- The Magisterium and the Role of Approved Theologians
- Papal Authority
- The many popes who taught material from the works of the theologians
- The founding, directing, and supervision of the various theological schools by the Magisterium
- Since the Council of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes
- Popes have used theologians as consultants and commissioned them to draw up Magisterial documents. Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange drafted the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) condemning modern errors, and theologian Guerard des Lauriers drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declaring the dogma of the Assumption; he later became a sedevacantist bishop consecrated by Abp. Thuc
- The writings of various theological schools have been praised and recommended by popes. Likewise, the popes and Roman Congregations have been diligent in censoring theologians who go astray. Consider that Frs. John Courtney Murray, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and Josef Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were all censured in their writings and/or suspected of Modernism. These were the theologians who "hijacked" Vatican II once a false pope (John XXIII) rehabilitated them and gave them prominent roles at Vatican II. They were able to create the man-made Vatican II sect, posing as "Catholicism."
5. "The Consent of the Theologians Must be Universal and Constant"
Many falsely claim that "universal and constant" means every single Father, Doctor and theologian from the beginning of the Church must have taught a doctrine and if even one dissents or just omits to mention it, then it is not "universal and constant." They frequently cite the rule of St. Vincent Lerins to believe what was taught "everywhere, always, by all." This has been abused by the R&R especially to mean something other than what St. Vincent actually taught. It is wrongly defined as meaning something must be taught everywhere throughout the Catholic world and in time.
The great Cardinal Franzelin, a contemporary of the Vatican Council of 1870, gives the explanation that universality simply means the consent of the Church at this present time. Only when the present universality of a doctrine cannot be confirmed is it ever necessary to appeal to antiquity. Moreover, the appeal to antiquity is not an attempt to measure whether a particular belief was held always, but rather if it was ever held universally at any point. Either universality or antiquity by itself suffices. (See On Divine Tradition by Franzelin).
6. "Four Church doctors, St. Bernard, St. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas and others denied The Immaculate Conception. How could this be? They were theological giants. The teaching was biblical and already true. If they are the Magisterium as you claim, how could they be wrong?"
If this person thinks that Catholics in the second century were celebrating the Immaculate Conception as they do today, he is sorely mistaken. Pope Pius IX didn't just wake up on the morning of December 8, 1854 and decide to declare the Immaculate Conception a dogma.
As theologian Scheeben explains, expounding on St. Augustine, a dogma may pass through three stages, (1) implicit belief; (2) controversy; (3) explicit definition.
Thus in the early Church, the validity of heretical baptism was admitted in practice. When the question was formally proposed, there were arguments on both sides and the most orthodox theologians disagreed. Finally, after much deliberation guided by the Magisterium, final judgement was passed and the matter settled for all time. The same holds true for the Immaculate Conception and many other dogmas.(See Scheeben, Ibid, 1:06).
7. "I've noticed how you put high importance on listening to the theologians. I've even read your article on it. If we are to go by the theologians, then why don't you follow any of them prior to Vatican II when they say that bishops and priests have to have jurisdiction in order to give out sacraments?"
Jurisdiction is needed for Marriage and Penance. What did the Catholic Japanese do when they had no priest to marry them? They married using layman, which can be done. As for Penance, on July 22, the Sacred Penitentiary responded to the following question " May a professor of sacred theology safely hold and teach the opinions that Blessed Alphonsus Liguori teaches in his moral theology?"
The answer, solemnly approved by Pope Gregory XVI was "In the affirmative, yet those who follow the opinions handed down by other approved authors should not be considered blameworthy."
St. Alphonsus teaches: Is any priest able to absolve from any sins and censures, not only at the point of death, but also in danger of death? This is denied by [various names] but more truly and more commonly affirmed by...The reason for this is that in this matter, the danger in taken for the point, as is clear from...For in such a case, anyone in mortal sin is bound to confess in the same way as if he were at the point of death. This is accepted by...provided that such a danger be so grave that it can scarcely be distinguished with certainty from the point: but, more immediately, it seems to be sufficient that there be prudent fear that death will arise in the danger. Now such a danger is considered to be present in a battle, in a long sea voyage, in a difficult delivery, in a dangerous disease, and similar cases...The same is true of one who is in probable danger of falling into insanity (amentia)...and the same of those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty. For it is believed that they will have no other priests in the future.(See Theologia Moralis, Bk.6, no. 561, Q.2)
Therefore, we are in an analogous situation where we can die without Penance. Hence, jurisdiction is supplied. As to the other "Home Alone" arguments, it's too long for an already long post.
Hyperpapalism=Ultramontanism=Real Catholicism
What Fitzpatrick deems "hyperpapalism" is really called Ultramontanism. What is that? According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: A term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains (ultra montes), that is, beyond the Alps...This name of Ultramontane the Gallicans applied to the supporters of the Roman doctrines--whether that of the monarchical character of the pope in the government of the Church or of the infallible pontifical magisterium...For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it. (Emphasis mine).
The caricature made of the papal monarchy is that "everything the pope says is infallible" and "he can't make any errors." The problem that comes from this mindset is that it artificially and erroneously constrains the very Teaching Authority of the Church into a false dichotomy of “infallible” vs “not infallible." Hence,“if it’s not infallible, then it can be contradicted or changed later on down the line.”
First of all, what is “infallibility”? Per the Catholic Encyclopedia, infallibility is in general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.” Furthermore, being distinguished from both Divine Inspiration and Divine Revelation, infallibility “means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error; that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly; and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.
Normally, infallibility is discussed with regards to ex cathedra pronouncements by the Roman Pontiff on matters of faith and morals, definitive decrees from Ecumenical Councils, and the doctrinal teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church. However, given the vast quantity of decisions, letters, and judgments promulgated by Catholic bishops throughout the ages, there is much which does not possess the character of infallibility. Does this then mean that that which is not infallible can then be ignored or discarded?
On the contrary, there is a level of assent which Catholics are obliged with regards to various decisions made by lawful authority. A brief selection of references follows (bold is emphasis added):
1. Having now inquired into the obligations of Catholics in regard to infallible pronouncements of the Church, there remains to be considered a third class of authoritative decisions which also have a binding force upon the faithful. The Church does not in all her pronouncements intend to exercise in full her supreme prerogative of infallibility. The reason for this we may suppose to be a merciful regard for human weakness, and a desire to give erring souls every opportunity of retraction before the final definitive sentence goes forth which would cast them out of the fold if they remained obdurate.
Hence she frequently utters, in the exercise of her authority to teach and govern Christ’s flock, words of warning, exhortation or direction, in virtue not of her infallibility, but of her ordinary ecclesiastical authority. When she thus speaks, it is without doubt the duty of Catholics to listen and to submit their judgment to that of their pastors. This assent is one of religious obedience rather than of faith, though. It does pertain, in a certain degree, to the latter virtue…After all, when the Church speaks, even when she does not speak with all the weight of her infallible utterance, she does invariably give us safe guidance; for, though the speculative truth or falsity of some matter which she treats in this particular way may be, for a time, a matter of question, there can be no question at all that a Catholic is practically secure in listening to the voice of those whom God has set as bishops and pastors to rule the Church." (Source: Fr. Hughes, Henry George. (1906). Essentials and Non-Essentials of the Catholic Religion. . pgs. 26-27, 31. Italics in original).
2. In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see.
And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae).
3. To formulate and to discuss the criteria by which an infallible utterance may be diagnosed as such is another task for the theologian, and in any case is beyond the scope of this paper. For our purpose it is sufficient to register the fact that much of the authoritative teaching of the Church, whether in the form of Papal encyclicals, decisions, condemnations, replies from Roman Congregations – such as the Holy office – or from the Biblical Commission, is not an exercise of the infallible magisterium. And here once again our cautious believer raises his voice: “Must I believe it?”
The answer is implicit in the principles already established. We have seen that the source of the obligation to believe is not the infallibility of the Church but her divine commission to teach. Therefore, whether her teaching is guaranteed by infallibility or not, the Church is always the divinely appointed teacher and guardian of revealed truth, and consequently the supreme authority of the Church, even when it does not intervene to make an infallible and definitive decision on matters of faith or morals, has the right, in virtue of the divine commission, to command the obedient assent of the faithful. In the absence of infallibility the assent thus demanded cannot be that of faith, whether Catholic or ecclesiastical; it will be an assent of a lower order proportioned to its ground or motive. But whatever name be given to it – for the present we may call it belief – it is obligatory; obligatory not because the teaching is infallible – it is not – but because it is the teaching of the divinely appointed Church.
