyone has is when they are servants of Christ the King, and Mary the Immaculate Queen. 

90 comments:

  1. Historical record provides ample evidence of Muslims and descendants of Marronos having a majority share in the African/Arabian/European/North American slave trade.

    This one fact is NEVER discussed amongst the Babylonian Novus Ordo sect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true. However, to speak against Moslems would be anti-ecumenical and go against Notstra Aetate!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The Novus Ordo is also very accommodating to the
      "Elder Bros."

      Delete
    3. Everyone as a matter of fact except Traditionalists! To borrow a phrase from “A Few Good Men,” —-they can’t handle the truth!”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. The Catholic Church sanctioned slavery at various periods of time. Pope Nicholas V's Bull Dum Diveras (1452)authorized conquering the Saracens and pagans and confining them to perpetual servitude. Dum Diveras was reiterated by Calixtus III in 1456 (Inter Caetera). This was later extended to the Americas by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 with a bull of the same name (Inter Caetera). Also, in 1454, Nicholas V issued "Romanus Pontifex" which repeated the sanctioning of slavery and taking land.

    There is no doubt that the Catholic Church did horrible things in the past under the order of and with full knowledge of the Papacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That there were bad actions, yes. That evil was officially taught, no.

      Dum Diveras talks about the right to conquer the infidel Moslems and take them as vassals. As explained in my post, if the State can execute its enemies, it can incarcerate or hold them for life servitude. The same for the other decrees you cite.

      For a good analysis see,
      http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.de/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Most people today would rightly conclude that such practices as slavery, torture, and murder are abhorrent, regardless of whether it is a Muslim, Jew or Christian. The Founding Fathers had a lot of things right and so does the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. I agree with Maxwell and the modern Church for denouncing its ugly past and upholding the dignity of human life. Thanks for posting my comments.

      Delete
    3. I will always publish comments unless vulgar or blasphemous. It is interesting you put the Founding Fathers Of the United States on par with the “modern church” (Vatican II sect)

      Both the United States and the Vatican II sect were founded by Freemasons. Most people today don’t find the murder of innocent unborn babies abhorrent, but they detest capital punishment for serial killers. Murder is always abhorrent and it is nowhere condoned. Certainly not by the Church, or by me.

      When rightly understood, the teaching of the One True Church is on the money every time. How could it be otherwise, as it is protected from error by the Holy Ghost.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. I was unaware of the slave issue. I learn so much from reading this blog!!

      The PETA people care more for the ethical treatment of animals than they do humans. Most of them are pro-abortion. They don’t seem to care about killing the unborn, but they will go to any lengths to save the animals. I am sure they will now be for euthanizing the elderly, sick and infirm, but not the animals. It seems everything regarding morals is upside down these days. Mostly due to the apostate Vatican II sect.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the kind words, Joann! The PETA people are among the most immoral you will find. You’re right that all this insanity stems fromVatican II.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. I was taught in school that in the early days of Spanish colonialization of the new world that the Church approved the African slave trade on the basis that since the African’s had rejected Christ, that meant they could be enslaved since they were infidels and could be treated as chattel. Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan,
      What you were taught was typical historical revisionism. “The White European Devil” brought disease and ruin to noble savages! The Liberation of Europe in WW 2 became the “Invasion of Europe”, etc.

      The facts are quite different. I’m willing to bet this was stated as “fact” with either no citations or incomplete/twisted ones. Pope Pius VII urged the the nations of Europe convened at the Congress of Vienna to suppress the slave-trade. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI again condemned it. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII canonized St Peter Claver, whose love of God made him the “slaves of the negroes forever.”

      I challenge anyone to show me Magisterial documents claiming Africans rejected Christ and could be reduced to pagan slavery as chattel.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Doubtless it is historical revisionism. I think the so called proof comes from Bartolomé de las Casas who supposedly fought hard against Indian enslavement only to be for African enslavement.

      Delete
  4. Thank you for another thought-provoking article and the comments thus far.
    Can't let this pass without reference to the practice of holy slavery to Jesus and Mary, as described in St. Louis de Montfort's True Devotion to Mary. For those who have a copy, the pertinent section is #68-77, "We Belong to Jesus and Mary as Their Slaves."
    Use the translation by Fr. Faber; the Montfort Fathers did an abysmal translation post V2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Barbara for the important reminder of Holy slavery to Jesus and Mary, and for your kind words!
      I agree with you on the very bad post-V2 translation of St. Louis de Montfort.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. This question is off topic. I read where the use of Holy Water remits venial sin. Is this true?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, if understood in the proper sense. Holy Water is a sacramental. According to the Baltimore Catechism:
      Q. 1054. Do the Sacramentals of themselves remit venial sins?

