Monday, September 12, 2016

Putting "Unity" Before Truth


 With the "canonization" of Mother Teresa, false "Pope" Francis has given the world yet another example of ecumenical adoration. Mother Teresa performed many and wonderful acts of mercy. However, she exalted the Corporal Works of Mercy over the Spiritual Works of Mercy. Her ecumenism was all pervasive. She is quoted as having said, "I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic." She also participated in Buddhist worship. These horrific examples of her apostasy could be multiplied, but I have no need to belabor the point. No Traditionalist is in position to say if she (or anyone else except Judas) is in Hell or not, as she may have repented in the last moments of her life and achieved Heaven. "But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8). However, canonization is not merely a declaration that someone "made it to Heaven," but that they are worthy of emulation by the Faithful. As she denied the One True Church and its absolute necessity for salvation, she is not so worthy.

This latest act of ecumenical insanity does provide me an opportunity to show (a) what the Church taught about false religions and praying with false sects prior to Vatican II, (b) that Catholic dogma cannot change, (c) that the Vatican II sect promotes the very things the Church always condemned, (d) that it is the teaching of the Church that the pope can lose his office by Divine Law should he become a manifest heretic as a private theologian (and further, that the Divine Law prohibits heretics, schismatics, and apostates from obtaining the papal office). Ergo, it is morally certain that there has been no pope since at least November 21, 1964 when Paul VI signed Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.

I. What the Church Has Always Taught About Communicatio in Sacris

 Communicatio in sacris is Latin for "communion in the sacred." It refers to the active participation by  members of the True Church with adherents of false sects in non-Catholic functions. Here is what was taught:

1. 1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 1258 sec. 1: "It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics. sec. 2: A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the bishop."

According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, the reason for this canon is because:
  • It is founded  in the natural and Divine positive Law
  • The Catholic Church is the only Church in which, by Divine ordinance, worship may be rendered to God
  • Such communication with non-Catholics in their services involves a threat of perversion to Catholics or at least the danger they will become indifferent in religious belief
  • Catholics who observe it may take scandal
  • Non-Catholics may see in it a quasi-approbation of their services or their erroneous belief
(See The Sacred Canons, B.Herder Book Co. [1952], pg. 512; Emphasis mine)  Note: That which is of natural law and Divine positive Law may never change and admits of no exceptions.

2. Theologians
St Thomas Aquinas: ""...if anyone were to...worship at the tomb of Mohammed, he would be deemed an apostate." (See Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2)

St. Alphonsus Liguori: "It is not permitted to take part at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them." (Theologia Moralis, Lib. 5, Tract. 1, Cap. 3)

Theologian Prummer: To worship with non-Catholics in their manner is a denial of the Catholic Faith. (See Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Tomus I, Tract. VII, art. III)

3. The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office

In 1729, the Holy Office stated that participation in heretic and schismatic worship is "universally prohibited by natural and Divine Law" and that "no one has the power to dispense" and "nothing excuses."

4. Pope Pius IX
"They should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings...They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice." (See Graves ac Diuturnae, #4, 1875; Emphasis mine).

II. Catholic Dogma Cannot Change

Propositions of Modernism CONDEMNED by Pope St. Pius X:

 58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.

62. The chief articles of the Apostles' Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.

64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism. (See Lamentabili Sane, 1907)

III. The Teaching of the Vatican II Sect

1. Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism):

8. "This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name, 'spiritual ecumenism.'"

2. DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM
(1993)

108. Where appropriate, Catholics should be encouraged, in accordance with the Church's norms, to join in prayer with Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities. Such prayers in common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to these other Christians. Shared prayer is in itself a way to spiritual reconciliation.

111. Representatives of the Churches, ecclesial Communities or other groups concerned should cooperate and prepare together such prayer. They should decide among themselves the way in which each is to take part, choose the themes and select the Scripture readings, hymns and prayers.

118. In liturgical celebrations taking place in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the Church in which they are guests. If invited by their hosts, they may read a lesson or preach.

137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.
(Emphasis mine)

IV. Church Teaching On Loss Of Ecclesiastical Office

1. The First Vatican Council (1870):
(Rather than list the long citations from myriad canonists and theologians about this topic, (all teaching that heresy deprives a pope of his office by Divine Law), I will cite from the discussion on the topic at the First Vatican Council--definitive proof that a heretic can't be pope).

"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, 'What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?' It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself...If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy." [Address at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the infallibility of the pope as defined at the Council]--See The Life and Work of Pope Leo XIII by Rev. James J. McGovern, D.D., pg. 241)

This teaching at the Council was confirmed by theologian Iragui: "In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy? ...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head." (See Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], 371). 

2. No need for a declaratory sentence:

According to canonists Wernz and Vidal, "Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church..." (See Ius Canonicum, Rome: Gregorian [1943] 2: 453).

3. Heretics and Schismatics Barred from Obtaining the Papacy

Pope Paul IV--Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio February 15, 1559:

" In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;"

V. The Actions of Wotyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio

1. Wotyla ("Pope" "St." John Paul II)

  • Prayed with African witch doctors August 8, 1985
  • Actively participated in a Zoroastrian ceremony in India February 5, 1986
  • Took part in a Jewish worship service at the synagogue April 13, 1986
  • Held the Assisi abominations where all the false sects were invited to pray for peace to their false gods (1986 and 2002) --this included Hindus, Buddhists,  and Voodoo practitioners along with every heretic and schismatic to boot!


2. Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI)

  • Held his own Assisi abominations in 2006 and 2011
  • Prayed in a mosque with Mohammedan infidels facing Mecca November 30, 2006
  • Worshiped with a female Lutheran "bishop" on September 23, 2011

3. Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis)
  • "Canonizes" Wotyla on April 27, 2014 
  • Kneels before a Protestant minister to be "blessed" on June 19, 2006
  • Asks Jews for Passover prayers and wishes them well in their false religion:

"To the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Doctor Riccardo Di Segni,

In remembering with renewed gratitude our meeting on 17th January, when I was cordially welcomed by you and by the Jewish Community of the city in the Great Synagogue, I wish to express my most heartfelt wishes for the feast of Passover. It points out that the Almighty has released his beloved people from slavery and brought them to the Promised Land . May God also accompany you today with the abundance of his Blessings, protect your community and, in His mercy, bestow peace upon everyone. I ask you to pray for me, as I assure you of my prayers for you: may the Almighty allow us to be able to grow more and more in friendship. 

Franciscus, PP.21st April 2016." (Emphasis mine; no mention of conversion and tacitly admits efficacy of Jewish prayers--he has also participated in Jewish services)


  • "Canonizes" Mother Teresa September 4, 2016. She participated in Buddhist worship and declared "I love all religions."


Summary and Conclusion

  • Members of the One True church are barred by natural and Divine Positive Law from active participation in non-Catholic worship.
  • Catholic dogma cannot change into something other than what it was always understood to mean. To say otherwise is the heresy of Modernism.
  • The Church has always taught that praying with non-Catholics at their services constitutes heresy.
  • Divine Law teaches that heretics cannot become or remain pope.
  • John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have all participated actively in non-Catholic worship.
  • The Vatican II sect teaches the opposite of what the Church always taught about active participation in non-Catholic worship.
  • Francis "canonizes" ecumenical  heretics (apostates) John Paul II and Mother Teresa
Can the Vatican II sect be the Roman Catholic Church of all time? Can the post-Vatican II leaders be truly "popes"? The facts speak for themselves. Mr. Bergoglio, the phony pope, makes two phony saints (John Paul II and Mother Teresa) to promote the heretical Vatican II ecumenism as an ideal for all to follow. Christ wants us all to be one in the Truth which leads to eternal life. Frankie wants everybody to join his One World Ecumenical Sect that makes all one in falsehood; lies that can only lead to eternal damnation.

65 comments:

  1. So how can Novus Ordo ppl condemn Jorge Bergoglio?
    Is he simply practicing the Novus Ordo religion.I don't agree with the Novus Ordo but all he is doing is living out what is prescribed in the conciliar documents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're absolutely correct! Bergoglio follows his religion. His religion, however, is not Catholicism but a phony substitute.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. So, attending the Novus Ordo would have to be against Canon 1258 1 - attending a non-Catholic service.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another phoney "Catholic" is Gavin McInnes.
    He kissed Milo Yiannopolous on video to irritate Muslims.
    Why not pray the Holy Rosary in public to irritate Muslims?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not pray the Holy Rosary in public to convert Muslims?

      Delete
    2. Ah yes, Muslims are lining up to convert to the nearest sedevacantist chapel. So how many Muslims have you converted Frank? Why don't you leave good people like Mother Teresa alone. She probably did more to bring people to Christ in one month than most Catholics do in their lifetime, including you. She understood the heart of the law and didn't get bogged down by your Pharisaical legalisms. Furthermore, she did all that she did out in the open unlike the anonymous coward who runs this blog.

      Delete
    3. Dear Frank,
      I agree with you that a group of Traditionalists praying the Rosary in public for the conversion of the Mohammedans would be true ecumenism and a true act of charity. Be prepared for persecution as "intolerant," "bigoted," and "Islamophobic" because if you disagree with a politically correct position, you must have a mental illness.

      The Vatican II sect will never do such a thing as it goes against their own teaching in Nostra Aetate. "Pope" Francis tells us "Proselytism is nonsense."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Anonymous and introito: I am an undecided on sedevacantism who would like to have a 3 way discussion. Call me Anon 2. I wish to ask both of you questions.

      For Anonymous: Do you then see no heresy in Mother Theresa affirming that she helped members of other religions become better Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. instead of attempting to convert them to the one true faith?

      To Introito: On what exact date do you believe that Christ stopped being present in the Eucharist in the Church headed by John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis?

      I hope we can discuss these. Thanks.

      Delete
    5. So applying invalid baptisms, worshiping with Buddhists and the Vatican II sect is "bringing people to Christ"? The heart of the law is that you should make "Muslims better Muslims." How interesting! See my post "Pseudo-Sanctity" of 12/21/15 for more on Mother Teresa's false ecumenism which brings Christ to no one.

      I do not disclose my identity to protect my friends and family from discrimination on account of my views, and because any good that may come from this blog--the glory should belong to God, not his unworthy instrument.

      If I'm a coward, please note that I failed to see your name and address listed in your comment, "Mr. Anonymous." People in glass domiciles shouldn't throw dangerous projectiles.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous 2,

      Your question is a bit vague. The New "mass" is invalid since at least 1969, and Holy Orders rendered null and void since at least 1968. However, you still have some old priests (validly ordained prior to the change in Holy Orders) who use the correct matter and form in the "Motu Mass" or "Extraordinary Form" of 1962, and they have the correct intention. These Masses are valid and confect the Eucharist. However, the number grows smaller all the time as they pass on, and the invalid ordinations and invalid episcopal consecrations continue. I would like to add that just because a Mass is valid, doesn't make it (or the Eucharist you receive during it) efficacious unto salvation. Remember, that the Eastern Schismatics have valid Masses, but you cannot attend those either. To be valid, the Mass must be offered "in the person of Christ" (in persona Christi). To be licit and efficacious, it must be offered "in the person of the Church" (in persona Ecclesia). If you attend a valid Mass or receive a valid Eucharist outside the One True Church, it avails you nothing. The Vatican II sect and other sects have no right to the Mass and Eucharist. I'll be happy to answer any other questions you may have.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Since Christ is fully present in The Holy Eucharist, you believe that Christ continued to be fully present in the Church headed by by John XXIII, Paul VI, etc. as well as in Eastern Schismatic Churches?
      Anontmous 2

      Delete
    8. To Anon 2: No I don't see heresy in the scenario you presented. She helped people become better people because she showed them Christian love. Do you understand what it means to feel loved when you don't feel loved? Maybe you have never been so unfortunate.
      And who is loving those people but a woman who does what she does for Jesus Christ? Do you think the people didn't know what she believed or why she did what she did? Where were the Hindus or the Muslims or the Jews or the atheists when Mother T was beating the streets and catering to the poorest of the poor most of her life? Who did all those sick people see caring for them? Was it not a Christian? Is that not a living sermon? Read about Francis of Assisi and his most impressive sermons with no words. He simply walked through a town in his ripped up habit. Mother T inspired countless converts to the Catholic Church including many people who have given their lives to enter religious orders all because of her example. The sedevacantists such as the arrogant man who runs the blog are not happy unless a Catholic clubs the infidels over their heads and curses them to hell. Should the Samaritan have walked by the man in the road because he wasn't a Samaritan? When we die and face Jesus Christ He will ask us how we loved others, cared for the sick, naked, dying, etc.

      To the anonymous blogster: Why don't you go pray a rosary in a Mosque and tell the Muslims they are going to hell if they don't convert. Just make sure you have someone film it.


      Delete
    9. Your use of the phrase "fully present" is misleading. Yes, Christ is substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinty in the Blessed Sacrament. However from this it does not follow that those sects "enjoy the presence of Christ,"any more than a kidnapping victim (fully possessed by his kidnapper) wants to bestow benefits on his kidnapper.

      Put another way, what if a Satan worshipper obtained a valid ordination and produced the Eucharist to be desecrated. Does the so-called Church of Satan have the "full presence" of Christ? Just as in the schismatic sects He is there as a victim of desecration--one outright and one by heresy/schism.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. "To the anonymous blogster: Why don't you go pray a rosary in a Mosque and tell the Muslims they are going to hell if they don't convert. Just make sure you have someone film it. "

      Reply: Well, that would be a good way to die a martyr, and ironically, that's what St Francis of Assisi (whom you cite as a living sermon) actually did when he told the Sultan to convert or he would go to Hell. He volunteered to go into a fire with a Mohammedan and see which man God would protect. No Moslem was willing to go into the fire, and St Francis volunteered to go in alone. The Sultan stopped him and sent him back home rather than kill him because of his heroic virtue and courage. St Francis never told him to "be a better Muslim." So, as badly as you'd want to see my death videotaped, I won't undergo martyrdom like that---I'm no St Francis.

      However, you personify everything I've come to deplore in Mr Bergoglio's Sect of Luv: hatred for the truth and those who profess it whole and entire. At least with enemies like you I know I must be doing something right! (See St Matthew 5:11).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    11. We are in a time of persecution,there is nothing wrong with writing about the Roman Catholic Church anonymously.

      Delete
  4. Introibo and Anonymous,

    Thank you for your responses. I need to reflect on them, and God willing, will post tomorrow. I don't want to respond hastily in matters that could affect someone's eternal salvation.

    Anonymous 2

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am the anonymous that commented on Gavin McInnes.
    Mother Theresa was a pagan and held the Catholic Church in contempt.
    Muslims in my country have no interest in conversion,they have been sent here for conquest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the Mohammedans seek to rule the world by the sword.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. In regards to your question concerning praying the holy rosary at a mosque..our local priest has told me to stop concerning myself with others until I have reached a certain level of spiritual progress.
    In other words,if I am consumed with the World and others lives,I will fall short in perfecting myself.
    If the Lord wants me to do something,he not mankind,will give me orders.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Introibo and Anonymous, Hi again! Here are my next questions.

    Anonymous:
    1.Do you believe God is three Divine Persons in one Being, that is, the Blessed Trinity?
    2.Do you believe that the Second Person became man and offered his life in atonement for our sins?

    Introibo:
    1. Do you believe the Church headed by John XXIII, Paul VI, etc. stopped being the Church founded by Christ at a specific moment?
    2. If so, when?
    3. Why do you believe one stopped being the other at that specific moment?
    4. Do you claim to know all of this infallibly?

    Please do not feel rushed as I do want your thoughtful answers. I look forward to your respective responses.

    Anonymous 2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous 2,

      1. The issue is not framed properly. There is no time when the Church "stopped." It will endure until the end of time. However, the pope and hierarchy can defect from the faith as I discuss in my post above. The false pope and heretical bishops have the buildings, but the Traditionalist remnant kept the True Church going.

      2. The defection of the pope happened after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. Roncalli (John XXIII) was suspect of Modernism and published heresy in "Pacem In Terris." We can be morally certain that the papacy has been vacant since November 21, 1964 when the V2 document "Lumen Gentium" was signed by Montini (Paul VI).

      3. The profession of heresy by the Pope and most of the world's bishops set up a false sect.

      4. I claim moral certainty. I don't speak "ex cathedra." I'm certain that Francis is not pope to the same degree I claim there can be no "square circle." Francis and the Catholic Faith pre-Vatican II are mutually exclusive. You can't believe both.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Yes yes are my answers to questions #1 and #2.
      Personally I can be certain we haven't had a Pope since Nov 1964.
      Our local chapel rejects every change after 1950.Our priest is the first man to make me realize its important fasting after midnight for Holy Communion.
      I'm not a theologian nor do I play one on T.V.
      I do know its imperative to receive the Sacraments from valid catholic Priest's/Bishop's.
      Other than that I do not want to project my views because I'm not qualified to handle someone's eternal salvation.
      FYI I was raised novus ordo,then went to an indult,then embraced and converted to the Roman Catholic Faith 2 years ago.
      (I held the sedevacantist position for 3 years while attending the Indult.
      I don't bash people who are confused or that are in error because I was in the same boat myself years ago.)

      Delete
    3. Anonymous: You wrote: "Personally I can be certain we haven't had a Pope since Nov 1964."

      So you are a sedevacantist.

      But in your first comment you wrote: "The sedevacantists such as the arrogant man who runs the blog are not happy unless a Catholic clubs the infidels over their heads and curses them to hell."

      Anonymous 2

      Delete
    4. Introibo,

      Thanks very much for the time you are taking and for your response. It helped clarify what you meant by the new sect, but I still have more questions, and need to go slowly on this. So here is one for when you have some time:

      Immediately after Paul VI signed Lumen Gentium do you believe the lay faithful remained in the Roman Catholic Church, even though they professed
      union with Paul VI?

      Anonymous 2

      Delete
    5. The situation of Vatican II was unique. Unlike the Anglicans, where it was obvious they were in opposition to the pope, if you did NOT accept V2 it appeared as though you were not Catholic!

      The 1950s were a time of "country club Catholicism" when most everyone took their Faith for granted, went through the motions, and never really studied the Faith in depth. My parents were suckered into the V2 sect. My mother stopped going to Church because she "didn't like it" but couldn't explain why. My father went along because he didn't want to be "out of communion" with the "pope." They held what they believed to be the Catholic Faith.

      People like my parents in 1964 were OBJECTIVELY in a false sect, but SUBJECTIVELY desired to be Catholics, so they may not have been held guilty by God and saved by their desire if in invincible ignorance of the new sect posing as "Catholicism." I was raised a material heretic in the V2 sect, but (by the Grace of God) I converted to the True Church in 1981 at age 16. Both my parents, when I explained it all to them, soon followed me and died as Traditionalists after receiving the Last Rites by a Traditionalist priest (Deo gratias!).

      In summation, all those who were in actual union with Paul VI were objectively in a false sect, but only God knows whom may have been subjectively excused and saved.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introito,

      With all respect, but if your reasoning were valid, the next moment after Paul VI signed Lumen Gentium, there would objectively be no Catholics
      in the Church, or on earth. All would have objectively defected with Paul VI, for all Catholics would have had to have been in Communion with the presumed pope at that moment.

      Subjectively, there is no issue; but objectively, the gates of hell would have prevailed.

      But, as we both know, that's not possible.

      Anonymous 2

      Delete
    7. Not true. Remember, that many theologians who were at the Council REJECTED "Lumen Gentium" recognizing it for what it was--heresy. One such was Fr. (later Bp.) Miguel Guerard des Laurier. There were others, and who knows how many held that view privately. As St. Athanasius famously said, "Even if True Catholics are reduced to a handful, they are the True Church of Christ." The Church did not, therefore, prevail objectively or subjectively.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Excuse me, the above should read, "The gates of Hell did not prevail against the Church--objectively or subjectively."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. I would further like to clarify that if anyone recognized Paul VI as "pope" but REJECTED the errors of Vatican II, that person would also still be Catholic, since to make a mistake about the identity or person of the pope is NOT heresy, and sedevacantism was not understood by most.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. But if 1 (one) moment before Paul VI signed, Miguel Guerard des Laurier, and others were not in communion with Paul VI, then they weren't Catholics. Therefore, they can't be counted as such.

      And, even if one second after Paul VI signed, all Catholics made a mistake about the identity of him as pope, according to your argument, they could be subjectively excused, but, still, objectively, they would not be Catholics.

      Perhaps the correct position might be that for catholics in communion with the pope, as they must be, the default position is that they are objectively and subjectively Catholics, no matter what heresies a presumed pope may manifest, as long as they don't knowingly and explicitly accept heresy or a heretic as pope.

      Anonymous 2

      Delete
    11. Your default position has merit. However, let me clarify the issue. A Catholic must be in union with the pope, but a Catholic commits no sin of heresy or schism if (with good reason) he holds suspect the person of the pope. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians.

      As I wrote in my August 15, 2016 post "Sedevacantism And The Gates Of Hell":
      If Paul VI had been a true pope on November 21, 1964, he would NOT have signed it, but the fact that he did means that at some point prior to that time, he professed heresy as a private theologian and fell from the pontificate. Hence, the pope did not sign Lumen Gentium, but the heretic Giovanni Montini did. According to theologians Vermeersch and Creusen, "At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would ipso facto fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess." (Epitome Iuris Canonici, Rome: Dessain [1949], 340--Emphasis mine).

      It's not as if Paul VI were the pope, then picked up a pen, signed Lumen Gentium and stopped being the pope. At some time prior to 11/21/64, he professed heresy as a private theologian and lost his office (if indeed he ever held it, because he was held suspect of heresy in the 1950s and was most likely a Freemason who worshiped with them). Had Montini been the pope on November 21, 1964, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing that heretical document. It wasn't the signing of the document that caused his loss of office, it's proff the loss had taken place already!

      So, we don't know when Montini fell from office, or even if he ever held the office of pope. Any Catholic who denied he was pope based on good reasons to suspect he never attained the Chair of St Peter (because he was suspect of heresy, or they thought him a Mason, etc.) would not be guilty of heresy or schism even if he were the pope. According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, "The sin of schism does not arise from aloofness on personal grounds, BUT ONLY WHEN IT REPUDIATES THE BOND OF ECCLESIASTICAL UNION WITH THE SUPREME PONTIFF AS HEAD OF THE CHURCH." (See "The Sacred Canons" 1:563)No sedevacantist (then or now) denies that the Supreme Pontiff is the Head of the Church, nor do we repudiate ecclesiastical union with the See of Peter. To hold the person of the pope suspect and to remain aloof for serious reason, is not schism. Remember that during the Great Western Schism, there were several papal claimants. No one who followed the wrong claimant, or refused to acknowledge any until a resolution could be had, was in schism.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    12. Hi Introibo,

      Thanks for your post. While I'm further refining my thoughts on all of this, I would like your thoughts on the following matter, part of the whole mix through which I'm discerning.

      I understand you agree that the Eastern Schismatics have a valid Eucharist, but that since they are schismatic and heretical one
      must not receive Holy Communion with or from them. However, since they have a validly consecrated Host, Jesus Christ
      is fully there -- body, blood, soul and divinity. Therefore, in one's heart - but not publicly - one must honor and adore said consecrated Host no less than one must do in the True Church - with all one's heart, being, strength. One must adore Our Lord Jesus Christ anywhere He truly is. So for example, if one walks by an eastern Schismatic Church, one should privately acknowledge and in one's heart adore the Most Blessed Sacrament therein. Do you agree?

      Anonymous 2

      Delete
    13. Privately (in my heart alone), I acknowledge Christ present, and I pray that the Easterns may be converted to the One True Church, so He may no longer suffer from captivity in their Tabernacles, which have no right to contain the Blessed Sacrament.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. I would say the defection of the pope occurred on the day Roncalli was elected "pope". Roncalli and Montini became masons on the same day, in the same lodge, in Paris. (See Fr. Luigi Villa.) Both were excommunicated ipso facto on that day, in terms of Divine law and were thenceforth non-Catholics. Consequently, neither was eligible for election as Pope, because a non-Catholic may not be Pope. He who is not a Member, may not be the Head.
    Both were nonetheless, legally designated and elected by due process, making their elections legal, but void, in terms of canon law. They were legally, material popes, but lacked form, or valid office. (Authority.)
    So, the "normal" interregnum lasted from the day Pope Pius XII died, until the day of Roncalli's election, when the "abnormal" interregnum, which lasts to date, commenced. How does that sound to you Introibo? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Dr. Lamb,
      Your thesis is entirely plausible, and I'm glad you posted because it raises the necessary questions one needs to ask to arrive at the time of sedevacante in which we find ourselves:

      1) Was Roncalli ever elected pope?

      All the electors were Cardinals created by true popes. However, Roncalli was suspect of Modernism since 1925 and removed from his teaching post under Pope Pius XI. I think we need to focus on the heresy, rather than Masonic membership. Pope Pius XII did declare that Cardinals under censure were allowed to participate and be elected in the next conclave. However, this only applies to ecclesiastical law. No pope can dispense from Divine Law which prohibits a Modernist (or one who worships with the satanic Freemasons) from obtaining the pontificate. Some (Siri Theorists) claim Cardinal Siri was elected and forced to resign, so he remained pope while Roncalli could not obtain an office already held. Siri died in 1989 and I do not subscribe to that theory. I agree with you that Roncalli never obtained the pontificate due to heresy and worship with Masonry.

      2. Were Roncalli and Montini (and the subsequent antipopes) "material" popes?

      This is sedeprivationism, to which I am open, but not convinced. Under this theory developed by the great theologian Bp. Michel Guerard des Lauriers, the pope-elect remains a placeholder whose heresy prevents him from obtaining the pontificate, so he has no authority, just like a president-elect in the U.S. has no presidential authority until he takes the oath of office proscribed by the Constitution. Upon renouncing his heresy (and obtaining valid orders in the case of Bergoglio) the material pope becomes the formal (actual) pope. (See my post "Sedeprivationism" of 11/10/14)

      3. Was Montini ever pope?

      We have even more reason to believe he never obtained it, and it is morally certain since at least November 21, 1964.

      So, yes Dr. Lamb, what you propose could very well describe how we arrived from the "normal" interregnum to where we are today!

      God bless you my friend,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. It is very sad that Mother Theresa who grew up with the Latin Mass and the True Roman Catholic Faith became so deceived as a result of Vatican II and its anti-Popes. I also wonder about Padre Pio as I understand he accepted Paul VI as Pope and Vatican II. He was made a 'saint' under John Paul II. Do you have any posts regarding Padre Pio that you could refer me to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Joann, I have never done a post on Padre Pio and with good cause. Even my spiritual father, the great Fr. Gommar DePauw, JCD didn't know what to make of him. There is so much conflicting testimony, it's hard to know exactly who or what to believe.

      I will say two things:

      1. Fr. DePauw told me his older brother, Fr. Adhemar (a Franciscan priest) had been asked by the Vatican to investigate Padre Pio in the 1950s. Fr. Adhemar was under a vow not to divulge the content of what he discovered. He was shaken (in a bad way) when he returned. Fr. DePauw told me that Padre Pio will never be one of his favorite "saints."

      2. He was "canonized" by Wotyla (John Paul the Great Apostate) and I can't help but think he IS NOT a Traditionalist in any real sense or JPII would not have him venerated.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I found JoAnn's question and your answer extremely interesting, because it's the first time I've ever seen negative/uncertain comment about Padre Pio, which mirrors the personal disquiet I have long felt regarding him. The fact that it was he who, apparently after a vision of Our Lord, summoned Fr. Villa and dispatched him to Pope Pius XII to ferret out masons in the Vatican, gave me great confidence in him. I noted that he had received a dispensation from saying the NO mass, rather than that he had refused outright to say it. This seemed to indicate to me, that he attributed some degree of authority to Paul VI and, as you say, he apparently recognized him as Pope. This jarred with me - especially with somebody like Padre Pio, who apparently had such remarkable supranatural powers. I suppressed the thought and attributed this apparent aberration to a habit of obedience, or perhaps the early stage of the apostasy, although one would have expected that Padre Pio, who was apparently able to read minds and thoughts, would have summed Paul VI up at a glance. I suppressed these thoughts and tried to start a devotion to him and become his "spiritual son". I felt a strange sense of "no contact" which I have often thought about, but have never mentioned to a soul. His canonization by the NO also gave rise to a sense of unease. Eventually I just put a question mark over the matter and ceased praying to him. That's why I found your question and comment so interesting.

      Delete
    3. Dear Dr. Lamb,
      Yes, indeed, Padre Pio remains quite an enigma, and many people arrive at the same conclusion as you and me; something's not right.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Padred Pio used chemicals to self-induce his alleged "stigmata" and the Vatican covered it up because (like other miracle fakes in the Roman Church's history) he was a major asset.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never heard of this accusation. What is the source of your info? Do you have a citation I could look up, please?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I recently saw a photo of the palm of his left hand raised during mass. The distribution, flow and colour of the wound looked odd to me. Quite honestly, it doesn't look like a penetration wound to me. I think an inflicted chemical wound would fit the bill much better, but I'm no pathologist. Of course, Our Lord was nailed to the Cross through His wrists and not through the palms of His hands.

      Delete
    3. P.S. The above were my impressions. I have no idea whether they are accurate, or not.

      Delete
    4. Dr. Lamb,
      Thank you (as always) for your comments. As a professional doctor you're in a position to make such judgments. You are also correct about the Sacred Wounds of Our Lord being in the Wrists and not His Hands. Another reason to question Padre Pio's authenticity.

      I think you would love the book "A Doctor At Calvary" by Pierre Barbet, M.D. It is highly recommended reading for all who wish to learn more of the suffering endured for us by Our Lord and Savior. Being a doctor yourself, I think you would appreciate it all the more!

      God bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. My own personal opinion of Padre Pio is one of being very, very skeptical. However, you mention that Jesus' Sacred Wounds were in his "wrists". John 20:27 tells Thomas to "Put your finger here; see my hands". Can you please explain?

      Delete
    6. Joann,
      The words employed in the Bible are usually to be understood in the common parlance of the day. The word "hand" referred to anything from the wrists up. In similar fashion, if I stepped on a tack while barefoot, I would yell and say, "I've got a tack in my FOOT" not "I've got a tack in my HEEL." St. John was using common jargon, not being anatomically precise.

      We know that the Romans nailed the crucified people through the wrists, not the palms. The Palms could not uphold the weight of the body, and would tear.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Introibo,
      Thanks for the explanation. It is greatly appreciated!!

      Delete
  11. Sure, I think he probably used carbolic acid. Here is just one of several sources. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/padre_pio_wonderworker_or_charlatan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the citation! I will read it with much interest.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. The link you provided is from the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry." They basically deny all things supernatural. While claiming to be "non-biased," the contributors and "heroes" are a roll call of atheists and agnostics (James Randi, Paul Kurtz, Victor Stenger, etc).

      These people make it their business to deny the supernatural, yet claim stark objectivity. Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of them! It's analogous to a committee composed of members of the KKK claiming to make an objective investigation into the guilt or innocence of an African American accused of a crime. Forgive me for thinking that a lynching will be forthcoming no matter what the facts may show.

      I notice that they rely on only a few sources for their assessment, and for some assertions (quite serious ones at that) there is nothing to back it up, e.g. they assert Padre Pio had sex with women in the confessional. This is rank calumny.

      While I'm not a fan of Padre Pio, I'm even less of a fan of those who calumniate others to promote their worldview. When you write about "other miracle fakes in the Roman Church's history" there were fakes, but it is now evident after vetting your source that you are anti-Catholic (if not a misotheist). Please keep your bigotry and calumny off my blog. God have mercy on you.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. I did not realize the blog rules here: nobody can calumniate others in order to promote their worldview except you. Look, I think Padre Pio was a fake. you asked me for a source and I provided one. I suggest that if you don't like other opinions than get of the net or else make this a membership only forum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many things you don't seem to realize, such as common decency. I didn't think I would need to spell that out for anyone, but you've proven me wrong.

      I calumniate no one. The remarks and actions of Mother Teresa are well-documented, as are the pre- and post-V2 teachings. I then draw the logical conclusions.

      Yes, I asked for a source, but I would be embarrassed and ashamed to give a source as biased and poorly researched as that one. Padre Pio had sexual liaisons in the Confessional? I didn't see one accuser's name or any solid evidence to back up such a serious charge against someone. That's calumny, pure and simple. I would never give a citation, for example, which correctly stated Mother Teresa's statements on other religions, but accused her of having an abortion with nothing but hearsay to back it up. Spreading calumny is horrific.

      I always welcome the opinions of others, including those with whom I disagree. Common decency dictates that I will not allow comments that contain vulgarity, and I will not allow a comment that is found to be calumnious to go unanswered.

      I suggest that I will continue to run my blog in the manner I see fit for the last six years, and if you don't like it, don't come here and read/comment. At the risk of sounding uncharitable myself; good riddance.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. Dear Introibo,
    Not that you personally have need of it, but proof that Padre Pio's stigmata were genuine is presented in my book "The Truth about Padre Pio's Stigmata," see www.sanpadrepio.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that is something I would be interested in reading! Thank you, Frank!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Frank, what real proof does your book that he carried the stigmata that would convince a skeptic? From my studies none exists. If he really had the stigmata then it would be a very simple matter to prove it for the world. It's funny how these so-called miracles are always covered up and kept away from public and scientific scrutiny. There is no independent evidence that this man had any such thing. No, I'm not talking about seeing blood drop from the wounds. Easy Hollywood movie trick that anybody could do. If you have documented proof of this alleged Vatican miracle I'd buy your book but I suspect it is a collection of stories and would lack the kind of real independent evidence needed to prove the claims. I'm positive that is all your book contains, otherwise the whole world would believe in the alleged miracle. If the man had the stigmata the Church would have shared the proofs with the scientific community to analyze and test it.

      Delete
    3. To the Anonymous Comment above:

      When you speak about "convincing a skeptic" are you talking about someone whom is skeptical of Padre Pio, or the agnostic/atheist skeptics, who eschew the supernatural?

      It seems as though you refer to the latter. Not everything is subject to empirical investigation by a science experiment with an independent variable manipulated on at least two levels. How would you prove to me that your mother loves you? Wouldn't it all be more or less anecdotal evidence? Couldn't she pretend to love you because this is what is expected of mothers, so she went through the motions?

      How does James Randi, Victor Stenger, et al, explain how matter produces consciousness? If you assume there MUST be a scientific explanation, but we just don't have it yet, isn't that "science of the gaps" i.e. what we don't have an explanation for from science must be able to be scientifically explained?

      I'm not a fan of Padre Pio. I read (and am trying to verify) that Pope Pius XI disclaimed the events/stigmata of Padre Pio as being supernatural in origin. If true, that would end the debate for me.

      According to Wikipedia (hardly a reliable source), several prominent doctors DID examine Padre Pio. Perhaps Frank has the results of such studies, let's not judge a book before it has been read.

      Finally, I don't think there is a better miracle attested to than the resurrection of Jesus Christ, yet "the whole world" does not believe it. As Our Lord recounts in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, "'...they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (See St Luke 16:31). Some people will simply discount all evidence.

      I'm not a fan of Padre Pio, but I will allow the evidence to take me where it leads. I will read the evidence Frank has to offer and will continue to try and verify the information about Pope Pius XI regarding Padre Pio.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. This blog has welcomed and published my comments regarding our disagreements over Pius XII.
    This is one of very few Catholic forums/blogs that publish disagreements.
    Just be respectful,rational,and its all good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you my friend! I try to be fair to all; even when I disagree!

      God bless you!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Regarding Catholics circa November 1964..I can attest that growing up Novus Ordo none of us were ever given access or studies regarding the Vatican 2 documents.
    Life was very different before 1995 and Internet access.
    Many Catholic did not like nor understand the changes during the 1950's.With that said no one was ever told or given materials that explained anything whatsoever.
    Back then you just did what you were told and trusted your local parishes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I remember being told when the Novus Ordo was instituted was that the only changes were that the Mass was being said in English and that you stood for communion instead of kneeling. Of course they didn't tell us that they created a new religion with Vatican II - found that one out the hard way - through experience - the hard way!

      Delete
    2. Yes, you are both correct. That is how they got people into the new sect--deception with a false pope! You wanted to be Catholic, and woke up somewhere you never wanted to be!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. What are your thoughts regarding the very very few ICKSP or FSSP priest's who are ordained by a valid pre-1969 Bishop?
    I understand the traditional rites of holy orders were optional until April 4 1969.
    Are these few rare priest's from these orders valid Catholic priest's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Provided there is a valid bishop using the proper matter, form, and intention, we must consider those priests as valid.

      ---Introibo

      Delete