Monday, January 11, 2016

Double Agent?


 What do a Buddhist, a Mohammedan, a Jew, and a Vatican II "priest" all have in common? No, this isn't the beginning of an off-color joke. The answer is to be found in the latest video put out by Mr. Bergoglio (aka "Pope" Francis); they are all "Children of God," and they all "believe in love." Moreover, this is the "only one certainty we have for all." Apostasy of this magnitude (unthinkable even ten years ago) needs no comment from me. Anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge regarding the True Faith will instantly see that this video is produced from Hell. A very good analysis is provided on "Novusordowatch.org."

    The purpose of my post is to put forth a question of my own: "How can anyone not be a sedevacantist after all this ecumenical apostasy?" Robert Siscoe and John Salza (Salza being a lawyer like myself) are putting out a book entitled True or False Pope, Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors. The foreword is written by Bp. Bernard Fellay, General Superior of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The book rehashes all the same worn out, discredited arguments of the "recognize and resist" camp of pseudo-Traditionalists who hold that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, Frankie is "pope," and we have the right to choose not to obey him when we dislike what he says ( a totally false, non-Catholic, invented principle).

 Those of us who remember any part of the Cold War (circa 1945-1989), will recall that there were those who were outright Communists, "fellow travelers" (i.e., those who are not "card-carrying" Communists yet share most/all of their ideas and goals), and "useful idiots" (i.e., those  people who act as propagandists for  Communism-- of whose goals they are not fully aware--- and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause). Perhaps it's time we categorize those who "recognize and resist" Begoglio in the same way.

 Mr. Salza, co-author of True or False Pope claims to be a former 32nd degree Freemason who left to join the Vatican II sect. He has written several books including Why Catholics Cannot Be Masons. In his book on Masonry, Mr. Salza correctly expounds the teachings and aims of the Lodge. I will show some pertinent points regarding both Masonry and Begoglio.

 Masonry Promotes Indifferentism

 Freemasonry forbids prayers in the name of Jesus Christ but instead calls upon the Deistic "Great Architect of the Universe" (GAOTU). Freemason Manly Hall explains, "Christ, Buddha, or Mohammed, the name means little." (See The Lost Keys of Freemasonry; or, The Secret of Hiram Abiff, Richmond, Virginia, Macoy, 1976, pg.65). Watch Frankie's video again with the Buddhist, Mohammedan, Jew, and "priest." Now read what a real pope wrote:

 Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?" (See Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos, #13)

Masonry Demands Strict Obedience Of Its High Ranking Members Under Penalty of Death

 "Moreover, to be enrolled, it is necessary that the candidates promise and undertake to be thenceforward strictly obedient to their leaders and masters with the utmost submission and fidelity, and to be in readiness to do their bidding upon the slightest expression of their will; or, if disobedient, to submit to the direst penalties and death itself. As a fact, if any are judged to have betrayed the doings of the sect or to have resisted commands given, punishment is inflicted on them not infrequently, and with so much audacity and dexterity that the assassin very often escapes the detection and penalty of his crime." (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus # 9)

Masonry LOVES Mr. Bergoglio

"A man of the poor far away from the Curia. Fraternity and the desire to dialogue were his first concrete words. Perhaps nothing in the Church will be as it was before. Our hope is that the pontificate of Francis, the Pope who 'comes from the end of the world' can mark the return to the Church-Word instead of the Church-Institution, promoting an open dialogue with the contemporary world, with believers and non-believers, following the springtime of Vatican II." --- Gustavo Raffi, Grand Master of the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge of Italy, upon the "election" of Frankie in March 2013--Emphasis mine

"In the Argentine Freemasonry, based on the principles of tolerance, profound respect for personal convictions, liberty, equality and fraternity, the brothers who profess or adhere to this religious faith stand together with others who belong to other creeds, are agnostics or lack any faith. In the name of all, the Grand Lodge of Argentina greets our co-patriot Cardinal who just received such a high world distinction." (signed) Angel Jorge Clavero, Grand Master

Summary and (Draw Your Own) Conclusion
1. Masonry, which shares the same ideology as Modernism, wants a one-world ecumenical religion devoid of dogma.

2. Jorge Begoglio has produced a video that captures that central goal of Masonry and promotes it.

3. The Masons openly praise Bergoglio.

4. The True Church has officially condemned Freemasonry (specifically) no less than seventeen (17) times

5. High ranking Masons will be the target of wrath should they disobey (or leave) Masonry, including being killed by the Lodge.