      A. The Sacramentals of themselves do not remit venial sins, but they move us to truer devotion, to greater love for God and greater sorrow for our sins, and this devotion, love and sorrow bring us grace, and the grace remits venial sins.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Have you done a post on Sacramentals and their use? I understand the Vatican II sect even changed the blessing over the Holy Water. Is their anything Vatican II didn’t tamper with??

      Delete
    3. I have yet to do a post on sacramentals—thanks for the idea. As to your second query, alas, there isn’t anything the Vatican II sect hasn’t corrupted.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. V2 holy water is just water. Do not pour it out and get some real Holy Water.

      Delete
    5. As they have virtually no valid clergy left, Tom, everything is invalid and ordinary!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. My Holy Water was blessed by a 90 yr old pre-Vatican II Priest using the Vatican II blessing? Can the Holy Water be used?

      Delete
    7. Unlike the Sacraments, there is no definitive form that must be recited. Any form approved by the Church suffices and the Church can change the form at will since sacramentals are of Ecclesiastical origin and not Divine origin.

      However, since the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, I would argue that the form
      Is not from the Church and therefore worthless—even with the 90 yr old valid priest. If you have a copy of the Rituale Romanum from before Vatican II, ask him if he’d be willing to use it. To the best of my knowledge and belief it has never been forbidden by their sect. Then it would truly be Holy water—blessed by a true priest with the Traditional blessing!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Unfortunately, the pre-Vatican II Priest mentioned above, retired a few months ago due to health reasons. However, he did say the Latin Mass so he may have used the pre-Vatican II blessing for the Holy Water. I don’t know how to find this out other than asking the Priest, but that may not be possible. Do you know how I could find this information out? What persons in the Church would be privy to this kind of information?

      Delete
    9. I agree with anon@7:38 below. Going to a Traditionalist priest would solve all doubts. You can’t find out if the old priest blessed it correctly without asking him.

      You can buy a holy water bottle. Call a Traditionalist priest if none are near you and ask him if he would be willing to fill it up with holy water and ship it in a prepaid package back to you. I’m sure he’d be happy to do it. You should include a modest donation if you can afford it.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. I wonder if taking the water to a trad priest to bless would be the easiest way to solve all doubts?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is a shame what Vatican II has done to the Church. Chaos and confusion reign supreme from Vatican II. Back in the 50's if you would have told a Catholic about this Holy Water situation, they wouldn't have believed it. My Grandmother back in the 50's had two or three Holy Water fonts in her house which she used daily. Today I am lucky to get any Holy Water that is properly blessed by a True Priest! All due to Vatican II.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. We are all, in one degree or another, Victims of Vatican II.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. Regarding the Holy Water situation, could I go to an Eastern Rite Church and get Holy Water?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. The Rites are altered since V2; I consider it dubious.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I was told and understood that the Eastern Rite did not have any changes to their Rites at Vatican II. There is an old Eastern Rite Priest that was ordained in the Ukraine nearby. Does that make a difference? Hope I am not impeding on your time by asking so many questions.

      Delete
    3. No, it’s never a problem to help my readers. In 1990, all “Oriental” (Eastern Rites) has their Canon Law “updated” to reflect the Heresies of V2. How much was altered as to the Sacraments and blessings for sacramentals, I cannot be certain. All I can say is I hold it suspect. I also have a problem with the fact that they are in actual union with Bergoglio. To me it’s like getting the Sacramentals from the Eastern Schismatics. Please call a Traditionalist priest. I’m sure they will find a way to help you.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo, I did not know about the Eastern Rite changes to their Canon Law. Thanks for the information.

      I don’t understand why everybody gets all “up in arms” over the una cum. If Francis isn’t the Pope, saying that he is isn’t going to make him Pope.

      Delete
    5. The things Traditionalists fight over which are not matters on which the Magisterium has made a pronouncement! There should be freedom to have an opinion without either side condemning the other. Unite to fight Bergoglio!!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. Hi Introibo -

    Introibo wrote: "I also have a problem with the fact that they are in actual union with Bergoglio."

    The SSPX have placed themselves in union with Bergoglio. Are you suggesting that by the same token they are also unapproachable? Have you changed your mind on una cum Masses?

    I see no ostensible difference between, say, a validly ordained Ukrainian Catholic priest properly blessing one's holy water and, say, a validly ordained SSPX priest properly blessing one's holy water. What do you say, Introibo? The SSPX have for some time now been denying the invalidity of the V-II sacraments. For example, they don't necessarily eschew the Novus Ordo Missae on the grounds of invalidity; rather, because it is impious. So, are we even sure that the SSPX are using the old ritual/blessing for sacramentals? Just some questions to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SSPX is NOT in actual union with Bergoglio. Both Modernist Rome and the SSPX affirm this fact.

