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
Atheism
At first glance, someone might think, "How in the world is atheism a religion?" The so-called "Internet Atheists," who attack religion every chance they get, claim atheism is simply a "lack of belief in the supernatural." This is not accurate. The First Commandment does not read, "Thou shalt not be an atheist," but rather "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me." Humans are incurably God-centered. If someone does not have the True God at the center of his life, a false god will fill the void. I'm not speaking merely of the false gods of false sects such as "Allah" or the demon-gods of Hinduism. In the case of those without a formal religion, most will worship the Unholy Trinity of money, sex, and power. The rest must, in some way, worship themselves as the center of all things and become their own "god" to one degree or another.
A religion is usually defined by the "three Cs:" a creed (things to be believed), a code (things to be done, esp. as it entails morality), and a cult (the proper way to worship/have rituals, etc.). In this post, I will demonstrate that atheism does indeed fit this definition. I'm reminded of a debate that took place between a prominent atheist and Dr. John Lennox, the brilliant professor of mathematics at Oxford University and defender of the existence of God (how I wish he was--or becomes--a Traditionalist). The atheist castigated Dr. Lennox's assertion that atheism was a religion. Lennox countered, "But you believe it is true don't you?"
The specific "types" of belief called atheism will be explored, and it is more important today than ever before to know how to defend against it. You are much more likely to meet an atheist online (or in person) than most followers of the other sects I've covered in this series thus far. For example, I've never personally crossed swords with a UFO sect member, but I've had exchanges with more than one atheist. Hopefully, this post will give you a clear understanding of atheism, and some good beginning ammunition against it. Further study on your own is highly advisable as most atheists come very well prepared to try and get people--especially Christians---to lose their faith in God.
Types of Atheism
[I have attempted to place the different beliefs that have been called "atheism" into categories. This will make clear what it is we are (and are not) investigating. I have used several sources, most especially Theism and Atheism: Opposing Arguments In Philosophy ed. by Macmillan Reference USA (2019)---Introibo]
Atheism: The system of thought that denies the supernatural and the existence of any "higher power."
Anti-theism: A subdivision of atheists. These are atheists who do not merely hold to the tenets of atheism, but they believe that all forms of religion are harmful and should not exist. They mock and actively seek to destroy belief in God and the supernatural to the best of their ability. Anti-theism is exemplified by the so-called "New Atheists"--who are new insofar as they try to proselytize for atheism--such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. To them, theism must be countered and eradicated from society as "dangerous superstition."
Agnosticism: Those who deny the ability to know if God exists. Agnosticism may be subdivided into "soft" agnosticism, whereby the person claims he personally is not convinced of the existence of God, and "hard" agnosticism, which declares that it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not God exists.
Apatheism (aka "practical atheism"): Refers to those who are apathetic towards God and say they don't know or care if He exists or not. It also refers to those who pay God lip service by claiming belief when socially convenient to do so, but they live as if God didn't exist, and He occupies no real place in their lives.
Secularism: The position of those who want all religion removed from the public domain. There must be separation of Church and State, and belief in anything religious must be confined to the private lives of people. Not all secularists are atheists, but the overwhelming majority are devoid of belief in God. Those who claim belief in God, assert that only by a complete separation of religion in public life can there be less strife among (and persecution of) religious people.
Skepticism: The belief that every claim must be called into question (except the belief in one's own existence and immediate sense perceptions) and scientific claims almost exclusively are worthy of intellectual assent. Almost all skeptics are atheists.
This post will concern itself principally with atheists, properly so-called, and the militant version of atheism; anti-theism.
The Atheist's Creed
On Nature: Materialism
(a) Physicalism: The only substance that exists is matter (God, angels, and souls do not exist)
(b) Determinism: Every event has a natural cause (miracles cannot happen)
(c) Mechanism: Humanity, including life and mind, is like a machine (people are not immortal or special in any way. Life is here by pure chance)
The Atheist's Code
On Values: Conventionalism
(a) Subjectivism: Ethics and values are subjective human standards (there are no objectively true morals; there is nothing eternal and external to the subjective human experience in which morality can be grounded)
(b) Hedonism: The only ethical standards are pleasure (good) and pain (evil), relative to the individual
(c) Relativism: Standards of morality vary according to person, place, time, and culture
The Atheist's Cult
(N.B. Atheist's have no set rituals of worship. They worship themselves as the pinnacle of existence, and have awe and reverence for the governments they form.---Introibo).
On Society: Contractualism
(a) Individualism: The atomic individual is the basic political unit
(b) Social Contract: Governments are based upon artificial contracts people enter into out of fear and basic mistrust of other people
(c) Positive Law: All "rights" and "laws" are man-made rules that are always subject to change, abolishment, or embellishment
On Cosmology and Meaning: Absurdity
(a) Contingency: All events are chance (there are no ultimate explanations)
(b) Pessimism: The universe is doomed to extinction by entropy
(c) Humanism: Human beings are the center of all things. They can face the universe heroically and responsibly with dignity and idealism
Some Quick Facts On Atheism
- Atheism has been around since at least circa 300 B.C.
- 4% of American adults say they are atheists when asked about their religious identity, up from 2% in 2009. An additional 5% of Americans call themselves agnostics, up from 3% a decade ago
- Roughly one-in-five self-described atheists (18%) say they do believe in some kind of higher power. However, they reject belief in “God as described in the Bible"--which apparently is what makes them "atheists" by their way of thinking
- Atheists make up a larger share of the population in many European countries than they do in the U.S. Roughly 25% of adults in the Czech Republic identify as atheists
- About seven-in-ten U.S. atheists are men (68%). The median age for atheists is 34, compared with 46 for all U.S. adults. Atheists also are more likely to be white (78% vs. 66% of the general public) and highly educated: About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 27% of the general public. Self-identified atheists also tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party and with political liberalism
- Most Americans (56%) say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral, while 42% say belief in God is necessary to have good values
(See pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/).
Proselytizing Atheists and Anti-theists
I strongly caution against engaging atheists (esp. anti-theists) unless you have done a large amount of preparation. Anti-theists in particular will spend many hours studying ways to attempt refutations of theistic arguments (Christianity in particular). What I will offer here are some guiding tips and their application to a main atheistic attack on belief.
Four Preliminary Considerations:
1. Pray and study. Know your faith extremely well.
2. If the atheist does not appear to be open, but just wants to harass you, tell him you will not listen to people who are rude, and get away from him.
3. Do not let vague attacks against the Faith go unexposed. For example, "Faith is for idiots and children." Respond, "Why do you say that?" Wait for the response. Ask, "Are you claiming that some of the most brilliant people in history, like St. Thomas Aquinas, and Fr. Georges Lemaitre (who came up with the Big Bang Theory) were idiots?" Another example, "Religious leaders are hypocrites." Respond, "What do you mean by that?" Wait for the response. Ask, "If Stalin said 'Murder is wrong' he would be a hypocrite, but that doesn't make his contention WRONG does it?"
4. Learn some classic proofs of God's existence, such as the Teleological Argument.
Dealing with the most common objection: "There is no proof of God."
If you ask the atheist why he disbelieves in God, the objection you will hear most frequently is that "there is no evidence for God," and that He is "like Santa Claus" in which only children believe.
You should respond by saying, "What evidence for God have you ever heard?" The atheist has only one of three possible answers to your query.
(A) Possible Response #1: "I've never heard any evidence for God because there isn't any."
If this is the answer, tell them, "Really? You've never heard of the teleological argument? Let me tell you about it!" Very few atheists giving this response have never really investigated the issue and therefore "found no evidence." They either are arrogant and think you don't know any evidence, or they believe all evidence "amounts to nothing" so it counts as "no evidence." The latter will be examined in the next possible response.
(B) Possible Response #2: "The only 'evidence' I ever heard is very flimsy and counts for nothing, or it is not stronger than the case for atheism."
In many cases this may be true. Those who don't know their faith well offer subjective experiences or unjustified premises. Examples include:
- I prayed for something special and I received it.
- Nature is pretty and seems designed, so God must have made it that way.
- I know God exists because He revealed Himself in my heart
Such evidence is weak (at best) and you should agree with the atheist on that point. "That is weak evidence. However, have you ever heard of the Teleological (Cosmological, etc.) Argument? That's much stronger evidence. Do you want me to tell you about it?"
(C) Possible Response #3: "I've heard the evidence and there's problems with it."
Here, the atheist admits of evidence, but finds fault with it. For example, "I've heard of the Teleological Argument, but I think the multiverse explanation is more plausible." This is where real debate ensues and why you must do your research and know your faith. You have to show why the atheist's objection is not a defeater for the Teleological Argument.
Points to Remember:
- Claiming there is no evidence is not the same as showing there is no evidence. The atheist is a liar who claims there's no evidence for God. He must say the evidence is weak or flawed; and you must show his objections don't stand up to scrutiny
- Scientific Evidence is not the only evidence. Many atheists want empirical evidence that God exists. A couple of things need to be said to address this alleged problem. Empirical evidence is needed when you would expect such. Example: If I were to say "There was an elephant in the back of my house," one would expect calls to the police, screams from neighbors, damage to the concrete, coverage on the news, etc. If there is none of this, you have reason not to believe me. If I said, "There was a flea in the back of my house," what kind of evidence would you require? Certainly not the same as the elephant. Second, science investigates the natural not the supernatural. There are other lines of evidence such as historical, philosophical, and moral evidence--as well as conclusions from scientific facts. You are no more justified in claiming God doesn't exist because He is not empirically verified, than you are in claiming love doesn't exist because "you can't see it empirically."
- The strength of evidence is not dependent on the numbers who believe. "If there is proof of God, why doesn't everyone believe?" Because God is not immediately present to our senses. This is necessary to have a world of free creatures who can accept God or reject Him and His moral Code. No one would reject God or behave badly if He were immediately evident. Some choose not to believe because they don't want to live morally. God is as apparent as necessary. In St. Luke 16:31 we read, "He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Emphasis mine.
- Let us also remember that it was infallibly taught at the Vatican Council of 1870 that God can be known with certainty by human reason. No one can remain a convinced atheist their whole adult life in good faith. That makes most of them closed to what you say. Having prayers and Masses for the conversion of atheists you know is a must. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed: If anyone saith that the one, true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
Conclusion
Atheism is the "religion in vogue" of our decadent times. It has a creed, a code, and a cult. Despite cries to the contrary, it is a worldview that of its very nature, demands assent to certain beliefs--dogmas, if you will. There are people who hate God so much, they even try to kill Him. Think of King Herod and the Holy Innocents. Modern day atheists are out to kill and destroy the very idea of God and eliminate all references to Him. They want Him out of the public, as well as the mind, heart, and soul of humanity. They want you to join them, and you must be very prepared.
Let us become the greatest witnesses against atheism and for the Church by doing as St. Augustine said, "A Christian is: a mind through which Christ thinks, a heart through which Christ loves, a voice through which Christ speaks, and a hand through which Christ helps."
I had a period of faith in my youth, then I went through a period of atheism until I returned to faith when "saint" JP2 died. I did not become a Sedevacantist at that time but progressed in the V2 sect, which I believed to be the Catholic Church. The same V2 sect that excuses atheists when the Bible says they have no excuses for their unbelief. And we know that Bergoglio does not want to convert atheists and that he claims that "good atheists" go to Heaven ...
ReplyDeleteSaint Paul tells us that before the coming of Christ there must be a period of apostasy. We can say that we are there now when we see the decline of faith and the exaltation of reason and science (although many great scientists believed in God). Today, when someone speaks publicly about their faith, it provokes laughter as a sodomite who "comes out" is hailed as a hero. Atheists claim that religion is responsible for wars and massacres in history. Yet Hitler did not act in the name of religion, nor did Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.
Simon,
DeleteI'm glad God brought you into His One True Church! It is sad that religion is mocked while perversion is applauded.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Scientists are the gods of the atheists and the scientists worship their own intellect. Drowned in pride, they presume even to attempt to uncover answers to ultimate questions that go well beyond empirical limitations, holding themselves as the ultimate standard of truth. As Pope Leo XIII rightly said in Etsi Nos:
ReplyDelete“8) These great advantages (of an influential Church in society) are being lost, and are being followed by grave evils; for the enemies of Christian wisdom, be their rival pretensions what they may, are leading society to its ruin.
Nothing can be more efficacious than their doctrines in the way of kindling in men's minds the flames of violence and of stirring up the most pernicious passions. *In the sphere of science they are repudiating the heavenly lights of faith; and when once this torch is put out, the mind of men is usually carried away by errors*, no longer sees the truth, and begins quietly to sink into the lowest depths of a base and shameful materialism.”
Dapouf
Dapouf,
DeleteThere's no arguing with Pope Leo XIII. Much wisdom in what he wrote.
God Bless,
---Introibo
What's an Imprimatur, and what's a Nihil Obstat?
ReplyDeleteAnon@10:52 AM,
DeleteNihil obstat = Latin for "nothing stands in the way." It is placed by a qualified theologian or cleric known as a "censor" who examines the text to determine if there is anything contrary with regards to doctrine, faith or morals.
Imprimatur = Latin for "let it be printed." It is usually given by the diocesan bishop local to either the author's hometown or the city where the publisher belongs to, and essentially authorizes the text for printing.
The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. However, it does not necessarily imply that those who have granted the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed within the particular text.
Essentially, they're a method of quality control implemented by the Catholic Church since the advent of the printing press to let readers know they are 'officially approved.' However, after Vatican II, standards on the use of these terms declined precipitously, and now numerous titles are printed with the nihil obstat and imprimatur which would have been deemed as heretical or proximate to error in a saner age.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
This was a great post. Thank you, Intro.
ReplyDeleteI learned a lot from it!
I feel that most people who say they don't believe in God fall into the camp you described as "Apatheism".
Most of the people I know, or have met who call themselves Atheist, seem to be the Apatheistic type. When discussing the existence of God, they're not outright hostile to the subject - it's just a general laziness about the importance of finding out more about God and our human obligation to Him.
I think Apatheism is possibly the worst of all the types of Atheism, because those who take that attitude seem to fit the description of the lukewarm that Our Lord said He will vomit out of His mouth. Indifference is a faith-killer.
I would love one day to help an Atheist who is open to discussion, and asks me why I believe as I do, to convert, using some of your talking points.
Pax!
Jannie
Jannie,
DeleteThank you for the kind words! Apatheism is the hardest to defeat, as you pointed out. There is no way you can "make someone care." What a terrible indictment of our society when people are more interested in their jobs, hobbies, sports, etc. than God and what their purpose is in life.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteGreat and much needed article for today's times.
I have a question for you, what version of the argument for the existence of God do you most often submit to the atheist you speak to? Do you tend to use cosmological or teleological arguments?
In my personal experience from conversations with friends at school, I find the teleological argument rather easier to understand than, say, the argument from contingency (perfectly presented by Fr. Frederick Copleston in his debate with Russell). Understanding the argument from contingency requires, in my opinion, some basic knowledge of Thomistic philosophy.
I have questions about the teleological argument, how would you respond to such a statement?
1. Who designed the Designer (God)? God is obviously a necessary, self-existent being, so that he has no cause for his existence apart from himself. However, it seems to me that this cannot be learned from teleological proof.
2. "Evolution through natural selection has "designed" the order of the world, which appear to have been designed by some Designer."
Thank you very much for your help and reply.
God Bless,
Paweł
Pawel,
DeleteThe argument that has the strongest appeal (in my personal experience) with atheists and agnostics is the Moral Argument. If objective morals exist, then God exists. Objective morals do exist, therefore God exists.
To have an "objective moral value" means that even if Hitler won WWII and convinced every person on Earth that murdering "undesirables" was something good--IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG. Ask the atheist if he thinks torturing a newborn baby to death for fun is moral. He admits it is wrong, but on what basis? On the atheistic worldview, it's just his opinion and not based on an EXTERNAL AND ETERNAL STANDARD by which things can be judged. That can only be true if there is GOD. He could reply that there are Platonic Forms, but now he's admitting something besides materialism.
As to your queries:
1. "Who designed God?" is irrelevant insofar as if you can prove via the Cosmological Argument, etc that God created the Universe it does not cease to be true because you can't explain where God came from (if He had a beginning). If a doctor tells you the source of your stomach pain is a certain bacteria you ingested, the fact that he doesn't know how the bacterium was caused doesn't mean that the bacterium was not the cause of the stomach pain.
Second, the very question, "Who designed the Designer (God)?" commits a fallacy when the question is properly phrased, "Who caused the Self-existent, Uncaused Cause, Who is by definition unmade, to exist"? The answer is obvious!
2. Darwinian evolution can't get off the ground because it cannot explain the fine-tuned INITIAL SET OF CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF THE BIG BANG. Even for Darwinian evolution to begin to take place, the fine tuning of those initial conditions must be explained thereby rendering Darwinian evolution irrelevant.
God Bless,
---Introibo
What's the non-Darwinian theory of evolution?
Delete@anon5:18
DeleteTheistic evolution.
---Introibo
Question, how widely accepted was Theistic evolution (allowed in Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis) by Catholic theologians?
Delete@anon9:24
DeleteI honestly don't know if it was a majority or minority view as of the late 1950s. For Pope Pius XII to specifically allow it to be taught, means there must have been, at the very least, a SIGNIFICANT minority of especially revered theologians.
---Introibo
I don't think I agree that "Nature is pretty and seems designed, so God must have made it that way." is a weak argument. The wondrous design of the universe is the most visible and self-evident proof that God exists, one that everyone can see from natural reason. That's what was taught by St. Thomas and the Fathers of the Church.
ReplyDelete@anon4:39
DeletePlease don't misunderstand me; the Design from Fine-Tuning of the Universe is a powerful argument for God!! However, if all you have is "Nature is pretty and seems designed, so God must have made it that way"--it is weakly presented and begs the question by assuming God's existence from the outset!
God Bless,
---Introibo
What do you think of scientists teaching about parallel universes?
ReplyDelete@anon7:34
DeleteThey are mere good sounding speculations from atheists. When you read the articles they turn out to be about conjectural speculative hypotheses for which there's no empirical evidence whatsoever, yet they make them sound "scientific."
God Bless,
---Introibo
The vast number of Atheists I've met are usually highly educated and overtly sexually immoral.
ReplyDeleteConversations will consist of them trying to argue over religion even though I don't talk about religion.
Noe that I've learned a lot about Catholicism and our Israelite forebearers,they act cold hateful and bring up things from 20 yrs ago to embarrass me or others around them.
I don't understand what makes them do this as life is rough enough?
Good article & God bless,
-Andrew
Andrew,
DeleteIn my experience as well, most atheists are well-educated and sexually immoral. In my opinion, to allow themselves to live as they want, they need to quiet their consciences with sophisticated arguments against God. As the Psalmist says, "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God, They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one."
Atheists are a cowardly lot, in my experience. The detestable Bill Maher will insult religion constantly. When Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro came on his show, Maher was downright meek and mild, because he knew Shapiro would hand him his pseudo-educated head on a platter!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Can anyone offer advice on how to find your vocation?
ReplyDelete@anon4:42
DeleteI don't know if you're a young man or young lady. In either case you must pray to God for guidance. If a young man, seek the counsel of a Traditionalist priest, about the priesthood, the religious life (monk or brother), marriage, and the single vocation. If a young lady, seek the advise of a Traditionalist nun (older) about being a nun, getting married, or the single vocation.
I'll be praying for you that God will guide you and you follow Him to where He wants you to be.
God Bless,
---Introibo
From the 1910 Raccolta:
DeletePrayer in Choosing a State of Life. (Indulgence 300 Days, once a day - St. Pius X, May 6, 1905.)
O My GOD, Thou who art the GOD of wisdom and of counsel, Thou who readest in my heart the sincere will to please Thee alone, and to govern myself with regard to my choice of a state of life, entirely in conformity with thy most holy desire; grant me, by the intercession of the most blessed Virgin, my Mother, and of my holy patrons, specially of St Joseph and St Aloysius, the grace to know what state I ought to choose, and when known to embrace it, so that in it I may be able to pursue and increase thy glory, work out my salvation, and merit that heavenly reward which Thou hast promised to those who do thy holy will. Amen.
This may be slightly off topic, so please forgive me. Is there a difference between sedevacantism and sedeprivation?, And if so, could you clarify what that difference might be?
ReplyDeleteThank you.
@anon11:37
DeletePlease see my post on that very topic:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2014/11/sedeprivationism.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Some think sedeprivationists are not sedevacantists. If that's true, why does Bp. Sanborn call himself a sedevacantist? I think sedeprivationism is a subset of sedevacantism.
Delete@anon7:48
DeleteYou are correct; sedeprivationism is a variation of sedevacantism.
---Introibo
We all know there is no Pope nor have had a Pope within our lifetime.
DeleteCan't we all just get along,sincerely?
-Andrew
We orthopapists disagree (I'm a former Palmarian and a present "Bawdenite").
