Monday, April 16, 2018

Recognizing That You Can't Resist


The folly of the "recognize and resist" crowd (R&R) becomes more apparent everyday Bergoglio pretends to be "pope." Nevertheless, there are some who cannot let go of the idea that a pope can be "resisted" in his disciplinary and doctrinal pronouncements. In September of 2016, the website Catholicism (sic) Has The Answer, there was an entry entitled, "Why Is Sedevacantism Wrong?" It goes on to list eleven "errors" of sedevacantism--- the usual discredited tripe to dupe those not well versed in Church teaching to remain in the Vatican II sect. This post will propound the teaching of the Church on the papacy and then demonstrate what's wrong with the criticism of the alleged "errors" listed against the sedevacantist position. To read the website article in its entirety, see http://catholicismhastheanswer.com/why-is-sedevacantism-wrong/.


The Vicar of Christ MUST be Obeyed

 The most cited passage for R&R is Galatians 2:11-14. We read, "But when Cephas [Peter "the Rock'] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" 

Here St. Paul publicly rebuked St. Peter for dissimulating about observing the Old Testament dietary laws. St. Peter knew that Catholics were not bound by Jewish dietary laws and, therefore, he did not follow them because he ate with Gentiles. However, when Jewish converts entered the scene, it seems St. Peter went back to observing those laws so as not to offend the converts. This was a big problem because the Gentile Catholics sensed a separation from the pope. St. Paul was right to correct St. Peter, and such fraternal correction was not disrespectful toward St. Peter’s office. Fraternal correction is an act of charity—even in relation to a pope, because popes are sinners, but not heretics! (See theologian Cornelius a Lapide, "Ad Galatas 2:11," Commentarium in S.S. (Lyons: Pelagaud1839) 9:445, 446, 447.) The principle applies only to fraternal correction. No theologian teaches that the pope can be "resisted" in regard to his universal and ordinary teaching authority. (See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-ordinary-magisterium-of-papacy.html).

According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). Therefore, you can resist an immoral command from the pope (e.g., "Kill my enemy for me," etc.) or fraternally correct an immoral act (e.g., setting a bad example, committing fornication, murder, etc.), but not legislation on the Mass. Hence, the SSPX, Salza, and the rest of the R&R crowd have no basis for rejecting the Novus Bogus "mass" (among many other things; I choose to  focus on the Mass as but one example). If Roncalli to Bergoglio are recognized by them as "popes," their ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship must be regarded as pure and holy.

This leads us to three options:

  • The Novus Bogus "mass" is pure and holy; equal to the Traditional Mass. Attachment to the Traditional Mass is a mere preference (Official Society of St. Peter position)
  • The Novus Bogus "mass" is evil because it is sacrilegious and/or invalid (The Church has defected and given evil. She is not infallible. This is heresy, and leads some into the Eastern Schismatics)
  • The Novus Bogus "mass" is evil because it is sacrilegious and/or invalid, so it could not possibly have come to us from the Church, precisely because it is a dogma that the Church cannot defect. The man who promulgated it must have previously taught heresy as a private theologian and lost his office as pope, or was never validly elected pope from the beginning, as the Church's theologians have always taught could happen. (Sedevacantism)
It seems very clear because it really is apparent, as is all Church teaching. The R&R will attempt to circumvent Church teaching for their desperate want/need to "have a pope." 


The (Mythological) Errors of Sedevacantism
I will list the eleven alleged errors in red followed in most cases by a short synopsis of what was argued, by quoting the article and/or paraphrasing it. My response will follow each "error."

First Alleged Error: "A man who is a heretic, publicly or privately, cannot be, or ceases to be Pope, because he cannot be head of that which he has separated himself from." They offer two reasons; (1) "...this is false for otherwise the First Vatican Council would not have confined the Popes charism of infallibility to a certain event, specifically when he defines a doctrine to be excepted de fide by the whole Church. If it were impossible for him to be in error on matters of faith and morals other times this clarification would have no meaning." And (2) "It also would imply then that Pope John XXII would have never been the Pope, or at least not until the last day of his pontificate when he renounced the error which he had proclaimed publicly from the pulpit that the beatific vision is not seen by the Saints until the last judgment, an error which was clearly false by reason of the whole weight of the Church’s universal magisterium up until that time."