      I have always held—and still do hold—-that the Mass/Sacraments/ sacramentals are always to be had by a Sedevacantist whenever possible. The SSPX still reject the errors of V2. Some are more vociferous than others in that rejection.

      If the day arrives when SSPX officially joins the V2 sect, they will have become unapproachable.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. About whether the SSPX are using the old ritual/blessing for sacramentals, I am not sure which ritual they would use, or if, for that matter, they would all use the same ritual, but, as far as I am aware, they use the 1961 Roman Breviary issued under the decree of "John XXIII" (Angelo Roncalli). I do not have a copy of the Missal that they use, but I would assume that this was the edition corresponding to the release of the Breviary, which was part of the on-going work of destroying Catholic worship by Annibale Bugnini. I belong to the Order of Penance of St Dominic, and I know that the Dominican Breviary and Missal corresponding to the Roman Rite texts is dated 1962, and shows the influence of Roncalli and Bugnini. The Dominican Breviary and Missal in question (1962 issued under Michael Cardinal Browne O.P.) are used by conservative Conciliar Dominicans under the Motu Proprio of "Benedict VI"(Joseph Ratzinger). Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law that governs prayer is also the law that governs what is to be believed). Do the maths. The SSPX are not officially holding hands with Modernist Rome, and, as you say, both parties will endorse that fact, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that their position is more compromised than they might be prepared officially to admit.

      Delete
    3. I agree. One must also be careful that the SSPX priest was not accepted from the Vatican II sect without conditional ordination. Otherwise he is a layman and nothing he does is efficacious.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo - I had all my medals blessed by a pre-Vatican II Priest. Please don’t tell me I have to take them to a sede Priest??

      Delete
    5. The priest was valid, the only question that remains is did he use the Traditional blessing. Can you ask him? If he did, no worries. If he didn’t or you don’t know, tell an SSPV priest you would like them blessed conditionally with the proper prayer from the Rituale Romanum.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo - No, the Priest did not bless my medals with the proper prayer from the Rituale Romanum. At the time of the blessings of my medals, I was unaware that a proper prayer was to be used. I was only thinking in terms of the validity of the Priest!! The Priest, more or less, just said a very short prayer asking God to bless my medals. I take it that is not the proper prayer?? (Everything is so complicated these days).

      Delete
    7. Joann,
      The Rituale contains very specific and beautiful prayers proscribed by the Church for blessing specific things (e.g. a Rosary, statues, scapulars, medals, etc.). Pre-V2 only a missionary bishop (or a priest granted extraordinary faculties by the Holy See) could Bless items by simply making the sign of the cross over it with any short formula of prayer.

      What that priest did, in my opinion, is a dubious blessing at best and they should be blessed by a Traditionalist priest.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Introibo - Being fairly new to Tradition, there is so much to learn and so much I don’t know. That is why this blog is so very invaluable. I learn something each time I visit. God Bless you for the work you do!!

      Delete
    9. Thank you Joann! Comments like yours keep me writing! Please note that when I respond to comments I’m about my other duties in life and sometimes misspell or type a wrong word. In my response to you above, it should read “beautiful prayers PRESCRIBED by the Church” and NOT “PROSCRIBED” as I had mistakenly typed!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. Thank you for that, Introibo.

    Introibo wrote: "The SSPX is NOT in actual union with Bergoglio. Both Modernist Rome and the SSPX affirm this fact."

    It seems that
    Fr. Cekada
    cites Canonists whom disagree with you.

    'Mentioning the name of the heretic/false pope Bergoglio in the Canon is a sign that you “are not separated from communion with the universal church."'

    It's actually the "highest manifestation of communion," and the SSPX affirm this by the mention of the name in the Te igitur of the Head of the sect which currently occupies the buildings that wre once full of orthodox pastors. They're definitely in communion with the Novus Ordo sect. And the FACT that the Novus Ordo sect haven't declared a blanket excommunication on the clergy and laity of the SSPX strongly supports this contention.

    For the entire article.

    http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/04/01/should-i-assist-at-a-mass-that-names-pope-francis-in-the-canon/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ve read and replied to Fr Cekada. See
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/07/una-cum.html?m=1
      See also: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.co.nz/2017/09/intolerance-virtue-and-vice.html?m=1

      We are in the most unusual of circumstances. Canonists cited by Fr Cekada were not writing in regard to this Great Apostasy, nor do we know how such principles would apply should sedeprivationism prove true.

