Monday, June 24, 2019

Eunuchs For The Kingdom Of Heaven



 We live in a sex-saturated world. Television, movies, popular books, magazines, songs, advertisements and fashions all promote sex. Even the most perverse deviant behaviors are no longer taboo, but openly discussed, flaunted, and even glamorized. Prior to the Great Apostasy, the Roman Catholic Church stood apart from the cares of this world, most notably in Her promotion of consecrated virginity and celibacy. Priests, brothers, monks, and nuns all gave up marriage and family in imitation of Our Lord, in complete dedication to the things of God. Members of the Vatican II sect blame celibacy, instead of homosexuality, for their clerical sex abuse scandals.

Last week, Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis), "cracked open the door to ordaining married, elderly men to the priesthood to meet the pastoral needs of Catholics in remote areas of the Amazon." (See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/world/europe/vatican-priests-married-men.html). While the Argentinian apostate seems to favor celibacy, the fact remains that his "predecessor" he "canonized"---John Paul the Great Apostate--taught heretical doctrine regarding celibacy and virginity. Make no mistake, the Vatican II sect is out to slowly have married clergy like the Protestants, and deal another blow to consecrated celibacy/virginity, which gives witness to the things of God.

This post will explore Church teaching on consecrated virginity and celibacy, and expose the forces of Hell which hate it so much.

Church Teaching

 While recognizing the innate goodness and necessity of Holy Matrimony (raised to the dignity of a sacrament by Our Lord Jesus Christ), it is a defined dogma that virginity and celibacy are superior to matrimony. The Council of Trent, Session 24, in its decree regarding Holy Matrimony, infallibly pronounced:

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

In his 1954 encyclical Sacra Virginitas, Pope Pius XII teaches:
It is first and foremost for the foregoing reasons that, according to the teaching of the Church, holy virginity surpasses marriage in excellence. Our Divine Redeemer had already given it to His disciples as a counsel for a more perfect life. St. Paul, after having said that the father who gives his daughter in marriage "does well," adds immediately "and he that gives her not, does better."Several times in the course of his comparison between marriage and virginity the Apostle reveals his mind, and especially in these words: "for I would that all men were even as myself. . . But I say to the unmarried and to widows: it is good for them if they so continue, even as I."Virginity is preferable to marriage then, as We have said, above all else because it has a higher aim: that is to say, it is a very efficacious means for devoting oneself wholly to the service of God, while the heart of married persons will remain more or less "divided." (para #24; Emphasis mine)

In regard to the clergy, it makes sense that those who choose to dedicate themselves completely to Christ should also emulate His absolute purity.The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) has this to say:

Although we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained, we have ample warrant in the language of Our Savior, and of St. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry. In Matthew 19:12, Christ clearly commends those who, "for the sake of the kingdom of God", have held aloof from the married state, though He adds: "he who can accept it, let him accept it". St. Paul is even more explicit:

I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God .... But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

And further on:

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35)

Further, although we grant that the motive here appealed to is in some measure utilitarian, we shall probably be justified in saying that the principle which underlies the Church's action in enforcing celibacy is not limited to this utilitarian aspect but goes even deeper. From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood. Among Jews and pagans the priesthood was hereditary. Its functions and powers were transmitted by natural generation. But in the Church of Christ, as an antithesis to this, the priestly character was imparted by the Holy Ghost in the Divinely-instituted Sacrament of Orders. Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood. Virginity and marriage both holy, but in different ways. The conviction that virginity possesses a higher sanctity and clearer spiritual intuitions, seems to be an instinct planted deep in the heart of man. Even in the Jewish Dispensation where the priest begot children to whom his functions descended, it was nevertheless enjoined that he should observe continence during the period in which he served in the Temple. No doubt a mystical reason of this kind does not appeal to all, but such considerations have always held a prominent place in the thought of the Fathers of the Church; as is seen, for example, in the admonition very commonly addressed to subdeacons of the Middle Ages at the time of their ordination. "With regard to them it has pleased our fathers that they who handle the sacred mysteries should observe the law of continence, as it is written 'be clean ye who handle the vessels of the Lord?' "(Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, II, 242).---(See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm)

 In the above cited encyclical Pope Pius XII reminds all that the Latin Rite's celibate priesthood is superior to that of the Eastern Rites who allow men (already married) to become priests. The Holy Father wrote:

There is yet another reason why souls desirous of a total consecration to the service of God and neighbor embrace the state of virginity. It is, as the holy Fathers have abundantly illustrated, the numerous advantages for advancement in spiritual life which derive from a complete renouncement of all sexual pleasure. It is not to be thought that such pleasure, when it arises from lawful marriage, is reprehensible in itself; on the contrary, the chaste use of marriage is ennobled and sanctified by a special sacrament, as the Fathers themselves have clearly remarked. Nevertheless, it must be equally admitted that as a consequence of the fall of Adam the lower faculties of human nature are no longer obedient to right reason, and may involve man in dishonorable actions. As the Angelic Doctor has it, the use of marriage "keeps the soul from full abandon to the service of God."

It is that they may acquire this spiritual liberty of body and soul, and that they may be freed from temporal cares, that the Latin Church demands of her sacred ministers that they voluntarily oblige themselves to observe perfect chastity. And "if a similar law," as Our predecessor of immortal memory Pius XI declared, "does not bind the ministers of the Oriental Church to the same degree, nevertheless among them too ecclesiastical celibacy occupies a place of honor, and, in certain cases, especially when the higher grades of the hierarchy are in question, it is a necessary and obligatory condition. (op. cit. para. # 21 and 22; Emphasis mine)

The Heretical Teaching of John Paul the Great Apostate

In his Allocution to Spanish Delegations on April 14, 1982, Wojtyla said:

And now, as in previous weeks, we are going to continue our reflections upon the theme of continence for the Kingdom of Heaven. In the words of Christ we ought not to see a superior evaluation of virginity or celibacy with respect to matrimony. Continence and matrimony are two basic situations, two ‘states’ of life, which differ from one another and complement one another within the Christian community. It is precisely this which in its unity and in all of its members has an eschatological orientation and in this distinct tendency is realized for the Kingdom of Heaven... (Emphasis mine)

On that same day, in his General Audience, he stated:

In Christ’s words on continence ‘for the kingdom of heaven’ there is no reference to any ‘inferiority’ of marriage with regard to the ‘body’, or in other words, with regard to the essence of marriage, consisting in the fact that man and woman join together in marriage, thus becoming ‘one flesh’ (Genesis 2: 24: ‘The two will become one flesh’). Christ’s words recorded in Matthew 19: 11-12 (as also the words of Paul in his first Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 7) give no reason to assert the ‘inferiority’ of marriage, nor the ‘superiority’ of virginity or celibacy inasmuch as by their nature virginity and celibacy consist in abstinence from the conjugal ‘union in the body’. Christ’s words on this point are quite clear. He proposes to his disciples the ideal of continence and the call to it, not by reason of inferiority nor with prejudice against conjugal ‘union of the body’ but only ‘for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Emphasis mine) Virginity and celibacy are intrinsically superior states, as St. Paul reminds us, and Wojtyla rejects it. Everything is good only if done for the the sake of the Kingdom of God, including marriage. Virginity and celibacy are superior, and all Catholic tradition, including the dogmatic definition of Trent, cite to these two passages of the New Testament to prove the superiority of virginity by its very nature.