Delete"within our lifetime."
There were theologians at Vatican Council saying they wouldn't prescribe even 40 years as a limit, but a lifetime would be a worse "dent into" "perpetuos successores" than 40 years sedevacancy.
This is also of the topic but in reply to your answer last week to a question about the high rate of divorce(38% of members of the Vatican Two Sect)could you write in the future a more indepth study of these reasons.
ReplyDeleteI remember several years ago in the staffoom at work,a young woman telling a group of women that she was going home to the Philippines to marry her boyfriend(Greek Orthodox)in the local Vatican Two Sect.They asked her how long had she known him.Her reply was they have been living together for seven years.She was losing weight to look good in her white wedding dress.What a complete joke.
@anon2:44
DeleteA post on rising divorce rates is one I will definitely consider. As to that young woman, her joke of a wedding is approved by the Vatican II sect! In most of their dioceses they have "Pre-Cana for Cohabitating Couples" (i.e., shacking up). They will not be made to separate bed and board and confess. They will not need to amend their lives prior to the wedding so they enter the married life in a state of mortal sin. When you consider how the Vatican II sect clergy behaves in regards to children, it alomost seems downright moral by comparison. Sick.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I am a sedevacantist and have made a study of sedeprivationism.I believe it is wrong and makes a joke of the office of the Papacy.How one is not the Pope and then over night becomes Pope after destroying the Faith is beyond me.I did get told once by a Traditional priest that Bishop Sanborn only started to hold this view in order to become a Bishop by Bishop Robert McKenna.Other readers views please.God bless
ReplyDelete@anon2:50
DeleteI'll weigh in and my other readers may do so as well. I believe it may be a possibility. Albino Luciani (JPI) contacted Fr. DePauw and summoned him to the Vatican. He wanted to put Fr. in a position to "bring the Church back on course." He was so appalled by the Masonic P2 Lodge, he was rethinking his Modernism. He was murdered before Father was to arrive in Rome. Luciani *MAY* have died a true pope.
In response to your assertion "How one is not the Pope and then over night becomes Pope after destroying the Faith is beyond me." I would point out that Saul tried to destroy the Church, and God transformed him into St. Paul!
God Bless,
---Introibo
??? Bp. McKenna consecrated other non-sedeprivationist bishops.
DeleteWho among those bishops consecrated by Bp. McKenna other than Bp. Sanborn and Bp. Stuyver are sedeprivationists? Is Bp. Neville a sedeprivationist?
Bp.McKenna consecrated Roman Catholic Bishop Francis Slupski in 1999.
DeleteBp.Slupski was Ord 1961 Poland and held the Sede opinion since late 1970's.
He would seemingly want to fist fight if referred to as a "sedevacantist."
"I'M ROMAN CATHOLIC!"
LOL He was from a different era and meant well.
God bless -Andrew
I know this is late, but I learned that Bp. Neville is also a sedeprivationist.
Delete-anon@7:54
Hello Introibo.What a GREAT website.Just found it this nite.Keep up the good work and prayers for you.God bless.In JMJ
ReplyDelete@anon3:36
DeleteThank you my friend! I'm glad you found your way here and continue to come back and read more! There's a new post every Monday.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I know this is a little off topic, but Introibo how are you holding up with the vaccine forcing atheist Bill de Blasio and euthanizing so called savior Andrew Cuomo? Can you use religious exemption to avoid the jab? Sounds like New York and California are not the places anybody wants to be. Anyways, will be praying for your deliverance from evil.
ReplyDeleteLee
Lee,
DeleteThe Chief Communist of NYC has turned the Big Apple rotten to the core. It is now the worst place to live...ANYWHERE. My city property tax more than doubled in eight years and my city income tax is over 7% of my gross income. Why? So I can have less police, more crime and less services. Why? So he could give ILLEGAL immigrants full medical care at my expense. January 1st, when that modern day Castro leaves, can't come soon enough. (Had to get that off my chest).
Yes, religious exemption can (and will) be used to avoid it. Given the structure of the current US Supreme Court and the reading of the applicable statutes, the exemption will probably be upheld. I will eat out or cook with my wife at home rather than take the shot to eat at a restaurant.
DeBlasio's heir apparent, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, gives me little reason to believe anything will get better. If he wins as expected over Curtis Sliwa, Adams will be only the second African-American Mayor of NYC--the first, David Dinkins (1990-1994) was a one term horror show. I have a friend who retired from the NYPD as a detective. He served directly under Adams when he joined the police force. According to him, he favored the black and Latino cops and punished the white cops for the slightest reason. Unfortunately, racism seems to be a one way street only Caucasians can go down.
Cuomo belongs in prison, and will hopefully be out soon. I find it par for the course that this "good Catholic (sic)" who gets the V2 "communion" cracker from the establishment's clergy, despite his forcing sodomite "marriage" on this State four years before the Supreme Court legalized it, supporting abortion on demand, and shacking up without even bothering to apply for an "annulment." Now we can add killing the elderly to his long list of misdeeds. Nevertheless, what makes him worthy of impeachment? Sexual harassment. Of course, that is horrible, but not nearly as bad as murdering the unborn, the elderly, and empowering sexual perverts.
I find it ironic that he is proud of his "queer" daughter and promoting sodomites. I saw Andy himself in 1977 when I was 12 and he was about 21. His father was Lieutenant Governor of NY and running in the Democatic primary to become Mayor of NYC against Congressman Ed Koch. Koch would go on to win the primary and serve three terms as Mayor. Mario was elected Governor by the slimmest of margins in 1982. What was Andy up to when I saw him? Koch had moved ahead in the polls. He was eccentric and had a high-pitched voice along with effeminate mannerisms. He was never seen with a woman, which led many to believe he was a sodomite. Koch never confirmed or denied being homosexual, only saying that he kept his private life, well--private! If he was a sodomite, it was a well-kept secret. He was never seen with a man and never was involved in any sex scandals.
Cuomo the elder, had his son Andy putting up campaign signs for his old man. What did they say IN BIG BOLD LETTERS? "VOTE FOR CUOMO NOT THE HOMO!" I have NEVER seen this mentioned in any media!!
God Bless,
---Introibo
To those who know, what Catechism of St. Pius X is this?: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
ReplyDeleteIn my understing, St. Pius X prescribed three catechisms. Is this the "Short Catechism"?
According to the foreword, it is all three of them.
DeleteSecond thoughts - I think it is the Great or Long one.
DeleteHans, no, it's not the larger catechism. I seems to be the short catechism.
DeleteWhat makes you think that?
DeleteI recognise words from the longer one.
Here's content from the longer one that is not in it:
Deletehttps://www.sodalitium.biz/catechismo-maggiore-di-san-pio-x-dellepifania/
https://www.sodalitium.biz/catechismo-maggiore-di-san-pio-x-della-circoncisione-del-signore/
Anyway, I think it's weird that you reply to months-old comments. I was just roaming around here and I found you reply to my question 5 months ago.
Weird or not, I came across it recently.
DeleteNow, there is a little misunderstanding here.
"Larger Catechism" can refer to two things: to the Larger Catechism itself and to two other works given in the same volume, these being "Short version of the History of the Sacred Religion" and "Instruction on the Feasts" - your links are from the latter.
The overall catechism has five parts, usually given in two volumes:
"Smaller Catechism"
= two works
First Notions
Smaller Catechism
"Greater Catechism"
= three works
Greater Catechism
Instruction
History
Well, I've spent the last couple of days in a bit of Twitter tussle with a left-wing Novus Ordoite (who, based on his own timeline, has no love for Traditionalists, whether they be conservatives, SSPXers, or sedes). Here's some excerpts at the state of the arguments, based purely on quoting them (notwithstanding their occasional foul language):
ReplyDelete- "And yes, Church teaching changes. It changed at Vatican II, Vatican I, Trent, Lateran IV…Ephesus, Constantinople, Nicaea and Jerusalem. That’s why we believe Christ sent the Holy Spirit to direct the Church."
- "Trent actually vindicated much of Luther’s original 95 Theses since it banned the selling of plenary indulgences."
- "Like Luther, y’all claim to have the authentic teaching against the church, against the councils, against the Pope. And what’s your basis? Previous teaching. Luther denied scholasticism. Y’all deny Vatican II."
- "So you guys separate yourselves from the Roman Catholic Church, which you believe is self-damnation, all because the Church dropped the “Protestants are evil” thing? You become Protestants because you think the Church should everywhere oppose Protestants?"
- "You mean the centuries between 1500 and 1900, when the Church was too busy killing Protestants to actually preach the Gospel? That’s your sticking point? We’ve gone back to preaching the Good News?"
- "The funniest part of this is, despite your *protestations,* you agree with what fundamentally makes Protestants who they are: the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Pope."
- "You guys are so anti-Protestant you instinctively think being called a Protestant is a pejorative. I’m just saying, why not be honest about it and stop calling yourselves Catholic since you eschew communion with Rome?"
- "So y’all are like, “No salvation outside the church, defined as the bishops in communion with Rome,” and then when Rome says, “Maybe we jumped the gun there,” you all said, “Fine, we’ll go outside of the church, as defined by the bishops in communion with Rome.”"
- "Vatican I itself contradicted centuries of teaching by negating the importance of the Holy Spirit working through the BISHOPS in communion with Rome to just the Bishop of Rome. Many contemporaries saw it as antithetical to the tradition."
- "Protestants all assume the Bishop of Rome went wrong. That’s literally what makes them Protestants. You’re just cosplaying as Catholics in a way less honest than Anglicanism."
Naturally, since the subject was on my rejection of Vatican II as a true Council, he never did provide a satisfactory answer as to why communion with the Bishop of Rome is a necessity in the Conciliar Church (and I brought this up multiple times): "And why do you care? I repeat: the teaching of V2 allows for Protestant sects to be means of salvation; in principle, your church allows for those *who reject the Bishop of Rome in principle* to nonetheless be means of reaching Heaven. Your criticism on this matter is toothless."
No response came after this, as of this comment. But it shows the state of things: to paraphrase their position, 'you reject communion with the universal Church if you refuse Vatican 2, because that means you're a Protestant who rejects submission to the Bishop of Rome (even though Vatican 2 teaches that Protestants can be means of salvation, but we'll ignore that)!'
Though, given that his Twitter handle is 'Romanes Eunt Domus' (i.e. a reference to Monty Python's LIFE OF BRIAN, of all things), I shouldn't be surprised.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
He said that?
Delete"Trent actually vindicated much of Luther’s original 95 Theses since it banned the selling of plenary indulgences."
How many of those 95 theses were directly concerned with that?
I think there were exactly 41 or 42 theses, partly from the 95, partly from another collection that Pope Leo X condemned.
"Luther denied scholasticism. Y’all deny Vatican II."
DeleteLuther denying scholasticism is moot, partially true, but very largely beside the point.
Melanchthon and a few others after him were as scholastic as Suarez, if not for the right orthodoxy.
But I don't think Luther was anywhere as good at pre-scholastic patristics as trads, sedes, orthopapists are at Denzinger.
"You mean the centuries between 1500 and 1900, when the Church was too busy killing Protestants to actually preach the Gospel? ..."
DeleteIs he a med doctor or in hotel business? He sounds totally out of his depth at history!
A Simple Man,
ReplyDeleteIn the words of another Monty Python skit "Brave Sir Robin"--he couldn't reply so he chose to "bravely run away."
---Introibo
Hey Introbio,
ReplyDeletehow do you tell if someone is an Anti-Theist?
Don’t worry they’ll tell you!
Ryan,
DeleteWhat you said is funny—but the truth! Their hatred of God comes through.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Where is the like button?
DeleteYou have forgotten that Abiogenesis and Evolution, Heliocentrism or Acentrism and Big Bang, Gradual Humanisation of Hominids, Gradual emergence of Human Language (not to be confused with gradual change in languages already existing), are all parts of the Creed of Western Atheism (btw, you forgot that "atheism is a religion like bald a hair colour" would only apply to the group taking in Theravada Buddhism and Epicuraean Ancient Atheism as types along with "Western Atheism").
ReplyDeleteTo mock believers, and no doubt also to make them look like people with mental problems, atheists say we have an "imaginary friend", who would be God. They like to pit reason against religion, as if the two were in opposition. If they made good use of their reason, they could discover the existence of God since the Bible and the Vatican Council affirm that God's existence can be known by reason alone from created things, as you say. It's possible to do it, you just need the will to do it. As the Bible says: "And when thou shalt seek there the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him: yet so, if thou seek him with all thy heart, and all the affliction of thy soul." (Deut 4:29)
ReplyDelete