      Fr Cekada is entitled to his opinion—which is all it is —a non-Magisterial opinion and nothing more. My spiritual father, Fr Gommar DePauw was a real pre-V2 canonist and a peritus at V2 Against the Modernists. He was humble enough to allow for others to hold opinions on subjects that the Magisterium did not (and currently cannot) decide.

      Fr Cekada would do well to emulate him.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, I read that Fr. Gommar DePauw died a member of the V2 sect. Is that true?

      Delete
    3. It’s absolutely, positively FALSE. The 13 year anniversary of his holy passing will be this Sunday, May 6. He died as he had lived—a priest of the One True Church. He rejected the Novus Bogus and the V2 sect, embracing the True Faith until the last breath of his life. Anyone who states otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a calumniator.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Was Fr. DePauw a Sedevacantist?

      Delete
    5. At least from 1999. He did not put Wojtyla’s name in the Canon, and referred to him as “John Paul II” never putting “pope” as title before his name, and mostly called him, “the man in White at the Vatican.” He was tortured by the whole situation in the Church. May he rest in the light of Christ Whom he served so faithfully.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. I believe Fr. DePauw was another deceiver. After sitting at the council as a Peritus and doing nothing, he went on to become a founder of the Latin is Lovely crowd. He was not a Sedevacantist, which with all of his credentials he should have been able to deduce. He was another one of those false Traditionalist leaders leading confused Catholics on a merry-go-round. In addition, he had the blessing of the Holy See as well as the modernist Spellman. In fact, he was praised by John Paul II AFTER his death and this is now proudly displayed on his foundation's (CTM) website. DePauw was not a hero. T. Benns has an informative article on DePauw.

      Delete
    7. And you knew him...how?? Did nothing at the Council? He fought side by side with Bp. Kurz, Cardinal Ottaviani and the other Anti-Modernists. He went toe to toe against Ratzinger who was peritus for arch-Modernist Joseph Frings.

      Many of the prelates who promised to help him back-stabbed him. If it wasn’t for Fr DePauw, there never would have been a Traditionalist movement. He was God’s instrument.

      Read my posts: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-first.html?m=1

      And on Bp Kurz:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-forgotten-hero.html?m=1

      Theresa Benns? The “female theologian” who “elected” David Bawden As “Pope” Michael on his Kansas farm? Yes! That’s a reliable source!

      As far as Wojtyla praising Fr DePauw after his death—-I sincerely doubt the veracity of that statement. I really do. Wojtyla died April 2, 2005. Fr DePauw died May 6, 2005. Unless Wojtyla came back from the dead, it’s a safe bet it never happened.

      There’s an old aphorism, “Don’t speak or write unless you know what it is you are talking about.”
      In your case that would mean perpetual silence.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. I would like to reply to a remark made by Anonymous: “He (Fr DePaux) was not a Sedevacantist, which with all of his credentials he should have been able to deduce.”

      I am not offerring any comment about Fr DePaux. I live on a different continent and was not privileged to have met him or made his acquaintance. What I wish to draw attention to is a mentality that from time to time seems to show itself in traditional Catholic blogs, namely, that everyone should be expected to have put all the pieces of this nightmare jigsaw together perfectly from the outset of this crisis of mass apostacy in the Church’s life. Short of the most exceptional graces, and perhaps even a private revelation, it would be unrealistic to make this demand.

      I doubt that even the most insightful Catholic souls, Bishops and periti and others, who attended Vatican II, could have clearly foreseen the full extent of the maelstrom which that “Council” would unleash on Holy Mother Church. Catholic bishops, such as Archbishop Lefevre and Cardinal Browne and other bishops and priests, as the Modernist conspiracy emerged in the light of day, fought valiantly to defend the Faith. In previous generations Pope St Pius X and other pontiffs had clearly identified the Modernist Heresy and its compoent errors and had tried to stop it in its tracks, but, as it turned out only with limited success. Modernism was not defeated; it cleverly went underground where, with the exception of occasionally being brought to light, for the most part it was able to develop its doctrines and its strategies unopposed. The flood of falsehood and obfuscation unleashed by the Modernists after many years of careful planning, working in the shadows, was not something, at least on that scale and with that degree of systematic co-ordination, that could have been foreseen at the time. In other words, true Catholics were put into the position of reacting against the already up-and-running programme of the enemies of the Church. This was made more difficult because initially it was often not clear who the enemies were. Archbishop Lefevre in a now famous remark observed that the Modernist tactic was so revolutionary and successful because, for the first time in Her history, obedience to the Church was used against her. The enemies often turned out to be the very people to whom it appeared obedience would normally have been due.

      In that level of chaos, both at the time and since then, it has taken many people a long time (and this year marks sixty years since Angelo Roncalli’s “reign” began) to understand and to judge questions about the status of the See of Peter that are taken for granted now. Even among sedevacantists, in their different sorts, there has been a general widening of view about supposed “popes”. For example, when Karol Wojtyla participated in the Assisi fiasco, there were Catholics who for the first time questioned seriously whether he could be a true pope, even though they already hated what the Modernists and their errors had done to the Church . Since then, there are many sedevacantists, myself included, who would not hesitate to say that there have been no true popes since (and including) Angelo Roncalli (“John XXIII”).

      Hindsight is a wonderful thing ...

      Delete
    9. @Kcherrytree

      Well stated!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. Introibo - That's fair comment. You've allowed Fr. Cekada's thesis to be accessed, and you've linked your articles. The reader can decide who makes better sense. I will pull you up on one thing: You keep on mentioning "should sedeprivationism prove true." You can't talk about whether or not principles would apply based on whether an "IF" proves to be true. He's (Fr. Cekada) applying principles to (the concrete) something we both believe is a FACT. That's the only (at this juncture) way one can proceed.

    Now, I so happen to agree with you that approaching a trusted sedevacantist cleric for blessings etc. is the safest course to follow, although I know SSPX priests whom I'd have no hesitation in giving my confession to or my sacramentals to be blessed. That's why I was suggesting that the fellow with the dubious holy water take it to a traditional priest to be blessed. I can see his problem - he's not sure about it so he doesn't want to use it, but he's not so unsure about it that he'd be prepared to pour it down the sink. Solution: Get it "conditionally" blessed.

    Getting back to the SSPX in communion with Bergoglio situation.

    1) We know for a fact that one can place oneself in communion with a false pope (GWS).

    2) Objectively: Bergoglio is a false pope.

    3) If, in fact, Bergoglio were a real pope (as the SSPX believe/suggest), the SSPX would be a "text book" case of schism.

    4) But because Bergoglio is not the pope they can't be in schism, per se.

    5) However, because they believe Bergoglio is the pope God *may* impute the sin of schism to (some?) of them.?

    I agree with you --- we are in the most unusual of circumstances indeed.

    Thanks for your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Introibo,

    Here are some interesting statements as found on Fr. DePauw's Catholic Traditionalist Movement's website: http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/about/credit.htm

    "His Holiness Pope Paul VI gladly grants His APOSTOLIC BLESSING to Father Gommar A. De Pauw and to the members of the CATHOLIC TRADITIONALIST MOVEMENT."

    --ARCHBISHOP DIEGO VENINI,
    secret chaplain of His Holiness, Rescript of November 5, 1965.

    "May Almighty God BLESS you and your CATHOLIC TRADITIONALIST MOVEMENT."

    --POPE PAUL VI,
    at personal audience of Father De Pauw, Rome, December 1, 1965.

    "The Supreme Pontiff, JOHN PAUL I, sends you his profoundest personal thanks for your loyalty and love, together with his apostolic blessing for you and all those in your care."

    From the letter, in Latin, of the Vatican Secretary of State,
    J. Cardinal Villot, to Father Gommar A. DePauw, September 6, 1978.

    "The Holy Father JOHN PAUL II paternally imparts his Apostolic Blessing to Rev. Gommar A. De Pauw on his 50th anniversary of ordination, as a pledge of divine graces" -April 12, 1992.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And here are some interesting replies:

      1. The Board of Directors is not theologically astute. Anything that sounds laudable they post.

      2. Fr DePauw taught many priests, some of whom became V2 “bishops” and still respected him for his learning. They would write to the Apostolic Delegate and they would send those greetings to any priest whom a diocesan “bishop” recommended.

      3. All the dates are pre-1999, when he adopted Sedevacantism—de facto.

      Things take on a whole new meaning when you actually understand them.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. As to the letter from JP I, he may actually have become Catholic. He wanted Fr to come to Rome to re-establish the True Mass, eliminate the Masons in the Vatican and dismantle Vatican II. He died only 33 days into his alleged pontificate.

      Could he have been a material pope turned formal pope? Perhaps. Fr. DePauw did not hesitate to say he was MURDERED—and despite denials and so-called explanations in some quarters—-I believe it too.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. He became a closet Sedevacantist in 1999. But note not publicly. This is the man credited with starting the Traditional Catholic Movement and it took him 34 years to become a "closet" Sedevacantist? What was he doing between 1965-1999 when Sedevacantism had already been around for decades? I'll tell you what he was doing: he, like the masons running the John Birch Society and ORCM, etc. set up a little net to catch all the trads and keep them in the structures of the NO Church under the traditionalist banner. So for the record DePauw was an R & R trad for 34 years and actually till his death publicly. He didn't know a heretic can't be a pope? Really? And to think that all those credentials were for not. Another phony traditionalist in my book. T. Benns had him pegged. She is not the only one who started seeing through these phonies in the traditionalist circles since the beginning. If DePauw were for real he would have opposed the pope himself right then at the council instead of running off seeking approval from modernist bishops like Spellman, to start his own little Latin Club.

      As for T. Benns and her mistake in thinking she could elect David Bawden, she had the right idea and deserves credit for it. She has long since acknowledged her error and written loads about it. You don't like her because she exposes frauds posing as priests and bishops in Traditionalist fantasy land.

      Delete
    4. Fr most probably (from the many conversations I had with him) leaned towards sedeprivationism—especially in light of JPI). He also wanted to get as many as possible inside the Traditionalist movement so he avoided taking a public stand. It worked, as I’m an example of one of his many converts.

      Keeping people in the Vatican II sect? He wouldn’t allow people in the Chapel unless they severed all ties with the Vatican II sect.

      You’re great at being the typical “Monday morning quarterback” saying what SHOULD have been done when you weren’t there and privy to all the facts. Fr DePauw new Theology far better than you could ever hope to know. No less than three sede priests told me they would never have become priests were it not for Fr DePauw.

      You are correct that the John Birch Society is rum by Freemasons who are controlled by aliens. We all know that!

      Benns “made a mistake”? That’s analogous to saying the Titanic had a small leak! To think that your mommy, daddy, and two nice neighbors with a self-anointed female “theologian” can elect someone “pope” is delusional. You got even basic facts incorrect as to Wojtyla allegedly praising Fr DePauw after Fr died when, in fact, Wojtyla died before Father.

      If there’s anyone living in fantasyland it’s you, Benns and the other “experts” who don't spend much time with objective reality.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. Hello, this is a different anonymous poster.

    To the anonymous currently fighting with Introibo.

    Let's talk about credibility. Let's see the proof that the John Birch Society is controlled by Freemasons (Btw, I'm not saying that's an outrageous proposition. However, we need proof.)

    To Introibo. A snarmy reply where you reference aliens does NOT constitute a refutation. Just thought I'd let you know that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there a Masonic principle behind the JBS? Yes, I’ve written about it. See my post
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/05/attempting-naturalistic-solution-to.html?m=1

      However, I did not claim Masons run the Society anymore than everyone in U. S. Government is Masonic. Incredible claims require incredible amounts of evidence. Such wild-eyed conspiracy theories about wild-eyed conspiracy theorists hardly requires a refutation. It’s an assertion easily dismissed.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. Introibo, I see. Well that anon's comments about JBS being run by Masons is not a point of attack that warrants you likening him to a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist ala Mel Gibson in the film "Conspiracy Theory." The context is that rotten people are at its core. Just like at APEX or the Bilderbergers or the CFR etc. Yes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I concede your point about the CFR, etc being filled with ungodly people. However, if you look at he’s attacked the founder of the Traditionalist movement based on:
      (A) false facts concerning even the most basic events (the dates of Wojtyla’s death and that of Fr DePauw)

      (B) misunderstood and misinterpreted documents and events

      (C) the writings of Teresa Benns a female “theologian” who created a farmhouse conclave

      Then concludes by impugning the good Father’s character, it’s easy to dismiss him in his entirety!!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo - I hear what you're saying. He's attacking your hero on your blog! Truth be told, it's rather rude.

      However, something like the T. Benns article stands separate from her past mistakes. It's the content that needs to be refuted. I could take the content and fashion my own article around it. You'd be left with dealing with the content and nothing else.

      It seems like everyone is always attacking everyone's credibility. It's like we're all trapped in a Trumpian Twitterverse.

      Delete
    3. True. I’d be happy to refute the content, I’m not at all worried about that. There are times when credibility does matter. As an attorney, I will often show proof of prior bad acts to show propensity for such matters. Also, if someone claims to be something they are not, it is relevant to the matter. Once, I had someone present them to me as an attorney for opposing party. He seemed so clueless yet so cocky of his cluelessness, I decided to investigate his credentials. It turns out he was a retired teacher who had never even attended law school!! Practicing law without a license—he got in some hot water to say the least!

      Here you have a woman claiming to understand theology and canon law. She didn’t get the very basics correct. She isn’t and couldn’t be what she claims. She had no authority to “call a conclave.” This is relevant to her understanding of the topic. After all, do you want to be represented by a lawyer in court or a retired teacher?

      Leave law to lawyers and theology to Theologians. Don’t give yourself an authority you couldn’t possibly possess and “call a conclave.” Such people should not be dignified with our attention let alone our concern in refuting their ill-advised arguments.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Credibility does matter. The Dimonds purport to be Monks and claim they know more than anyone on the planet (UFO’s with aliens included)!

      Delete
    5. So true, Joann!!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. For the record, Teresa Benns has been involved in the Traditional Catholic movement since at least 1979, probably longer. She has a massive library and has studied the issues for decades. She knows or knew just about every major player in the movement. It has been her life's work. How can you attack her on credibility? If she doesn't have credibility than neither do you. In this very blog you come up with your own theories, quote theologians, and mention your 5,000 book library. You also act as a guide and director of people (advising them where to go and where not to go for sacraments etc.).

      You and Benns are both Sedevacantists who differ only in opinions. You are an Una Cumer, material / formal pope, non-jurisdictional sacramental bishop (whatever that is) advocate and she is a Catacomb Catholic because she believes that the trad Catholic movement is a farce. Much of what she writes is supported.

      Delete
    7. For the record, I’ve been involved in the Traditionalist Catholic Church since 1981. My Library is only 4,000 books—sorry to disappoint you. There are big differences between myself and Benns. Let me spell them out for you:

      1. I offer my opinion AS SUCH. I do not condemn everyone in a “follow me or die” way. I’m offering my best advice having learned from the best. You can take it or leave it.

      2. I have never engineered a farmhouse conclave like Benns.

      3. I have never declared any authority to call a conclave.

      4. I have never TOLD people they MUST FOLLOW the antipope I created, like Benns.

      5. I have studied with a real canonist approved pre-V2 and derive many of my opinions from what I learned from him. I’m not “self-taught.”

      A catacomb Catholic? Yeah. Right. Sure. What about the poor people who followed (or may still follow) Bawden whole she sits Home Alone once more? The very souls she sent into a demonstrably false sect?

      You ask how can I attack her “credibility”? I answer with the rhetorical question “Given the facts, how can I not question her credibility?”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Introibo - Again, I will point out that it's NOT a question of her overall credibility insofar the article in question; rather, it's a matter of whether the FACTS in this article are correct. It's accepted and understood that she is in or was in serious error over certain things. But this is not a case of T. Benns standing up in court and asking to be believed when she (hypothetically) states that she saw little green men get out of a flying saucer and shoot guns which produced even littler green men who shot their guns and produced creatures that looked like alien rabbits who then kidnapped Michael Bawden. This is about a document. Get the guy to produce it, and then assess it strictly on its content. No need to mention her past faux pas.

      Btw, my best guess is that this whole thing is MOSTLY about the Introibo-Internet-Stalker annoying Introibo by trying to take down his mentor rather than it being about any genuine concern about warning people about (who he's suggesting is) a dodgy cleric. So, I'm very confident that I can state (to Introibo's net-stalker), "Get a life,loser!"

      Delete
    9. Ok, the facts of her article are distorted on multiple grounds. There’s the pulling quotes out of context, accusing Father of “Masonic affiliations” (seems like everyone who hates Traditionalists pulls out that accusation at some point), and referring to Bp. Kurz as a “Chinese bishop” ( poor word choice or ignorance. Bp. Kurz was German and a bishop in South Africa and then bishop in China).

      Her spin on the facts replete with a Masonic conspiracy in which Fr was allegedly involved makes for a good Malachi Martin sensationalist novel and not much else.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. For the record: why would anyone pay the woman attention? I’m an attorney by profession. If I told you I elected the pope in Kansas with six other people, would you want me to represent you? You would think (with good cause) I was unstable (to put it mildly).

      People who twist facts to suit their outcome should be dishonest lawyers, not “theologians.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. Introibo - Thanks for that. That's all I wanted to see. Well, you've shown that she has zero credibility, and to boot she was a key player in the "Pope Michael" insanity that unfolded over in Kansas or wherever.

      I agree with you entirely. No one is listening to her. My opinion is that a corn-shuckin', baccy-chewin', toothless hillbilly wouldn't even be tempted to fall for
      her nonsense, let alone someone who has indoor plumbing. :)

      Delete
    12. Anon@7:03 - I suppose you are one of the fortunate ones to have “indoor plumbing”. With comments like yours is it any wonder that people think “Traditionalists” are bizarre.

      Delete
    13. Anon @ 8:27 am

      With your total lack of a sense of humor and imagination, it hardly surprises me that you'd make a ridiculous comment about my magnificent humor and wit. :) I'd suggest you "lighten up."

      Let me rephrase for your Royal Staidness. Even an unsophisticated, unlettered layman of low intelligence would not be fooled by T. Benns' nonsense. Is that better for you? Have I mended your wounded sensibilities?

      Btw, I do have indoor plumbing. I take it you don't? :)

      Delete
    14. Anon@8:27

      What’s more “bizarre,” a silly comment made in jest, or the actions of T Benns?

      Benns wins hands down.

      ——Introibo

      Delete
    15. I am not defending Benns. I am just trying to convey that just because she is a kook, there is no need to sound as kooky as her. Beginning to think there is just as many kooks in Trad world as there are in the NO. Schukardt, Benns and the Dimonds, to mention just a few. Then there is Cekada and the Schiavo mess.

      Delete
    16. Anonymous @ 10:42 pm

      First you used the adjective "bizarre," now you're talking about "kooky." Moreover, you're now tying in all sorts of people, including Fr. Cekada, to what you've deemed is a "bizarre" or "kooky" comment. What the???

      Let's examine the offending comment.

      "My opinion is that a corn-shuckin', baccy-chewin', toothless hillbilly wouldn't even be tempted to fall for
      her nonsense, let alone someone who has indoor plumbing. :)"

      It's merely a humorous way of saying that she (Benns) couldn't even fool a hillbilly, let alone someone from the city (who actually has indoor plumbing, NOT living in the Ozarks drawing water from a well).

      The only "bizarre" thing about this, is that you're making such a huge song and dance over precisely NOTHING. Weird reactions like yours make me think twice about posting on this site. And what makes me even more concerned is the total inability of *some* traditionalists to discern humor, and/or parse plain English. Now after saying all that, I'm so sorry for the *major* offense I've caused you by wording something in such a way that caused the words "bizarre" and "kooky" to instantly spring to your mind. But just between the two of us - your complaint is vexatious and amounts to nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill. :)

      Delete
    17. @anon7:42
      I’m dating myself with this comment, but most people don’t appreciate Good Humor unless it comes on an ice cream stick!!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    18. It's 7:42 here.

      Lol

      I had to Google it, but once I did I got the humor.

      "Originally, Good Humors were chocolate-coated ice cream bars on a stick, but the line was expanded over the years to include a wide range of novelties."

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Humor

      Delete
    19. Anon @7:42
      Did you ever think your “humor” is at other people’s expense. I take offense to your “hillbilly” comment. I was born, raised and grew up in the “hills”. Your sterotyping is way off. We are not “corn shuckin”, “baccy-chewin” and “toothless” and, we do have “indoor plumbing”. I guess you are some kind of an “elitist city slicker” who evidently looks down their nose at people from the “hills” of small town America. So be it. You are not the first, nor the last to have a laugh at us people from the “hills”.

      Delete
    20. Anon @ 10:00 am

      Sorry, but I'm not buying into the sob story of an anonymous poster who conveniently pops up full of umbrage. It's far too convenient. You see, I wasn't born yesterday --- and that's why I don't fall for the likes of T. Benns' shenanigans when she becomes involved in farmhouse conclaves and "hit jobs" on priests of the caliber of Fr. DePauw.

      You won't be getting an apology from me. If your story is actually true (something I highly doubt), what you will be getting from me is some advice to work on your massive inferiority complex, to petition your local Congressman to ban "The Beverley Hillbillies" TV show, to work on ceasing to be so delicate, and to attempt to develop a sense of humor. In addition, learn NOT to lose the high-ground from atop your high-horse by suggesting rash-judgmental things like this:

      'I guess you are some kind of an “elitist city slicker” who evidently looks down their nose at people from the “hills” of small town America.'

      You are completely and utterly incorrect. Embarrassingly wrong.

      Have a great baccy-chewin', corn-shuckin' FREE day! :)

      Delete
    21. Yes, I certainly “cling to my guns and religion” as a former President stated and am proud of it!!

      Delete
  15. Re: JPI possibly becoming a Catholic. He was around as "Pope" for a mere 33 days.

    Here's an informative article from NOW.

    https://novusordowatch.org/john-paul-i/

    The facts paint a damning picture of JPI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do indeed. I’m not claiming he did repent for certain, but his communication with Fr DePauw does indeed make me wonder if he was struck by a miracle of grace, then struck dead by the enemies of Christ.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  16. Introibo,

    If you know the date he contacted Fr. DePauw you can then check to determine if he contacted him subsequent to this, a mere 11 days before his death.

    "Finally, the biggest Luciani whopper of them all came on Sunday, September 17, 1978, again at an Angelus address: John Paul I publicly praised Giosuè Carducci (1835-1907), an anti-clerical Italian poet and educator who was actually a Satanist!" (From NOW article)

    Btw, he's on the Novus Ordo sect's list of future "canonizations."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ll check it out to see if I can determine the exact date.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  17. Great article as usual!
    Jesus and Mary,
    David

    ReplyDelete