6.  We can say that there are actual Masons, "fellow travelers" who believe in Indifferentism (e.g., Modernists), and useful idiots who are led into staying with Bergoglio through propaganda books like True or False Pope

7. John Salza knows the teachings of the True Church rather well. He may be useful, but he's no idiot.

8. Salza claims he was a 32nd degree Mason (one of the very highest, ruling-class levels) and claims to have left. Yet, he prospers as a lawyer and nothing has been done to him. He has even written a book entitled Masonry Unmasked; An Insider Reveals The Secrets of the Lodge,He seems unafraid of any consequences (unlike some former Masons who wrote books under pseudonyms to protect themselves).

9. Salza's book aids Frankie (whom the Masons love) and keeps souls in union with the "Vicar of Satan." 

10. Is it possible Salza is still a Mason, with his mission to try to keep people fearing sedevacantism, and thereby help the cause of the Masonic Lodge and their master; Satan? 

As people who read my blog will know very well, I'm no "conspiracy nut." I don't know if Mr. Salza is an actual Mason or not. One thing I do know, is that whether he's wearing an actual Masonic apron or not, his book does the work of those condemned by Pope Pius VIII (echoing the words of Pope St. Leo the Great) because their "Law is prevarication; religion, the devil; sacrifice, disgrace."

59 comments:

  1. I have wondered the EXACT SAME THING about John Salza!! I knew this information about freemasonry and always wondered how he escaped their wrath?!?!
    Secondly,he promotes the novus ordo one world religion.Yet simultaneously,claims to have rejected the freemasonic one world religion.Me and you can't be the only ones who are questioning his legitimacy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Spot on... one is forced to arrive at the conclusion that he (Salza) is very much still a Mason if he ever was. I am tempted to adopt the Conspiracy Theory as the parallel is very obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. It seems very plausible given the totality of the circumstances! God bless you, my friend.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. Interesting blog. Haven't read the entire entry yet, but noticed one error in it. John Salza isn't a lawyer but is instead an accountant. Perhaps you were confusing him with Chris Ferrara who is a lawyer.

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-salza-012107110

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to your own citation, Mr. Salza is a tax attorney. Perhaps that's the source of confusion. Thank you for your comment, and I hope you find my blog posts informative!
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. We stand corrected. You are absolutely correct, there is no error in your post!

      Does Salza mention in his books who invited him into the masons?

      Delete
    3. According to his book "Why Catholics Cannot Be Masons" he was in Scottish Rite Masonry and played a big role. After investigating the "Catholic Church" (Vatican 2 sect) he claims to have resigned from the Lodge in 1999. He never says who initiated him--or invited him--to join. I have not been able to locate Salza's other book on Masonry in my extensive library, but I don't remember such info.
      If any of my readers possess this knowledge (and have a reliable citation to back it up) I would be happy to publish it.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Wow --- my brain is in flux. What an interesting theory!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Knew it..you just confirmed..once an agent of the devil always a sly agent..Devil doesn't let go..under threat of masonry death by salzas oath to them.salza is a modern ..infil-traitor..if salzas was pardon by
    bergolio in confession it is invalid..Devil will give no relief of sin..because of the invalid sacraments of vat 2..Salzas is lost..unless he finds the true Pope. (Only the Holy See can give absolution for masonry)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Believe it, or not, so have I. I have included R&R bloggers and Bp. Fellay in the conspiracy. It all makes such sense. Take a blogger who has just made a video. He has categorically stated he is neither NO, SSPX, or sedevacantist. Yet he is immovably R&R. No quote from Scripture, or Magisterium will budge him, or his mates a fraction of an inch. Sure, they seek minor celebrity and never fail to solicit donations, but their untenable theological positions make great sense if they are undercover masons keeping troubled souls with a sensus fidei within the broader NO net. Why does Bp. Fellay crave recognition from and pray in union with a "pope" who he has publicly declared to be a modernist heretic? I can only think of one reason!

    ReplyDelete
  7. You are asking the right questions. When there is no logical explanation for what is going on, these hard questions need to be asked. Our Lord instructed us to examine the fruits.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. Perhaps missed it, but how do you KNOW what the contents of the book are?
    2. It seems at least fallacious to assert that Salza KNOWS Church teaching
    a. This implies malice on his part, which indirectly question begs
    b. You can't KNOW what isn't, only THAT it isn't.

    i. He either KNOWS Church teaching i.e. Truth, and acts against it, which you seem to be trying to establish. (Question begging)
    ii. He misapprehends it, it which case he does not KNOW it, in which case malice is mitigated or eliminated.

    Perhaps this is due to unintentioN equivocation on my part if you, as does he, are operating from a legal, rather than an epistemological, framework. Apologies if so. Cool-Whip sharp betimes.