Response: As to #1, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

The pope's infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws. The pope can give "opinionative" decisions, which by their very nature could be modified or abrogated. In that sense he could be "wrong," but not in promulgating universal disciplinary laws, or deciding upon doctrinal issues. This is a misunderstanding of the 1870 Vatican Council's teaching on the papacy.

As to #2: Pope John XXII (1316-1334) preached a series of sermons in Avignon, France in which he taught that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God (Beatific Vision) until after the Last Judgement. It was open to debate among the theologians and had not yet been a made a dogma, so its denial is not heresy. Finally, he expressed his opinion as a "private theologian who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate." (Le Bachlet, "Benoit XII," in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.). Therefore, he lacked the pertinacity required for loss of office as he declared himself expressing an opinion, and was willing to submit his judgement to the Church.

Second Alleged Error: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which prevents a heretic from obtaining the papacy was superseded by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. It was not infallible.

Response: It need not be infallibly decreed because it expresses what is already known to be true by Divine Law; a heretic cannot become pope. According to canonist Coronata: "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine). Such was the unanimous teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists.

Third Alleged Error: "In the 1917 Code of Canon law, Canon 188.4 shows that a Pope who is becomes a heretic looses his office."  "...canon 188 §4, in speaking of "public defection from" (or "abandonment of") the Catholic faith, can mean only that kind of defection that is obvious and indisputable before all the world, even to doctrinally illiterate Catholics and non-Catholics. In this kind of defection, the cleric in question ceases even to profess the Catholic faith and clearly has not the slightest desire to continue in his previous clerical office. Sedevacantists must admit that these occupants of the Apostolic Palace, recognized by the world as popes, have all at least publicly professed to be Catholics throughout their respective pontificates and have shown every public sign of intending to continue exercising the papal office until their dying day."

Response: Sheer nonsense. A heretic can continue to call himself "Catholic" but that doesn't make it so. Isn't it "obvious and indisputable" that a "pope" who tells us "atheists can go to Heaven," "There is no Catholic God," and "proselytism is nonsense" no longer has the True Faith? According to theologian McDevitt, "A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by heresy or apostasy in a public manner..." Further, "It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon [188] demands." Finally, "..even if only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the Faith...the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1" (The Renunciation of An Ecclesiastical Office: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, [1946], pgs. 136-140). In the case of Bergoglio, since he couldn't attain office in the first place, this argument is even more futile.

Fourth Alleged Error: "The excommunicated cannot hold office or be elected Pope." This is false for according to Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, "None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor."

Response: This law of Pope Pius XII concerns only impediments of ecclesiastical law, not of Divine Law. As noted above, the impediment of heresy is of Divine Law according to the unanimous consent of the approved canonists and theologians. No pope can dispense from Divine Law. It's analogous to saying the pope could allow abortion or allow false worship--a complete impossibility.

Fifth Alleged Error: "Vatican II promulgated heresy, therefore the men who reigned over the council and have propagated it cannot be true popes."  This means that there was no heresy at Vatican II. Three reasons are advanced: (a) Montini (Paul VI) said Vatican II was only pastoral, (b) according to Dietrich Von Hildebrand, "When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed." and (c) "the errors or alleged errors of the Second Vatican Council are shrouded in ambiguity making it impossible to truly convict the adherents or authors of heresy."

Response: (a) is easily dismissed. Montini said, "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme Ordinary Magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) Magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents."

(b) Von Hildebrand was not an approved theologian, but a philosopher and married layman. Pope Pius XII decreed, "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (Humani Generis, para. #20)

(c) The Church teaches that God doesn't allow ambiguity to be taught by the Church:
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos,January 6, 1928:

"The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on Earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever in tact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." (Emphasis mine)

Sixth Alleged Error: "The post-Vatican II Church cannot be the True Catholic Church because it has promulgated evil rites such as the Novus Ordo Mass, Communion on the Hand, and altar girls." These are "abuses" but not intrinsically evil.

Response: How about approving as "valid" a "mass" with no words of Consecration? Wojtyla did just that when he allowed members of his sect to receive "communion" with Eastern heretics, as recorded in the document "Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East." (2001). This sect's "anaphora" (the Canon which should contain the words of Consecration) never even contains the words "body" and "blood." This runs completely contrary to the Church's teaching on sacramental theology. Need I say any more?

Seventh Alleged Error: “Canon 844 of the New Code of Canon Law is intrinsically evil, and therefore could not have been promulgated by a valid pope.” 
It is supposedly an "error" because...
 "...it follows that even though in 1917 it was explicitly forbidden, the Church could give Holy Communion to those separated from her 'in good faith,' or 'through no fault of their own.' The judgment of whether someone is truly 'in good faith' is one that can only be made absolutely by God however the Church has given her ministers the authority to make the assumption for the good of souls who potentially receive sanctifying grace through the sacraments."

Response:  The idea that the true (1917) Code gave permission to give the sacraments to all those whom a priest believes to be outside the Church "in good faith" is not only false, it's not what the 1983 Code permits. Simply put, as long as they're baptized, non-Catholics can legitimately, according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law in the Vatican II sect, ask to be given "Communion", "absolution", and "Anointing of the Sick" — and then just as legitimately receive the same — without converting to Catholicism, as long as they have a "grave and pressing need", even outside the danger of death. This translates to, "I don't want to join the One True Church, I just 'need' your sacraments." Does that even make sense to you? It does if you buy into the heretical ecclesiology that the "Church of Christ" is distinct from the Catholic Church, and "subsists" there in its fullness, but it subsists in other sects according to how many "elements" of truth they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good and leads to Heaven.

Eighth Alleged Error: "The Novus Ordo Mass changed the words of the consecration to the point where it is invalid, particularly with the vernacular change of ‘for many’ to ‘for all.’ The Mass has also deformed the intention of the priest rendering it invalid." 

Response: The very fact they approved a "mass" with no words of Consecration, makes having to refute this objection unnecessary.

Ninth Alleged Error: "Following the same logic which caused Pope Leo XIII to declare the Anglican church’s form of Episcopal Consecration invalid in ‘Apostolic Curae,’ the New form of Episcopal Consecrations are invalid."The form remains valid since it still expresses the grace of the Holy Ghost and the order of bishop.

Response: The form is invalid. Pope Pius XII specifically set forth what were the essential words necessary for ordination to the order of deacon, priest, and consecration to bishop. Why would any one want to change what was defined after so many years of study leading up to Pope Pius XII's decree Sacramentum Ordinis? Nevertheless, here's what Montini (Paul VI) made of the form in 1968:

 "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you  gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him  to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name."

To be valid, the form must, according to Pope Leo XIII (1) express the Grace of the Holy Ghost, and (2) unambiguously denote the rank bestowed (deacon, priest, or bishop). Even if "governing Spirit" is the Holy Ghost, the rank of bishop is not unambiguously signified. The article argues, "...we find the power of the order of the Episcopacy in the words “the power which is from you… the Spirit given by Him to the Holy Apostles” for faithful Catholics know that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles." The Apostles were also the first priests, and the Holy Ghost is given to priests as well as bishops. The order is not thereby unambiguously signified. Further, Dom Bernard Botte, the Modernist who was the principal creator of the new rite, maintained that, for the 3rd-century Christian, "governing Spirit" connoted the episcopacy, not the Holy Ghost! More ambiguity in the form which renders it "absolutely null and utterly void."

Tenth Alleged Error: "Cardinal Siri was elected to the Pontificate in 1958 and took the name Pope Gregory XVII but was illegally forced to step down because of death threats, possibly even threats of a nuclear bomb being dropped on Rome. Before his death he consecrated bishops and made cardinals secretly…"

Response: To allege that sedevacantists all subscribe to the so-called "Siri Thesis" or that it is in any way necessary to sedevacantism is (at the risk of sounding uncharitable) simply moronic. I don't subscribe to it, but I've written on it: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html

Eleventh Alleged Error: "You’re missing the point! It is the teaching of Sts. Bellarmine, Francis De Sales, Alphonsus Ligouri that a heretical pope would ipso facto fall from the pontificate!" They claim the teachings of the theologians were not unanimous and there was conflicting opinion. "The Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange, (vehemently anti-modernist theologian and renowned neo-Thomist who lived from 1877-1964) basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato, that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible, albeit abnormal, for a secondary moral head,

'The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even is he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.'"

Response: Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange, in the place cited, speaks only of an occult, (i.e. secret) heretic. His purpose in this place is to defend St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching on membership in the Mystical Body, the Church, against what he perceives to be the error of St. Robert Bellarmine on the question, specifically in relation to membership by occult heretics. Sedevacantism holds that only contumacious, public heretics cannot lose (or cannot attain) the pontificate.

Conclusion

This is the best that R&R has to offer in opposition to sedevacantism, and it's not much. I dispensed with no less than eleven charges of our biggest "errors," and in just one post! It's getting more and more difficult to believe that the SSPX, Bp. Williamson's "resistance," and John Salza are in good faith. In the case of Salza, I wonder if he's still wearing a Masonic apron to deceive who he can into remaining with the Masonic/Modernist Vatican II sect.  

57 comments:

  1. Introibo - I don’t understand how the R&R can state that Vatican II was a pastoral council when Lumen Gentium states that it is the “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church”. How how can they claim it is “pastoral” when it clearly states “Dogmatic”? (This has always baffled me. Don’t they read?)
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      They usually rely on the statement of Montini (Paul VI) I cited in my article to “prove” that a pastoral council was the “pope’s” intent. As you can see that argument fails miserably. They also claim “no new dogmas were defined.” What they conveniently forget, or choose to ignore, is that everything in those Dogmatic Constitutions must be considered binding by virtue of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium If Montini were truly the pope.

      The R&R isn’t interested in the truth, but in retaining their idea we still have a pope.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. It is striking how much a man who is so vulgarly heretical as Francis is defended at the cost not only of logical juggling, but also at the cost of reality itself. Actually, we live in times of great spiritual confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To keep Bergolio as Pope requires one either apostasizes along with the whole Novus Ordo false sect OR deny the magesterial teachings on the Papacy. The R&R crowd picked option 2. The neo Caths picked 1. Of course they won't say so, but that is what they have done in regards to the Faith as taught till 1958.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, Tom. At the outset of the Great Apostasy I could understand people getting Church teaching on the papacy incorrect. After WW 2, “country club” Catholicism prevailed. They didn’t bother to learn and fight for the Faith and good morals. Everything was taken for granted. After more than 50 years since Lumen Gentium, and all the other doctrinal and moral chaos, Traditionalists have one more brought the Truth to light concerning the role of the papacy.

      As I stated in my post, in 2018, it seems incredulous that the R&R can still be in good faith regarding their false position.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Introibo,

    The following goes a long way to explaining the "Why?" of the Novus Ordites, R&R, Salza & Siscoe, Resistance, etc.

    I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

    Tolstoy

    ReplyDelete
  5. The correct teaching is that a Pope universally accepted is by this fact alone known to be the Pope, and therefore not a formal heretic. This is how Cardinal Billot explains the case of Savonarola and Pope Alexander VI. Canonists say universal acceptance is "a sign and infallible effect of a valid election". Obviously, a woman, a non-Catholic etc cannot be elected Pope; a Pope once accepted by the whole Church cannot thereafter have his election called into question. If this were not so, anybody could call into question the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII, and deny the dogma of the Assumption; of Pope Pius IX and deny the First Vatican Council, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. And so on. It is dogmatically certain that these Popes were Popes and therefore Catholic. And the same for all Popes whom the Bishops recognize as Pope. Thus, Fr. Sylvester Hunter, "The Church is infallible when She declares what person holds the office of Pope ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as the Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the Body of the Bishops would be separated from their Head, and the divine constitution of the Church would be ruined." Bishops recognize Pope. He is Pope. End.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is misapplied.

      1. Do you SUBMIT to your “pope” as Billot, Hunter etc also teach? They don’t teach “resistance”

      2. You don’t follow the nuances. Obviously, Universal acceptance cannot be the sole, final arbiter of a pope because that would mean Pope Paul IV in Cum Ex Apostolatus, and the 1917 Code teach something meaningless or superfluous

      3. In the case of the Great Western Schism there were three papal claimants. Only in retrospect do we know which was the true pope. Lack of universal acceptance didn’t mean thee was no pope, and universal acceptance is—of and by itself—no proof there is a pope.

      4. The scenario we have today is one Billot never envisioned: a universally accepted man as Pope (let’s use Ratzinger since Francis clearly isn’t universally accepted), who (let’s say for the sake of argument) is universally followed but who manifestly does not hold the Catholic Faith (undeniable fact) and who does things a true Pope is divinely prevented from doing. That’s the scenario we have.

      5. If a pope loses office, we have very right to question the subsequent election with his “cardinals” As a matter of fact theologian Szal teaches you cannot be held suspect of Schism for calling into question the legitimacy of the pontiff—which would be heresy if “universal acceptance” were the sine non qua you claim it to be.

      Moreover, which “bishops” must recognize the pope? The ones who profess heresy and are invalid?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Intro, you try so hard to be right. Well, we are certainly grateful for you since you know more than Billot, Hunter,and others.

      I'm sorry the other 20 plus Sede popes didn't quite measure up to your liking but keep trying Intro, some day you might get a pope you accept despite the fact that your church doesn't really need a vicar of Christ.

      Delete
    3. Anon@7:04
      You’re R&R doesn’t have a pope either. Sure, you pay him lip service BUT DO YOU OBEY HIM AS BILLOT AND HUNTER TAUGHT?

      I don’t know MORE than the theologians, I just don’t live a contradiction and use their teachings dishonesty! Billot held that the pope is the “LIVING RULE OF FAITH.” Do you therefore believe that Proselytism is nonsense? That there is no Catholic God? That Atheists go to Heaven?

      Do you attend the Novus Bogus “mass”? Did Archbishop Lefebvre obey Paul VI’s order to close his seminary? Did he get a mandate from JPII to consecrate his bishops?

      No? What kind of living rule of faith is that? Do you revere Roncalli and Wojtyla as saints?

      Please tell me, in the practical order, how does your lip service equate to adherence to all decrees of the living rule of faith, which includes the new ecclesiology and new “mass”?

      Siscoe and Salza use “Universal recognition” extensively quoting theologian John of St Thomas. However, that great theologian wrote at the same time Cum Ex Apostolatus was in full force. If his teaching meant what you think it does, how is that not heresy?

      How is the 1917 Code not heretical?

      You have not even attempted to address my points above, let alone will you answer these questions because the internal inconsistency proves you wrong.

      You apply PART of the teachings of Billot and Hunter when it is convenient for your position and reject the other parts when they conflict with your position.

      R&R are really Sedevacantists who don’t want to admit it and end up theologically confused (at best) or ending up with accepting V2 heresy (at worst).

      I’ll be praying for you.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Salza, Siscoe, as well as many other traditionalists have answered your objections. S & S continue to write articles one after another and post them on their website for anyone to read. As far as I know you have yet to respond to even one of their articles. Not one. Here is an article titled "JOHN OF ST. THOMAS, O.P.: COMPLETE TREATISE ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE FOR A HERETICAL POPE" located here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/john-ofst.html
      Salza, hate him or love him, has answered the Sedevacantists.

      Delete
    5. Really? Ask him to answer this—from Fr Cekada as posted on Novus Ordo Watch:

      https://novusordowatch.org/2016/09/requiem-for-true-or-false-pope/

      Salza has answered the Sedevacantists. Unfortunately, for him (and you) the answers are all wrong!!

      As far as I know you have yet to respond to one of MY points above.

      Score: Sedevacantists 1; Salza 0

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. John XXIII was Peacefully Accepted (one would fail in attempting to prove otherwise, imo), but it's (highly) arguable that Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI were. In fact, it'd be fun to watch people argue they were. Francis-of-the-ignored-dubia obviously isn't Peacefully Accepted. That's a no-brainer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So what is solution?
    Can't recognise, can't resist, but could the Church live decades after decades without her's head i.e. the Pope?
    I know solution, throw away everything which was not accepted in the Church of first millennium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The papacy was accepted in the first millennium. Christ Himself founded His Church on St Peter, the first pope.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. Introibo - As you know, I only found the True Church a few years ago. I am concerned about falling into heresy. What can I do to prevent this from happening? I am really concerned regarding this as we live in very perilous and confusing times without a True Pope. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you mean “being a heretic” for not following the alleged “pope,” don’t worry. Having reason to doubt the person of the pope is not heresy. You are not denying the papacy. If you believed as the Church always did because you want to be Catholic, you cannot be a heretic!!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. JoAnn, one of the surest ways to fall into heresy is to worship with those who have anything to do with the Novus Ordo.

      Delete
    3. What am I supposed to do if I am required to go to a Novus Ordo funeral, wedding, or graduation??

      Delete
    4. Joann,
      The Church teaches you may attend as long as your presence is passive and you do not actively participate. You only attend when necessary to pay respects to someone who has passed, etc.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Joann, when I have to go to the NO for an event out of respect for someone, I simply sit near the back and observe. I will stand when others stand and sit when others sit, but I will not kneel or genuflect. Don't worry, no one will notice since most of them think its only bread anyway. Also even though there is nothing heretical about the Creed or Our Father, it is best to simply remain silent ar those times. So basically, walk in, sit, stand, repeat a few times, and walk out. You are simply there for a human natural event. There is nothing spiritual nor supernatural occuring in NO worship centers. Its basically like going to a baptist or methodist ceremony.

      Delete
    6. Tom A. - Thanks much for the explanation as what to do and not do at a NO. I was stressing out over having to attend a NO graduation. Thanks again!!

      Delete
  9. Hello
    I am new to your site. Could you explain what is meant by "Sedevacantism holds that only contumacious, public heretics cannot lose (or cannot attain) the pontificate."?
    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It means that an “occult” (i.e. “secret”) heretic (one who rejects a dogma within his mind known only to God with no external manifestation) can continue to hold office as pope. One who is known to reject a dogma refusing to submit his will to that of the Church cannot be (or become) the pope.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. Why do some people who do not recognize Francis or the Novus Ordo recognize the Episcopal Consecration and Priestly Ordination Rites as being valid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t know of ANY Sedevacantists who hold Vatican 2 sect Orders to be valid. They consider them dubious at best. If you know of any sedes who hold those Sacraments valid, please pass on the information!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The validity of NO orders is indeed a huge issue. However, the sedevacantist theory has absolutely no bearing on validity. The modernist conciliar popes lost (or never attained) the papacy due to their heresy not their orders. I personally find the NO orders highly doubtful, but it has nothing to do with occupancy of the Papal See. In fact, a conclave can elect a laymen as Pope. So validity and sedevacantism are not related and are two different arguments. From a practical standpoint, a Catholic sede should treat all NO clergy and institutions as a Catholic would treat any other false religion (heretical or schismatic). Avoid them and have nothing whatsover to do with them and their errors.

      Delete
    3. Tom,
      The sede issue means we have no one to rule on the validity of any Sacraments revised by the false popes of V2. They must be treated as dubious as best. Also, the Church cannot give that which is evil, immoral, or an inducement to impiety. Yet the Novus Bogus is just that, therefore it could not have come from the Church—no valid pope!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Yes, we cannot make a declaration of validity but we are allowed to act on our reasoned doubts. Oh if we only had a Pope...

      Delete
    5. Who can make a declaration of validity on the Trad Bishops and Priests?? Aren’t they doubtful??

      Delete
    6. No. The TRADITIONAL RITE WAS USED BY VALID BISHOPS. The three lineages are through Abp Lefebvre, Bp Mendez and Abp Thuc. There is a presumption of validity required by the Church in such cases. Change the rite and it becomes a different story.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Tom wrote: "In fact, a conclave can elect a laymen as Pope." Is that so Tom? Well what are you waiting for? Introibo can be your pretend pope and you can play cardinal

      Delete
    8. The duty of electing a pope devolves to the bishops in an imperfect general council.Trying to get the bishops together after so much time into the Great Apostasy is a daunting task.

      There will be no cardinals, as the usual means of election has been extinguished. A layman can indeed be elected pope as was the case of Pope Fabian. He was ordained priest and Consecrated bishop subsequently. I’m not looking to be pope, I’m just pointing out Bergoglio isn’t.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. Anon @ 5:44 am

      Tom wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. He was merely stating a FACT. But the REALITY is that, sadly, you're playing quasi-traditional Catholic with your pope Frankie, the caricature of a caricature of a cardboard cutout pope.

      Delete
  11. Was Fr. Luigi Villa a Sedevacantist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the best of my knowledge and belief he was not. He tried to prevent the “beatification” Of Montini (Paul VI), something a sede would not do because only a real pope can beatify anyone.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. Introibo, do you have an index of the title's of all of the previous blog posts you have written or is there a way on blogspot to see this easily?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Introibo, do you have an index of the titles of all of your previous posts or do you know of an easy way to see this on blogspot without having to click on each year and month?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,
      Unfortunately, that’s the only way of doing it.
      If there is a specific topic, you can google “Introibo Ad Altare Dei Blog” with a Colon after it and the key word. It will bring up most relevant posts.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. Introibo - Have you given any thought to moving your operation to a proper forum format?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What constitutes a “proper forum format?” I’m not very tech savvy. I know basics but not real technical issues.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo - Fair enough. There are quite a few options out there where you can create a free board or forum (you can pay to have them hosted too). You can operate them (if you wish) much the same as you do this blog. You can use a pseudonym and so can your readership (if they wish). Each article could be a topic with all the comments needing approval before you publish them. The forum can have sub-forums, and each article can be seen as a listing on a main page/s, so one can scroll down the page and click on, say, your rock music article ftom 2 months ago with ease. Everything is quickly and easily able to be found. You could end up with 100 pages each having, say, 20 items (articles) on them, and people just scroll down and look at the dates and titles then click to select. There are "quote" facilities when interacting/debating with others users, spellchecker, etc. Worth looking into imo.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for the information! I will be looking into it.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  15. Introibo,

    Is there a way to email you or send a message through this site other than posting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Send me a personal email via the comments. I promise not to publish it or give it out. I will contact you via an anonymous email address that protects my identity. The subject line will read “Introibo Ad Altare Dei email”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  16. Cont. These boards and forums are easy to set up. When a thread is finished you can lock it if you wish. You can also allow people to edit their typos for a short time after they've posted (something that many people wish they could do). In addition, there are many other features of which you can make use.

    ReplyDelete
  17. One feature about this format, which I appreciate, is that Introibo can read each comment when it is submitted and decide if he wants to publish it. Perhaps that is possible on the forum format, but it seems that this way gives the moderator more control. If people don't like it, they can leave; no one is forcing them to read here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Barbara - I'm the anonymous who posted about "boards" and "forums."

    No offense intended, but you don't appear to know much about internet forums and boards. A forum or board format is infinitely preferable to this basic blog, and has far more controls.

    Moreover, ease of accessing of past articles. For example: a (1) display page could be set up to list 1 year's worth of Intro's articles at a glance = Look at page of titles, click on selected article and you're viewing a post and all the comments made, say, 42 weeks ago. The sub-forum could be titled "Weekly Articles." One click and a year's worth are staring you right in the face, ready for selection. Compare that to this format.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Off the subject...
    What is a Clementine Mass and why are there multiple ones for the same soul?
    Thank you keep up the great work.
    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’ve got me on this one! I’m not sure what you are referring to or if it has another name.

      Can any of my readers help out with a citation?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. A year after someone's dies and has a Requiem Mass,they offer 6
      "Clementine Mass's" for the deceased soul.
      Basically a 1 year anniversary of 6 Requiem Mass's on the week that Soul died.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for the information! Do you know of a source where I can read up on it?

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Unfortunately I don't have any info.
      I asked my friend and he told me.
      He paid for 6 Clementine Mass's for his deceased Bishop.
      Give me a day or 2 and I will find a source.

      Delete
    5. I have looked on the internet for info on Clementine Mass & can't find anything official.
      Closest info available is history of the Roman Rite Holy Mass via the Clementine Letters.

      If you're curious,please ask
      Bp.Ramolla or Fr.Moylan via
      Our Lady of Victory blogspot.
      (Mason,Ohio)

      Delete