Monday, May 20, 2019

The Case Against Roncalli


 I learn quite a lot thanks to my readers. Each week in the comments section, there are many good discussions. Most are on the same topic as the post, but not always, and that's fine by me. When I'm challenged on a topic I often re-think my position, to get a better understanding both for my own edification and that I may be of more informative value to my readers. I believe in the axiom,"He who does not understand his opponents' point of view, doesn't fully understand his own." Last week, a comment was made by someone who objected to my designating Roncalli (John XXIII) as a false pope. He had challenged me on this point about a year ago, and I was going to research my position more thoroughly, but alas, life so often gets in the way of our plans.

This time, I started to research the topic and my findings were most fruitful--resulting in this post you're now reading. Anyone who wishes to read the whole thread between my interlocutor and myself may do so by referring to the comments section of last week's post. In sum, he said, "Sedevacantists recognize Paul VI onwards as pseudo-popes based on SOLID, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. For some reason you're not applying this standard to Roncalli...Again, I don't know if Roncalli was an usurper. Neither do you, so perhaps you should pull back on DECLARING him a pseudo-pope, and instead just state that YOU believe he was problematic to the point that YOU have your doubts that he was genuine. " (Emphasis in the original).

In this post, I will put forth the reasons, proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that Roncalli must be objectively dismissed as a false pope. There's so much that could be written, but I will confine myself as best as possible to make it terse and get the point across without delving into all aspects of his life. Hence, you will not see, for example, accusations that he was a Freemason addressed. I might touch on such issues in another post. This one will suffice for the stated purpose.


Angelo Roncalli: A Brief Background
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, the man who would convoke the Robber Council Vatican II, was born the fourth of thirteen children in 1881. He was born to a family of sharecroppers who lived in an Italian village. Roncalli studied for the priesthood, and completed his doctorate in Canon Law the same year as his ordination, 1904.  He became Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University in 1924, only to be relieved of his post within months "on suspicion of Modernism."

In February 1925, the Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri summoned him to the Vatican and informed him of Pope Pius XI's decision to appoint him as the Apostolic Visitor to Bulgaria (1925–1935). He was subsequently consecrated a bishop in 1925 by Cardinal Porchelli. On 12 January 1953, he was appointed Patriarch of Venice and raised to the rank of Cardinal-Priest of Santa Prisca by Pope Pius XII. After the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, Roncalli was allegedly elected pope on the eleventh ballot occurring on October 28th. He took the regnal name of John XXIII. Interestingly, this was the first time in over 500 years that this name had been chosen; previous popes had avoided its use since the time of Antipope John XXIII during the Great Western Schism several centuries before. Both his name and his "reign" would be an appropriate foreshadowing of the Vatican II sect which he helped to create. 

Preliminary Considerations
1. A pope who falls into heresy--- as a private individual--- automatically loses his papal authority by Divine Law.

 According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).

According to Wernz-Vidal, "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943] 2:453). 

2. A heretic is incapable by Divine Law of attaining the papacy. 

 According to theologian Baldii, "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics..." (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)

3. If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order. 

According to theologian Szal, "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 Schismatics, CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine). 

Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on "specific and articulable facts," "taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances." Hence, if someone were elected pope, and coerced into resigning, he would remain pope. Any subsequent Cardinal "elected" could not attain to the papacy even if not a heretic. Moreover, with the death or true resignation of the man elected pope (at a time subsequent to the invalid election), it would not thereby automatically make the invalidly elected cardinal the Vicar of Christ. 

Was Roncalli a Heretic Prior to His Election?
  • In the biography by Lawrence Elliot entitled I Will Be Called John:A Biography of Pope John XXIII,[Reader's Digest Press, 1973] it is recorded that as early as 1914, Roncalli was accused of Modernism while a teacher at the seminary at Bergamo. Cardinal De Lai, Secretary for the Congregation of Seminaries, formally reprimanded Roncalli, saying: "According to the information that came my way, I knew that you had been a reader of Duchesne [an author of a three volume work placed on the Index of Forbidden Books  for teaching Modernist tenets---Introibo] and other unbridled authors, and that on certain occasions you had shown yourself inclined to that school of thought which tends to empty out the value of tradition and the authority of the past, a dangerous current which leads to fatal consequences." (pg. 59)
  • For ten years (1905-1915), Roncalli was secretary for Bishop Radini Tedeschi, a Modernist sympathizer. Roncalli describes him thus: "His burning eloquence, his innumerable projects, and his extraordinary personal activity could have given the impression to many, at the beginning, that he had in view the most radical changes and that he was moved by the sole desire to innovate...[Tedeshi] concerned himself less with carrying out reforms than with maintaining the glorious traditions of his diocese and with interpreting them in harmony with new conditions and the new needs of the times."(See Leroux, John XXIII: Initiator of the Changes, pg. 10) Bp. Tedeschi wanted to "update" traditions by re-interpreting them with the "needs of the times." Sound familiar? 
  • He received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli's own insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an "honest socialist." Pope Pius XI had stated, "No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist."(See Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno [1931], para #120)
  • While working in Bulgaria, Roncalli became well acquainted with Eastern Schismatics. His heretical ecumenism shone through "Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ." (See Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, [1998], pp. 18-19; Emphasis mine.) Do the schismatics share the same faith with the One True Church? Obviously not. 
  • According to Renzo Allegri (translated from the original Italian Il Papa che ha cambiato il mondo, Testimonianze sulla vita private di Giovanni XXIII, pg. 66) a Bulgarian journalist named Stefano Karadgiov stated, "I knew Catholic priests who refused to go into an Orthodox Church even as tourists. Bishop Roncalli, on the contrary, always participated in Orthodox functions, arousing astonishment and perplexity in some Catholics. He never missed the great ceremonies which were celebrated in the principle Orthodox church in Sofia. He put himself in a corner and devoutly followed the rites. The Orthodox chants especially pleased him. (Emphasis mine) 
  • The import of Roncalli actively participating in false worship cannot be understated. Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746; Emphasis mine)
  • Nor is this an isolated report of Roncalli participating in prayer with those outside the Church. According to John Hughes in Pontiffs:Popes Who Shaped History [Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1994], "He [Roncalli] became good friends of the Reverend Austin Oakley, chaplain at the British Embassy and the Archbishop of Canterbury's personal representative to the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch. Even more unusual were Roncalli's visits to Oakley's chapel, where the two men prayed together." (Emphasis mine). Furthermore, according to Kerry Walters in John XXIII (A Short Biography) Franciscan Media,[2013], Roncalli once proclaimed from the pulpit that Jesus Christ "died to proclaim universal brotherhood." (pg. 14)