    Add: If he misapprehends, which to be clear I don't believe, then that doesn't make him an idiot necessarily, just mistaken. I.e., bifurcation error.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be clear:
      I have advanced a theory, I'm not claiming it to be apodictic certainty. Such would be calumny without incontrovertible proof. I do believe that it is highly more probable than not that Salza is a double agent.

      1. The contents of the book were partially released, including the table of contents. If they really had a defeater for sedevacantist positions it certainly didn't seem present. Furthermore, being a lawyer myself, if you can't "blind them with brilliance, befuddle them with baloney." Approx. 700 pages long; who will read it? Not the average person, who will assume if they've written so much it must be true.

      2. Salza has heard and responded to the arguments for sedevacantism. He therefore knows Church teaching. It seems implausible (to be charitable) that he is merely mistaken in recycling old arguments.
      The manifest weight of the credible evidence is against Mr. Salza.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. 1. That clarifies. Ty
      2. While a bit hypocritical, or at least ironic, the detractor immediately after does have some points meriting consideration re:Salza spec.

      Delete
    3. It does beggar belief to plead ignorance, granted, though it seems the most charitable take is blindness and ignorance of actual meaning. Do I believe it? No. I think at least regarding Church teaching he is of a warped mind due to bad will and subsequent motive regardless.

      Delete
  9. Kindest assay? He may have left the Lodge, but the Lodge never left him. This delusion only makes him more effective as a Lodger, and far more vulnerable to it for the lack of awareness.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I read the link you've offered here. So John Salza is actually, really, a mason? Despite the fact that he's written best-selling books exposing the evils of masonry and illustrating its complete incompatibility with the Catholic faith? And has lectured on these topics and debated prominent masons - when they weren't running from him, that is? Yes, that makes sense. Yes, it's all just part of the act!

    The notion put forth that those who call-out the sedevacantist error are "protecting" the pope is also completely laughable. Nothing more needs to be said for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

    The author of this post should be ashamed of himself for committing the sin of calumny, as should anyone who furthers it. This is calumny plain & simple despite what the author opines in a comment - making an accusation that is completely unfounded is calumny, even if the author amusingly allows that he's not completely certain of it. (If I say "my neighbor may be a child molester" simply because I don't like him, is that calumny? Of course it is.)

    But, no matter, as it is really counter-productive; in fact, this one little post is kind of the quintessential sedevacantist piece, demonstrating well its most intrinsic properties:

    - Subjective judgement
    - Weak (at best) inference put forth with near moral certainty
    - Logical leaps unfounded by or running counter to the evidence

    "Desperation" is what comes immediately to mind here: The sedes ignore the material (pronouncing the book they haven't even seen as "nothing new" - which is far from the case) and go for the calumny of persons involved instead. In a sense its Sede 101 but it's a new low.

    By the way, I happen to know the guy, and can personally attest that he's a devout Catholic and an enemy of freemasonry. It's appropriate to offer such a testimony when this sort of thing is being spread.

    Sedevacantism is an emotional response to the crisis in the Church. This is evident in many aspects of the movement - its bitterness and constant tendencies to calumny and personal insult. Most especially, though, it's evident in the illogical nature of the argument itself and the illogical manner in which sedes cling to their thesis no matter what evidence is put in their path.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When commenting on sedevacantism, it's wise to define sedevacantism accurately. Sedevacantism is not the name of a movement. If one believes that the Holy See is vacant, then one is a sedevacantist. If one believes that the Catholic Church today has no pope-no true,valid & legitimate successor of St. Peter, then one is a sedevacantist. Some sedevacantists go to masses of SSPX priests. Some go to masses of sedevacantist priests. There are others who go elsewhere. Some SSPX priests are non una-cum sedevacantists. There are sedevacantists who do not go to mass at all. There are those who go to masses said by sedevacantist priests who are not themselves sedevacantists. A number of sedevacantists taught in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's seminary. Sedevacantism is not about with whom one mixes. It's about whether or not one recognizes Francis as the visible head of Christ's Church.

      Delete
    2. Calumny, according to theologian Jone, is "the imputation of false defects to another." (See "Moral Theology' pg. 250) I have done no such thing. I made it clear both in my post and the comments below that I have no incontrovertible proof. Your charge that I'm a calumniator is without merit.
      The fact that he has written best selling books on the Lodge would make him the perfect double agent when he's sending them from one pit of snakes (Masonry) into another (Vatican II sect). Consider the fact that I conceal my identity so as to spare my family, my friends and myself from the enemies of the Faith who don't like my views. Yet Salza has no fear of repercussions and functions without reprisal from the Masons who have (literally) killed those who left?

      He's doing the work of the Masons by keeping people in union with Bergoglio. For one who allegedly despises baseless accusations, the best you could come up with is "Nothing more needs to be said for those with eyes to see and ears to hear"?