Nevertheless, Bergoglio had the trail blazed for him to undermine this Catholic dogma in the wake of Vatican II. Once the perverts came in the seminaries, decent men stayed out. With their clergy reduced to mere social workers, fewer men even wanted to "celebrate" the Novus Bogus bread and wine service. I was personal friends with the late, great Fr. Paul Wickens of New Jersey who left the Vatican II sect in 1989, and soon thereafter opened an independent Traditionalist Chapel. He was assisted by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Although he was sympathetic to sedevacantism, he remained in the "recognize and resist" camp until his death in 2004. He was a good priest who was trying to do what was right. 

In one of our conversations, he told me his brother was a former priest. After Vatican II, his apostate bishop made all the clergy attend many seminars in which celibacy was denigrated and marriage made the ideal. The bishop allowed his priests to apply for laicization ( a release from the clerical state, although the sacerdotal power remains forever, they give up all recognition and use of their priestly duties). His brother became depressed, "felt like less of a man" for not being married, and left via laicization (which the bishop pushed through the Modernist Vatican for "expedited approval"). Fr. Wickens said his brother married and had a large family (very pro-life), but felt that his true calling was the priesthood years later. This self-created clergy shortage by the Vatican II sect was the gateway to eventually having a married clergy (as well as priestesses), so as to advance the cause of ecumenism and a One World Religion.

The Strange Case of "Archbishop" Milingo
Emmanuel Milingo was born in Africa in 1930. He was validly ordained a priest in 1958, at the age of 28. Eleven years later Montini (Paul VI) "consecrated" him a "bishop" in the new and invalid rite of Holy Orders. Montini made him "Archbishop" of the Diocese of Lusaka. He was known for performing exorcisms at the drop of a hat. The True Church does not randomly go about performing exorcisms without the necessary investigation, which takes time to rule out non-supernatural causes.

Dabbling in such endeavors is dangerous. Wojtyla removed him as "Archbishop" as a result in 1983, and made him a "delegate" of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers. Milingo saw Satan in the Vatican II sect, but wrongly considered the sect as the Catholic Church. He teamed up with "Fr." Nicholas Gruner of the "Fatima Industry" claiming the hierarchy was doing Satan's work. Then in May of 2001, the almost 71-year-old somehow got deeply involved with the cult called the "Unification Church"--or the "Moonies," so called because they followed the teachings of Sun Myung Moon (d. 2012), a Korean man claiming to be the "Messiah." Milingo "married" a 43-year-old acupuncturist named Marie Sung in a "group wedding," comprising many couples getting "married" by Moon simultaneously. Sung was chosen by Moon himself for Milingo, and he only met her two days before the "wedding." (See https://zenit.org/articles/zambian-archbishop-marries-in-moon-wedding/).

In short, the teachings of the Unification "Church" are:

  • The Bible is untrustworthy and Moon's book Divine Principle is to be followed as authoritative
  • God is dualistic in Nature ("yin and yang")
  • The crucifixion of Christ was an "alternative plan," and it only "partially saved" humanity. Moon is the Messiah to complete the plan, and all must seek salvation from the Unification Church
  • The Trinity is an "invention of Jesus"
  • The Holy Ghost is the female spirit (!) aspect of God
The cult sought respectability after multiple allegations of using brainwashing techniques on lonely people to get them to join. In an effort to rehabilitate their image, they own and operate several generally respected businesses, including the politically right-leaning newspaper The Washington Times. Milingo participated in mass-marriages organized by the sect in Japan in 1999, and in Korea in 2000, yet the Modernist Vatican never censured him. After his "wedding" he was told by "Cardinal" Ratzinger to leave Sung. Milingo said, "For 43 years as a celibate priest ... I only knew God as a male. Now, through my union with Maria, I have come to see the other side of God's heart, which is female." (See https://www.cesnur.org/2001/moon_july25.htm; Emphasis mine)

He briefly reconciled with Wojtyla, but then rejoined his "wife." He targeted celibacy. "Secret affairs and marriages, illegitimate children, rampant homosexuality, pedophilia and illicit sex have riddled the priesthood to the extent that the UN Commission on Human Rights has investigated the church for sexual abuse, and the western media is filled with stories of lawsuits and scandals surrounding the Church," Milingo said.(See http://www.wewillstand.org/media/20010808_9.htm).

Just like the Modernists, he is right about the scandals but wrong about the source; it is not celibacy but Vatican II. Milingo began an organization urging Vatican II sect "priests" to marry, calling it Married Priests (sic) Now! It still took until 2006, after he "consecrated" four so-called priests as "bishops" that he was "excommunicated" by Wojtyla, and in 2009, he was reduced to the lay state (he is no longer referred to or recognized as a member of their clergy--being called "Layman" Emmanuel Milingo. [See http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmilingo.html]).

Now, at age 89, he has made many "bishops" all with the same desire--to end celibacy and draw "priests" into their movement. In 2010, he was pronounced "patriarch" of his own sect, "The Ecumenical Catholic Apostolic Church of Peace." (See https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7203).
I believe Milingo is being used by the very Satanic forces he denounces to promote the denigration of celibacy.

Consider:
  • He is an apostate priest having broken his Anti-Modernist Oath, and was "consecrated" by Montini himself
  • His so-called exorcisms were accused of being "indigenous"--using African pagan elements, which would attract, not repel, demons
  • He met Moon through a doctor he went to for a knee problem, and the doctor was alleged to be using "Reiki healing" which is pagan 
  • The Moon sect "Unification Church" has many occult practices that open one to demonic forces
The Unification cult (I don't hesitate to employ the appellation "cult" as it uses manipulation, deceit, etc. to get members to enter and prevent them from leaving), has direct occult connections. The Divine Principle itself supports occult practices. "Thus, the spirit men pour out spiritual fire on earthly men, give them the power to heal diseases, and help them do many mighty works. More than that, they enable earthly men to see many facts in the spirit world in a state of trance, give them the gift of prophecy, and inspire them spiritually. Through such activities, substituting for the Holy Spirit, they cooperate with earthly men to fulfill the will of God." (pg. 182; Emphasis mine). Further, Moon said, "If you are a clairvoyant...you should know whether your spirit guide is higher than you in spirit. If he is higher, it is all right. If he is not higher than you and you consult him, you lose…. They want to control you…. It is always dangerous, and you don’t gain anything, to be controlled by spirit. By understanding the Principle, you are in such a position that you can control and use and guide them." (See Unification publication, The Master Speaks, pg. 16)

Moon is clearly a medium. He has urged his followers to engage in mediumistic contacts as part of their "spiritual growth." This is in direct contradiction to Church teaching and Biblical warnings that tell us such activity is an abomination to God: "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord,…" (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Satan hates purity. Pope Siricius (334–399), described his opponent Jovinian as a tool of "the ancient enemy, the adversary of chastity, the teacher of luxury," because he had attacked the celibacy of the clergy.

Conclusion
The attack on clerical celibacy and virginity as a superior state to marriage, is yet another Satanic maelstrom, intended to bring the world farther from the truth and deeper into perversion. The man or woman who chooses virginity or celibacy for the Kingdom of God is doing the opposite of Satan; giving up what is natural for the supernatural love of God, in imitation of Christ and His Immaculate Mother. Satan gave up the supernatural life of grace to focus on his own wants--Non serviam--"I will not serve." Bergoglio is busy breaking down, slowly but surely, the celibacy of his sect's clergy, the theological basis of which was undermined by Wotyla's heretical ravings. He rejects the teaching of Our Lord, "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. He that can take, let him take it." (St. Matthew 19:12)




  

82 comments:

  1. Deacon Bergoglio is very open and honest about his disdain for traditional Catholicism.
    Love him or hate him at least you know he's an ecumenical novus ordo communist.
    The novus ordo "conservatives" and those who attend the novus ordo indult are the problem.
    Without their moral and financial support,the novus ordo facade crumbles overnight.
    -Andrew
    P.S. Thank you for this well written and timely article.
    God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Great observation from you as always!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. There is definitely a push to denigrate and eventually dispose of celibacy within the new religion. When I was considering priesthood while a part of the Novus Ordo, people would always encourage me to at the very least become a Maronite priest (I am partly of Lebanese decent) since they could get married and still become priests. Apparently, the mere thought of a life of celibacy was too absurd for them to consider. Thanks be to God I was able to see the new religion for what it was before having entered any "seminary".

    On an unrelated note, I've noticed that none of the sedevacantist websites I frequent have published any commentary on Antipope Francis' completely reprehensible attempts to rewrite the Lord's Prayer regarding the section "lead us not into temptation." I would love to have an actual Catholic resource to point to on this issue rather than having to frequent protestant or Novus Ordo sites to read up on the matter.

    If you happen to have the time to research and refute the matter Introibo, I for one would certainly love to hear your commentary.

    God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://novusordowatch.org/2017/12/francis-wants-to-change-our-father/

      Delete
    2. @neyoriquans,
      See the link from anonymous@9:10. I will also consider your idea for a post! My readers give me the best ideas. Unfortunately, I cannot promise when I can get to it. I tried in the past, but time constraints (as well as needing more research with quality resources) often prevents me from coming through on time. I try to get to them all one week at a time! So thank you.

      I’m glad God opened your eyes before you got into one of those V2 sect cesspools of Vice and heresy called a “seminary”!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Awesome anon, thanks for the link!

      To introibo, no worries, I can imagine you have much on your plate as is. Always looking forward to anything you put out. Keep up the holy work

      Delete
    4. @neyoriquans,
      Thank you my friend!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. I wonder how sedevacantists explain the homosexual/pederast perversion of the Roman pope having groups of castrated young men (castrati) and little boys sing for him. Vatican Two can't be blamed. Would you support if Francis (or perhaps Bishop Sanborn, or whatever sede clergy of your choice) brought the custom back?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @SD
      To be clear, homosexuality and other perversion was not “invented” by Vatican II. There was always a problem—-fallen human nature. The problem was exacerbated by the false teachings of Wotyla and the purposeful infiltration of the seminaries by sodomites.

      The popes of which you speak did not teach heresy and proclaim having a catamite as morally upright. The V2 sect teaches contrary to the infallible decree of Trent and tries to normalize the deviant by active promotion.
      Big difference.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the quick reply.

      Well I would say that the medieval and rennaissance Roman popes were not only perverted and corrupt, but they did teach heresies. They changed the Nicene creed to appease their Frankish overlords. They abolished paedocommunion. They abolished the custom of the faithful partaking both bread and wine, and they started using unleavened bread instead of leavened. They got rid of the screens in churches and put in pews. They changed the teachings on the Trinity, on usury, on absolute divine simplicity, on the essence-energy distiction, etc. It is strange to me that sedevacantists accept that "nothing essential has changed" when in fact the early church is barely recognizable in the western medieval and rennaissance church.

      Sedes harshly condemn Vat 2 popes for participating in pagan rites and allowing churches to be desecrated (and rightly so) but previous popes supporting pagan astrology and blasphemous artwork that desecrated churches is brushed away as "fallen human nature" instead of acknowledged as the bad fruits of a bad tree.

      Delete
    3. I also find it strange that Catholic traditionalists pride themselves on upholding "traditional" fasting practices that are not at all traditional. Like everything called "traditional" in the Roman Catholic world, their fasting practices are not from Apostolic times but have undergone drastic changes over the centuries since the early middle ages.

      You can even eat meat(!) on Lenten "fast" days. In apostolic times, fasting means no animal products except shellfish and amphibians, no red wine, and no olive oil. And this is not just on Fridays but also Wednesdays, every week. This is not for punishment or mortification, but to remember humanity's blessed state in Paradise when we didn't eat meat, which is how it will be in the world to come. And Wednesday is when Judas betrayed our Lord. The only people who keep this tradition are the Eastern Orthodox. So why do sedes keep citing "two thousand years" of "traditions" from the counter-reformation onward? (or in the case of fasting, your rule is from the late 1950s) "Two thousand years of unchanging dogma" which is at variance with all Church Fathers except the Franks' favored Augustine and the self-mutilating heretic Origen (who was praised to the heavens by Leo XIII).

      Im rambling here, but my point is, it is all so arbitrary. Why stop at Vatican Two? The heresies and "renovations", desecrations and abuses, perversions and usurious schemes started a thousand years ago, not sixty.

      Ignatius of Loyola said that he would believe white is black if the hierarchical church said so. Sedevacantists would say that if the hierarchical church said black is white, THEN THAT'S NOT THE HIERARCHICAL CHURCH. And I would agree with the sedes here, except that they consider Loyola a saint and co-religionist...

      Sedes, if you get tired of the lies, there is a true apostolic Church out there. One that hasn't defected. One whose traditions and teachings go back before the East-West schism.

      Delete
    4. SD,
      I take it you're an Eastern Schismatic of the John Pontrello-type. Your contentions are seriously flawed.

      To write on all the errors of the EO would require an entire post, so let me point out a few mistaken notions. First, there is a big difference between what is discipline and what is dogma.

      Fasting is a discipline subject to change. Is it heretical to eat meat on certain days? No! the very idea is ridiculous. In the 20th century, the midnight Eucharistic Fast was mitigated to three hours by His Holiness Pope Pius XII in 1957. Why? Due to the increasing meed to work, and modern secularization, Pope Pius allowed for Masses in the evening so that all might attend who otherwise could not. The problem was that those who work on (for example) the Feast of Our Lady's Assumption (August 15), would have to fast from Midnight until after the 8pm Mass. That would be almost 20 hours without food, and many people would either collapse, be unable to work properly, or give injury to their health. Only having to fast three hours eliminates the problem while retaining the respect due to the venerable Eucharistic Fast.

      Another misunderstanding is Communion under one species (the Host). The Church always believed that Christ is received whole and entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under the mere appearances of bread and wine after Transubstantiation takes place during the Consecration at Mass. Therefore, receiving just the contents of the Consecrated Chalice, or just the Host, is sufficient to receive Holy Communion. The Latin Rite, in response to certain communicable diseases, started giving the Host alone to the laity. The Eastern Rite Catholics, mostly unaffected kept the practice. When the so-called "reformers" of the 16th century denied that Mass was a True Sacrifice, and that it was a mere "memorial meal" whereby one need to receive both species (and they denied Transubstantiation), the Church at the Council of Trent infallibly defined what had always been believed--that Communion is correctly received under either Species.

      You give no citation for the alleged quote by St. Ignatius. You must remember that many saints spoke in hyperbole. Protestants love to quote from the work of St Alphonsus Liguori "The Glories of Mary." He employs the literary device of hyperbole to show the hyperdulia due to Christ's Mother. The Protestants, in their ignorance, try to accuse him of "goddess worship."

      If you want to debate the other points, I'm always open to do so in a neutral forum, or we can write separate posts if you have a blog. What I've done here is enough to prove the only ones who lie (or who are ignorant of what they attack) are the Eastern Schismatics!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. SD,

      Are you trying to outdo Richard Ibranyi? If a true Church is out there, where is it and why haven't you told us instead of wasting your time with what you've already written? If you ask sedes why stop at Vatican II, I ask you why stop wherever you left off over a thousand yrs ago (or so)? Why not go back as far as Christ Himself? I'm sure you could find something corrupt? Why don't you go further before Christ's time? Heck, why not go as far back as Adam and Eve? I'm sure if you wanted to make up something in your mind that something went seriously wrong that you could make yourself think like that. SD stands for SIMPLY DUMB. Sorry

      Delete
    6. Anonymous,

      And what is the problem with Richard Ibranyi? He at least doesn't ignore heresies of pre-Vat II Popes like mainstream sedes do. You are even worse than Novus Ordites because you are hypocrites. You condemn one heretics and defend others. Your inconsistency shows your demonic nature.

      Delete
    7. Ivan,
      You have not demonstrated heresies of the pre-Vatican II popes, nor has (the Seriously misguided? mentally ill?) Ibranyi. I have responded to SD above. For "Vacancy Pushers" like Ibranyi, see my post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/08/pushing-back-time-of-vacancy.html

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Introibo,

      I agree with your claim that Ibranyi, Bizzaro and other "Vacancy Pushers" don't have authority to decide which Popes were heretical and which were not but you don't have authority either. It everything depends about your or Ibranyi's private judgment and Roman Catholicism doesn't work like that. Putting pictures and statues of demons and various mythological creatures into churches in the Middle Ages and the fact that many Popes practiced astrology is serious stuff even if is not heretical. Even the Novus Ordo Church condemns astrology but in the time of Renaissance it was normal in the Catholic Church. How do you explain it if those Popes were good traditional Catholics. What is your personal opinion about the Sistine chapel for example.

      Delete
    9. Ivan,

      1. The vacancy has nothing to do with "private judgement" in the sense of Protestants deciding what Scripture means. It also has nothing to do with authority. It deals with the reality of a situation drawn from facts. For example, if I say "the local abortion doctor is a murderer"--I am recognizing a fact, even though in the United States there is currently no authority to legally establish what is logically demonstrated. Bizzaro and company take bits and pieces out of context to show a "heresy" that simply does not exist. Then they proclaim the vacancy based on false assertions. It's analogous to falsely accusing a doctor of performing abortions and calling him a murderer based on that falsehood.

      2. The statues of demons mean nothing when put in context. Did not Christ cast devils into swine? If there were a painting or a statue depicting the same, why would that be wrong? No one was in the Sistine chapel to worship pictures/statues of demons.

      3. You give no citation to any pope who allegedly practiced astrology. Be careful, because many New Agers will claim THE BIBLE teaches astrology!!

      In Judges 3:20 we read:
      “From the heavens the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera.”

      Astrologers claim this is a reference to the influence of the stars on Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army. But to do this, they must interpret a poetic or figurative passage literally. These words occur in the “Song of Deborah,” which is a poetic victory song describing Israel’s victory over her enemies. (See Judges 4:7; 5:20-21; Joshua 10:11-14.)
      Cite your sources for astrology (not astronomy-- a science) being "normal" in the Church. Even the Magi were (falsely) accused of being "astrologers."

      4. As far as the Sistine Chapel, you must view it in its artistic context as I explained above. See the following:
      https://artclasses.knoji.com/christian-and-platonic-symbolism-in-michelangelos-sistine-chapel-ceiling/

      God Bless and I'll be praying for your conversion,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Introibo,

      I have found this about Popes and astrology. I will try to find some older Catholic sources too.

      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm

      Delete
    11. Ivan B,

      You asked: And what is the problem with Richard Ibranyi?

      Answer: Delusional

      Delete
    12. Ivan,
      Thank you for your citation. I now see where the confusion lies. Please remember that the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) is a good source for GENERAL information, but it cannot substitute for the teachings of the theologians.

      In response: Many people conflated astrology with astronomy. The lines were blurred. One is pagan when it is a form of divination AS UNDERSTOOD TODAY. Traditionalist Catholic may believe that the heavenly bodies affect our inclinations and our lower natures. But they cannot control the will. Any form of "Astrology" that denies free will, that implies that a given individual will do X because of this or that alignment of the planets, is erring.

      Any Catholic who treats the planets as gods or as having some supernatural power of their own rather than seeing any influence they might have as simply a part of God's natural world, is erring. A Catholic is in no way compelled to believe in "Astrology" at all, but, by the same token, no Catholic should accuse another Catholic of "dabbling in the occult" or of being a New Age pagan. St Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa Theologica (Part 1, Q. 115, Art. 3:

      Reply to Objection 3. The majority of men follow their passions, which are movements of the sensitive appetite, in which movements of the heavenly bodies can cooperate: but few are wise enough to resist these passions. Consequently astrologers are able to foretell the truth in the majority of cases, especially in a general way. But not in particular cases; for nothing prevents man resisting his passions by his free-will. Wherefore the astrologers themselves are wont to say that "the wise man is stronger than the stars" [Ptolemy, Centiloquium, prop. 5], forasmuch as, to wit, he conquers his passions.

      Science was not as fully developed in his time, so we would expect to see some such confusion (and partially it was a matter of semantics). It was still there in the 16th century, in Kepler, Tycho, and Galileo.

      For example, if astrologers predicted a solar eclipse, then obviously they had made some observation that was scientific, in that it recognized observable patterns in the sky (“it is evident that those things which happen of necessity can be foreknown by this mean,: even so astrologers forecast a future eclipse.”).

      Aquinas goes on to dispute the fundamental thesis of astrology: that the stars affect human behavior and decisions. That is a form of DIVINATION and THAT is what has always been condemned.

      Hope this helped!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    13. 1: Stars affecting human lower nature is more like a biological cycle rather than Mars brainwashing you. Stars change their position through the year. I think it is more about times of the year.
      It is said that women become irritable when their periods happen.
      It is said that menopause affects the personality of women.
      It is said that certain quantity of oxygen would make people very intense.
      Just like hares have their reproductive time on March, there can be times in the year in which the inclinations of carnal people follow a certain order.
      In astrology, this actions caused by biological factors are taken as if the planets were conspiring against your destiny. It is the paganization of some strains of behavior during certain times of the year.

      Delete
    14. Wait a minute Ivan B. You asked what's wrong with Richard Ibranyi, then you quote a 1913 Catholic encyclopedia and say that you'll find more older Catholic sources. First off, Richard Ibranyi doesn't believe the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia is Catholic. Secondly, if you follow him or don't have a problem with him, then you better find something really ancient because according to him we haven't had a Catholic pope since the 12th century (I could be wrong, but it goes way back).

      Logically, my point is if you have a problem with the Church in the middle ages the same way as Ibranyi does, then it makes no sense to quote a 1913 Catholic encyclopedia to support your conclusion.

      You may not believe this is far back enough but Rev. Fernand Mourret (1946) had this to say about John XII (who lived in the 10th century and who was 16 yrs old when elected): "Nothing in his life marked him for this office, and everything should have kept him from it. He was rarely seen in church. His days and nights were spent in the company of young men and of disreputable women, in the pleasures of the table and of amusements and of the hunt, or in even more sinful sensual enjoyments. It is related that sometimes, in the midst of dissolute revelry, the prince had been seen to drink to the health of the devil. Raised to the papal office, Octavian changed his name and took the name of John XII. He was the first pope thus to assume a new name. But his new dignity brought about no change in his morals, and merely added the guilt of sacrilege.

      Divine providence, watching over the Church, miraculously preserved the deposit of faith, of which this young voluptuary was the guardian. This Pope’s life was a monstrous scandal, but his bullarium is faultless. We cannot sufficiently admire this prodigy. There is not a heretic or a schismatic who has not endeavored to legitimate his own conduct dogmatically: Photius tried to justify his pride, Luther his sensual passions, Calvin his cold cruelty. Neither Sergius III nor John XII nor Benedict IX nor Alexander VI, supreme pontiffs, definers of the faith, certain of being heard and obeyed by the whole Church, uttered, from the height of their apostolic pulpit, a single word that could be an approval of their disorders." (Rev. Fernand Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, Vol. 3 [St. Louis, MO: Herder Book Co., 1946], pp. 510-511;

      Did you get that? Yes, there can be bad Popes, indeed. But in the exercise of their office they will be as orthodox and as Catholic as any other. Christ promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (the Church)” (Mt 16:18). All the Vatican II "popes" dogmatically and doctrinally teach the opposite of Pope Pius XII and before. It's true that popes in the middle ages are probably in Hell but there is a difference between a rotten fruit that's still on the tree as opposed to a dead branch cut off from the tree.

      Lee

      Delete
    15. Introibo,

      Yes, I am Eastern ORTHODOX. From our perspective, Rome has been in schism since she broke off from the rest of the Church -- Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc -- and dragged the unwilling British Isles with her. But somehow, by the grace of God I'm sure, we manage to overcome the urge to call you Western Schismatics.

      There is a big difference between discipline and dogma, yes (nice strawman, by the way); however, as we see in Vatican Two, where discipline is thrown out, dogma goes as well, or the change is discipline is directly brought on by the change in dogma. Such is the case with Communion of bread only, which comes from the medieval Roman heresy of Absolute Divine Simplicity. You are wrong to say that the Church "always believed" in this Thomistic novelty. Before Rome broke away, she simply believed with the rest of the Church, in Jesus's clear words indicating the bread as His Body and the wine as His Blood. Thomistic rationalism, a hellenization, can also be to blame for the abolition of paedocommunion, barring children and people without the use of reason from communing, as if one must be able to rationally understand God's grace in order for it to work in us. I could go on...

      But I gotta hand it to you for your typical Roman lawyercraft. You masterfully avoided to address the changes in dogma from the Early Church "on the Trinity, on usury, on absolute divine simplicity, on the essence-energy distinction," -- and I could list more: original sin, the theophanies, created grace, etc. Things most "traditionalists" haven't even heard of. Instead of defending Rome's changing the words of the Nicene Creed (promulgated by an ecumenical council) and the dogma of the Trinity set forth by the Church Fathers, for example, you accuse me of making the absolutely idiotic argument that "eating meat on certain days is heresy".

      Of course eating meat isn't heresy, but it's also not very TRADITIONAL. You call yourselves "traditionalists", yet you don't even follow the traditional fast. You're totally fine with the modernization. Pius XII was just the last pope (according to sedes) who changed the fasting discipline, which, along with the calendar, was so butchered by dozens of other popes over the centuries that it was unrecognizable by the point Pius XII changed it again. But again, amazing lawyercraft in your attempt to switch the goal posts. With the Paul XII example, you tried to make it seem like following the traditional fast would be impossible in secular countries, which forced the Roman popes to change it. How does that explain them changing the traditional, apostolic fasting discipline in Medieval Europe? Was that not the "height of Christendom", the "pinnacle of Christ the King's reign on earth" according to Tradcats? So why loosen the rules on fasting then?

      The quote from Ignatius of Loyola is from his own "Spiritual Exercises", No. 365: "We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchical Church defines it thus." But according to sedevacantists, if the hierarchical Church defines white as black, then "that's not the Church".

      Delete
    16. So... the "context" of the Sistine Chapel is that Michelangelo was trying to mix Hellenic philosophy and paganism with Christianity, just like the tradcat's favorite idol Thomas AquinASS, and even the perverted popes of that time? But it's OK because the renaissance is trad. It was OK when they desecrated churches and promoted paganism, but not when Paul VI or John Paul II did it. Gotcha.

      Delete
    17. @SD and anon2:50
      The only thing you “got” is a bad case of illogic. In the case of the Schismatics, Orthodox is only a noun, not an adjective!

      To give but one example, Rome allowed the Eastern Rites to keep Communion under both species while they used only One. There was no problem because the Dogma was understood.

      As I stated, if you wish to debate I will be only too happy to comply on a neutral forum such as Debate.org. I will set aside the time. For now, I’m not going to address the problems in the comments section. I’ll write a post on EO or debate you.

      Most importantly, why are you here? The EO don’t see themselves as necessary to salvation. If the True Church is Schismatic, then why does your Patriarchs consort with the V2 sect “popes”? And the Anglicans? And Lutherans?

      From an official EO website:
      “The Lutheran-Orthodox Declaration of 1998 no longer reflects the spirit of polemics of the past. As in the Lutheran-Catholic document, it shows that a consensus is possible. Drawing on these documents, and moreover twenty years after their publication, is a three-way consensus too much to hope for? I am convinced that the participation of Orthodox theology, as a third party, deepens not only the scope of understanding of justification, but also the ability of different documents to interact with one another, while respecting the theological differences of each of the Christian traditions.”(Seehttps://blogs.goarch.org/blog/-/blogs/orthodox-view-on-the-lutheran-catholic-joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification)

      Why are they corrupting the traditions with Lutherans? Why are they on the One world religion World Council of Churches?? That’s Apostasy!!
      it resembles the lifting of the anathemas of 1054 in 1965 by “Pope” Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. He saw nothing wrong with Vatican II ! Another apostate!!

      So put up or shut up you’re boring me to death. Either debate or be a good bearded Schismatic and be ecumenical like your Patriarchs.

      —-Introibo



      Delete
    18. SD,

      Here are some other articles written about the Eastern Orthodox:

      https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/eastern-orthodox-is-not-the-way/

      https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/01/22/the-bizarre-argument-using-etsi-multa/

      Lee

      Delete
    19. @Introibo and Lee,

      Your Popes contradicted each other many times before Vat II.

      Condemned propositions 38,39,40 and 41 from Papal encyclical Unigenitus contradict Canon 22 of the Council of Orange.

      38. Without the grace of the Liberator, the sinner is not free except to do evil.

      39. The will, which grace does not anticipate, has no light except for straying, no eagerness except to put itself in danger, no strength except to wound itself, and is capable of all evil and incapable of all good.

      40. Without grace we can love nothing except to our own condemnation.

      41. All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan philosophers, cannot come except from God; and without grace knowledge produces nothing but presumption, vanity, and opposition to God Himself, instead of the affections of adoration,

      That is from Unigenitus http://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem11/c11unige.htm

      And here is Canon 22 from the Council of Orange.

      Canon 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it is from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

      https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/ORANGE.HTM


      Delete
    20. Ivan,
      Just as I showed you the astrology charge holds no water, neither does this charge. You take popular websites that print decrees and attempt to interpret them apart from the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which is the teachings of the approved theologians. This is how the Church teaches us.

      Canon 23 of Orange states as follows:
      CANON 23 Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

      Here’s what this means to a Catholic and a Calvinist:
      Catholic: man can only do good by God’s grace. Even unregenerate men can do a measure of good by this grace, but cannot ever be saved in so doing.

      Calvinist (not even all Protestants): the only man that can do the good that comes entirely by God’s grace is the regenerate man.

      Canon 23 modified and made clear canon 22.
      Hence, Unigenitus and Orange do not contradict one another when rightly understood as the theologians (e.g. Aquinas) taught.

      The Eastern Schismatics have removed the anathemas Against Rome under Paul VI and participate in the ecumenical World Council of Churches. So why are you upset when your own clergy espouse the “evils” of Rome, Luther,etc.?

      EO never claims they are necessary for salvation. So why are you trying to convert us? If you’re right, we can still be saved! If we are right—Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus—you will be damned!

      —-Introibo



      Delete
    21. Introibo,

      I am not EO. Maybe I will become one day if I become convinced about all their positions. For now I just want to expose sedevacantism. You are not a member of the Roman Church because you are not in communion with Rome. I was a sedevacantist for years and know about situation in sede community pretty well. In which ways you can even prove that your sede group is true one. SSPV even don't recognize CMRI orders as valid. The Dimonds consider everyone else heretics. There are Feeneyites, Vacany Pushers, home aloners and many other sede cults who accuse all other sede cults of heresy. Where is unity of faith among sedes?

      I still think that Unigenitus and Orange don't say the same thing. Many Catholic theologians were scandalized by Unigenitus when it was published. Why it caused such stir among them if the teachings of the encyclical are clear?

      EO does claim they are necessary for salvation. If some their bishop says otherwise then he is a heretic or confused. Of course, you can say how EO can know who to follow of the Eastern bishops. I can ask you the same about sede groups. You maybe have valid sacraments and the Mass but where is your unity in faith. Are SSPV and CMRI members of the same Church? How can simple Catholic laymen know who is right about the controversy on BOD and BOB? The Dimonds and other sede Feeneyites or sedes who believe in those doctrines?

      Do you believe that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium cannot teach heresies? If you do how you can explain that Pope Benedict XV rejected the absolute affirmation of geocentrism in In Praeclara Summorum. And it is not just an error because geocentrism was condemned before as heresy by earlier Popes.

      The Dimonds are absolutely right here. I don't like them or support them but you cannot say they are wrong about that Papal teachings on heliocentrism and geocentrism did contradict each other. https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Geocentrism.pdf

      Delete

    22. Sorry. I made a typo. Heliocentrism was condemned.

      Delete
    23. Ivan,
      1. As to geocentisim see my post
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/10/galileo-papacy-and-modern-science.html?m=1

      2. As to Sedevacantist disunity See
      https://novusordowatch.org/2017/03/when-the-shepherd-is-struck/

      3. To understand the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium the denial of which is the problem see my post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-source-of-problem.html?m=1

      The EO are ecumenists. They reject the idea of one True Church. See my comments above. The EO lifted the anathemas Against Rome in 1965 and participate in the World Council of Churches which teaches universal salvation.
      As theologian Dorsch teaches I’m in Union with the papacy even if there is currently no pope. That is why the Church doesn’t disappear during an interregnum—even a very long one!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    24. Introibo,

      You're making fun of beards? In your pettiness, you're only proving my point, that there is no "traditional" continuity between Roman heresies and the true religion of the BEARDED holy prophets, patriarchs, and church fathers, not to mention, Our Lord Himself.

      I wish I had more time to point out all your lawyer trickery. Now it will suffice to say that you have no understanding of orthodox ecclesiology. Patriarchs are not "infallible vicars of Christ". Bishops can fall into heresy. Ecumenism is a heresy. To say that the Church isn't necessary to salvation is also a heresy. The Greek branch (currently under Bartholomew) has been pushing these heresies for a while now, and they might get cut off soon. Actually, it looks like they might become Roman Catholic eventually.

      Fortunately, orthodoxy of dogma isn't determined by one dude in a certain city with centralized power over everyone else to change dogma to his whims and bind you by mortal sin to councils before your own priests and bishops even have the time to read them over. That's ROMAN heretical ecclesiology, which you yourself don't even adhere to, and instead set up an Orthodox style syndicate of (what you consider to be) "orthodox" Traditionalist bishops, who are able to fall away into heresy without dragging the entire church into it. And if some of your Traditionalist bishops convened a council which was heretical, it would not be automatically binding but your Traditional church would not accept it in the long run. You are using Orthodox ecclesiology for yourself, and rejecting your own Church's heretical popes and councils, while claiming to be papists. And you're trying to condemn the Orthodox Church for the actions of a few heretical bishops/patriarchs, as if we were bound by the law of non-contradiction to adhere to your man-made papist system.

      I will repeat because you don't seem to get it: you schismatic sede apologists hijack Eastern ecclesiology for yourselves and then apply Roman ecclesiology to Eastern "schismatics" to refute them. It is the height of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy, and you will be responsible for all of the ignorant Catholics you drag into your cesspit of errors.

      As long as you have an orthodox bishop and laity gathered around the Eucharist, you have the Orthodox Catholic Church. That is, in Eastern theology, not Roman theology.

      "The Sede world is filled with self-made gods who think they are the word of God. Each one has his or her own theology and none of them are in communion with the Holy See so that is the end of their role playing fantasies."

      Delete
    25. SD,
      I never made fun of beards. Go back and read what I said. If you said, “Go to one of your celibate Traditionalist priests,” how is that making fun of celibacy? You and logic haven’t been on speaking terms for quite some time!

      So, these heretical EO bishops will be “cut off”? By whom? You? Other EO bishops? What if there are more heretical than non-heretical bishops? Do you have a “centralized dude” to decide these questions?

      You simply don’t understand Catholic teaching on the papacy. (Surprise, surprise)

      First, some preliminary remarks about the papacy are in order. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

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

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

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

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    26. It was ST ATHANASIUS (you EO like him right?) who said:
      “May God console you! ...What saddens you ...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises─but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

      True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

      No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

      Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

      Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

      You are not of good will like Ivan. I challenged you to debate on a neutral forum. Like we say in NYC when I was growing up: “Put up or shut up, you’re boring me to death.” Your comments are not welcome here unless it’s exclusively for acceptance of my challenge. Then my readers will know where to view said debate. This comment section is not for people of different sects to come on and propagate their views while denigrating what they don’t (won’t) understand.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    27. Introibo,

      I would like to arrange a debate. Sorry for the delay in deliberation. If I find someone else other than me to represent Eastern Orthodoxy, would you accept? If it depends on who that opponent is, please allow me time to ask a few people first and then get back to you about it. We could work out the details privately, if you prefer, otherwise I will keep replying in this comment section.

      As for the rest of your reply, I am very familiar with all of those misapplied sedevacantist proof-texts.

      Also, if I were to say,“Go to one of your celibate Traditionalist priests,”that would unquestionably be making fun of celibacy. It is not a matter of "logic" or arithmetic, but of the human heart. I am sure your readers would not take it in a neutral way if I chided them to go back to their CELIBATE priests. They would take it as a trivialization and profanation of the religious customs they hold sacred. Only a lawyer makes his living justifying the unjustifiable.

      I probably cannot accept the debate for personal reasons, but I can arrange for someone else to take my place. Please consider it.

      --SD

      Delete
    28. By the way, did you mean strictly a written debate?

      Delete
    29. SD,

      Jesus said, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

      By believing the Eastern Orthodox founded by Photius as the true religion is to call Jesus a liar for saying the gates of Hell would not prevail.

      The fact that your religion rejects the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is enough for me.

      Lee

      Delete
    30. SD,
      1. I accept the debate.

      2. If you’re so familiar with our “misapplied proof texts” why don’t YOU debate? You came on here, you should do the debating. I’m not passing on my challenge to someone else.


      3. You would not be denigrating celibacy. Wasn’t Christ celibate? You’d be pointing out a difference.

      4. “Only a lawyer makes his living justifying the unjustifiable.” Ever Head Of a “sweeping generalization”? “Only Irish people are drunks” “Only African Americans commit crimes” Yeah. Right OK

      4. Yes, strictly a written debate. My time is limited, so we have time to respond, and my identity is strictly anonymous.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    31. Introibo,

      The reason I don't want to debate is because (1) I am a catechumen and (2) I am nursing a four month old. I could barely find the opportunity to write a few comments over the past two days only because my husband is on a vacation, which will be over tomorrow. Unless he quits his job and becomes a stay-at-home daddy (lol), I won't have a fair opportunity for several months. A woman's work is never done...

      So, unfortunately, unless you would like to debate someone with more knowledge and time than I do, the debate will have to end here. Thank you for the offer anyway. Sorry I'm not as bearded as you imagined lol.

      --SD

      Delete
    32. SD,
      God Bless you and your child! Being a mother is the most important and wonderful job on Earth. I completely understand. I will be praying for your family.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    33. Thank you for your kind words and understanding. God bless you too!

      --SD

      Delete
  4. In response to neyorquans June 2019 8:16 A.M. post
    see TRADITIO website post for June 8 2019:
    Day after the Octave of the Ascension
    Semidouble Feast
    It's Official: Francis-Bergoglio Changes the Lord's Prayer
    And Changes the Biblical Words of the Angels on Christmas Morning
    From: The TRADITIO Fathers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the information!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. I'm glad you wrote about this. There are many things that one could cover, but it requires time and research. Hopefully the link to Novus Ordo Watch's article about the change in the Our Father prayer will satisfy neyoriquans. Thanks for clearing up what the the Deuce (JPII) said about celibacy and what the Catholic Church has always taught before Vatican II. Also the info on "Archbishop" Emmanuel Milingo was informative. I had heard about him on a documentary called In the Grip of Evil many years ago which had interviewed him maybe in the late 90's (not sure) where he talked about exorcisms. Didn't know he ended up joining the Moonies (Unification Church) or in reality the Looney Tunes Church. The fruits of Vatican II are not much different than the forbidden fruit the devil offered to Eve. All of it is in your face apostasy inspired by the Devil.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      "In your face apostasy inspired by the Devil." I couldn't have said it any better!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. I do not believe the west will survive the next generation. We are in such a state of moral decline. This next generation has not been disciplined nor do they appear to have been educated. It is rare to find one not on recreational drugs and/or on a variety of psychotropic drugs. The generation following them have been sexually molested to the point that I believe the intent is all to dehumanize.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you write is both scary and most probably true.
      God help us.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Revelation 14:4 These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb

    Ratzinger: Prostitutes should have condoms

    ReplyDelete
  8. The only married clergy I can forsee the Vatican II Sect attracting are same sex "married" deviants.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      You’re probably right!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. They might go for the transgendered or a Novus Ordo "nun" or get real creative and marry their beloved animal. The Novus ordo is so despicable that it has lost all sense of sin. Sadly when they acknowledge sin they go right back to doing it that day or night like they forgot they talked or thought about it. It's a who cares, anything goes, believe what you want so long as you don't hurt anybody's feelings religion. I'm sick of it and the stupidity that comes out of it.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Lee,
      We’re all sick of it!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. How does the EO explain their allowing three marriages? Three marriages are in direct contradiction to the Lord's command.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Lord grants divorce in Mathew 5:32: "But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication...

      The better question is how do Roman Catholics explain away their own history of divorce and remarriage? Lol

      Delete
    2. The LORD does NOT grant divorce as is seen from the text you correctly quote: except for FORNICATION. The Greek porneia—is being used in a special sense. iIt refers to unchaste behavior before the marriage is consummated. At that point, it is possible to dissolve the marriage, for marriages become indissoluble only when they are consummated.

      Today, with the tradition of the wedding night, it is highly unlikely a spouse could be unfaithful between the marriage ceremony and the consummation. However, in Jesus’ time it was customary for a couple to be legally married for about a year before the consummation.

      If you’re talking about V2 sect “annulments” they are divorces.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. "If you're talking about V2 Sect "annulments" they are divorces". Seems the EO and the V2 Sect have alot in common, especially concerning divorces!!

      JoAnn

      Delete
    4. Joann,
      Yes! They are so much alike that in 1965, “Pope” Paul VI and the Orthodox Patriarch lifted the mutual excommunications! They are more alike than not!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. It is sad when you think of all the conservative Novus Ordoites who won't consider Sedevacantism, but leave the Novus Ordo and join the EO instead.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    6. Joann,
      A classic case of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. From one false sect to another.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. The canonical tradition for remarriage after a divorce caused by adultery is pretty strong in the first millennium of the Latin West.

      Here is just one example:

      Council of Verberie, AD ?758-768?:

      Si qua mulier mortem viri sui cum aliis hominibus consiliavit, et ipse vir ipsius hominem se defendo occiderit et hoc probare potest, ille vir potest ipsam uxorem dimittere et, si voluerit, aliam accipiat.

      If a wife has conspired in the murder of her husband with another man, and the man [Note: the husband] himself kills the other man in self defense and is able to prove this, that man is able to divorce his wife, and if he wishes, marry another.

      Delete
    8. Not just adultery, but also for leprosy:

      This is from the council of Compiegne, eigth century:


      XIX: Si quis leprosus mulierem habeat sanam, si vult ei donare comiatum ut accipiat virum, ipsa femina, si vult, accipiat. Similiter et vir.

      19: If any leper has a healthy wife, [and] if he wishes to give her permission so that she may marry [another] many, that woman, if she so wishes, may marry [another man]. And similarly, [let it be so] for a man [in the reverse circumstances].

      Capitularia regum francorum, canon 19, MGH 1: 39

      Delete
    9. And here is another Canon from Compiegne, where remarriage is allowed if one spouse becomes a religious:

      XVI: Si quis vir dimiserit uxorem suam et dederit comiatum pro religionis causa infra monasterium Deo servire aut foras monasterium dederit licentiam velare, sicut diximus propter Deum, vir illius accipiat mulierem legittimam. Similiter et mulier faciat. Georgius consensit.

      16: If any man has divorced his wife and has given her permission to serve God in a monastery for the sake of religion or has given her license to veil herself outside the monastery, [then] just as we have said according to God, that man may receive [another] legal wife. And similarly, let it be so for a woman [in the reverse circumstances]. George has agreed [to this stipulation].

      Capitularia regum francorum, canon 16, MGH 1: 38

      Delete
    10. This one uses fornication and adultery interchangeably:

      Council of Vannes, AD 465:

      Eos quoque, qui relictis uxoribus suis, sicut in evangelio dicitur excepta causa fornicationis, sine adulterii probatione alias duxerint, statuimus a communion similiter arcendos, ne per indulgentiam nostrum praetermissa peccata alios ad licentiam erroris invitent.

      Also, those who have abandoned their wives, just as it is said in the gospel, except for the cause of fornication, who have married another without proof of adultery, we likewise forbid from communion, in order that not through our indulgence they invite more permitted sins to the license of error.

      Concilium Veneticum, canon 2, Mansi 7: 953

      Delete
    11. @anonymous7:23 to 7:51
      Even the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia can refute the charge (since I'm working without access to the theological tomes in my library)

      "Laxer Admissions and their Correction — Whilst the popes constantly rejected absolute divorce in all cases, we find some of the Frankish synods of the eighth century which allowed it in certain acute cases. In this regard the Council of Verberie (752) and Compiègne (757) erred especially. Canon ix of the first council is undoubtedly erroneous (Labbe, VIII, 407). In this canon it is laid down that if a man must go abroad, and his wife, out of attachment to home and relatives, will not go with him, she must remain unmarried so long as the husband is alive whom she refused to follow; on the other hand, in contrast to the blameworthy woman, a second marriage is allowed to the husband: "If he has no hope of returning to his own country, if he cannot abstain, he can receive another wife with a penance." So deeply was the pre-Christian custom of the people engraven in their hearts that is was believed allowance should be made for it to some degree. Canon v seems also to grant the unauthorized permission for a second marriage. It treats of the case in which the wife, with the help of other men, seeks to murder her husband, and he escapes from the plot by killing her accomplices in self-defence. Such a husband is allowed to take another wife: "That husband can put away that wife, and, if he will, let him take another. But let that woman who made the plot undergo a penance and remain without hope of marriage." Some explain this canon to mean that the husband might marry again after the death of his first wife, but that the criminal wife was forbidden forever to marry. This last is in agreement with the penitential discipline of the age, because the crime in question was punished by life-long canonical penance, and hence by permanent exclusion from married life."
      (See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm)

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    12. Also,
      In its thirteenth canon (according to Labbe, VIII, 452; others call it the sixteenth), the Council of Compiègne gives a somewhat ambiguous decision and may seem to allow absolute divorce. It says that a man who has dismissed his wife in order that she might choose the religious life, or take the veil, can marry a second wife when the first has carried out the resolution. Nevertheless, the intended choice of the state of Christian perfection seems to imply that this canon must be limited to a marriage that has not been consummated. Hence it gives the correct Catholic doctrine, of which we shall speak below. This must also be the meaning of canon xvi (Labbe, VIII, 453; others, canon xix), which allows the dissolution of a marriage between a leper and a healthy woman, so that the woman is authorized to enter upon a new marriage, unless we suppose that here there is a question of the diriment impediment of impotence. If these canons were really intended in any other sense, then they are contrary to the general doctrine of the Church. Other canons, in which separation and second marriage are allowed, refer undoubtedly to the diriment impediments of affinity and spiritual relationship, or to a marriage contracted in error by persons one of whom is free and the other not free. Hence they have no reference to actual divorce, and cannot be interpreted as a lax concession to popular morals or to passion. It is true that several of the Penitential Books composed about this time in the Frankish regions contain the cases mentioned by these two synods and add others in which the real dissolution of the marriage bond and a new marriage with another wife might be allowed. The following cases are mentioned in several of these Penitential Books: adultery, slavery as punishment for crime, imprisonment in war, wilful desertion without hope of reunion, etc. (Schmitz, "Bussbücher", II, 129 sqq.). These Penitential Books had indeed no official character, but they influenced for a time the ecclesiastical practice in these countries. However, their influence did not last long. In the first decades of the ninth century, the church began to proceed energetically against them (cf. the Synod of Châlons, in the year 813, canon xxxviii; Labbe, IX, 367). They were not completely suppressed at once, especially as a general decay of Christian morality took place in the tenth and early part of the eleventh century. Towards the end of the eleventh century, however, every concession to the laxer practice as regards divorce had been corrected. The complete indissolubility of Christian marriage had become so firmly fixed in the juridical conscience that the authentic collections of church laws the Decretals of the twelfth century, do not even see the necessity of expressly declaring it, but simply suppose it, in other juridical decisions, as a matter of course and beyond discussion. This is shown in the entire series of cases in IV Decretal., xix. In all cases, whether the cause be criminal plotting, adultery, loss of faith, or anything else, the bond of marriage is regarded as absolutely indissoluble and entrance upon a second marriage as impossible. (Ibid)

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. I am pretty sure Jay Dyer at www.jaysanalysis.com would be receptive to a debate. Dyer is always defending Orthodoxy against Roman Catholic positions. That would be an interesting debate. Have you contacted him yet? I also know he invited Novus Ordo Watch, E. Michael Jones, and James Loukidis to debate him but all declined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anonymous7:31
      With all due respect, I argue for a living. The purpose of this blog is to warn and educate those trying to make their Catholic Way through this time of the Great Apostasy. If someone wishes to debate me, they must expressly ask for such. I only challenge those who come on here seeking to propagate their sect. The nice lady, SD, is a mother of a small child and understandably does not have the time; she has her priorities straight and is to be commended for being a good mother.

      Recently, Steve Speray had it out with John Pontrello. Steve is pugnacious in the best sense of the word. If someone wants to debate me, I have never run from anyone in my life. At the same time, they must come to me, I'm a lawyer and a family man with little time to spare; hence,I don't make "house calls."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,

      I would really like to debate you about sedevacantism but unfortunately my English is not enough for a debate in my opinion.

      I will try to find someone else who is interested in debating sedevacantism to contact you and then you can arrange the debate.

      Delete
    3. I honestly don’t know if it is even wise to debate sedevacantism. First of all, someone would have to answer one simple question before I could have an honest debate. Someone would have to explain to me how someone could be the head of an organization that he is not a member of. To date not a single R&R soul has been able to explain that one. So to get around that they argue two equally wrong points. First they argue that the conciliar popes never actually promulgated heresy. When you prove them wrong on that point they switch to, well Popes can actually teach heresy you know. When you convince them that popes cant teach heresy they go back to the first point and you start the cycle all over again.

      Delete
    4. Tom,
      That’s the R&R MO. Don’t know if EO would take the same line, but it still doesn’t go anywhere.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. The Maurcie Pinay twitter account is fighting Jay Dyer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What year did the EO begin instituting 3 marriages/divorces?

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      I don’t know the exact date, but it wasn’t long after the Great Schism Of 1054 AD. The EO traditionally states that "it blesses the first marriage, performs the second, tolerates the third, and forbids the fourth". “Cardinal” Kasper wants the V2 sect to officially adopt this heretical teaching!!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Why did they initiate the 3 marriages/divorces? Was it to get converts from the RCC who wanted to divorce and remarry?

      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      Honestly, I’m not sure. Your hypothesis sounds very plausible indeed.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. According to the link below, the EO believes in "Eternal Marriage". "The Orthodox Church discourages (but does not prohibit) re-marriage after the death of a spouse". "St. John Chrysostom urges young widows to remain faithful to her husband (the title"husband" is used even after his death) in order to keep alive their bond of love, and eventually to be re-united with him". The EO does not take marriage vows and does not accept "until death do us part" as they claim marriage is "eternal". If marriage is eternal according to the EO - why do they allow 3 marriages/divorces?? How convoluted can they get?

      https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/
      orthodoxbridge/concerning-eternal-marriage/

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      Yes, the link you cite is another example of EO confused theology!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. Jay Dyer is an insulting patronizing individual.
    His videos are filled with titles such as
    "Traditional Catholic sedevacantist trailer park revolution" (muh keys)
    I wouldn't waste my time with him.
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete