Monday, December 7, 2020

When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 16

 


This is the next installment of my series to be published the first Monday of each month.

There are members of false sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, that come knocking door-to-door hoping to convert you. Instead of ignoring them, it is we who should try and convert them. In 1 Peter 3:16, our first Pope writes, "But in thy hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks thee to give the reason for the hope that thou hast. But do this with gentleness and respect,..." Before the Great Apostasy, the Church would send missionaries to the ends of the Earth to make as many converts as possible. 

Those in false religions don't always come (literally) knocking at your door. It may be a Hindu at work who wants you to try yoga. It could be a "Christian Scientist" who lives next door and invites you to come to their reading room. Each month, I will present a false sect. Unlike the Vatican II sect, I do not see them as a "means of salvation" or possessing "elements of truth" that lead to salvation. That is heresy. They lead to damnation, and the adherents of the various sects must be converted so they may be saved.

In each month's post, I will present one false sect and give an overview of:  

  • The sect's history
  • Their theology
  • Tips on how to share the True Faith with them
Taoism and Holistic Medicine
Many people get taken in by the pagan religion of Taoism by means of "Holistic Medicine." Tens of millions of people in the Western world have been exposed to or use holistic  health methods (i.e., methods claiming to treat the “whole” person, mind, body and soul). Promoters of holistic health techniques prosper by offering patients simple solutions to complex diseases as well as practices and remedies that are said to be free of side effects. Today, even thousands of medical doctors and nurses have bought into these methods and use and/or recommend them. 

Let me say at the very outset that I'm not opposed to any medical method whose safety and efficacy has been established. My problem is with the widespread promotion of methods which have either not been proven, or are questionable (even dangerous) on theological grounds. For the most part, holistic methods reject what is known about how the human body works and are generally opposed to a scientific approach to health care. Let me quickly add that there is much wrong with traditional medicinal treatment, and in turn, that has directly contributed to the rise of Holistic Medicine

This post will examine the pagan religion of Taoism and the pagan/occult ideas that flow from it which permeate two common holistic medicinal practices; reiki and acupuncture. Without realizing it, someone can be duped into using an alleged "health practice" which has them accepting false and heretical ideas. 

The Wrong Way
The sect of Taoism is traditionally held to have originated in China with a man named Lao Tzu or "Old Master" (604-517 B.C.), whose very existence is called into question by many scholars (See Huston Smith, The World’s Religions [1991], pg. 197). Legend has it that that Lao Tzu, “saddened by his people’s disinclination to cultivate the natural goodness he advocated," decided to head west and abandon civilization. As he was leaving, the gatekeeper asked if he would write down his teachings for the benefit of society. Lao Tzu consented, retired for a few days, and returned with a brief work called Tao Te Ching, roughly translated as “The Classic of the Way and its Power.” It consists of 82 chapters. (Ibid).

The term Tao is typically translated into English as “way.” According to religious studies scholar, Huston Smith, Taoism is divided into three main "schools:" philosophical, religious, and "vitalizing." Philosophical Taoism has as its chief object "... to live in a way that conserves life’s vitality by not expending it in useless, draining ways, the chief of which are friction and conflict.” They should take no action contrary to nature which shows the "way." “Vitalizing” Taoists have a different approach to life. Rather than attempting to conserve vitality by taking no action contrary to nature, “vitalizing” Taoists desire to increase their available quota of vital energy, which they refer to as chi. “Vitalizing” Taoists have sought to maximize chi, or vital energy, through nutrition, breathing exercises, meditation, and "energy manipulation."

Religious Taoists attempt to use magical rites to harness occult powers for humane ends in the physical world. There is overlap between Zen Buddhism and Taoism, due to the fact that Taoism has embraced many doctrines from other sects. As a result, some Taoists worship "gods" while denying there exists anything besides "The Tao" or "ultimate reality," into which all is absorbed when death occurs. Some accept reincarnation, while others seek physical immortality by energy manipulation. Taoism can correctly be described as pantheistic (God is the universe) and which allows for a pagan syncretism.

The Taoist "yin-yang symbol," pictured at the top of this post, is a perfect sign of the sect's inherent absorption of all kinds of philosophical and religious ideas, even those that are contradictory.

According to The Ancient History Encyclopedia:
The principle of Yin and Yang is that all things exist as inseparable and contradictory opposites, for example, female-male, dark-light and old-young.(See https://www.ancient.eu/Yin_and_Yang/). The same could be said of "good-evil" as portrayed in the pagan Star Wars franchise where there had to be "balance in the 'Force.'" 

Reiki: An Evil Force
Reiki comes from the Japanese words Ki, (chi in Chinese---which is alleged to be a "universal life-force energy" that everything supposedly possesses) and Rei, which means "higher power."  Reiki claims that everything in the universe is made up of  this "higher power life-force energy" – even humans.  Thus, when someone is feeling depressed, or sick in any way, it is an indication that their energy is "out of balance."  Therefore, it is the function of the Reiki practitioner to "channel positive energy into the person," bringing them back to "balance and wholeness." The founder of this practice is generally considered to be the Buddhist monk, Mikao Usui, who claims he developed mystical power on a pagan retreat. Reiki energy entered his "crown chakra" (i.e., his head), and enabled him to heal people.

According to www.Reiki.org, Reiki is a Japanese technique for stress reduction and relaxation that also promotes healing. It is administered by "laying on hands" and is based on the idea that an unseen "life force energy" flows through us and is what causes us to be alive. If one's "life force energy" is low, then we are more likely to get sick or feel stress, and if it is high, we are more capable of being happy and healthy.

Here is the pagan mumbo-jumbo: The source or cause of health comes from the Ki that flows through and around the individual rather than from the functional condition of the physical organs and tissues. It is Ki that animates the physical organs and tissues as it flows through them and therefore is responsible for creating a healthy condition. If the flow of Ki is disrupted, the physical organs and tissues will be adversely affected. Therefore, it is a disruption in the flow of Ki that is the main cause of illness.

An important attribute of Ki is that it responds to ones thoughts and feelings. Ki will flow more strongly or be weakened in its action depending on the quality of ones thoughts and feelings. It is our negative thoughts and feelings that are the main cause of restriction in the flow of Ki. All negative or dis-harmonious thoughts or feelings will cause a disruption in the flow of Ki. Even Western medicine recognizes the role played by the mind in creating illness and some Western doctors state that as much as 98% of illness is caused directly or indirectly by the mind.

It must be understood that the mind exists not only in the brain, but also through-out the body. The nervous system extends to every organ and tissue in the body and so the mind exists here also. It is also known that the mind even extends outside the body in a subtle energy field 2 to 3 feet thick called the aura. Because of this, it is more appropriate to call our mind a mind/body as the mind and body are so closely linked.  (Emphasis mine).

Reiki, while having Buddhist and Japanese roots,  has been largely appropriated by Taoism.  Here's what's wrong with Reiki therapy:

1. There is no soul as the animating principle of the body, but some impersonal "Ki/chi energy."

2. Ki nevertheless can respond and be manipulated by thoughts and feelings, yet there is no explanation as to how or why this is known/proven.

3. The claim that "some Western doctors" (not even naming one) state "98% of illness is caused directly or indirectly by the mind" is not only completely unsubstantiated, but terms are not even defined. What does it mean that an illness is caused "indirectly by the mind"?

4. It states the existence of some "aura" which is "known" to exist without any citations to a single relevant medical or scientific source.

5. The concept of Rei as the invisible source of all being and of Ki or Chi as the Universal Life Force are completely at variance with the Catholic belief in God as Creator and Heavenly Father. Reiki claims to be independent of any religious belief systems but Buddhist, Hindu and Taoist influences can be clearly identified. Reiki "healers" or therapists often have strong New Age associations, many using crystals and tarot cards. 

Acupuncture: Needles with a Bad Point
Acupuncture is a method of applying stimulation to specific points on the body. Based on the occultic religion of Taoism, acupuncturists claim to be able to stimulate the flow of ki/chi energy through alleged invisible channels or “meridians” in the body (much like "chakras"). When body organs or systems are supposedly deficient in a proper supply of chi energy, imbalance is allegedly produced, resulting in disease. Restoring the flow of  energy through the meridians is believed to revitalize the body organs and systems, thereby curing illness and maintaining health.

Some scientists have claimed that acupuncture is effective for certain ailments and that it works on the basis of as yet unknown principles. However, the latest scientific research is not supportive; studies have yet to demonstrate acupuncture’s effectiveness. For example, an exhaustive analysis of research published in The Clinical Journal of Pain (June 1991) concluded that acupuncture was at best a powerful placebo (See also Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1990, Vol. 43, pp. 1191-99). When Western scientists attempt to separate acupuncture from its underlying occultic philosophy or practice and merely engage in an unspecific needle stimulation, these methods tend to lose their efficacy.

In 2014, when pharmacologist David Colquhoun at University College London was asked, "Why is it so hard to figure out whether acupuncture works or not?" He responded, "There is a lot of money at stake for those who sell acupuncture—and a certain amount of fascination with New Age thinking. There are excellent controls such as retractable needles. Almost all experiments show no difference between real and sham acupuncture." (See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-scientists-weigh-in-on-acupuncture/). 

While the minority of scientific practitioners of acupuncture avoid the occult, most traditional practitioners do not. Classical acupuncture involves the practice of an ancient pagan medicine inseparably tied to Taoism. In addition, Eastern meditative programs or other occultic practices may be used in conjunction with acupuncture therapy. I was witness to an acupuncture session where the "practitioner" was assisted by four others whose collective job was to "impose their hands over the patient" (much like a bishop at Confirmation imposes hands over all those to be confirmed) and were saying "whoosh!" over and over while the needles were being put in the person's back. Afterwards, I asked what they were doing and I was told they were "projecting their chi energy into the patient for maximal healing." Someone actually paid for this garbage. 

The Vatican II sect actually gets it right...
Proving the old aphorism, "Even a broken clock is right twice each day" true, the Vatican II sect "bishops" condemned the practice of Reiki in 2009, four years before Bergoglio was elected "pope." The document entitled Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy, has this to say in paragraph #9:

The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." Neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on "universal life energy" that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. (Emphasis mine).

Their conclusion:
Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems...In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science.

Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, a Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction.(See https://www.usccb.org/resources/evaluation-guidelines-finaltext-2009-03_0.pdf, paragraphs 10 and 11; Emphasis mine. The term "Catholic" is meant to denote a member of the Vatican II sect).

...But Bergoglio Gets It Wrong 
According to CBS News:

 He [Bergoglio] believes in alternate medicine. Papal biographer Austen Ivereigh says in 2004, the Pope, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, began treatment with a Taoist monk named Liu Ming.  Regular sessions of massage and acupuncture helped Bergoglio conquer symptoms of diabetes and gallbladder problems. (See http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/09/20/pope-francis-five-facts/amp/; Emphasis mine).

Liu Ming is a Reiki practitioner. The fact that Francis believes in, and uses Reiki, exposes his connection to pagan, demonic forces and teachings. In its October 2013 issue, the Spanish language Argentinean magazine TAO ran a story on the association between Bergoglio and Ming. We learn of some additional facts about Ming and Bergoglio. Ming:
  • Practices divination, which is the art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of demonic powers
  • Claims Bergoglio will live to be "140 years old"
  • Told Bergoglio there is no difference between the Tao and the God of Catholicism
  • Manipulated Bergoglio's "life-force" (Reiki)
As a result of Ming's "treatments," Bergoglio claimed he was cured, no longer takes medication, and continues to practice what Ming told him. The then "cardinal" from Argentina gave Ming a Spanish copy of the I Ching, a pagan book also known as the "Book of Changes," which is an ancient Chinese divination text.

Remember, this began before Bergoglio's "election" as "pope." 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).

By willfully subjecting himself to pagan Taoist practices and giving them credence, Jorge Bergoglio rendered himself incapable to be elected to the papacy in the first place. (That in addition to the heresies of the Robber Council itself). Moreover, reiki was condemned by his own sect. Another blow to the "recognize and resist" crowd.

Proselytizing Taoists
You most likely encounter a Taoist (an actual member or an adherent of the underlying tenets) if you go to an acupuncturist or reiki practitioner. Sadly, there are "priests" in the Vatican II sect that practice reiki (I knew one). Under no circumstance should you submit to reiki. Acupuncture is unlikely to have any real value and should be avoided, even if the practitioner is not Taoist or an occultist.  

Focus the Taoist on the pantheistic idea that is the basis of the sect. For a refutation, use what I wrote under Buddhism, in my third post of this series: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/11/when-strangers-come-knocking-part-3.html. In addition, an argument from a personal God and morality may get him/her thinking.

If ultimate reality is impersonal, as Taoism suggests, significant questions are raised. What becomes of morality? Can an impersonal force be the source of objective moral values? Can an impersonal force distinguish good from evil, or can such distinctions be made only by personal beings? If opposites are ultimately united, how can you escape evil, and why would you want to do so? Next, read from the 62nd chapter of Tao Te Ching:

Why did the ancients so treasure this [T]AO? Is it not because it has been said of it: “Whosoever asks will receive; whosoever has sinned will be forgiven”? Therefore is [T]AO the most exquisite thing on earth.

The Taoist immediately finds himself in a conundrum:

First, doesn't sin imply an objective moral standard has been broken? However, if good and evil are intertwined how can there be any moral proscriptions? On what objective basis is something a sin? 

Second, forgiveness can only be sought from a personal agent. However, if the Tao is impersonal, how can an "it" forgive anyone?

Conclusion
Taoism is "the way"--the wrong way to seek God and salvation. Holistic medicinal practices using mystical energy is often an open door to spiritism under another name. It is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the use of “energy” manipulation and transference in many holistic health treatments from the manipulation of “energy” found among occultists in their various practices.

Is it a surprise that Jorge Bergoglio submits to pagan beliefs and occult practices? He's the perfect syncretism product arising after Vatican II, and truthfully expressed it when he said, "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God; there is no Catholic God." Those of us who still hold to the One True Faith realize that Jesus Christ alone is our "Tao." Only He could say, "... I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me." (St. John 14:6; Emphasis mine). 

121 comments:

  1. The best way, as you say, is Jesus Christ, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life", who tells us to enter through the narrow gate because the path of perdition is wide and many pass through it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      Yes! Bergoglio and his reiki master will take you on the wide road to destruction, for anyone unfortunate enough to let them!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Years ago a "Catholic nun", a reiki practitioner, attached herself to the medical group that I was a patient of, and sent me a solicitation to do reiki sessions with her. The brochure description was full of those far out terms that you mentioned, and it promised bodily, mental and spiritual healing.
    She also used her bona fides as a "nun" to get customers by throwing Catholic terminology in the description, as if that would make it acceptable; which it would, to the unwary.
    Intro, what is your take on Naturopathy? From what I know, a naturopath is a physician similar to an MD or DO, with extra training in natural healing methods, at least that is the claim in some bios I've read. I can't tell if there are any reiki-like methods involved in Naturopathy.
    Thank you
    Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      Naturopathy id bad news from both a scientific and theological viewpoint.

      Debunked by science:
      "Unfortunately, naturopathy is a hodge-podge of mostly unscientific treatment modalities based on vitalism and other prescientific notions of disease. As a result, typical naturopaths are more than happy in essence to “pick one from column A and one from column B” when it comes to pseudoscience, mixing and matching treatments including traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, herbalism, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine." (See https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/naturopathy-and-science/)

      Theologically:
      The symbol of many naturopathy schools/programs is the "ying-yang"! The use of anthroposophical medicine is very troubling, to say the least. Anthroposophical medicine is an occult medicine based upon the philosophy of anthroposophy developed by necromancer Rudolph Steiner (1861-1925). It variously incorporates a belief in reincarnation, magic, astrology, animism, spiritism, and pantheism. Anthroposophical medicine claims to work by treating patients “spiritually” (occultly) not just physically. By the way, guess who was removed from his teaching position in the Church for teaching the occult ideas of Steiner? One Fr. Angelo Roncalli, the future "pope" John XXIII!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. Per the Online Etymology Dictionary, "holistic" as a word only goes as far back as 1926, from "holism", coined by Jan Smuts (1870 - 1950, the 2nd Prime Minister of South Africa) in his book "Holism and Evolution" which treats of evolution as a process of unification of separate parts:

    "This character of "wholeness" meets us everywhere and points to something fundamental in the universe. Holism (from [holos] = whole) is the term here coined for this fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe." - Smuts, "Holism and Evolution," p.86

    The initial impression I get is that - as a philosophy and worldview - holism runs on various parallels to the cosmic evolutionary theories espoused by the notorious Teilhard de Chardin; that is reason enough for me to stay away.

    (Reiki and Tao are just more remixes of Eastern spiritualities which are inherently contrary to Christianity, so there's little to add.)

    Sincerely,

    A Simple Man

    ReplyDelete
  4. It seems to me that a lot of the pagan religions are derived from the ancient natural religion that was practiced before Abraham by the likes of Job. Over time elements of this religion have degenerated into occult practices and rites. For instance one can clearly see the similarites between the "Chi" and our own concept of a Soul. Certainly we Catholics do believe in that the constituants of the body are not sufficient to give life and that an animating spirit, the soul, is necessary.

    Of course we do not believe in silly superstitions such as chakras and all the other occult beliefs that accompany Taosim and Reiki. The soul is a mystery and I could argue that these religious beliefs sprang up to give try to explain the mysterious nature of the soul. There is also something to be said for the spiritual aspect of healing as well that I think goes beyond the placebo effect, we are living beings with souls and as such the soul may be involved in healing our bodies in ways we don't yet understand. For instance the practice of laying hands is not only an eastern practice, but was practiced in Christendom as well. It was at times believed that a Kings hands were healing hands and a true king could be known by the power of his hands to heal. How much of that is real and not superstition I don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch

    Anyways my point is this that if we really do want to convert Toaists and Reiki practitioners we can focus on the fact that they implicitly do believe in a soul. From that we can extricate that they must also believe in a Creator, and a purpose for creation. Likewise if we can get them to accept that there is a Creator we can destroy their arguments for the duality of good and evil, and all other silly superstitions by pointing out that things are created for a reason and therefore any superstinion which undermines the purpose of a created thing must in an of itself be erroneous. For instance if we can accept that the body has a soul which gives it life then how can a chakra, a point on the body have such an influence over the soul? For if the soul gives the body life then how can a part of the body subordinate the soul? Such a belief seems to be intrinsically incoherent.

    The most successful missionaries were those who were able to take elements of pagan cultures that still reflected Catholic truths and use them as instruments to explain the Gospel while at the same time using logic and reason to demolish the accompaining occult pagan beliefs the missionaries encountered were demonstably false. Because accompaniment and encounter are things which a good missionary should always destroy ;)

    Anyways I'm not sure my theology is on point but this seemed to be an interesting line of thinking so I am open to whatever anyone has to say.
    God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan,
      An excellent analysis and I agree with just about everything you wrote! (Especially getting rid of "accompaniment and encounter"!). The laying on of hands did have the suggestion of a conferral of power; hence the matter of Holy Orders. The hands of the priest anoint various parts of the person receiving Extreme Unction, which can have as its effect bodily healing, should God will it. Occultists have use this laying on of hands for nefarious purposes, and while it may actually work, the spiritual death of the soul which will result is far worse. (See St. Matthew 10:28).

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Ryan,
      Very informative comment!! Thanks.

      Delete
    3. My first encounter with Taoism was in the mid-1980's. I had changed jobs and my new boss, a woman attorney, was steeped in Taoism and the New Age. The attorney's office was adorned with crystals, and she seemed not to be able to have a conversation without bringing her belief in Taoism and the New Age into the conversation. She was also involved deeply into astrology and Tarot cards as well. Birthdays and holidays were an excuse for her to give something New Age as a gift. Thankfully, I only had to endure her New Age nonsense for a year. I got quite the education in Taoism and the New Age in that year. The Devil is out there boldly proclaiming and pushing his lies. How much more should we as true Catholic Christians boldly proclaim and share the true Faith!

      JoAnn

      Delete
    4. Joann,
      Exactly right! That is the entire purpose of the "When Strangers Come Knocking" series; WE AS TRADITIONALIST CATHOLICS must fulfill the Great Commission! If we don't do it, it won't get done!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Another excellent and timely post.

    Jannie, perhaps my experience will be helpful to you and others. A few years ago I became interested in homeopathy, naturopathy, and related practices as an alternative to all the drugs and interventions of modern western medicine. These various practices at first glance appeared to offer the path to health I was seeking, but with some digging I found them to not be what they purported to be.

    A big help in this matter was a free e-book by the name of “Alternative Medicine: A Mind Blowing Magical Mystery Tour” by Steven Ransom. It can easily be found with an online search. Mr. Ransom provides an in-depth look at homeopathy, Reiki, and a bunch of other practices that all fall under the umbrella of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM). I found the origin of these practices fascinating and the work appears to be well documented with footnotes for further research.

    My assessment is that Mr. Ransom is spot on and just on the natural level alone gives good reasons to doubt the slick and wholesome packaging that CAM typically comes in. But more importantly, he also goes on to explain at the end of the book why CAM is not compatible with Christianity. This comes from a protestant perspective, but I’m sure it could be expounded on further from an integrally Catholic position.

    I would certainly welcome those with more acumen and knowledge of the faith than I to give their assessment of the work (I’m thinking of Introibo and A Simple Man in particular).

    Sincerely,

    Pauper Peccator

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's up with homeopathy?

      Delete
    2. Pauper Peccator,
      Mr. Ransom does an excellent job against holistic medicine or CAM. His critique ALONE is enough to prove you must stay away. If you have any specific questions about what he says and its relation to the One True Church, please ask.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. To anon@1:48 PM,

      A fundamental idea behind homeopathy (and homeopathic remedies) is that "like cures like". To use a specific example, in order to combat the diseases and pains inflicted upon the body, the original substance (or something similar to it) must be diluted within a solution of water or alcohol to the point where the harmful effects will no longer occur, but their positive benefits will still emerge.

      However, in practice, the substance within a homeopathic dilution has been so minimized that it's chemically indistinguishable from the original solution. One memorable analogy is that the amount of substance within the dilution (at least, those which are marketed or prescribed) would be equivalent to a pinch of salt within the Atlantic Ocean. At *best*, they are no better in terms of outcomes than placebos.

      In general, homeopathy's biggest issue is that practitioners tend to dissuade their patients from seeking out more conventional medical diagnoses or treatments, despite a lack of any medical literature or clinical trials supporting homeopathic remedies from a scientific standpoint (and homeopathy has been around in since the 19th Century, at one point being a mainstream practice; the reason its heydey ended was because it couldn't be proven to work).

      From a theological standpoint, the underlying principle of "like cures like" is fundamentally erroneous, as the natural implication for the spiritual life would be (for example) that a little bit of a sin will keep you from sinning a lot.

      It should go without saying that this is nonsensical.

      Granted, homeopathic remedies intrinsically don't touch on matters of faith or religion as far as I'm aware, but the general idea is based on a false principle, as well as a false understanding of how diseases and illness affect the human body.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    4. @anon1:48
      Homoeopathy's founder was a German physician, Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), a high ranking Freemason and occultist. He spoke of two "laws:"
      The first was the Law of Similars. He believed that diseases could be cured by substances which in a healthy person would cause similar symptoms to those the medicine is prescribed to treat. The second was the Law of Infinitesimals. This held that the smaller the dose, the more efficacious the medicine. A method of mixing, dilution and shaking was called 'succession' and the resulting preparation a 'potency'. The process of dilution and succession is still claimed by some to release a therapeutic 'immaterial and vital' force. Once more we see occult "force" manipulation. There is virtually no scientific evidence that homoeopathy is effective. Proponents have claimed that the process of dilution and shaking release a "therapeutic force."

      Once more; Stay Away!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Perhaps the virtue lies in the middle of two extremes? On one hand we have the allopathic model which is the philosophy that we can manipulate the bodies chemistry to achieve good health and on the other hand we have the holistic model which believes the body is greater than the sum of its parts and must be treated as a whole. I think both methods have their place and that they are not mutually exclusive. In fact I think that to be a purist is to open oneself up to ill health. Case in point what is called modern medicine is exclusivley allopathic, yet we have perhaps the sickest population in human history with around 40% of all people suffering from a chronic disease or illness. On the flip side holistic medicine isn't very good at dealing with specific issues such as acute infections and other things of that nature.

      IMHO the best medicine is prevention and we should do our best to live healthy lives by getting proper nutrition, sleep, water, and exercize as well as trying to reduce stress.

      Delete
    6. Wow, that's pretty creepy. Not something I was aware of

      Delete
    7. Ryan,
      "...the best medicine is prevention and we should do our best to live healthy lives by getting proper nutrition, sleep, water, and exercise as well as trying to reduce stress."

      That's my prescription too!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Ryan,

      To be as pithy as possible, my recommendation is that - bound by morality and within due reason - you do what you can to avoid having to go to the doctor or the hospital to begin with. (If only because the current cost structure in America, in regard to some parts of the healthcare industry, is rather obscene. But that's another topic altogether.)

      (Granted, if you have an accident or are infected by a random bacteria or virus, it can't really be helped; however, a lot of disorders and illnesses are compounded by comorbidities that our within our capacity to mitigate or rectify, especially when it comes to matters of weight, drug use, etc.)

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
  6. Pauper Peccator,
    Thank you for the information you've shared.
    Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,

      You're quite welcome!

      Introibo, I didn't have any specific questions about the Ransom e-book as I thought he pretty well demolished the CAM position, but wanted to allow for the possibility that I may have missed something as can happen to the best of us.

      God bless!

      Pauper Peccator

      Delete
  7. Introibo,

    I'm jealous of those who had you for a teacher. At first when I looked at this article, I didn't get real excited, but after reading it I was quite fascinated and I learned some things that I wasn't aware of and that I will definitely be able to use, so thank you very much.

    I know of a man in his mid 70's that is religiously oriented but who has a hippie like life style and while his wife is a devout Catholic he mentioned a month or two ago about how he does acupuncture. He grew up Catholic, then in the early 70's he quit practicing because of his interest in the Muslim and eastern religions. What's ironic (or funny) is his wife is a convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to Traditional Catholicism and he supports her and even defends then Church's traditional teachings when it's brought up. It's certainly an oddity, but I think a combination of the Novus ordo, the 60's-70's era, and his involvement with eastern religions have messed him up but there is good hope of him changing with a devout wife and his early background even though it's a slow process. I'll use this article the next time I talk to them. I know you have a life and won't be doing as many writings but thank you for your direct, to the point, and well researched articles. I'm glad you have some help from ASM as well.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      Thank you for the kind words my friend! The man in his 70s seems to be open to the Truth, and he might convert thanks to all the good influences he has--not least of all his wife.

      I hope my post can be used to help get him inside the Church. Simple Man will be a big help in giving me the break I need; a real godsend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I met a 67 yr old man today who grew up Catholic.
      Been a Baptist since his marriage in 1971.
      End of our brief conversation he offered up,
      "There are good people in all religions and all you need is Jesus and the Bible.
      I don't put my faith in man or any church created by Man."
      No need to say anything other than,
      "Ok have a good Day my Friend."
      Scary,because he was quoting the Latin he remembered from Holy Mass pre-1967.
      Look at what happens to us once we go so long without simply assisting at the Holy Sacrifice,let alone without the
      7 Holy Sacraments.
      I'm praying for him + his Wife + myself,as we all need a miracle.
      God bless
      -Andrew

      Delete
    3. Andrew,
      What a sad story. Another "Victim of Vatican II."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Andrew,

      A few observations I would provide for that gentleman:

      - If we took his statement literally ("there are good people in *all* religions"), does that mean to imply that he believes there is such a thing as a "good Satanist"?

      - If all you need is Jesus and the Bible, then how did the early Christians possibly fare? After all, Christ had ascended into Heaven, and the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to possess a written copy of the Scriptures until after the invention of the printing press made mass literacy possible.

      - His very own Bible says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Where exactly does he believe that Church is?

      - That Bible he holds wouldn't *exist* without the Church; how then does he know it to be an accurate representation of Jesus or the Word of God?

      - Is he implying that the Church propagated by the Apostles was unnecessary? Furthermore, to deny that he doesn't need the Church would be to render much of the New Testament nonsensical.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    5. I agree and thought the same general ideas but he was obviously in no frame of mind for that discussion.
      Prayer will help him more than my words,trust me.
      If you were there you'd would have similar conclusion.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    6. In regards to 1 Tim 3:15 cited, any thoughts on the ESV and ESV-"Catholic" Edition translations, where the Church is no longer "the" pillar of truth, but "a" pillar of truth, because the Greek doesn't differentiate either?

      Delete
    7. @anon5:39
      This reminds me of why the "International Commission on English in the Liturgy" (ICEL) translated "pro multis" as "for all" in the words of Consecration over the wine at "mass." One "scholar"--Joachim Jeremias--a Protestant(!) was cited as claiming this was Christ's "true intent" (the Catechism of the Council of Trent not withstanding) because Hebrew has no distinction between "many" and "all." The genius Jeremias didn't seem to know the obvious--Christ spoke in Aramaic not Hebrew, and there are two distinct words in that language for "all" and "many."

      This is more Vatican II sect nonsense to make the Bible conform to their heretical ecclesiology, i.e., there is not One True Church, but the Church of Christ subsists elsewhere in degrees. The Church is the best but not the only means of salvation. Hence, "the" becomes "a"--one of many.They would have you believe all pre-Vatican II Bible scholars were wrong.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Have you heard about
    Bishop Stefan Wyszyński of Poland using the traditional Rite of Holy Orders publicly until 1975?
    According to this forum I've read,
    Paul VI threatened him with replacement if he didn't start publicly using the new rites.
    According to this forum,he consecrated valid Priests using trad Rite from
    1968-1974.
    Pray for 1 or more of these Bishops to leave the Novus Ordo and convert to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church which has been forced underground.
    God bless
    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Never heard of that bishop--very "Bp. Castro de Mayer-like."
      It would be great to get one of the (very few) valid sect bishops into the Church!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Andrew, Introibo,
      I wish this was so but the truth about Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński (1901-1981) is very much different.
      He was the Primate of Poland (1948-until his death) and in charge of implementing the Vatican II changes, which he never opposed. An avid supporter of Wojtyła, Wyszyński made the future Koran-kisser his international aide, sending Wojtyła all over the world. Cardinal Wyszyński was the one who had the most power in the Church in Poland at the time of the Robber Council - he was no dissident, fighting the Modernists with a handful of faithful Catholics; in fact, he was the highest authority in the post-conciliar structures in Poland until 1981!
      Wyszyński was fond of folk piety which made for a great smoke screen when the True Faith was being destroyed in Poland: let them have their singing of the Litany of Loretto in May at the roadside shrines but rid them of the True Mass and the Sacraments - this was his strategy.

      Cardinal Wyszyński (given the red hat by Pius XII in 1953) is hailed today as beacon of orthodoxy among Novus Ordo 'conservatives' but this is just wishful thinking.

      His friendship with Roncalli is also fact.

      His 'beatification' is under way, which alone speaks volumes.

      God Bless You,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    3. Joanna
      That's interesting...I had read before of Cdl. Wyszynski, who was written about as the "conservative" prelate of Poland pushed aside to promote "upstart" Bp Wojtyla; that while Wojtyla was permitted to travel freely across Europe under Communism, Stefan Wyszynski was portrayed as a victim of the regime - restricted in what he could say and do and not allowed a visa. But from things I've read since, and from your
      comment here it seems as if maybe Cdl. Wyszynski was some sort of controlled opposition then - such as Athanasius Schneider or Vigano appear to be now.
      Jannie

      Delete
    4. I will find it later but from what Polish Trad Catholics told this man,he used the traditional Rite of Consecration on valid Priests from 1968-1974.
      I'm aware he was was novus ordo and had no illusions of him being traditional in other areas.
      I specifically mentioned his transferral of Holy Orders on valid Priests + making them Bishops.
      Next time please read my comment before accusing me of saying + thinking things I never typed.
      God bless
      Andrew

      Delete
    5. Joanna,
      Thank you for this information from your native Poland. A supporter of Wojtyla, friend of Roncalli, and now up for "beatification" from Bergoglio. That tells me everything I need to know about Cardinal Wyszyński. I agree with Jannie-- a Modernist snake in the grass, like Cardinal Bea.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Andrew,
      I think Joanna was just making an observation that the Cardinal was a snake-in-the-grass. Neither she (nor I) disputed that he may have conferred valid orders in our remarks.

      I'm sorry if you thought I was calling into question your assertion about his conferral of Traditional Holy Orders. I know you to be truthful in the things you write.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. It's cool.
      Anyone who stayed on board within the Novus Ordo until the 1980's especially with his amount of education is automatically suspect and/or not to be given accolades.
      I thought it would go without saying and was referring to his transferal of Holy Orders and the valid but heretical Bishops within the Novus Ordo.
      That and it's an interesting fact which I wasn't aware of before last week.
      God bless
      Andrew

      Delete
    8. Jannie,
      What you write is true!
      Before, the modernist takeover, Cdl. Wyszyński was really persecuted by the Soviet-imposed communist regime in Poland in the early 1950s (de facto imprisoned from 1953 to 1956); he was under communist surveilance from 1946 until his death (as well as other clerics, many of whom became snitches to the Communists). However, he took the political approach of seeking concessions with the Communists.
      According to Ewa Czaczkowska, Wyszyński’s biographer and historian, Cdl. Wyszyński signed an agreement with the Communist regime in the 1950s, which in turn caused outrage in the Vatican (and rightly so, we all know the staunchly anti-communist stance of Pius XII).
      In the 1957 parliamentary ‘elections’ the Polish episcopate, under his auspices, would politically endorse the Communist Władysław Gomułka, urging Poles to take part in the elections (this is taken from Wikipedia, but supported with a citation from a Polish historian, Antoni Dudek). Also according to Wikipedia, Cdl. Wyszyński’s actions led to diminishing the political rank of the legitimate embassy to the Apostolic See of the legitimate Polish government-in-exile.
      Cdl. Wyszyński was inconsistent in his „non possumus” approach, to say the least.
      It’s true that he felt he needed to stay in Poland and give moral support to the people (he was the one who organized the national novena before the Millenium jubilee of Poland’s baptism in 1966; he wanted for Montini to be present at the culmination of these celebrations in Jasna Góra, but the Communists refused), while Wojtyła would be his emissary to the free world (and no one could leave the country without the communists’ approval). Wojtyła was the kind of bishop who (in the 1950s!) would take a bunch of students (calling him ‘uncle’) to the mountains, go on a trip there in short pants and say Mass on a canoe. Wasn’t Cdl. Wyszyński aware of this?
      God Bless You!

      Andrew,
      I did not intent to accuse you of any ill-will. As much as I would like these traditional holy orders to have taken place, we need solid evidence for that. From what I’ve read about Cdl. Wyszyński, it’s highly unlikely that the man who would diligently (although cautiously) implement the liturgical disaster of Montini, would at the same time use the old rite of priestly ordination. At least I don’t know of any such valid priests, nor have I ever read about them among Traditional Catholics in Poland anywhere on the Internet. Please, provide a link if you can – it’s not that I don’t believe you, Andrew; it’s just that the SSPX, indult people, conservative Novus Ordos make for the most part of ‘traditionalists’ in Poland, and they don’t really care for facts.
      God Bless You!

      Introibo,
      that’s exactly what I wanted to write; thank you!
      God Bless You,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    9. Read both pages and you'll see the Man who stated he knows for a fact this Bishop consecrated using the traditional Rites.
      I have no idea if it's true or false.
      http://www.thetradforum.com//index.php?topic=862.0
      -Andrew

      Delete
    10. Thank you for the link!
      Sadly, this man, Lycobates, offers aboslutely no proof for his claims. He writes the following words: "As to cardinal Wyszynski, the facts are notorious (at least here in Europe) and well known for many years. There is no need to discuss facts."
      This Lycobates mistakes facts for presumptions, gives no reference to external sources of any kind and arrogantly claims the discussion over these non-existent 'facts' is over.

      I'll try and research the names of the supposedly valid bishops mentioned in that thread (Wojtkowski, Galecki, Werno). Gulbinowicz died last month and there was an article written about him by Polish sedevacantists, here's an excerpt:
      "He [Gulbinowicz] was consecrated a bishop [written in italics] by Stefan Cdl. Wyszyński on the 8th of February, 1970. We can't be sure, however, which rite was used (there are cases of the old ritual being used by Polish bishops as late as the 1970s); we may, therefore, presume that Fr. Gulbinowicz might have been validly ordained a bishop (it is, however, doubtful)."

      Unless someone produces credible evidence, I guess these possibly valid episcopal consecrations are of little importance for Catholics in Poland today. After all, not even one of these priests, let alone bishops, started a traditional apostolate in Poland after the tragedy of Vatican II happened.

      Anyway, thanks again for the information.

      God Bless You,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    11. I simply stated to pray for these Bishops to leave the Novus Ordo and convert to Catholicism.
      I never once states anything to the contrary.
      God Bless
      -Andrew

      Delete
  9. Introibo.Are you aware that those sisters that left CMRI back in 2007 to join the Novus Ordo sect had been into reiki.Don't know too much but some of your readers might be able to give more details.How they were allowed to embrace this garbage is beyond words.Did Bp Pivarunas know,he must of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To anon@8:28 PM,

      https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2007/jun/21/nuns-pushed-out-of-convent/

      Based on this archived article from way back in 2007, it appears that the primary impetus for those sisters to leave CMRI was the election of Ratzinger in 2005, which apparently prompted them to rethink their theological position.

      https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/03/24/forty-years-on-the-mount/

      https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2012/10/19/the-return-to-rome-five-years-later/

      These articles were written 4-5 years later which go into more details, and it appears one major factor was that one of the sister's siblings - Mike Duddy, a former V2 diocesan seminarian who ended up teaching philosophy at Mount St. Michael's (done instead of paying tuition for his children's education, and also as a favor for his childhood friend Fr. Casimir Puskorius) but kept quiet about his transition from sedevacantism to full communion with the Vatican II sect (of course, when he was found out, he was inevitably fired) - discreetly taught private classes using Vatican II theology to convince them about the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and the post-V2 "popes". (I can only wonder what would have happened had Duddy read anything from Fr. Cekada.) Naturally, he calumniates CMRI with the "cultish" label as being why the sisters were so resistant to leaving initially. They also appear to have been highly influenced by Mother Teresa's "Missionaries of Charity" (which says volumes by itself, in light of Teresa's own well-documented issues from a Traditionalist perspective).

      All told, based on the reporting, the 15 sisters appear to have been heavily affected by sentimentality and appearances.

      As it stands, there doesn't appear to be any mention of reiki or Eastern spirituality in their decision to leave CMRI (which, to Bp. Pivarunas's credit, appears to have been mostly amicable; to quote from his letter as cited in the stories, "There is no greater contradiction today than for any member of CMRI to attempt ‘to serve two masters’—to recognize Benedict XVI and to remain in a Congregation separated from him. The issue of the papacy is the crux of the matter and the CMRI Sisters need to decide whether they will belong to CMRI or not.").

      I can only wonder, with the ascension of Bergoglio as the most recent false occupant of St. Peter's Chair, if they regret their decision in retrospect.

      Shaking my head,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    2. Simple Man and Anon8:28
      Interesting subject. If anyone has further information about the nuns (the alleged use of reiki, etc) please send it to me.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Are you aware of this introibo.Cannot imagine the Daughters of Mary doing this.How sad

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:37
      I cannot imagine them using reiki, and it appears from what Simple Man wrote above, they did not. However, they did return to the Vatican II sect--every bit as unholy and evil.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,
      I found an article on Daily Catholic written by Dr. Thomas Drolesky which states the Nuns involvement in the New Age and names Reiki being practiced among other new age nonsense by the Nuns. The article is quite lengthy and I have taken the liberty of copying an excerpt from the article and placing it below:

      "His Excellency Bishop Pivarunas confirmed to me in a telephone conversation on Friday, July 20, 2007, as he recovers from ear surgery, that some of the Sisters who have left the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen and who are now in the conciliar structures of the corrupt, financially and spiritually bankrupt Diocese of Spokane dabbled at some point in a New Age "spirituality" called Reiki, about which I knew absolutely nothing until a reader from Montana informed me about this a few days ago. This was a credible report as we had received a letter from a woman last year who informed us of the involvement of some of the Sisters in some sort of New Age "spirituality" and the use of the enneagram. Others informed us of this during our visits to Mount Saint Michael's in the Fall of 2006 and in May of 2007. Nevertheless, this part of the story would have been omitted unless it had been confirmed by Bishop Pivarunas himself."

      I believe Daily Catholic to be a sound website? However, Introibo would know better than me.

      www.dailycatholic.org/issue/07Jul/jul21coc.htm

      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. JoAnn,

      The article cited is also posted on Thomas Drolesky's own website: http://www.christorchaos.com/TheRestoftheStory.htm

      As far as Thomas Drolesky goes, of the various articles from him that I've read, I've yet to encounter a reason to doubt his veracity. His website's "About this Site" page includes the following biographical details:

      ----

      Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey is a Catholic writer and speaker . He is the publisher-editor of Christ or Chaos.com, a site that has featured over 900 articles since the beginning of 2006, many dealing with his embrace of sedevacantism. Hundreds of his articles appeared in The Wanderer, the oldest weekly national Catholic newspaper, between 1992 and 2000. He was a contributor to The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture between 2001 and 2003. Droleskey's articles have appeared in the American Life League's Celebrate Life magazine. He also contributed articles to The Remnant and for Catholic Family News. His articles also appeared for two years in The Four Marks.

      Dr. Droleskey was an adjunct professor of political science at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University between January of 1991 and July of 2003, reprising his association there for a winter intersession course, which was taught between December 28, 2006, and January 11, 2007. He had taught political science around the nation since January of 1974, receiving numerous awards for excellence in teaching. Many of his students have converted to the Catholic Faith.

      Formerly a pro-life activist, Droleskey was the candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986. He was the party's candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay in 1997, and he challenged then Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato for the party's senatorial nomination in 1998, receiving over 37% of the primary vote. Droleskey has campaigned for pro-life candidates around the country. He is now retired from all involvement in partisan politics, concentrating instead on the promotion of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen.

      [snip]

      ----

      At any rate, given the additional information he cites (some of the links have since fallen off the Internet), it would appear that the Sisters who departed CMRI in 2007 were less than upfront about their conciliar correspondence prior to Fr. Puskorius and Most Reverend Pivarunas becoming aware of what had been happening at Mt. St. Michael's.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    4. JoAnn
      I believe that Daily Catholic is a trustworthy site, too, and that Dr Drolesky is trustworthy. His recounting of his career as a University level history professor and his steel-trap memory, as well as his devotion to Catholicism, tell me there must be truth to the story unless someone out there can credibly claim it is mistaken.
      Jannie

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      Wow! This article is explosive. Thank you for sending it. "Daily Catholic" is a great sede site. I knew Michael Cain, the owner of the site who went to Judgement, God rest his soul. (A great and humble man, please pray for the repose of his soul). I also know Dr. Droleskey to be a truthful and good man. I knew him when he lived here in New York back in the 1980s-1990s. He became sedevacantist circa 2006. Michael Cain also adopted sedevacantism, but somewhat earlier. This is from 2007--when both were convinced Traditionalists who rejected the Vatican II sect. Dr. Droleskey writes:

      There is, sadly, another element at work in the departure of the Sisters from the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen who maintained secret contacts with the conciliar officials in Spokane while using their classrooms to propagate positions contrary to the Congregations. This other element at work in the departure of the Sisters is the immersion of some of them, at least at one point in the past, in the false "spirituality" of the New Age movement. Obviously, this is par for the course in the conciliar structures. New Age "spirituality," which is very much tied into feminism and propagation in behalf of perversion and pantheism (in the form of environmentalism) and other forms of naturalism, permeates many conciliar parishes and colleges and universities and seminaries and religious communities of men and women. There was a "zen meditation room" in the Jesuit retreat house, Inisfada, in Searingtown, New York, when last I visited there in late-2000 with a prominent Jesuit priest and an equally prominent lay couple (the husband planted some Miraculous Medals in the "zen meditation room")."

      I went to the (now defunct) Inisfada Retreat House with a friend from high school back in the early 1990s (I was trying to convert him). It was a horror show back then as well. The good doctor continues:

      "His Excellency Bishop Pivarunas confirmed to me in a telephone conversation on Friday, July 20, 2007, as he recovers from ear surgery, that some of the Sisters who have left the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen and who are now in the conciliar structures of the corrupt, financially and spiritually bankrupt Diocese of Spokane dabbled at some point in a New Age "spirituality" called Reiki, about which I knew absolutely nothing until a reader from Montana informed me about this a few days ago. This was a credible report as we had received a letter from a woman last year who informed us of the involvement of some of the Sisters in some sort of New Age "spirituality" and the use of the enneagram. Others informed us of this during our visits to Mount Saint Michael's in the Fall of 2006 and in May of 2007. Nevertheless, this part of the story would have been omitted unless it had been confirmed by Bishop Pivarunas himself."

      Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I believe the account to be veridical, and almost certainly contributed to the nuns apostasy.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo,
      Beginning with Vatican II and the onset of ecumenism it seems lay people and the religious alike couldn't wait to go running off seeking strange Gods. I was raised pre-Vatican II and my Godly Grandmother who instilled the Faith into me always told me "you don't go to other Churches". My Grandmother died prior to Vatican II. I noticed after Vatican II was instituted loads of Catholics running off and "visiting" other Churches. However, my Grandmother's words and admonishment not to go into other Churches always stuck with me. However, since I couldn't accept the changes in the New Mass such as Communion in the hand, the Priest facing the people, etc., I chose to stay completely away. I did notice that the same people who were visiting other Churches were the same people who accepted the New Mass unlike myself. It is very sad that Vatican II caused the sheep to become so scattered.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    7. Joann,
      You were lucky to have a pious and wise grandmother. Those with "itching ears" wanted to hear what pleased them in other sects since they contained "elements of truth." So sad.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. Is circumcision without any religious intent sinful?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To anon@6:33 AM,

      Firstly, the action itself is not *intrinsically* sinful, otherwise God would not have utilized it as His sign of His Covenant with Abraham. Thus, we must turn to motives and effects.

      Given that circumcision was performed even by pagans of Antiquity for the purposes of bodily health or as a rite of cultural passage (see the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on circumcision for more details: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), it's fitting to turn to St. Thomas Aquinas:

      "Since a member is part of the whole human body, it is for the sake of the whole, as the imperfect for the perfect. Hence a member of the human body is to be disposed of according as it is expedient for the body. Now a member of the human body is of itself useful to the good of the whole body, yet, accidentally it may happen to be hurtful, as when a decayed member is a source of corruption to the whole body. Accordingly so long as a member is healthy and retains its natural disposition, it cannot be cut off without injury to the whole body...If, however, the member be decayed and therefore a source of corruption to the whole body, then it is lawful with the consent of the owner of the member, to cut away the member for the welfare of the whole body, since each one is entrusted with the care of his own welfare. The same applies if it be done with the consent of the person whose business it is to care for the welfare of the person who has a decayed member: otherwise it is altogether unlawful to maim anyone." - ST II-II, q. 65, a. 1

      Although Question 65 is more focused on the matter of the maiming of other persons and its lawfulness, the general principles are clear: a lack of religious intent by itself would not render circumcision a sinful act. (The most common secular reason for doing so, as far as I'm aware, would be for the aforementioned health benefits, to reduce the chance of urinary tract infections, and so on. That it's done on infants is usually for pragmatic reasons: the pain itself is generally forgotten by the time the child attains the age of reason, and so the parents' take it upon themselves to make that decision for the welfare of their child.)

      Now, if one consciously engages in *self-mutilation*, the territory becomes graver. As Introibo cited in an older article related to Bruce Jenner (https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/06/mutilating-body.html):

      "According to theologian Zalba, mutilation of the body is defined as: "the destruction of some member or the suppression of some function of the body." (See Regatillo-Zalba, Theologiae moralis summa 2 [Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1953] n. 251). Fr. Zalba goes on to explain that this definition includes the amputation of a hand, the removal of an eye, vasectomy, etc.—in a word, anything that would destroy the radical integrity of the body. He excludes from the definition such things as blood transfusions and skin grafts because these do not permanently affect bodily integrity."

      One's culpability in such self-mutilation will be dependant upon the consent of one's will (which might be mitigated in the case of those who are genuinely suffering from certain mental disorders), as well as the degree of the damage done to one's body (ranging anywhere from minor cuts made along the flesh to full blown removal of the member itself, which would go far beyond circumcision in any case).

      However, as seen from the above, circumcision does not in and of itself permanently affect the radical integrity of the body, and so would not be considered an example of mutilation from a moral standpoint.

      Hope this answers your question satisfactorily.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    2. @anon6:33
      No. According to the Mayo Clinic, circumcision is medically beneficial due to:

      Easier hygiene and decreased risk of urinary tract infections. There are other reasons given, but due to the sensitive nature of the subject, I do not wish to write those reasons here. They can be read: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550.

      Hence, because of genuine medical benefits derived, circumcision without religious intent is not bodily mutilation and not sinful.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Thank you Introibo. But do you know what the "since whether or not they place their hope in it" phrase from the Council of Florence mean?

      "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, *since whether or not they place their hope in it,* it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

      I am not an expert at all, but to me, the text naturally means that circumcision, whether or not one hopes salvation through it, is sinful.

      Delete
    4. To anon@5:35 PM,

      That particular excerpt in question is from the "Bull of union with the Copts," among which included the Jacobites of Egypt. As such, it was directed to those who had retained Jewish practices as a matter of custom, as the full paragraph (and not just the portion you cited) makes clear:

      "It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ’s passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

      Citation: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum17.htm

      In this particular case, circumcision is classified **among** the legal practices of the Old Covenant, many of which were retained as an ancient tradition from the old Jewish Law amongst those who were coming into union with the See of Rome. As such, the Council of Florence is condemning circumcision **as a religious practice pertaining to the Old Covenant**, since it was replaced by baptism upon reception of the Gospel; it was not condemning circumcision as a mere medical practice.

      As McHugh, O.P. and Callan, O.P. remark in Moral Theology (1958): "943. The following are not a denial of faith or profession of error: ... (d) Signs that have some association with non-Catholic religion, but do not necessarily represent it (since they are indifferent in themselves and have other and legitimate uses), do not deny the faith, when not used as symbols of false religion. Similarly, the omission of signs that are associated with Catholicity, but which are optional, is not a denial of the faith. Examples: Titus, when travelling in the Orient, makes use of the national salutation of the pagan peoples among whom he lives. Balbus builds a church with architectural features borrowed from pagan temples. Caius wears a fez or turban in Mohammedan regions where it is not looked on as a religious headgear. **Sempronius practises circumcision as a hygienic measure.** Claudius does not say grace at meals when dining in public, and does not wear scapulars when bathing at the seashore."

      Context matters.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    5. @anon5:35
      My friend, that is not how the Church interprets it. One must be careful of "plain readings"--this is what the Feeneyites do. Without the background knowledge and guidance of the Church's teaching through Her approved theologians.

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

      Trent was NOT defining that you can only receive the grace of baptism by using water--all theologians who were came immediately during and after Trent taught that the Council was condemning the teaching of Luther who asserted that in the absence of water, milk or beer could be used as a substitute. Trent was defining the matter of the sacrament.

      As to circumcision, Florence was discussing circumcision performed as a religious rite or DONE OUT OF HUMAN RESPECT.

      Proof:
      1. If Florence is to be understood with "the natural or plain meaning of the text," it does not say circumcision is a mortal sin, but rather you are hopelessly damned. "..WITHOUT LOSS OF ETERNAL SALVATION." No person with any inkling of the Catholic Faith could possibly believe that.

      2. Catholic hospitals and physicians routinely performed circumcisions prior to Vatican II without censure or condemnation by Pope Pius XII or prior popes and Catholic hierarchy. How could they allow such a "heinous sin" to go unchecked?

      3. Theologian Connell states that it can even be tolerated that a Jewish rabbi perform a religious circumcision in a Catholic hospital for a Jewish hospital for certain reasons (See "Father Connell Answers Moral Questions" [1959], pg. 12). If intrinsically evil this teaching would be condemned.

      4. No approved moral theologian ever taught circumcision (outside the religious rite performed on a Christian) to be sinful. How did all the greatest minds (St. Alphonsus Liguori, McHugh and Callan, Prummer, Jone, Connell, Slater, etc.) ever condemned it. How could they "miss" such a "horrible mortal sin"?

      Whoever told you Florence condemns medical circumcision is completely wrong.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Correction to #3 above:
      Theologian Connell states that it can even be tolerated that a Jewish rabbi perform a religious circumcision in a Catholic hospital for a Jewish BOY for certain reasons (See "Father Connell Answers Moral Questions" [1959], pg. 12). If intrinsically evil this teaching would be condemned.

      Delete
    7. Thank you very much to both of you for your very excellent answers. I got this thing from "Catholic" Answer Forums I passed by. Anyway, I got confused and concerned at first, but now I understand. Thank you very much to both of you again.

      Delete
  12. Introibo / ASM,
    I have a question about the relation of Thomist philosophy to the purposefulness of evolution. In my manual of natural sciences, I found the following information:
    "Evolution is a random process. It is based on mutations that are random events. So it is a matter of chance as to what evolutionary change will occur and whether it will occur at all."
    Is it true?
    This seems to me to be at least an indirect denial of the existence of a Creator, who could have used evolution to create.
    Isn't random evolution against the Aristotelian-Thomistic principle of causation? I also believe that it contradicts purposefulness in nature.
    Is my reasoning correct? - I am a beginner in Thomistic philosophy.

    God bless,
    Paweł

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pawel,

      There are a couple of important things to keep in mind:

      1) Terms must be explicitly understood as they are presented. When the manual says "random", what kind of randomness is meant? (Depending on the academic field, 'random' has different meanings.) What kind of cause are you referring to?

      As it stands, I don't see that definition by itself as implicitly denying the existence of a Creator, since the mutations are occurring on preexistent matter. Without that matter, any sort of evolutionary process (and I say this without going in-depth on evolutionary theory, since it's a topic of much debate to this day as to its mechanisms, as well as to what degree it's compatible with dogma and sacred theology, if at all) would not be able to occur. As St. Thomas argues in ST I, q. 44, a. 1, all that exists owes that existence to God; regardless of the accidental means by which certain creatures have come to be at this point in time, those creatures would not exist at all without a Creator.

      2) I hesitate to say much more than the above, seeing as how the science of evolutionary processes is much different than it was in the days of Darwin, so arguments regarding one school of evolutionary theory may not apply to others. I would need to do more reading to provide a more certain argument.

      That being said, I would let Pope Pius XII's words be an anchor for your subsequent investigations and studies: "It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion takes these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty." - Pius XII, Humani Generis, Paragraphs 35-37

      https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12human.htm

      In other words, the degree of liberty with regards to scientific hypotheses extends only so far as to where they explicitly run afoul of dogma and doctrine. The degree to which the remaining hypotheses can then be made compatible with dogma and doctrine is where all the real legwork begins.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    2. Pawel,
      You are correct. Aquinas would stress that God created ex nihil (out of nothing) a universe teeming with ends or purposes that depend on laws and principles that cry out for an explanation.

      However, you must also understand that "random" in science does not mean exactly the same as it does in common parlance. "Scientism" which presupposes materialism as true, excludes God from reality of necessity. You can believe in "random" processes and still not deny God. Nevertheless, your basic contention is correct. I might write a post on this very subject to give it the full explanation it deserves.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. If St. Thomas Aquinas lived today, would he most likely accept the theory of evolution?

      Delete
    4. @anon9:42
      Not as expounded by the Neo-Darwinian materialists! I'll have more to say about it in a future post!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Introibo and ASM,
      thank you for your answer and help.

      God bless you,
      Paweł

      Delete
    6. Introibo and Pawel,

      Just to provide another example of "randomness" from another academic field, consider quantum mechanics. Namely (in rough layman's terms):

      - Prior to measurement with instruments, the amount of information you can gather about a particle of sufficiently small size are stated in terms of probabilities and not as pure equations. (Per Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, there is a hard limit to how much information you can predict about a particle's position and momentum based on its initial conditions. This is not to be confused with the observer effect, which is about the changes introduced into certain physical systems by the very act of measuring them.)

      - As a result of this, it would follow that there's no method of predicting what will happen with perfect accuracy. In *this* sense, one could say that quantum events are random.

      - However, looking at it from a different perspective, there's aspects of quantum indeterminacy that - roughly speaking - imply that the actions of two entangled particles aren't determined by their prior physical state. As such, to an outside observer, their behavior might seem random.

      In no such way do the above observations correspond to a denial of a Creator. (They do, however, appear to have rather uncomfortable implications for materialists who hold to a strictly deterministic view of the world.)

      Some interesting reading on the subject (if you don't mind some technical terminology) can be found at the following:

      https://mindmatters.ai/2018/12/quantum-randomness-gives-nature-free-will/
      https://mindmatters.ai/2018/10/does-information-theory-support-design-in-nature/

      It is a humbling fact to understand that the more I read and learn about the natural world, the more I realize I don't know about the natural world. (Which is why I find myself perplexed at those who claim with absolute certitude that every single organic lifeform on Earth descends from a common ancestor, given that it is nothing more than a prediction based on how they extrapolate various pieces of biological information, much of which loses its accuracy - and hence its value - the older it is due to decay and corruption, if nothing else.)

      Take great comfort in the fact that as far as theology goes, Christ has appointed a Church to serve as our infallible guide.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    7. Simple Man,
      Good points. Having been a NYC science teacher before going to law school, I realized early on that science is not about absolute certitude. For that, as you point out, we have the One True Church.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Is belief in alternate universes a rejection of Divine Providence?

      Delete
    9. That's also notwithstanding the simple reality that scientific research is fraught with error and bias that may not get caught or rectified until years later, as this archived 2010 article from the Atlantic shows: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    10. @anon6:46
      Not at all, if by "alternate universe" you mean the so called "multiverse." That is just conjecture, and it doesn't mean, even if true, there would be intelligent life. If you mean a universe in which there are "replicas of ourselves" that did things differently, it is theologically (and I would argue philosophically) untenable.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-father-michael-oswalt-with-car-repairs
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  14. Any good little book on spiritual communion online?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon@4:38 AM,

      A quick search turned up a work by Fr. Frederick William Faber, published in the nineteenth century, titled "The Blessed Sacrament: Preparation, Attendance, Giving Of Thanks, Spiritual Communion, Drawn From The Writings Of The Saints"
      https://archive.org/details/TheBlessedSacrament/page/n59/mode/2up

      The link should open up directly to the chapter on Spiritual Communion.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
  15. Introibo,
    Have you done an article on Santeria? I
    recently was talking with a young man and he inquired regarding the St. Benedict medal I was wearing. I told the man that I was a Traditional Catholic and the medal was a St. Benedict's medal and explained to him the origin of the medal and the history of St. Benedict. He was quite talkative and told me his best friend's wife was real religious and went to the Catholic Church. He said she always had religious candles burning, prayed to the Saints, said the Rosary, contacted the dead at sceances and foretold the future! I was shocked to say the least. I told him those practices were not Catholic and tried to explain that contacting the dead and fortune telling were of the Devil. He told me he was confused because the woman seemed very religious and devout and that her home had crucifixes and pictures of Jesus and Mary as well as statutes. I just kept reiterating to him that anyone who conducted sceances and foretold the future was not Christian no matter how much they went to Church or how much they said that they were Christian. He told me that she was real as her fortune telling was real as she told him things that came true. He kept telling me he was confused as she has all the external trappings of a Catholic Christian. This man is open, very talkative and inquisitive. I think the religion he was describing is Santeria, but I am not very knowledgeable regarding it. Do you think it is Santeria he is describing? If so, your thoughts on how to best reach him? If not Santeria, what religion do you think it could be?
    I see this young man frequently and since he is talkative and inquisitive, I can readily continue conversing Religion with him.
    Thanks!

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      It definitely sounds like Santeria. It will come up in this series!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. Introibo.Thank you so much for the info about the former CMRI sisters being into reiki and the new age.Dr Drolesky says he heard of this back in 2006.Why were they allowed to partake of these satanic practices.Bp Pivarunas must of known so why did he not take action straight away.

    Four of those sisters started a new "order based in Michigan called sisters of our Mother of divine grace that holds prayer services with non Catholics and working for unity.Can you believe such garbage.

    Is there anyone who reads this site who attends Mt St Michael could tell us more.I did hear that several of the sisters put Ratzingers picture up in the classroom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:03
      The article says the Sisters were into reiki and New Age "at least at one point in the past..." It does not appear that they were practicing while with the CMRI. Bishop Pivarunas might have been told by credible sources about the nuns past involvement at (or close to) the time he confirmed such information to Dr. Droleskey. Those who practice pagan/occult rituals sometimes never really are freed. They like the power or feeling it gives, and they can even pretend to be something else (Traditionalist nuns) to lure people away from the truth. Seems like, external appearances to the contrary, they remained in bondage to Satan.

      If anyone has more info from a credible source, please send it to me.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. To Anon@4:03 PM,

      "Bp Pivarunas must of known so why did he not take action straight away." Based on what reporting we do know, there was a great deal of covert behavior on the part of the sisters in question; rumor or suspicion by itself would not necessarily warrant corrective action if the sisters' deflected or deceived him. It is also possible that there was an attempt at fraternal correction behind the scenes that we were simply unaware of; given the nature of the Traditionalist movement in general, it would not be surprising if he initially believed that these accusations of reiki practice were false accusations, if taken in isolation.

      Furthermore, as Thomas Drolesky's cited letter makes clear, Bp. Pivarunas's administrative style is as follows: "During the last twelve years of my Superior Generalship, it has been well-known to all the members of our Congregation — CMRI priests, brothers, and sisters — that I have not micro-managed the activities or affairs of any religious. If anything be said, it is that my involvement was limited to those matters to which I was strictly obliged."

      Lacking direct knowledge of the events that occurred behind the scenes or behind closed doors, I cannot comment as to whether or not there were any attempts at correction or reconciliation by the Bishop in relation to the religious. If you also lack direct knowledge of such, it is uncharitable to implicitly besmirch Bp. Pivarunas's character, regardless of how well-intentioned your concern is.

      In the end, based on what we know: once the undisclosed contact by the sisters with the conciliar diocese in Washington became public knowledge, he was obliged as a matter of justice to issue an ultimatum to the sisters, which he did: 'if you do not correct your theological positions to reflect those of the Congregation, you must leave CMRI.' (By that point, I'm sure the accusations of reiki would have seemed a lot more credible.)

      Sometimes, evil practices take a while to come to the attention of a superior. That was the case before Vatican II with a much more extensive hierarchy, and it remains the case now amongst the scattered Traditionalists throughout the world.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
  17. Anon @4:03 & Introibo,

    I came across the following quote from John Lane regarding the issue of the Nuns practicing Reiki. Please find below the link the quote is cited from:

    "Finally, I don’t know about the Reiki allegations and I don’t want to know. If some of the nuns have been into such nonsense then no wonder their minds are unclear and their hearts divided. But that is between them and their Creator. We can only address public facts and we do so with all the energy we can in the direction of thinking well of others, particularly our fellow Catholics. In this case we hope that these poor misled ladies are perfectly sincere; we think they are in manifest, grave, danger; and we violently disagree with their refusal of St. Paul’s injunction to the Galatians (and therefore to all Christians), that “though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”

    http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=525&start=120

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      More great info! I agree with Mr. Daly's assessment.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,

      Please note that the above quote @7:04 is attributable to Mr. John Lane, not "Mr. Daly". Thanks.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      Sorry! John Daly is another erudite sedevacantist author (like John Lane)! When I type quickly, I sometimes mix up the names!

      Mea culpa,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. A Simple Man.Yes,agree with your comments.I am sure Bp Pivarunas and the other sisters have put this well behind and moved on.The CMRI is certally growing now and more women are joining both them and the CMD sisters based near Omaha,NE.

      Delete
  18. Introibo,
    Are there any Traditionalist Third Orders to join?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:48
      To the best of my knowledge and belief, there are no sedevacantist Third Orders. The R&R SSPX does have a Third Order:

      https://sspx.org/en/sspx-third-order-explanation

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. To anon@2:48 PM,

      I know that there exist confraternities and other lay associations, but I don't think there are any proper Third Orders as such (complete with their own vows), if only because the formation/regulation of an actual Third Order requires the approval of the Holy See, since religious orders - with few exemptions that must be proved - are canonically exempt from the jurisdiction of their local bishop. (Introibo, please advise if I'm incorrect on this matter.)

      As it stands (and as far as I'm aware), all extant Third Orders are associated with the conciliar religion of Vatican II.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    3. Simple Man,
      You are correct, however Congregations also need papal approval, and there is none to be had. Hence, the CMRI and CSSPV are really just societies that agree to emulate Congregations, in spite of protests by some to the contrary.

      The Third Order of the SSPX DOES claim to be an actual Third Order, replete with vows. It was "established" in 1980 by Archbishop Lefebvre, a bishop without Ordinary Jurisdiction, and without approval of Wojtyla--the man he recognized as "pope." Will Bergoglio recognize it? Perhaps. He did give SSPX "jurisdiction" for Penance and Matrimony; which means nothing since Bergoglio is not pope and cannot confer that which he does not possess himself.

      I should have stated in my comment above that I do NOT recommend the Third Order of the SSPX. Taking "vows" with them will mean having to imbibe their mistaken theology that Vatican II was legitimate and Bergoglio is pope. That can lead to a LOSS of the True Faith (if they would even CONSIDER a Sedevacantist for their "Third Order" in the first place!).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo,
      Nuns take vows. Therefore, how would Nun's vows be any different than vows for Third Orders? Thanks.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      Strictly speaking, there are no canonically established Congregations for women religious. There are only women who agree to be bound by vows and rules that were once sanctioned by the Church. Unless the nun is from pre-1964, there was no Church authority that could accept those vows. That does not mean those private vows are not binding before God, nor does it mean we should not treat them as nuns--only that they cannot be canonically recognized.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo, what is meant by
      "in spite of protests by some to the contrary"

      Are there some protesting that CMRI and CSPV are canonical congregations?

      Delete
    7. @anon5:17
      Yes. Some claim they are true Congregation by virtue of the principle of epikeia. This is a misapplication. Laws directed to the common good (that only the Holy See may approve Congregations and religious orders) and not necessary to the survival of the Church, cannot be "overcome" by invoking epikeia.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. I remembered I was the one who asked you a question about this back then, when I read in CSPV's website where they state that Canon Law basically states that every cleric must either belong to "some diocese" or a "religious institute".

      If by those you meant who protested, you were talking about my question back then, not about a sedevacantist you personally knew who does believe this, I apologize. I seemed to have misrepresented the CSPV's postition. I should not have said they were directly justifying the congregation's existence through epikeia. Rather, their point was, creating a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction cannot be done by invoking epikeia, so having a congregation, even if not canonical, was preferable to having independent priests. I don't know if the CSPV officially condemns independent priests because of that. Most likely not. That was probably another misunderstanding of mine. I also don't think they are claiming to be canonical.

      Delete
    9. @anon8:31
      My friend, there are some sedes I know who claim this ability to establish actual Congregations. They are mistaken. How you explained it in your comment is correct.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Introibo,
      I hope I am not belaboring my above questioning of Nuns vows. However,the vows of the Nuns are not the public (religious) vows of Nuns in the real church. The vows are, therefore, only private and would have to be judged by real Church authority. Aren't the vows then null and void as they lack jurdicial effect?

      JoAnn

      Delete
    11. Joann,
      Insofar as they are not public vows in the canonical sense, they do not have the status of religious vows. However, they are not null and void as ANY Catholic adult can voluntarily bind themselves by a solemn vow to do (or not do) something otherwise licit (e.g., you may acquire wealth, but vow not to do so for the sake of God).

      Such vows taken with full knowledge and consent are binding under pain of mortal sin.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    12. Introibo,

      "However, they are not null and void as ANY Catholic adult can voluntarily bind themselves by a solemn vow to do (or not do) something otherwise licit (e.g., you may acquire wealth, but vow not to do so for the sake of God)."

      I have always wanted to be a St. Benedict Oblate. Can I then apply your above statement regarding Nuns to myself and, therefore, become an Oblate of St. Benedict?

      I submit that the Nun's vows are null and void in the Canonical sense as they lack jurdicial effect. If private vows are not null and void why then have Canonical public vows to begin with?

      JoAnn

      Delete
    13. Joann,
      You cannot become a member of any religious order during this Great Apostasy without a pope for so long. Hence, the self-anointed "Benedictines" Fred and Bobby.

      The establishment of religious orders is protected by the Church's secondary infallibility. Their way of life is pleasing to God and their are specific canonical penalties that ensue for breaking such vows. Those vows are public declarations that one is in a true religious order.

      Now, they are done so that the work of religious may continue in a different form, yet looking as much as they can like before the Great Apostasy. In like manner, the Traditionalist Bishops consecrate and ordain without papal mandate for bishops and ordain priests without any diocese or order. This ensures the continuation of the hierarchy.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    14. Introibo,
      I truly do not understand the difference between the Dimond's being "self-annointed" (except for their Fenneyism, of course) and Nuns being self-annointed by taking private vows.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    15. Joann,
      The Dimonds pretend to be ACTUAL BENEDICTINES with canonical status. Being born in the 1970s this is impossible for them. The Traditionalist nuns make no such claims.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    16. Introibo,
      I didn't realize that the Dimond's are pretending to be actual Benedictines with canonical status. They have, therefore, perpetrated a fraud.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    17. JoAnn,

      There are at least a few individuals who have been so put off by the Dimonds that they ended up rejecting Catholicism altogether and joining the Eastern Orthodox or some other religion.

      Notwithstanding their demeanor, the plain facts of the matter are that - canonically speaking - it is impossible for Fred Dimond to be the superior of a Benedictine Monastery. As far as has been publically made known:

      Joseph Natale (the man who originally founded MHFM) was a layman (as he departed the Benedictine abbey he attended before ever taking his final vows, per the archivist at Saint Vincent Archabbey in Latrobe, PA, as cited by Michael W. Cuneo in his 1999 book "The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism"); never received canonical permission to establish his congregation; and was never ordained to the priesthood, thus lacking any claim to be a legitimate Benedictine Superior.

      The same applies to Fred Dimond.

      That the Dimonds continue to profess that they are truly monks of the Order of St. Benedict is an example of religious carpetbaggery.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    18. One question I have for the Dimonds is,why haven't they asked Bp.Neal Webster for 5 yrs seminary instruction + receive ordination to the Holy Priesthood?
      This is a genuine question,no sarcasm intended.
      God bless
      -Andrew

      Delete
  19. 475th anniversary of Trent is today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:32
      An important date--and a REAL ecumenical Council!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I was wondering, if a pope and two bishops gathered together, won't it count as a valid ecumenical council if they intended so?

      Delete
    3. @anon1:03
      The pope has a duty to CALL all bishops. If only two show, that counts as an ecumenical council.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  20. One last word from me about Lai Tzu -
    I never knew he was the founder of Taoism, but I tucked a saying attributed to him away in my memory:

    Watch your thoughts,
    Your thoughts become your words.
    Watch your words,
    They become your actions.
    Watch your actions,
    Your actions become your habits
    Watch your habits,
    They become your character
    and your character is your destiny.

    I think if Lao Tzu had been a sincere seeker of the One True God, he would have taken his own wise words and applied them to finding out that the truth about human destiny is eternal joy in God, Who is separate from us.
    Of course it's possible the attribution to him for this saying is wrong.

    Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "80% of all quotes found on the Internet are either made up or attributed to the wrong person." - Abraham Lincoln

      Facetiously,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    2. I believe Yogi Berra said that... ;)

      -Jannie

      Delete
    3. Jannie and Simple Man,
      LOL! Seriously though, if Lao Tzu made that aphorism attributed to him, he was the ultimate hypocrite.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Per Stefan Stenudd (a Swedish aikido instructor, an apparent Tao enthusiast, and the author of a book called "Fake Lao Tzu Quotes"), that quote is inaccurately attributed to Lao Tzu.

      The apparent history of this quote goes back no earlier than 1856 per the following: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/01/10/watch-your-thoughts/

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    5. I heard the one who said that, was Gandhi. Maybe it was Bob Marley, or JP2 to a bunch of conservatives.

      Delete
    6. Did you know Bob Marley converted to Ethiopian Eastern
      Orthodoxy on his deathbed?
      -Andrew

      Delete
  21. A Simple Man.I do enjoy reading your comments.You have a depth of knowledge of the True Faith.Do you have a large personal library,how many books?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Anon@8:01 PM,

      My personal library has grown by fits and starts over the years, with a number of Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry texts from my university days; various general interest books, historical books, and economic books; several works from my early Protestant days still survive (for reference if nothing else), a more extensive collection of Novus Ordo works, and a steadily growing collection of Catholic works since my transition from FSSP to Traditionalist in 2019.

      As it stands, my personal library is at least 250 books large, possibly over 300; as far as traditional Catholic books goes, I would say it's around 100 currently (not counting the 10+ from Cluny Media and Refuge of Sinners Publishing I just obtained for Christmas). However, I supplement a lot of my research with public domain works online.

      (My personal problem is that I tend to gain books faster than I can read them, alas.)

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete