Monday, May 14, 2018

Intent On Causing Harm


 The Traditionalist bugbear that everyone of the faithful will hear at some point, is that Masonic clergy or an "unstable" prelate within the Catholic Church, lacked the proper intention to confer Holy Orders when they ordained/consecrated priests and bishops to continue the True Church after the Great Apostasy of Vatican II. The logical result is that any Traditionalist priests who were ordained by these bishops, or by other bishops who derive their episcopal orders from them, are dubious and must be avoided. Your only choice is to be a Home Aloner or find some elderly priest ordained pre-1968. All Traditionalist priests come from one of three episcopal lineages: (1) Archbishop Peter Thuc, (2) Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and (3) Bishop Alfred Mendez.

 The enemies of the Faith calumniate each of them. Abp. Thuc and Bp. Mendez (so we are told) were either senile or "unbalanced" and couldn't have had the proper intention for a valid conferral of a sacrament. Abp. Lefebvre was ordained and consecrated by an alleged Mason who supposedly withheld his intention on purpose to destroy the Church, which resulted in the Archbishop remaining as a mere deacon. Recently, I saw a website putting quotations around all Traditionalist clergy titles (e.g., "Fr."). I have dealt with the issue of Archbishop Lefebvre before; See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/05/doubting-yourself-in-extreme.html; see also http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/08/sophistry-on-steroids.html.

 In this post, I will try to deal concisely with the objection to lack of intent. Once Church teaching has been set forth, the case against Traditionalist orders on such specious grounds will melt away.

The Requirements for a Valid Sacrament
A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the human race; however, not all sacraments are necessary for each individual.

 There are four indispensable requirements to confect (i.e. "make") a valid sacrament: proper administer who uses proper matter, form, and has the intention to do what the Church does. The administer (or "minister") must be the person who can perform the sacrament (e.g., a priest for Penance and a bishop for Holy Orders). The matter is the sensible sign that must be used (e.g. bread and wine at Mass). The form is the necessary words that must be used by the minister of the sacrament as he applies the matter (e.g., saying "THIS IS MY BODY" over the bread at Mass). Finally, the minister must intend to do what the Church does while applying the matter and form. (See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, 8:59-60). 

Self-styled "theologians" call into question the last requirement: the intention to do what the Church does.

What Constitutes A Proper Intention?

 Why must the minister of a sacrament have an intention? God will not force anyone to do something. The minister of a sacrament must have free will, and therefore be able to perform a rational, human act. According to theologian Ott, "The human minister is a creature endowed with reason and freedom. The act involved in the execution of the administration of the Sacrament must therefore be an actus humanus [human act], that is, an activity which proceeds from understanding and free will."(See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 343). Again, theologian Davis teaches, "That he [the minister of a sacrament] must have some intention is clear from the fact that he is to act as a rational agent, and to act rationally some intention is necessary" (See Moral and Pastoral Theology, 3:16; words in brackets mine). 

To be valid, a virtual intention is at minimum necessary. According to theologian Davis, "... virtual intention suffices, for this suffices for a human act, and therefore for the sacramental act." (See Moral and Pastoral Theology, 3:17). According to theologian Ott, a virtual intention is "that disposition of the will, which is conceived before the action and which continues virtually during the action." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pgs. 343-344). In simple terms, it means that we can perform an intended act while being distracted. When I drive to work, I intend to drive, but I'm distracted by a phone call from a client on my bluetooth. I don't specifically remember all the details of driving, but it was a human act of a rational agent who wanted to drive but was distracted while continuing to (and wanting to) drive.

Theologian Davis comments as follows:
Some attention is necessary in conferring the Sacraments as in every human act. In internal attention, there is usually full advertence to what one does. So much is, obviously, not necessary, for we do many things and act in a human way without this advertence. A lesser degree of attention is therefore sufficient and this is called external attention, which, though internal in itself, is very vague, but is sufficient to carry us through a human act, provided we do nothing that is incompatible with a full internal attention if it were suddenly required. It would be an error to call this act purely automatic. Such external attention is present when one assists at Mass without conscious advertence to what is going on, but at the same time without engrossing the mind with things that are not compatible with true attention to Mass. It is possible, for example, to recite the Rosary and attend to Mass; it is not possible to concentrate the mind on an abstruse mathematical problem and at the same time to attend to Mass. This kind of external attention, as it is called, is sufficient in prayer, in reciting the divine office, in hearing Mass, in receiving the Sacraments, and in conferring them. It is not necessary, therefore, to have actual attention to what is being done in conferring the Sacraments, but as some attention is necessary in every human act, the most that can be required is that amount and degree of advertence to what we do which is not incompatible with what we do.(See Moral and Pastoral Theology, 3:20).

 What must the administer intend, exactly? You must intend to do what the Church does, not intend to do what the Church intends. According to theologian Ott, "The minister... does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the Sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite. It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians [i.e., Catholics]. (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 344; word in parenthesis mine).

The Presumption of Validity

 There is a rebuttable presumption (praesumptio juris tantum) that every time a Catholic cleric seriously undertakes to perform a sacrament it is done validly. It is presumed that the correct matter, form, and intention were all present. Pope Leo XIII clearly teaches:

"A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does." (Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae [1896]).

According to theologian DeSalvo, "As long as the lack of proper intention is not externally manifested, the Church presumes that the intention of the minister is correct." (See The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, [1949], pg. 105).

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

The reason for this principle is clear: Divine Providence will prevent the Church from defecting. While we can never know with absolute certainty (without Divine revelation) if any particular sacrament is valid, we have moral certainty, and the assurance that the Church will continue. Each week at Mass, you don't know if the priest tampered with the bread and or wine. You don't know if he correctly pronounced (and included) all the necessary words of Consecration. He could have done such things, but it is never to be presumed. On moral certainty, the Church allows us to adore that which looks as mere bread as Jesus Christ Himself.

The reason for this presumption is spelled out by theologian Courtemanche, "...it would be monstrous for the law to presume that what the mouth speaks is not in the heart, since that would be tantamount to presuming the presence of a lie." (See The Total Simulation of Matrimonial Consent, [1948], pg. 41).

Application of the Foregoing Principles to Abp. Thuc and Bp. Mendez

 The majority of Traditionalist clergy come from Archbishop Peter Thuc (1897-1984), the former Archbishop of Hue, South Vietnam. The clergy of the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), derive their episcopal orders from Bishop Alfred Mendez (1907-1995), the former Bishop of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Both were in advanced age when they consecrated the bishops for Traditionalists. Abp. Thuc turned 84 in 1981 when he consecrated Bishops Guerard des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora. Bishop Mendez was 86 when he consecrated Bishop Clarence Kelly for the SSPV, and the bishop had recently recovered from a stroke. 

The first accusation against them both is that they were senile, and didn't understand what they were doing. Furthermore, Abp. Thuc had consecrated the "seers" of the phony Palmar de Troya fiasco in Spain back in 1976. Naturally, only someone "crazy" would do such a thing. It has been alleged that Bp. Mendez did some strange things--like claim that he was wearing lay clothes because "the mob was after him." He too, therefore, is "crazy."

As we have seen, the Church sets a low bar, not a high one, in what is necessary for a sacramental intention. In order for the consecrations to be declared invalid due to senility, it would mean that Bps. Thuc and Mendez were so "out of it" that they didn't know what they were doing, and had no intention to do it while performing an episcopal consecration. There are numerous photos and witnesses that attest to the fact that both bishops were able to navigate the difficult, hours-long consecration ceremony and were able to pose for pictures. These are hardly the actions of someone who has tragically gone the way of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who had no idea who he even was towards the end of his life.

Abp. Thuc during the complex consecration ceremony of the great Dominican theologian M.  Guerard des Lauriers



Magazine put out by SSPV showing Bp Mendez sitting next to the newly consecrated Bp. Kelly. Inside are several up close pictures of the bishop consecrating Clarence Kelly with the assisting priests.

As to charges of insanity, in the case of Abp. Thuc, it was the SSPX that suggested to someone involved with the "seers" to ask Abp. Thuc to come and check out the alleged apparitions. The fact that Abp. Lefebvre did not dismiss it, and that Abp. Thuc wanted the Great Apostasy to end, can easily account for why he did something rash and foolish. Being "rash and foolish" does not equate to insanity. A proper medical authority would have to certify someone as habitually insane or suffering dementia in order to overcome a presumption of proper intention. That was never done. Abp. Thuc, going back and forth to the Modernist Vatican, makes him fickle in a time of complete confusion, not insane or unable to maintain the minimum intention for a valid sacrament.

The remark by Bp. Mendez about the mob following him, takes on a whole new meaning when put in proper context. He was not as brave as a prelate should be. He would not come out publicly for the faith as did Bishop Kurz, or Abp. Lefebvre. Therefore, he would often wear street clothes when with the SSPV. When someone asked him why he wasn't wearing his clerical garb, he responded, "The mob is out to get me, and I don't want them to find me." It was sarcastic humor, not insanity, that engendered the remark.

Masons and "I've Got A Bad Feeling About This"

 There is one more serious charge that needs to be answered. Since I wrote about it before at length (see my two posts cited at the beginning of this post), I will be brief. No one (to the best of my knowledge and belief) calls into question the mental state of Archbishop Lefebvre. However, the Cardinal-Bishop who ordained him a priest, and later consecrated him a bishop, Archille Lienart, was a Freemason. The evidence for his Masonic membership is hardly conclusive, but ad aguendo, I will concede he was a Mason. 

 There are those who assert that since Masons are the sworn enemies of the Church, Masonic clerics must withhold their intention and make the sacraments invalid. To demonstrate someone has withheld the proper intention, "...one must prove the existence of a positive will that excludes [the sacrament]." (See  Courtemanche, The Total Simulation of Matrimonial Consent, [1948], pg. 18). Such was the case in South America of a bishop who was strongly prejudiced against ordaining native [pueblo nativos] clergy. On his deathbed he confessed that he withheld his intention on those natives. The priest refused absolution unless the bishop agreed and gave permission for this to be told to the proper authorities. The native priests were re-ordained but NOT non-native priests. "The Church, recognizing that She can never know the internal intention of the minister, assumes it is the same as his external intention (the intention which the traditional rite provides by its very wording), unless he himself informs the Church otherwise." (See Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Sacraments, pg. 11 and footnote 19; words in parenthesis in original). 

 It is an established fact that Cardinal Rampolla was a high ranking Freemason. None of his consecrations or ordinations were repeated. There were bishops consecrated during the French Revolution by Masonic bishops, and they were received back as bishops, not subject to absolute or conditional consecration. The Church considers them all valid. Roncalli ("Pope" John XIII) was most probably a Freemason, yet the priests and bishops that derive their orders from him (including Cardinal Ottaviani) are not called into question. 

Those who assert Masons withhold their intention (have a "positive contrary intention" by willing "I do not intend to ordain [or consecrate] this man" while performing the ceremony) are setting up an opposite presumption from the Church, i.e., your sacraments are invalid, unless proven otherwise.If the Church tells us we must presume validity, we must do so. There is no "Masonic exception" to the rule. Remember that there is a possibility that any sacrament could be invalid, but we must not fear it because we have moral certainty. If Masonic membership makes sacraments doubtful, what about Modernists and Communists? They are the sworn enemies of the Church as well, yet we would have to consider virtually every sacrament invalid based on Modernism! (The number of Modernists who came out at Vatican II was staggering).  

The objection to such bishops is not based on theology and the practice of the Church, but rather, "I've got a bad feeling about this situation." That does not suffice. Notice that even the bishop who admitted to withholding his intention on native clergy, did not state he did have the intention for non-native clergy. Did the Church ordain all of the priests "just to be safe"? No! It was presumed valid. 

Conclusion
The renewed attacks on Traditionalist clergy orders are unfounded. Traditional Catholic theology tells us we have no reason to doubt the orders that derive from Abp. Thuc, Abp. Lefebvre, and Bp. Mendez. For those who would like to read more about the consecrations of Abp. Thuc in-depth, please go to the 101 page tome written by Mr. Mario Derksen at thucbishops.com. He quotes many of the same theologians as I do in this post, but goes into much greater (and better) detail, with many more citations to relevant sources. 

Finally, I would like to end with this quote from theologian DeSalvo, "Christ promised that He would be with His Church until the end of the world. Although men cannot be metaphysically certain of having received the sacraments, all may, according to common sense, depend upon the fidelity of Christ's ministers in the administration of the sacraments, and according to faith rely upon the Indefectibility of the Church and her ministers as a body." (See The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, [1949], pg. 106).

139 comments:

  1. So what would the sacraments of the modernists irregular do? Is the fact that the rite of episcopal consecration is invalid or that they are heretics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no presumption of validity when the Catholic Rite has been tampered with, so the episcopal consecrations beginning in 1968 are invalid. Add to that the non-bishops from the new Rite and you have invalidity on two counts!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, It's "RamPolla," who was a verified Freemason. You know that you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to prosecute any case against Roncalli (John XXIII) based on him "most probably" being a Freemason, basing this probability on nothing more than rumor and hearsay.

      Delete
    3. The intention for the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration is of no consequence since it is invalid due to defect of form.

      Delete
    4. You are correct. However, you can call into question the intention as well. The Modernists revised the entire rite. It’s invalid beyond a reasonable doubt.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. @anonymous3:52
      Thank you for spotting the typo, it’s hard to self-edit! As to Roncalli, that’s my point. Allegations of Masonry can be bandied about and causing strife if you buy into Masonic membership = dubious Sacraments. Lienart is far from conclusively a Freemason, as Fr. Cekada has pointed out in his writings. Ditto for Dr Coomaraswamy.

      However, even **IF** these allegations were true, it proves nothing as to lack of proper intention.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. Hello Introibo,

    Great article as usual. Do you know when allegations of Card. Lienart’s affiliation with the Freemasonry first came to light? I wonder if they did before Abp. Lefebvre's episcopal consecration in 1947? If they did, however, Abp. Lefebvre must not have thought of them as being true, choosing Card. Lienart as his principal consecrator? Your thoughts on this are much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the allegations surfaced in the early 1970s when a document was being passed around by Traditionalist clergy in Europe (point of origin unknown) that claimed Lienart and several other high ranking prelates were also high ranking Freemasons.

      According to Fr DePauw, Abp. Lefebvre himself started his own problems by claiming that those Masons “must have” withheld their intention to destroy the Church. It was foolish for him to do speak without knowing if any of it was even true, or researching what the Church really teaches about sacramental intention.

      The archbishop quickly recanted when he found out the list of dubious Masons had Lienart listed!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. Can you state who it was that first found the 1968 Orders to be invalid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first to do a complete and scholarly exposition available to the public was Dr Rama Coomaraswamy. Fr Cekada also wrote several excellent articles on the subject but much later than the good doctor.

      —Introibo

      Delete
    2. Is there an online pdf text of Dr Coomaraswarmy's work on the sacraments? Thanks again!

      Delete
    3. Mike,
      Unfortunately, I know of no online text. If one of my readers has such knowledge, please pass it on to me!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Didn't Dr Coomaraswarmy get ordained by Fr Malachi Martin, you know, the "secret agent" bishop??

      There are a few things about Malachi Martin that make me think he was probably a teller of tall tales, and that being a secret Bishop may be among them.

      Being Irish and having the gift of the gab, he may have convinced many people that he was many things.

      Something doesn't sit right with me regarding him though.

      Delete
    5. Mike,
      See my post on Martin:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-chameleon.html?m=1

      Delete
    6. For Dr Coomaraswarmy on the Sacraments, try:

      www.the-pope.com/saccha12.html

      Delete
    7. Thanks for the information, Kevin!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Actually, If the Church had to prove the validity due to intent, instead of the other way around, it's not confined to the last 100 - 200 years in regard to modernism and masonry. We'd be dealing with every heresy through the whole life of the Church. Who would be certain about any sacrament if that was the case. This is why the Church in her wisdom, one has to prove that it was invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is Pentecost or Trinity Sunday the last Sunday of Paschal time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trinity Sunday if I’m not mistaken (at work without my theology library). It’s the last Sunday to fulfill your Easter Duty.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. The Sede bishops and priests may have valid orders but that isn't the real problem. Consider the wisdom of the Church herself:

    "I am now in a position to identify the Church of Christ by its form of government. Any Church which disclaims for itself the right to rule its members, sets itself down as not being the Church of Christ. I will not be obliged to investigate it any further.”

    More:

    “Apostolicity.
    98. What is necessary that the Church be apostolic?
    It is necessary: 1st, That She never cease to teach the doctrine of the Apostles; 2nd, That
    through all ages She be taught and governed by pastors whose mission comes by unbroken
    succession from the Apostles, with the consent of the successor of St. Peter, the head of the Church.
    30
    Power of Jurisdiction
    165. Why does it not suffice to be bishop or
    priest in order to be a lawful pastor?
    Because even if one be a bishop, he must
    be sent into a diocese by the Pope; if a priest, he must be sent into a parish by the bishop).
    In other words, beside the power of order, one must have also the power of jurisdiction.
    166. What is meant by the power of order?
    The power of order is that conferred on a bishop by his episcopal consecration; on a priest, by his sacerdotal ordination; and so on for the inferior orders.
    167. What is meant by the power of jurisdiction?
    The power of jurisdiction is the power conferred by a superior on a subject, to exercise lawfully a spiritual function.
    168. What does the power of jurisdiction determine?
    It determines precisely the territory, the things, and the persons also, upon which bishops and priests are called to exercise their ministry.
    169. From whom do priests hold their jurisdiction?
    From the bishop of the diocese.
    170. From whom do bishops hold their jurisdiction?
    From the Pope.
    171. From whom does the Pope hold his jurisdiction?
    From Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man.
    172. What sort of bishop would he be who did not hold spiritual powers from the Pope?
    He would be an intruded or schismatical bishop.
    173. What sort of pastor would he be who did not hold his powers from a lawful bishop?
    He would be an intruded or schismatical pastor.
    174. Have intrusions of this kind ever occurred?
    Yes, and particularly in France, during the Revolution, when bishops and priests, after taking the
    oath of the Civil Constitution of the clergy, continued to exercise their ministry in spite of the Pope’s prohibition.
    175. When may one receive the sacraments administered by an intruder pastor?
    Only in case of mortal illness, when one cannot have a worthy minister, is it permitted to receive
    absolution from an intruder pastor; and even then only when it causes no scandal to others.”

    As has been made very clear, the Sede bishops and priests do not possess the power of jurisdiction and they do not carry on apostolicity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’re very wrong. This is how the Church functions in normal times, not during a state of prolonged Sedevacantism.
      According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

      For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

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

      Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

      Hence, the Remnant Church possesses both supplied jurisdiction and true apostolicity.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. An excellent article and here an excellent reply. Well done!

      God bless.

      - Kevin

      Delete
    3. Did you even understand what I posted? Apparently not.

      Delete
    4. @Kevin,
      Thank you my friend!

      @anonymous7:45
      Apparently, you do not understand. Your contention is refuted by theologians Dorsch and Salaverri.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. I am NOT anonymous@ 7:45

      I don't think you did understand him, Introibo.

      But thanks Introibo, you've solved the mysteries of Visibility and Jurisdiction in one fell swoop! If only it was as easy as you suggest. It isn't. And I don't have the time or inclination to set you straight on this occasion. It's not the correct venue for a discussion of this nature. Maybe 7:45 is willing to correct you?

      P.S. The Cekada-Lane debate would, perhaps, be a good starting point for all concerned.

      Delete
    6. @anonymous5:12
      Thank you for giving me a pass on “setting me straight” Your Eminence! I’m sure your superior intelligence combined with your Magisterial authority would blow me away.

      The Church cannot defect. The Remnant Church has both jurisdiction and apostolicity. The teaching of the theologians proves it.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Thank you Pope Introibo!

      Your superb sarcasm wins the day!

      But the only problem is that you're WRONG about the sede clergy.

      Seriously, now, you don't know what you're talking about - go look at that debate. You may learn something.

      Delete
    8. Actually, between the two of us, I think we know everything. Really. You know everything except for the fact that you’re a pompous boor who makes baseless assertions he can’t back up. And I know that!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. No. That's you. You butcher the theologians to come up with your ridiculous, novel ideas. And you get vicious very quickly. Again, you're wrong. It's obvious that you haven't read the tiniest bit of ecclesiology. I'll now leave you to your ignorant, prideful self.

      You know what they say about stupid remaining forever...

      Delete
    10. Let’s get this straight:
      You post a comment on my blog not looking for honest discussion of issues, but to authoritatively declare me in error, not backing up this incredible assertion with any credible evidence, and declaring that you don’t have the “time or inclination to set me straight” (read: “I can’t back up what I say”).

      However, I’m “vicious” for dismissing your boorish comments and empty assertions. Yeah. Right. Ok.

      Yes, I know what they say about stupidity remaining forever, but unfortunately I have neither the time or inclination to help you in that matter!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. Thanks again Introibo. A great summary of the issue.

    I would like to recommend John S. Daly's "Michael Davies - an evaluation". He takes this same subject head on in one chapter of the book, and refutes Davies very weak and flimsy position.

    Both Davies and Daly believe Lefebvre's Orders to be valid, but Daly's case is much stronger, because it's based upon the same principles as you lay out here.

    Davies' position has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, and if someone hangs their hat upon the latter, he could come undone down the track.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the information Mike!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. The Novus rite of Mass suffers from both defect of form and defect of intention.

    The deletion of "Mysterium Fidei" (The Mystery of Faith) from the consecration of the chalice in regards to the form, and the deletion of an offering of the Divine Victim throughout the surrounding rite in regards to the intention.

    If the minister is presumed to have the intention expressed by the surrounding rite, then what does the Novus rite express? Whatever it is, it is not what the Church believes and teaches regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    So a local Novus parish presider's "mass" has six apparent defects causing a blockage to validity:

    A defect of form and a defect of intention in the 1968 rite used to consecrate his Novus bishop;

    A defect of form and a defect of intention in that bishop's use of the 1968 rite of Ordination;

    A defect of form and a defect of intention in the Novus parish presider's 1969 Novus Ordo Missae.

    Dark days!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed! I’ll add another layer of invalidity. If a valid priest speaks the Words of Consecration in the form of an “Institution Narrative” theologians, such as O’Connell, teach that he lacks the requisite intention, because he intends not to consecrate but merely recount a past act of Christ!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. That is true also. The Novus Ordo system is a complete sham. A real pandora's box.

      The Novus text for the "consecration" is laid out as an historical narrative, so all we can do is presume that that is what the presider intends to do.

      The Church cannot and does not read minds, and so neither can nor should we. We just go by what is manifest.

      The "Offertory" (which is actually called the "preparation of the gifts") is nothing of the sort.

      The usage of terms like the "offertory" hymn - e.g. one bread one body - in the new mass, are just cultural leftovers. It is nothing more than offering of bread and wine - for no purpose or intention.

      No Victim, no Propitiation, no Mass.

      I came to realise all this a long time ago, but even now when it is unpacked and analysed, it is still shocking!

      Delete
  9. I know a Priest who was ordained by +Lefebvre in the 80's for the SSPX.

    For whatever reasons the man had - numerous and complicated - he is now incardinated in the local diocese and submitted himself to a terrible heretic of a "bishop".

    The deal was that he could still say his "Latin Mass" but had to say the Novus Ordo as well.

    So when he says his "Latin Mass" at 9am, beginning with ordinary bread and wine and going through the Rite, I presume he intends to do what the Church does, and therefore must presume that the Mass is valid.

    When he enters the same sanctuary an hour later, with the same kind of bread and wine at 10am and goes through his Novus Ordo rite, his intention must presumed to be defective.

    I don't have any contact with him these days mind you.

    It's all very bizarre!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you well stated, “Dark Days!”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. What is the Novus Ordo? It doesn't matter the priest's internal disposition as to what he believes or not. Simply, is the priest doing what the church wants done. When saying the TLM we all know what the Church wanted done. But the NO...who knows what it is or its intention. Its all too ambigious and undefined. Did they intend transubstantiation for a sacrfice or did they intend transubstantiation for a meal? Or did they even intend transibstantiation at all? Its hard to tell and that is exactly what the modernists wanted to further their ecumenical goals. There is only one course of action for a Catholic. Avoid the NO and treat it and all who profess it as you would any other protestant.

      Delete
    3. Laymen & Traditional Bishops/Priests who receive Holy Orders without a mission from the Church CANNOT BIND THE CONSCIENCE OF FELLOW CATHOLICS.

      In 2018,our World protects and supports abortion,male/female homosexual affection & dating in public high schools,mainstream acceptance of transgender agenda, Feminism,etc...
      Add to that list abomination & idolatry proliferating at an alarming unstoppable rate in every facet of life, personal and public.

      If a valid Priest or Bishop (ordained/consecrayed pre-July 1968 or priests who have valid orders via Thuc SSPX SSPV) is offering the 1962 Missal at the local Novus Ordo church, and the locals can't drive 50 miles or more to the closet traditional chapel,they should attend the Indult Mass.

      Many of us are hanging by a thread & are 1 inch away from Hell on our bad days.
      Our Blessed Lord instituted the Holy Sacrifice,Sacraments,and public devotion praise adoration and penance because without them we perish.

      Think about this comment for a few minutes,please!
      This isn't 1978 & the World is being orchestrated encouraged overwhelmed & submerged into a borderless global luciferian cult via Mass media, entertainment,education, feminism,etc...

      Those Catholics who are blessed to have valid clergy at the local Indult are trying and God bless them for it!

      We Catholics,all of us,need to chill (myself included) on the disunity and support love & care each other.

      God bless.

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous 2:26
      While your goal to support and care for each other is laudable, to attend the Indult (even assuming a valid priest) is to be in union with Bergoglio, the very man who keeps you “one inch from Hell” in the first place!

      It is an act of Apostasy. For more on what to do, see my post;
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/12/what-to-do-when-youre-home-alone-but.html?m=1

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. Where is the visibility of the Church?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where was Christ on Holy Saturday? The Church must undergo the Passion just as did Our Lord. Right now it is Holy Saturday for the Church. It apostoasized and died at Vatican 2 and one day it will rise again. Christ appeared to have abandonded His disciples when He died on the cross but it was not the case. They only thought they were abandoned. So is the situation now. We feel abandoned by the Church. But she is still there and will one day rise again in all her glory.

      Delete
    2. Tom, other than the analogy fits, by what basis do you assert the church must undergo the passion just as Christ did?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Regarding the visibility of the Church, I asked a Traditional Priest where it was and he stated that the Church was in “eclipse” - whatever that means. I should have asked him to clarify “eclipse”.

      Delete
    5. I can’t speak for that priest Joann, but he probably meant it exists in an altered yet integral state.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Anon, I should have said the Church "seems" to be going through the passion. Thank you for correcting me.

      Delete
  11. Introibo - Thanks for the very informative article!! Also, always like the photos you choose for your articles!

    I have often wondered why the SSPX and R&R recognize the 1968 Orders to be valid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Joann! As to your query, the R&R must accept V2 sect orders as valid because (a) the leadership of many R&R want to be united with the Modernist Vatican someday, and not accepting their orders would prevent this, and (b) admitting invalid Sacraments would be tantamount to admitting Sedevacantism!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX says publicly that the new rites of Orders are doubtful at best.

      Some SSPX Priests I know hold the same view.

      A whole lot more of the faithful in the pews wouldn't go to a novus ordained presbyter in an emergency.

      Delete
    3. This is true Mike. Some R&R hold a stronger stance against Modernist Rome, but Fellay and the official stance of the SSPX does not.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Bp.Tissier says good things & passes on the traditional Catholic rite of Holy Orders/Sacraments,and offers a valid Holy Sacrifice.

      He's 100 times more of a Catholic & Man than I'll ever dream of being.

      With that said,why hasn't he & Bp.Galaretta fiercely condemned the Novus Ordo absorption of the once traditional SSPX?

      Why haven't the 2 afore mentioned Bishops worked with any traditional Bishops and Chapels?

      I'm sure Bp.Santay,Bp.Ramolla,Bp.Trinh,Bp.Sanborn,Bp.Neville,Bp.Van Stuyver,etc...would love to work with both Men.
      I mentioned so many Bishops to show just how much good these 2 clerics could achieve.
      They would find support encouragement and gratitude in the traditional chapels.

      Delete
    5. @anonymous2:40
      The R&R mentality keeps them from doing all the good you suggest!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. "All Traditionalist priests come from one of three episcopal lineages"

    Pope Michael has his (Gaudete Sunday with previous Satruday civil year 2011) from Duarte Costa line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Bawden is an antipope, not a Traditionalist. Interestingly, there is nothing on his website about “Bp.” Bob Biarnesen. Who ordained and Consecrated him? What Ecclesiastical training and education does he have? Why isn’t he still with his “pope” as a “Cardinal” in the Kansas barnyard?

      He is niether Traditionalist nor valid.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Bawden's claim to the Papcy is better than Bergolio's. At least Bawden holds the Catholic Faith. Yes there's a huge problem with his electors too, but at least they held the Catholic Faith too. Every single "cardinal" that voted for Bergolio was a modernist. Also if watch a few Bawden videos you will be hard pressed to hear anything but authentic Catholic teaching. In any 30 second clip of Bergolio you will hear several heresies and a few blasphemies to boot.

      Delete
    3. True enough, but Bawden is neither pope nor valid priest or bishop nevertheless!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. I thought the Duarte-Costa line was valid?
      If what I read is correct,they've only had 1 Anglican interruption in the succession?
      I have watched their holy orders ceremonies on YouTube & they still use the traditional rites.

      Delete
    5. The major problem is with “Bp.” Bob. No one knows who ordained/Consecrated him. No one knows if he has the minimum Ecclesiastical training and education. No one knows why he didn’t stay with his “pope” and why Bawden never mentions him.

      The Duarte Costa line is not without problems of its own. I might do a post about it later this year.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Interesting. What is the minimum ecclesiastical training and education required? I'm quite sure it wouldn't matter anyways since that would not affect validity consecrations and ordinations. Anyone can pass on Orders if they possess them. More importantly, why does nobody know who consecrated Bawden? The Catholic Church has always revealed apostolic successions so if Bawden is validly ordained he needs to reveal who did it.

      Delete
    7. Bawden is a joke. That’s why he’s an antipope and a sad one at that. As to Ecclesiastical training, at minimum you must have a working knowledge of Latin so as to pronounce the words correctly and know what you’re doing. You must also spend a couple of years of intensive training in moral theology so you can properly advise a person in Confession.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Pope Michael Duarte-Costa lineage
      http://pope-michael.com/pope-michael/summary-of-the-position/validity-of-the-ordination-and-consecration-of-pope-michael/

      Delete
    9. @ anonymous 2:22
      Thanks for the link. It does nothing to prove Bawden valid. As I stated above, “Bp.” Bob is of dubious origin. Who ordained and Consecrated him? Why is he no longer with his “pope”? Does he know enough to validity confer a Sacrament?

      Moreover, you can’t seek orders from those outside the Church. Thuc and Lefebvre wanted to be Catholic, even if mistaken about the person of the pope during the Great Apostasy. Duarte Costs was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1945. There’s no doubt that he was not Catholic nor did he want to be one. He died, unrepentant in 1961.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. At the end of this chart,it shows who consecrated whom in specific order.
      My question is who ordained these Bishops?
      I hate to be picky but the majority opinion amongst theologians seems to be valid ordination is necessary for to be consecrated Bishop.

      Delete
    11. It states “Bishop Robert” not even mentioning his last name. We know nothing about him. I had to do an incredible amount of research just to find out his last name! I know of no “Bishop Justice” and they derive their orders from a non-Catholic Bishop.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    12. Introibo, Bawden has made a claim to the papacy but has not offered any proof that his election was valid. I give the guy credit only because he actually does seem to profess the Catholic faith. I do not believe his election was valid. But I do admire the fact that he did what needs to be done. A Pope must be elected if the See is vacant. I dont buy all these theological arguments that theres no jurisdiction or ability for electors to elect. There are sede bishops. They are the only thing remaining that even remotely resembles a hierarchy. Will the world scorn he
      who is elected? Of course it will. But so what?

      Delete
    13. Tom,
      We must tread carefully. There is the ability to elect a pope via imperfect general council. However with all the infighting between bishops can you ever get them all together to do so?

      It requires the greatest of care to interpret theological texts never used before in a time of near universal Apostasy. Otherwise we may end up following an antipope out of the Church!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    14. There are indeed problems of documenting before the public.

      I don't know for certain if Pope Michael was fooled about Bishop Robert Biarnesen. I am fairly certain he was in good faith - and if Robert Biarnesen did leave him rather than just resign jurisdiction, well, some people have left him because of a somewhat wry character. Theresa Benns, one of those voting for him and co-writing Will the Catholic Church Survive the XXth Century? - as well as The Portuguese-Indian Patriot Mascarenhas, who was badgering me about accepting Pope Michael back when he was admittedly a layman and when I was as yet a Palmarian, much of the time.

      There are known truths that are not made available very easily on the internet or even at all.

      Is there a gap in carbon dated human skeletons from last Neanderthal to first post-Neanderthal European? A journal in France suggested that, I wrote it to get an answer, and haven't got it.

      Is there a list on prehistoric (so called) human skeleta, by age, which I could consult on the matter? I haven't found it. Yet, it should be a thing one could produce if for each skeleton there is a carbon date.

      So, some details about Robert Biarnesen may simply be known to a few, sufficient, I'll hope, to warrant Pope Michael's confidence, dito on bishop Justice. And it is not available on the web.

      A worst case scenario would involve him being victim of a masonic prank. But how would he investigate that, if Robert is gone?

      He could be gone for perfectly good reasons too, like being victimised by psychiatry, like Bishop ... I recall one of the three Mindszenty, Slipiy and Stepinac, but can't right now find anything except Mindszenty presumed to have been handled by that before the treasin trial which led to prison.

      Delete
    15. In connection with Slipiy I did find Terelja:

      "We could fill many pages with accounts of recent murders, assaults, desecrations and trickeries by the Marxist-atheists in the Ukraine. Humanly speaking there is no end in sight to the sufferings of the Ukrainian Church. But we should take heart from the words of another young and courageous Josef Terelja, who has already spent 18 of his 41 years in Soviet prisons, camps and those new antechambers of hell, their psychiatric hospitals. In 1982, he founded the Initiative Group for the Defence of the Rights of Believers and the Church. He is now in prison again. He has written, "...every ordeal has its end and we are waiting for the end of our Way of the Cross; after that - Resurrection!"

      "We beg you then, for the memory of Cardinal Slipyj and for the solace of his still tormented Church, to pray, not to forget or permit to be forgotten that the Marxist-atheist persecution of religion never relents, and to give and to go on giving us the material means to relieve a little the terrible suffering this oppression causes."

      Cardinal Joseph Slipyj (1892-1984)an Imitation of Christ
      http://www.ukemonde.com/church/slipyjinfo.htm

      Delete
    16. Yet,Bp's Slipyj Heenan & Mindzentsy didn't pass on the traditional rite of Holy Orders to any traditionalist priest or would be Bishop in the 1970's.
      We all have our faults but being a valid Bishop and not caring enough about future Catholic Traditionalist to not pass on valid holy orders is major let down.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous 5:12 am said, "P.S. The Cekada-Lane debate would, perhaps, be a good starting point for all concerned."

    I am curious to look this up. Could you please give a link or point me in the right direction? Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I looked and found nothing. Lane vs Sungenis; Cekada vs Jenkins; but no Cekada vs Lane.

      Delete
    2. http://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1269/lane-cekada-debate-ignis-ardens?page=1

      Delete
  14. Will everyone please pray for repose of the soul of
    Bishop Francis Slupski please?
    He died 2 days ago.
    Bishop Slupski was ordained in 1961 & consecrated by
    Bp.Mckenna in 1999.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He’s in my prayers and I ask my readers to please do the same. May he Rest In Peace.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  15. Introibo - Have you done any articles on marriages performed during the crisis in the Church? My husband and I just celebrated our 30 year wedding anniversary. We were married by a pre-Vatican II Priest in the Novus Ordo. I was wondering if the status of our marriage is valid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy Anniversary!! No need to worry, your marriage is valid. In the sacrament of Matrimony, the bride and groom give the Sacrament to each other. The priest is just an official witness. As long as you and your husband were validly baptized, and the V2 priest was baptized (not even a valid priest is OK) then your marriage is definitely valid.

      Congratulations and God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. What's your opinion if it were two baptiizd Catholics and a baptized lay person as witness, or just two Catholics without a human witness?

      Do you know of any theologians who agree with your opinion?

      Delete
    3. In case of necessity a baptized layman as a witness would be valid. Without witnesses, I don’t believe it can be considered valid as there is no proof of the exchange of vows. I will research the theologians tonight and post another comment here.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. According to Theologian Halligan, there must be an official witness on behalf of the Church (priest)—-and just as Catholics did in Japan during the persecution, any baptized Catholic can substitute. Two witnesses at minimum, besides the officiating priest are necessary for validity. These witnesses need not be Catholic, heretics and even apostates suffice as long as they have use of reason and can testify as to what took place. (See “The Administration Of The Sacraments”, [1962], Pgs. 440-445; mention of Japanese Catholics mine)

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  16. Those who picked the wrong Pope (anti Popes) in western schism were never outside the Church. When the See is vacant, the Church elects a new Pope. Sedes have claimed that the See is vacant for 50 years. They should start talking about a way to fill the vacancy. It is painfully obvious to all that modernist Rome is not on the path to returning to tradition. And if we follow an anti-pope and a real one appears, we can simply switch our allegience like they did during the Western Schism. Without a Pope the trad movement can not last very long before it splinters and fractures beyond human repair. If God wants to fix the mess supernaturally, He will. But that is no excuse for inaction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Great Western Schism is not exactly on point. There were electors in place. Today we have none. I agree action is needed but action in conformity to God’s Law. An imperfect general council can’t be done without cooperation with all the bishops. To mistakenly think someone was duly elected by valid electors is quite different from following someone because “we want a pope now, so let’s just make one.” Personally, I think things are already too far gone and only God can and will fix it. However, I’m not opposed to legitimate action.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  17. Thank you for another thought-provoking article and for prudently moderating the comments.

    Regarding two comments upthread:

    As to where the Church was on Holy Saturday, she was represented, though that may not be the precise theological term, in the heart of the Blessed Mother, whose faith never wavered. That is why, as most readers of this blog probably know, Saturday is especially consecrated to her. There are many people who fast and do other acts of mortification on Saturday in her honor to pray for the restoration of the Church.

    The phrase "The Church will be in eclipse" can be found in Our Lady's words in her apparition at La Salette. This also is the source of "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist". Start five paragraphs from the end for these quotes.

    www.catholictradition.org/Mary/salette1.htm


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Barbara! Your comments are always appreciated and accurate. I do wish to warn all my readers about speculation regarding Our Lady Of La Sallete. In 1915, the Holy Office issued the following decree that all should read:
      THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE DECREE CONCERNING THE COMMONLY CALLED "SECRET OF LA SALETTE."


      It has come to the attention of this Supreme Congregation that certain ones are not lacking, even from among the ecclesiastic assemblage who, responses and decisions of this Holy Congregation itself having been disregarded, do proceed to discuss and examine through books, small works and articles edited in periodicals, whether signed or without a name, concerning the so-called Secret of La Salette, its diverse forms and its relevance to present and future times; and, this not only without permission of the Ordinaries, but, also against their ban. 
So that these abuses which oppose true piety and greatly wound ecclesiastical authority might be curbed, the same Sacred Congregation orders all the faithful of any region not to discuss or investigate under any pretext, neither through books, or little works or articles, whether signed or unsigned, or in any other way of any kind, about the mentioned subject. Whoever, indeed, violates this precept of the Holy Office, if they are priests, are deprived of all dignity and suspended by the local ordinary from hearing sacramental confessions and from offering Mass: and, if they are lay people, they are not permitted to the sacraments until they repent. 
Moreover, let people be subject to the sanctions given both by Pope Leo XIII through the Constitution of the offices and responsibilities against those who publish books dealing with religious things without legitimate permission of superiors and by Urban VIII through the decree "Sanctissimus Dominus Noster" given on 13th March 1625 against those who publish asserted revelations without the permission of ordinaries. However, this decree does not forbid devotion towards the Blessed Virgin under the title of Reconciliatrix commonly of La Salette. 


      Given at Rome on 21st December, 1915. 


      Aloisius Castellano, S. R. and U. I. Notary.


      Delete
  18. What makes a valid elector in a time of confusion and extremis? Its the question that should be discussed amongst trads. But all we hear about are the blasphemies coming from the false pope and his false church. Its much easier to denounce the modern world and the false Church. We trads do not have a Church to offer those who leave the NO, only isolation and the consolation of fellow sedes and trads. At least the discussion should begin to see if or how valid electors can be found. Otherwise the sede position is a dead end street with no escape. For what its worth, the discussion could piss off rhe NO hierarchy. It seems SSPX has been neutralized. It could also establish the sede community as a valid voice against the false NO religion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The late Bishop Terrance Fullham (RIP) was conditionally ordained & subsequently consecrated in the Duarte-Costa line via
    Bp.Simmons.
    I have no idea how these Men ascertain the validity of their ordaining/consecrating Bishop.
    There are living Duarte-Costa line Bishops who trace their orders straight back to Duarte-Costa or the first 2 priests he consecrated.
    The first 2 Bishops Duarte-Costa consecrated were ordained Catholic priests before leaving the Church in 1945.
    One of them is on YouTube (from 2015 or so) consecrating a Bishop in traditional rites.
    Personally,I think unless you can receive orders from one of these Bishops in Brazil or England,you're rolling the dice with Holy Orders via Duarte-Costa line.
    Bp.Bawden (I say that in case he has received valid Holy Orders) should be conditionally ordained & consecrated by a Bishop with bulletproof holy orders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the line is mostly dubious and originated from outside the Church, as Duarte-Costa was a bishop excommunicated pre-Vatican II.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  20. (Part 1 of 2)

    Dear Tom A.,

    A lot of people, particularly converts to the true Faith, have trouble understanding why traditional Catholics don't choose a pope. The solution seems obvious. Don't we need a pope? Why don't trad bishops just elect one and be done with it?

    These questions are difficult to understand and explain, but I will try to at least give you a little information about this question. When you read books on the Church, they say that the people who have the right to elect a new pope are the Cardinals. If you read larger, more erudite books, they'll tell you that if the assembly of Cardinals were either massacred or unable to elect a pope, the next group in line to elect the pope is either the college of bishops in an imperfect council or the clergy of Rome.

    The simple answer to why traditional Catholic bishops do not get together and elect a pope is because they do not fall into any of the categories that any theologians teach are capable of electing a pope. They are not Cardinals. They are not the clergy of the diocese of Rome. They are not members of the college of bishops, since they were not appointed to be bishops by any lawful pope, nor were they ever given episcopal jurisdiction in the Church, which can only be given by the pope. This is why they don't get together and elect a pope. And if they did get together and choose someone to recognize as pope, there is no way to prove that person was the valid pope, and there would be strong arguments against recognizing his legitimacy, which I outlined in the previous paragraph. There is no theologian that I am aware of to which a man "elected" in such a manner could point to prove his legitimacy.

    Continued below.

    ReplyDelete
  21. (continued from above, part 2 of 2)

    If you ask the various trad bishops why they will not get together and elect a pope, these are substantially the reasons they'll give you. The reason they don't vote on a pope is not because they can't get along with each other, or don't want to submit to a pope's authority, or hate the other trad bishops, or are too cowardly, lazy, or indifferent. It's because there's no way to prove that anyone they agreed on would be a valid pope, and the last thing we need is more confusion.

    This baffles people, and understandably so, because how can we be in a situation where we are lacking something as important as a pope in the Church and have no way to provide ourselves with one? The Church always has the ability to provide for its needs, so there must be a valid way to elect or designate a pope this very moment, but no one knows what it is. Obviously God doesn't want us to know. This is a mystery we have to accept until, in His own good time, He wills to change it.

    Lastly, there are the strange claims that "we have to do something about this situation," and "doing something is better than doing nothing," therefore we have to get together and elect a pope and hope for the best. To answer the first one, if no one is able to elect a pope, as I argued, then no one is required to do so. As far as saying that doing something is better than doing nothing, if this is considered a general rule it is entirely false. We don't have to do "something", but rather we must do the "right thing". Since the right thing is unclear at this point, nobody is doing anything until a clear path emerges. Getting together and choosing someone to be pope without even knowing for sure if he would be a valid pope would certainly be "doing something," but it would be doing something that would lead to catastrophe.

    When will the clear path to having a true pope emerge? How will we know it when we see it? Isn't there some kind of time limit on how long the Church can go without a pope before the world ends or the universe turns inside out or something else drastic happens? What is that time limit? Haven't we exceeded it already? Why is God allowing this? These are all mysteries known only to God. Have faith! And in the meantime, work out your salvation using the same means Catholics have always had since the beginning. That's what we have to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anonymous 2:34
      I am in substantial agreement with much of what you wrote. It is a well thought out position, and I thank you for commenting. Two points where we diverge:

      1. I think the infighting among Traditionalist bishops is a major factor in not studying the issues together and looking for solutions. Forget the pope issue, discuss the 1955 Ordo of Holy Week and people are ready to go to war!

      2. An imperfect general council may be possible by bishops without ordinary jurisdiction. I don’t have all the answers (as I’ve stated many times I’m not a theologian), but the eminent theologian Van Noort wondered what would happen if an H-bomb went off in the Vatican killing Pope Pius XII as well as all Cardinals and clergy in Rome.

      There must be a way, but until we are sure we must, as you say, keep doing what Catholics have always done to keep the Faith and save our souls!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. When the Sheppard is struck the sheep will scatter.

      You said
      "Forget the pope issue,discuss the 1955 Ordo of Holy Week & people are ready to go to War!"
      You're correct & this is why I view Pius XII' first wave Novus Ordo changes (51-58) as intrinsically anti-catholic.

      His 7 year rampage of "change" is a big reason why traditional Bishops don't work together.

      Can you blame the traditional Bishops for being all over the map Liturgically?
      Our "Last Pope" (it's possible Papa Pacelli was a bad seed) was the era many of them were raised in as young Catholics.

      They grew up seeing nothing but change for 20 plus years.
      Pius XII allowed Holy Communion on Good Friday for crying out loud.
      This rubric alone causes arguments amongst traditional catholics (rightly so) & it all goes back to Pius XII.

      Nothing will get better until we start fasting after midnight for Holy Communion.
      (Across the board for all traditional groups)
      For most centuries Catholics fasted after midnight for Holy Communion yet everything started imploding rapidly after the 3 hour rule in 1953 & 1957.

      Bishop Robert Dymek is thee only traditional cleric I've ever ran across who knew a large part of our problem is not fasting properly.
      (God rest his Soul)

      -Andrew

      Delete
    3. It doesn't help matters when traditional Bishops in Ohio & Florida are enforcing a self created "Dogma" called
      "non-una cum."

      These clerics DO NOT have jurisdiction plus it's been proven this issue is completely irrelevant!

      Almost make me wonder if some traditional clerics in the traditional Catholic world want us arguing & separated from each other.

      I remember a video from Bp.Bawden saying something along the lines of...
      "If the traditionalist Catholics are of God,you can bet your boots there will be
      Anti-Apostles posing as catholic clerics."

      Bp.Bawden,if he could receive solid 100% valid orders conditionally,and be allowed into the imperfect council (which he should be!)
      could give great insight & counsel to the fractured traditional catholic world.

      His videos are insightful plus he comes across as genuine, kind,simple,friendly,and intelligent.

      Delete
    4. Actually, Bp Sanborn explains the una cum situation very intelligently. It is not a "dogma." His position is that if you think Bergolio is the Pope, then go to Bergolio for your sacraments. There are plenty of NO, indult, and SSPX parishes to get your sacraments from. All of which think Bergolio is Pope.

      Delete
    5. Thank God the cultish
      Bp.Sanborn is not in charge at our local traditional chapel.
      (Yes it's Thuc line)

      Delete
    6. "The simple answer to why traditional Catholic bishops do not get together and elect a pope is because they do not fall into any of the categories that any theologians teach are capable of electing a pope."

      Anon 2:34: Thank you for identifying the sedevacantists as NOT being the true Church. You spoke correctly and thus show proof why Sedevacantism ultimately fails the test of Catholicism.

      Delete
    7. @ Anonymous 2:13
      I spoke to this issue and replied that bishops without jurisdiction may indeed be capable of holding an imperfect general council. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises because of this fact AND some theologians talk of the pope being chosen by Divine Intervention.

      That’s a defeater for your argument.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. @anonymous 8:15
      There can be bad popes morally but not doctrinally. The Holy Ghost would prevent anything from being given that is evil or erroneous. Therefore, you run the risk of becoming a Vacancy Pusher by having to logically deny the papacy of Pope Pius XII. Richard Ibranyi has the last pope as Honorius II in 1130 AD!!

      There is nothing wrong with the changes per se. I believe there would be a different form of Mass—not the Novus Bogus, but a specifically anti-Modernist one geared for our times. The Modernists hijacked the Liturgical Movement when Roncalli came in.

      I think the midnight fast is laudable and should be kept if it can be done without injury to one’s health or grave inconvenience. Remember, as people started working on Holy Days in non-Catholic countries, Pope Pius XII allowed for evening Mass. If I had to fast from midnight and go to an 8 pm Mass, it would be about 21 hours without food once I received Communion. Many people just can’t go that long with no food, especially if they perform manual labor.

      I think you present a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc—after this because of this—in regard to the Eucharistic fast. God Bless all those who fast from midnight as a sacrifice and offer it up to God. But the Pope Pius XII changes were not evil in themselves.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. I will agree to disagree regarding Papa Pacelli.
      As time goes on,as the emergency within the Church continues and grows even more malignant,as the World collectively succumbs to Satanic immorality,and as more information is uncovered about the Church pre-1950,it's not outrageous to consider
      Papa Pacelli being a slick cunning covert infiltrator or a undercover compromised progressive.
      I think we both realize this conversation could go on for days,and that's a compliment.

      P.S. Knowledgeable well meaning traditional Catholics used to discuss Pope Pius X saving the Holy See from Cardinal Rampolla.
      Well wouldn't you be surprised to learn (as I was) Pope Pius X kept Cardinal Rampolla employed in rhe Vatican Curia.
      This was a top spot similar to Speaker of the House in America.
      (Not the job rather the level of authority)
      Pius XII & Pope Benedict XV were literally spiritual Son's of Freemason Cardinal Rampolla.
      My point to all of this is we have reached a point of knowledge which allows us to see the infiltration and deception have been going on for hundreds of years.

      Delete
  22. There are many Traditional Churches that will refuse to give Communion if you have been attending an Indult, or SSPX Mass. If a person is a baptized Catholic, I don’t understand on what grounds they can refuse Communion for going to an Indult, or SSPX Mass. It seems almost “cultish”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would make one distinction. An “Indult” mass may not be valid as the priest was ordained in the invalid new Rite. Second, you would be in ACTUAL union with Bergoglio and the Vatican II sect which is a man-made, non-Catholic religion!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Again, if one believes Bergolio is Pope, it would be a sin for that person to seek sacraments from priests not in union with him. The sede priest who refuses the indult mass goer the sacraments is actually being charitable by refusing to cooperate in the sin of worshipping outside approved masses.

      Delete
  23. I was attending an indult Mass with a pre-Vatican II Priest and was refused Communion by a Traditionalist Chapel as a result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. You are receiving Communion from a false religion. I hope you will break all ties to the V2 sect.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I was “breaking ties” that is why I wanted to go to the Traditionalist Chapel, but they wouldn’t give me Communion because I had gone to an indult with a pre-Vatican Priest. I am a baptized Catholic who was searching for the Latin Mass and the Sacraments and had the door slammed in my face. Doesn’t seem very CATHOLIC to me.

      Delete
    3. Under that circumstance, the priest was WRONG. As long as you made it known to him that you would no longer go there, you should have been admitted to Communion. He might have asked you to go to Confession first, but that’s all that should have transpired.

      I’m sorry that was your experience. Please don’t leave the Church on account of him!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. I disagree Introibo. The sede priest cannot give communion if he knows the recepient thinks Bergolio is Pope. "Breaking ties" is not good enough. The ties must be severed. When Anonymous has come to the logical conclusion that Bergolio is not Pope, I am sure the sede priest would be more than happy to administer the sacraments. What the priest did is very Catholic. Its only the modernists who hand out their cookies with no concern.

      Delete
    5. Tom,
      We don’t know if Anonymous@4:40 still accepted Bergoglio. Breaking ties may mean saying so long to the V2 cult. That’s how I understood it. If he is no longer in actual union with Bergoglio there should be no problem. The SSPV will give Communion to those who are SSPX and sedeprivationist. Many have since adopted Sedevacantism! He may even be Sedevacantist. That’s how I understand it. He can correct me if I’m wrong.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. I never liked the Novus Ordo nor did I attend the Novus Ordo. I certainly abhor Frankie and never accepted him as Pope. I only started to attend Mass when I found the Latin Mass (what you refer to as the “Indult”). At the time, I didn’t even know what “indult” referred to or meant. All I knew was that I was overjoyed that I finally found the Mass I grew up with! People grow in “grace and knowledge”. I am the first to admit that I don’t know any way near what the people on this blog know, but I am seeking. I don’t think it is just for any Traditionalist to condemn me or anyone else for seeking especially amid all the chaos and confusion of today. I am a baptized CATHOLIC. I refuse to be labeled Sede, Traditionalist, Indult or anything else. In a way I am glad the Traditionalist Chapel refused me Communion, as I wouldn’t want to be apart of a Church that condemns baptized Catholics and treats them like their group is somehow special or has a certain revelation from God that makes them so.

      Delete
    7. Ok. Now that you’ve explained it all, I must retract my prior response to your and agree with Tom. The priest was CORRECT to deny you Communion. You are not being condemned, the Holy Eucharist is being protected. The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. When you were growing up pre-V2 and someone known to be a fallen away Catholic and joined a false religion came in and wanted Communion, what would the priest do? Deny them Communion. You may not be conscious of it, but you have been lead outside the Church. Your Baptism is insufficient when you are in a false religion.

      By denying you Communion, he was protecting the Sacred Species and making you consider your situation so that you may once more become what you were baptized to be, and want to be: CATHOLIC!

      I’ll be praying for your conversion to see your way back and understand that Communion must be safeguarded ESPECIALLY in such a time of confusion.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. For your information I no longer attend the “Indult” as the pre-Vatican II Priest retired and the Church was taken over by the FSSP and I refuse to go there. The Traditionalist Chapel refused me Communion so I have no where to go, but home alone.

      Delete
    9. Speak to the priest and let him know you will not attend any Mass but the True Mass, and you are a Traditionalist who wants to receive Communion. He should allow you to do so after Confession and that would solve your problem.

      Don’t remain a Home Aloner.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. To the Anonymous person who started this thread. Please don't be discouraged by this hurdle you had to jump over when you arrived at this traditional Catholic chapel. When someone finds the true Faith, as you have, the devil will use every possible means to drag that person away from it. Very often he makes the person upset about something that happened the first time he went. People are often taken by surprise at the communion rules, or the dress code, or things like that, and the devil tries to get them worked up about it to prevent them from attending any more. Don't give in! The Church has strict rules about who can receive Holy Communion, and the priest is responsible for following those rules. He will answer to God for whom he distributes the Holy Eucharist to. He did not refuse you Holy Communion, but merely asked you to wait to receive It until you and he were both sure you met all the requirements. It is likely there are requirements for receiving Holy Communion that you are unaware of, since you seem to be surprised that being a baptized Catholic and searching for the true Faith is not enough to make you disposed to receive. There is much more to it than that, so follow the priest's lead and trust his judgment. He wants to give you Communion, but he just needs to verify that you are properly prepared.

      God also makes people work for graces He gives them. You have been given an immense grace in discovering the falsity of the Novus Ordo church and finding a traditional Catholic chapel where the true Faith is practiced. But now there is a bit of a challenge in you getting through the door. God sent you this humiliation in having things not go as expected to see if you had a strong enough love for the truth to follow through on it despite this challenge. Our Lord compared finding the truth to a treasure someone found out was in a field, and the person had to sell everything he had to buy that field and dig up the treasure. You are being asked to exercise humility and follow the priest's instructions to retrieve the truth you have discovered. Don't turn your back on this grace you have been given! Make a great act of humility, go back and ask the priest what you need to do to receive Holy Communion, do what he tells you, and then you will be able to receive the sacraments so you can save your soul.

      Delete
  24. Dear Anonymous, I take it that you are the same Anonymous who made the earlier bipartite comment. Thank you for both of your lofty, wise and Catholic comments. I could not agree more with the substance of both comments. They shed a supernatural light on these questions. Thank you again.

    ReplyDelete
  25. To Anon @7:12. Thank you for your gracious and wise comment!! It is most greatly appreciated!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Introibo, on may 18 @ 2:32 you replied to anon: "I spoke to this issue and replied that bishops without jurisdiction may indeed be capable of holding an imperfect general council."

    Where does the Church teach this? I'm particularly interested in the part about bishops without jurisdiction. I think you must have misunderstood the text because I am unaware of the Church teaching anything about the only remaining bishops lacking jurisdiction. I seriously doubt Van Noort spoke to that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was referring to ORDINARY JURISDICTION. No Traditionalist bishop claims Ordinary jurisdiction, only supplied jurisdiction. The argument against an imperfect general council is that bishops with ordinary jurisdiction is needed. I don’t believe that to be the case.

      I hope this clears up any confusion! Van Noort was speaking about what precise measures should be followed, but there was nothing definitive. He certainly did not imply a limit on gaining back a pope.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thanks for responding. There are some bishops who do claim ordinary jurisdiction. Vezelis' group in NY for example.

      I'm sorry but your answer is sort of vague. Could you clarify please? Are you saying that the theologian specified that the remaining bishops would not have ordinary jurisdiction and yet could still hold an imperfect general council? If not, then why do you think bishops with only supplied jurisdiction could hold an imperfect general council?

      Also, I read that such bishops would have to be clergy of the Roman diocese. Is that not true?

      Thanks for answering my questions. I think we need more facts of an imperfect council because it may be the solution that we are missing.

      Delete
    3. No. What I’m saying is under the hypothetical an H-Bomb killed Pope Pius XII and all cardinals as well as Roman clergy, how do we proceed. All the theologians and canonists must be scrutinized in detail before we proceed. First, try getting the bishops together!!!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Why bother getting the bishops together if an imperfect council is not a legitimate solution? First, we must know if it is a viable option. Then trads can work on unity.

      But you are still vague. Why do you believe bishops with only supplied jurisdiction can hold such a council? You also didn't answer my question on the necessity of the clergy of Rome being the only college that can elect a pope. If you do not know the answers to these questions that is ok but just say so so I don't have to keep asking. Thanks.

      Delete
    5. The last time I checked, I write in English. An imperfect general council is an option but the details of how it works needs to be explored. The very idea was considered purely hypothetical since no one fully envisioned the Great Apostasy.

      That’s why we need the bishops to get together to work out these problems through study. The college of clergy is NOT the only ones who can elect a pope, but it devolves upon them FIRST.

      Why do I believe that bishops with supplied jurisdiction can hold such a council? Because supplied jurisdiction suffices in necessity to keep the Church going. This situation also qualifies.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. The Church DID envision the great apostasy. It is also in Scripture. There are many writings of the great falling away as well as some private revelations so I don't know why you say the Church never envisioned it. Not true.

      Not sure what you mean by "college of clergy". I asked about the clergy specific to the diocese of Rome. Could you clarify?

      It appears you believe clergy NOT of the Roman diocese can elect a valid pope. That doesn't sound correct. I believe I read that it must be the clergy of Rome specifically and that is what I am trying to ascertain. The anon way above also mentioned the same thing and you disagreed. But based on what did you disagree?

      Delete
    7. The theologian Cajetan (1469– 1534) and others teach that, should the College of Cardinals be- come extinct, the right to elect a pope would devolve to the clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church. (de Compara- tione 13, 742, 745). The Universal Church beginning with the bishops, of course. That’s why I disagree.

      As to the Great Apostasy, what I meant was few expected it to happen as it did. Therefore, the writings of the approved theologians are not as detailed as in other matters, especially authors of the 20th century leading up to Vatican II.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Thank you.

      Delete
    9. I'd like to read the text from Cajetan myself. I don't trust you Introibo. You have an agenda and just like the rat dimond brothers, conceal little tidbits of information that contradicts your agenda. You simply cannot be trusted to promote the whole truth. I will dig for this teaching myself to see if you are quoting it as written.

      Delete
    10. Go right ahead and look it up. If you don’t trust me why do you read my blog? I don’t have an “agenda.” Unlike the Dimond brothers, I make no money off this blog and take time away from my family.

      If you have nothing better to do than attack my character, please go elsewhere.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  27. Has anyone studied the jurisdiction issue with the Eastern Churches that are in union with Rome? They still elect their Patriarchs. Can they have a solution to the See of Peter being vacant and no valid electors remaining? Just asking. The Easterns seem to be left out of any discussions on sedevacantism. They are still "visible" and retain by and large their traditional liturgies and sacraments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      The problem seems to remain. If they are in union with Bergoglio they have no right to the title Catholic. In 1990 their Codes of Canon Law were made heretical to reflect the ecclesiology of Vatican II.

      There was always at least one Eastern Rite Cardinal, but none were ever elected pope. The Church is clear that the duty to elect a pope falls first to the College Of Cardinals, then to the clergy of Rome, and then to the Universal Church beginning with the Bishops. Non-Catholic bishops in union with Bergoglio must be excluded as heretical.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  28. Yes, that's right Introibo - bishops with ORDINARY JURISDICTION could take part in a papal election. No where does the Church teach that bishops that weren't officially sent/without ordinary jurisdiction/sacramental bishops only could do so. None of them have made any noises about doing so, probably because they acknowledge that they are unable to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 11:44 is spot on. Sede bishops do not have authority to call a council. This is proof that Sedevacantism is a false heretical and schismatical movement.

      Delete
    2. @anonymous 4:26
      And YOUR PROOF IS... WHAT? He who asserts must prove. You assert they cannot hold an imperfect general council. Now prove it. I won’t be holding my breath. You should find something more productive to do with your time. Perhaps learning theology and discovering what a sound, valid argument is all about.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Let's talk about discovering what is sound and valid. Your clergy holding a conclave would be the same thing as me holding a conclave. Neither have jurisdiction in the Church. Just because they managed to obtain, illicitly, the sacrament of Holy Orders doesn't make them members of the hierarchy fool. In fact, your bishops are excommunicated for trying it. That is why your 30 plus antipopes are still antipopes, even the "miraculous" ones.

      Delete
    4. I quoted Cajetan, you quote yourself. I don’t know if you’re Home Alone, Vatican II, or whatever. I only know what you’re not: logical and intelligent.

      Over and out!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Really? Cajetan says that laymen who illicitly obtain episcopal consecrations can hold councils and elect popes? And you say I'm illogical and stupid?

      Delete
    6. Lol!!! Did you read it? You need to understand the underlying principles which you don’t. St. Ansgar was consecrated without papal mandate in an unusual circumstance. What happened? He was praised by the pope and all his actions confirmed. Neither were the consecrating bishops condemned.

      I’m ending this discussion. I have much patience and I used to be a teacher, but I never taught special education.

      —-Introibo

      Delete