Did Something Strange Happen at the 1958 Conclave?
 1.  There were several top contenders for the papacy after the death of Pope Pius XII. Fr. DePauw, my spiritual father, made it known to me that his personal friend, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who was in charge of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, was so certain he would be elected, that he had already picked out his regnal name as Pope Pius XIII. Other strong contenders included Cardinals Agagianian (Modernist sympathizer), Lercaro (Modernist sympathizer), and Siri (anti-Communist and anti-Modernist like Ottaviani). The U.S. government was very interested in the election, as the Cold War was in high gear, and they wanted another staunch anti-Communist like Pope Pius XII. 

In October of 1958, there were only 55 Cardinals in the world, the lowest number in decades because Pope Pius knew so many bishops were suspect of Modernism. It was the "second wave" of resurgent Modernism. Pope St. Pius X had driven the Modernists underground, but had not extirpated them. So why did Pope Pius XII give the red hat of a Cardinal to Roncalli? Contrary to what many think, the Church doesn't simply excommunicate clerics on a whim. The fact that they were censured or held suspect of heresy is the Church doing Her job. The hope is to reform those who go astray and bring them back into the fold. Even the great St. Pius X gave the worst Modernists time to reform before excommunication. To be clear, the Church is in no way infallible when it comes to ecclesiastical appointments. Choosing someone as a Cardinal does not relieve their censure or suspicion of heresy automatically. 

Pope Pius XII had a back-stabbing Judas as his confessor; Fr. Augustin Bea. Bea was thought to be anti-Modernist, but at Vatican II he worked for the passage of Nostra Aetate, the heretical document on non-Christian religions. He was an ecumenist to the extreme and wanted the Jews "absolved" for their crime of Deicide. Could he have protected Roncalli, having the ear of Pope Pius and convincing him he was "reformed" and/or not electable as pope? This is one of many possibilities, but the crux of the matter is it does nothing to absolve Roncalli of his false teachings and even without ecclesiastical excommunication, he would have been removed from the Church by Divine Law for profession of heresy. 

2. Confusing white smoke signals appeared and American intelligence had allegedly found out that Cardinal Siri had been elected pope. Then the smoke was black. White smoke signals mean that a Cardinal had been elected and accepted his election as the new pope. This has lead some to speculate that Siri was elected pope ("Gregory XVII") and was forced to resign. Therefore Roncalli's election was null and void. I don't accept the "Siri Theory" for good reason.

 See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html for my thoughts on the "Siri Theory." Is it possible some other Cardinal was elected, forced to resign (which made Roncalli's election null and void), and then lost office by going along with the Modernists? It's a possibility. Lest anyone say there is no evidence of seriously confusing smoke, according to Kirk Clinger, "The partly white, partly dark smoke confused even the Vatican radio announcers. They had to apologize frequently for their error. The column of smoke which rose from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel was first whitish, then definitely white, and only later definitely black." (See A Pope Laughs: Stories of John XXIII,Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, [1964], pg. 43) 

3. The most convincing report I heard was that both Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri were unable to muster the two-thirds plus one vote to be elected. As a result, a group of "moderates" convinced most Cardinals to give their votes to Roncalli as a "transitional" pope. He was 77 years old, and (so the reasoning went) wouldn't do much. Could there have been threats to a Cardinal that got elected and he was forced to resign? At least two Cardinals present made disparaging statements about what transpired at that conclave, which is highly suggestive that there was something seriously wrong. They were Cardinals Ottaviani and Spellman. 

4. Does this give us a reasonable suspicion, such that we may doubt Roncalli's election? Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of evidence, so I'd say definitely so. However, there is more than ample proof Roncalli was a heretic prior to his election and therefore could not attain to the papacy. Finally, let's not forget that a cause can be discerned by examining the effects. For example, the intelligent design of the universe points to a Creator. Likewise, if the man who came out of the conclave did what a true pope would not (indeed could not) do, we can safely say he wasn't elected pope.  

5. Roncalli, as "pope" rehabilitated every major heretic that had been censured under Pope Pius XII and had them as approved periti (theological experts) at Vatican II. These heretics included the likes of Congar, de Lubac, and Hans Kung, among many others, none of whom were required to abjure any errors. Roncalli promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : "Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism." He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase "perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews." He modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar. He was friends with Socialists, Communists, and Freemasons, none of whom he sought to convert. Are these the actions of a true Vicar of Christ? 

Pacem In Terris: Heresy On Earth
The death-knell for those who wish to consider Roncalli pope lies in the fact that he professed heresy in his encyclical Pacem In Terris, published April 11, 1963. This section of my post is taken from the work of Mr. John Daly called John XXIII and Pacem in Terris. I give full credit to Mr. Daly for his incredible research  and incisive analysis. I have condensed the pertinent parts of his article in this section and included some of my comments and research, which I mixed in.---Introibo

The encyclical Pacem in Terris, was about "establishing universal peace in truth, justice, charity, and liberty," and in addition to the Church, it was addressed "to all men of good will." The heretical proposition is the opening sentence of paragraph #14. The official Latin version, published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis ("AAS" --Acts of the Apostolic See), No. 55, 257-304 is as follows:

In hominis juribus hoc quoque numerandum est, ut et Deum, ad rectum conscientiae suae normam, venerari possit, et religionem privatim et publice profiteri. 

In English it means, "We must include among the rights of man that he should be able to worship God according to the rightful prompting of his conscience and to profess his religion privately and publicly."
Those who defend Roncalli will point out (correctly) that the Church teaches humans have the right to profess and practice only the Catholic religion which is the One True Church, outside of which no one is saved. Error has no rights. There is nothing wrong with this statement in Pacem (they contend) because the word rightful modifies the "prompting of his conscience" such that it implies that one is not simply entitled to follow his conscience in the worship of God unless his conscience is rightful (i.e., in accordance with the One True Church). What no Catholic can declare is that each person should be able "to profess his religion privately and publicly." This implies (as we shall see) that one can profess any religion, be it the True Religion or any of the myriad false religions, both privately and in public; which idea is heretical and condemned by the Church.

Here's where it gets interesting. The possessive adjective "his" does not appear in the official Latin text published in the AAS. However, its interpolation by translators (including the official English text available on the Modernist Vatican's website) is by no means unjustified for two reasons:

(a) Latin very rarely includes such adjectives, frequently showing them to be  understood from the context.
(b) Abundant evidence shows that John XXIII's true meaning is represented by the inclusion of "his"--which evidence will be examined.

If you read the sentence without the word "his" it admits of an orthodox interpretation: i.e., people have the right to profess religion publicly and privately provided it's the Catholic religion. Nevertheless, we cannot omit that word without altering the intended sense of the encyclical; a sense that is unabashedly heretical. Let no one protest that this is an exercise in mere semantics. The semi-Arian heretics, under pressure from the Emperor, were prepared to submit to every syllable of the Nicene Creed except they rejected the statement that Our Lord was consubstantial (homo-ousion) with the Father, but He was merely (homoi-ousion) of like substance, not the same substance. One letter marked the all important line between Catholic doctrine and heresy.

It is beyond dispute that the meaning Roncalli wished to convey, and to which he consciously lent his (alleged) "authority," was that each person has the right to profess his religion---whatever that religion may be--both privately and publicly. Here is the evidence:

1. The encyclical was not, as traditionally done, addressed only to the members of the Roman Catholic Church, but to "all men of good will." If it was only addressed to Catholics, one could argue that they would know that "his" religion is the Catholic religion, because only the Truth may be openly professed and preached. After all, he would then only have Catholics as his intended audience. It is completely unreasonable to expect Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants, and Eastern Schismatics (among other non-Catholics) to obtain that understanding from the context. The only reasonable conclusion at which they would arrive is that the encyclical guarantees every single one of them the objective moral right to practice and profess his particular false religion in public.

2. The 32nd edition of Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum [The Enchiridion is a compendium of all the basic texts on Catholic dogma and morality since the Apostolic Age. Commissioned by Pope Pius IX, it has been in use since 1854, and has been regularly updated since] was edited by Fr. Schonmetzer and has the offending sentence tagged with a footnote referencing the Masonic United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This passage is irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine, yet it is linked to the very sentence that would make a reader believe that everyone is free to express his religion in public, no matter if it is the true religion or not. It would suggest that Roncalli was conscious of that portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as he penned Pacem in Terris. If this does not contradict Catholic teaching, nothing does.

As Pope Gregory XVI taught: "Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care...This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it." (See Mirari Vos [1832], para. #13 and 14).

The defenders of Roncalli will protest that there is a "lack of evidence" that Roncalli authorized the footnote; but such objection fails miserably. The authors of the Enchiridion are selected precisely to ensure that their references and explanations will meet with official approval of the Holy See, and any remark misrepresenting the mind of same would meet with a public rebuke and a retraction demanded by Rome, which was far from the case. Moreover, the involvement of the editors of the 32nd edition is more demonstrable than in any prior edition. It was the first time that the passage of Pope Pius IX's condemnation of religious liberty was omitted.  The startling omission is explicable only on the basis that it was intended to conceal the explicit contradiction between Pacem in Terris and Quanta Cura. 

This passage was omitted: From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity" viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling." (See Quanta Cura [1864], para. #3).

Clearly, it cannot be reasonably maintained that those who took such great care to arrange the suppression of the "offending" part of Quanta Cura were not also responsible for the footnote to Pacem in Terris which concerned the same subject.

3. That fact that the sentence from Pacem in Terris must be understood in connection with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is confirmed by the fact that in Pacem itself, the Masonic United Nations and its Declaration are commended and praised in paragraphs #142, 143, and 144. Roncalli said of the Declaration "It is a solemn recognition of the personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone's right to be free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights connected with these." (para. #144; Emphasis mine). An encyclical is carefully read over by the Pontiff before signing and promulgating it. Moreover, high ranking theologians craft it at the direction of the pope. Each word is carefully chosen. If these "other rights" written in the Declaration did not include the infamous "right" to religious liberty, is it not obvious this would have been made clear?

4. The encyclical was roundly praised by the Masonic lodges and the secular media both of which promote religious Indifferentism and religious liberty through supporting separation of Church and State.

5. The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed "heretical by defect." This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:
"After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances."

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because "it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith...insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question."

Summation: It is impossible to excuse Roncalli (John XXIII) from the charge of heresy by arguing that this sentence can admit of an orthodox interpretation, because it does not. Even if, ad arguendo, it could so admit of an orthodox interpretation, Roncalli would still be guilty of heresy by defect because it has been shown that the obvious sense of the sentence, taken in both text and context, is incontrovertibly heretical.

Conclusion
What, then, are the practical and objective conclusions we can deduce from the so-called pontificate of "Good Pope John"? 

  • He was influenced and kept friends with Modernists, Masons, Socialists and other sworn enemies of the Church from his earliest days in the priesthood
  • He was removed from his teaching post on suspicion of heresy (Modernism)
  • He worshiped and prayed with heretics and schismatics 
  • He made an overtly heretical statement regarding Catholics and Eastern Schismatics having the "same faith"
  • The conclave of 1958 was surrounded by suspicious activity and lead many to believe that someone else had been elected pope prior to Roncalli
  • After his "election" Roncalli rehabilitated all the living censured theologians under Pope Pius XII and had them actively serve as theological experts during Vatican II
  • Roncalli taught the heresy of religious liberty in Pacem in Terris; he paved the way for its adoption at Vatican II in the heretical document Dignitatis Humanae
Therefore,
1. It is morally certain that Roncalli was not pope since at least the promulgation of the heretical encyclical Pacem in Terris of April 11, 1963. A true pope cannot teach heresy.

2. Was Roncalli "pope" from October of 1958 until April 11, 1963? In a word: No. We know a cause by the effect it produces. If you see someone who's sick, you know it's caused by an illness, even if you can't diagnose exactly what illness it is. Pope's do not rehabilitate heretics, promote ecumenism and teach heresy. It is highly more probable than not that Roncalli was a heretic at the time he entered the conclave and never attained to the papacy in the first place. It is also possible (but not likely) that someone else was elected pope and resigned under duress, making Roncalli's subsequent "election" invalid. There's more than sufficient evidence prior to the promulgation of Pacem in Terris that we can suspect the validity of his election (due to heresy, election of another, or both) to treat him as a dubious pope --which is no pope in the practical order.

I could write dozens of posts on "Evil Pseudo-Pope John." However, I hope this one will be sufficient to put to rest the arguments of those who are "agnostic" about his "papacy" and think he might have been pope. Finally, for those who have even the slightest qualm of conscience or scintilla of doubt remaining, let me add that Bergoglio "canonized" him a "saint." The same Argentinian apostate who gave us "St." John Paul the Great Apostate and "St" Paul VI, gave us "St" John XXIII. If that's not enough to make you realize the destruction he caused, and for which the Vatican II sect praises him, no amount of information can wake you from your denial. 


63 comments:

  1. Pius XII appointed a lot of cardinals at the 1958 conclave and was quite the liturgical innovator himself.
    I can't fault Bp.Roncalli for wanting union with the Orthodox.
    However it was known many of the top tier eastern orthodox at that time were communists or communist sympathizers.
    Bishop Roncalli and Pius XII are 2 "popes" who changed the Church in what were very revolutionary steps during their pontificates.
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Roncalli and Pope Pius XII were opposites. Pius was Catholic and Roncalli a heretic. See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/07/in-defense-of-pope-pius-xii.html?m=1

      To want unity by having the Schismatics convert is wonderful. What Roncalli professed was that the True Church and the Schismatics have THE SAME FAITH. Clearly heretical.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Dear Andrew, Liturgy resolves under discipline. The Pope is supreme legislator and may alter, or adapt the liturgy - as St. Pius V did when he promulgated the Tridentine Mass. Pope Pius XII was perfectly entitled to make the liturgical changes he made - NONE OF WHICH WERE HERETICAL, or contrary to Catholic doctrine, or dogma. His changes were intended to be temporary and "experimental." Remember, this sick and holy Pope was was surrounded by wily, scheming, lying agents of satan - bugnini, bea, montini. They cunningly talked him into making some legitimate changes for plausible reasons - at least on an "experimental" basis. He had no idea that they had conned him into unknowingly taking the first step of their satanic plan to eventually destroy the Catholic Tridentine Mass.

      Delete
    3. Im going to fully disagree concerning Pius XII 1951-1958.
      I respect your all's opinion and acknowledge I could be 100% wrong.
      Council of Trent anathematizes ANYONE who dares to touch or change liturgy.
      Thankfully our Bishop and Priests obey pre-1950 Rubrics and Ceremonies.
      We are not apart of SGG nor Bp.Sanborn.
      God bless
      Andrew

      Delete
    4. @Dr.Lamb,
      Very true!

      @Andrew,
      I like your open-mindedness. Keep researching the issue.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Dear Andrew, A point of interest you might bear in mind. All Popes have equal authority. No Pope is more, or less powerful/authoritative than his predecessor, or successor. When a Pope says something will remain so "in perpetuity", it does not mean, as one would think, it will remain so for ever. It means it will remain so without specified time limit - until it might be changed by a later Pope.

      Delete
    6. Thanks Peter Lamb. Quo Primum is over laboured sometimes as proof that True Catholic Mass must be remain.

      Delete
    7. What Pope before "overhauled" Holy Week,Paschal Time,and eliminated the after Midnight Holy Communion fast before Pius XII?
      I ask this in sincerity not patronizing sarcasm.
      If you're going to cite Popes can you PLEASE leave links so I can read what specific Popes specifically changed?
      Thank you God bless.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    8. Andrew,
      Pope Pius XII introduced Evening Masses as the world became more secularized and people had to work. Hence, if it’s a Holy Day and Mass is at 8pm, I’d need to go almost 24 hours without food. That’s impossible for most people. Those who can keep the midnight fast were encouraged to do so, but it was reduced to 3 hours for those who can’t. My mother (God rest her soul) was sickly most of her life. She could not endure a midnight fast without injury to her health and perhaps hospitalization. How is changing the fast like this evil? It’s eminently reasonable.

      As to popes who changed the Mass, Only 34 years after the publication of Quo primum, Pope Clement VIII made a general revision of the Roman Missal (1604) as did Pope Urban VIII 30 years later (1634).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. When drawn into discussions about what the Church commands or teaches I always think back to what I had once read in a traditional tract about "change" as opposed to "growth" in liturgical rites, doctrines and such. It said something like -- changing a thing is the replacement of it with another, whereas growth is an ornamentation to, or a further exposition of, the nature of a thing.
      An unborn baby at 6 weeks looks nothing like the adult it will become, yet it's growth from conception to death doesn't change it from being human to something else. The Mass is so much like that. Modifications to it's nonessentials (and there aren't a whole lot of those) can be made but change, by definition, is out of the question or else the Mass (or any Sacrament) is no longer the thing it is supposed to be. By this rule it is very hard to accuse the pre-V2 popes of invalidating the Mass. Neither are they heretics. The same can't be said about the post-V2 situation, which a good sede priest dubbed "Frankenchurch" due to the bold substitutions and redactions they did to the Mass and Sacraments, and that have sadly led to the destruction of belief for so many souls.
      Thanks, Introibo

      Delete
    10. @Jannie,
      What a fantastic analogy! It’s one I’ll be using in the future when the topic of permissible development vs. false changes comes up.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. I dont nor will ever understand how Pius XII changes are ok yet J23 P6 etc...are considered wrong and heretical?
      If its ok to essentially ban the apostolic Holy Week in 1956,then how is the novus ordo missal or new sacramental rubrics wrong?
      Novus Ordo types rightfully jump on this contradiction.
      I looked into the changes mentioned above by both Pope Clements years ago.
      These were slight modifications not outright mutilations like Pius XII and Paul VI.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    12. Andrew,
      Read my post about Pope Pius XII and his Holy Week changes.

      See https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/07/in-defense-of-pope-pius-xii.html

      Even the clergy who reject the changes ADMIT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM. They simply feel that the law ceases to bind. Since the Church cannot give that which is evil, you would have to conclude Pope Pius XII was not the pope from at least 1955, making you a "Vacancy Pusher" as I call those who push the time of the vacancy back before Pope Pius XII, some going back to Pope Honorius II in 1130 AD!! (Ibranyi).

      The changes of Montini changed the VERY ESSENCE OF THE MASS. It went from being a "Holy Sacrifice" to a "MEMORIAL MEAL" like the Protestants. Big difference. If you want an incisive look at what makes the changes evil (in the Novus Bogus)get a copy of:

      "The Problems with the New Mass' by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy

      "The Work of Human Hands" by Fr. Anthony Cekada

      They will help you understand things more clearly, and why the changes of Pope Pius XII, like Jannie stated above, are progressive developments like a growing fetus, not a mutated monstrosity.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    13. Jannie,

      Thanks so much for sharing that great analogy!! Much appreciated.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    14. I'm not a vacancy pusher.
      It's my belief through research and learning (this blog being one of them) that Pius XII lost his office in 56 not 58.
      I could be wrong plus I do not push this belief on anyone.
      God bless.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    15. As Pius XII set up a secret liturgy reform commission with Montini and Bugnini as members years before 1955, while also setting up an overt, formal commission which knew nothing of the secret one, and were stunned by the 1955 revision of the liturgy, about which they also knew nothing, it is hard to say that the was their ill, elderly puppet. He used them as puppets, not vice versa. See The Rite of Sodomy, Volume 5 for a well researched and documented description of this.

      Delete
  2. Rama Coomaraswamy quotes Yves Marsaudon (state master, Supreme Council of France Scottish Rite) in his book Destruction of Christian Tradition who said: "The sense of universalism that is rampant in Rome these days is very close to our purpose of existence... With all our hearts we support the Revolution of John XXIII."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! There is ample evidence Roncalli was a Freemason.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. I loved how you mentioned:

    "He received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli's own insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an "honest socialist."

    That's like saying a devil is an "honest devil." While it's true that there have been times when devils are forced to tell the truth in spite of themselves, the fact is they are still liars.

    It's as much of a paradox to say that as it is to say that a pope can be a heretical pope. Unfortunately many semi trads believe there is such a thing as if in the past the Church has had them before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "When asked about following in the footsteps of a great man as Pius XII, John XXIII responded," I try to imagine what my predecessor would have done, and I do the opposite.". ('Pope John XXIII', Catholic Writer Paul Johnson). The above statement is true to Roncalli's actions as "Pope".

      "Popes" such as Roncalli are more dangerous than the Francis type in my opinion. Francis is very bold in proclaiming his heresies. They are out there in print and sound for all to hear and see. Roncalli's heresies fly under the radar and are much more subtle.

      Delete
    2. Joann,
      Absolutely. When the devil comes to deceive us as an “angel of light” is when we are most in danger!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. #You know me.
    JoAnn I agree with you and the new
    "#youknowme" campaign is a new level in diabolical disorientation.
    If you haven't heard of this campaign it's to make abortion more relatable to John and Jane Q public.
    Very disturbing as these women talk as if they're giving a Tupperware presentation.(meaning normal nice empathetic appearance and tone of voice)
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew - This is the first I have heard about the #You know me movement. You are right it is "diabolical disorientation". These women are in need of lots of prayers to convict them of their sin and to ask God's forgiveness.

      JoAnn

      Delete
  5. Let’s not let Popes Pius XI and Pius XII off the hook for promoting Roncalli and allowing him to remain in his high positions well after his evil reputation and activity were known. It is incongruous to point to Roncalli’s pre-election misconduct as proof of his ineligibility when the Vatican authorities were aware of it and advanced him anyway.

    If Roncalli had been known to have been supportive of modernism, socialism/communism, and false religions all the way back to 1914 and had been determined to be unsuitable to hold the teaching position in 1924, he should have been defrocked, even if he could not be excommunicated. That may very well have prevented Vatican II from ever happening. If the authorities didn’t want to defrock him, they should at least have put him in a position where the harm he could cause would be minimized, such as in an isolated monastery doing menial work. Under no circumstances should he have been promoted, yet he was promoted to bishop almost immediately AFTER having been removed from his university position. WHY?! Couldn’t enough decent priests have been found to promote to bishop who had never flirted with modernism or communism?

    Roncalli was further promoted by Pius XII to Cardinal, which made him papable, this almost 40 years after his modernist sympathies were known. Again WHY?! Surely, Pius XII would have reviewed the backgrounds of the men he is promoting to cardinal. Roncalli had a file at the Holy Office that said “suspected of modernism.” If I am going to hire the most basic entry-level worker for some low-level position, I am going to at least read his resume. Didn’t Pius XII read up on the candidates for as important a position as the one that makes a man eligible for the papacy?

    Franco Bellegrandi’s book says that the real rulers of this world had predetermined Roncalli’s election and that Cardinal Agagianian was elected but that he was pressured into refusing. https://archive.org/stream/NIKITARONCALLIF.Bellegrandi/NIKITARONCALLI_F.Bellegrandi_djvu.txt

    If skullduggery occurred during the 1958 Papal conclave, someone else was elected and intimidated into declining, and Roncalli’s election was invalid, why didn’t Cardinals Siri or Ottaviani or some of the other conservative cardinals spill the beans and attempt to do something to rectify the situation? The vow of secrecy in the conclave only applies to legitimate elections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:10
      The Church was under attack as never before beginning with the pontificate of Pope Pius IX. Things were really bad when Pope St. Pius X was elected in 1903, and his wise program against the Modernists was not advanced by Pope Benedict XV, who thought (foolishly) that the Modernist threat was over.

      There is no guarantee that an ecclesiastical appointment will be good for the Church. None. Pope Pius XI and XII certainly (in hindsight) did not make good choices in appointments. However, the Modernists were not all "out in the open," many were clever. Bea was thought to be strongly orthodox. NO ONE suspected him of Modernism, and Pope Pius XII trusted his judgement. If he told him Roncalli reformed, he may have gone along with it. Pope Pius XII had a hard time with Modernists surrounding him, not to mention the Communist infiltrators as reported by Bella Dodd. He wasn't appointing cardinals towards the end of his pontificate precisely because of his distrust.

      When Ratzinger was "pope," he refused to advance the cause of Pope Pius XII for canonization, and took the name of the pope who let up on the Modernists.

      The Cardinals did not "spill the beans" because:
      a. They might have strong reasons to believe coercion happened, but no proof, AND
      b. Pope Pius XII in Vacantis Apostolicae Vacantis made the secrecy the strongest ever not referencing legitimate or illegitimate elections. Under pain of excommunication reserved to the pope himself, they could not divulge ANYTHING that took place (see para. #57-64).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Anonymous May 20, 2019 at 6:10 PM:

      It is interesting what you say about the Bellegrandi book. In "The Anti-Father", I said this about my father:
      "For what it's worth, when Roncalli was elected, my father expressed grave misgivings about the future of the Church, saying disaster would ensue because the wrong man had been chosen." Curiously, Dad also stated quite firmly at the time that the Armenian Cardinal, Peter Agagianian, should have been elected!

      By the way, great article, Introibo! No doubt the readership awaits your interlocutor's response with eager anticipation.

      Delete
    3. @Leo
      Thank you! Something tells me I won’t be getting a response. We shall wait and see.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. I agree with Anonymous @6:10pm.
      Very pragmatic sensible logical comment.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    5. Also,evidence suggests Pius XI was going to wage an
      Anti-modernist campaign after WW2 and that he (Pius XI) was murdered.
      -Andrew

      Delete
  6. Just think of all the things you have to believe if your a NOcatholic these day:

    1. All religions are means of salvation, essentially there is no point nor uniqueness to Christianity
    2. Yet John XXIII and JP2 are saints
    3. Mother Teresa is a saint IIRC
    4. It is morally wrong to judge sin as bad (an incoherent absurdity which comes form Jorge's: "who am I to judge" & Atheists go to heaven)
    5. Transubstantiation isn't real, the mass is a social gathering. What's the point then?
    6. All religions worship the same God. (logically this would mean that God is not perfect as he tells different religions contradictory things)

    I know I'm being a bit gratuitous, but strip away the flowery language and B.S. of the Modernist Ordite Clergy and that's what you have to believe. I just don't understand why so many of these arch conservative Catholics can't cross the finish line and reject the NO? Do they have too much personally invested?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan, How do we know for certain that these people are "arch conservatives"? Perhaps they are conservatives in name only?

      Delete
    2. Ryan,
      People like what’s easy and don’t care about faith. It’s a sad fact of most people in modern society. As Joann said, “archconservatives” in name only. They like having convenience. That’s my 2 cents.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. I think many conservatives are sincere because they profess love for doctrine. I think Introbio you are right because if they could get over the sting of the initial realization that something is fundamentally wrong with the NO then they would logically come to the conclusion that the NO isn't Catholic. I think this is too hard for most people whom live in such soft effeminate times. Now that I think about it it seems to me the more that people are involved in the NO the more difficult it becomes because of how much they have invested in it, which ironically makes those who would otherwise be the most ardent Catholics most opposed to Sedevacantism.

      Delete
    4. Jo Ann, Introibo, Ryan, you all make great points.

      I was raised in the Novus ordo, mistakenly believing I was a faithful Catholic and was not aware of the Latin Mass, teachings of Vatican II, what the "popes" were doing etc. Once I became aware of everything, it took me a couple of years back then to stumble over the issues as time passed and because of limited internet access [dial up] and finding the right books etc. There was no turning back for me once I saw the problems. I couldn't live with myself unless I knew what the truth was because while some things are a mystery or obscure not everything is. It was tiresome to hear that everything in the novus ordo being explained as ambiguous (semi trads/and "conservative" apologists used to use this term). As I was slowly converting to true Catholicism and embracing the sedevacantist stance, most of the people I knew in the Novus Ordo would simply not believe me even if showed them the evidence right in front of their face. It's like they didn't want to know or believe it. These same people considered themselves "conservative" Catholics (and in some things they were) but at the end of the day they were duds.

      Some pretended they were excited to hear it, but the next day it's like they forgot about it. Others were scared to hear it because they knew the consequences weren't good as far as what they would have to start doing (being real Catholics in times of apostasy). Others believed me when I showed them, but were to afraid of losing their friends or being considered quacks. Some didn't care although they understood it. Some just flat out love the new stuff and kind of got aggressive in their defense of why they loved being more liberal than they realized.

      I've come to the conclusion that most people are wishy washy, faithless, careless, cowardly or liberal individuals. No matter how graciously you explain things to many in the Novus Ordo (not all of course), they would rather take a chance of losing their souls to burn in hell with devils torturing them for all eternity, than following the truth. It's truly sad and upsetting how God is not loved like He should be.

      "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven... He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it." MATT 10:32-33,39

      "Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as a little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven." MATT 18:3-4

      Lee

      Delete
    5. @Lee,
      The sad, but stark reality is summed up by your statement:
      “I've come to the conclusion that most people are wishy washy, faithless, careless, cowardly or liberal individuals”

      Thank God you’re not one of them and keep fighting the good fight!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Lee,
      Thanks for sharing! People today sure are "wishy washy". They say one thing and do another. There is no absolute truth as everything is relative. People claim they want the truth, but turn away when they hear it. The Novus Order is protestantism on steriods. It is a conglomeration of every ism under the sun except for true Catholicism. The NO is also a social club where people are more concerned about meeting and socializing with their friends than seeking God. "Men shall be lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God" - sad but true.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    7. Thank you JoAnn

      Coming out of the Novus Ordo, I would say it's the anti-Christ religion on steroids. I have an older brother who doesn't practice anything anymore including the Novus Ordo (I'm glad he doesn't practice his faith in the Novus ordo) but because we were raised in the Novus ordo he doesn't believe in many Catholic dogmas and doctrines. For example, he doesn't believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but just mere stories for the exception of the Gospels. He doesn't believe in the existence of angels or devils even though he has a St. Michael magnet hanging on his refrigerator that I gave him yrs ago. He doesn't believe in a lot the historical traditions or miracles wrought by the saints in the Church although he is somewhat impressed with the miracle of the sun at Fatima. I could go on, but the rotten secular masonic public school system and the Novus ordo religion are the main reasons why his thinking isn't right. Even though he has some sense of Catholicism and is staunchly against some things he is suppose to be against, I made a joke with him a few yrs ago about a movie he told me about called the "Life of Pi." He said it was about a boy who was raised in the Hindu religion but was introduced to Christianity and Islam and decided to belong to all three religions because as he (the boy) said in the movie "he just wants to love God." I said in response the boy sounds alot like anti-pope Francis.

      The Novus ordo religion is the devil's main religion which has deceived many into thinking that it is the Catholic religion. It's his masterpiece compared to all the other false religions. I feel sorry for those priests and bishops who were in the mix of Vatican II and knew something was wrong but didn't have enough support to put out the fire before it consumed us all in what we are now witnessing today. The great Apostasy. I know there are a lot people out there who believe there is going to be a restoration (and there could be) but I have my doubts because Jesus said "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" LK 18:8
      As if to say when He comes to judge the living and dead it is because of the apostasy that He comes.

      God bless you,
      Lee

      Delete
    8. Lee,

      "I would say it is the anti-Christ religion on steriods". Very well stated!

      I am reminded of a verse from Thessalonians 2:10: "And in all seduction of inquity, to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore, God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying."

      I am currently being accused by a NO family member of belonging to a "cult" because I am anti-Novus Ordo. The NO is the cult. It is the cult of man - by man and for man.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous @ 11;22am, I agree with what you say, but I think the cause, uber alles, is the dirth, or rather absence of Sanctifying Grace in NO sacraments, (except Baptism and Matrimony), and "mass." The new rite of Episcopal Consecration is doubtful to the point of moral certainty that it is invalid. Hence NO ordinations, mass ,sacraments are invalid and devoid of Sacramental Grace. Poor, innocent, ignorant Catholics bend their knees before pieces of bread concocted by laymen presiders on Sundays. They certainly receive grace for their pure intention, but no Sacramental Grace if there is no Sacrament. Couple this with 60 years of protestant NO influence and misguidance and you have the average Catholic in the street. One has to be about 70 years old to have actually lived, appreciated and experienced Catholicism prior to vatican II. Most young Catholics today do not know what true Catholicism is. How could they? When I was at Loreto Convent, there were Nuns galore - from rosy cheeked novices to venerable ancients who taught my father in grade one. The same applied at Christian Brothers' College. Every dorp (village) in South Africa had a Convent. Today there are none. My Loreto and C.B.C. still exist - but without a single Religious. How does one keep the Faith without the strength from Sanctifying Grace?

      Delete
    10. Peter Lamb,

      What you said proves my point. The Novus ordo religion is the devil's masterpiece because it is devoid of sanctifying grace for the exception of baptism. BTW, I'm having more doubts in some baptisms in the Novus ordo because I've heard of "priests" baptizing babies by pouring water on the butt, baptizing babies with trans gendered parents (where would the intention to remove sin be if he doesn't recognize the problematic sin with raising a child by transgendered parents)? Not baptizing individuals with the proper form (how hard is that?). etc. etc. The Novus Ordo religion is cursed.

      Lee

      Delete
  7. In the autobiography of the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal John Heenan, "A Crown Of Thorns" (London, 1974), we read the following: “There was no great mystery about Pope John’s election. He was chosen because he was a very old man. His chief duty was to make Msgr. Montini, the Archbishop of Milan, a cardinal so that he could be elected in the next conclave. That was the policy and it was carried out precisely.” Whose was the policy, and who carried it out? Cui bono?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there were Modernists and Masons everywhere. They set many “policies,” at least among themselves, to attempt a take-over and appear to be the Church. Mission accomplished.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Not only Masons and Modernists, but also Marxists (the unholy threesome). As Bella Dodd testified, Communists had infiltrated the Church and had reached high positions. I like to mention my father, who was already aware, back in the 1940's, that Commies were penetrating the Church. Soon after "Vatican 2", a Catholic weekly which my father subscribed to, began promoting "Ostpolitik". Dad complained to the new editor, a Modernist-bent priest, only to be be tersely rebuffed that he (my father) was opposing the Holy Father (Paul 6). Yep, good old Commie Montini!

      Delete
    3. Montini: Freemason, Communist, And sodomite.

      Introibo

      Delete
  8. I think it is very odd that Roncalli's body is supposed to be incorruptible and on display in the Vatican. I have read varying accounts that state that Roncalli was embalmed which is the reason for the incorruptibility. Is the Vatican II Sect trying to make a statement that since Roncalli's body is incorruptible, therefore, Vatican II is as well since he is the originator? It seems that the V2 Sect is going way out of it's way to canonize itself.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      You bet they are canonizing themselves! There are six false popes since the death of Pope Pius XII. Two (Ratzinger And Bergoglio) are still alive. Of the four who dies THREE ARE “SAINTS”—Roncalli, Wojtyla, And Montini. One (Luciani) is “Venerable.”

      It’s a joke. Why not “dispense the requirement” of being deceased and Bergoglio can finish the job by proclaiming Ratzinger and himself as “saints”!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Yeah really. Even Bergoglio himself said that he and Benedict XVI are on the waiting list. https://novusordowatch.org/2018/02/francis-paul6-saint-benedict-waiting-list/ So why not?

      Lee

      Delete
  9. Introibo, thank you for the arguments you presented regarding the false pope, Roncalli. As you said, you could indeed write many blogs about this charlatan. Like the building inspector called in to appraise a new apartment block who remarked that it was wrong on so many levels!

    The question about the intransigence of Conciliar conservatives is interesting. It seems mysterious, given how outrageous Bergoglio has proven to be time and time again, that conservatives hold on so tenaciously to the fabric of a false church, and seem completely disinterested in finding the true Catholic Faith. No doubt, there are many reasons for their indifference, but I suspect that one of the main and most compelling reasons must be that they are caught up in the net of the Hegelian philosophy that drives the Conciliar Church. Georg Friedrich Hegel lived in the next generation after Immanuel Kant (who lived from 1724-1804).

    Hegel was born in 1770, the same year as Beethoven, and died in 1831. He along with two other German philosophers, Fichte and Schelling, formed what has been called the German Trinity: philosophers dedicated to developing the idealist implications in Kant’s writings. Hegel, like Kant, had a particularly powerful (though erroneous) mind and pushed the principles of the Kantian revolution to their logical, contradictory, pantheistic and one might say insane conclusions.

    Key to Hegel’s thought is the notion he stated as “what is rational is real and what is real is rational”. This identification of reality with thought works itself out, according to Hegel, by a dialectical process which involves a three-step process: first some thesis is affirmed, then it is contradicted, and finally there is achieved a superior harmony that reconciles the previously contradictory positions. But this development of thought is itself inherently evolutionary and bound to historical limitations, so the new harmony that has been hammered out by the previous conflicts now has to serve as the beginning of the next stage of development, and so it too historically must be contradicted until again a new conciliation is attained, and so on and on…

    The Conciliar Church adopted the philosophy of Hegel as its own which is why, unlike the true Catholic Church which it mimics it is virtually adoctrinal and pantheistic and, in every Catholic sense, more or less naturalistic and atheistic. It also explains why people such as Roncalli in his day and Bergoglio currently have been so enamoured of the Communist programme. Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, boasted that, by teaching dialectical materialism, he had turned Hegel on his head. It does not take much wit to realize that Hegel standing on his feet or on his head is still Hegel.

    The Conciliar conservatives are locked into the Hegelian paradigm of what later Idealist philosophers called thesis, antithesis and synthesis, all of which occur in endless cycles, as “Catholic” evolves. The result is a bipolar church in which progressives and conservatives fight about what their church is going to endorse next. That is an infinity away from what we profess in the Creed: (credo) in unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam Ecclesiam. That, I suggest, is why the conservatives are often reluctant or in fact often completely indifferent to considering belonging to the Catholic Faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @kcherrytree
      Thank you for the analysis!

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Interesting article! Introibo, could you please provide me the link or let me know where I can find Mr. Lane's article on Roncalli and Pacem in terris?

      Delete
    3. @anon7:01
      I have the article in hard copy from 1985. I have no link and don’t know where it was originally published.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo@7:33am

      I'm confident you don't have an article written by John Lane from 1985. Strange. Could you check that? If it's anywhere I'm guessing it'll be on Mr. Lane's website. I'll check.

      Delete
    5. @anon8:02
      I’m confident that I do. Why would I give credit to someone who doesn’t deserve it? All of the citations are solid. I’d love to be able to take credit—but that would be plagiarism—and I’m not a plagiarist.

      If, despite my giving full credit to John Lane, you want to unfairly give me credit, that’s your problem.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. I couldn't refrain from commenting. Well written!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I wasn't familiar with John Lane so I googled a bit and found an interview with him from The Four Marks (http://sedevacantist.com/download/file.php?id=74) in which he says he attended his first Latin Mass at age 20 in late 1988. This is probably the reason that anon8:02 is fairly certain he wasn't writing about Roncalli and Pacem in Terris in 1985 when he was attending a Christian Brothers Novus Ordo boarding school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:58
      I’m reporting what the article says. If John Lane didn’t write it kudos to whoever did write it. It’s citations and logic are flawless.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. I'm completely certain John Lane did not author anything in 1985, and I think anon was only trying to help Introibo not look like a complete twit. But apparently that's 'Mission Impossible'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon11:18
      Those who have nothing to offer but ad hominem attacks and call names have nothing of substance. They are pseudo-educated dolts unable to respond. The paper I have claims John Lane as author with a date of 1985.
      If, ad arguendo, it’s not his work, the citations and logic are impeccable.

      Therefore, if you have something of substance to offer against the arguments I present, let’s see it. As we say here in NYC, “Put up or shut up; you’re boring me to death.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. To My Readers,
    I was challenged as to the authorship of the article about Roncalli and "Pacem in Terris" being from John Lane. I was able to locate the source (as opposed to the excerpt scribbled upon), and it appears in a newsletter VERBATIM with authorship as JOHN DALY. It is also more detailed. I guess someone wrote the name of the wrong sedevacantist on the excerpt. I apologize to Mr. Daly for the mix-up. The article is the same. I have changed nothing in my post except for the name of the author who penned "John XXIII and Pacem In Terris"

    ---Introibo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I heard, quite a few years ago (I cannot remember the source), that John Daly had changed his stance on "Pacem in Terris", that he no longer thought it was explicitly heretical. Can anyone verify this?

      Delete
    2. Leo,
      To the best of my knowledge and belief, Mr Daly has not changed position. I’d love to see the arguments against what he’s written.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. I, too, would love to see them, because Mr. Daly's case looks solid. Maybe your interlocutor could weigh in?

      Delete
    4. Leo,
      Don’t count on it. I try to have all my opinions well-backed up. I call Roncalli a false pope with GOOD REASON. I find it rare that other lay Traditionalists do the same. The ones who yell loudest usually have the least to back up their assertions.

      Two big exceptions of lay Traditionalists who can back up everything they write (even to the smallest detail) are Mario Derksen Of Novus Ordo Watch And Steven Speray’s blog. They are both gentlemen and scholars for whom I have the greatest respect.

      —-Introibo

      Delete