It is the duty of the Church, as Franzelin has pointed out, not only to teach revealed doctrine but also to protect it, and therefore the Holy See “may prescribe as to be followed or proscribe as to be avoided theological opinions or opinions connected with theology, not only with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also – without any such intention – merely for the purpose of safeguarding the security of Catholic doctrine.” If it is the duty of the Church, even though non-infallibly, to “prescribe or proscribe” doctrines to this end, then it is evidently also the duty of the faithful to accept them or reject them accordingly. Nor is this obligation of submission to the non-infallible utterances of authority satisfied by the so-called silentium obsequiosum. The security of Catholic doctrine, which is the purpose of these decisions, would not be safeguarded if the faithful were free to withhold their assent. It is not enough that they should listen in respectful silence, refraining from open opposition. They are bound in conscience to submit to them, and conscientious submission to a doctrinal decree does not mean only to abstain from publicly rejecting it; it means the submission of one’s own judgment to the more competent judgment of authority. (See Canon Smith, George, Ph.D., D.D. (April 1935) “Must I Believe It?” The Clergy Review, vol. 9. Original article comprised pgs. 296-309. Italics in original).
4. An astonishingly large number of prominent theologians can be found among those who take no adequate cognizance of the encyclical letters in their treatises on papal infallibility. These men content themselves with an examination of and a theological demonstration for the formula by which the Vatican Council defined the Holy Father’s infallibility. Bishop Joseph Fessler, the Vatican Council’s secretary, used this approach in his reply to the “Old Catholic” Schultes. The famous and highly influential Cardinal Cammillus Mazzella followed the same line, as did Archbishops Richard Downey, Valentine Zubizarreta, and Horace Mazzella, Bishop Michael d’Herbigny, Canon Auguste Leboucher, and Fathers Sylvester Berry, Hugo Hurter, Sylvester Hunter, Bernard Tepe, Raphael Cercia, Basil Prevel, Gabriel Casanova, and Gerard Paris.
As a group these writers frequently give the impression that they consider only those truths proposed by the Holy Father solemni iudicio as infallibly defined, to the exclusion of those truths which he sets forth ordinario et universali magisterio. Another very imposing group of theologians explicitly list the papal encyclicals, at least in a general way, as non-infallible documents. Bishop Hilarinus Felder, Msgr. Caesar Manzoni, and Fathers Emil Dorsch, Reginald Schultes, Antonio Vellico, Ludwig Koesters, Ludwig Lercher, and Aelred Graham teach thus in their treatises. The same view is set forth by Fr. Mangenot in his excellent article on the encyclicals in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, by Fr. Lucien Choupin in his outstanding monograph, by Fr. Thomas Pegues in his frequently quoted article in the Revue thomiste on the authority of the encyclicals, and by Canon George Smith in his brilliant study on this subject in the Clergy Review.
Fr. Jean Vincent Bainvel, along with Choupin and Schultes, incidentally, refers explicitly to the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and classifies them as non-infallible, while the article of Pegues was written as an answer to a question sent in to the Revue thomiste about the doctrinal authority of Pope Leo’s encyclicals. Fr. Herman Dieckmann classifies the doctrine contained in papal encyclicals with that of the Roman Congregations. The distinguished theologians who deny the papal encyclicals the status of infallible documents teach, none the less, that the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent.
To this end many of them, like Fr. De Groot, apply to the encyclicals a teaching with the eminent and brilliant Dominic Palmieri had developed about the Catholic attitude towards non-infallible teaching in the Church. Pegues, in his Revue thomiste article, makes this application with his usual clarity. ‘Hence it follows that the authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn definition, the one properly so-called. The definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same. This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church.
Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church. Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’
(See Msgr. Fenton, Clifford Joseph, S.T.D., S.T.L., J.C.B. (August 1949) “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals.” The American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 121. Original article comprised pgs. 136-150. Italics in original).
5. In the light of [previously mentioned] Thomistic principles, we can clarify the assent required in the case of Papal pronouncements in matters of belief and opinion. Belief. When we accept a statement on the extrinsic grounds of the authority of him who states it, we make an act of belief. Thus, we believe things taught by the Pope in his Ordinary Magisterium. But this act of belief is by no means an unreasonable, or irrational act. My will does not “do violence” to my reason, and “force” it to accept something against which, on rational grounds, it rebels. This is, I grant, the picture that critics of the Church’s Teaching Authority like to paint, but it is an absurd caricature…When the truth to be believed is presented to us by the Pope, the intellect, lacking intrinsic evidence for the truth itself, nevertheless does have a tremendously powerful and eminently rational extrinsic reason for assent: the authority and doctrinal competence of the Supreme Teacher of Christendom.
This reason, since it is extrinsic, does not coerce the intellectual assent; it is not a necessitating reason, but it is a sufficient reason; and only on the intellectual judgment that the Papal Teaching Authority is a sufficient reason does the will move the intellect to assent…So far we have been dealing with the assent required for what is set forth by the Pope as a certain truth. Admittedly the truth is not guaranteed by the charisma of infallibility; also, in the case of belief, the certitude is neither metaphysical nor physical. But we do have a high degree of moral certitude of the truth itself. When the Pope, however, calls upon our assent in a matter of opinion, there are other elements to be considered. Opinion. Opinion, of its very nature, does not include certitude of the proposition opined; certitude always involves freedom from any fear of error, but opinion “accipit alterum oppositorum cum formidine alterius.” It would seem that the assent required in the case of an opinion is more complex than that we give to a proposition set forth as containing a certain truth. Before examining briefly the nature of the psychological act, however, it must be noted that the Sovereign Pontiffs certainly do require a dutiful submission to the Teaching Authority in matters of opinion…
What constitutes, exactly, the “internal religious assent” that we elicit in a matter of opinion? I think it is two-fold. As regards the opinion itself, we do not, of course, have certitude that what the proposition states is true. If we did have that certitude, we would no longer be in the field of opinion, and it is precisely as an opinion that the matter is presented to us. Motivated by the authority and competency of the Holy Father, we hold the matter precisely as an opinion. This is one aspect of the act of assent we make regarding a matter of opinion.
I believe, however, that there is something more than this required for the integral unconditional internal assent we owe to the Pontifical assent even in the field of opinion. We also assent unconditionally, with no fear of error, to the fact that the opinion the Pope sets forth is well founded and safe, and is the opinion that we as Catholics are to act upon and follow. This two-fold view of the act of assent safeguards both the psychological reality involved and the docility due to the Teaching Authority of the Holy Father.
There remains just one final word to be said in this section regarding the religious quality of the assent. Even where infallibility is not involved, nevertheless our assent, while not as intimately connected with divine faith as is the “fides mediate divina” we give to pronouncements regarding the secondary objects of infallibility, does ultimately depend upon our faith in the Teaching Authority of the Vicar of Christ on earth. We assent as Catholics; with the humility and docility and whole-heartedness proper to a religious act. We assent not hesitatingly, not grudgingly, but gladly; not as slaves but as men eminently free. For we have seen the Truth, and it is the Truth that makes men free. (See Fr. Benard, Edmond D. (June 25-27, 1951) “The Doctrinal Value of the Ordinary Teaching of the Holy Father in View of Humani Generis.” Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America. pgs. 94, 96-98. Italics in original).
The Bottom Line: Hence, even when the full force of infallibility is not invoked in the Magisterial teaching of the Church or the Roman Pontiff (be it solemn or ordinary), there is an obligation to assent externally and internally on the part of Catholics, corresponding to the degree and force of what is being promulgated.
Part II: The Fitzpatrick Disinformer
Now to the article. You should be able to spot the problems. The article can be read in full at https://fitzinfo.net/2026/06/26/sedevacantist-blogger-invokes-hyperpapalism-in-attempt-to-dogmatize-fatima/#respond.
FD is the Disinformer followed by my response below.
FD: What is an “approved” private revelation if it is not dogma and not part of the magisterium? The answer to this question cannot seem to be found among the staunchest advocates of the Fatima apparition, yet they blast this term “approved” as if it signifies a Papal Bull or something even greater. Yet, it doesn’t seem to mean much of anything, other than that the local bishop at Fatima found it “worthy of belief”
Reply: No, it goes beyond just a diocesan bishop.
