Monday, August 14, 2017

Prayers For Non-Catholics

 Praying for someone's conversion to the One True Church is a most Catholic act. You would think that there would be no controversy attached to this topic, but somehow controversy seems to find its way into almost every aspect of Traditional Catholic teaching these days. Without a pope, division is the logical result because "Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered..." (Zechariah 13: 7). We should strive to have as much unity as possible on topics where there is no clear answer. Too often Traditionalists forget the maxim of St. Augustine, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

Now, when it comes to straightforward prayers for Mr./Miss/Mrs. X who is a (Jew, Protestant, Hindu, Moslem, atheist, member of the Vatican II sect, etc.) to be enlightened by the grace of God to become a Traditionalist, we have no problem. However, someone raised the query, "Is it OK to pray for the soul of a deceased relative who was Protestant?" Ask the Vatican II sect clergy, and they will say it's OK to canonize him. Ask a Feeneyite, and they will tell you they are burning in Hell so don't waste your time. In medio stat veritas. "The truth stands in the middle." In this post I will explain and defend Church teaching against the infamous Dimond brother Feeneyites, and I will also revisit the Una Cum issue I tackled in my post of 7/10/17.

Are Prayers For Deceased Non-Catholics Permissible?

  There's an old aphorism, "A proof-text without context is a pretext." If you take something out of the context in which it was written and hold it up as "proof" for a preconceived notion, you're not interested in the Truth, just validating your point; "My mind is made up, so don't bother me with the facts." This is the hallmark of Fred and Bobby Dimond of "Most Holy Family Monastery" (MHFM). In their article Catholics May Not Pray For Deceased Non-Catholics, Fred and Bobby contort Church teaching. They begin with this general statement:

It’s a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  All who die as non-Catholics go to Hell.  Therefore, prayers may not be offered for people who die as non-Catholics.  If a person was a non-Catholic or a heretic during life, unless there is evidence of a conversion to the true faith in the external forum, the person is considered to have died as he or she lived (i.e. as a non-Catholic and outside the Church).  Therefore prayers may not be offered for a person who, based on the last available evidence, was a non-Catholic or a heretic on the hope that there was a conversion in that person’s final days.  Prayers may only be offered for people who die with the true faith.  Here are some quotes that reiterate the Church’s teaching that Catholics may not pray for (or consider among the faithful departed) those who die as non-Catholics or without the true faith. (See

It is true that there is no salvation outside the One True Church and all non-Traditionalist Catholics who die as such go to Hell. The rest is woefully wrong. They claim that unless there is evidence that the person converted, prayers may not be offered in the hope that there was a conversion in the person's final days.

Let's see what the Church has to say:

1. 1917 Code of Canon Law 
Canon 1240 speaks to the types of persons to be denied ecclesiastical burial. They include Masons, excommunicates, those who committed suicide, those who live as public and notorious sinners, etc. However, Canon 1241 says a person deprived of Christian burial "shall also be denied any funeral Mass, even an anniversary Mass, as well as all other public funeral services. Priests may say Mass privately for him and the faithful may pray for him. (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 495-497; Emphasis mine). Obviously the Church does not give up hope in a last minute repentance/conversion, but Fred and Bobby do.

2. Theologian O'Connell
"So far as the dead are concerned, the Exequial Mass and Anniversary Mass (or other public funeral offices)may not be offered for a person to whom ecclesiastical burial had been denied...It is not, however, forbidden to offer a Mass privately for such persons." (See The Celebration of Mass, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee [1941], pg. 45; Emphasis mine).

3. Theologian Szal
"But if he [a schismatic] gave no signs of repentance, then Mass can still be said for him, but only privately and in the absence of scandal." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 181; Emphasis mine).

What proof did the Dimond brothers give for claiming Catholics can't pray for deceased non-Catholics? A quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, "St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5. “Gregory says (Moralia xxxiv): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers…” Yes, THE SAINTS do not pray for dead and unbelieving men because they know for certain who they are, and we do not (except for Judas Iscariot, for the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, "...but the priesthood brings to them [i.e., evil clerics] in its train the same rewards the Apostleship brought to Judas--eternal perdition." pg. 213).

The other quotes from, e.g., Pope Gregory the Great, clearly mean prayers are not offered for non-Catholics publicly, because no one but God knows what happens between Him and a soul prior to death except by special revelation. We know the canonized saints are in Heaven; that is an infallible decree. We know Judas is in Hell. For everyone else, we may hope they were saved by God in the last moments of life, being brought into the Church infused with faith and sanctifying grace, because nothing is impossible with God. Prayers said for them, if they did not convert, are not "wasted;" they will be used by God for another poor soul--the same as prayers for someone whom is now (unknown to us) in Heaven are never "wasted."

Una Cum --Revisited

 In my post of 7/10/17 entitled "Una Cum," I defended the permissibility of attending a True Mass offered with the name of false pope Francis in the Canon when no other option is available. I specified that "It must be offered by a validly ordained priest who professes the Integral Catholic Faith whole and entire, who is not in actual union with Modernist Rome and specifically rejects all the errors of both Vatican II and the post-conciliar "popes."  Please refer to the aforementioned post for the background of the issue.

 In the comments section of that post, my conclusion was challenged by a reader who alleged to pass on a comment from Fr. Cekada who holds the view that Una Cum is impermissible to attend. I don't know if the anonymous commenter was the same person who sent me an anti-Una Cum article written by the late Patrick Henry Omlor. I also have no way to verify if the alleged comment was actually made by Fr. Cekada or not (I will assume, for sake of Charity, it was not). My training as a lawyer (and my thirst for knowledge when challenged) made me do further research. Fr. Cekada is alleged to have written, "There is no citation in the article to any Vatican decree. The author merely provides a link to an 1806 Latin-English missal for the laity in which [the] Latin text of the Canon contains the phrase “pro Rege nostro N.” (for our King, N.). The Missal of Pius V discontinued the mention of the king or civil rulers in the Te Igitur, and the practice was allowed only by way of privilege (as in Spain and Austria), where the ruler was a Catholic. Until I see an actual Vatican decree, therefore, I will treat the claim as nonsense."

I went back and examined Fr. Cekada's article The Grain of Incense available to view/download at On page 10, footnote 50, Fr. Cekada writes, "... From [theologian Fr. Ignatius] Szal (183), though, it seems that the most the Holy See occasionally tolerated was a prayer for a lay heretic or schismatic in his capacity as a head of state (King, President, etc.) — but never one for a heretical or schismatic cleric." Here, Fr. Cekada cites to theologian Szal and admits that heretics and schismatics were prayed for liturgically! So why would he need a Vatican decree to support praying for the heretical King of England, to give credence to this already established fact? There is direct confirmation the King of England was mentioned liturgically, as you will read below. 

This changes his argument substantially to, "It's permissible to pray for a heretical head of state, but not a heretical cleric." Says whom? When I say, "whom" I mean what approved theologian, canonist, or decree of the Holy See supports this contention? Now Fr. Cekada is inferring something not expressly addressed. He also asserts that the heretic is prayed for "in his capacity as a head of state." I don't know where he got this idea, but it was not from Szal. Here is what Szal has to say on page 183 of his book The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics (cited previously in this post):

Benedict XIV, in an encyclical letter of March 1, 1756, condemned the practice of mentioning liturgically the name of the Bishop or Patriarch when he was recognized as a heretic or a schismatic. However, a favorable reply was given by the Holy Office on February 23, 1820, for the Archdiocese of Quebec. It was revealed in this case that prayers were said for the Pope, for the Bishop, and for the King, at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. And at Solemn Mass there was sung the "Domine, salvum fac Regem." The continuance of both practices was tolerated. Here, then, there was question of a heretical monarch, but the same principle of tolerance could also find application when there was question of a schismatic.

 The foregoing answer was evidently within the memory of the Holy See in the following case. The President of the Greek States had asked that prayers be said for him. The Bishop had proscribed the words, Domine, salvum fac Praesidem after the "Domine, salvum fac Regem." The Holy See replied the arrangement could stand. 

 In another instance the Catholic Latin bishops were asked by the local governor to solemnize the feasts of the courts in their churches. They limited the solemnity to the Ambrosian hymn and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, after which the accustomed triple acclamation, "viva il Re," was made. In its response to the Bishop of Santorin the Holy See recalled former similar instructions, and stated that the prayers were to be directed not only for the temporal welfare of the governor, but also for his true happiness, namely, that he receive the precious gift of faith. 

The implications of the foregoing cannot be overstated. 

  • We have positive proof that the Holy See has tolerated using the name of heretics and schismatics in the liturgical functions of the Church. 
  • The general prohibition on mentioning heretics in the liturgy cannot be of Divine positive law, but only of ecclesiastical precept, for the Church cannot make exceptions to Divine positive law. There is nothing in the text of what Szal wrote to indicate you are only praying for the office. There is a declaration from the Holy See that prayers be directed not only to the office of a heretical governor, "but  also for his true happiness, namely that he receive the precious gift of faith" (conversion to the True Church). An office doesn't convert or have happiness; the individual does. 
  • Even if a distinction could be made between the office and the heresy, what about permission to mention the King given for the Archdiocese of Quebec in 1820? Canada has no King--the King in question was the King of England! Furthermore, whomsoever holds the office of monarch in England also holds the office of the Head of the (false) Sect of England. He therefore has clerical authority as the head of a false religion. 
  • Can't the points above be said of Bergoglio, and we pray for his conversion as Head of the Vatican City-State and perhaps as material-only pope, for his conversion? 
Few people have the time or ability to vet an article, such as the one written by Fr. Cekada. I have approximately four thousand (4, 000) books in my personal library, and I made the time to learn thanks to my readers. (We learn even when we disagree with each other). I am now more convinced than ever of the correctness of my position set forth in my post of 7/10/17 on "Una Cum."


 We should pray for the conversion of non-Catholics, that they may become Traditionalists (true Catholics) in this time of near universal apostasy. They need our prayers, and our help to see the truth. Do not bother with Fred and Bobby Dimond's "theology." Also, as much as I respect and admire Fr. Cekada, I call on him to re-think his position. Re-read Szal. If we are to get a pope back, we must get more unity than we have, and a "follow me or die" attitude helps no one on matters not settled. When dealing with non-Traditionalists (or even Traditionalists with whom we disagree), never forget the words of 1 Peter 3: 16-17, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 


  1. Regarding Szal’s comments and your conclusions…
    1. In each example permission was sought from the Holy See. This implies the local Churches knew not to include their names which should then be understood as proper.
    2. I did not see that any of these examples applied to a cleric or especially the Pope who is the principal of unity of the Church.
    3. None of the examples make a lie out of the liturgy as does the Una Cum issue for Sedevacantists. For example, there is nothing false about recognizing a king as king because that is in fact what he was to those people. But for those who hold the Sedevacantist position, it is a lie to pray for Francis Our Pope because a Sedevacantist has already concluded otherwise. That is why I said in your previous post on this subject, that the only people who should be granted slack on the matter are those who remain sincerely confused on the issue. But Sedevacantists are Sedevacantists precisely because they are not confused. If they are confused then they are not Sedevacantists and should then remain in the SSPX until they are clear on the issue of the pope.

    4. The damage caused by your teaching on the Una Cum issue is great because it adds to confusion and disunity, not the unity you are hoping to achieve. You want it both ways which sort of makes you a ecumenical Sedevacantist. No, he is definitively NOT the pope you proclaim, but its ok to say he is just for the sake of traditional ecumenism.

    1. My reply:

      1. It wasn't proper as a matter of Ecclesiastical precept which can change. It is not of Divine positive law.

      2. It did apply to the King of England who is Head of the False Church of England. The pope situation is unique. Therefore, it is no surprise you have no precedent.

      3. Sedes include sedeprivationists who merely pray for the conversion of a material pope. They may be right. I'm not confused about the fact that Frankie isn't pope, but the precise manner to get a pope back, isn't 100% clear.

      4. I'm not an "ecumenical Traditionalist." I want everyone to be a sede, BUT when things are not clear there should be liberty. The closest I can come to an analogy is the Great Western Schism. When there were rival claimants to the papacy, no one knew who (if anyone) was the true pope. I could not tell a Catholic not to attend the Mass offered with the name of a claimant I didn't accept. Objectively, he may not be pope AT ALL, unlike Bergoglio who is the Head of State and might be a material pope.

      Thanks for your comments!


  2. PS I forgot to mention I agree with the first half of your post. Once again, the Dynamic Duo have it wrong.

  3. Monsignor Louis-Gaston de Ségur, in his book on Hell, tells us the story of a young Jewish girl who became the true faith and took on the religious habit. His mother, still in the Talmudist fossil religion, persecuted her because of this conversion. Much as she prayed for her mother's conversion, she died and our Lord appeared to her. The sad Nun, upon learning of her fate, charged Our Lord with all the sacrifices and tears for the soul of his mother who died without her knowing of his conversion. Our Lord said that he had attended to his lost and that the Jé woman had, on his deathbed, become the "religion of my daughter." According to Fred and Bobby, this beautiful story told by one of the greatest Catholic writers of the nineteenth century is no more than a fable.

  4. The una cum situation is basically as follows:

    1) There is a man whom some Catholics believe to be the pope, and some do not.
    2) There is no official pronouncement from the Church on the question.
    3) A priest who believes this man is the pope will insert his name in the "Te igitur".
    4) If a layman disagrees with the priest's position, does he commit a mortal sin by attending the priest's Mass?

    The people who think going to an una cum Mass is a mortal sin have yet to give us an equivalent example from Church history, canon law, or the teachings of theologians that is the same as the situation today in these four essential elements, in which the Church declared that attending an una cum Mass was a mortal sin. All they can do is tell us that it was considered a grave sin to attend a Mass in which a heretic or schismatic WHO HAD BEEN CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH was being prayed for, which no one has ever disputed.

    Moreover, theologians teach that, when determining if something is a mortal sin or not, the question is decided not in terms of preponderance of evidence (which side has stronger arguments), but rather it is presumed something is *not* sinful until the contrary can be proved *beyond a reasonable doubt*. The anti-una-cum position has so many objections to it that to say they not only have a stronger position (which would not be sufficient anyway), but that they have proved their point beyond any reasonable doubt is simply not the case.

    In fact, there are numerous cases proving the exact opposite. John Lane mentions the case of St. Hypathius, who was a priest at the time of Nestorius. When Nestorius professed heresy, St. Hypathius broke off communion with him even before he was condemned by Church authority. St. Hypathius' ordinary was named Bp. Eulalius. Bp. Eulalius rejected the Nestorian heresy, but did not break off communion from Nestorius or remove his name from the diptychs (equivalent to the "una cum" clause) until the Church had formally condemned him. St. Hypathius and Bp. Eulalius had a disagreement about this, but -- here is the key point -- St. Hypathius did not remove the name of Bp. Eulalius from his own Mass. He remained "una cum" a bishop who was himself "una cum" a heresiarch.

    Lastly, the anti-una-cum proponents maintain that the sedevacantist layman in the pew is consenting by his presence to the mention of Bergoglio in the "Te igitur". For some reason they can't seem to find any authority that proves this. The best they can come up with is to say that by his assistance at Mass the sedevacantist layman is consenting to what takes place in front of him. While I would agree that it is obvious that the layman in the pew is consenting and uniting his will with the offering of the Holy Mass, to say that the same applies to every detail, even accidental, that takes place is quite a different argument. Just because the layman is consenting to the offering of the Mass, how does it follow that he is also consenting to the choice of the name the priest makes for the "Te igitur"? If this seems obvious to some, consider other similar questions. Suppose a priest routinely says Mass in a sloppy manner, to the point that it would be venially sinful. According to the principle that the layman is consenting to every detail that takes place during Mass, the layman would also be consenting to the priest's sloppiness, and would be guilty of his sin. No one would seriously maintain this, so why is a layman presumed to be consenting to the name in the "Te igitur" and not to the sloppy gestures? And by what principle do you distinguish them? I have never heard a response to this question from the anti-una-cummers.

    1. You make many excellent and salient points that are well taken! I would add that many Traditionalist priests do not add the name of Francis because they believe him to be pope, but because they hold him as material only pope, and some merely pray for his conversion and pray for the OFFICE of the papacy; still others "want to be safe" and add the name "just in case" he is somehow the pope. As long as the priest is not in actual union with Bergoglio and rejects all errors of V2, he does not cease to be Catholic because of the use (or non-use) of Bergoglio's name in the Te Igitur.

      Thank you for the great comment!


  5. I am not a lawyer, nor do I have 4000 books... But I do believe the Holy Ghost guides me. I agree with the previous anonymous poster, and not this article as i understand it.

    In my interpretation, it would be a blasphemy to include a 'pope francis' in a liturgy, when we know that such does not exist.

    1. But he does exist as Head of the State of Vatican City, just as those non-Catholic Kings. He also exists, perhaps, as a material pope. I'm glad I have my resources to try and make sense of things in the time of the Great Apostasy. I hope this helps my readers. However, you may believe as you do and avoid such Masses. I am a mere layman and have no Magisterial authority.

      God bless,


    2. Travis, the Holy Ghost only guides us through His Catholic Church. He does not guide people by a private interior inspiration.

  6. Just to clarify my 2nd-to-last paragraph, in the example I quoted, the "una cum" trad priest is equivalent to Bp. Eulalius, since he is keeping the name of an uncondemned heretic in his Mass while waiting for him to be condemned by the Church, even while rejecting his heresy. If St. Hypathius can keep in communion with such a bishop, even keeping the name of Bp. Eulalius in his own Mass, then it can't be wrong for a layman to assist at the Mass of a priest who is doing the same with Bergoglio today.

    Lastly, one of the biggest problems I have with the anti-una-cum position is its lack of a clear major premise. By what general rule would it be a mortal sin to attend an una cum Mass? Every general rule that is brought up seems open to serious objections. Is it always wrong to assist at a Mass in which the priest inserts the name of someone who is not the pope in the Te igitur? Then it would have been a sin during the Great Western Schism to attend the Mass of a priest who was following the wrong papal claimant and inserting his name in the canon. And yet no one has ever said anyone committed a sin during that situation by attending a Mass of a priest following a different claimant. In fact, there were priests who are now canonized saints on opposite sides of that situation at the same time, putting different names in the "Te igitur". If what they were doing was mortally sinful, how are they now saints?

    To this objection, the anti-una-cum proponents have answered that inserting the name of a false pope in the Canon is only sinful if the name mentioned is the name of a heretic. What authority do they have for this?

    This brings us to perhaps the most conclusive argument against the anti-una-cum position: Pope Martin V made a law called "Ad Evitanda" that says no Catholic has any obligation to sever ecclesial communion or refrain from any kind of religious act with anyone unless that person has been condemned by name by the authority of the Church. This law guarantees two things:

    1) The una cum priest has no obligation to refrain from being in communion with Bergoglio until Bergoglio is condemned by the authority of the Church, and
    2) that the layman has no obligation to refrain from assisting at the Mass of an una-cum priest until that priest is condemned by name by the authority of the Church.

    While the anti-una-cum proponents have said that this does not apply to uncondemned heretics, so that there is in fact an obligation to sever communion from such people, it can be answered that:

    a) "Ad Evitanda" flatly contradicts this, and
    b) The eminent theologian Cardinal de Lugo taught that this law does indeed include heretics who have not been condemned by the Church. St. Alphonsus held de Lugo to be the greatest theologian in the Church after the St. Thomas Aquinas.

    The only response to this argument that the other side has given is that this law no longer applies because it was superseded by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. However, this law was actually incorporated into the 1917 Code in the form of Canon 2219, so it is still here, and secondly, if communicating with undeclared heretics were a grave sin as the anti-una-cum people maintain, no pope could ever have passed a law permitting it.

    1. I agree with most of what you said. One thing that I would beware is uncondemned heretics CAN'T be condemned with no pope. I doubt the law would thus apply in these unique times to, for example, a valid priest who declares his disbelief in the Assumption, or denies BOD and BOB. This is heresy, pure and simple. Ties must be severed where heresy is clear. Otherwise, since there is no pope to declare Begoglio a heretic, you could belong to the V2 sect--that conclusion would be patently absurd. With that point clarified, I agree with you.


  7. For the sake of argument, let me start by agreeing that the anti-una-cum stand is mistaken.

    The mistake in principle has the result of keeping Catholics entirely away from Mass centers where the clergy think Francis is the pope.

    This result is itself good, but not by virtue of the mistaken reason for it. It is good because it incidentally complies with another necessary moral principle of avoiding any near occasions of danger to our faith. It is a mortal sin to place ourselves in a near occasion of sin. This is what all the Catholics did by avoiding ALL clergy associate with Bp. Arius in the Arian heresy. St. Alphonsus echoed this moral teaching:

    "Since heresy, and any kind of infidelity, is a mortal sin, they also sin mortally who expose themselves to its danger, whether by their associations, or by listening to preaching, or by their reading."

    So, regardless of whether you think the anti-una-cum is mistaken, it actually strictly protects another moral teaching and practice which traditionalists are violating to their own detriment.

    1. Dear Mr. Monella,
      Do you know my African friend, Mr. Botchu Lizim?

      I disagree that the result is necessarily good because how is the mention of Bergoglio in the Canon heretical? See my post "Una Cum" which clearly demonstrates it is not. Read also the excellent comments above. If the priest is sedeprivationist and mentions his name to convert him, how is that an occasion of sin? The Holy See allowed the Head of the False Sect of England to be mentioned liturgically and it is impossible for the Magisterium to allow a practice which is an occasion of sin.


    2. Not any more than I know Mr. Dei.

      I already granted that the una cum Mass is not bad. I was speaking about the issue of religious association with error against the Faith. Please re-read what I wrote. The followers of St. Athanasius didn't care with the Arians still had valid Sacraments; they separated completely from them know they would endanger their faith by religious association.

    3. I understand what you wrote, but you obviously didn't understand me. The analogy to Arians is inapposite. A priest who is not in actual union with Bergoglio and his sect, and rejects his errors (V2 and all conciliar "popes") does not thereby reject an article of Faith by using his name in the Canon. He may be sedeprivationist, or simply doing it "to be safe." That Francis is not pope, although true, is not a dogma the denial of which constitutes heresy.


    4. Your mistake is in thinking I was making an analogy. The shunning of Arians was an example of a different moral principle with nothing to do with the canon of the Mass. The principle is in the quote by St. Alphonsus. The R&R clergy are infected with multiple infidelities against Catholic doctrine and should be shunned. Again, it has nothing to do with the canon of the Mass.

    5. Ok, so what "infidelity" does a sedeprivationist priest or independent priest who wants to convert Bergoglio commit?


  8. I am talking about R&R; those who believe V2 men are popes. True so-called "sedeprivationists" don't believe that.

    All professed Catholics should want the conversion of Bergoglio.

    Many traditional Catholics don't understand about lesser levels of harm to the faith that are mortal sins, but are not actual denials of "de fide" teaching. There things are not actual canonical "heresy" but are censurable dangers to the virtue of Faith, and objective mortal sins.

    Who would dare to brazenly deny something in the Baltimore Catechism approved for America by Rome? It would be a sin. Most denials would amount to mortal sin by denial of de fide teaching, and other denials would be mortal sin by denial of other doctrinal levels of teaching. We are obliged to avoid association with such corruption.

    The R&R, for example, as as Society exist because they live and breathe daily the idea that under a true pope the Church could offer to the Catholic world a harmful liturgy such as the Novus Ordo. That is, by definition, a heretical blasphemy. There are more, but that one major things is enough to morally demand complete shunning of R&R Mass centers.

    1. You are correct that SSPX ecclesiology is wrong, but they do mental gymnastics to placate themselves. For example, the Novus Bogus is not the result of the hierarchy but "abuses" They state, "A criticism of the New Rite cannot be a criticism of the Mass itself..."
      (See "Most Frequently Asked Questions of the Society of St Pius X" pg. 23).

      I have written that in certain cases it may be necessary to avoid an Una Cum if e.g., the priest preaches on the false ecclesiology, leads people to think that the V2 sect is the Catholic Church, etc. However, you may avail yourself of the Sacraments from them if their is no danger of perversion to your faith. It must be judged on an individual basis not as a general principle. Being near a bar would be an occasion of sin to an alcoholic, but not to someone who doesn't drink at all like me.


  9. No, it must be a general principle. History shows this. A true analogy would be a Catholic marrying a Protestant. Though not intrinsically evil, the Church says it is a mortal sin to attempt it, and that it would be invalid, unless a dispensation is given in a particular situation.

    The followers of St. Athansius didn't pick and choose which Arian priest to go to Mass to. They stayed away completely, and risked their lives to go to Mass in the mountains.

    Your analogy is false. When it comes to desiring the Sacraments and putting the care of our souls in the hands of a priest, we ARE alcoholics. There is nothing deeper than a souls desire of God and grace, and exposing yourself to a Mass center that lives in an atmosphere of beliefs harmful to the faith, is a disaster, and I have seen statistically that people get sucked in to the SSPX mentality once they regularly attend, particularly if they have children even if they professed previously that they were solid sedes and would be on their guards.

    Though I believe the canon of the Mass thing is not intrinsically a problem, you have to listen to the other moral principle and stay away. Although the Church would say that in danger of death and you couldn't find a Catholic priest for Confession you could go to a valid Eastern Orthodox priest, it would be a ONE TIME THING and over in a matter of minutes. Even then the Church warns about those minutes and says that if you foresee perversion, you cannot do it.

    You are publishing things on the Internet to other souls, and it is a terrible responsibility to misguide people in this regard.

    Though the anti-una-cum is incorrect in stating about intrinsic evil in the canon, the purpose is keep people from perversion, and thankfully that error is correctly warning people NOT to attend where it is a harm to faith. The R&R Mass centers are terribly harmful.

    To give you an historical instance where the "disciplinary" branch in Rome was materially mistaken...when Galileo came out with the sun not moving, it was assumed to be intrinsically evil, but later was realized to be extrinsically evil. Nevertheless, the care to know it was "harmful" to souls at that time was correct.

    1. 1. Cardinal de Lugo taught in regard to UNDECLARED heretics, "“So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places.” (See "Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio" XXII, Section 1. According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Alphonsus Liguori regarded Cardinal de Lugo as second only to St. Thomas as a theologian. Which pope, Congregation, or Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction declared these R&R priests heretics?

      2. If the sacraments of undeclared heretics is permissible, how more so something of A LESSER DEGREE.

      3. St. Thomas More continued to regard the clergy in Reformation England during Henry VIII as fellow Catholics, and in fact on the very day he was summoned to take the Oath of Supremacy to the King, he received the sacraments from a priest who had himself sworn to it. King Henry was not formally declared a heretic until 1538, three years after the martyrdom of St. Thomas More. There is historical precedent that goes against St Athanasius as well. One could say he went above what is required.

      4. I've been a Traditionalist since 1981. I've seen many R&R keep the Faith because the priest never stops preaching against the "abuses" while a sede Chapel had a member marry someone in the V2 sect thinking they were equally Catholic. These are anecdotal and cut both ways.

      5. Your discussion of mixed marriages and absolution by a schismatic priest in danger of death actually makes my point.

      Neither are intrinsically evil UNLESS there is danger of perversion. What might be a danger for you might not be a danger to others. You are needlessly trying to keep people away from the Sacraments based on an alleged principle of danger to the Faith is made up. Judgement must be on an individual basis only.


    2. #1 Cardinal de Lugo document is not a magisterial document. But, I will assume for the sake of argument it is true as stated, and continue.

      Notice he says, "although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse" You enitirely overlooked that when you wrote your #2.

      You see he is placing it side by side with hitting a cleric maks the context where a cleric is known to do something bad and the people around him all know it. It is hardly a situation where a whole group of priests and all the laity are all thinking it well and smiling about it, preaching on it, publicizing about it. Sorry, but that is where the quote I gave from St. Alphonsus comes in.

      #3 this was a situation about an oath to a king, which even St. Thomas More was NOT calling heresy, and saw it as a difficult situation for the conscience to discern the implications. Now you are trying to apply this and say St. Athanasius, a Doctor of the Church, was going to an extreme and unncesessarily endangering the body and souls of the small faithful to avoid something they really didn't!

      You #5 and conclusion completely missed the point about the danger. If you want to forcefit your mind into thinking such a situation is not dangerous to you when the whole atmosphere you breathe there is thick with error against the faith and schism, then you will just be another sorry soul.

    3. 1. Really? Like they took the Oath of Supremecy and preached about it in England? Seems public! De Lugo is a theologian of repute same as St

      2. Stands as written once your objection to # 1 is shown weighed and found wanting.

      3. St Thomas More didn't take the oath because it was heretical in declaring the King and not the pope the Head of the Church! I'd LOVE for you to demonstrate how it is not a direct mortal sin against the Faith. Not yet heresy, but without question of such theological note that sin would be committed!

      5. I was R&R as was Fr DePauw and many other good priests and laity. In 1999, I became a convinced sede (as I'm morally certain Fr DePauw did as well). If YOUR faith is weak and needs to stay away from R&R, so be it. Please don't project your problem on me.


    4. St. Alphonsus was a Doctor of the Church and a Saint; de Lugo was not.

      How are you applying the quote by St. Alphonsus in this subject? It appears that you are simply dismissing it.

      The Oath of Supremacy was a one-time signing, and people did it out of fear and ignorance. This is not the same situation as regularly attending an R&R Mass where they regularly talk about the Church being able to give the faithful poison, and how a true pope can be the head of a false Church. No comparison.

      Take heed thinking you can stand lest you fall, is what Scripture says. Perhaps you are personally confident about yourself (I won't argue). I cannot project a problem on you personally about your strenth of faith, but this is a matter of you publicly advising others without the proper balance. You should be advising that it should be considered a danger as a general rule, and place emphasis on the quote by the Doctor of the Church I gave you.

    5. St Thomas Aquinas was the greatest Doctor of the Church, but not infallible. St Alphonsus' teaching is not the unanimous teaching of the theologians. The Holy Office did declare all of his opinions safe to follow in practice. "Safe to follow" is not the same as "mandatory." The oath of supremecy might have been signed out of fear and ignorance by the laity, but certainly not the clergy when it comes to ignorance. They also had to actively promote the idea that the papacy was not founded by Christ and this would be ongoing not a "one time deal."

      If you were a regular reader of this blog, you would know I strive for balance in all matters. I tell my readers that the Mass of a sede is ALWAYS preferred over the R&R. However, if they have no other choice either because of being on vacation, or there is no other feasible option available to them, they may attend the R&R for Mass. They should also try and convert others by asking well placed questions to get them thinking about the situation with the Modernist Vatican.

      Unlike you, I admit I have no Magisterial authority and if their conscience advises them to stay away they should. It may even be advisable in certain circumstances. I will not, as you and most of the Una Cum crowd, start telling people what they can and can't do on a disputed matter.

      You call yourself "Sal Monella." With the diseased theology you spread, people will be rendered spiritually sick unnecessarily depriving themselves of sacramental grace.

      I've said my last comment to you on this subject.


    6. This is my last comment. You agreed it was "safe to follow", and then you ended by saying it was "diseased theology". I rest my case.

    7. I'm going to reply once more due to the seriousness of the charge. Treating what is "safe to follow " as MANDATORY is, indeed, diseased theology. The defense may rest but it's the prosecution that wins the day in this case.


    8. Introibo, you don't realize how you are flouting logic with this. You try to say now that you are ONLY condemning the idea of it being "mandatory" as being diseased. But this is not logical, because mandatory means 100% of Catholics. So, logically, you must consider 50% to be perfectly fine, but that is a contradiction because you criticized the result by saying, "people will be rendered spiritually sick unnecessarily depriving themselves of sacramental grace."

      So a 50% result of spiritual sickness would certainly be diseased, but that contradicts you saying that you don't mind the "safe" opinion which does result in some staying away from the Sacraments!

      As well, you have a false principle about people staying away from the Sacraments by necessity. If by necessity, God would supply, and your principle is nowhere to be found in Catholic principle. It's only sick if it is willfully done when one should.

    9. Here we go again. Let me try to put this simply:

      --If someone needs to make use of Una Cum, I believe they may. They do not teach heresy --although they do mental gymnastics to avoid it as the logical consequence.

      --They are not DECLARED heretics even IF I conceded they directly teach heresy, which they do not.

      --The opinion of St Alphonsus is safe to follow. If someone feels they shouldn't go, then don't.

      --This is not the same as telling people that what is safe is mandatory and they must stay away. You thereby make people think they MUST follow the opinion of St Alphonsus when such is not the case.

      ---Turning something permissive into something obligatory is diseased theology.


    10. No, you didn't even get my point. Even if my position is followed by 50% of Catholics, you MUST say that those 50% are not being harmed by staying away from the Sacraments. Otherwise, you are saying it is NOT safe.

    11. I believe it is a MISAPPLICATION of the rule to make it mandatory. It does not harm those who feel their Faith may be perverted in THAT PARTICULAR CASE. They may have no choice but to forgo the Sacraments and look for other solutions. Only if they feel the danger of going is greater than staying Home Alone.

      When your principle MUST be applied it is not diseased, but the way you present it, it is diseased. This is to be applied individually and not as some general mandatory rule. I've said as much from the start--you obviously didn't read my post "Una Cum."


    12. Now you say it is okay to chose what I am saying as long as people "feel their Faith may be perverted". You are making this subjective based entirely on what a person "feels", and therefore the result will be good if they "feel" it. So the conclusion is, what if I say it is mandatory, and 100% of the people "feel" it will pervert their faith? You don't realize how you are flubbing the logic with this.

    13. To My Readers:

      My (considerable) patience with this person (whom appropriately names himself after a sickness). This is my last word and "Sal Monella" can get his own blog if he wishes to say more:

      1. When I say "feel" I don't mean fuzzy emotions like Modernists. There are objective measures I have written.

      2. Does the priest tell you that we "need to be united to Francis"?

      3. Does he condemn sedevacantism?

      4. Does he turn away known sedes from Communion.

      5. Does he preach on the alleged virtues of Wojtyla as a "Saint"?

      These are objective measures. One independent R&R priest I know personally NEVER preaches on Francis as pope, but always talks about the "bad abuses" He tells everyone they can not attend any Church in actual union with Francis until he converts. This priest poses no danger.

      Do you have children? Are the kids confused by what the priest is saying?

      These are the objective measures you can take into account. You may also leave for the sermon and return when it's over if you are not well studied in the Faith. These are the objective measures, and there is a subjective component. We all know what things affect our children or ourselves negatively. Some people are very sensitive to criticism, for example, while others are not. Some people do not yet understand the Faith and Great Apostasy well enough so that being around R&R is not something about which they are secure.

      I repeat, my opinion is R&R can be attended unless there is a specific danger to the Faith. A sedevacantist Mass is always to be preferred, but don't deprive yourself of the graces of the Sacraments due to a case of bad Sal Monella.


    14. I'm sorry, Introibo, but you are relying on the subjectivity of the churchgoer as the qualification for which he acts as his own judge. Ultimately no principles involved, just whatever is in the mind of the person making the decision. (Whose koolade has he/she been drinking?) That's "diseased." Do you also believe that a man acting as his own counsel is wise?
      You've just shut down Monella. That looks like you're running from him. Are you? And btw, I know of cases where SSPX priests advise laity that it's perfectly ok to attend NO abominations (masses). In fact, we both know that the SSPX's ecclesiology is so warped when it comes to the papacy that it can't help but be a danger to one's faith. You don't seem to realize that long term exposure to the SSPX can wreak spiritual havoc no matter how impervious one imagines he/she is to their copious errors.

    15. I'm not a gambling man, but I'd bet the mortgage that this is "Sal Monella" posting anonymously. He needs not only our prayers, but this level of obsession requires lithium as well.

      Nevertheless, I will respond to show the poster is willfully ignorant.

      As to the first point of subjectivity, there is such a principle in Moral Theology. According to theologians McHugh and Callan, "Danger of Sin is the likelihood that it will be committed in certain circumstances. It is of two kinds, proximate and remote. (a) Danger of sin is proximate, when there is moral certainty that in given circumstances sin will be committed either because the generality of mankind falls in such cases (absolute danger), or because IN THEM A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL HAS ALWAYS FALLEN...Danger of sin is remote, when the likelihood that sin will be committed is not morally certain, and does not exclude a serious and well-founded probability or expectation to the contrary. Example: There is remote danger in an occasional drink, if a person who had several times relapsed into intemperance, has practiced abstemiousness for years." ("Moral Theology" 1: 83; Emphasis mine).

      Here, we see the great McHugh and Callan clearly teach a subjective component based on an INDIVIDUAL.For a man with an addictive personality who was a raging alcoholic, going into a bar and having a drink would be a proximate danger of sin. For someone who does not drink at all, like me, there would be no danger at all. The application of this principle to R&R is obvious, and what I've been saying all along.

      As to the taunts about "running from" the "sick man" I run from no one. It does become a tedious waste of my time when the person simply comes back to say the same thing over and over. A solitary quote from St. Alphonsus hardly constitues dogma, let alone turning something permissive into something mandatory. It is necessary to apply ALL the principles of Moral Theology, including the subjective component which you deny out of ignorance (culpable or inculpable).

      Next, we have the anecdotal, "I know of cases.." Yes, if that particular priest says it's OK to attend the Novus Bogus, then (as I've stated before in this very post) it may be advisable to stay away.

      I'm a lawyer with a family and I really am stretching what little free time I have to maintain this blog. I don't have time to waste on repeating the same stuff, over and over to dense people (to be charitable). "Sal Monella" reminds me of the Dimonds--all they do is repeat the same quotes, usually taken out of context, never applying the correct theological principles from the approved theologians, and calling people ad hominem names (e.g. "liar") when they get called out.


    16. You're showing your true colors, Introibo. I'm not "Sal Monella," and you've made a hideous rash-judgment.
      As for your lament regarding your lack of time: you've undertaken to run a blog and to thrust your opinions forward. You've allowed blog comments. I'm impervious to your whining.
      You're a tad dense, despite that impressive 4000 books! Your example regarding the drunkard doesn't hold, because the bar you're entering presents a general danger on all fronts to a Catholic, not just a singular danger like you pretend. One may not be tempted by alcohol, but is that bar somewhere where you should visit? -with its bare chested barmaids, prostitutes offering their services, gambling, drugs being sold, stolen goods on offer, etc?
      The R&R crowd/SSPX operate in a demonstrably non-Catholic environment of their own, conscious, design. My opinion, which is the predominant opinion of those who hold the sedevavantist position, is that the SSPX are to be avoided at all costs, for many reasons. Cease your downplaying of reality by talking about "anecdotal" cases. The cumulative problem is undeniably enormous - everything from prominent SSPX laymen suggesting to SSPX clergy that certain laymen are denied sacraments through to the SSPX denying the invalidity of NO "sacraments."
      Your cursory examination of the una cum problem had a few problems - it failed to address all of the arguments against the una cum, and it didn't consider other problems with inserting Francis' and the novus "bishop's" name in the Te Igitur.
      You've FALSELY accused me of being "Sal Monella." I'm no longer interested in wasting
      MY time in disabusing you of your egregious errors regarding una cum.
      Finally. Not only am I not Sal Monella, I also have no connection to him whatsoever.

    17. Conceding, ad arguendo, that you are NOT "Sal Monella" you certainly write like him and are incapable of understanding what I wrote.

      1. Yes, I've got a blog and permit comments. That doesn't mean I have to repeat answers over and over on the same post. This is not "whining" just a statement of fact.

      2. I can only wonder where you must live. I grew up in a rough NYC neighborhood, but WOW! So all bars contain prostitutes, bare chested barmaids, drugs, stolen goods, etc? Who's making a hasty generalization? There are SOME bars like that and they SHOULD be avoided at all cost. I know of several bars that are highly respectable throughout Manhattan where business (legal, corporate, etc) is conducted. A friend of mine from high school owns a bar. He is a "conservative" V2 sect member, and his bar is orderly, and free of moral turpitude. He "cuts off" anyone he feels is drinking too much and there is nothing morally repugnant. There are even tables where FAMILIES can come and have something light to eat. He asks anyone to leave who uses vulgar language or is immodestly dressed. Just as there are differences in bars, so are there in R&R.
      Thank you for helping to illustrate my point.

      3. You write, "My opinion, which is the predominant opinion of those who hold the sedevavantist position, is that the SSPX are to be avoided at all costs, for many reasons. Cease your downplaying of reality by talking about "anecdotal" cases."

      Your case of the priest who says it's OK to go to the Novus Bogus ISN'T anecdotal? Your opinion is the predominant one among sedes? Please cite the professional opinion poll that shows this to be fact. Otherwise it's (you guessed it!) ANECDOTAL.

      4. You wrote, "Your cursory examination of the una cum problem had a few problems..." You fail to mention what they are and your reasoning has HUGE problems. In your prior comment to me you denied the principle of subjectivity which was amply demonstrated by McHugh and Callan.

      In sum you:

      *rely on one quote from St Alphonsus

      * accuse me of anecdotal-only evidence, which, ironically is what YOU present.

      * make hasty generalizations regarding states of affairs (e.g. bars being per se "dens of iniquity").

      * were ignorant of the principle of subjectivity inherent in certain cases of moral theology

      * cite to no relevant authorities--aside from one St Alphonsus quote taken in isolation from other moral principles

      Maybe you're not "Sal Monella" after all--your paucity in both logic and established theological principles, makes me think you're Fred or Bobby Dimond.


    18. It's a rash assumption to conclude that attendance at SSPX, Resistance or Eastern Rite will open one up to hearing heresy or errors against the Faith. I have been to countlesss non-Sede masses and never heard any of this. It was the mass, a sermon on the Gospel, and that was it. I don't read their publications, nor do I go to classes outside of mass. The mass is all that is under discussion.

    19. I agree except on one point. The Eastern Rites are in actual union with Bergoglio. Therefore, they are as much off limits as the Eastern Schismatics.


    20. Introibo,

      They err on who the Pope is. There is a difference. Keep,in mind the teaching of St. Anotoninus when you are thinking this through. Priests are permitted to trust their bishops judgement on who the Pope is when there is a dispute.

      If the eastern Catholic belIeves Francis' claim, but does not believe his heresies, he remains Catholic. I can attest to you that there are many, if not most other the clerics and laity in the eastern rites who still do hold and believe completely the true Faith.

      The rites of the east remain without defect, unlike the Latin church which has defected and failed. Therefore, Catholics who go to mass in eastern Churches in which the priest still has the Faith remain safe as far as valid sacraments and being safe from heresy and errors against the Faith.

      Also, as an FYI, eastern Catholics, at least as far as I have seen never talk about Bergoglio or his teachings, in the sermons or after mass. He may as well not exist to them. Sermons are almost always focused on the Gospel.

    21. Gene,
      There are a couple of difficulties with what you write. The Eastern Rite takes their marching orders from Bergoglio and his Modernist henchmen. The bishop is appointed by the Modernist Vatican. By unity with Bergoglio MUST
      * accept the Novus Bogus as valid

      * accept Vatican II as a legitimate Council

      * accept the validity of all post-V2 "Sacraments"

      * believe that they can be in union with a formal pope, yet withhold belief on what he teaches. This is unCatholic and a schismatic mind set, far above that of SSPX

      Additionally, while you make a valid point about not discussing Bergoglio and his errors, the same can be said of the Eastern Schismatics. If someone is in actual union with Bergoglio there is no way they can avoid unity with his heresy, unless they believe a real pope can teach heresy and THEY decide what to accept or reject. This is not Catholicism. The SSPX should be avoided when a sedevacantist Church is available. They hold close to the same position, but do mental gymnastics to avoid the logical
      Conclusion of sedevacantism. They reject unity because they recognize the error and think they can "resist." The Eastern Rite can make no such claim. In 1990 their Codes of Canon Law were "updated" to jibe with V2.

      Need more be said?

      God bless,


    22. Introibo,

      I am happy to discuss this more of you like. There is much more to this than what first appears. I will address your specific points,

      1. "The bishop is appointed by the Modernist Vatican."

      This is technically true, but the truth lies in the details. In the eastern rites bishops are selected by their Patriarchs and synods, not directly by Rome. The names they select are sent to the Pope who then gives the final approval. This differs from the Latin Church, in which bishops are both selected and approved by Rome.

      2. "accept the Novus Bogus as valid"

      This matter has not yet been settled by the Church. Our judgment against Paul VI, the lawmaker, are not binding judgments on other Catholics who do not see this.

      3. "Accept Vatican II as a legitimate Council."

      The same principle as number one. The fact is that it has been possible for Catholics to believe Vatican II without defecting from the Faith. This has been done by "interpreting" the Council according to tradition, I think it's worth mentioning here that many well known clerics with unquestionable orthodoxy sighed or at least made no protest to the Vatican II documents.

      You may argue, "that makes no sense, Vatican II teaches error, and the only legitimate interpretation makes that clear." I agree with you, but if a Catholic is not convinced of what we see, and "accepts Vatican II in the light of Tradition" while keeping the Faith, he is neither a heretic or adhering to doctrinal error, he errs only in fact about correctly comprehending what Vatican II taught.

      4. "Accept the the validity of post V2 sacraments."

      Same principle as number one. What I can say here also, is that this is very rarely an issue for eastern Catholics who have a fully intact and certainly valid sacramental system )including holy orders, both sacerdotal and episcopal.)

      5. "believe that they can be in union with a formal pope, yet withhold belief on what he teaches. This is unCatholic and a schismatic mind set, far above that of SSPX "

      You are presuming a lot of things. IMO, many eastern Catholics, unlike Latin Catholics, pay little direct attention to Rome. My experience has shown me that many (most) are unaware of what is actually being taught, at least among the priests and laity. The bishops are certainly more complicit from what I have seen, but I am not aware of every case.

      I am also add that I would certainly suspect some eastern rite clerics of heresy. Not all are good, but many still are.

      Let's face it though, that any act of schism through the SSPX mindset or a better educated Catholic of either the eastern or Roman rites, would be be a subjective sin of schism, not an actual act of schism severing one from the Church. How can one be in schism from the Church when one is rejecting the teaching and laws of a non-Pope? It doesn't meet the definition.

      So, while there is scandal, and possibly sin, it is not properly speaking schism from the Church in regards to all cases of those who know what Vatican II and its "Popes" have taught and willfully reject that teaching.

      Our real enemies are those that know and understand what Vatican II and its "Popes" have taught and knowingly believe it, while recognizing the the conflict between what they believe and the teaching of the Church. Such people are knowingly and willfully members of the new sect, and have certainly departed from the Church.

    23. Gene,
      Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I can tell you are sincere and have thought about using the Eastern Rites as a possibility of escaping the Vatican II sect. Unfortunately, they are part of the problem not the solution. When you claim, “Our real enemies are those that know and understand what Vatican II and its "Popes" have taught and knowingly believe it, while recognizing the conflict between what they believe and the teaching of the Church. Such people are knowingly and willfully members of the new sect, and have certainly departed from the Church.” This requires a person to be a mind reader. It is a properly basic belief that a cleric subscribes to the doctrines of the institution to which he belongs. It is not logically impossible that an Eastern Schismatic believes the Catholic Faith through research he has done. All talk of BOD and subjective good faith aside; in the EXTERNAL FORUM we must presume him a heretic for denying the office of the papacy, etc., until the opposite is proven.
      Hence, the Eastern Rites are part of the Modernist Vatican. So must we treat them.

      The bottom line for me is unity with Bergoglio. The SSPX has MANY problems, which is why R&R must be avoided unless it is your only option. Eastern Rites are not an option at all. The Vatican 2 sect poisons everything it comes in contact with, and that explains the state of the world today and why I’m a Traditionalist.
      My replies to your counterpoints:
      1. You can be certain that the most Modernist sympathizing priests will be chosen by Bergoglio and his Modernists in today’s Rome. They already have V2 sect Codes of Canon Law.
      2. As to them accepting the Novus Bogus as valid, it is not “based on our judgment against the lawmaker” but rather our judgment on the lawmaker comes from the evil/heretical laws as a logical consequence. If someone thinks the new “mass” is simply a matter of taste, then you have no reason to NOT be belong to the Vatican 2 sect. However, if you believe that the Novus Bogus is (somehow unknown to me) valid, but that the Traditional Mass is “more reverent” or in some way superior, that makes the new “mass” evil because it is wicked in detracting from the best to GOD. Remember that Cain’s offering was unacceptable to God not because he didn’t give Him what was good, but because he didn’t give him what was best! But the Church cannot give that which is evil and THEREFORE…
      (continued below)

    24. 3. You make the best case I’ve seen to date on your counterpoint # 3. However, it must fail because what was true of many great clerics accepting V2 at the time, cannot apply 52 years after it ended and the wealth of material written about what happened. Even Fr. De Pauw came to the logical conclusion by the late 1990s. Moreover, let’s not forget the July 20, 2001 document “Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.” It allows Eastern Rite Chaldeans to receive “communion” at “mass” with Nestorians in a liturgy that contains NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION. This can be “interpreted in the light of Tradition”?
      4. See what I wrote above.
      5. I agree you cannot be schismatic in the external forum, because there is no pope. However, it does show a willingness to disobey someone erroneously believed to be the Vicar of Christ. The intent is there, and why would you want clergy like that?
      Gene, you are an intelligent and articulate person. Thank you for the comments, and I would be most happy to continue this discussion if you want it to go on.

      God bless,


    25. Introibo,

      I am happy to discuss with you so long as you wish. Thank you also for the discussion. Like you, I have thousands of books and have dedicated my time over decades to trying to make sense of this mysterious crisis we are living through. We may reach a point that we agree to differ, if that happens, let's resolve to end the discussion in peace.

      You wrote, "This requires a person to be a mind reader. It is a properly basic belief that a cleric subscribes to the doctrines of the institution to which he belongs. It is not logically impossible that an Eastern Schismatic believes the Catholic Faith through research he has done. All talk of BOD and subjective good faith aside; in the EXTERNAL FORUM we must presume him a heretic for denying the office of the papacy, etc., until the opposite is proven. Hence, the Eastern Rites are part of the Modernist Vatican. So must we treat them"

      We do not have to read minds, we are bound by the law. The Conciliar sect is not a declared sect, therefore there is no presumption of guilt for those affiliating with it. Every attempt must be made to excuse those who have entered it (converts), have been assimilated into it, (those in the 1960's) and those born into it believing it to be the Church (everyone else).

      If the Conciliar Church were a condemned sect, then all Catholics who followed the first sect leader, Paul VI, would have been outside the Church. Every Catholic in the world would have been guilty and by that fact outside the Church, in a non-Catholic sect.

      It is a fact that Catholic clerics going back to the early 1970's never required an abjuration from heresy when Catholics left their Conciliar Novus Ordo parishes and found their way to the Catholic Mass. This despite the fact that abdurations are required from those who are members of non-Catholic sects. Why? Were the priests lawbreakers refusing to adhere to Canon Law? Of course not, they recognized the obvious fact that membership in the new sect could not be presumed, as the sect is not condemned and is representing itself as the Church.

      Eastern Catholics aside, all Catholics must be presumed innocent in this situation until the contrary is publicly shown. The Canonist Augustine explains, "A sect means a religious society established in opposition to the Church whether it consist of infidels, pagans, Jews, Muslims, non-Catholics, or schismatics. To become a member of such a society (nomen dare) means to inscribe one's name on its roster. Of course it is presumed that the new member knows it is a non-Catholic society, otherwise he would not incur the censure. If he hears of the censure after he has become a member, and promptly severs his connection, the penalty is not incurred.  (Rev. Charles Augustine, O.S.B, D.D., A Commentary On The New Code Of Canon Law, Vol. VIII, 279-280, 1922, emphasis added)"

      I would ask, what authority has warned Catholics of the presence of a sect? I am not here speaking of priests and laypeople, but what member of the Divinely commissioned hierarchy? I think you and I can agree that it has not happened. From life experience, I can attest that I have known countless souls mired in the Novus Ordo structure, even up current times, who have retained their Catholic Faith, and were surprised to learn the awful truth about what has happened to the Church when challenged.

      I will come back to your other points tomorrow.

    26. Introibo wrote:

      "It allows Eastern Rite Chaldeans to receive “communion” at “mass” with Nestorians in a liturgy that contains NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION. This can be “interpreted in the light of Tradition”?"

      No, but in this particular case, we are dealing with one law of one rite. The law itself evil, but I would ask how many Catholics affected by the law know about it, and among those who know about it, know what you know?

      It is an argument against the orthodoxy of lawgiver and those who are complicit. It is also an argument against those who understand this law, and agree with it, or knowingly participate in a sectarian rite, and avail themselves of an invalid Sacrament

    27. Introibo wrote:
      "1. You can be certain that the most Modernist sympathizing priests will be chosen by Bergoglio and his Modernists in today’s Rome. They already have V2 sect Codes of Canon Law."

      As I said above, Bergoglio does not choose eastern rite bishops, they are chosen by their own. The 1990 Code of Eastern churches, like the 1983 Code teaches intercommunion, There is no justification for this and cannot be, it's an evil law.

      Those that actually do this, give Communion to non-Catholics are to be suspect of heresy, as with all acts of communicatio in sacris.

      It may be, however, that priests may be confused on this point, as they think this is the law of the Catholic Church approved by the Pope, and imposed by their bishops. This is really their only defense, ignorance based on the confusion caused by the Conciliar sect.

    28. Introibo wrote:

      "2. As to them accepting the Novus Bogus as valid, it is not “based on our judgment against the lawmaker” but rather our judgment on the lawmaker comes from the evil/heretical laws as a logical consequence. If someone thinks the new “mass” is simply a matter of taste, then you have no reason to NOT be belong to the Vatican 2 sect. However, if you believe that the Novus Bogus is (somehow unknown to me) valid, but that the Traditional Mass is “more reverent” or in some way superior, that makes the new “mass” evil because it is wicked in detracting from the best to GOD. Remember that Cain’s offering was unacceptable to God not because he didn’t give Him what was good, but because he didn’t give him what was best! But the Church cannot give that which is evil and THEREFORE…"

      Agreed, that is the correct logical path. But, is a lack of logic heretical? For decades many did not see this connection which seems so obvious to us today, that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo could not from the Church, therefore the pope who gave us these could not be the Pope. Why do all of the early "traditionalists" get a pass but not Catholics of today who equally fail the logic test.

      You may argue that more information has come about, more time has gone by, etc. so people today should know better, On that score, I would agree. But, the principle remains the same, so long as Catholics are acting in good Faith, and believe the same Faith as taught by the Church, then they remain Catholics and must be regarded as such.

      Was adherence to Paul VI in and of itself proof of membership in the Conciliar sect? As I said above, if this were the case, then every Catholic would have been a member of the new sect, and the Church would have failed. The same principle equally applies today, adherence to FRank does not in and of itself mean adherence to the sect.

      Adherence to the sect can only be determined by ascertaining whether or not one has knowingly adopted the false doctrine of the sect whie recognizing the conflict with the teaching of the Church. That is the only standard that meets the test of time from 1965 to 2017.

    29. Thank you Gene! I will reply tomorrow.


    30. Gene,
      These are indeed dark days, and we are both trying to make our Catholic way through them. You state, "We do not have to read minds, we are bound by the law. The Conciliar sect is not a declared sect, therefore there is no presumption of guilt for those affiliating with it. Every attempt must be made to excuse those who have entered it (converts), have been assimilated into it, (those in the 1960's) and those born into it believing it to be the Church (everyone else)."

      This is where we have a difference. We do not have the means to declare the V2 sect heretical, unlike in days gone by. As theologian MacKenzie teaches concerning those validly baptized and brought up outside the Church in non-Catholic sects, "When they are in good faith, their sin of heresy is purely material, and does not involve personal guilt. In the EXTERNAL ORDER,THEY ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR NON-MEMBERSHIP BY PRESUMPTION OF LAW." ("The Delict of Heresy", pg. 18; Emphasis mine))

      This, I believe is the correct principle to apply. It makes the most sense. Although abjurations may not have been required, some Traditionalists are having them conditionally baptized, and Fr. DePauw did require the Profession of Catholic Faith to be signed. I think that in 1964, with some few notable exceptions, most of the world's Catholics were Outside the Church in the external forum, but not in the internal forum. Since certain clerics and laymen rejected Montini from the start, the Church did not (COULD NOT) defect. Let's not forget the Church started with 72 members on Pentecost!

      (continued below)

    31. The citation to Canonist Augustine is inapposite because we are talking about the sin of heresy which severs us from the Church without need for canonical declaration.

      The abortionist here in NY has not been legally declared a murderer, but that's the sin of which he is guilty before God. We must treat him as such and not think everything is OK until Roe v Wade is overruled someday.

      As to the people "mired in the Novus Ordo" we must treat them as non-Catholics even as they may be otherwise. This is how we treat Protestants, and since there is no one to declare it legally, that is the theological principle that should guide us. And just as adherence to Greek Schismatic Bishops makes you presumed to believe as they do, so too should adherence to Frankie, in and of itself.

      In response to the "mass" with no words of consecration you wrote, "The law itself evil, but I would ask how many Catholics affected by the law know about it, and among those who know about it, know what you know?" It seems you are operating by a principle of invincible ignorance, and generously applying it to all. Even in the civil law the maxim "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." I realize this is theology, BUT everyone has a duty to investigate. You seem wiiling to excuse these Eastern Rites and even have us join with them when WE are not ignorant, even if they are. It seems to render the Great Commission useless. Everyone is ignorant and we presume good faith--this is what lead to the Feeneyite "revolt." It gets harder and harder to plead "I was ignorant" when they follow a man who says "proselytism is nonsense," "atheists can get to Heaven," etc.
      It's not a lack of logic but a lack of duty to investigate. I converted to Traditionalism at age 16 in 1981. My parents were duped into the V2 sect. At 13 I stumbled across an old hand Missal belonging to my dad. I was fascinated, being a V2 sect altar boy ("table server" would be more appropriate terminology). I asked the (validly ordained pre-V2) pastor about it, and he yelled at me saying I was a kid, knew nothing about theology, and should just follow the pope. I continued to investigate, and met Fr. DePauw, the rest is history. I never knew the Truth, never saw a real Mass until age 16. I subsequently converted my parents and one of my best friends from law school. I had MUCH LESS to go on then people do now, and with no Internet!!
      (continued below)

    32. So a "lack of logic" may not be heretical, but failure to investigate shows bad faith.

      In regard to Eastern Rites who follow the new 1990 Code of Canon Law on giving "communion" to non-Catholics, the clerics are without excuse. Again from theologian MacKenzie a cleric who pleads ignorance to heresy must have his excuse "...dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine. His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church's attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (Ibid, pg. 48).

      You might reply, the training changed. That only shows they do NOT get Catholic training and should not be considered as such in the external forum. Certainly there were Eastern Rite bishops in 1990 who were trained before V2. How many rejected the Canon on intercommunion as unCatholic and heretical? How many denounced it? How many investigated and drew the logical inference about the legislator?

      Had they NOT been in actual union with Wojtyla, they would not have this heretical code. That is why I must reject your concluding paragraph to me:

      "Adherence to the sect can only be determined by ascertaining whether or not one has knowingly adopted the false doctrine of the sect whie recognizing the conflict with the teaching of the Church. That is the only standard that meets the test of time from 1965 to 2017."

      Your principle could be used to justify anything in any Rite unless the cleric or layman can demonstrate that they know "this is not Catholic, " and nevertheless accept it anyway.

      The principle I accept, and comports with the theological principles I have read from the theologians is that "in the external forum, one who is in actual union with Bergoglio must be presumed to be at least a material heretic unless the opposite can be proven."

      God bless,


    33. Introibo wrote:

      "This is where we have a difference. We do not have the means to declare the V2 sect heretical, unlike in days gone by. As theologian MacKenzie teaches concerning those validly baptized and brought up outside the Church in non-Catholic sects, "When they are in good faith, their sin of heresy is purely material, and does not involve personal guilt. In the EXTERNAL ORDER,THEY ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR NON-MEMBERSHIP BY PRESUMPTION OF LAW." ("The Delict of Heresy", pg. 18; Emphasis mine))"

      Yes, of course, if we are discussing known sects. If a Catholic goes to an Anglican Church, he is presumed to know he is entering a sectarian church. It's obvious, and it wouldn't take much to figure it out, therefore the presumption is of guilt.

      Out case is radically different. The sect remains undeclared. Almost everyone on earth, including most Catholics have failed to understand the existence of this sect, so it cannot be presumed. To use MacKenzie in the context of an undeclared and for those most part unknown sect is to distort the meaning,

      Whenever groups of Catholics for a grouping that adopts either heretical or schismatic ideas, the initial presumption of those in the yet to be condemned group is innocence, not guilt. Malice is presumed only after they are warned and refuse to leave the group, which is in reality a new sect.

      Do we agree here? If not, what would you need in the form of evidence to convince you?

    34. Introibo wrote:
      "This, I believe is the correct principle to apply. It makes the most sense. Although abjurations may not have been required, some Traditionalists are having them conditionally baptized, and Fr. DePauw did require the Profession of Catholic Faith to be signed. I think that in 1964, with some few notable exceptions, most of the world's Catholics were Outside the Church in the external forum, but not in the internal forum. Since certain clerics and laymen rejected Montini from the start, the Church did not (COULD NOT) defect. Let's not forget the Church started with 72 members on Pentecost! "

      Conditional baptisms would only be given for reasonable suspicion that one was not validly baptized. It really is not dealing with my point, which is the fact that abjurations were not required of people coming from Novus Ordo parishes by any "traditional" priest since the beginning of the crisis. If these people were part of a sect, then they must make this abduratuon prior to being admitted as members of the Church. The fact that the abjuration was not asked of them is proof that the priests recognized them as already and currently members of the Church.

      A profession of faith is not the same as the formal abjuratuon of heresy which must be done by all converts from non-Catholic sects. If one is conditionally baptized, he must still make the formal abjuration.

      The fact is that no one rejected Montini from the start. Little by little Catholics began to see a problem and react to it, Fr. De Pauw certainly recognized Paul VI as Pope and addressed him as such.

      The Church can be smaller, I will not dispute that, but it cannot exist without its hierarchy. As this crisis goes on, the hierarchy must still go on without ending, The Church cannot exist without the living successors of the Apostles. Whatever idea you may form about this crisis, this fact must be incorporated into it.

    35. Introibo,

      "The citation to Canonist Augustine is inapposite because we are talking about the sin of heresy which severs us from the Church without need for canonical declaration"

      I agree with you that canonical warnings are not necessary to determine pertinacity for a heretic, but they certainly do strengthen the case.

      But, what we are talking about, at least, what I thought we were talking about was whether those that believe in Paul VI's claim to the papacy were by that fact automatically presumed to be members of his new sect.

      If you want to discuss individual acts of heresy, and how to determine a heretic prior to the judgement of the Church, that's another good topic, and probably one that we will not disagree on.

      This tract written by Mr. Daly sums up my view on the matter:

    36. Introibo wrote:

      "The abortionist here in NY has not been legally declared a murderer, but that's the sin of which he is guilty before God. We must treat him as such and not think everything is OK until Roe v Wade is overruled someday."

      Agreed. You are making a judgment of guilt against an individual based on his public acts. We can make such judgments against individuals and even groups, when we are morally certain that they are committing evil acts.

      Extending this to the Concilair church, however is not the same. Many Catholics, while not liking the Novus Ordo, did not detect its heretical underbelly, and saw it as a watered down version of the Roman rite, but still the Mass.

      The fact that Catholics trusted the legitimacy of Paul VI, logically forced them to trust the validity, lawfulness and goodness of the Novus Ordo. How can the Pope bind us to an evil law?

      There is a world of difference between Catholic in 1969 verse an abortionist. Good faith is presumed in those trying to follow the law in grey areas, while bad faith is presumed in those who disregard the law in clear cases.

    37. Thank you Gene. I will reply tomorrow.


    38. I did have another post to discuss your other points, but my tablet froze, and its gone. Anyway, your agreement or disagreement on the above points will show the way on what to discuss next if you want to keep discussing,

      Had a good night, God bless.

    39. Gene,
      Your initial contention I reject, namely, that there is a necessity whereby since V2 are undeclared heretics, we must presume innocence. To clarify, at the time of the Great Apostasy (1964) your contention has considerable merit. However, the necessity of a legal declaration is not, to the best of my knowledge and belief, of Divine positive Law. Laws can cease to bind, such as using Holy Week Rites of Pope Pius XII. You might deny the cessation applies to those Rites, but the principle involved is real.

      There were clerics who denied Montini from the start (Fr. De Pauw admitted as much and was there while the Council was taking place. One such cleric was Fr (later Bp.) Guerad des Lauriers. Another was Fr Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga.

      I doubt you would deny that the need for a papal mandate to consecrate bishops is not still in effect. No one rushed to consecrate bishops in 1964 because the first Traditionalists thought the Church would "cure Herself" in a few years. By the mid-1970s it was clear that would not happen. Can the same be said of the need for a formal declaration of heresy? Think about it. We have no one who can make the declaration anymore than we have someone to give a mandate for an episcopal consecration!

      There is no abjuration required. OK, but isn't it possible THEY are mistaken in NOT requiring one? The remnant clergy have no Magisterial authority.

      You ask what evidence it would take to convince me that the initial presumption is innocence:

      "...groups of Catholics for a grouping that adopts either heretical or schismatic ideas, the initial presumption of those in the yet to be condemned group is innocence, not guilt. Malice is presumed only after they are warned and refuse to leave the group, which is in reality a new sect." In ordinary times, and perhaps in the early days of the Apostasy. What I would need is some sort of consensus among theologians and a definitive answer to "at what point do we cease to attribute innocence to them." Frankie makes Montini look like Pope Leo XIII in comparison (my apologies to Pope Leo for mentioning him in the same sentence with Bergoglio).

      Praying for the "coming of the Messiah" with the Jews, telling an Anglican NOT to convert, foisting evil laws on Eastern Rites and the Latin Rite--I could spend 100 paragraphs going through all he's done. he's even praised by sodomites on the cover of one of their depraved magazines! But after a half century they are still in good faith? I don't buy that for a second. It's not the same as judging individual acts of heresy, but they are related.

      Trusting the legitimacy of Montini only leads to acceptance of the Novus Bogus if you DON'T have the Faith. When he implements the "systematic and tacit negation" of the Real Presence (Card. Ottaviani), his legitimacy is over. I saw that at 16, so can anyone else who investigates.

      Lastly, two points:

      1. The 1990 Eastern Codes of Canon Law are proof positive that being in actual union with the Modernist Vatican will poison and destroy the Faith. Don't think it will stop there.

      2. Even if , ad arguendo, we presume that the V2 sect are not declared heretics, how do WE justify joining them? WE know better. While R&R agrees V2 is wrong the Eastern Rites CANNOT do so in principle. They will not call their revised Codes of Canon Law evil, and woe to him that does! I was castigated by some commenters here for the Una Cum, far less serious than actual union with Bergoglio! To admit, even tacitly, that Wojtyla had the right to change the Law is to admit that he is a true pope. That, to me, is living a lie.

      God bless,


    40. It seems we are are at an impasse. It's best to leave it here. God bless.

    41. Gene,
      I sincerely thank you for this enlightening exchange. It helped clarify some things for me and for my readers too, I'm sure. I hope you will continue to read my blog and comment.

      God bless,


  10. Introibo,

    You quote Szal, who wrote: "But if he [a schismatic] gave no signs of repentance, then Mass can still be said for him, but only privately and in the absence of scandal." However, in that part of the Mass where the priest mentions those for whose souls the Mass is being said, which is during the Canon, we read: "Be mindful also, O Lord, of Thy servants and handmaids [names thereof] who are gone before us with the sign of faith [cum signo fidei] and repose in the sleep of peace.[emphasis mine]

    But as far as the priests knows, the soul in question did not depart this world "with the sign of faith," but, rather, with no such sign whatsoever. Therefore, how can he be justified in saying this prayer during the Mass?

    1. George,
      According to theologian Gihr, "in the case they (believed to be outside the Church) are suffering in Purgatory--the Church prays not by name , but only in general, as in the case in the Memento (OMNIBUS in Christo quiescentibus.) " The priest may as a private individual and in his private intention pray for all without distinction. (See "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" B. Herder Book Co., St Louis [1941], pg. 670.


  11. Introibo: "Sal Monella" seems to write in the same manner as a fellow named Rob Sheehan.

  12. Introibo, I'm curious as to why you are attempting to reveal somebody's identity when you write under a pen-name?

    1. What this attempt means is that the person is presenting successful arguments that the opposition does not like, but cannot refute.

    2. That person is not me---see my response below.


  13. Oops, sorry, I thought you were the writer that posted about Rob Sheehan. My bad.

    1. As you can see, I would never seek to reveal any person's identity who chooses to remain anonymous. Someone else wrote that. I believe that arguments should stand or fall on their own, not by the identity of the One advancing them. The exception would be when someone holds themselves out to be something they are not--for example, the Fred and Bobby claiming to be real Benedictines and acting as authoritative theologians when they are neither.


    2. I don't think you realize, Introibo. You have your blog on moderation, so when you clicked to let it through, you let the person make the attempt to reveal someone's identity. Why did you?

    3. Point well taken. My policy has always been to allow all comments provided there is no vulgarity or blasphemy. I will also say after a long back and forth with someone if I'm done speaking to that person on that particular issue if all has been said and seems to be going nowhere. The commenter is free to make other comments on that post on my next one. Hence, I allowed that comment through. I may now add to my policy that if someone wishes anonymity, I will not allow comments from others trying to expose him/her.


  14. Maybe I am shortsighted and/or wrong but,with everything going on in the World,the Una Cum issue is splitting hairs.

    1. I agree! As you can see, some are adamant about enforcing their ideas on matters that are undecided and need to be sorted out by the individual.


  15. I see in the introduction to this blog that it was stated:

    In medio stat veritas. "The truth stands in the middle."

    This is not necessarily true. It often is true, but not always. The mistake wouldn't be much of a problem for the average person in normal times, but it is a serious problem in today's crisis of the Church when we are swimming in controversy.

    The real principle is "In media stat virtus" where virtue stands in the middle, because of the adage 'moderation in all things'. When practicing virtue we can always use this as a guide.

    It is different when faced with any doctrinal controversy. We cannot just jump into a particular controversy with a guide that the truth is in the middle, because it may not be, and trying to let that guide us could lead us right into doctrinal error.

    1. You make a very valid point that is well taken!

      God bless,


  16. This is a little off topic considering your post, which was extremely educational, but would you consider writing a post about "mike4dogma" who runs the website He is leading many people into heresy.

    1. I've seen the site, and would have no problem doing an expose of it. I just can't guarantee an exact date!

      God bless,


    2. Hunter - the people running "Introibo Ad Altare Dei" ... are COMPLETE heretics against the Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy.

      The "Introibo Ad Altare Dei" apostates ... say that there is Catholic Mass in the world (and priests) ... this is shocking heresy, since it is overwhelmingly obvious that every bishop in the world was automatically excommunicated ... when they approved the hundreds of "vatican-2 council" heresies.

      If "Introibo Ad Altare Dei" ... can get people to go to the stage shows that look like Catholic Mass ... they cause your automatic excommunication for participation in a heretic cult (the vatican-2 cult, founded in 1965). I list the Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication for participation in heretic cults on Section 13.2.2 of my site >

      "Introibo Ad Altare Dei" ... is the last place you want to go to for the Catholic Dogma (the true faith).

      "Introibo Ad Altare Dei" ... preposterously claims there is a Pope in these times. Satan's vatican-2 heresy does not have the Office of the Papacy. They call "benedict-16" a Pope. I list the stunning heresy of "b-16" on Section 12.6 of my site. Heresies of "francis" on Section 12.10.

      "Introibo Ad Altare Dei" has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

    3. Hunter -

      The ... "Introibo Ad Altare Dei" people have *zero* chance of getting to Heaven ... unless they make a Formal Abjuration of heresy which I provide on Section 19.1 of my site >

      I Abjured in November of 2009 ... the *Dogma* that Abjuration is required for people like "Introibo Ad Altare Dei" ... is listed on Section 19.1.1.

      Eternity is a *long time* to be wrong (that is: against the Dogma).

    4. Wow! So we all go to Hell unless we sign a document prepared by **YOU**!

      When did you become pope? Where did you receive your JCD or STD after Holy Orders? What writing do you have approved by the Holy See?

      You might want to call "Pope" Michael and tell him God selected you pope and not him!


    5. I would also hope Mike learns to read. There has been no pope since Pope Pius XII. I have never recognized Ratzinger.


    6. Introibo,

      Thank you! I wonder how Mike arrived as soon as he was mentioned. Mike, this blog is Sedevacantist, as am I. Benedict XVI is not accepted. Maybe you meant Benedict XV, who you also don't accept.


    7. Mike,

      Since you deny the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII, do you also deny the Dogma of the Assumption to be de fide?

  17. The problem with going to an SSPX Mass is more than the una cum issue. By going to their Mass you are implicitly supporting their theology. You are implicitly telling them and their supporters that they are on the right path. Now one of the main errors of the SSPX is their narrow minded viewpoint that all that really matters is the traditional Mass. Because of this view they have developed a number of blind spots in their thinking. These blind spots are very serious. One example is their acceptance of the validity of Novus Ordo sacraments and rites.
    My reason for absolutely refusing to go to an una cum Mass is that we must absolutely refuse to participate in a group such as the SSPX or FSSP because of their implicit and sometimes explicit cooperation with heresy. Compromise has only achieved one thing over the last 50 years- loss of faith.

    1. Dear Mr. Miller,
      I agree with much of what you've written and I sympathize with your position. There are some pertinent distinctions that I do make. There is a huge difference between the SSPX and FSSP.

      The FSSP is in ACTUAL union with Bergoglio. They accept Vatican II and are part of the Vatican 2 sect. For them, they just have a preference for the Traditional ways, and they accept the new ecclesiology and all other heresies. Francis is formal pope for them and must be obeyed. Almost all their priests are invalid, having been "ordained" by invalidly consecrated V2 "bishops."

      The SSPX is not (yet) in union with Bergoglio. They "resist" him and hold the Integral Faith--although their positions are illogical. Most priests are valid except some who join from the V2 sect without being ordained in the Traditional Rite. Not all SSPX priests accept the "party line" and some are "crypto-sedes." (Where did the SSPV come from?).

      I believe that a sedevacantist Mass must always be sought out and preferred over R&R Masses. However, if someone is on vacation or cannot get to any other Chapel, I see know reason to stay away UNLESS that particular chapel is a danger to their Faith. There are other R&R groups that take a much harder stand, such as "The Resistance " of Bp. Richard Williamson.

      Just because you attend doesn't mean you are agreeing with their theology. There are some laity in SSPV who believe Bergoglio is pope. Attending SSPV doesn't somehow make them sedes. Sedes who attend R&R can also use the opportunity to make converts to sedevacantism by asking well-placed questions.

      I do indeed understand your concerns, and this is a matter of conscience. If you feel you should not attend, I have no right or authority to tell you otherwise. Only a restored Magisterium can do that!

      God bless,


    2. In a brief moment of veiled unity,Bp.Williamson celebrated Holy Mass at Immaculate Conception Chapel Tampa,FL.
      It's on youtube,check it out if you have 2 minutes.
      Immaculate Conception Tampa,FL hold the Sedevacantist opinion.
      Would be nice if we had more moments of unity between true Catholics.

    3. Very interesting. Maybe there is hope for us (in general$, and Bp. Williamson (in particular)!

      God bless,


  18. The quote attributed to Father Cekada is indeed genuine, and inserted with his knowledge. Father has granted permission to reproduce his reaction to the above article: "Sure, the Church allowed public prayers for a non-Catholic monarch or president — but this was in his CIVIL capacity as head of A SECULAR STATE. The Pope, on the other hand, is prayed for in the Canon in his RELIGIOUS capacity as HEAD OF THE CHURCH. If Introibo can’t figure THAT basic distinction out, his four thousand books haven’t done him a lot of good. Maybe he should get with the Francis environmentalist program and recycle them."

    1. Below is my response to Fr. Cekada. Please copy and paste it in an email and send it to him.

      Fr. Cekada chooses to ignore my arguments and merely repeat what he already asserted. This is not a refutation. Perhaps he didn’t understand, so I’ll try to make this as simple as possible in order that even he can get it.

      1.Theologian Szal makes it clear that the King of England was prayed for liturgically.

      2.Fr. Cekada makes an unsupported assertion that it was strictly in his CIVIL capacity as head of a SECULAR STATE (Fr. Cekada’s emphasis)

      3.There is nothing in Szal’s text that supports this contention. It is Fr. Cekada’s assumption for which he supplies NO CITATION to RELEVANT AUTHORITY.

      4.In the case of England the monarch is also the HEAD OF THE (FALSE) ANGLICAN SECT. To hold one office necessarily entails the other. For example, if we pray for the US President, we pray for the Chief Executive of the Nation. We also pray for the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces serving the US, because that is intimately bound up as one of the powers and duties of the office. You cannot impeach and remove Donald Trump as Commander-in – Chief of the armed forces while retaining him as Chief Executive of the Nation, or vice-versa. To pray for the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is to pray for the Chief Executive of the Nation.

      5.Since the time of Henry VIII, the King (or Queen) of England is also the Head of the Anglican Church. Just as you can’t separate the functions of the President, the same holds with regard to the monarch.

      6.It is not at all clear from the text of the prayer that the King of England is only being prayed for as head of a secular state, especially when England in 1820 had a STATE RELIGION and Catholicism was merely tolerated. The person in the pew would think that the King (and all he represents) are being prayed for, and if this were not true, it would be scandalous.

      7.However, the Church cannot give that which is evil (scandalous) so praying for a heretic, even one who is the head of a false sect, cannot be considered wrong or contrary to Divine positive Law.
      (continued below)

    2. 8.Back to my analogy with the US, Fr. Cekada claims that in the Canon of the Mass, the pope is prayed for as Head of the Church. The 25th Amendment allows the US President, when prevented from exercising his powers, to retain the office as a placeholder, while the Vice-President receives all powers and duties of office as Acting President. Here we have a “material” president who holds the office devoid of authority. Sound like sedeprivationism? It should! Why can’t we do the same as regard Francis and pray for him as material papal placeholder?

      9.Fr. Cekada offers no citations saying #8 above can’t be done, especially since theologian Guerard des Lauriers didn’t discuss his thesis until AFTER the Great Apostasy of Vatican II, so you will find no approved pre-V2 theologians writing about its plausibility, merits, or demerits.

      10. What does Fr. Cekada offer to “prove” the name of Bergoglio can’t be used if the sedeprivationist theory is viable? His own ipse dixit.

      As far as being able to discern basic distinctions, I have no problem in that area. For example, I know the distinction between ORDINARY and EXTRAORDINARY means of life support. This prevents me from making a disgrace of myself by sanctioning the MURDER of Terri Schiavo by dehydration and starvation. My spiritual father, the late, great Fr. Gommar DePauw was a REAL Canonist, having received his JCD from Catholic University of America in 1955 (pre-V2). He taught Canon Law and Moral Theology at Mount St. Mary’s Major Seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore from 1955-1962, and was a peritus (theological expert) at V2, helping fight the Modernists. Fr. De Pauw, like ALL Traditionalist Catholic clergy (except Fr. Cekada and his buddy Bp. Dolan) roundly CONDEMNED what was happening to her from the pulpit using Catholic moral principles applied to the facts at hand.

      Not only did Fr. Cekada disgrace himself, he made other Traditionalists look like ghouls by claiming a direct sin against the Fifth Commandment was morally permissible. To my knowledge, he has not been humble enough, nor man enough, to admit he was wrong and apologize for what scandal he caused.

      I’ll make a deal with Fr. Cekada. I’ll recycle my 4, 000 books in accordance with Bergoglio’s environmentalist agenda if he will send me his diploma from the seminary at Econe. I’d like to hang it where it belongs---in my bathroom next to the Charmin, so it can be put to good use in case of an emergency.

    3. Introibo, Fr. Cekada was trained as an ordinary priest. Fr. De Pauw had more extraordinary training for sure, but you don't denigrate a priest publicly for being ordinarily trained. Do you really know the distinction, or not? It's scandalous what you just wrote about the Charmin. Could Fr. Cekada have made a mistake? Could Fr. De Pauw have made a mistake? Yes, either or both could have.

      Now, Catholic theologians of good repute have said, before Vatican II, that a food hole directly to the stomach is extraordinary means of keeping a person alive. Don't criticize Fr. Cekada for holding what was acceptable among the Catholic clergy. Perhaps there is a case for saying it was extraordinary then, but not any longer? I have not seen a substantial case being made for that, nor has Fr. Cekada. You don't go public and suggest Fr. Cekada was for "murder". That is absolutely sinful.

      What complicated the Schiavo case was that the woman was capable of receiving sustenance through her mouth, and Fr. Cekada didn't realize that through most of the controversy. In the end he admitted that if she was capable of that, then it would have been murder to refrain from trying to give her sustenance via her mouth.

    4. SSPX training in not ordinary! What authority of the Catholic Church approved of that seminary? I am not talking about the temporary approval of the local bishop which expired. What authority of the Catholic Church approved the fitness of any SSPX priest for holy orders? The entire "traddy seminary" idea is a made up joke. These men are being trained and ordained without any approval or authorization whatsoever from the Catholic Church.

    5. Anonymous @8/26, 8:38 am,

      Let me be clear. It is evident that Fr. Cekada either (a) didn't understand or (b) tried to avoid confronting my arguments as I listed them in the comment I made above. Since Fr Cekada is intelligent, I must assume the latter.

      Instead of engaging in meaningful discourse, he claims I don't understand distinctions when it's clear I acknowledged that the alleged distinction between praying for a civil ruler and head of the Church doesn't hold water.

      I am beholden to no one and I follow the evidence where it leads. I have always been kind in my remarks to Fr. Cekada and I will continue to pray for him. I'm glad he's recovered from his sickness. However, we must never allow any priest to be held up above criticism; this was one of the factors that lead to the Great Apostasy.

      Fr. Cekada has increasingly become another "follow me or die" cleric. He will never write that what he says is opinion (as I frequently do) or that he is open to correction (as I am). He states he's right, and everyone else MUST be wrong.

      1. On a matter of life and death, one must tread VERY carefully before offering opinions. The priests of the SSPV, SSPX, CMRI as well as Fr. De Pauw and all other Traditionalists were roundly condemning what happened to Mrs Schiavo. Moreover, he was fraternally corrected by his fellow priests (Fr. William Jenkins, SSPV most of all) about the facts of the case, including testimony from a highly qualified physician (Dr. Gebel). Instead of reassessing the situation, Fr. Cekada dug in his heels and refused to budge on his unsolicited opinion that to starve and dehydrate Mrs. Schiavo wasn't MURDER. THAT'S scandolous.

      2. In his response to Dr. Gebel, Fr. Cekada wrote, "I do not want my parishioners to be left with the impression — due to the high emotions and bitter controversy fanned by the morally bankrupt media and by various lay and clerical grandstanders — that something is a mortal sin when it is not." Like attendance at Una Cum is an alleged mortal sin? Who, with Magisterial authority declared it so?

      I think with today's knowledge of the danger of tobacco use, smoking would be considered a sin against the Fifth Commandment for not taking reasonably good care of your body. I will not be telling anyone to confess smoking because I have no authority to formally declare it sinful, even if I believe it to be so on moral principles. Yet Fr Cekada has no problem pontificating on topics of life and death using principles applied to outdated medical standards of the 1950s.

      3. Fr. Cekada, to the best of my knowledge and belief, has never apologized publicly for the scandal he caused after the FACTS of the case were made known. He tried to obfuscate the issue by saying it's about correct moral principles. I think Fr. De Pauw understands those principles FAR BETTER THAN HE DOES.

      4. Rather than seriously contend with the arguments I made on the Una Cum issue, Fr. Cekada simply chooses to skirt the issue and denigrate my education by suggesting I didn't understand an easy distinction when I clearly did. If that's all he learned at Econe, comparing his degree to Charmin was being far too charitable.

    6. Your remark about using any priest's ordination certificate in a bathroom when you are all out of toilet paper, is a SICK sacrilegious remark. Seriously.

    7. I will NEVER allow a cleric to hide behind Holy Orders while doing something wrong. We should learn that lesson from history. I became a Traditionalist in my sophomore year at a V2 sect high school. The priests and religious were not only heretical but morally depraved. One brother in particular would tell impure jokes to 16 year old boys AND girls that a Marine wouldn't repeat.

      Parents wouldn't complain because "he's a brother." I can only wonder what such a sick and filthy mind must have done. I'm NOT saying this of Fr. Cekada.

      What I am saying is that you can't refuse to engage a person's arguments, dismiss them by denigrating their intelligence, and expect them to take it because you're a cleric.

      This is the arrogance that led Fr. Cekada to dig his heels in over Terri Schiavo and cause scandal for which he has yet (to the best of my knowledge and belief) publicly apologize.

      If Fr. Cekada wants to be sarcastic and uppity, he'll get it in return. "Don't dish it out if you can't take it."


    8. SSPX can't give degrees or certify any act in the name of the Church, any more than any person on this forum can. They are playing seminary as though it's the real deal. Read the Canons on seminaries, dimissorial letters, judging the fitness of candidates for the priesthood, etc.

    9. @Gene Fr.Cekada received his degree from a Catholic University before attending Econe.

  19. The sad thing about the Schiavo case was that no one could see the real agenda of the devil riding in on horse back. The very law that was contrived back in the "70's with a lie,(Roe v. Wade), for abortion, was the very law used to murder Terry Schiavo.
    She set the precedent for the right of Euthanasia, and a host of other reasons to commit murder in the future.

    The sad thing about the whole mess is that most of the Bishops of America sided with Fr. Cekada. There were a few good priests who stood against the murder of this innocent girl, because they knew the truth. However, then, like now, the FAKE NEWS reported the contrived lie, to support the long
    awaited agenda of murdering at will.

    I am amazed that so many of the clergy could not see that one coming into town. As a matter of fact, back in the '70's that hideous law was batted around the conference tables of many Catholic Universities, all asking the same question. Where will it all end? Well I guess we have that answer now. It won't!

    Give an inch, and guess who is right there to lead your foot steps right into hell?

    I am a very simple person, and I follow a very simple law.
    "When in doubt, leave it out!"

    I enjoyed the article, thanks.

    1. @Anon 12:53 - Roe v. Wade was NOT the "very law used to murder Schiavo". The 1973 ruling was that unborn babies were not "persons" and therefore they claimed the right to life did not apply to them. This had nothing to do with Schiavo. Essentially, Schiavo was killed by forbidding anyone to try to feed her, and they knew that she could get down food like a baby.

    2. The forbidding of her to eat or drink was enforced because of Roe v. Wade. She was declared incapable of sustaining life without extraordinary means. Of course this was a lie. So is the lie about abortion, not being murder. There are many tentacles attached to this body of law, just as there is in the Patriot Act.

  20. Dear Introibo, I am a great admirer of the very good work you do. For various reasons I've got behind in reading just lately and am now catching up. I found this post and the various comments most interesting and informative indeed.
    I note the many valid points you have made. and a case can be made on both sides, but I must throw my hat in with Sal.

    The words in the canon of the Mass are clear: " gather her in unity and to guide her, in union with bergoglio thy servant our Pope ..."

    Any ordinary, reasonable man would understand that sentence exactly as it is said: we offer our gifts together with/as one with bergoglio, who is our true Pope.
    I can't see anybody interpreting that sentence as meaning "office of the Pope', or as "praying for the Pope's conversion". No Priest may attach his own meaning/interpretation/significance to the words of the Mass.

    We all agree that bergoglio is a public, pertinaceous heretic who has excommunicated himself from the Church by committing the sin of heresy against Divine law. Catholics are prohibited from praying liturgically with non-Catholics:

    St. Ignatius of Antioch
    If anyone walks according to a foreign doctrine, he is not of Christ nor a partaker of His passion. Have no fellowship with such a man, lest you perish along with him, even though he should be your father, your son, your brother, or a member of your family.”

    St. John Eudes
    “I entreat you to shun, whenever possible, the society of those who profess false doctrines.”

    III Lateran Council
    “The accursed perversity of heretics has so increased that now they exercise their wickedness not in secret, but manifest their error publicly, and win over the weak and simple-minded to their opinion. For this reason, We resolve to cast them, their defenders, and their receivers under anathema, and We forbid under anathema that any one presume to help heretics or to do business with heretics."

    St. Thomas Aquinas
    To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls. Thus the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”

    St. Cyril of Alexandria
    “It is unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.”

  21. Pius XI
    Is it permitted for Christians to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! ..this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.

    As you know there are many more quotes to the same effect. We are told to let heretics be anathema and, in my opinion, offering "our "holy unblemished sacrifices" in union with heretic bergoglio is doing precisely the opposite. It is aiding and abetting heretics. It is affording respectability to heretic bergoglio. More than that! The SSPX recognizes bergoglio as true Pope! They wish for union with him in his false church! The SSPX are abettors of heretics and should be avoided at all costs!

    "...those who obstinately defend Modernists eventually fall into Modernism themselves. How? By rejecting the true Catholic definition of the Papacy and inventing a pseudo-Papacy to their own liking, something right out of Disneyland. It is thus they can call someone a true Pope and yet act as if they must resist him in faith, morals, government and worship to save their own souls. Do they really believe Christ instituted a Papacy which we must resist to save our souls? This is insanity, indeed blasphemy." (Christ or Chaos.)
    Recognizing and resisting a true Pope is impossible for a Catholic, yet this is what the SSPX do!

    "This chair [of Peter] is the center of Catholic truth and unity, that is, the head, mother, and teacher of all the Churches to which all honor and obedience must be offered... Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees.
    (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, nn. 1,7)

    Union with the Roman See of Peter is ... always the public criterion of a Catholic. “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held”.
    (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 13)

    "For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour... For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. (Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4)

    " is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor."
    (Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, June 17, 1885; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 263.

  22. "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
    (Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302.

    If bergoglio is their true Pope - let them submit and obey his teaching!
    If they know he is an heretic - let them join us who practice true Catholicism! They defy Catholic doctrine which unambiguously states that an heretic cannot be Pope. In my opinion, going to a SSPX una cum mass is inadvisable for the ignorant and sinful for the informed.

    St. Cyprian: "... One must withdraw from those who are engaged in sin; rather, one must fly from them, lest by joining in their evil course and thus taking the wrong road, one should become involved in the same guilt oneself... Do everything you can to break away from such men; as you value your salvation, avoid those who associate with such harmful connections. […] Their talk spreads like cancer, their conversation is as catching as an infection […] their poisonous and pernicious propaganda is more deadly than persecution was."

    Remember St. Hermenegild. He died rather that accept the Blessed Sacrament from the hands of a heretic, or abettor of heretics! I would do the same.

    We have an arguement for attending an una cum Mass and another against doing so. We need a proper authority to give a definitive ruling on the matter and that we do not have one. Your advice to follow one's conscience, is probably the correct answer for now.

    1. Dear Dr Lamb,
      It's good to hear from you again! Your comments always give food for thought. I agree that there are good arguments on both sides and we need a real pope to decide the issue!
      God bless,


    2. What???? Peter Lamb you just wrote a most excellent response filled with wisdom of the fathers but then you blew it in one lamentable paragraph at the end.

    3. He "blew it" because he recognizes he doesn't have Magisterial authority to make a definitive ruling on an open question of theology? No, Dr. Lamb is humble and as a result, got it right.


    4. Therefore, the promulgator of this site, both denies and recognises the heresiarchs. Promulgating the denial of them outside the Mass in Justice, but the recognition of them inside the Mass in Mercy. Yes, yes, no, no. ?!?

      A reminder of the beginnings of the New Order:

    5. Bp.Sanborn could be wrong and John XXIII could be recognized as a valid Pope in the future.
      After the night he was elected,Pius XII reforms were what he was handed.
      Circa 1959 John XXIII celebrates the pre-1950 Holy Week and there are pictures to prove this happened.
      HE should be very very careful with how he outright condemns John XXIII and doesn't mention Pius XII.
      After many yrs in the Traditional movement it's coming to my attention we need to practice and concentrate more on the spiritual and less on the temporal.

  23. PS. IAAD's message says that , in the secular space unerring truth is to be adhered to owing to the fact that every Catholic knows VII and its heresiarchs are enemies of Christ. However, before God, in the sanctuary of the Mass, either or is fine. The same message, by its logic, would have us resort to schismatic Greek Orthodox liturgies in a pinch. The final message confirming all the errors of VII.

    1. No, I'm not saying that at all. It is not certain if the pope is prayed for as a material placeholder and his conversion. That may well be the case and we thereby reject the heretic within and without the Mass.

      God bless,


    2. Personally I have no problem with a valid priest or Bishop praying for the Novus Ordo's conversion.

  24. (Speaking of non-Catholics)
    Do Western Orthodoxy Bishop's receive their Holy Orders from old Catholic Bishop's or Duarte-Costa Bishop's?
    I have looked online and they refuse to give any info concerning Holy Orders.
    I ask this because they talk about a unification of Roman Catholics and East/West Orthodoxy.
    I am well aware many Traditional Catholics and Eastern Orthodox consider Western Orthodoxy a fabricated religion.

    1. I honestly never heard of "Western Orthodoxy." Maybe I know it by another name. If you could send a link or some information I would appreciate it.



    3. Thank you for the link. Giving it just a quick look over, it appears to be an apologetic for Eastern Schismatics with a new twist. I'll publish more in the comments here when I can research and give a better answer.


  25. I'm not sure about the link provided since I don't have time to look into it but I can say that Western Rite Orthodoxy is a valid rite always honored and accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church (not in communion with Rome). From the Eastern Orthodox perspective Roman Catholicism does not own the Western liturgy since Rome used to be part of the Orthodox / Catholic Church. The Western rite liturgy is growing in the West ever since Vatican II. Again, from the Eastern perspective, it is perfectly acceptable to celebrate the Western Liturgy with all its splendor without contradiction or having to capitulate to the papacy. As for the validity of Eastern Orthodox orders, they are and always have been considered valid from the Roman Catholic perspective. Therefore, their liturgies, whether Eastern or Western Rite are valid. Now, whether a traditional Roman Catholic is permitted to participate in them is another question altogether.

    1. I simply asked where their Bishop's receive Holy Orders as the Western Orthodox websites do not provide any information.

    2. The Eastern Orthodox Church has valid bishops so their bishops, and it doesn't matter which liturgical rite they use, receive consecrations from their own bishops in the same that it works in the Catholic Church.

    3. One caveat: The determination that Eastern Schismatic Orders are valid is generally, but not always, true. In the 1960s some of the Schismatics began to co-consecrate "bishops" in ecumenical ceremonies with Anglicans, whose orders are definitely invalid. Indeed, the Greek Orthodox now have an ecumenical "New Calendar" and traditional ""Old Calendar."!There is no one with authority to rule on the changes since the Great Apostasy. The rule of validity is mostly true, but should be investigated.


    4. For the life of me I will never understand not ordaining "Anglican clergy" in the 7 orders of Priesthood before consecrating them Bishop's,even if it's a schismatic church.

    5. @Anom 5:51PM
      I hold the Novus Ordo "holy orders" since July 1968 to be highly doubtful and I avoid them 100%.