      Furthermore, my thesis is hardly "completely unfounded." I respectfully suggest you go back and re-read my evidence and put it in context with the totality of the circumstances--and please do so with eyeglasses and a hearing aid, so as to take your own advice about "seeing and hearing."

      Your analogy :"If I say 'my neighbor may be a child molester' simply because I don't like him, is that calumny? Of course it is." is inapposite. My theory is not based on a personal dislike of John Salza, but on facts and the manifest weight of the credible evidence drawn from the totality of circumstances. In other words, if your neighbor had been Michael Jackson would you allow your child to spend the night there with a friend? Why not? He was never convicted of child molestation. However, he thought there was nothing wrong with a 44 year old sharing a bed with children because "nothing sexual went on" and all he does is give them hot milk and cookies before sleeping in the same bed with them, which he believed "the whole world should do." Combine this with all his other bizarre behavior, and I wouldn't call it calumny to say you think he might be a child molester.

      As to "subjective judgement" my theory is supported by fact, and yes, I do not claim it with certainty.

      "Weak judgement"? Now who's using subjective standards?

      "Logical leaps" that are unfounded and run contrary to the evidence? An empty assertion. Please demonstrate where and how (I won't be holding my breath)

      You "know the guy." OK, to what extent? Are you his brother or best friend to whom he would really relate such intimate details of his life? I sincerely doubt it. Members of the Lodge put Masonry and its secrets above all else, even family.

      Your last paragraph is telling. Sedevacantists is an emotional response? I would say wanting a pope at all costs is emotional, to the point where all evidence is discarded and you can watch Frankie's video still thinking he's "pope" and you can pick and choose what to obey.

      Don't be upset; as Frankie (and the Beatles) would say, "All you need is love!"

      Delete
    3. Wow, you are a lawyer. Prosecutor? Not bad.

      Delete
    4. "By the way, I happen to know the guy, and can personally attest that he's a devout Catholic and an enemy of freemasonry. It's appropriate to offer such a testimony when this sort of thing is being spread."

      That's what I call solid evidence! (not!)

      You posted as "Anonymous," making your attestations. Why should anyone believe you? You could be Salza for all we know.

      The owner of this blog makes perfect sense. He'd know that one would not advance to the 32nd degree in Freemasonry unless one displayed certain unsavory character traits. One simply does not advance in that devilry otherwise. Anyone who knows anything about Freemasonry knows this basic fact.

      The owner of this blog has advanced a perfectly reasonable theory, because there are many, many facts that support his ideas.

      Delete
  11. Salza is a mason; do not doubt it people. The anonymous Salza defender is trying to get people to doubt themselves with the help of a little guilt imposition. The traditional Catholic movement has always been a controlled opposition and that most definitely includes the sedevacantists. The purpose of this controlled opposition was to strand the resistance in dead end positions and it worked. Salza's book will have some fantastic arguments that disprove the Sede thesis without much difficulty. But while it contains enough truth to accomplish this, it ultimately leads Catholics to false conclusions, which is exactly what a false opposition is designed to do. His book will appeal to many Catholics but the less credulous will find more intellectual honesty in the "other book" Salza mentioned "The Sedevacantist Delusion." I believe Chapter 2 talks about the false opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is the first time I've seen this theory posted, but I have speculated about this myself even since I heard of his articles in cfn and the remnant, his (failed) arguements with the Dimond brothers, and finally a massive book against Sedevacantism. I don't know how Siscoe could not have noticed his double agency though, unless he's in on it too, which seems unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The bottom line is, "What is true, what contributes to salvation ?" Contra factum...controlled opposition or not, the Church cannot defect, and arguments stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of who makes them. Theological arguments are based on authority. What do the known authorities say, and what is their weight? All this X-Files crap is a rabbit trail. Who is really being controlled by being lured into engaging in it, thus distracting from Alpha and Omega? Gratuitously proffered, likewise dismissed. To blazes with the nebulous assertions. IAD dealt in specifics, not in untenable and laughable generalizations

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi there,

    Thanks for posting my comment. I’ll respond to your retort bit by bit here, then I’m done - you can have the last word.

    Regarding calumny, I made in clear in my comment that merely raising the “possibility” of some terrible sin, publicly, suffices. Your hedge that you “can’t be sure” merely gives you the legal out you’re looking for. I maintain that only someone engaging in seriously illogical thinking or with a vendetta could reasonably assert that this guy who has combatted and debunked masonry for many years is actually a mason. It’s a completely baseless charge regardless of the logic you use to justify it. You might as well claim your neighbor is a pedophile perv because you saw him around children.

    Your notion that the masons would whack him unless he was really on their side is, to be frank, rather nutty. Do you live in the real world? Now, I do believe that world masonry has been involved in murder in the past in certain circumstances, but to assert that *anyone*, anywhere who combats them is going to end up dead with a guarantee is very silly. Intelligent and reasonable people will understand that. (For that matter, how would you know how and in what matter they’ve attacked him?)

    "He's doing the work of the Masons by keeping people in union with Bergoglio” - this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the Society of St. Pius Xth and of Traditionalism in general. We trads recognize the *fact* that a validly elected prelate holds his office unless & until the Church deposes him (a bit more below) while also resisting this material (the most we can determine with moral certainty) heretic and combatting his errors at every turn. Honestly, take your head out of the sand.

    The rest of your retort is concerned essentially with how valid your accusation is. I maintain that it is indeed about as weak as is possible and constitutes calumny. However, I can see how those that ascribe to the sedevacantist error and have a conspiratorial mindset (I use the term in the bad sense; I’m a “conspiracy theorist” myself to the world at large) would find it plausible and responsible. I’m content to allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. [Continued]

    As for how well I know him, the most pertinent response is: far better than you. We go to the same chapel. He attends every Mass offered. I could say much more, but you & your readers would discount it, wouldn’t you? I can declare on my immortal soul that I’m as certain as anything that’s not de fide that he’s the farthest thing from a mason. (And why should you doubt that? You’ve never heard of, er, “conversion” and all that? Are you convinced that St. Paul was a closet Christian persecutor as well? After all, why did the Jews let him live long enough to write all those epistles that we’re still reading today?)

    Last paragraph: My assertion that sedevacantism is an emotional response was not a general comment based on the position itself but on observing the behavior of sede leaders and followers over the course of many years. Certainly it is human nature to seek information that confirms our beliefs and ignore or reject that which does not, but this tendency is especially overt in two particular categories of people I’ve known: sedevacantist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants. The diatribe of the likes of Cekada, Speray, and the Dimonds is clearly fueled by emotion, yes.

    “Wanting” a pope doesn’t do anything for the emotions in the least when you have to constantly call him out on his errors and suffer his abuses. You speak as if you’re not in the leas aware of what the recognize & resist movement actually does. You’re fixated on nothing other than the sedevacantist rebuttal.

    “Frankie’s” video doesn’t command me or you or another any Catholic to obey anything - that’s part of what you’re missing.

    (To the other reply: I’m not interested in the distinctions between sede camps in theory or praxis; it is an error all the same. After three years assisting at Society Masses, I have yet to hear word one about a sede SSPX priest. Do note that allowing for the possibility that a future pope or council will nullify a post-conciliar pontiff is not an error; rather, it is deciding for oneself when a prelate has fallen from office (or never received it) that is the error under question. Every theologian who ever spoke on the matter taught that some action of the Church is necessary at some point for a validly elected pontiff to be disposed - either a declaration of his obstinate heresy or an actual deposition.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Here’s my response. What my SSPX “recognize and resister” wrote will be preceded by (RR). My response will be below with (I) for “Introibo.”

      RR: Regarding calumny, I made in clear in my comment that merely raising the “possibility” of some terrible sin, publicly, suffices.
      I: Wrong. I already cited theologian Jone that calumny is the “imputation of FALSE defects to another.” Salza does the work of Masonry, by keeping people under Bergoglio, the false pope. There is credible evidence that he may still be a Mason. To alert people to this threat is NOT calumny. Like the typical SSPX, you cite NO authority for your invented principle that merely raising the possibility of some terrible sin, publicly, suffices as calumny—even when there is a sufficient reason to do so.


      RR: Your hedge that you “can’t be sure” merely gives you the legal out you’re looking for. I maintain that only someone engaging in seriously illogical thinking or with a vendetta could reasonably assert that this guy who has combatted and debunked masonry for many years is actually a mason.

      I: You have yet to show where my thinking is “seriously illogical” or that I have a “vendetta.” The Vatican II sect has the same goals as Masonry. In reality he has done nothing to stop the Indifferentism of Masonry which is endorsed by Frankie.

      RR: It’s a completely baseless charge regardless of the logic you use to justify it. You might as well claim your neighbor is a pedophile perv because you saw him around children.

      I: Go back and read my Michael Jackson analogy in my last reply to you. Do you seriously believe people thought him to be a pedophile based on “seeing him around children?” Now, go back and read my post. You’ll find my theory to have quite a basis in fact, unless you’re closed to those facts and the logical implications that flow from them.


      RR: Your notion that the masons would whack him unless he was really on their side is, to be frank, rather nutty. Do you live in the real world?


      I: Yes, the color of the sky here is blue. I’m not so sure about where you live.

      RR: Now, I do believe that world masonry has been involved in murder in the past in certain circumstances, but to assert that *anyone*, anywhere who combats them is going to end up dead with a guarantee is very silly. Intelligent and reasonable people will understand that. (For that matter, how would you know how and in what matter they’ve attacked him?)


      I: Salza is not “anyone.” He was 32 degree Scottish Rite. It’s not like he was some low level Mason who thinks the Lodge is a good place to go on Thursday nights and play cards with the boys, and leave the wife at home. He has never claimed persecution, lives pretty well, and looks quite healthy so unless you provide proof to the contrary, I’d say the “attacks” are non-existent.
      (Continued below)

      Delete
    3. RR: "He's doing the work of the Masons by keeping people in union with Bergoglio” - this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the Society of St. Pius Xth and of Traditionalism in general. We trads recognize the *fact* that a validly elected prelate holds his office unless & until the Church deposes him (a bit more below) while also resisting this material (the most we can determine with moral certainty) heretic and combatting his errors at every turn. Honestly, take your head out of the sand.


      I: So, it’s a “fact” that a validly elected prelate holds his office unless and until the Church deposes him?

      Let’s see: The Roman Pontiff “would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.” (Coronata,” Institutiones Iuris Canonici”, 1:316)

      St. Robert Bellarmine : “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” De Romano Pontifice. II.30.

      St. Alphonsus Liguori : “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232

      That disposes of the well-reasoned R&R position of the pseudo-Traditionalists. They have certainly provided excellent citations to relevant authority demonstrating the FACT that a prelate only loses office by deposition. Here’s a real lapse of reason and logic: The SSPX acknowledges Frankie as pope yet THEY decide what and when to obey or believe him! They acknowledge Vatican II “bishops” as valid and having Ordinary jurisdiction, yet they will not accept their annulments until one of THEIR “tribunals”—devoid of jurisdiction---approves it! Doesn’t the pope and the hierarchy constitute the Magisterium? Or is it the SSPX that is the Uber-Magisterium?


      RR: The rest of your retort is concerned essentially with how valid your accusation is. I maintain that it is indeed about as weak as is possible and constitutes calumny.


      I: Yeah, and I maintain picking your nose constitutes adultery. That makes about as much sense as anything else you’ve written—and with just as many citations.

      RR: However, I can see how those that ascribe to the sedevacantist error and have a conspiratorial mindset (I use the term in the bad sense; I’m a “conspiracy theorist” myself to the world at large) would find it plausible and responsible. I’m content to allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.


      I: So am I. With arguments as shoddy as yours, real Traditionalists have nothing to fear. If you want to accuse us of being conspiratorial, check out Bp. Williamson. He’s still R&R. Last I heard his miter is made of tinfoil.
      RR: As for how well I know him, the most pertinent response is: far better than you. We go to the same chapel. He attends every Mass offered. I could say much more, but you & your readers would discount it, wouldn’t you? I can declare on my immortal soul that I’m as certain as anything that’s not de fide that he’s the farthest thing from a mason.
      I: I wouldn’t be so quick to declare that one on your soul. Fr. Hans Kung offered Mass in a seeming devout manner prior to V2, but he was a heretic. Won’t Satan appear even “as an angel of light” to deceive? “By their fruits thou shalt know them.” Frankie has rotten fruit, and Salza wants you to eat the poison.

      Delete
    4. RR: (And why should you doubt that? You’ve never heard of, er, “conversion” and all that? Are you convinced that St. Paul was a closet Christian persecutor as well? After all, why did the Jews let him live long enough to write all those epistles that we’re still reading today?)


      I: Because St. Paul was protected by God for a special mission. I don’t think Saul of Tarsus has much in common with John of Wisconsin.



      RR: Last paragraph: My assertion that sedevacantism is an emotional response was not a general comment based on the position itself but on observing the behavior of sede leaders and followers over the course of many years. Certainly it is human nature to seek information that confirms our beliefs and ignore or reject that which does not, but this tendency is especially overt in two particular categories of people I’ve known: sedevacantist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants. The diatribe of the likes of Cekada, Speray, and the Dimonds is clearly fueled by emotion, yes.


      I: I can easily flip that one on you. Certainly it is human nature to seek information that confirms our beliefs and ignore or reject that which does not, but this tendency is especially overt in members of the R&R and SSPX. How can you be sure it’s us rejecting and ignoring the facts and not you? Your position leads into epistemic agnosticism. Steven Speray and Fr. Cekada are both highly intelligent men who use pertinent facts and make sound arguments—unlike you. The Dimond “Brothers” are sophistical Feeneyite heretics.


      RR: “Wanting” a pope doesn’t do anything for the emotions in the least when you have to constantly call him out on his errors and suffer his abuses. You speak as if you’re not in the leas aware of what the recognize & resist movement actually does. You’re fixated on nothing other than the sedevacantist rebuttal.


      I: I’ve been a Traditionalist since 1981. I’ve seen it all. The R&R movement does nothing but keep souls under the thumb of the Vatican II sect.


      RR: “Frankie’s” video doesn’t command me or you or another any Catholic to obey anything - that’s part of what you’re missing.


      I: It doesn’t have to command anything. That’s what you don’t understand—Catholic doctrine. Theologians teach that external heresy consists in “dictis vel factis” — not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, “Summa Theologiae Moralis,” 1:746.). So when JP II kisses the Koran, it’s heresy because his deed shows respect and reverence for “the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism.” When Frankie shows a Mohammedan, Jew, and Buddhist all on equal footing with a “Catholic” cleric, that’s heresy.

      RR: (To the other reply: I’m not interested in the distinctions between sede camps in theory or praxis; it is an error all the same. After three years assisting at Society Masses, I have yet to hear word one about a sede SSPX priest.


      I: If you have time some day, I’ll tell you the story of the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) All nine priests who founded it were sedevacantists from the SSPX.


      RR: Do note that allowing for the possibility that a future pope or council will nullify a post-conciliar pontiff is not an error; rather, it is deciding for oneself when a prelate has fallen from office (or never received it) that is the error under question. Every theologian who ever spoke on the matter taught that some action of the Church is necessary at some point for a validly elected pontiff to be disposed - either a declaration of his obstinate heresy or an actual deposition.)


      I: Yes, and I’ve seen your citations to them! How about the theologians I cited? St. Alphonsus and St Robert Bellarmine certainly didn’t teach anything about “declarations.”
      I'll pray for your conversion--and Mr. Salza's

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. Excellent post. Reasoned and completely in-line with the warnings of every
    Pope who anathemised in their magisteriums, the masonic interlopers and modernist, liberalist, and protestant enemies of the Faith.

    The willful ignorance of those for whom such faithful and Catholic commentary puts into a fit is growing in numbers. But that is no detergent. Christ is King and His promises are not subject to Novus Ordo/freemason deconstruction or tantrums.

    Our Lady, Hammer of Heretics, pray for us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS. Scuse the auto-spell - while fits of the faithless are no detergent, they also no deterent to the Faithful.

      Delete
  17. Question1 What would have kept the Arians from deposing the pope? 2 What catholic wants a vacant see? 3 Why, precisely, do you assert the Dimonds to be heretics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. The pope can't be deposed. He can lose office via public heresy.
      2. None.
      3. They deny BOD and BOB. They further assert you can receive Communion from heretics as long as you don't support them with your money!
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. 1. I
      Think you're missing the point here, namely regarding the Recognising Reprobates.

      Ty for the specifics. Glass houses.

      Delete
  18. Passel of question begging being snuck by the wire. another question: Was there a visible heirarchy extant for the Japanese Catholics during their 250y isolation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure. They simply didn't have access to it. You even have a visible hierarchy during a period of sedevacante. According to theologian Dorsch:

      “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

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

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

      Delete
  19. Introibo: You are correct insofar as you point out that Salza's arguments are shoddy and false, and that he does the work of the Church's enemies. He is, in reality, a heretic whose material has been debunked. He is a deceiver. However, you are way off when you say "The Dimond “Brothers” are sophistical Feeneyite heretics." They are not heretics. You are actually condemning the Church's dogmatic and magisterial teaching when you make such a false assertion, when you label adherence to the teaching of Jesus in John 3:5 (solemnly defined as a dogma) as heretical. Your position is actually heretical. It also contradicts the teaching of papal encyclicals in the 20th century. Also, you praise Steve Sperray in the process. Well, Dimond and Sperray had a debate on salvation. You can listen to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPfhgR6pfLM

    Any honest person can see that Sperray was demolished. The debate exposes and refutes your position as well. It exposes that people like you, Cekada, etc. actually dissent from the Church's teaching on salvation by holding that individuals can be saved in non-Catholic religions. You deny EENS. Dimond's refutations of Salza are also the best ones out there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Observing over my long lifetime,problems surrounding what should not be a "controversial," if you will-issue-have firstly seemed to about Fr. Fenney himself, inaccuracies put forth vis a vie his standing in the Church and more. Secondly, BOB & BOD are Teaching of Holy Mother Church. What I've seen is the lack of understanding of just how very limited are the occasions within which BOD and BOB would apply. To accept the Church's very Teaching on BOD & BOB in no way denies Her De Fide Teaching that one must be a member of the Church for salvation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are quite correct. BOD and BOB are extraordinary means of Church membership. Faith and Grace are infused at the moment of death so that one dies as a Catholic. I've written on this topic many times. The Dimonds have far from refuted Mr. Speray. As a matter of fact, they claim you can't attend an "una cum" Mass, yet they attend an Eastern Rite Church in actual union with Frankie--and they place his name in the anaphora (the Eastern Rite Canon). They further teach you can go to a priest who is a "heretic" for the Sacraments (I.e. They believe in BOD and BOB) yet you can't support them monetarily. If like to see one citation from a pre-Vatican 2 theologian who teaches this novelty. You mean I can go to the Old Catholic schismatics with valid sacraments as long as I don't contribute? They are heretics too (not merely schismatic.)

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Credibility is tanking. You are misrepresenting, which undermines all else that you do, and now you are doing, or more precisely not doing what you just got up someone else's bum for.

      Also, You deny, against Trent, against the faith, the absolute necessity of the sacrament of Baptism but, hey, who are we going to listen to, you, or an infallibly protected conditional curse?

      Delete
    3. Not in the least. All pre-V2 theologians, including the great St. Alphonsus Liguori taught BOTH BOD and BOB. His works were approved by the Holy See. How could he be a saint and doctor of the Church if he taught heresy?
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Answered quite adequately by the Dimonds for anyone who actually cares to see them fairly and accurately represented. Contra-factum... BoD/B is CONDEMNED. You're a heretic and a fake. Knocking the dust off. Good bye

      Delete
    5. You are a Feeneyite heretic. The Dimond "brothers" are a joke. Instead of shaking the dust , try shaking the cobwebs out of your head first.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  21. Not defending the Bros Dimond but in a post 2 year's ago they wrote "We don't attend anyone's Holy Mass nor have for a great while.."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough, as I don't keep tabs on them. However , that was there position, and I'm not aware they ever repudiated it.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I knew you weren't aware of their latest position and you're correct on their previous Eastern Rite position.

      Delete
  22. "... the Church cannot defect, and arguments stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of who makes them. Theological arguments are based on authority. What do the known authorities say, and what is their weight?"
    Such indeed, in the basis of Catholic debate. Catholicism is absolute - never relative. It has dogmas, theological certainties and canons which guide the Faithful along the path of salvation and to which they must submit, or forfeit their membership of the Mystical Body of Christ.
    " The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church." This is Catholic dogma.
    “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896.
    So, if one accepts Bergoglio as Pope, one shall submit to his magisterium - every iota of it - or one is out of the Church, whether one likes it, or not! Whether one agrees, or not! So, where is the Catholic basis for "Recognising yet Resisting" pope Bergoglio? There is none - if one accepts him to be Pope formaliter! Nevertheless, Salza, Siscoe and Bp. Fellay do just that! Why? Are they ignorant of Catholic dogma and magisterium? Or are they part of the judeo-masonic army trying (vainly) to destroy the Church from within? This is a very reasonable question. Sedevacantists reject Bergoglio as Pope because he is a manifest, formal, pertinacious heretic, as were his conciliar predecessors. Where is the emotionalism, or heresy in that? The Church teaches a heretic cannot be Pope.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shucks! Can't stop coughing. Must have been plenty dust in TM's shoes! Hmm - hardly a proponent of civil, constructive debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol! Thanks for the laugh! I've found Feeneyites to be the most vicious people I know. Their comments are almost always nasty and bitter. I came off sounding uncharitable myself, but I'm tired of their unproductive comments, and 99% will not engage in civil, constructive debate.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  24. Jesus is not bound by his own sacraments. I don't believe He will reject anyone who truly loves Him.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Frank Rega: We have the litmus test for truly loving Him: "If you love Me, follow my commandments". Very simple. I too was brainwashed by conciliar church into thinking we could love Our Lord on our own personal terms, but it doesn't work that way. We must follow the Commandments and follow His Divine Will!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Ms. Anonymous,
      Of course you are right, we must love God not only according to His Will, but in His Will and with His Will. That is why I study the writings on the Divine Will by Luisa Piccarreta. But I made the post that Jesus is not bound by His own sacraments in reference to BOD and BOB.

      Delete
    2. You are correct Frank. God is not limited to the Sacraments to confer Grace.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  26. No discussion on sedevacantism would be complete without a quote from a Doctor of the Church. St Robert Bellarmine wrote the most thorough account, in agreement with the other more recent saint/Doctors. "Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction..."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mr. Frank Rega: Thank for your kind correction, I didn't realize you were referring to BOB and BOD. And thanks for chuckle, never heard it referred to as BOB and BOD before!

    ReplyDelete