FD: Hyperpapalism to the rescue! “Fatima was approved by Pope Pius XII himself,” writes sedevacantist blogger Introibo Ad Altare Dei in an article about why all Catholics ought to believe in the Fatima apparition. “To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church–i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members.”
Reply: I will delve into Indefectibility specifically another day. According to theologians McHugh and Callan: The Church permits but does not exact belief in these [private] revelations. One would not be excused, however, who rejected them through pride or contempt, or without sufficient reason...Similarly, although the Church offers for human faith alone certain particular facts of history, one who rejects them may easily be guilty of contempt or temerity. Such particular facts are...the appearance of the Blessed Virgin at Lourdes in 1858... (See Moral Theology, [1929], 1:277).
So one can easily be guilty of contempt or temerity for withholding belief in Lourdes. Fatima was investigated by the Church for 13 years before the bishop's approval, and 10 years after that for papal approval. How can one not be guilty to deny Fatima with no pope to answer problems, and setting yourself up years later to second guess the Magisterium? In Timmy Fitz's case, he believes Prevost is pope, yet he is not to be obeyed unless he personally agrees with what he decrees. He decides a lot more than just Fatima.
FD: Just as sedevacantists need to invoke the over-developed and ultimately erroneous concept of hyperpapalism (generally speaking, the idea that anything a legitimate pope says or does can never be wrong) to make the sedevacantist position true, Introibo has found a clever way of elevating Fatima to some level that the Catholic Church does not allow. Divine revelation has the protection of infallibility, but private revelations do not, no matter how spectacular they may be. However, because of the sedevacantist’s disordered understanding of papal infallibility (defined at the First Vatican Council), they don’t seem to differentiate and, instead, just imply that everything coming from the Holy See is infallible, including declarations on private revelations.
Reply: I have never stated that anything a pope says or does can never be wrong. Nor does the Church teach this, as I've amply demonstrated above. Something need not be infallible to be believed. (See Part One of this post). I've made Fatima "dogma"? Please. It is contemptuous to set oneself over the pope who wrote about Fatima in an encyclical and claimed to have seen the Miracle of the Sun no less than four times. The only thing disordered is Timmy Fitz's reasoning skills (or rather the lack thereof).
FD: But more concerning about this line of thinking, if a Catholic’s faith hinges on the veracity of a private revelation, the sincerity of their faith is in question. Introibo does not address this glaring problem.
Reply: I didn't address it because I never claimed a Catholic's faith hinges on a private revelation. It does hinge on a correct understanding of the papacy, which our brave informer of Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracies doesn't get at all.
FD: Introibo goes on to argue his case for Fatima by appealing to the “it’s approved” narrative and that Pius XII could not have erred in any way, yet it’s all irrelevant seeing that private revelations do not have the protection of infallibility.
Reply: Well, it is approved, and deference to the non-infallible teaching authority of the pope must be respected. Do we trust Timmy Fitz's conspiracy theories or the Vicar of Christ protected by the Holy Ghost? (rhetorical question).
FD: Perhaps in time, yes, as was the case with the Vatican’s recent ruling against the heretical “co-Redemptrix” push by the SSPX and Trad Incorporated. Trad Inc. concluded that the ruling was yet more evidence of the Church’s apostasy, yet the opposite was the case. The rejection of “co-Redemptrix” was the Church’s indefectibility shining through the darkness that has been increasing around the Church.
Reply: I laughed out loud when I read that one!
- Pope Benedict XV, in his Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia (March 22, 1918), wrote, "To such extent did she (Mary) suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son, and to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man's salvation, and immolated Him, insofar as she could, in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ."
- Pope Pius XI called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix at least six (6) times. In the radio broadcast to the world at the solemn closing of the Jubilee Year which commemorated the Redemption of humanity (April 29, 1935) he prayed, "O Mother of piety and mercy who, when Thy most beloved Son was accomplishing the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, didst stand there both suffering with Him and as a Co-Redemptrix; preserve us we beseech thee, and increase day by day, the precious fruit of His Redemption and of thy compassion."
- Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam (October 11, 1954) distinguishes Mary's role in the Redemption from her role as Mediatrix of All Grace.
- On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined.
- Feeneyites/Dimondites: Those who deny Baptism of Blood (BOB) and Baptism of Desire (BOD), the most infamous of whom are the phony "Benedictine" brothers, Fred and Bobby Dimond of New York's Most Holy Family "Monastery." They also condemn Periodic Continence as "birth control," and claim to know who has died and gone to Hell.
- Vacancy Pushers: This is the term I have coined for those who not only reject the "papacy" of Roncalli (John XXIII) up to Prevost (Leo XIV), but "push back the date of the vacancy" by denying the authenticity of pre-Vatican II popes. They accomplish this by digging up some obscure quote from an encyclical or some other papal document of a prior pope, twist it out of context, and declare him an "antipope." There are three main groups; those who, like Michael Bizzaro, declare Pope St. Pius X (d. 1914) as the last pope; those who recognize Pope Pius IX (d. 1878) as the last pope; and the followers of cult leader Richard Ibranyi of New Mexico, who have the last pope as being Pope Honorius II (d. 1130 AD!). Now, there are those who have targeted Pope Pius XII in particular, putting the last pope as Pius XI.
- Recognize and Resistors: Those who recognize all Vatican II "popes" yet feel free to decide when, how, and if they will obey them. (Groups like the Society of St. Pius X [SSPX] and Bp. Williamson's (d. 2025) St. Marcel Initiative, and the notorious false pope-defenders,Robert Siscoe and John Salza).
- Apparitionists: People who exalt private revelations and apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses) over the teaching of the Church. They obsess over the alleged "true meanings" of messages (as if salvation depended on them), or even accept them to the exclusion of authentic Church doctrines in some area(s). The late "Fr." Gruner falls squarely in this category.
- Home Aloners: Like an ecclesiastical version of the 1990 movie, these poor souls think that you cannot go to any Traditionalist priest, but must remain "home alone" without the Mass or sacraments because no one (according to them) has been properly "sent" by the Church. As a consequence, Traditionalist clergy allegedly have no authority to offer Mass and administer the sacraments.
- Conclavists: The men and women who believe that, like in the case of David Bawden ("Pope" Michael), you can run a "conclave" with your mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors, and a self-anointed female "theologian" as "electors" on a Kansas farm, thereby producing a "pope." Some Conclavists, like the Palmar de Troya cult, claim "divine intervention," as when Clemente Dominguez said Christ Himself appeared to him in a vision and declared he would become pope upon the death of Montini ("Pope" Paul VI).
- Science Deniers: My term for those who think that in order to preserve the faith, they must deny modern science. You must believe that the Earth is exactly 6,000 years old, and/or Earth is the center of the universe. They treat these opinions as "dogma." It is the opposite of some atheists who think that to preserve science you must deny God.
- NEW !Private Revelation Minimizers: My term for those who have the temerity to set themselves up in judgement against the Church and reject approved private revelations as "useless" or worse, "demonic" with no pope to defend the Church's ruling.
So what's causing these pseudo-Traditionalist groups? All of them either do not understand, or willfully reject, the Magisterium of the Church. As a result, they get things seriously wrong, and most place themselves outside the Church. Know the Faith! "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15).
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteHappy feast of Saint Peter and Paul!
That is all I can say! Thank you!
Ryan
DeleteThank you, my friend! I'm glad I'm defending the papacy on the feast of the First Pope and the great St. Paul!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDelete*You are Vacancy Pusher back to John XXIII.
*You are an apparitionist because you believe one MUST believe in approved apparitions or else it's a sin.
*You don't believe in the majority of theologians who say a priest must have jurisdiction in order to give penance and other sacraments. Therefore, you proved that as a Catholic one doesn't have to go by what they say.
*You sound like Dr. Fauci who accused everybody for denying the science. I still don't know what you believe insofar as how Adam was formed. Did he come from an ape, or did he come from the dirt?
*NEW! You are a Private Relationist Maximizer
*You quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia in this very article defining what infallibility and hyperpapalism is as if matters what the C.E. says, yet that very Catholic Encyclopedia says "Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators" and you have problem with this because it contradicts Pope Pius XII
*You attend a group of evil clergy which denies other traditional Catholics sacraments because they treat their policy as it's infallible.
