Monday, April 8, 2019

Does "Universal Acceptance" Guarantee A True Pope?


 When the Argentinian apostate, Jorge Bergoglio, became "Pope" Francis just over six years ago, all Hell broke loose (both figuratively and literally). The heresies and blasphemies that came forth from his mouth (Proselytism is solemn nonsense, there is no Catholic God, who am I to judge, etc.) even had some Vatican II sect "conservatives" (e.g., Society of St Peter) starting to wonder if sedevacantism might not be true after all. Bergoglio's actions, even before his "election," lead some prominent sedevacantists (e.g., Fr. Anthony Cekada) to change the direction of Traditionalist arguments. It is not only Catholic teaching that if a pope falls into heresy as a private teacher he loses his authority, it is equally true that a heretic cannot attain the papal office in the first place. The unanimous consent of pre-Vatican II canonists teach that the invalidating prohibition against electing a heretic is a matter of Divine Law, which admits of no exceptions or dispensation.

According to canonist Badius, "c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…" That pretty much does away with having to argue about "trials to depose a pope" because the heretic never became pope. In order to prevent the "recognize and resist" (R&R) camp from seeing the light, along came former (?) Freemason John Salza and his buddy Robert Siscoe with a duplicitous argument to keep things nice and dark. They assured the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and all other R&R adherents that "peaceful and universal acceptance" of someone elected pope is a dogmatic fact which assures us the person so elected must be pope. The full article can be read here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html. In this post I will expose some of the purposeful misrepresentations, and omissions of fact, that were necessary to make their phony case for a "true pope."  

A Half-Truth is a Bigger Lie
Those who tell half-truths are twice as deceitful, because they employ a truth to make a falsehood easier to accept. This will become apparent with Salza and Siscoe soon enough. They begin their article thus:

The legitimacy of a Pope, who has been elected peacefully and accepted by at least a moral unanimity of Catholics, is infallibly certain.  His legitimacy falls into the category of a dogmatic fact, which is a secondary object of the Church’s infallibility. This is the unanimous teaching of the Church’s theologians.

In support of this contention, they cite to theologians Berry and Van Noort. I will turn to their citation of Van Noort first. 

In the following quotation, Msgr. Van Noort further explains the infallibility of dogmatic facts. He also explains that the infallibility of dogmatic facts is qualified as "theologically certain."  Those who depart from tradition by rejecting a doctrine that is qualified as theologically certain are guilty of a mortal sin

"Assertion 2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This proposition is theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, [but] on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the [First] Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was [past tense] Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be [present tense] recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church." (Christ’s Church, p. 112)

What they omit two pages later is telling. From Van Noort, "Of course whatever the Church declares directly must be maintained by everyone, e.g., that the Vulgate contains the Word of God; that Pius XII is the head of the Church;that the doctrine of this or that book is heretical. It arrived at these decisions in the following manner: every faithful translation of the inspired books contains the words of God; but the Vulgate is a faithful translation; therefore...Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church; but Pius XII was legitimately elected; therefore...Any book containing this doctrine is heretical; but such and such a book contains this doctrine; therefore..." (See Christ's Church, pg. 114; Ellipses in original).  The dogmatic fact is deduced through a true reasoning process.

There is a true revealed major premise: "Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church." The minor premise is conditional. Hence, "but Francis was NOT legitimately elected; therefore..."
That is why theologian Szal tells us, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 3; Emphasis mine).   How could someone suspect the validity of a putative pope's election and not incur the sin of schism if all it takes to assure his validity is a group of heretical "cardinals" to declare one of their own "elected pope"? Note also that Szal is talking about all members of the Church having the excuse of suspecting the validity of a pope's election, not only Cardinals or other clerics.

It's also ironic that Van Noort states on pages 114-115, "The Church's infallibility also extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living...[the Church] can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls. (Emphasis in original) Let's get this straight. Salza and Siscoe want us to accept the heretical pretenders since Roncalli up to Bergoglio as "pope." Yet, they then proceed to reject their pope's ecclesiastical laws for the direction of Christian worship. Do they not reject the Novus Bogus "mass" because it is conducive to the injury of souls? However, the very theologian they cite (as well as the unanimous consent of all other theologians) teaches this is an impossibility. Nor can they escape the charge of a schismatic mentality, in choosing what laws to obey and which to toss aside. Consistency, wherefore art thou? It's not to be found among the R&R.

Now, I turn to their citation of theologian Berry:
The following, taken from Fr. Sylvester Berry’s Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, The Church of Christ, further explains these principles:

..."DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact." (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

       Notice the term "practically unanimous," which is distinct from "mathematically unanimous." A practically unanimous acceptance does not require acceptance by 100 percent of professing Catholics; it is rather a morally unanimous acceptance, which represents the "one mind" of the Church. As we will see later, the fact that individual Catholics reject the legitimacy of a Pope does not mean he has not been accepted by a morally unanimous consent.

Seems like a pretty air-tight argument they've got going, right? Here's what theologian Berry tells us on page 229 of the exact same theology manual (and conveniently omitted by Salza and Siscoe):

"A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case, no one is bound to believe him, for it is an axiom that a doubtful law begets no obligation---lex dubia non obligat. But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope at all. 'Therefore,' continues the Cardinal, 'if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did." (Emphasis mine)

How can there be a doubtful pope if he is peacefully and universally accepted? Didn't theologian Berry know what he was writing in his own manual? I can hear the objection of Salza already, "Berry was talking about a case where there was not practically unanimous consent." Objection overruled.

1. At no point does theologian Berry explain exactly, or in what manner, "practically unanimous consent" is achieved. The majority of Cardinals and members of the Church accepted Antipope Anacletus II, and a minority of cardinals and members of the Church accepted Pope Innocent II until St. Bernard of Clairvaux convinced the majority to change position (which he did on his own initiative). Again, what constitutes the "practical unanimous consent"? Salza counters that the election was "contested" and therefore did not acquire "peaceful and universal acceptance." He defines the concept as:  The ‘peaceful’ aspect refers to the election not at once being contested; the ‘universal’ aspect refers to the entire Church learning of the election and not at once contesting it. Says who? Salza and Siscoe!  Citing to theologian Billot, they extrapolate the principle that: The universal acceptance is considered to exist when the election becomes known and is not contested by the Church, and is accepted by the prelates. It continues: In John of St. Thomas’ day, such acceptance would happen gradually as the news spread throughout the Church and the word.  But in our day, when news spreads throughout the world almost immediately, the universal acceptance would be manifest very quickly. This means (it is alleged) that if the legitimacy of someone declared as elected to the papacy is not contested almost immediately, his legitimacy is infallibly certain. So if you're not quick to protest the "papacy" of one who celebrates Chanukah and participates in Protestant false worship by immediately posting something on Instagram and Twitter, he's the "pope"--to whom you must submit (but only when you feel like it).

Theologian Doyle explains: "The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all…." (See The Defense of the Catholic Church, [1927], pg. 124) It is therefore possible that the entire membership of the Church could have accepted one of those men who was not pope, as the Vicar of Christ.

Ad arguendo, if this manufactured definition regarding "peaceful and universal acceptance"of Salza and Siscoe were accepted, there is also the problem of who must contest this election, and how quickly. Salza and Siscoe would have us believe that the moment a group of heretical "Cardinals" elects one of their own, he immediately achieves "peaceful and universal acceptance." This is their own made up definition, as there is no unanimous consent of the theologians, nor official Church decree declaring such to be the case. If Siscoe and Salza's version of the "facts" is accepted: Who needs to contest the election? Cardinals? Bishops? How many Cardinals or bishops would have to "contest" the election? If one sufficient? At what numerical point does the "contesting" become enough? How is this contesting to be done? In writing? Publicly? Privately to the one elected in the prescience of witnesses?

Another big problem for them: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. This is the decree of Pope Paul IV of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be "null, legally invalid and void." Salza and Siscoe respond with four points:
  • The decree is "manifestly unjust and problematic." No. It's simply restating the Divine Law which Canon Law states and all canonists teach; "For the validity of the election as regards the person elected, it suffices only that he not be barred from the office by divine law — that is, any male Christian, even a layman. The following are therefore excluded: women, those who lack the use of reason, infidels, and those who are at least public non-Catholics." ( See theologian Cocchi, Commentarium in C.J.C, 2:151)
  • Cum ex Apostolatus has been derogated and hence is no longer in force. No need to rebut that contention as the decree simply reiterates DIVINE LAW, which admits no exceptions
  • It can be merely hypothetical that the situation of a heretic being universally accepted could happen. Yeah. Right. Sure. Popes don't make decrees for hypothetical situations incapable of being fulfilled. It's analogous to a papal decree declaring what to do should the pope fall into error when speaking ex cathedra.  It can't happen, so no pope would waste his time writing such nonsense
  • Lastly, the legitimacy of a Pope who has been universally accepted is qualified as "theologically certain."  This would not be the case if the Church interpreted the aforementioned teaching of the problematic, and now obrogated, papal bull, Cum ex Apostolatus, as meaning an illegitimate Pope can be universally accepted as Pope by the Church. It is also theologically certain that Divine Law prevents heretics from obtaining the papacy, so it's Sicoe and Salza who get "universal acceptance" wrong. Re-read theologian Van Noort in context; it's theologically certain if and only if the election comports with Divine Law. We have moral certainty that the sacraments we receive are valid if they are performed with the requirements of Divine Law, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, making it dubious because, e.g., the priest was heard leaving out essential words of the form. So too, we can have moral certainty that the pope is legitimately elected unless we have proof to the contrary, which we do
2. There is strong evidence that theologian Berry was discussing the Church in normal times, not during the Great Apostasy, of which he writes in the same manual cited:  "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church...there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, [1927], pgs.65-66; Emphasis in original). A Church of Satan with false sacraments and the false prophet playing the part of the pope, with "more universality" than the True Church? How could there be such a false pope if he had "practically unanimous consent"? Its obvious that the term is not concretely applied by theologian Berry, and in any case, would not apply in the time of Great Apostasy. Are we to expect apostates from the Vatican II sect to try and sort things out for us?

3. Finally, theologian Berry does not give a different definition to dogmatic facts than theologian Van Noort.
Hence, we argue, "Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church." The minor premise is conditional. Hence, "but Francis was NOT legitimately elected; therefore..."

Disposing of Some Other Falsehoods
To go through all the other points of Salza's article in detail would require several posts. Nevertheless, I will briefly point out their inherent flaws. Should anyone want to challenge me on any point they think I did not address, I will be happy to debate them in a neutral forum. 
  • Appeals to authorities before 1870. Salza and Siscoe are fond of citing theologians prior to the Vatican Council (1869-1870). That's when there was a lot of Catholic doctrine settled regarding the papacy  and made it untenable to hold a number of theories that had still been permissible to hold up until that time. Citations to theologians Cajetan, Suarez, and John of St. Thomas are therefore plentiful. citations to post-1870 theologians and canonists are conspicuously absent or twisted out of context as demonstrated above with Van Noort and Berry
  • False definition of a public heretic. They claim that a "public heretic" was not, and could not be elected by the Church, since a public heretic is "a public member of a heretical sect (e.g. a member of the Baptist Church), not a Catholic...who is guilty of the sin of heresy." Wrong.  According to theologian McDevitt, "A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by heresy or apostasy in a public manner..." Further, "It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon [188] demands." Finally, "..even if only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the Faith...the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1" (The Renunciation of An Ecclesiastical Office: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, [1946], pgs. 136-140; Emphasis mine).
  • An incredible implication. Do members of the R&R celebrate Chanukah with Jews? Do they participate in false worship with Protestants and kneel before a so-called "bishop" to receive a "blessing"? To do so would be the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris and a denial of the One True Church. Consider also, " As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the "curas villeros," the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those 'penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop' projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out." (See http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910bdc4.html?eng=y) Participating in these ecumenical services with Protestants and Jews is, in the words of Pope Pius XI, "altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." (See Mortalium Animos para. #2) Yet, somehow if such a "cardinal" is pronounced "pope" without public abjuration of heresy, how does he attain the papacy? Does the "universal acceptance" somehow "undo" his heresy? Or does it mean his actions, contrary to all Church teaching pre-Vatican II, was not heretical? No attempt at an explanation of this is made.
Conclusion
The disingenuous duo, Salza and Siscoe, would have us believe that an impediment of Divine Law which prevents a man from attaining the papacy is somehow "cured" by a fanciful definition of "peaceful and universal acceptance." They twist and misrepresent theologians Van Noort and Berry. They give a false definition of "public heretic." Finally, they show themselves as the ultimate hypocrites, for we must accept Francis as pope because it is a "dogmatic fact," yet they do not accept the dogmatic fact that the Church is infallible in matters pertaining to the general discipline of the Church, such as the Novus Bogus "mass." They pick and choose what decrees of their "pope" and dogmatic facts they will obey. Isn't that the very etymology of heretic--"able to choose"? What they refuse to accept is the proposition, "What's wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong, and what's right is right, even if no one is right."  

181 comments:

  1. R&R doesn't mean Recognize and Resist. It really means Schismatic and Heretic. Schism because they refuse submission to what they believe is a Roman Pontiff. Heresy because the Church doesn't teach what Salza and Siscoe would want us to think it teaches, just to suit their position. GREAT ARTICLE. Keep up with exposing these people. We pray that they wake up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you my friend! I will indeed keep writing to expose falsehood and demonstrate the truth.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. As you pointed out, the R&Rers will always pick and choose what dogmatic facts they will accept or reject. The NO sect has only one dogma and that is that there is no dogma. The R&Rers basically claim only one dogma and that is that there is a Pope no matter what he says or does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Yes. Siscoe And Salza prove they must defend the “defend” a pope they don’t obey at any cost.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. I'm glad you mentioned how St. Bernard of Clairvaux took the initiative to change the mind of the majority of cardinals about how they should acknowledge the true Pope Innocent II back in his time. This means he used his private judgment which is another one of their dumb arguments they accuse a sedevacantist of doing as if it's wrong. Yet they use their "private" judgement all the time when it comes to what they accept and won't accept from their so called "Pope" Francis. I thought a "laymen in the pew" couldn't do that. What a bunch of bozos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. We must accept Church teaching of which Siscoe and Salza approve. They then use private judgment in telling us what “doesn’t apply.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. In any case, there is no moral unanimity of Catholics that accepts Bergoglio as the pope anyway. Yes, there is a moral unanimity of modernist heretics that accepts him as pope; that is clear. But that doesn't prove that anyone is pope.

    If you look at Catholics, ie people who believe in the Catholic religion, even if you suppose there are some such people still in the new church or in for example the sspx, there is nothing even approaching moral unanimity among these people that Bergoglio is the pope. There are sizable minorities in this group that are sedevacantist, Bennyvacantist, Siriites, conclavists, and people who try to believe Bergoglio is the pope because they can't think of any other alternative, but are in great doubt and are scratching their heads because they just don't know what to make of the whole situation.

    There is definitely no morally unanimous acceptance of Bergoglio as pope among the Catholics of the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A great argument! It’s very different now than when Roncalli and Montini came in. Members of the Vatican II sect are at least material heretics !

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. R&R won't accept the novus bogus mass but will accept all the so called "popes" who do. Doesn't even make sense to a newbie like me.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Doesn’t make sense to anyone with common sense!! You’re right.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. It’s hard to understand Salza, Siscoe & the R&R establishment doing anything but the Devil’s work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’ve got that correct, Father!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. According to the R&R,if universal acceptance is the so called guarantee of a true "pope" wouldn't universal acceptance by the majority of so called Catholics then determine the novus order to be a true Mass?

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Logically, if their “true pope” approved the Novus Bogus it does indeed mean it’s a true mass. But, the R&R are anything except logical!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. This quote convincingly supports Salza: "It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact."

    There is nothing you can really say to that. It is what it is. Your argument is based on the section pertaining to a doubtful election but it fails because you can't have both the "practical unanimous consent of the validity of a papal election" and a "doubtful election" simultaneously. If an election was doubtful the whole church would have been divided on the issue but this was never the case with any of the post V2 popes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Several things can be said:
      1. The Church is not the Vatican II sect therefore practical unanimous consent was lacking
      2. What constitutes a doubtful election or practical unanimous consent ?

      3. What authority says the whole Church must be divided?
      4. Heresy bars one by Divine Law from obtaining the papacy. The Dogmatic fact is conditional upon an election that comports with Divine Law.

      5. Notice how Salza picks and chooses which Dogmatic facts to follow. It is a Dogmatic fact that the Church is infallible in liturgical laws—yet he rejects them! Hypocrisy in the max.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. Unfortunately, Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada and many other like-minded sede clergy reject the infallible liturgical laws (i.e., Pope Pius XII) of a indisputably valid Pontiff. Their crime is arguably more serious than the R&Rers, for they reject the liturgical laws of an objectively valid pope whereas Paul VI is an objectively false pope. They think their justification for doing so stacks up. IT DOESN'T. What they accuse the SSPX of doing - "sifting the pope" - they themselves happily do. Their "private judgment" meets with much disapproval in sede circles, and leaves the door wide open for criticism, attack and the charge of hypocrisy by the likes of Salza & Siscoe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a very interesting point. I did a post “In Defense Of Pope Pius XII” which dealt with that very issue. I do believe that the liturgical laws up until October 9, 1958 are binding. I also think a CASE can be made that the law ceases to bind albeit a weak case.

      I beg to differ that it is not a rejection in the sense that—to the best of my knowledge and belief— no Traditionalist clergy have declared the Holy Week revision to be evil, erroneous, or an incentive to impiety. Siscoe and Salza DO claim that the Novus Bogus is an incentive to impiety which must be avoided. They openly profess that the Church can give evil. I believe the CMRI is right on using the 1958 Missal—As did Fr DePauw.

      I think there is merit in what you say about the attack and criticism that division on the Holy Week services allows from the R&R camp. Until there is agreement (not likely in the absence of a pope), we can still point out two things:

      1. It is never claimed the Church gave evil, only that a law affecting one week in the Liturgical year ceases to bind.

      2. R&R claim that the entire order of the post-V2 liturgy is an incentive to impiety (and even evil), given by a true pope.

      I understand what you’re saying and your point is well taken.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. And to whom should the CMRI (or anyone for that matter), appeal for a derrogation from that law? It is only your opinion, Anon 3:36 that they should stick with the liturgical rites as given in 1958. The CMRI have stated their reasons for using previous Rites and there simply isn't any authority around to tell them otherwise. You have your opinion and they have theirs.

      Delete
    3. In addition Anon 3:36, Liturgical Laws are not infaillable in themselves. What is infaillable is the dogmas and doctrines that Liturgy puts forth. As long as the liturgical changes do not change the infaillable dogmas of the Mass then either the earlier version or the later version are both valid. It is only out of obedience to authority that one is bound to say the latter version. Given there is no authority, there is no one to punish the saying of the earlier version since there is no authority. We now know in hindsight and through the historical record that Pius XII was not fully informed of the actual liturgical goals of the modernists. A good case could be made that had he known his changes would lead to the NO, he may not have made them to begin with. I know that is speculative, but again, with no legitimate authority to rule on this, no one can legitimately condemn CMRI's use of a valid Rite.

      Delete
    4. Tom,
      CMRI uses 1958 and anon3:36 rejects them for pre-1955. He is against Fr Cekada, Bp. Dolan —-and even SSPV—who use pre-1955.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Tom,

      I'm a different Anonymous, but I have some questions for you.

      What is your "opinion" on which liturgical Holy Rite should be used? The one Pope Pius XII enforced after 1955 or the one which some clergy use before 1955 today? If you support the clergy who refuse to use the the missal changes before 1955 then give us a good reason (not an opinion) for disobeying Pope Pius XII assuming you believe him to be the last pope? It's true that its been 60 yrs since his death and things can gradually happen in time but if a true pope died a couple years ago and an antipope was for certain reigning as is now would you say that we are free to do what we believe is the best option (liturgically speaking) instead of just simply following a pope from a couple years ago? Would it not perhaps be borderline schismatic since one is not simply doing what one was commanded to do until a new pope rises again after him? And let's say a new pope does eventually succeed a pope from a couple yrs (if that were the case even though now it has been 60 yrs since Pope Pius XII) ago and continues from where the one before him left off and didn't change anything. Are you going to side with that current pope NOW that he is in office or would you do what some of the clergy do now because you disagree with him for not changing what the previous pope required before him?

      Delete
    6. I can give you one very good reason to "disobey" Pope Pius XII: he is dead and there is no legitimate authority to tell a priest not to use whatever valid Rite he chooses. Prior to Trent there were all sorts of Rites in Christendom. Pope St Pius V codifed which Rites were permitted and which were suppressed. But no future Pope is ever bound by a law from a predecessor. Since 1958, is has come to the attention by many that the changes Pope Pius XII instituted were directed from modernist enemies of the Church.

      Delete
    7. I'm the original anon.

      WRONG, Tom. The law is clear.

      1. Clerics are absolutely bound by Canon Law to use the current Missal.


      2. During an interregnum the status quo is to be maintained insofar ecclesiastical law.

      3. The changes are recognized by the "disobedient" sedes as being intrinsically good. What Pius XII gave the Church CANNOT subsequently turn to stones. They are bound to hear and obey the dead pope, just as all clerics were on October 10th, 1958. It's not a free-for-all, sir.


      4. The reality is that these so-called self-appointed "experts" have no business 2nd guessing the decisions of valid popes.

      5. There is an authority that they must obey. He's above us.

      Delete
    8. Tom,

      When you say "Since 1958, it has come to the attention of many that the changes Pope Pius XII instituted were directed from modernist enemies of the Church," you're essentially saying that Pope Pius XII enforced something harmful because you're making it sound like the modernist enemies and Pope Pius XII were working together in the destruction of the Church. A pope can change whatever he wants after his predecessor but that does not give anybody a good enough reason to say they are not bound to follow something a last true pope enforced. If we can do that with Pope Pius XII's changes, then how bout we "disobey" the "dead" (as you say it) Pope St. Pius X's changes he made on the liturgy (which were many), or how bout we go before a pope before that who made changes, and so on. Who decided? Who has a right to do that? Thank you for demonstrating why you prefer to disobey the last known true pope just because he has been dead for so long and prefer to follow some priests and bishops in about a week who will be doing their own thing since nobody right now can tell them what to do. Like Van Noort says in the article above "The Church's infallibility also extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian WORSHIP and Christian living...[the Church] can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls."

      Delete
    9. Again, for both Anons, please tell me who is the authority to enforce Canon Law and Ecclesial Law? We can take the matter to him to decide. If you choose to remain static as if it were 1958, that is your call. But no one is commanding you to do so one way or another. The changes made by Pope Pius XII were not evil in themselves. It was just unwise to adopt them given the source of those changes. None of his changes caused any defect in the essential substance of the Mass. There was no defection of the Faith. One could also easily argue that the 1962 MR is not a defection of the Faith but simply imprudent. The Montini/Bugnini monstrosity called the Novus Ordo, however, is clearly a defection of the Faith as intended and admitted to by its author. If you want to use the Liturgical books enforce in 1958, go right ahead. I am in no position to make tell you not to. Likewise, you have no authority to denounce the usage of the pre-1955 books.

      Delete
    10. New Anonymous here.

      Another point to consider in the Pius XII Holy Week is that something objectively neutral or even good can become evil because of circumstances surrounding it. So while no traditional Catholic would say that Pius XII published an evil rite of Holy Week, it is certainly plausible to claim that, although his rite may have been good or neutral in the 1950s, it is no longer so now and therefore should not be followed.

      Thus, the use of the vernacular, the readings facing the people, and other elements that Pius XII incorporated into his new rite were obviously protected by the Holy Ghost at the time he published them, but in the time that has passed since then those things have become tools of heresy and modernism. Therefore, the accidental circumstances of the universal apostasy since the publication of the new rite of Holy Week is an accidental circumstance that makes it bad to use it today, even though it is fine in itself.

      A slight variation of this argument is that we can easily imagine that if Pius XII could see what would happen in the world after his death, he would not want anyone to use his new rite of Holy Week.

      That being said, I think both sides of the Holy Week debate are on solid ground. One side is using the rite given to us by a true pope. The other side is using what it seems almost certain a true pope would want us to use. We await a new pope to settle the matter either way.

      Delete
    11. Original anon here.

      Tom,

      Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just conveniently choosing to ignore what I'm writing to you?

      I'll lay it out again.

      The law is clear.

      1. Clerics are absolutely bound by Canon Law to use the current Missal.


      2. During an interregnum the status quo is to be maintained insofar ecclesiastical law.

      You're disappointing me, because I didn't take you for someone who makes it up as he goes along.

      Funny, Tom, your novel argument isn't held by Fr. Cekada or Bp. Sanborn? They know full well that my points (1 and 2) above are completely correct, and that's why in their contrived argument they took the principle of "nociva" and wrongly applied it to - of all things - the ecclesiastical changes instituted by a valid pope! Ask Introibo if you can borrow some manuals of Catholic casuistry, and then research the examples they give of "nociva." You WON'T find examples relating to the changes popes make to the Missal, because if there were examples of this nature Fr. Cekada would've surely hauled them out. Instead, he erroneously applied the principle to this case.

      You ask which authority knowing full well that there is no formal authority, which, by the way, is why Bergoglio cannot be formally condemned. But, inconveniently for you, the "authority" is Canon Law and Church teaching. That is what a conscientious sedevacatist defers to. Again, there are procedures in place that govern how Catholics act during interregnums.

      Conversations I had with Oyster Bay Nine priests over 20 years ago revealed that they had no reason for using the pre-1955 Missal other than that it was preferred. Later on a "justification" emerged.

      You appear to be a Fr. Cekada/SGG/MHT devotee. If in fact you are, perhaps you can elicit an explanation as to why Bp. Dolan (and Fr. Cekada) have been periodically dispensing people from Friday abstinence on days they deem are special occasions? You can pick your jaw up from the ground now. Every Catholic knows that Friday abstinence is SACROSANCT, yet Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada have told the faithful at St. Gertrude the Great at times that they can eat meat on a Friday! Is this because there's no "authority" to "enforce" Friday abstinence? I've never heard of Bp. Clarence Kelly doing such a (scandalous) thing? Never heard of Bp. Mark Pivarunas doing such a (scandalous) thing?

      Their eschewing of Pope Pius XII's changes using, as Introibo puts it, a weak argument is similarly scandalous.

      When/if you reply I'll show how it's scandalous to the sede layman in the pew and juxtapose it with the SSPX layman in the pew and their rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI.

      Delete
    12. And I ask you again, to whom shall we go to in authority to settle this matter?

      Delete
    13. I'm the Anon. who has been asking all the questions after the original.

      Tom,

      You cannot neutralize the liturgy question. The Holy Office decreed "Those who follow the Roman Rite are BOUND... to follow the Restored Ordo for Holy Week, set forth in the official Vatican edition." (Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites November 16th 1955. According to Pope Pius XII the liturgical reforms were "a sign of the providential dispositions of God for the present time of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church (The Assisi Papers, First international Congress of the Pastoral Liturgy Sept 18-22 1956 Pg. 224). Unless you can prove Pope Pius XII was not a true pope nobody has a right to say one can use either missal. The argument that something good lead to something bad is another way of saying that the Church can lead people to Hell. The Church cannot do this and that is the whole point of this article and the reason why those like Salza and Siscoe lead people (speaking of which) to the conclusion that the Church can still remain Catholic even though they would have us believe is defected at the same time. HERESY! The 62 missal of John XXIII is an irrelevant argument since he was not a true pope.

      Delete
    14. We are not in normal times. This is not a normal intereggnum. In a normal interregnum we still have bishops with jurisdiction to keep liturgical order in their dioceses. Now you can make a good argument why we should remain liturgically as is in 1958 and you can make a good argument why we should not. Neither side deviates from any dogmas or doctrines of the Faith since a valid Roman Rite exists in both cases. When there is a Pope again, this issue will be settled. None of us can decree which version of the Rite to use. We can only opine. Trust me, I would be just as upset at someone who said that one had to use the pre 1955 Rite based on their opinion. Make your argument and let others make theirs. This is one issue that we cannot settle without a Pope.

      Delete
    15. Tom A,

      In this case it doesn't matter what kind of times we are living in. If a true pope were reigning today he would have to pick up where the last one left off if he were to change anything again. He wouldn't just automatically do the pre-55 missal as if the other liturgical law never happened. One side does deviate from faith. The side that blames modernist for something a pope approved insinuates that Pope Pius XII was a modernist without actually saying it and yet still calls him pope. It's ridiculous. If there is nothing wrong with those who choose to obey it, then why won't the other side do the same? It's because they prefer to do the other version because they think the Church went wrong with the new norm "leading to something later." There is nothing wrong with the new norm enforced by Pius XII. There is something wrong with the those who dare attack the discipline of the Church and will have to answer to God for their dishonesty one day (if they know the situation well).

      Delete
  10. Do you see any similarities with the R&R position and the Old-Catholic position?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan,
      Indeed I do! Thanks for bringing this to my readers attention!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. Thank you Introibo for taking up this issue. I butted heads with these two charlatans as St. Cyprian on Louis V's blog. Not to be critical of you, but I think anyone who contends with these two should always preface their posts with a few prefatory remarks. By not doing so, an unsuspecting reader may get the impression that Salza and Siscoe are engaging in a dry debate about which people may disagree, and there are no other impediments casting doubt on the activities of these two.

    The first prefatory remark I would suggest is that these two have not maintained a consistent position throughout their disputes with so-called "sedevacantists" other than that so-called sedevacantists are always wrong. I've had the personal experience, as others must have, of correcting them on some error and see that in a later "contribution" they have amended their position, or even changed their position wholesale. What they never do, though, is admit that their position has changed, or that they were wrong about some issue, or give credit to the person who corrected them. Thus there is a borg-like aspect to their activities, where all counter-arguments are assimilated and rebutted because they are presumptively wrong because sedevacantism is a defined error. /s

    This is not the end, though. Messrs. Salza and Siscoe are operating under the auspices of the SSPX. The SSPX has apparently outsourced their attacks on sedevacantists to semi-pro "theologians" over a period of years and Salza and Siscoe are not the first to adopt this role. One would expect that the SSPX would be speaking out on its own behalf on such important matters but they seem to always keep an arms-length distance from these semi-pro "theologians" like Siscoe and Salza. I suspect why they keep an arm's-length distance from these "theolgians" is that if we are not, in fact, in the end times, they want to minimize the consequences of a restoration, so to speak.

    The other prefatory response I would suggest is that at least John Salza has maintained the position that a sitting Pope could be tried for heresy by the Cardinals. Although I suspect that he initially held this position out of ignorance, he has maintained it even after it was brought to his attention that such a position is untenable after Vatican I. The fact that he continued to advocate this position after Vatican I was brought to his attention made him a formal heretic. Why anyone should be considering the theological musings of an alleged ex-mason formal heretic is beyond me, but he is still published by Michael Matt.

    The fact that the SSPX employs an alleged ex-mason formal heretic is not surprising since they have similarly rejected Vatican I in their neo-Gallican position vis-a-vis the conciliar popes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon949
      Thank you for the informative comment! Points are all well taken. I agree with you.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. "And I ask you again, to whom shall we go to in authority to settle this matter?"

    I've already dealt with this inquiry. Refer to my previous answer, Tom.

    However, to hammer the point home: Go to the same authorities you'd go to if you had doubts that *eating meat on a Friday is a mortal sin* (please take note, Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada); go to the same authorities you went to when you were settling the matter for yourself as to whether Jorge Bergoglio is a valid pontiff, i.e., go to the popes, theologians, doctors, saints, Canon Law, Catholic doctrine etc.

    I'll stress that it's actually NOT a matter to be settled. It's more of a case that un-canonical clerics (one in particular) have concocted a reason after the fact for the way they've chosen to act which is clearly outside the law. Just because Fr. Cekada turns it into an "issue" means nothing. I've noted after reading Introibo's very good article on Pope Pius XII that he mentioned the amended Cekada argument and the (ridiculous) video. I could make a far more convincing video wherein Pope Pius XII (and other notable clerics of the time) slapped Fr. Cekada down and sent him packing back to 2018 to contemplate his folly.

    I'll also stress that many Catholics have read the Cekadian opinion on the Pius XII changes, put it down and mentally picked a whopping rubber stamp and stamped the conjured document (complete with a passport-sized photo of Fr. Cekada, cheery smile and all affixed) with the word "REJECTED" in large, red lettering. Similarly, they instantly reject Bp. Dolan's idea that it's licit for him to give a dispensation to allow consumption of meatstuffs on Fridays.

    (I'll leave the SSPX comparison with sedes for a later time.)

    Tom or anyone, if you attend SGG could you please ask Fr. Cekada or Bp. Dolan to give us their explanation as to why they think it's licit to direct people to eat meat on Fridays, and to actually eat meat on Fridays (other than, say, when Christmas falls on a Friday)?

    Anyway, Tom, thanks for the conversation. It's been instructive insofar demonstrating that it's not only the sedeplenist clergy that are a law unto themselves, and that at times they all veritably reek of hypocrisy.

    By the way, I hold the sedevacantist position.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I do not go to SSG chapels for Mass and have no contact with any of the clergy you mention. I too hold the sedevacantist position and would never go to any priest to ask for any sort of dispensation since there are no Roman Catholic priests with any jurisdiction to grant any. If I eat meat on Fridays or need to miss Mass, that is now between God and I. I wish it weren't so, but there is no other way until Authority is restored. You must follow what you think is best, and so must I. We can turn to traditional sources for guidance but there is no one to turn to in order to solve differences of opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks for your reply, Tom. The good news is that we're getting closer to being in complete agreement.

    I'd word it a bit differently:

    We necessarily turn to traditional sources for guidance to enable us to confidently state, for example, that the Feeneyites aren't just opining regarding BoB and BoD, but are, in fact, in ERROR; that the copious disingenuousness that flows so freely from the pens of Messrs. Salza & Siscoe, is proven ERROR; that Fr. Cekada et alii are, according to Church teaching, in ERROR regarding their rejection of Pope Pius XII's Holy Week (and other) changes; that Bp. Dolan, when he entices churchgoers to attend Mass on, say, the Feast of Saint Gertrude the Great, which has happened to fall on a Friday, and tells them that IF they do attend Mass they are dispensed from the Friday abstinence, enabling them to eat meat at the feast in the hall afterwards, is in ERROR.

    I'd suggest you read the article Introibo had displayed on this site, read the posts, again, made by the second anon, and read an article on the Pius XII by the Catholic blogger Steven Speray.

    Finally, I'd sincerely suggest (I mean that) that you learn to distinguish between "opinion" and "error" insofar matters Catholic. And another tip when navigating the minefield known as "Traditional Catholicism," is to take the time to research and understand when and how the various opinions and errors took root and developed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time for my two cents. While I respect Tom, I disagree with his contention that simply because there is no ECCLESIASTICAL enforcer of the laws, we have no laws.
      God will hold us accountable for transgressions of the laws of His Church. "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me" (St. Luke 10:16)"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (St. Matthew 16:19).

      To Whom do we go for dispensations? We use epikeia. According to theologian Jone, epikeia is "The interpretation of a law in accordance with the mind of the legislator...taking for granted the lawgiver would not wish to oblige in some particularly difficult case even though the case is obviously covered by the wording of the law" (See "Moral Theology" [1961], pg. 23)

      Therefore, episcopal consecrations can take place without papal mandate because the legislator could not want the extinction of valid priests and bishops--along with the Sacraments they confect.

      Are there disagreements over when epikeia applies? Of course in some cases, but that is why you look to decisions from e.g. the Holy Office and the canonists/theologians. If there is no consensus, Canon Law itself tells us that the interpretation most amenable to freedom to act must be adopted.

      A Traditionalist bishop can't simply "dispense" people from eating meat on Friday since he has no authority to so act. However, if someone has a medical condition that prevents him from keeping the Lenten fast, he may presume himself dispensed. It is not a theological "free for all." Just as the approved theologians and papal decrees continue to teach and edify us, so too, the Church continues to rule, albeit in a different manner during a prolonged state of sedevacante.

      The logic of anon@4:52 is unimpeachable. If the papacy is restored, the new pontiff will not pick up where Pope Honorius II left off, as the followers of Ibranyi seem to think! It will pick up where Pope Pius XII left off.

      We must also abide by the maxim of St. Augustine, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity." The Holy Week Rites of 1958 are in effect. Since a weak case for cessation can be made, and it does not effect an essential of Faith, I will not call clerics (like SSPV) who use the pre-1955 Rites to be schismatic.

      Thank you all for the great exchange of comments! My readers enhance the quality of this blog for the edification of all in these perilous times.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Tom and Anon, what you are stating is heresy. There must always be a hierarchy with authority. If there is no one with authority remaining in the church then it defected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you say there must be a hierarchy with authority, who are you referring to as having it today?

      Delete
    2. Well then, where is it and who is in charge? PS, that is your definition of "defected."

      Delete
  16. Anon @ 5:17 am.

    You're very sloppy/shoddy. Get your facts straight.

    Now, go look carefully at what I've written. I've said nothing of the sort, and I'll thank you to cease attempting to falsely attribute things to me. I take Tom's comments to mean that he can't safely go to his local Novus Ordo parish priest or bishop for advice. And he's correct.

    P.S. You've commenced in a disingenuous manner, so I shan't be wasting a moment more on you. But I'll leave you a little hint - if you think the Novus Ordo is the hierarchy, you're the one who's spouting heresy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not buying your act. You know what I wrote is 100% correct and you don't like it because you have no response so you put on a phony display of pomp and indignation. And who says "shant" but a fruit-loop anyways. So long cupcake.

      Delete
    2. Anon @6:37 -

      Are you Novus Bogus Order or Orthoduck??

      Delete
  17. I say "shan't," using an apostrophe, Princess. You are shoddy, so you omit the apostrophe. Please don't go, Princess. I have a few minutes for you now.

    I've bought your act - you're starring as a lightweight RUNNING from the inquiries put to you.

    But you are right. Ya got me! I clearly denied the visibility and indefectibility of the Church! I'm a heretic because I hold the sede position. I should know better, because to be a Catholic I need to recognize Jorge Bergoglio as Pope. Yes, Jorge & Co. are doubtless the faithful, visible hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

    This (above) story should be acceptable to you, because *obviously* you're into fairytales.

    Now, cease being a coward and engage those who've made inquiries to you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So, by anon's reasoning shouldn't we go to the Novus Ordo mass since it is the Mass of Pius XII?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Novus Bogus is in no way the "mass" of Pope Pius XII. Read the Encyclical Mediator Dei of 1947. It condemns everything the Novus Bogus does.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Why would following the reforms of Pope Pius XII have anything to to with the Novus Ordo? It's ridiculous how much SGG, SSPV, and pretty much all former SSPX lineage (now turned sede [a good thing]) clergy have brainwashed people on some issues, especially this one.

      So for those who are pro SGG, Bp. Sanborn and others of that mindset, tell me did it lead to the Novus ordo when Pius XII approved of the new three hour fast before holy communion when previously one had to fast till midnight before receiving communion? If so then why do those who refuse to obey the holy week changes obey that rule? Or how about when Pope Pius XII allowed Masses to be said in the evening. Did that lead to the Novus Ordo? After all one could say that the Novus got the idea of using that to have mass on Saturday evening "to fulfill the Sunday obligation." Those same groups say Mass in the evening even though traditionally Mass had to be said before noon. On Holy Saturday when there is an evening vigil and the fast remains all day as opposed to the pre-55 changes which are done in the morning and the fast ends at noon could one honestly say that by changing that it would lead to the Novus Ordo? In fact, the evening vigil was
      a restoration of old and is more "traditional" instead of it being done in the morning and Pius XII addresses why he changed it like that.

      My point is, just because Pius XII approved of shortened prayers and ceremonies for Holy week doesn't mean it was bad thing. If Pius XII had the final say, then who cares about how Bugnini and other bad ones were involved. Obey what Pius XII laid out until further notice. It's that simple

      Delete
    3. Anon 8:22, you are free to follow the liturgical norms established by Pius XII. And others are free to follow other valid Rites. You and the host have made a good case as to the prudence of doing so. But you have not made a definitive case. Nor has anyone made a definitive case to use a previous valid Rite. While matters of faith and morals remain fixed and unchanged, these liturgical matters and other disciplinary matters will continue to divide Catholics because there is no authority.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, TomA, but you're wrong. And all due respect to Introibo, but the case made for disobeying the liturgical changes of Pope Pius XII has no merit. Therefore, it's no case at all.

      The Church has made it quite clear that NO ONE is free to follow superseded rites. The definitive case was made long ago by Rome/established Church teaching. The fact that you are, seemingly, ignorant of the fact that clergy are NOT free to follow superseded liturgical practices is neither here nor there insofar the clear truth of this matter.

      If you wish to rid yourself of your erroneous notions regarding this matter, please contact CMRI and ask them to send you their publications where they cite ecclesiastical law and other sources including instuction from Pope St. Pius X, to demonstrate that the liturgical changes of Pope Pius XII were mandatory then and still are today.

      Delete
    5. Tom A,

      All Church disciplines are matters Faith and Morals. The difference is they change, while dogmas don't. You don't have the freedom to pick and choose what laws/disciplines you want to follow. Otherwise why would popes give us laws and disciplines, if you can pick and choose which one you want to follow? Now that all the popes are "dead" what if I said that I didn't really like any of the liturgical disciplines of any of the popes since before Pope St. Gregory the Great who changed the canon back in his day? Then criticize any pope after him saying that he lead to this or that problem. That is what those against the Pius XII changes are doing and they dare go as far as saying his changes were harmful in one form or another (and dishonestly say they aren't saying they are harmful). What you consider Catholic I consider questionably Catholic or at best dissident. I feel sorry for all the clergy now because while the CMRI along with a few others who do it right on the one hand give people permission to go to places like SGG. It's probably for the peace of mind of Catholics who have nowhere else to go. I don't agree with that. I'd prefer not to go unless it's done in the spirit of obedience and unity of the Church. Otherwise to support such places is in way give them reason to keep doing what they are doing, which is wrong. What they (those who are against the changes) need is a wake up call because this is serious. It's just like the SSPV not giving communion or other sacraments if they know you are a regular of Thuc line priest and bishop. Why support such quackery which also divides as you call them Catholics? On top of that they are opinionist regarding sedevacantism. These people are the problem and they aren't going to fix it unless a majority of people start standing up in there face and withdrawing their support. Even in that case they still may not fix it because they are to prideful. To support such scandal, and error in the name of Catholicsm is more than a kiss from Judas but a slap in the face of Lord Jesus Christ. St. Hermenegild's feast was yesterday. What does it say in the Roman missal? "He was put to death for refusing to receive Holy Communion from the hands of an heretical bishop in 586." Who nowadays can say they have the courage of such a saint?

      Delete
    6. @anon9:12
      It is not heretical to use previously approved Rites. It would be Schismatic. However, to be Schismatic, there must be an intent to separate oneself from the See of Peter ( as noted by Theologian Szal) which is conspicuously missing in the SSPV—and others who use the Old Rites.

      The New Rites did have the unintended effect of giving the idea that ANYTHING can change. This was used by the Modernists to convince the people “change is good.” Not necessarily. Is it a strong case that this caused the Pian Rites to cease binding? No. However, in this case, since an argument could be made for such, and it is not heresy, the SSPV should not be condemned.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Pope Pius XII said "Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors." Mystici Corporis #66

      Fr. Cekada wrote “the many parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms now render continued use of the latter HARMFUL, because such a use promotes (at least implicitly) the dangerous error that Paul VI’s ‘reform’ was merely one more step in the organic development of the Catholic liturgy.” This is heresy because he's saying the Church isn't spotless in her laws imposed on all which Pius XII was clear on. How can any honest man deny it?

      Fr. Cekada also says the reforms “paved the way to the 1969 new order of mass of Paul VI and were the work from the same modernist cabal that concocted the post Vatican 2 reforms.” He always boastfully calls his Masses in his Quidlibet articles “As always, a Bugnini-free zone!” Of course you admit it was schismatic but bring in this idea that something is missing. How is it missing? The clergy who oppose the Pius XII liturgy have a big problem with them and make it public knowing exactly what they are saying.

      Change can be good so long as it doesn't damage the Faith and give into modernism which is the reason why the Novus Ordo defected. The Pius XII liturgy didn't have anything to do with it. Paul the sick would have done more but Ottaviani and others were going to declare him a heretic if he implemented his first radical changes as I've read.

      SSPV are another form of the SSPX with the "opinionist" sedevacantist position who unjustly refuse sacraments to those who attend the Thuc lineage, which goes against Canon Law. To support them, is to support their errors because the moment you sternly disagree with them and let em know it, is the moment you see how they treat you with the sacraments. You may not get them. You may get kicked out. If that is the case as has been with some, then I wouldn't want to have anything to do with hypocritical sect.



      Delete
    8. The N.O. did not appear out of nowhere. It has been in existence for a loy longer than 1963/69. Pacelli may have seen it, or, at least, read the text. All the changes post '45 came about in order to anesthetize the flock to the N.O. As fo Mediator Dei, Pacelli was recorded telling the Liturgists to ignore what he wrote and continue with the reform. P12 knew exactly what was going on.

      Delete
    9. Sounds like a typical unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
      1. The Novus Bogus didn’t come out of nowhere.
      It was concocted by Modernists who knew what they wanted to do. Why stop at Pope Pius XII? It couldn’t have come out of nowhere in 1945, so let’s implicate Pope Pius XI. But wait, it couldn’t come out of nowhere, so let’s question Pope St Pius X.

      2. You’re a de facto Vacancy Pusher. This is the result of #1 above. What citation do you have for the statement that Pope Pius XII was “recorded telling liturgists to ignore what he wrote”? What you’re claiming is that Pope Pius XII was giving that which is evil to the Church. This is only possible if he lost his authority through the profession of heresy as a private teacher. You’ve pushed back the time of the Vacancy to Pope Pius XI.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. @anon12:21
      I agree that the arguments of Fr Cekada And SSPV don’t hold up. The argument I’m saying is that the Holy Rites were used as an excuse to accept ANY change. To eliminate that misconception, the Older Rites could be used (perhaps). As these are extraordinary times, I wouldn’t be quick to cast stones. I don’t believe that using the old Rites under these circumstances is Schismatic.

      You will be hard pressed to find Traditionalist clergy with whom you agree 100%. I agree with Fr Cekada that Thuc line Bishops are valid. I disagree on Una Cum.

      In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. Hey thanks Reagan's Bush for that pile of unsubstantiated assertions. Until you give us *solid proof* it's just more unjust slurs against a good and holy Pope, made by another run-of-the-mill audacious, rebellious, new breed Cekadian/Sanbornian sede.

      Delete
    12. Hi Introibo! Hope you're enjoying your Palm Sunday. :)

      I'm the anon who started this conversation, and who's continued to comment. Firstly: I think you're a man of goodwill who's trying his utmost to be fair and charitable about this issue.

      You wrote:
      "I’m saying is that the Holy Rites were used as an excuse to accept ANY change. To eliminate that misconception, the Older Rites could be used (perhaps)"

      This is good, because it shows that you are doing the right thing by straining to think the very best of Fr. Cekada and the other Pian rebels.

      However, I will point out that Fr. Cekada et alii aren't kidding the "thinking sedes" out there, because we know that if he spent half the time explaining to people that ANY change (e.g.changes to the substance of sacraments, ref. Paul VI and his tampering with the very words of Christ in the consecration) isn't necessarily lawful, but the Pian changes are lawful etc., as the time he spends explaining why he's really not sifting the pope (as he accuses the SSPX of doing just that), that there's nothing wrong with the Pian changes (yet he definitely leaves people with the impression that there is something wrong with them) etc., ANY danger to the faithful would be well and truly averted. I mean, it wouldn't take much of his brainwashing technique (even at tnis stage) to turn this all around, and admit (for once in his life) that he's w-r-o-n-g.

      Delete
    13. Anon @1:22

      The likes of the "new breed Cekadian/Sanbornian sede"
      scares the daylight out of me. What are they going to attack next or change next?
      It seems no one is immune in this time of the Great Apostasy.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    14. Anon @ 1:22 here.

      Hear, hear, JoAnn.

      I couldn't agree with you more. I don't know what's in the offing. Like you, I'm frightened at the prospect of what comes next.

      Delete
    15. @anon1:57
      Thank you for the kind words and may you have a Blessed Holy Week. My position has always been to allow as much liberty as possible in matters not directly related to Faith and Morals. That having been said,Fr. Cekada may be doing something permissible for all the wrong reasons he states.

      To be fair, Fr. Cekada has done the most of any Traditionalist cleric to spread sedevacantism, and that is to his everlasting credit.

      Unfortunately, he has adopted the very "follow me or die" mentality he once rightfully abhorred. Fr. Cekada makes up sins where none exist. He declares it a mortal sin to attend the so-called Una Cum Mass, yet he advised one of my readers to go to a validly ordained apostate priest in the Vatican II sect outside the danger of death. This is simply mind-boggling. His Una Cum stance was rejected by an approved pre-Vatican II theologian (Fr. Martin Stepanich) and an approved pre-Vatican II canonist (Fr Gommar A. DePauw). Still, he refuses to reconsider his ill-advised opinion and declare something a "mortal sin" which he has no authority to do.

      He also can't go without insulting anyone who disagrees with me. I've been guilty of that myself at times, and this Lent I've made a concerted effort to be a better person. Let's hope it works!

      @Joann
      The Great Apostasy has affected us all to one degree or another Catholic and non-catholic alike. It's scary. May God grant us the wisdom to persevere until the end>

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    16. To my above comment--"He also can't go without insulting anyone who disagrees with HIM."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    17. I'm the other Anon. who is very much against those who are not in favor of the Pius XII changes. I get your points though. If this is about attendance at such places, then not very many would agree with me as to why to avoid such places. I'm certainly not a home aloner in the sense that I don't believe like some that nobody is legit, but I'm also not somebody who will put up with BS from those who are legit and if I have to stay because nothing else is available, then so be it. Many there are who have nothing and are lucky to be able to get to go once a year. Others have five options within 30 miles like Cincy Ohio (three of which I wouldn't recommend). Fr. Cekada has done a lot of good but you could say Fred and Bob Dimond have too. They are right about some things, but they are also dead wrong and heretical on some things. What good is it to have pure and clean water right in front of you to drink, when at the same time a drop of poison is in it? You may not die right away as you drink it but you will soon after unless you get lucky. Of course we could go on all day on how much of authority none of have to say anything, but it's not about what authority we don't have. It's about being of good will and not settling for that which is wrong until it's made right. That's how purgatory is. You can't get into heaven until sins are totally satisfied because Our Lord isn't satisfied with us until we are perfect and hence the reason He commands us to "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." MT 5:48

      Delete
    18. Introibo,

      Thank you for your well-wishes for my Holy Week. Likewise.

      I'll make this my last comment on this subject, and look forward to your/any response.

      I don't think it's a matter of whether these Pius XII-rejecting-clerics are "condemned" or not. For the record I'm not condemning them at all (and I sincerely hope I speak for all concerned); rather, I'm merely saying that they are well-intentioned Catholics whom are in ERROR.

      This issue is primarily about liceity. I continue to maintain - for very good reasons which are based on Church teaching - that the liturgical changes of Pius XII cannot be put aside in favor of those which have been superseded.

      But there is another important consideration in all this, which is: Sedevacantists need a rallying point, so to speak; a banner under which they can unite - and then the realization comes: Pope Pius XII is, in effect, the "Principle of Unity" for all rational Sedevacantists. Any attack on Him, perceived or otherwise, is an attack on "Unity," pure and simple.

      Thank you for the civil exchange.

      Delete
    19. @anon4:55
      I agree that those who reject the Pian changes are HIGHLY MORE LIKELY THAN NOT in error.

      I agree with you on Pope Pius XII being “where we left off” and if the papacy is restored “where it will pick up.” Fr. DePauw said back in 1965 that Traditionalists should accept everything up to and including October 9, 1958–the day Pope Pius XII died. That has always been my belief as well. Fr. DePauw had no luck in getting the early Traditionalists to listen. I doubt that it will be any better half a century later—but who knows? God does indeed work in mysterious ways.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  19. This whole "universal acceptance" thing boils down to circular reasoning. Stripped of all the fancy dancy sophistry stirred in to disguise it, it all boils down to:
    1) Everyone who questions or rejects the claims of Bergoglio to the papacy is no Catholic.
    2) Therefore all Catholics accept Bergoglio as pope.
    3) Therefore Bergoglio really is pope.
    4) Therefore everyone who questions or rejects the claims of Bergoglio to the papacy is no Catholic.
    . . .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Can anyone say with surety that any valid Roman Mass said today is said licitly? The answer is no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Sure. Just because of a state of Sedevacantism doesn’t affect the licit offering of Mass. It doesn’t require jurisdiction, and the Mass must continue, along with the other Sacraments

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, while we both agree that the remaining faithful Catholic priests should continue to offer Holy Mass in a state of epikea, neither of us can condemn those who have come to a different conclusion. I am not a home aloner but see no reason to denounce their position. Just like I see no reason to denounce any particular usage of any valid Rite. Why must the Mass continue? We cannot presume to know how awful God will permit the situation to become.

      Delete
    3. Tom A.

      Nobody is condemning anyone. It's the clergy who reject the Pius XII changes that are bringing this on themselves. If they would simply obey and not be so dissident about Holy Week (among other points which have not been brought up) we wouldn't be talking about this (and we shouldn't). BUT NOOOOOOOO, they have to hypocritically pope sift (they believe Pius XII was the last pope) the same way they accuse the SSPX of doing. They may have left the SSPX, but the spirit of SSPX didn't leave them. I'm not a aloner either, but I'm not going to put up with pure nonsense as the rejects of the Missal propose. If you want to, then go ahead if it bothers so much.

      Delete
    4. You are just as hypocritical as those you accuse. You just can't see it. Unity in essentials, liberty in non essentials. The Catholic Faith is essential. What version of a valid Roman Missal is not.

      Delete
    5. To say the disciplines regarding the liturgy as if they're non-essentials of the Catholic Faith and imply that one would have liberty (in this matter) is just plain stupid. Van Noort wouldn't have said "The Church's infallibility also extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian Worship and Christian living...[the Church] can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls."

      Council of Trent CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."

      Pope Pius XII: Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments." Mystici Corporis

      Fr. Cekada said "the 1955 reforms now render continued use of the latter HARMFUL." Quidlibet 2012 "Short Critique of Article Regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week"

      It's really you who has no answer except your "non essential" erroneous opinions. If you want to go those places then go ahead. I'm not stopping you. Just warning you. There are other problems with those places other than the missal topic anyways but you will just have to find out yourself if you care enough.

      Delete
    6. Council of Trent -

      Session VII

      Canon XIII:
      If any one saith,that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church,wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments,may be contemned,or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers,or be changed,by every pastor of the churches,into other new ones; let him be anathema.

      -Andrew

      Delete
    7. Thank you Andrew. I didn't see that one. That just adds to the list of reason to prove my point. Nice work

      Delete
  21. Hey TomA - do us all a favor by NOT conflating clergy disobeying the lawful commands of a pope with someone whose conscience tells them to stay alone at home in this time of prolonged vacancy. It's just silly to compare them. Oh! And stop making a scene, ok? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said I was a stay at homer, just made a point to avoid the one who is dissident. People are going to do whatever they want in the end anyways, so it doesn't even matter what anybody says. If the Church can't convince somebody then it's over and the person is on their own unfortunately.

      Delete
  22. Hey Introibo (and all others concerned)- Bp. Dolan, Bp. Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, Bp. Selway and all their priests (I don't know about SSPV) advocate/instruct ending the Lenten fast and abstinence at midday on Holy Saturday, in defiance of the last ruling of His Holiness Pope Pius XII, which states that the Lenten fast and abstinence ends on Holy Saturday at 12 o'clock midnight (i.e., Easter Sunday).

    Church teaching states that any intentional, substantial breakage of the rules of fast and abstinence is a mortal sin.

    Do you think there's any justification for these clergy not following the most up to date laws of the Church?

    Should the laity completely ignore the instruction/recommendation/advice of these clergy and observe Lent until midnight on Holy Saturday, as Pius XII commanded? What advice do you think Fr. Depauw would give if he were alive today?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fast ends at midnight when Easter begins as per Pope Pius XII. For some reason they see that as “part of the package” that no longer binds. I do believe that the Pian changes bind. However, they think it’s part of the “package” which ceases to bind. They are wrong and most probably wrong on cessation of the Rites. That does not make them heretical nor even Schismatics as that lack the desire to separate from the papacy as theologian Szal teaches. Are they in sin? If they believe their faulty reasoning on the fast, then even if objectively wrong they would not be held subjectively guilty by God—and only God knows that answer.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. And to whom shall we go to settle this issue? Why do you ask Introibo these questions? He only has an opinion like you and I. This matter is only settled by competent authority. At least your last sentence underdtands this issue. What "advise" would Fr DePauw give if still alive. That is all any of us can do at this point. So everyone please stop telling everyone else what they may or may not do and simply advise each other as to what we believe we should be doing now that the hierarchy of the True Church has been hidden from the faithful.

      Delete
    3. Introibo wrote: 'For some reason they see that as “part of the package” that no longer binds.'

      I can almost see you scratching your head, wondering. It's an indictment on these clergy that they haven't revealed their justification (reasoning) for prematurely ending the lent fast and, in bishop Dolan's case, sanctioning people eating meat on Fridays, as long as they adhere to some conditions he's laid down (like attendance at Mass).

      Delete
    4. TomA,

      This is fast becoming tedious.

      "And to whom shall we go to settle this issue?" What? The issue as to when Lent officially ends?

      I went to Pius XII to settle this issue (which had already been settled). I'd suggest that you and the errant clergy do the same. By the way, you've descended into absurdity yet again. Your question is akin to one asking, "To whom shall we go to settle the issue of Fr. Feeney's teachings?" You can't seem to get it through your head that certain "issues" aren't a matter of differing "opinions"; rather, they've ALREADY BEEN SETTLED BY *COMPETENT AUTHORITY.*

      I ask Introibo for his opinions and advice for many reasons: To see if he understands Church teaching as I do on certain issues; because he's knowledgeable and intelligent and, in my opinion, generally thinks aright; because one can have a fruitful, amicable discussion with him; because he has influence via this blog, and I want his opinion on important matters to NOT be hidden under a bushel, so to speak.

      Have I given you enough reasons?

      Delete
    5. You have given me your opinion which I am inclined to agree with. I only differ in what commands us to obey. You say it is the Law as it existed in 1958, I say we do it out of a sense of tradition. Since there is no law giver, how can there be a law that we are bound too? Currently and always we are bound by Divine Law. We can respect the old Canon Law to keep a sense of tradition. But a law without one to judge the law is no law at all. So if Fr Whomever feels like deviating from a law for a reason he feels is prudent, all you can do is explain to him why you think its is imprudent. If no agreement is reached then there is nothing left to do. There is nothing heretical about the pre '55 Missal so its usage is not harmful to souls. But I will never agree with you that we can be bound by a law when there is no one who can legitimally dispense us from that law.

      Delete
  23. Thanks, Introibo. I agree will all that.

    Another parallel with the SSPX? Are they willfully blind or just self-deluded? God only knows. But one thing I do know; I won't be breaking the fast until Easter. And I suggest that anyone who calls oneself "Catholic" should do likewise.

    ReplyDelete
  24. TomA,

    TomA: "You have given me your opinion which I am inclined to agree with."

    Progress at last!

    TomA: "I only differ in what commands us to obey. You say it is the Law as it existed in 1958, I say we do it out of a sense of tradition."

    I say that first and foremost we don't obey out of a "sense of tradition." Having a sense of tradition doesn't COMPEL one to obey. For what you're saying to be true it needs to apply universally. Therefore, only one example showing the opposite of what you contend is required. The reason you don't receive Holy Communion half an hour after you've consumed a "Big Mac" is not out of a "sense of tradition"; rather, it's because it's the L-A-W, and to infringe would be a mortal sin. The current (part of) law (of Pius XII) is abstention from solid food and alcohol for at least 3 hours before you receive Holy Communion, under pain of mortal sin. The "under pain of mortal sin" is what compels.

    TomA: "Since there is no law giver, how can there be a law that we are bound too?"

    I see. Riddle me this: When sedes appeal to epikeia, they are essentially saying that the lawgiver would not wish his law/s to be interpreted in such a way that restricts, e.g., preventing an episcopal consecration to make a sede priest a bishop (papal approval is required). Clearly, the lawgiver is absent when epikeia applies, but clearly ALL laws can't be set aside using epikeia. Ergo, there must be dead lawgivers whose laws still apply. Right?

    TomA: "Currently and always we are bound by Divine Law."

    Correct. Relevance?

    TomA: "We can respect the old Canon Law to keep a sense of tradition."

    Sure, respect away. Ref. what I've written above about your ideas regarding the role of "a sense of tradition." Much of Canon Law is absolutely binding. And please understand that you can't conflate Divine Law with Ecclesiastical Law.

    TomA: "But a law without one to judge the law is no law at all."

    Wrong. We really don't live very long nowadays, do we? Think of 80-90 years compared to some of the lifespans of figures in the Old Testament, 900-1000 years!

    Try to get your mind around this: 60 years is only *relatively* a long time. Look at it one day at a time.

    A pope dies on October 9th, 1958. Would anyone have dreamed of disobeying that pope's laws on October 10th? Twenty four hours passes and now we're free to disobey him, right? Oh! I'm wrong? You tell me, then, bearing in mind the doctrine of the Church on the papacy in total, after which span of 24 hours are we free to disobey the dead pope, and why?

    TomA: "So if Fr Whomever feels like deviating from a law for a reason he feels is prudent, all you can do is explain to him why you think its is imprudent. If no agreement is reached then there is nothing left to do."

    Well, not exactly - we could kidnap him and re-educate him. Just kidding! You're right. But this won't make him (and those whom defend him) immune from ongoing just critiques of his actions. And in this real-life case I'm merely presenting my case regarding two points.

    1. Disobeying Pope Pius XII (on more than one matter).

    2. Encouraging people to eat meat on Fridays.

    As always, the readers can decide.

    TomA: "There is nothing heretical about the pre '55 Missal so its usage is not harmful to souls."

    I think we all know that that's NOT the issue. What you say is true, yet NOT germaine to case at hand.

    TomA: "But I will never agree with you that we can be bound by a law when there is no one who can legitimally dispense us from that law."

    Never say never. One day you may understand that during a vacancy of the Holy See ALL the ecclesiastical laws of the deceased pope are still in force. Aren't we currently in a vacancy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On Oct 10, 1958 there were still Bishops with jurisdiction to enforce the laws. Personally I fast from midnight. If the clergy you mentioned did what you claim, I would find that highly imprudent, not knowing any further details. Personally, I do not believe they have any authority to dispense anyone of anything. What makes eating meat of Friday a sin is because a Pope says its a sin. Dispensations from that law can be given by competent authority. There is none, so no one can be bound by it since it is a matter of Canon Law and not Divine Law. The simple fact that we cannot take this argument to an ecclesial judge should be enough to prove my point.

      Delete
    2. Tom A,

      I'm one of the other anon.

      Are you pro Fr. Cekada, Sanborn, SSV etc.? They tell those who wish to do what the Church originally commanded by Pius XII that they are wrong and suggest that they shouldn't be doing what they are doing. Originally you defended them. I thought you were against either side telling each other what to do.

      Are trying to suggest that we should forget about all those "dead" popes and "outdated" laws which only apply (according to you) when somebody with that authority is alive? If that is true then why don't you quit telling everybody your nonsensical "opinions" which have nothing of competent authority to back itself up with. In other words according to your own logic who gives a hoot what you say. I'm mean really?

      Using the pre-55 missal isn't heretical. It's heretical to say a discipline of the Church that a true pope approved is harmful because the Church is spotless as demonstrated above. It's schismatic to refuse submission to what one believes is the Roman Pontiff and at the same time being a clever liar to make it as if one is being Faithful to the Church. Whatever

      As Andrew (Thank you again Andrew by the way) mentioned

      Council of Trent
      Canon XIII:
      If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

      Those who reject the Pius XII changes of the missal, fasting laws, added feast days etc etc. and do otherwise are therefore ANATHEMA!

      Delete
    3. I oppose any Roman cleric acting as if they had any jurisdiction. I admire all the sede clergy but do not agree with several non essential issues that have caused division in the past. Example: a cleric telling a "parishioner" to avoid another another valid Mass because of the imprudence of using a certain cleric for an ordination. Nor do I approve a cleric thinking he has the jurisdiction to dispense from an unenforceable law. Plus I highly oppose your decree of "anathema" to those who have deviated from the letter of the law as existed in 1958. If the US Govt suddenly was lost and anarchy reigned over this land, would you continue to file your tax returns by April 15th? No, but you would still drive your car in a safe manner. Not because the law demands it, but because prudence, right reason, and the Moral Law demand so. You are creating division in a non essential matter.

      Delete
    4. Tom A,

      Your problem is that you see the issues we are talking about as non-essentials. They are not non-essentials. What part of Van Noort do you not understand when he says "The Church's infallibility also extends to the general discipline of the Church... By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian Worship and Christian living...[the Church] can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be BY ITS VERY NATURE CONDUCIVE to the INJURY OF SOULS." This means laws that were passed cannot be injurious to souls and branded as harmful as those you defend suggest. Laws are still in effect until we get a true pope. If laws cannot be in effect until we get a true pope because everybody of competent authority is dead, then that means everybody can do as they please, such as not fasting during lent between the ages of 21-59. It's hogwash.

      My decree? It's the Council of Trent's decree. Not my decree. You reject the Council of Trent by "calling it the letter of the law that existed before 1958." So if we can just brand everything as the letter of the law, why don't we just be liberal like you and do whatever we want and go wherever we want without any worry of offending God since as you suggest we can define whatever want as the letter of the law? Totally foolish

      Again
      Canon XIII (not my personal decree):
      "If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema."

      Delete
  25. TomA: "On Oct 10, 1958 there were still Bishops with jurisdiction to enforce the laws."

    AND your point is?

    TomA "What makes eating meat of Friday a sin is because a Pope says its a sin."

    Ergo, disobeying a dead pope's (in this case) ecclesiastical laws is a mortal sin. Thank you. You've finally seen the light!

    TomA: "The simple fact that we cannot take this argument to an ecclesial judge should be enough to prove my point."

    What point? Clearly explain your point. You have no point. However, you do have a growing record of ignoring the arguments put to you, wrongly conflating things and continuing to present ever-shifting, convoluted,jumbled, irrelevant arguments which you pull from your hat at will.

    The simple fact that you adduced that the post-Vatican II popes are actually "nopes," and you did this based on Church teaching/laws, then decided that they were heretics and apostates WITHOUT reference to a Canonical Court, proves my point.

    I'd suggest you cease talking here. Instead, read Introibo's article defending Pius XII, get the CMRI literature that does the same, and then after Easter ask Introibo if he has the time to instruct you (I'm sincerely suggesting this course of action) regarding any points that are confusing you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can suggest anything you please. And so can anyone else. No one can command under pain of mortal sin. Dead Popes cannot command. Bishops and priests without jurisdiction do not command or dispense. If you choose to follow the strict letter of the law as was in 1958, be my guest. Dead Popes can continue to teach and instruct but they can no longer command.

      Delete
  26. TomA,

    You just made that all up, as usual.

    You may think you're cleverly wording things, but let me assure you that even a child could see through your sophistry.

    TomA: "No one can command under pain of mortal sin. Dead Popes cannot command."

    Semantics.

    I really do wish you'd stop playing your little games with me.

    We DON'T need a living pope to command us to do things that are established Church law. Is that not bleeding obvious to you yet?

    The Church, through the TEACHINGS OF THE POPES ETC., COMMANDS you to do many things, under pain of mortal sin. For example, you must confess (if required) and receive Holy Communion at least once a year during Eastertime. It's a *command*. You've just been proven wrong yet again. I've pointed this (i.e., the obligatory nature of Pope Pius XII's commands) out to you many times in various ways. You don't ever address what I've articulated. You just ignore me and soldier on, making up variations of what seems to be the bulwark of your new religion, i.e., "I can't be commanded to do anything by anyone!" As a result, you've got zero credibility.

    Please follow my advice - if need be, beg Introibo to educate you. He's an ex-teacher. He'll have the patience to deal with you. I don't. He writes lots and lots of good articles. Why don't you read his article on Pope Pius XII?

    I look forward to you continuing to make it up as you go along, endlessly repeating
    the same errors and pretending each time that you haven't been disabused of same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The next time you feel a need to be dispensed from the Law, what will you do? You will have to dispense yourself since there is no one to ask. Now along comes some group and they dispense themselves from some law for whatever reason and you leap upon them and tell them they cannot do that? Do you not see the absurdity of your position that we are bound to a law with no authority to enforce that law?

      Delete
  27. TomA,

    TomA: "The next time you feel a need to be dispensed from the Law, what will you do? You will have to dispense yourself since there is no one to ask."

    There hasn't been a first time in my entire life, let alone a "next time." Give us AN EXAMPLE of a dispensation for which one would commonly "feel the need." In turn, I ask you: When you decided that Jorge Bergaoglio ("Pope" Francis) was a heretic and apostate to whom did you go to for confirmation of this? I made my decision based on what's in the books/the law. If someone went to their Protestant boss' house for dinner on a Friday in 1955 expecting to be served fish, but the boss' wife didn't get the message that you were to be served fish so she served you meatloaf instead, would the Church expect one to insult the boss and his wife by refusing to eat it? Answer: No. Would the Church expect one to chase down their parish priest and local bishop to quickly get a dispensation? Answer: No. Do the books state that it's permissible to eat meat in these circumstances. (Caution! One does not have a dispensation to go on a stuff-fest. You may lawfully eat a moderate amount of meat in these circumstances.) Answer: Yes. Did one need an official dispensation to do so? Answer: No. Is this a hypothetical where a true Pope was reigning and the hierarchy were by and large orthodox? Answer: Yes. Are you noticing a common theme here? If you've noticed that the answers to "settled matters" are in the books, bravo for you! The Pius XII Holy Week issue is, obviously, a settled matter. This has been demonstrated to you by multiple people multiple times in this comment box. You seem impervious to the mind of the Churc on this matter.

    TomA: "Now along comes some group and they dispense themselves from some law for whatever reason and you leap upon them and tell them they cannot do that? Do you not see the absurdity of your position that we are bound to a law with no authority to enforce that law?"

    It's been pointed out to you many times in this discussion that the ecclesiastical laws of a pope are NOT just "some law" where, for example, the principle of "nociva" can be applied. In fact, it's been constantly shown to you how it's IMPOSSIBLE to apply "nociva" to the Holy Week changes of Pius XII.

    Finally. You erroneously think that if a law of the Church can't be enforced (in our unique situation) we're not bound by it? Unbelievable! In your paradigm you'd arrive in a jurisdiction, learn that the sheriff and his deputies just got run over by a truck, so yippee! let's rob the bank! ??? Because you can't currently be hauled to jail, and then put on trial, the moral force of the statutes no longer applies? Those laws don't apply, even though there is an expectation or, at least, possibility that order will be restored once a new sheriff is elected? It's a lawful free-for-all? - pardon the oxymoron. It doesn't even work that way in the fictitious town of "Freeforall Falls," let alone in the governance of the Church.

    BUT this has gone on long enough. Time to "cut to the chase." Presumably, considering you fervently wish to get to the truth of this matter, you've now finished reading Introibo's excellent article defending Pius XII, the Holy Week changes, etc. I agree with Introibo's conclusions.

    If you DON'T agree with Introibo's conclusion let's see your REFUTATION. No more messing around. Agreement or refutation.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We could extend Tom's logic and say Christ is no longer with us, so we are free to throw out the Gospel. Smh.

      Delete
  28. Anon, this isnt a matter of which Holy Week Rites I think are more prudent. Its a matter of authority. A typical dispensation needed by many is to marry outside the Church or to seperate from ones spouse. Also today many people need to work on Sundays or lose their job. To whom do these people go to in order to seek dispensations from the Law? In normal times if some order or association of clergy desired to use a Missal not currently in use, they would seek an Indult. Today there is no one to ask. So they granted themselves their own Indult. Now you may think that is imprudent, but you have no authority over them and cannot pass any judgment on their actions other than to think they were imprudent. As far as Introibo's article, post a link. I am pretty sure I already read it. Also, if you were paying attention to what I wrote you wouldve noticed that I said we are always bound by the moral law and Divine Law.

    ReplyDelete
  29. TomA,

    No, it certainly isn't about which Holy Week rites you think are more "prudent," because that'd be categorizing this matter incorrectly. Your language implies there's a choice. There isn't. It's not about "authority" either. It's about the law; what binds and what doesn't. Don't get me started on "marriage tribunals," because that's an entirely different matter. Many people believe that traditional priests have no business handing out "dispensations" relating to marriage. Solution: don't marry a non-Catholic, and make sure your marriage doesn't break down. But in saying all this, there are limited reasons in Canon Law for marriage separation, as there are for working on Sundays. They go to the law itself, which is what I've been consistently saying from the very beginning. They also seek assistance and advice from a trusted priest.

    TomA: "In normal times if some order or association of clergy desired to use a Missal not currently in use, they would seek an Indult. Today there is no one to ask. So they granted themselves their own Indult."

    That is just FALSE. They did nothing of the sort. And they don't (dare) say that's what they did. You just pulled that out of thin air. What in FACT they did, was to concoct a "justification" which basically states that the Pope Pius XII Holy Week changes have over time become harmful. But you know this, so why are you making up the story that they granted themselves an indult?

    Yes, I've been paying close attention to what you've been saying, and comprehensively answered you. If you think we're always bound by moral laws, cease being indifferent to clergy whom disobey ecclesiastical laws. You must not like my replies, because you don't challenge the vast majority of what I write.

    No, I don't think it's "imprudent." If you were paying attention you'd know I think it's ILLICIT. Quit sugarcoating their unlawful behavior with the word "imprudent." Thanks for letting me know I have no authority over them, Captain Obvious. As far as passing judgement: I certainly CAN pass judgement. I don't think you even know what it means to pass judgement. I'm not saying they are going to Hell. I'm not even saying that they think they're sinning. Just like you, TomA, they too believe their own bs. But I am saying that it's appalling that they're accusing others of "pope sifting" while they're sifting away; it's atrocious how they're telling people they can eat meat on Fridays, and have never so much as given a public explanation. And furthermore, it's somewhat scandalous how they ridicule their opponents (Introibo knows all about this), and there is much more, and I'm CERTAINLY passing my judgement onto others in hope that these clergy will wake up and modify their behavior. I've also passed judgement on you during our very conversations, and I stand by every word I've written with clear conscience in the knowledge it's all 100% correct.

    As far as Introibo's article, find it yourself.

    Agreement or Refutation or Remain Silent.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  30. Without a lawgiver, how can their be an enforceable law? You can call them suggestions or guidelines or prudent courses of action, but how can you call them laws requiring our obedience? To whom are we obedient too? In order to maintain our Catholic identity we should follow the norms and practices of tradition. We can use Canon Law as one of many guides. But unless there is an enforcement mechanism, there is no law that binds the faithful to obedience. How can there be?

    ReplyDelete
  31. TomA,

    I presume you're talking about the liturgical changes of Pope Pius XII? That's largely what Introibo's article is all about. (I believe future Church historians will refer to his article in a positive way.)

    I see you're still in the "avoidance" stage.

    I've, and others have, patiently explained to you where you've gone wrong. You simply ignore all our revelations of Church teaching, and, then, continue to bang on with your same spiel/self-styled doctrine again and again.

    Do you wear Adidas or Nike Air?

    Have you read or re-read Introibo's article yet, because we await your...

    Agreement or Refutation.

    (Third option is to remain silent.)

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  32. https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/07/in-defense-of-pope-pius-xii.html?m=1

    Ok Anon, I re-read the Pius XII article you referenced. I find nothing objectionable. He correcty states that there are those who use the revised Holy Week Rites and those who make use of an older Rite. He concludes that there is nothing harmful with the revised Rites and disagrees with Fr Cekada's reasoning that the revision could become harmful. No where does Introibo condemn those who use the older Rites. Nor does he anywhere say it is disobedient to use such Rites. He simply thinks its prudent to use the revised Rites and he doesn't think there is anything harmful in the revised Rites. There is nothing in his article to refute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I admit I don’t know much theology as I am fairly new. However, after reading the comments above a lot of it sounds like private interpretation such as the Protestants. I think people making their own changes to such as eating meat, etc. are on very dangerous ground. One cannot be too cautious in this time of great apostacy, or who knows what they might end up swallowing!

      JoAnn

      Delete
    2. Yes, Joann! - but I think we do know what they'll end up swallowing - New York Strip steak on a Friday! ;-) lol

      Delete
    3. This has been a most interesting exchange, and I think it's time I commented.

      Tom,
      You have correctly summarized the main points of my Pope Pius XII article. However, it's because I'm being as generous as possible in allowing for a possible cessation of the Law (I don't think there is such a cessation).

      Here is where we disagree. You seem to have two principles to which you subscribe:

      1. Without a Lawgiver (i.e., one with Ordinary Jurisdiction), laws don't bind.

      2. Since there is no competent authority to grant dispensations to the law, we can effectively do whatever we fell to be prudent under the circumstances.


      I do not subscribe to either of those points because they are false.

      As to your first point: GOD enforces the laws of His Church, not only Divine Law and the Natural Law.
      "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." (St. Luke 10:16) If you eat meat on Friday (being fully aware it's Friday)you commit mortal sin. It doesn't stop being a mortal sin because there is no one with Ordinary Jurisdiction at this time. What if it was 1955 and you were in a country where Catholics were persecuted and had no access to those who did have Ordinary Jurisdiction? Are you free to eat meat on Friday? Does the simple existence of some recognizable cleric with Ordinary Jurisdiction suffice to make the law in full force and effect? How so?

      2. Who do we go to for a dispensation? You apply the principle of epikeia, as I wrote in a comment above. Epikeia may be used to prevent undue hardship that the legislator would not want, and permits for those things the Church needs. Hence, if you have a medical condition such that your health would severely suffer if you kept the Lenten fast, your are dispensed from said fast. The Church needs clergy to continue Her Divine mission, hence episcopal consecrations without a papal mandate are permitted.

      The idea that a Traditionalist cleric can "dispense" someone from the law of abstinence simple because the Church is celebrating some feast day is absurd, wrong,and has ZERO support in canon law or accepted theological principles of the Church.

      You wrote how someone could simply "give themselves an Indult." Not true. Deciding what Rites to use, as long as they are not heretical, is not subject to epikeia. What need of the Church, or undue hardship, is being met by using the pre-Pian Rites of Holy Week? Why stop at 1955? Can't they "give themselves an Indult" to use the pre-Vatican II Byzantine Rite from the 19th century? They're not heretical, evil, or an incentive to impiety. Since there is no lawgiver with Ordinary Jurisdiction, and no one to grant an Indult, you could do just that using your principles that find no support in Canon Law or dogmatic/moral theology.

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    4. The pre-Pian Holy Week MAY not bind, but NOT for the reasons given by Fr. Cekada, and it is a very WEAK "may not bind." Sure, it's not heretical or schismatic (due to lack of a desire to separate from the Holy See), but it is highly more probable than not that it is OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

      On January 1, 1965 Father Gommar DePauw announced that (while the Robber Council was still going on), the Catholic Traditionalist Movement would preserve everything as it was on October 9, 1958 when Pope Pius XII died. An approved pre-Vatican II canonist, Fr. DePauw did not pick this date out of thin air. It was the date of the Last known True Pope's death--by whose laws we are bound since they are enforced by God, and can be dispensed when the conditions are met by epikeia.

      My article on Pope Pius XII should not in any way be construed as an endorsement to reject his laws. They should be the point around which we all gather to fight the Vatican II sect. When clerics start deciding what they will and won't accept (3 hour Eucharistic Fast, the end of Lent pushed back 12 hours, etc.) you might be dangerously close to making up rules as you go along---and that can lead you straight out of the Church (God forbid).

      I respect you Tom, and I enjoy your comments, but on this point you're wrong.

      God Bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  33. TomA,

    We agree. Great! We're making progress here.

    TomA: "Nor does he [Introibo] anywhere say it is disobedient to use such Rites."

    But you should have paid attention to Introibo in his comments above.

    Introibo: "I do believe that the liturgical laws up until October 9, 1958 are binding."

    Ergo, Introibo believes that those who don't adhere are disobeying.

    Further proof that Introibo thinks they're not obeying. *He's made it clear that he doesn't necessarily think they're sinning. I agree.

    Introibo: "The fast ends at midnight when Easter begins as per Pope Pius XII." Unequivocal.

    Introibo: "Do the reformed Rites cease to bind? *Not for the reasons given by those who reject them."*

    And that is the TomA story, and why I've been giving you such a pasting. You've been defending those who reject the reformed rites USING ALL the WRONG reasons; reasons which have been shown to have no merit, and which you pull out of thin air.

    At one point you had the temerity to write: "Why do you ask Introibo these questions? He only has an opinion like you and I."

    I gave you my answer (it's there for all to see). I'll expand. I've been reading this blog for a few years now, and I've had many discussions with Introibo in the comments. He has the ability to absorb information, carefully consider it, and, as a result, possibly modify his position, whether it be a tightening or loosening of same. One can *reason* with him. I can't say the same for all others. There's no way to put this delicately - in my opinion, Introibo's opinions carry a monstrously larger amount of weight than yours, because generally he backs them up with (a correct interpretation of) Church teaching. During the present conversation Introibo has somewhat tightened his stance against the non-adherence to the Holy Week changes instituted by Pope Pius XII. I could spend all day culling selected statements for you which clearly demonstrate this. Note: Introibo thinks there's a weak case in favor of using the pre-1955 rites. Fair enough. I think that the case is so weak it has no merit, and therefore is no case at all. Introibo doesn't condemn them. I, and other anons, have made it abundantly clear that we don't either. A clear difference between us, is that I say Fr. Cekada et alii are wrong with precisely the same vehemence that Fr. Cekada says his opponents are wrong and that he is right. If you don't like it too bad. Introibo is more cautious. Fair enough. I don't criticize him for that. In fact, I applauded him for that in the comments.

    Now, all that's left to do, is for you to read Introibo's comments, refute him where he let you know he disagreed with you and all's good.

    As for our exchange, mere words cannot express how happy I am that it's all there for the record. Let the reader decide who's right, eh?

    Have a lovely Easter!

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  34. Introibo, please clear up where you think I am wrong. I fear my position was clouded by Anon. He makes it sound like I am defending certain actions by certain clergy. I am not. I am simply putting forth the premise that we are no longer bound by laws that lack a lawgiver. We are now accountable to God alone since the moral law and Divine Law never cease. In order for ecclesial law to remain in effect after a loss of hierarchy you would have to show that God is the author of ecclesial law. I do not think that has ever been taught to the faithful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      I understand that you are not defending the clerics who use pre-1955 Holy Week Rites, however your premise that "we are no longer bound by laws that lack a lawgiver" is wrong.

      The Church speaks for God--"He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." (St. Luke 10:16)And "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven." (St. Matthew 16:19).

      If your contention were true don't you think those clerics, like Bp. Dolan, would have already seized upon it to justify what they do?

      I have consulted the eminent canonists Woywood, Abbo and Hannon, Buscaren, and Augustine. NONE of them teach that ecclesiastical law ceases without a lawgiver.

      Canonist Augustine makes it clear in describing how laws lose their force:"...an existing law loses its force if A NEW LAW IS MADE BY WHICH IT IS ABOLISHED. Hence, in the absence of a hierarchy, the laws REMAIN and can only CEASE if we have a hierarchy! The opposite of what you think.

      The Eucharistic fast is an ecclesiastical law, not of Divine Law. Are you telling me you can receive Holy Communion worthily if you eat 10 minutes before receiving Communion? (Holy Viaticum excepted)It's a mortal sin, and not just some pious exercise, because the law of fast for three hours of Pope Pius XII controls.

      I hope this helped.

      God Bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  35. TomA,

    I don't think I clouded your position at all. I'm sorry that you fear I may have misrepresented you. The sum total of what you were contending served, in effect, as an exculpation of the actions of the clergy in question. That was the clear inference. If you say this isn't the case, I accept that.

    Knowing full well how laws lose their force, is why I maintained from the very beginning that during an interregnum tbe previous pope's laws demand adherence.

    Introibo,

    Thank you for weighing in. I'll now leave it all in your capable hands.

    Wishing you and yours (and your readership) a happy and blessed Easter!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Blessed Easter to you and your family and all my readership!!

      God Bless You All,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  36. I would love to see a reference to a canonist that says that laws continue in force when there is no longer an authority to enforce them. I have tried to research this notion but I do not think anyone ever imagined a time without a hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Fr. DePauw was a pre-Vatican II canonist, and lived in this time of Great Apostasy. To him, and to everyone who reads the top canonists, it is clear that a law remains in force unless and until revoked or superseded by the competent authority, which we currently don't have.

      A Blessed Easter to your family and you!!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  37. Just my 2 cents - If Pope Pius XII wasn't a true Pope and his changes were modernist, the Vatican II Sect would have canonized him by now!! Since he isn't even being considered for canonization by the V2 Sect, is a very good indication to me that he is the last true Pope and his changes are to be obeyed.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since we believe he was the last true Pope, his changes should be observed and respected in order to hold fast to tradition. I would use the word observe rather than obey. All man made laws need a judge to adjudicate exceptions. Since there is no one with authority to do so, we can no longer "obey" we can however "observe."

      Delete
    2. Joann,
      I agree with you!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Tom A -

      Catholics obey. Protestants observe. Also, who are you going to observe since there is no one to obey according to you? Are you going to be your own “Judge” and pick and choose who you will observe? Sounds very ambiguous to me, much like the Protestants.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    4. @Tom,
      Ecclesiastical laws are not “man made” like civil laws. They are enforced by God. They do not need a judge for exceptions. Epikeia does that. We obey, NOT merely observe the laws of Pope Pius XII.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Well we will have to disagree since I do not see how God enforces ecclesial laws. Epikeia for one could be called picking and choosing like a protestant by another. This discussion shows what happens to laws when there is no law giver. Personally I believe it is best to fast from midnight and do the strictest fast one can manage. I fast from midnight before communion but would never tell another Catholic how to observe. Nor would I condemn another Catholic who came to the home aloner conclusion or the conclavist position. The only position I have a problem with are the R&Rers who destroy the Papacy in order to have a Pope. And look at the Pope they destroy it for, Bergoglio. P

      Delete
    6. @Tom,
      Be careful Tom. This is what happens when people think laws don't apply. A conclavist? You have no problem with "Pope" Michael? How does God enforce ecclesiastical laws? He imputes sin on those who break them just like with the Divine Law. Epikeia is a Catholic principle that can be found in ANY pre-Vatican II Moral Theology Manual. There are also rules for applying it, so charges of "being Protestant" doesn't hold water. The Home Alone position is due to those who attempt to interpret Canon Law without reference to the real canonists.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  38. I am the other Anon who is hard core about what I think of the Pre-55 missal. The original anon says "Introibo doesn't condemn them. I, and other anons, have made it abundantly clear that we don't either." Well I don't condemn them forever, but I believe their positions against Pope Pius XII are condemned and therefore they are in trouble because of it (Hint hint). They are leading people astray like Tom A. and many others. They are they problem. Today is Holy Saturday. According to them I can stop fasting at noon (here in about two hours as I'm writing this). It's 10 AM for me right now. Pius XII said NO you fast the whole day and do the vigil at night or else you sin out of disobedience. PERIOD! I just wanted to make myself clear. Unfortunately I know a lot of people who travel real far to go to SGG for holy week (Many of them I know) I tell them the same things I warn those on here about (And it's not just about Holy week but other scandals). And they say "Yeah I know." Well if you know then why go there when you can travel 20-30 min from there to a CMRI church in Lebanon OH? "Well you see." Yeah that's right I do see how ridiculous people are and I'm sick of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:09
      I think a very weak case for cessation can be made, and we owe the greatest latitude in charity. We must be careful because in this time of Great Apostasy you will be hard pressed to find a cleric you agree with 100%.

      There are some who simply attack SGG out of a pathological hatred of Fr Cekada and Bp. Dolan. The blog (thankfully defunct) Pistrina Liturgica (and the equally defunct Lay Pulpit) would attack the validity of Bp Dolan’s orders based on an unsupported assertion that his priestly Ordination was done with one hand.

      Besides the fact that one hand does not render an Ordination invalid, they had NOTHING to prove such an ordination took place except for nameless, faceless “witnesses.”

      By impugning Bp Dolan’s Orders, he casts doubt upon the priests he ordains and thereby keeps people away from the Sacraments. This is sheer calumny. I wrote three or four posts on this topic.

      So, as the saying goes—Be careful fighting monsters lest you become one yourself.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The Pistrina Liturgica group goes a little to far with some of their accusations. Others things they mention I'm certain are true because some of the people they mention (whom I knew) confirmed it for me of what actually happened there. Think about it, why would a third of the congregation at SGG back in 2008-2009 leave the Church including a man (now dead) who had previously given them thousands of dollars over many years? There is something seriously wrong with that place as is with the SSPV and other independent groups for various reasons. Just because they are sedevacantist doesn't mean they are Catholic or if they are it doesn't mean they are good. I think you would agree in the case of Fred and Bob Dimond. Coming from the Novus ordo myself I expected a lot of these people to have their ducks in row but unfortunately the mentality from many isn't much different than the SSPX.

      I believe Bp. Dolan is a valid bishop. If he did receive ordination with one hand "One hand Dan" as he has been accused it may be unlawful but not invalid. The only way I would receive the sacraments from them is if I were in danger of death and I needed confession and extreme unction. I go to the CMRI and while I don't agree with them on everything, I do believe they maintain the Faith the most consistently. In 2002, Bp. Pivarunas made it public that in certain circumstances when nothing else is available that one could go to the indult or even the SSPX for the sacraments. I don't think they believe that the same way as they used to (17 yrs ago). At least one priest of theirs has told me to stay away from either one, even if there is nothing else available. I agree with him. Of course he doesn't mind people going to SGG's but I have told him what think and even though he doesn't agree, he understands from my point of view why I think that and does agree they are being very dissident and will have to answer for it one day.

      Delete
    3. @anon1:03
      Pistrina Liturgica goes more than "a little too far" with their accusations. They have demonstrably (a)lied (b)made up phony theological principles (c)calumniated clerics and (d) unnecessarily kept people away from the sacraments.

      This calls into serious question all their other accusations, even if they may have merit. Why did the people leave? I don't know, I wasn't there. When the Shepard is struck, the sheep will scatter.Certain disagreements will necessarily arise in a time of sedevacante. What excuse does the V2 Sect have? They have a "pope" and no one agrees on anything, except that Traditionalists are "bad." Things change from diocese to diocese, from parish to parish in the same diocese, and even from "priest" to "priest" in the same parish.

      The declaration of Bp. Pivarunas was about the so-called "Una Cum" Mass. He never told people an Indult "mass" was OK in that declaration. The reason they tell people to stay away from SSPX now has more to do with admitting invalid "priests" and the acceptance of more and more V2 sect practices. Bp. Williamson set up The St. Marcel Initiative to counter that.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. It's true what you say about Pistrina Liturgica. I know some people associated with those who run it. They are ridiculous about many things to say the least and hence I haven't had anything to do with them in years. However there was some awful things that happened at SGG. I was there when it all hit the fan. Some things were rumors but many things came to be true. I'm not defending Pistrina Liturgica. I do know one thing. I will not go back and if anybody asks me what I think of them I will tell them what happened (including the pre-55 missal bit) from my point of view.

      Bp. Pivarunas is a wonderful man. I think he tries to keep people's mind at peace as much as he can because he realizes how hard it is for people to come out of the Novus Ordo and adapt to true traditional Catholicism. He really does live up to his motto "I lay my life down for my sheep." While the other traditional bishops are gifted too, it's a shame they all think very much alike regarding the Pius XII changes and all other the issues they have. I firmly believe it was how they were trained in the seminary at the SSPX. It's almost like they are all hypnotized to think a certain way when they were there even though the SSPX is the very group they constantly are warning people to stay from (I agree with them on that).

      Anyways it's just past midnight for me and it's Easter. Happy Easter Introibo. He has Risen Aleluia.

      Delete
    5. @anon9:53
      Happy Easter my friend!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  39. TomA,

    Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    Observe

    transitive verb

    1 : to conform one's action or practice to (as a law, rite, or condition) : comply with

    Comply

    verb

    : to do what you have been asked or ordered to do

    In other words, "obey."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And no one is asking me to do anything. Pius XII was dead when I was born.

      Delete
  40. Tom,

    Correct. No one is *asking* you. God and His Church are ORDERING you.

    Btw, you typed: "..his changes should be observed and respected in order to hold fast to tradition."

    That is a secondary consideration. PRIMARILY, one fasts, for example, until 12:00 midnight on Holy Saturday, because one OBEYS God UNDER PAIN OF MORTAL SIN. It's been patiently explained to under what conditions laws cease to bind. According to those conditions the laws of Pope Pius XII are still in force. Who's going to judge you if don't obey the laws of the "dead pope"/Vicar of Christ on Earth? I'll give you a big hint: it won't be the dead pope.

    Give it up. No one is buying what you're so desperately peddling.

    And it's good you fast from midnight. But it's NOT required under the law. You can also fast and abstain on Sundays in Lent. Again, it's NOT required under the law, but feel free to do it next year.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Introibo - May I be so blunt as to ask what in the world is motivating these sede clerics to make changes to laws instituted by the last true Pope, Pope Pius XII. It all seems quite arrogant to me and very dangerous to everyone’s souls involved including their own souls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't discern why people do things, only God knows someone's mental state. All I can do is speculate.

      In my opinion, after almost 37 years as a Traditionalist, many of these clerics are arrogant and proud. They justify past practices. In the early days of the SSPX, various Missals were being used, 1954, 1958, and 1962. It was the beginning of the Great Apostasy, and many didn't know what to do, so no one is to blame. Here in the United States, the SSPX mostly used 1954 because Bugnini was involved in the Liturgical movement. I don't care if Satan was involved, a true pope cannot be duped by a Freemason or even the devil, as he is protected by the Holy Ghost. After this became apparent, they had to find a way to justify doing what they did, so cessation of law was clever. Maybe some really believed it, and I'm sure recently ordained SSPV priests and Bp. Dolan's priests buy into it as they were trained and taught that way. Bp. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, Bp. Kelly will NEVER admit to being wrong on anything.

      Therein, in my opinion, lies the problem. I believe Bp. Kelly to be a good and holy bishop, but he has his faults, just as we all do. I won't be throwing stones on such matters.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. The following is my own opinion, no more or no less: If Traditionalists don’t stop their infighting and one group trying to out do another, by changing laws, etc., and start fighting the real enemy which is the Vatican II Sect, they are going to become like the Vatican II Sect where everything is arbitrary and anything goes. I think they are well on their way already!

      Delete
    3. @anon6:13
      I agree that infighting must stop, and more unity against the Vatican II sect!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Which is why they need to get together and elect a Pope.

      Delete
    5. Tom,
      Easier said than done. Read my post “When Can We Say Habemus Papam Again”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo - You don’t need to “throw stones” at these clerics, however, someone needs to “speak the truth with love”. These clerics, while not “perfect”, are doing much damage. “To whom much is given, much shall be required”. They are clerics and should know better. People need to quit making excuses for them!!

      Delete
  42. Introibo,

    You can add Bp. Sanborn to the list of clerics who will never admit to being wrong on anything.

    As an ex-science highschool teacher, wwhat's your opinion on this statement made by Bp. Sanborn on his blog?

    "Intelligent design. Quite a few prominent atheistic scientists have come to assert something called intelligent design. They feel comfortable in this assertion since — they think — it preserves their atheism but at the same time preserves them from the absurdities which I have described."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was a NYC middle school science teacher for five years and received tenure at the beginning of my fourth year. At the end of my fifth year teaching, I left to attend law school full time.

      As to your query, without reading the quotation in context, it is extremely ignorant. Atheist scientists avoid and denigrate Intelligent Design Theory every chance they get. The biggest proponents of IDT, Dr William Demski And Dr Michael Behe are both openly theistic.

      I nearly lost my job before getting tenure for teaching such ideas way before “Darwin’s Black Box” was published in the mid 1990s. I submitted a paper on the topic to an organization of NYS Science Teachers for publication. It was rejected. I asked the president of the organization (who held a PhD in Biology) for the reason. He told me “It’s not what we believe.(!)” I asked him, if scientists should follow the evidence where it leads. There was silence. I issued him a challenge via certified mail to debate him, or anyone else of his choosing, in a public forum regarding the topic. He refused to respond. I became the first science teacher to openly resign, stating that I didn’t want to belong to an organization that calls itself “scientific” yet follows a predetermined ideological position it is too cowardly to even try to defend.

      Bp. Sanborn clearly doesn’t know the topic, for which theists—-and in my case a Traditionalist—have fought and suffered. He should retract the statement. In all fairness, if the entire article gives what he wrote a different connotation, I apologize in advance.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  43. The law says you need permission from the Pope to consecrate a Bishop. But SSPX and sedes totally ignore this law based on what they consider epikeia. So who determines where epikeia starts and stops? Everyone has a different opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Once more, you ignore Church teaching and fail to make necessary distinctions. Epikeia does allow for the consecration of Bishops to preserve the Sacraments. How many are necessary is a matter of prudence. All agree epikeia applies. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “where it starts and stops” but if you mean the number of bishops, it would need to be enough to ensure continuity. Just because you cannot ascribe an exact number in no way suggests anything wrong with epikeia.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Right on Tom! You got it brother. Epikeia does NOT permit consecrating bishops. Mr. Introibo is wrong.

      Delete
    3. @anon8:15
      So how does the Church survive? V2 sect orders are invalid and there is no pope.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. It survives through people like Anonymous 8:15 PM who is probably a home aloner because he doesn't believe any bishops or priests are left in the Catholic Church. He probably follows JOSEPH SARACENO who claims to have had private revelations. C-mon Introibo you knew that.

      Delete
    5. @anon10:06
      I was thinking Home Aloner or V2 sect Indult “conservative,” but I wanted him to answer and dispel any doubts. I really haven’t heard of Saraceno. You’ve given me a new research project!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. If you want to waste your time you can. He's a quack

      Delete
    7. “Epikeia can excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn.”

      Delete
    8. I ask what is allowed by epikeia and what is not allowed by epikeia. Is it written down somewhere and who is the final judge as to what epikeia permits. The bottom line is we have no Pope so no one should be making any judgments as to what any group of sedes practice unless its blasphemous or heretical. So far I have not heard of any. Yes there are plenty out there acting like they have all the answers and forgetting the principal you stated, "unity in essentials, liberty in non essentials." So let them use whatever missal they want and fast all day or three hours. I don't think it matters. We are in survival mode.

      Delete
    9. @Tom and Anon5:53
      You exhibit how people fall into error. Universalists declare "everyone goes to Heaven" while Fenneyites say that no one goes to Heaven except water Baptized Catholics. Both are wrong and heretical.

      While you and anon5:53 are not heretical you're both in error. Anon5:53 is a Home Aloner, who thinks that epikeia does not apply and we have to stay Home Alone. On the flip side, you think no ecclesiastical laws bind so "do what thou wilt" as long as it's not heresy or blasphemous. You're both wrong.

      As to Anon5:33, like a Feeneyite, they cherry-pick citations that make it appear epikeia doesn't apply.
      The reason the Church allows epikeia (oe "equity") to be used is due to the very nature of a law: "an ordinance of reason for the common good." Canonists and theologians say that neglecting to apply epikeia when the common good is at stake is immoral. According to canonist Merkelbach, sometimes people must "...ACT outside the letter of the law, to wit, when the letter of the law would be harmful to the common good.… Therefore in a case where the observance of the law would be harmful to the common good, it should not be obeyed." This refers to doing actions, not merely not being bound to refrain from actions. Our Home Aloner and self-appointed canonist does not understand the basic principles, as were taught to my by Fr. DePauw, a pre-Vatican II approved canonist. If he wants to be consistent, no one can be baptized outside the danger of death according to Canon Law. So don't baptize your kids and hope there's someone around to baptize them on their deathbed. Baptism of Desire must be accompanied by perfect contrition, not always easy to do when death is immanent. And forget the Great Commission, "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations BAPTIZING THEM..." (ST. Matthew 28:16-20)

      Tom, it's not that simple on your end. What if someone wants to use the Byzantine Missal of the 19th century? Why midnight or three hours fasting? If the laws don't apply, why not one hour, like the V2 sect, or don't fast at all before Communion? It's not of Divine or Natural Law.

      Yes, "unity in essentials, liberty in non essentials" which is why I give the widest latitude for clerics making weak arguments for cessation. No one is free to simply disregard the laws of Pope Pius XII.

      Happy Easter!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Introibo - How is "error" different from "heretical"?

      Delete
    11. According to Theologian Ott, heretical is a proposition against a defined dogma. Error is a proposition that goes against the common teaching of the theologians (See “Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma” pg. 10)

      Heresy separates you from the Church. Error does not, and may be inculpable incurring no sin.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    12. I am Anon 5:53. I quoted a theological work on Epikeia and your response is ridiculous. That is what the meaning of it is and you want to argue with me? You and a couple other challenged me did you not? Now you see that I produced the real definition of epikeia which bears repeating: “Epikeia can excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn.”

      Your best reply is to paint me as a Feeneyite? If you have a problem with the provided teaching on Epikeia because it exposes your abuse of it, then you will have to take it up with the Church, not me.

      Delete
    13. @anon5:53/4:41
      Just like a non-lawyer trying to defend himself, you don’t understand the subject matter. I once tried to explain to a client that the law precluded him from suing. What did do? He told me I was wrong because (his uniformed and untrained) reading of the law said he could sue. He filed pro se and it was thrown out by the court just as I said.

      Feeneyites and Home Aloners do the same. If I don’t deny Church teaching on BOD and BOB, I supposedly have a problem with the Council of Trent and the Council of Florence.

      CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

      See? It says Baptism is by pure and natural water, not desire or blood!

      That’s what you’re doing. The use of epikeia is usually not used to permit something except in extraordinary circumstances. I cited canonist Merkelbach. Do you believe there should only be Baptism in danger of death? That’s what your erroneous “letter of the law” reading would mean. It is you, not me, that has a problem with Church teaching.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  44. Introibo,

    Thanks for the clarification regarding your qualifications. My memory was somewhat faulty.

    The article is against evolution. I don't think we owe him an apology, because the statement in isolation shows that when it comes to Bp. Sanborn's knowledge regarding "Intelligent Design," he clearly has no idea of what he's talking about/is incredibly ignorant. His problem is that he talks too much and thinks he's an expert on everything.

    The statement is at/near the end of the article.

    https://inveritateblog.com/2018/12/14/an-interesting-discovery/

    ReplyDelete
  45. P.S. I'm surprised you've not heard of Joseph Saraceno, the self-ptoclaimed "Prophet."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joseph Saraceno is scary. He thinks he is a mystic or some kind of a prophet. People better be careful who they are "following".

      Delete
    2. @anon1:10
      I’m actually glad I’m not familiar with every disturbed person out there! Lol

      I’ll research him. Thank you for the information!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately, the “disturbed” are out there waiting for every person new to Tradition to wade through or stumble over.

      Delete
    4. Introibo - What about the people who think John XXIII was the last true Pope? Who is to say they are wrong, or that the 1962 missal should not be followed?

      Delete
    5. @anon8:28
      This is what I wrote on my post in defense of Pope Pius XII. The first part is the objection you mentioned and my reply immediately follows:

      We can't be sure Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI) were not true popes (at least until 1964), so you can't reject those changes if you accept Pope Pius XII's changes.

      For clergy and laity in 1959-1964, that would hold true. However, since then, we have good reason to doubt the validity of Roncalli's and Montini's election on several counts. As theologian Szal explains, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Scismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 2; Emphasis mine). Since we can suspect the elections of Roncalli and Montini, we can safely disregard their "laws" at any stage. Not so Pope Pius XII.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  46. Anon @ 8:28 pm

    You sound like Tom - are you his brother? I'm sure Introibo will get around to you, but in the meantime...

    So what about them? They'd be people (clerics) whom believe that John XXIII was the last true Pope, so they'd be bound by His laws, just like clerics whom believe Pope Pius XII is the last true Pope are similarly bound. Now IF, say, Fr. Cekada believes that John XXIII was the last true Pope OR that Paul VI was putative Pope up until 1964 (before he disappeared into heresy), he's BOUND by His laws. What Fr. Cekada CAN'T do (but DID do anyway) is to concoct a "justification" against a TRUE Pope (Pius XII) in order to put aside a true Pope's liturgical changes/laws. If he thinks that John XXIII was a true pope, no concoction can be dreamed up against Him either. I hope that clears this up for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 8:28 - No, I am not Tom's Brother. You presume way too much. I am a woman so according to you, I am his sister. I just asked a question as I know there are alot of people who think John XXIII was a true Pope (I am not one one of them). Why are you so harsh in judging people's motives for asking questions? I learn by asking questions. However, it is clear you are a "know it all". Try a little kindness, it won't hurt too much, "Tom's sister promises"!!

      Delete
    2. The above comment should be addressed to Anon @9:41, not Anon @8:28. Sorry for the confusion.

      Delete
    3. Anon @ 11:07 pm.

      No, I don't presume at all. Didn't you note the question mark? No, according to me you sound like Tom. You still do. I know one learns by asking questions, but the answer to your question was in Introibo's OFT MENTIONED article and in my previous posts. You obviously couldn't take the principles therein and piece it all together OR you're coming in asking questions without having read the entire conversation. If it's the first reason, fair enough - I should be more patient. Whether you're a male or female or sibling of Tom or not, you sound just like him. It's just my opinion - no need to get your apron strings in a knot. I merely asked if you were Tom's brother and you've turned it into me being harsh in judging people's motives? Who's presuming way too much now? No, I'm not a "know it all," but I do more than you and Tom. But that's not saying much, is it? I am sorry my *sarcastic* question offended you so much. I'll try to be more patient and kind with you, Tom and similar. :)

      Delete
    4. Anon @2:47 - No you do not offend me. I am not the only person who reads this blog, nor are you the only person “qualified” to be answering, and in my opinion in a crude and snide way. People who are searching for answers and seeking truth in this time of mass confusion read this blog. When people who are new to Tradition read off putting comments and replies such as yours, it is a big turn off. Where new people may have asked a question, instead they become reluctant when they run into one who slams and puts people down for questioning or commenting. I don’t care what you call me, or think of me, but please think of those who may be new and seeking and reading this blog in this time of Great Apostasy.

      Delete
  47. Anon @ 3:53 am.

    My first post was "slamming you"? Hardly. Crude and snide, eh? One could say you retaliated in a "crude and *snide*" way. You got as good as you've given, or perhaps better.

    But that's my opinion and you don't care about it. And I don't care about your personal opinions. No one else has complained. You can speak for yourself, as far as my replies being off-putting. It's a one-woman survey, and it'll remain so, because if other anons pop up supporting you I will assume they're you until I see a list of IP numbers which I can check to make sure they're genuine, and not just proxies. I've read many blogs, forums etc., and I know exactly what goes on insofar multiple identities with trads in Internet forums, blogs etc. I'm also an expert on discerning syntax. May I ask you, Madam, do you ask questions here and comment always as "Anonymous" or do you usually use a name? I mean a name like "TomA" or "Andrew" or "JoAnn"? Just curious. Btw, I find your replies very off-putting. It's almost as if you're presuming you can read me your personal "riot act" and I'm going to shrivel under the lash of your tongue. Think again.

    Oh Madam! I am thinking about people who are new, and that's why I take a dim view of people like TomA coming on here and spreading error in an obstinate way. My style is to deal with them in a firm manner, but only after they persist in their errors, ignoring all right reason insofar the arguments presented against what they erroneously contend. The owner of this blog also only puts up with so much, then he comes out guns blazin'! I admire his style - I only wish, sometimes, he'd come down on the "incorrigible" sooner.

    Finally. I admit - I am a "disruptor." I do want to shake my fellow-sedes up a bit. To make them understand that in this time of "Great Apostasy" (I see that phraseology often on this site) we do have to be vigilant, which requires much book study and prayer, otherwise we become an ignorant laity who, for example, thinks that Bp. Dolan can dispense one from fasting and abstaining on a Friday, just like a pre-Vatican bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction could dispense one (it did happen in certain dioceses) on St. Patrick's Day during Lent. He can't. People need to know this and much more, lest they culpably go through life in a clergy-caused stupor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon @5:36 - All I did was ask a question and you went ballastic on me. I am not spreading "error" as you accuse Tom A of. You seem to me to be somewhat of a trad "misogynist" which is why I post under Anon. All I am trying to say is to be a little altruistic in your first approach to people. I am not suggesting you tolerate error. If Introibo has a problem with my comments, or suggestions, I would like to know? Otherwise, goodbye and I wish you peace.

      Delete
    2. @anon6:05
      I have no problems with your comments or questions.
      @anon5:36
      I have no problem with you stating your positions and making forceful comments. I also have no problem with commenters who strongly disagree with each other. Please be careful not to go into personal attacks. It seems like this is where it is leading.

      I have been guilty at times of being uncharitable. I have made a conscious effort to improve myself during Lent, and I would like all discussions to remain civil. Disagree with me or anyone else as strongly as you like, but I just want to remind you not to cross the line into attacks on persons. I will try to do the same.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Anon 3:53, I am not spreading "error." I am raising a question and an issue that so far I have only received opinions as answers. Does ecclesial law cease if there is no lawgiver? I have heard all the opinions given but remain unconvinced since none of those opinions are based on magisterial authoritative teachings. We are left with opinions, even if they come from renowned canonists like Fr. DePauw, who I truly respect. Unlike you and others who can with certitude pronounce your opinion as dogmatic, I simply put forth the proposition and make no claim of certitude. I keep hearing from many that I must do this and I must do that else its a mortal sin. But there is not one person in this world that I can go to that can authoritatively tell me what I must obey. No pastor, no bishop, and no Pope. We can turn to others for advise, but that is all. For all practical purposes ecclesial is not binding anyone, because people are out there deviating from the law as was in force in 1958 and no one can administer any canonical penalty for their deviations. It is possible that there are no authoritative teachings on this matter since the Church never foreseen such a situation. It may remain unclear to us until authority is restored. Sedes need to understand the situation, the clergy are there to teach us the faith and administer sacraments. For now, they lack the authority of pastor and ordinary. We are in a wilderness. Survival is the order of the day.

      Delete
    4. Dear TomA,

      It's anon @ 3:53 here.

      With all due respect, there are others as well whom say you are in (spreading) error. It's probably best for you to take this up with Introibo.

      Best Regards

      Introibo: "@Tom and Anon5:53
      You exhibit how people fall into error."

      Introibo: "While you [TomA] and anon5:53 are not heretical you're both in error."

      Introibo: "Tom,
      Once more, you ignore Church teaching and fail to make necessary distinctions." (Error)

      Introibo: "@Tom,
      Be careful Tom. This is what happens when people think laws don't apply. A conclavist? You have no problem with "Pope" Michael?" (Error)

      Introibo: "Tom,
      I understand that you are not defending the clerics who use pre-1955 Holy Week Rites, however your premise that "we are no longer bound by laws that lack a lawgiver" is wrong." (Error)

      Delete
    5. I think if you re-read all I wrote, you would see the general tone of my "premise" is to pose the question rather than declare the law has ceased. I also challenge those who are so sure that the law is still in force. Sorry if you got the idea that I am fully convinced of my premise. But I am not convinced yet as to how I am bound by a law with no lawgiver or authority to enforce that law. To date, I have received less than adequate responses to convince me of your position.

      Delete
    6. Well, again, Tom, I really think you need to take this up with Introibo. I'm just not interested in discussing it with you anymore. No offense. You do recall typing that you'll never be convinced or words to that effect? That contradicts what you're now saying about not being fully convinced about your so-called "premise."

      But seriously, Tom, I'm more than happy to leave it at what I've written, what the other anons have written, what Introibo has written and what you've written, and let the readers decide. Anyway, take it up with others (Introibo? ). I've said an adequate amount already. :)

      Delete
  48. Madam @ 6:05 am

    You asked a question and I asked a question, to wit: "You sound like Tom - are you his brother?"

    How you can categorize my question as "going ballistic," God only knows. I concede. I shouldn't have done that.

    I never said you were spreading error. ??? My response was to assure you that I am mindful of the new people coming to this site, and that's why I dealt with Tom in the manner in which I did.

    Oh I see! You've been posting under anon because in my exchange with TomA you deduced I was 'somewhat of a trad "misogynist"'. What the...? How did you arrive at that conclusion? I think you've forgotten that you originally posted to Introibo as "Anonymous." Don't bother to answer my above question, because you and I know FULL WELL that your answer that you post as "Anonymous" is because I seem to you to be somewhat of a trad misogynist, is utter nonsense. It's actually a rash judgment and rather insulting, but never mind

    (I've noted that you haven't answered my question as to whether you normally post here under a name rather than "Anonymous." I don't blame you for avoiding that question. Let's leave it at that.)

    "All I am trying to say is to be a little altruistic in your first approach to people." Fair enough. I'll take that under advisement.

    Let me assure you that I'm not a "misogynist." Let me also assure you that I can't stand that feminist term. But, again, let me reassure you that I respect women and think you have just as much a right as anyone else to be here, asking questions and posting. In fact, I think I recognize your syntax, and if you are who I think you are, I can tell you I generally agree with what you write.

    I'm sure Introibo has no problem at all with you, and neither do I.

    Thanks for your well-wishes, and likewise, pax!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon @7:38 - It is because of comments such as yours - “no need to get your apron strings in a knot” that I sometimes have posted under Anonymous. In reality, women’s opinions don’t carry the same weight and are often dismissed and scoffed by trad men. You post under “Anonymous”, so what is the big deal if I post under Anonymous? Why do you even care who I am? I certainly don’t know who you are. If it makes you feel any better, I won’t post under Anonymous after this exchange. You compared me to being “Tom’s brother” and you have been accusing Tom of being in error - how is that not being accusatory toward me and the question I asked?

      Delete
  49. Anon @ 10:40 am

    I don't care if you post under anonymous. Do whatever you like. I couldn't care less. You're imagining I did. I was, however, curious why you weren't posting under your normal name. I don't buy your reason. Sorry. Really, comments like mine? BUT WHY did you post under anonymous this time, asking your question about John XXIII? It wasn't because of the fear of bad, trad men ridiculing you. Who do you think you're kidding?

    I was apologetic, and you had previously typed "peace," but apparently you don't want peace. You seem like you have some sort of inferiority complex, thinking trad men often scoff at women's opinions, etc. Don't project on me, and please don't imply that I'm doing that. I didn't know your gender until afterwards. remember? And you had addressed your comment to Introibo. You were afraid he'd scoff at you? Yeah, sure. You thought the bad, trad men here would scoff and dismiss you, and Introibo would let them --- not that he knew you were a woman either? This is risible. As you know I assumed you were a man. A Tom-like man, to be precise, but NOT because you were in error. More to do with asking a question where the answer has, in effect, already been given. Upon reflection, I stand by my comparison.

    I want you to understand that no matter what you come back with, as far as I'm concerned, this is over. So, have at me with the final word. I don't think anyone is really listening to all this, but go for it! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon @12:04 - When you found out I was a woman you told me “no need to get your apron strings in a knot”. I am not projecting on you, you are the one who made the degratory woman comment. You assume way too much, as I have posted previously under Anonymous and it had nothing to do with John XXIII. Some men can’t take comments made by strong women as you so pointedly corroborated by your negative “apron strings” comment to me.

      Delete
  50. Is it true that Van Noort teaches that apostolicity of doctrine needs to reside in the Church at all times?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poni,
      Yes, but not as some anti-sedes think! They’re using it to “prove” the V2 sect is true. I’ll write a post about it soon.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I will be waiting for your post.
      BTW, Do you know Spanish? You may need it for the post on Squetino Schatenhhofer

      Delete
    3. Poni,
      I don’t understand Spanish except for some basic words and phrases.

      —-Introibo

      Delete