Why should anybody care what YOU say?
@anon6:24
DeleteOk, here we go!
"*You are Vacancy Pusher back to John XXIII"
Reply: No. The definition I gave was to push the vacancy before Roncalli. We have great theological reasons applied to serious facts that make sedevacantism the only logical and sound conclusion. I have yet to hear any evidence against Pope Pius XII and before other than people don't like something, twist words out of context and "find a false pope."
"*You are an apparitionist because you believe one MUST believe in approved apparitions or else it's a sin."
Reply: No. I don't exalt apparitions and have often said we must not make them the focal point of our faith. GIVEN: (1) the absence of a pope and (2) papal approval--to set yourself up as superior years later would be to hold the Church in contempt. See theologians McHugh and Callan cited in this post.
*You don't believe in the majority of theologians who say a priest must have jurisdiction in order to give penance and other sacraments. Therefore, you proved that as a Catholic one doesn't have to go by what they say.
Reply: Are you serious? I addressed that very point in this post!!
" *You sound like Dr. Fauci who accused everybody for denying the science. I still don't know what you believe insofar as how Adam was formed. Did he come from an ape, or did he come from the dirt?"
Reply: So because the Church permits us to hold either view, I'm fine with people believing either view. What's wrong is when those who reject the views that align with science (e.g. The Big Bang) they tell you you're a Modernist (therefore a heretic) and MUST subscribe to their view. That's what's wrong--and that makes me like Fauci? Lol
"*NEW! You are a Private Relationist Maximizer"
Reply: Whatever that means!
"*You quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia in this very article defining what infallibility and hyperpapalism is as if matters what the C.E. says, yet that very Catholic Encyclopedia says "Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators" and you have problem with this because it contradicts Pope Pius XII"
Reply: I cited the CE because it gave an easy to understand definition, and not because it's the Bible. When Belgium elected a woman to the Legislature in the 1930s, no bishop objected in the slightest and Pope Pius XI congratulated her. The claim was made that women hold public office was CONTRARY TO NATURAL LAW. The CE says no such thing.
"*You attend a group of evil clergy which denies other traditional Catholics sacraments because they treat their policy as it's infallible."
Reply: The SSPV are great priests who are misguided on an issue. Where I attend the rule is not enforced as long as you don't say anything.
"Why should anybody care what YOU say?"
Reply: They shouldn't! They should care what THE CHURCH TEACHES--and I've set that forth!
Thank you for commenting. I admire how you are brave enough to speak your mind in the complete absence of knowledge.
I don't get it. The SSPV doesn't have ordinary jurisdiction for confession or the consecration of bishops? Why should we care if they don't give sacraments to people? Eventually you will have to learn that you can't change the people you don't like.
DeleteIntroibo,
Delete*A vacancy pusher all the way back to John XXIII for serious theological reasons isn't any different than pushing back one or more popes. That was the point. You create a term that you are guilty of following regardless of whether there are serious reasons for pushing the papacy back. I personally believe Pius XII is the pope although I have serious questions that I would rather ask a priest or perhaps a bishop about on some of the things he proposed than you.
*Going public against an approved apparition is not a good idea GIVEN but that does not mean somebody holds the Church in contempt, when the Church says you are not obligated to believe in apparitions even if approved. It is your opinion that a person who does such things holds the Church in contempt based on the opinion of theologians. You may be right on this point but you may also be wrong since it's an opinion.
*You addressed it yes, but do not fully acknowledge that most theologians on the question of jurisdiction still say that sedevacantists clergy cannot be doing what they are doing in today's time. The problem is either the theologians were wrong or the sedevacantists clergy of today are wrong for dispensing the sacraments. You apparently believe most theologians were wrong or else you wouldn't defend the idea. That was the point.
* Still won't tell us where you believe Adam came from. Are you ashamed to tell us where you personally believe he came from? Does the science tell us he came from an animal or inorganic dirt?
* Private Revelationist Maximizer is as goofy as the Private Revelationist Minimizer, coined by the laymen who makes up terms.
* Again you don't believe in the CE by bringing up the Belgian woman, yet you quote the CE. You could have quoted something else instead of that old out of date book.
* The SSPV are of bad will because they set themselves up in their, as you say, "temerity" as the only Church. If you are not with them you against them in their mind. You fit right in with them.
El Poni albinegro,
DeleteWhy should we care if they don't give sacraments to people?
Because it affects many traditional Catholics, especially families who are divided because of their wrongful policy. Their policy is based on the opinion of Bp. Kelly and Fr. Jenkins, which is bias, unfounded, and lacks the charity of giving the accused (Thuc) benefit of the doubt. Introibo waters it down by saying they are "misguided." It's more than that. They are obstinate and hold their theories as fact. Thankfully, some people are seeing right through them, but many still are locked up in their minds by fearing to go against them all because they want to access to the sacraments.
Eventually you will have to learn that you can change your mind if you are humble enough.
It seems you didn't understand my point. The comment above said that sede groups didn't have jurisdiction for confession YET they still attacked the SSPV for not giving sacraments (including confession) to people. If no sede group should be giving confession, then why does it matter that the SSPV doesn't give sacraments to people? According to this comment, they shouldn't be offering sacraments anyways!
DeleteYou can't use the so-called home alone thesis when it benefits you and then ignore it when it benefits you.
The reason I brought up the jurisdiction issue El poni was to show how Introibo isn't following most theologians who all agree that a priest must have jurisdiction to give out the sacraments or else he wouldn't going to a sede church. Sorry for the confusion.
DeleteOk.
Delete@anon4:56
Delete1. The principles for loss of office (or non-attainment) apply from Roncalli to Prevost. I have yet to see a cogent argument against Pope Pius XII other than people's false ideas of Natural Law violations and Holy Week changes.
2. If you think you can discard an approved revelation "just because" without a hierarchy, or worse, call it demonic, when a true pope has approved it and claimed to see miracles from it---that's contemptuous. It's setting yourself up over His Holiness based on what you think the evidence is and without a to answer questions.
3. "most theologians on the question of jurisdiction still say that sedevacantists clergy cannot be doing what they are doing in today's time."
You can certainly go against the majority opinion of there's a good defeater. For example, St. Alphonsus and the Sacred Penitentiary trump over the majority opinion. So too, I take the minority position that Mary did NOT die but was taken body and soul to Heaven without dying. Why? The original draft of Munificentissimus Deus had included her death in the definition. Pope Pius XII ordered it taken out. He did not think it was ripe to define, so the opposing opinion is very viable. Also see Fr. Lavery who has done great work proving that jurisdiction is given by the implicit will of the last pope.
4. Adam was from a pre-living protohuman, not an "ape" an this is allowed by the Church. Exactly how, I don't know, it was still open to debate. I'm a big believer in the Big Bang as well.
5. "Private Revelationist Maximizer is as goofy as the Private Revelationist Minimizer, coined by the laymen who makes up terms."
"If the shoe fits..." the term is mine by it accurately describes. What's really goofy are people who think there are conspirators lurking everywhere, but the V2 "popes" are true popes and Fatima was of occultists.
6. The CE has its uses. One such use is giving terse definitions. However, to wave it around as a defeater is silly. Why have theologians when we can all just read the CE and settle everything.
7. The SSPV has there problems, admittedly. They do not do as you suggest. They were always respectful of Fr. DePauw and even the SSPX and have/had no problem with them. It's only Thuc.
---Introibo
Introibo,
Delete*As to the first point, I understand what you are saying and I believe he was pope, although calling somebody a vacancy pusher is not a good way to put it. I just wouldn't call them anything.
I actually think its worse to call Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV pope and criticize them to such a degree that it comes across as Recognize and Resist. At least (not that they're right) calling them non-popes and refusing to obey them is more consistent than believing they are and resisting them.
* I told you that I think you may be right. At least from the point of view of making it public. In this case it would be better to talk to a learned priest on the subject if one has doubts.
* You prove my point that theologians are not always right and are not always to be followed, because they all offer different answers. In some cases they can be mostly unanimous and still be wrong.
* You might be the only Traditional Catholic person I've ever heard say they believe Adam came from a pre-living protohuman. If you mean Neanderthals it still makes no sense to believe that because they are believed to be an extinct species of early humans. Adam and Eve were the first humans.
*Labels should be used by the Church when they call people Lutheran, etc. Not a un-approved layman.
*The CE was written by theologians and approved by Pope St. Pius X. When you look under the term woman, It defines why certain positions are not suited to their sex and covers all nuances. It doesn't explicitly say it's going against the natural law but under certain circumstances it implies it. You say no because a pope later on came and changed it. Popes can change things, but I can't see why they would change what it did when for 1900 years it was always the same. Therefore when people question popes on this point, I see their point and am disturbed.
* The SSPV are despicable. I've seen so many people torn apart because of them.
Protohuman is not human which makes it an ape. Ever heard of the term ape-man? Cro-mags bred with Neanderthals and then there are the homo-erects and they all are either human or apes. Your protohuman argument is just false. Adam either came from an ape or dust.
Delete@anon7:35
Delete* More consistent perhaps, but the correct response is to R&O---recognize and obey. Mike Bizzaro trying to make the last pope St. Pius X is ridiculous and his "proof" consists of statements purposely take out of context.
*Talking to a Traditionalist priest or bishop is a great idea.
*The exception to the rule doesn't prove the rule of exceptions. If you have a defeater, fine. If not, the majority opinion is the safe bet.
* No. I mean a protohuman shaped by God. Exactly how is unknown. It is acceptable to believe, and so is the literal "from dust."
*They are my way of referring to them. "Feeneyites" is an appellation around a long time, and no ecclesiastical authority labeled them such. It designates the followers of Leonard Feeney. I use "Dimondites" for Fred and Bobby Dimwit and their heretical teachings.
*Read my post "The Role of Women." I explain the circumstances that arose and the teaching of Pope Pius XII that followed.
* Fr. Jenkins and others at the beginning did those things. I personally know almost all of the SSPV clerics. They are good and honorable men of God. Unless you say something about going to "Thuc clergy" they now leave you in peace.
---Introibo
@anon6:38
DeleteNope. Ever hear of "evolutionary biology"? I taught it. You failed it.
---Introibo
I'm surprised you laugh at the existence of Big-Foot when you literally believe God formed Adam from a pre-living protohuman which is defined as "any extinct species that is an early ancestor or close relative of modern humans. These human-like primates lived between six million and two million years ago." Stop being a idiotic science teacher pretending to gaslight his students. What a weirdo. If it's okay to believe in such nonsense, then you shouldn't scoff at the idea of the earth being flat Mr. Bill Nye the Atheist Guy.
Delete@anon1:00
DeleteFar from nonsense. Allowed by the Church, and the Church doesn't allow nonsense.
God miraculously brought about a radical biological and spiritual renovation of a hominin form. It was no longer the body of a brute beast and was biologically capable of sustaining a human soul created immediately out of nothing by God and infused (breathed) into the body--that was now ADAM.
This comports of what we know of life's origins and is theologically sound. It is not something that must be believed, nor is the literal account. One is free to believe either. Either way I'm sure you never let facts get in the way of your opinions.
---Introibo
So Adam's parents were brutes, right????
DeleteSo man came from monkeys? Don't want to say it that way but that is what you believe. Totally absurd and I can cite many theologians that actually said so. Since you're fond of using Scheeben, here's what he said: {384} According to this teaching, it is already a heresy if someone tried to assume only a factual “descent of man from the apes” with regard to the body by way of a gradual refashioning of forms, even if one at the same time posits an additional divine creation for the soul once the form was completely refashioned. Aside from revelation it is indeed already a philosophical absurdity even just to maintain that the kind of transformation of types of organism that would be required in order to arrive at the human organism was possible according to the fixed laws of nature, or that it was compatible with God’s wisdom to make the organism destined to be the temple of His true image develop from other lower and foreign organisms. (Handbook of Catholic Dogmatics Book III Rev. Matthias Joseph Scheeben Matthias Joseph Scheeben
DeleteThanks for admitting that you're an evolutionist. I was wondering where you stood on the matter.
Delete@anons7:47, 8:04, and 8:30
Delete1. Adam's parents were not brutes, there was Divine Intervention. I made that clear.
2. I believe the body of Adam was formed by evolutionary processes--and within the confines allowed by the Church.
3. Man did not "come from monkeys." A common ancestor. As to Scheeben, HE MAY BE CORRECT!!
Let me once more be clear; there are theologians on both sides of the issue. It is OPEN TO DEBATE among the theologians. In sedevacante, nothing more can be done.
The Church allows you to believe EITHER side. I believe Adam's body was formed and God Intervened. That's permissible. You can believe he was formed immediately from dust. That's also permissible. I'm explaining why I believe the side of gradual development.
Neither side is heretical. It's only when you INSIST that one side MUST be believed, you hold the Church in contempt.
And that's sinful
---Introibo
Pope Pelagius I 557 "For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the ONE FROM THE EARTH, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man…
DeleteNotice how he doesn't say I confess that Adam could possibly come from a pre-existent living matter
Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum (On Christian Marriage), Feb. 10, 1880, no. 5 "The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all times, they have nevertheless failed… We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man FROM THE SLIME OF THE EARTH, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep."
Notice how he doesn't go on record for saying Adam formed by an evolutionary process.
The other anonymous brilliantly quoted the Theologian Scheeben who says it's a philosophical absurdity to believe Adam came from a hominid (ape) and yet it's the morally unanimous consensus of theologians who believe it, that as you say in the article, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. Therefore, if something is absurd (Sheeben), something was forbidden in the PBC in 1909 in question #3, and something is agreed with the same understanding by previous popes, then the open question becomes a problem. But in the state of sedevacante we are going to make up our own rules and believe Pius XII because we want to believe Adam's body came from ape because he allows it and that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it. I might as well believe that Bigfoot is an evolutionary link to Adam Mr. Introisquatch.
@anon12:52
DeleteMy post on Monday will address this issue. You don't have all the facts and draw false conclusions. It's like the Feeneyites/Dimondites who say The Creed states "One Baptism for the remission of sins" not three baptisms. It says nothing of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
There was a morally unanimous consensus of theologians only as to DARWINIAN evolution. Even scientists today reject Darwinism.
The question posed was never decided.
---Introibo
You said "Adam was from a pre-living protohuman" and "God miraculously brought about a radical biological and spiritual renovation of a hominin form. It was no longer the body of a brute beast and was biologically capable of sustaining a human soul created immediately out of nothing by God and infused (breathed) into the body--that was now ADAM."
DeleteWhen you say Adam was a pre-living protohuman and that he no longer the body of a brute you're implying that he once was. What else could he possible come from?
Am I drawing a false conclusion based on what you said?
Baptism of Desire/Blood is not comparable to this.
I don't think it's right that you accuse others of holding the Church in contempt from where Adam came from. I'm questioning why you believe a certain way and I believe it's wrong to believe what you say. I'm well aware of the fact that Pius XII allowed. It's open for discussion, so why do you accuse the opponent of being a dissident?
Delete@anon6:36 and 7:28
DeleteMy post on Monday will cover the objections posed. I can't cover that kind of material in a few comments.
"I'm questioning why you believe a certain way and I believe it's wrong to believe what you say."
Ok, if that's the case, I apologize. It comes across as "you cannot believe this," but I'm sorry if I was mistaken. There's nothing wrong with taking the opposing view.
God Bless,
---Introibo
You don't understand the magisterium. This whole thing started because you insisted that private apparition must be held by the whole Church which you once knew was false. Pope Benedict was clear that the WHOLE Church is not obligated to accept approved apparitions which you now reject. You have become a papal minimizer and a theologian maximizer. The theologians don't reject the pope's teaching but explain a nuance for those to whom Heaven comes. You misrepresented both the pope and the theologians. You teach on your blog as if YOU are a theologian which you clearly are not. THIS is why permission from the Church must be granted before publishing on theology to prevent people like you from leading people astray and telling them falsehoods such as approve private Revelation must be accepted by the whole Church under pain of sin. No theologian taught it and the ones you cite don't either. Introibo, you have lost your way and now promoting your errors as Catholic Teaching. Your pride has blinded you.
ReplyDelete@anon7:22
DeleteYou write: You don't understand the magisterium
Reply: Really? I gave works of theologians that explain the Magisterium and were approved by the Magisterium. Ergo, the Magisterium doesn't understand itself?
You write: This whole thing started because you insisted that private apparition must be held by the whole Church which you once knew was false. Pope Benedict was clear that the WHOLE Church is not obligated to accept approved apparitions which you now reject. You have become a papal minimizer and a theologian maximizer. The theologians don't reject the pope's teaching but explain a nuance for those to whom Heaven comes. You misrepresented both the pope and the theologians.
Reply: Given the great apostasy and the teachings of the theologians, I believe that is the case, I cite McHugh and Callan. Furthermore, I uncovered a letter Fr. DePauw wrote to me in 1990. I had asked him some questions, one of which was about the status of Fatima. He said, "While private revelations technically don't need to be believed, I don't see how anyone could deny Fatima without holding the Church in contempt." Father was an approved canonist and taught Canon Law, Latin, and Moral Theology at the seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore from 1955-1962. That's further vindication. I have misrepresented no one.
You write: You teach on your blog as if YOU are a theologian which you clearly are not.
Reply: I always state I am not a theologian or canonist. I teach nothing, and only seek to demonstrate CHURCH teaching .
You write: THIS is why permission from the Church must be granted before publishing on theology to prevent people like you from leading people astray and telling them falsehoods such as approve private Revelation must be accepted by the whole Church under pain of sin.
Reply: I have cited the theologians and the sin is not against the revelations but rather contempt for the Church without a pope and setting themselves up as superior. From whom do I get permission? The non-existent pope or the non-existent diocesan bishop? If these were normal times I'd be happy NOT publishing! It wouldn't be needed.
You write: No theologian taught it and the ones you cite don't either. Introibo, you have lost your way and now promoting your errors as Catholic Teaching. Your pride has blinded you.
Reply: Pride? I'm anonymous. The theologians did teach it and so did Fr. DePauw, a theologian in his own right who had authority to teach.
---Introibo
These are confusing times, but there are people like you who can help clear things up !
ReplyDeleteSimon
DeleteBy the grace of God, I try, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
You're doing a great job, and may God grant that you continue to do so for a long time to come !
DeleteSimon
DeleteThank you!!
---Introibo
How much deference do we need to pay to the Popes who have passed away? How much should.we now defer to them if they were not speaking ex cathedra? They arent the Pope any longer, and we cant know for sure what they would think and say if they were alive today.
ReplyDelete@anon7:50
DeleteGood question. I think we need to accept everything that was taught up to October 9, 1958, the day Pope Pius XII died. Pope Pius XII is important as the last pope. Whatever he taught or settled must be considered the final word for now. If he did not address a topic, look to the last pope that did. If times change drastically, does epikiea apply?
It's difficult sometimes, but not impossible to discern.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Many people don't understand that the issue is that they said Fatima was demonic, not that it didn't happen.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, it could have been caused by hallucinations and this doesn't contradict catholic doctrine.
To El poni, you have a good point. The question is if something didn't happen what would be all the reasons. Hallucinations sounds pretty far fetched because hallucinations are caused by severe dehydration or a possible mental disorder. Plus not all present are realistically going to be suffering hallucinations, nor the all three children at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThe person(s) could be lying and performing an illusion or the other reason would be a deception by the devil.
Introibo doesn't believe we can say something approved by the Church is a demonic deception because it undermines the Church for approving it. I tend to agree, but if we are not bound to believe in private revelations, we are only left with a few options to disbelieve them. The local pastor Father Manuel Ferreira never believed the children, didn't attend Oct. 13th miracle of the Sun, and it seems like he didn't believe it even after the Church approved it. If somebody can show that he did, (believed it later) it would be much appreciated. He at first thought it was a deception by the devil of what they were seeing.
This post is a great follow-up to the previous.
ReplyDeleteIn recent posts, Introibo, you have pointed out how much confusion results from a misunderstanding of how the Magisterium works. I think this issue should be put in the forefront at this time.
Has the "Magisterium" as such ever been properly defined, or was it just generally understood by the Church as "what the Church teaches under the Pope" (to state but one short answer) ?
This post could serve as a framework for a proper understanding of the Magisterium. It should be brought up at Unam Sanctam to form part of the '1958 consensus' which is necessary to proceed with anything else.
Secondly, we I see the recent doubts against Pius XII, XI and even Benedict XV, and especially against Our Lady of Fatima, as an underhanded spiritual undermining of the prospective consensus regarding Unam Sanctam, before we have even got there.
+JMJ+ God bless.
cairsahr_stjoseph
DeleteI agree we need consensus! Thank you, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about the post last week about Fulton Sheen 's beatification mass charging admission?
@anon2:04
DeleteIt's more evil I expect from the Vatican II sect. Sheen was a closet Modernist who was a disciple of Teilhard and sided with the Modernists at V2.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I am actually surprised at this. I did not think Sheen was like that. But if by your judgement he was then I will trust to that judgement.
DeleteAs an aside: I have read what Speray wrote about Our Lady of Guadalupe. I think he raised some good points but I defer to the Magisterium which ruled on the subject. My thinking is, there are details lost to history which might explain his objections but we will never know in this world.
cairsahr_stjoseph
DeletePlease see my post on Sheen:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/01/eternal-life-is-worth-attaining.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThis was a great article and a nice follow-up to your last article on Fatima. Perhaps worse than the groups you mentioned e.g. Feeneyites/Dimondites, Vacancy Pushers, Recognize and Resistors, Apparitionists, Home Aloners, Conclavists, Science Deniers, Private Revelation Minimizers – is the Novus Ordo sect. The other groups are all bad because of their lack of understanding of the Magisterium, and they do cause damage, as you so eloquently demonstrated. But from a numbers perspective, they pale in comparison to the Novus Ordo sect itself, which boasts over 1 billion followers. Even though many people in the Novus Ordo sect are nominal “Catholics” in name only, they still belong to a group (on paper) that represents itself as the Catholic Church and this is very problematic. The Conciliar Church has eclipsed the True Catholic Church and only the faithful remnant remains of what was once a strong institutional church. Sad indeed!
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior
DeleteThe Great Apostasy---Vatican II and the sect of Counterfeit Catholicism it spawned!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Funny how one is outside the church now if they don't believe in secular science. Shocking you said that.
ReplyDelete@anon8:30
DeleteHow low has reading comprehension skills gone in the world?? That's really shocking.
Here's what I wrote:
"Science Deniers: My term for those who think that in order to preserve the faith, they must deny modern science. You must believe that the Earth is exactly 6,000 years old, and/or Earth is the center of the universe. They treat these opinions as "dogma." It is the opposite of some atheists who think that to preserve science you must deny God. "
So it only refers to those who claim you CANNOT believe what the Church permits. That's wrong. Outside the Church?
Here's what I wrote:
"I have identified the basic groups before, and I am adding a new one at the end of the list. Despite their claims that they are the true remnant, MOST wind up placing themselves outside the One True Church. " (Emphasis mine)
Got that? MOST not ALL place themselves Outside the Church such as Feeneyites and Dimondites who are all heretics. Science Deniers are not Outside the Church, but in refusing to let others believe what the Church allows heap contempt upon Her.
---Introibo
Did you watch any of the Consecrations of new Bishops for the SSPX? Hard to believe 15000 folk were present. Let us pray for the new Bishops that they will finally reject the Vatican Two sect .
ReplyDelete@anon2:46
DeleteNo, I wasn't able to watch. I really hope and pray as you do, that they reject the Vatican II sect and embrace the One True Church, recognizing Prevost as a false pope.
God Bless,
---Introibo
https://radicalfidelity.substack.com/p/30-year-old-document-resurfaces-to ... to haunt "Cardinal" Fernandez and again proves he is a heretic. On July 2, a Vatican decree of excommunication was issued by who the substacker refers to as "Cardinal Porn", against the SSPX. Thirty years ago, in 1995, he published an article titled "Romans 9-11: Grace and Predestination" in which he proclaimed, inter alia, that:
Delete"I firmly believe that everyone will be saved; a belief that is not based on wishful thinking, nor on my compassion for men, but on what I know about God and his concrete plans thanks to his Revelation."
Bergoglio was probably quite well aware of this, and there is evidence too, that Nope Francis agreed with his fellow Argentinian's heresy. Anyway, the question naturally arises, about what meaning "excommunication" actually has, if everyone in the world is saved anyway? If so, why not just ignore the excommunication(s)? Why be scared by a scare tactic, or by "fear porn" as it were, if that is all it amounts to?
https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/07/02/the-formula-used-by-tucho-to-excommunicate-priests-and-laypeople-lacks-penal-effectiveness/
DeleteSuch seemingly sloppy canon-lawyer-ese. On purpose? It looks like maybe Tucho Fernandez would significantly benefit by somebody giving him some tutorial lessons about the subject of Catholic canon law?!
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-pornographic-texts-by-cardinal-fernandez-discovered/ (Dec. 10, 2025)
DeleteNew "skeletons in the closet" type of discoveries in re Tucho Fernandez are still being made in recent months, just like the Pachamama-Prevost stuff was exposed via the Internet only rather recently. We keep finding out more about porn, porn and even more porn, in Tucho's literary past. Appropriately enough, he is now in charge of the Vatican CDF/DDF premises where the (in)famous "Vatican gay orgy" happened about a decade ago.
When is enough is enough is enough? Although they won't do so, why shouldn't the four new SSPX bishops "flip the script" and issue a formal decree excommunicating Tucho? In other words, who here has the best overall claim to holding the moral high ground? {What fellowship hath light with (heretically depraved) darkness? And what concord hath Christ with (sexually perverted) Belial? (2 Cor. 6:14-15)}
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2026/07/02/sspx-non-excommunication-meme-of-the-day-brilliant/
Delete= Cardinal Orgasm seen as a Drag Queen !
^^^^^^
^^^^^^
www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/defy-one-you-believe-true-pope-suffer-consequences-accordingly (July 3, 2026), in which Tom Droleskey noted today how severely the SSPX provoked the ire of Tucho and his boss Bob (formerly of Chicago), by recently issuing:
"a one hundred fifty-three point statement of faith that is a entire contradiction of the conciliar sect's embrace of dogmatic evolutionism, new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, the synod path, false ecumenism and interreligious prayer services, and the conciliar sect's embrace of religious liberty and separation of Church and State. To expect the conciliar officials to reconsider their total commitment to the "Second" Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo liturgical travesty, and the "synodal path" is unrealistic to the point of being insane... Unfortunately, the Society's leaders do not really believe in Papal Primacy nor in their own obligations to obey one they believe to be the Supreme Pontiff without complaint, delay, or dissent, showing that they dissent from the Holy Faith concerning the nature of the papacy as they cling doggedly to a Gallicanism, a stepchild of Jansenism, that was mocked by Bishop Emil Bougaud... Furthermore... to quote the late Bishop Robert Fidelis McKenna, O.P., when he told me his judgment about the Society of Saint Pius X in 2007, "Tom, the SSPX wants to have their pope and eat him too." "
Quite a few people expressed that they thought that that 153 point SSPX manifesto, smacked of the same aggressively schismatic tone as Luther's "95 Theses".
"Anything but sedevacantism! Oh no, not that!" is, sadly, clearly the core religious tenet of the LeFebvrite SSPX.
https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/the-aftermath-a-catholics-guide-to ... to understanding Rome's sanctions on the SSPX : Fernandez's SSPX dragnet, Rome's sloppy canon law, the old fear campaign over confessions and marriages, and the loyalty oath hidden inside "full communion" (July 3, 2026)
DeleteI do not agree with every single thing that the author, Chris Jackson, states, in his July 3 substack post. But nevertheless, it is a fairly useful overview or summary, of the aftermath of the July 1 drama at Econe. However, neither the SSPX, nor any other so-called trad clergy, will save the Church. Mark 4 tells us what will happen next:
[37] And there arose a great storm of wind [= the Great Apostasy, the Bigmodernism of V2] and the [tsunami-sized?] waves [of heresy and lethal moral errors] beat into the ship, so that the ship was filled. [38] And he was in the hinder part of the ship [= in his Apostle Peter's ship, symbolizing the Church he established] sleeping upon a pillow; and they awake him, and [those of us like Bishop Roy?!] say to him: Master, doth it not concern thee that we perish? [In other words, should not us true sede bishops and lay folk "do something significant" to help you resolve this problem?] [39] And rising up he [declined that offer of help, and instead simply] rebuked the wind, and said to the sea: Peace; be still. And the wind ceased; and there was made a great calm. [40] And he said to them: Why are you fearful? HAVE YOU NOT FAITH YET? And [yet] they [still] feared exceedingly...
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/canonical-analysis-2026-ddf-decree-on.html
Deleteis a post by "the Canon of Shaftsbury, a judicial vicar in a major archdiocese" published on July 4 in what one could refer to as "the semi-trad or R&R-affiliated" R.C. blog, and which shows the same thing as earlier 6:36 and 10:39 comments of this string, with some more details. Counterfeit Newpope Prevost and his doctrinal henchman (or hatchet man) Tucho, had a full five months advance notice, to help them in their drafting up of their "guilty of schism" declaration against the SSPX. You'd think that would be enough time to enable them to "get their act together." But evidently not! They botched it, and ended up putting on a clown show of sorts. But! ... But the Vatican charade WAS more than impressive enough to dupe whoever the author is who composed the "Traditio Fathers" post dated July 6, 2026, as anyone can see who reads it, at:
https://www.traditio.com/comment/com2607.htm
@anon3:55
DeleteUnreal! Thanks for sharing the links!
God Bless,
---Introibo
When God commands something the command is realized in an instant. It doesn’t take billions of years for God to make human life appear. The way he cured the lepers, raised Lazarus from the dead, The Creation of The Universe and Adam and so on. Genesis is a historical account. It’s literal, it’s not a poem or an allegory like many secular rationalists want people to believe. The early Church fathers and Catholic theologians held an instantaneous creation position until people like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin came along, a rabid modernist if there ever was one. I know you will mention Monsignor Lemaitre but he was a naturalist and rejected the whole tradition on what The Church taught about creation. If Adam came millions of years after the first creatures were roaming the earth, and death through sin entered the world through Adam, are you saying all the living creatures were around living for millions of years before Adam? They just lived for millions of years without dying? That’s ridiculous. The Big Bang Theory, Theoretical Physics, and the junk science of people like Michio Kaku, Hawking, Krauss, Neil De Grasse Tyson, are forms of naturalistic false religions. There is such a thing as micro evolution but not macro evolution. You don’t even believe in biological race differences but you say you taught evolutionary biology. If someone brings up race differences here you start calling them leftist slurs as if your on the ADL payroll. You don’t know what you are talking about and most people can see right through your modernist and scientistic thinking. Your pompous and lame sarcasm shows how insecure you are in your positions. All your arguments have been refuted many times over by the Church and much more lettered people than you, and you think because you taught high school science you are somehow credible in these areas of thought. Some of the stupidest people on the planet are high school science teachers. You have very little credibility based on many of your erroneous positions.
ReplyDelete@anon7:07
Delete^God HAS to work instantaneously? Says who? Where was this defined/taught?
*"I know you will mention Monsignor Lemaitre but he was a naturalist and rejected the whole tradition on what The Church taught about creation."
So he was a (naturalist) heretic? Then Pope Pius should have censured him not given him and the Big Bang theory praise!
*If Adam came millions of years after the first creatures were roaming the earth, and death through sin entered the world through Adam, are you saying all the living creatures were around living for millions of years before Adam? They just lived for millions of years without dying? That’s ridiculous.
That death for HUMANS entered the world, CONCEDED, that death for all living creatures began after the Fall, DENIED. That's what many approved theologians taught.
*The Big Bang Theory, Theoretical Physics, and the junk science of people like Michio Kaku, Hawking, Krauss, Neil De Grasse Tyson, are forms of naturalistic false religions.
The Big Bang Theory is the most well-confirmed theory in cosmology. Communists refused to teach it, holding to the discredited Steady State Theory, because if everything came into being from nothing, a Creator is implied.
*If someone brings up race differences here you start calling them leftist slurs as if your on the ADL payroll.
That there are racial differences CONCEDED; that it makes certain people inferior DENIED.
*All your arguments have been refuted many times over by the Church and much more lettered people than you
The Big Bang was "discredited"? By whom? The Church allowed the belief of the formation of the body of Adam from other than "dirt."
*Some of the stupidest people on the planet are high school science teachers.
That's why I'm glad I taught MIDDLE SCHOOL Science!! We're brilliant :-)
*You have very little credibility based on many of your erroneous positions.
Understood, Your Holiness.
---Introibo
When it comes to evolution I just go straight to the beginning. A random protein luckily assembling after billions of tries will go no further before it is separated again. We see no possibility of cells reproducing themselves when its component parts cannot luckily assemble themselves any more than the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in the print shop.
DeleteTCF = Traditional Catholic Femininity
ReplyDeleteFound at https://tradcatfem.com/blog
The TCF website, which contains a blog and other components, is set forth as being from a woman who identifies herself as being "Paige" from the UK. Subsections or categories of the blog include: All about Mary, Catholicism, Chasity/Purity, Courtship/Dating, Etiquette, For the Guys, Grooming, Homemaking, Homeschooling, Modesty, Motherhood/Family, (etc., etc.). In Introibo's Dec. 1, 2025 "Contending" post, there is a comment in response to Leo, of Dec. 7 at 7:58PM, which makes mention of the tradcatfem website, and notes a bit about it. Technically, Paige could be classified as being a Novus Ordite, as she openly declares that she regards Leo XIV to be the pope, but her website does not at all look "mainstream Novus Ordo". On the contrary, it gives off the impression of being very TLM-ish and theme oriented towards the SSPX and similar non-sede trad groups. (The so-called "Indult" diocesan TLM hardly exists any more, thanks to the efforts of Bergoglio and Prevost to try to exterminate it.)
Paige comes across as being rather strongly opinionated at times, and maybe one could say that she is somewhat of a combination of blog theologian, and psychoanalyst (especially of males). As such, she is similar to Ann Barnhardt (in more than one way). It remains to be seen how Paige will react to the four brand new SSPX bishops created at Econe today. Maybe we will find out in the next week or two? TradWarrior (and some others who read comments here) might find the contents of some of Paige's blog posts to be of some interest.
@anon8:54pm,
DeleteThank you for sharing this post. It is funny you mention this because I am familiar with Traditional Catholic Femininity. When I was on the road to tradition (and eventually sedevacantism), there were a lot of sites and blogs that I was visiting on a daily basis. The number grew to a large amount of different sites/blogs that I would visit every day. Some of them were conservative Novus Ordo or R & R sites. Many of them did write on very good topics, I must admit, and I took the good that could be taken from them, though they never reached the sedevacantist position. Paige’s site was one site that I became familiar with and visited from time to time. The problem was that there were so many different theological sites that I was visiting on a daily basis, it got to be pretty overwhelming. Many of them were not that well known, but I still came across very good content on them and I took them for what they were – good traditionalist sites that had much to offer.
Now, I only follow Introibo’s site and a handful of others, due to time constraints. I think that Paige means well and your description of how you see her and her site is pretty spot on. She wrote an article years back against sedevacantism. I find it interesting that you bring her up because I toyed with the idea for the last couple of years of writing to her and defending the sedevacantist position and seeing if she would have been interested in having an email correspondence with me. I never did that (at least not to this point) due to time constraints and other things that preoccupied my schedule, but maybe at some point I will. She writes a lot on courtship, dating, marriage, etc. and she has a decent following it seems, especially among young females that find her advice helpful.
A lot of people struggle out there when it comes to relationships, so I understand why people visit sites like hers. There are many people, including commenters on Introibo’s blog, that would like to find the ideal partner for themselves in life. It is hard out there and the number of people that will remain single for their entire lives is rising in number. People are foregoing marriage altogether now in large numbers.
I have seen so many attractive young ladies that have so much going for them and they always go wrong in one area or another. They are physically very beautiful and yet they have tattoos all over their bodies or they are dating a guy that is so bad for them that it is obvious to many people, but not the young lady. She sees nothing wrong with the guy when she could do much better. It is very sad.
Thank you for sharing your post.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Uncle Sam celebrates his 250th birthday today.
ReplyDeleteUncle Sam is just a cartoon character conjured up long after 1776. The 1776 date enshrined at the base of the MASONIC (LODGE) pyramid on the back side of the $1 Federal Reserve Note, has long been thought to refer to the Illuminati, said to have been started up by a Bavarian professor of canon law at a Jesuit-run institution. At any rate, here is a small extract of what Tom Droleskey noted in his christorchaos blog today, titled "A July 4, 2026 Reprise: A Short Catechism of the Social Reign of Christ the King":
Delete"A system of false opposites has evolved over time that attempts to convince voters that they face "real" choices in every election, each of which is said to be the "most important election of our lifetimes," when the fact is that adherents of the "left" and the "right" are in total agreement about the underlying premise of the American "experiment," namely, that religious truth is a matter of complete indifference to the welfare of the "well-ordered" republic... It matters little as to who is or is not a formally enrolled member of the "lodges" when most Catholics and non-Catholics alike are infected with the ethos of naturalism."
In www.christorchaos.com/?=content/american-caesarism (April 8 (?), 2026) Tom Droleskey reports on how desperately Donald Trump wanted to be seen, smiling in a "photo-op", standing right next to the USA citizen Robert Prevost (at the White House or any other iconic DC or USA location) on July 4, 2026. Prevost's response to Trump's invitation was to very deliberately pick that very date to travel instead to Lampedusa, "the Italian island where the North African migrants wash ashore by the thousands." The politically very anti-Trump meaning of LampedUSA, is obvious enough.
DeleteRight. Leaders are selected not elected as even one pretend president admitted. Much like novus disordo.
DeletePeople should look into the USA Inc scam too.
https://archive.org/details/redemption-manual-4-5-edition/page/115/mode/1up
An excerpt for those interested:
WHAT IS THE UNITED STATES More Forbidden History
Based on the comments and behavior of people all over North America, as it is known, the United States, Inc. is revered (dare we say worshiped) unlike any other corporation on the soil in the Western Hemisphere of planet Earth, commonly referred to as America. The reasons for this are many, but few of them have to do with anything remotely dealing with truth and reality. The majority of those who call themselves, unwittingly, “Americans,” know very little about any real history of the United States, including the nature of the incident that sparked the War for Independence and the true outcome of that war. As you will discover below, it was not about the tax on tea. Our heads are filled with revisionist history by the members of the social compact that control the centers of public education; within or around the locale of the social compact known as the United States. We have continually been redacted to encourage worship, adoration, and subservience to government authority. All their school teachers out there who have ever tried to deviate from the “accepted” instructional materials in their controlled government schools, know what I mean—if you didn’t toe the line you were forced into retirement.
What would you think if your friends and neighbors started a cult following after McDonalds Corporation? What if on every anniversary since the founding of McDonalds, they gathered together to have a barbecue and shoot off fireworks because they thought that Big Macs set them free; or took special days off during the year to celebrate Ronald McDonald’s birthday and carved busts of Ronald at Mount Rushmore to honor him? They would fly the McDonalds corporate flag outside their homes and paste stickers of the flag on their vehicles. What if every time Executives for McDonalds ran for office, and sent in campaign contributions for their favorite candidate? Periodically they might even call on the officers of the corporation to solve problems that they were experiencing in their daily lives.
Whereas this sounds sacrilegious, absurd, and may even appear to stretch the bounds of making an appropriate analogy, it is no less valid or logical. In fact, if it weren’t for certain unrevealed contracts, and a whole lot of brain washing, United States Inc., would have no more influence, power, or jurisdiction over you than McDonalds, IBM, General Motors, or for that matter, any other corporation. America has been under an evolving military occupation since 1871. The flag that is flown around the so-called nation in public places, and by people who celebrate the occupation, is the war flag of United States. If there were such a thing as a Peace-time flag, it is presumed that it would be a neutral, white banner/flag and no other - such as the type of flag that is commonly referred to as a “Truce Flag.”
Notice that the title of this essay doesn’t include the word “THE.” Just as General Motors doesn’t imply a plural number of motors, United States does not imply a plural number of states—there is nothing plural about the contemporary use of the term. United States is a singular proper noun, and correct usage does not include the antecedent definite article the. United states is a corporate trade name, like General Motors, and identifies a corporation, albeit federal and municipal, but a corporation nevertheless. Just as proper English doesn’t include “the Canada, “the Finland, or “the Egypt’, it likewise does not include “the United States.” A far more
Introibo, you did a great job on the last two articles! May God bless you!!!
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory
John
DeleteThank you my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo