Monday, April 29, 2019

The Synagogue Of Satan


 One of the most overlooked and underrated popes in the history of the Church was His Holiness Pope Leo XIII (reigned 1878-1903). He had the "misfortune" (if you can call it that), to have his papacy overshadowed by both his immediate predecessor (Pope Pius IX) and his immediate successor (Pope St. Pius X). Pope Pius IX had presided over the Vatican Ecumenical Council from 1869-1870, defined the dogma of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception in 1854, and condemned many propositions in his famous Syllabus of Errors. Pope St. Pius X was the quintessential "Foe of Modernism," and beat back the most deadly partisans of evil and error ever unleashed by Hell.

In between these two giants was Vincenzo Cardinal Pecci, an approved theologian and canonist with a double doctorate, whose brilliance was exceeded only by his piety. He was elected pope on the third ballot of the conclave after the death of Pope Pius IX. As Pope Leo XIII, he accomplished much good. The true social teaching of the Church was magnificently expounded upon in Leo's famous encyclical Rerum Novarum. With Aeterni Patris, he revived Thomism and enthusiastically ordered it promoted in all Catholic universities and seminaries. His tender devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary produced no less than eleven (11) encyclicals on the Rosary, and he approved the Scapular of Our Lady of Good Counsel. The ecclesiology in his encyclical Satis Cognitum is so clear, precise, and orthodox, it is (in my opinion) one of the greatest encyclicals of all time. He composed two of the prayers after Low Mass which he ordered to be instituted in 1884. Much more could be said of this illustrious pope, who was not expected to have a long reign. He was elected at the age of 68 (old for the time period), and was of slight stature, looking quite frail. Only God knows a life expectancy, and his pontificate lasted twenty-five (25) years until his death on July 20, 1903 at the age of 93. He was the last pope of the nineteenth century, as well as the first pope of the twentieth century, and his reign is the third longest behind Pope Pius IX at 32 years, and St. Peter at 34 years.

With all he did for the One True Church, Leo nevertheless did something most special, for which we all owe him a great debt of gratitude; he exposed the most wicked aims of Satan's greatest allies--the Freemasons. To be certain, Leo was not the first pope to unambiguously condemn Freemasonry, the Church hurled anathemas against that wicked organization that plots against the Church many times before. Yet Pope Leo's encyclical Humanum Genus, lays out the nefarious plot of Satan's kingdom on Earth with a surgical precision one could only expect from a Vicar of Christ who was both a theologian and canonist. In this post, the truths about Masons will be set forth, as well as the most popular misconception in our day; that sacraments conferred by Masons are to be considered "dubious."

The "Kingdom of Satan"

 On April 20, 1884, Pope Leo penned Humanum Genus, and compared the Masonic sect founded in 1717 to the "kingdom of Satan:"

The race of man, after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of heavenly gifts, "through the envy of the devil," separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth.The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation, must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God. (para. #1; Emphasis mine)

The pontiff goes on to tell us that the Masonic Lodge tries hard to conceal itself. Most low ranking Freemasons think they belong to a charitable organization which is a good place to play cards with the guys once a week and leave the wives at home. 

There are several organized bodies which, though differing in name, in ceremonial, in form and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions, as to make in fact one thing with the sect of the Freemasons, which is a kind of center whence they all go forth, and whither they all return. Now, these no longer show a desire to remain concealed; for they hold their meetings in the daylight and before the public eye, and publish their own newspaper organs; and yet, when thoroughly understood, they are found still to retain the nature and the habits of secret societies. There are many things like mysteries which it is the fixed rule to hide with extreme care, not only from strangers, but from very many members, also; such as their secret and final designs, the names of the chief leaders, and certain secret and inner meetings, as well as their decisions, and the ways and means of carrying them out. This is, no doubt, the object of the manifold difference among the members as to right, office, and privilege, of the received distinction of orders and grades, and of that severe discipline which is maintained.

Candidates are generally commanded to promise - nay, with a special oath, to swear - that they will never, to any person, at any time or in any way, make known the members, the passes, or the subjects discussed. Thus, with a fraudulent external appearance, and with a style of simulation which is always the same, the Freemasons, like the Manichees of old, strive, as far as possible, to conceal themselves, and to admit no witnesses but their own members...Moreover, to be enrolled, it is necessary that the candidates promise and undertake to be thenceforward strictly obedient to their leaders and masters with the utmost submission and fidelity, and to be in readiness to do their bidding upon the slightest expression of their will; or, if disobedient, to submit to the direst penalties and death itself. As a fact, if any are judged to have betrayed the doings of the sect or to have resisted commands given, punishment is inflicted on them not infrequently, and with so much audacity and dexterity that the assassin very often escapes the detection and penalty of his crime. (para. #9; Emphasis mine)

Interestingly, while I conceal my identity to prevent any negative repercussions to my family and friends for speaking out about the Faith, John Salza, who claims to have been a 32nd degree Mason (ruling class elite), has had no major setbacks to the best of my knowledge and belief. He even goes about "exposing" Masonry and profits off the sale of his books. Am I the only one who thinks Salza may not be an "EX-Mason"?

 Masonry: Founded Upon Naturalism

Naturalism is the philosophy that human reason is supreme and nothing exists beyond nature; therefore there is no supernatural order. It is upon this false system that Masonry was developed. From this flows grave heresy. One consequence is the idea of separation of Church and State, the ideal in the United States, since the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution were mostly Masons and Deists (those who believe in an impersonal "god" who started the universe, but does not care about it, nor intervene in it).

 In those matters which regard religion let it be seen how the sect of the Freemasons acts, especially where it is more free to act without restraint, and then let any one judge whether in fact it does not wish to carry out the policy of the naturalists. By a long and persevering labor, they endeavor to bring about this result - namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may become of no account in the civil State; and for this same reason they declare to the people and contend that Church and State ought to be altogether disunited. By this means they reject from the laws and from the commonwealth the wholesome influence of the Catholic religion; and they consequently imagine that States ought to be constituted without any regard for the laws and precepts of the Church. (para. #13; Emphasis mine)

Another serious evil Naturalism engenders is Indifferentism. This is the heretical idea that one religion is as good as another (positive indifference) or the idea that one religion is just as bad as another (negative indifference). As Masons eschew the supernatural, they believe there is no true religion.

If those who are admitted as members[to the Masonic Lodge] are not commanded to abjure by any form of words the Catholic doctrines, this omission, so far from being adverse to the designs of the Freemasons, is more useful for their purposes. First, in this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless, and can induce a far greater number to become members. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age-that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions. (para. #16; Emphasis mine)

Masonry Seeks to Corrupt Morality and Enslave Humanity

 As Fyodor Dostoyevsky astutely observed, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." By banishing the supernatural order and giving people a false confidence in fallen human nature, immorality of the worst kind surely follows, just as it did in godless Communist governments. 

 Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions...For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring. (para. #20; Emphasis mine)

With God forsaken, and the State made secular, it will be easy to control the masses when the State takes over education and marriage.

 What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract - that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. (para. #21; Emphasis mine)

Masonic Ties to Other Evils

 Masons are "fellow-travelers" with Socialists and Communists (as well as Modernists). 

Now, from the disturbing errors which We have described the greatest dangers to States are to be feared. For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists; and to their undertakings the sect of Freemasons is not hostile, but greatly favors their designs, and holds in common with them their chief opinions. And if these men do not at once and everywhere endeavor to carry out their extreme views, it is not to be attributed to their teaching and their will, but to the virtue of that divine religion which cannot be destroyed; and also because the sounder part of men, refusing to be enslaved to secret societies, vigorously resist their insane attempts. (para #27; Emphasis mine)

Does Masonic Membership = Dubious Sacraments?

Having shown the evil of Masonry, some wrongfully assert that if a clergyman is a Freemason (like Bugnini), the sacraments he attempts to confer must be considered dubious at best. This is because they allegedly "withhold their intention" when performing the sacraments. Having the intention to "do what the Church does" in administering the Sacraments is necessary for validity. Since Cardinal Lienart, the prelate who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest, and later consecrated him a bishop, is rumored to have been a Mason, Archbishop Lefebvre's orders are called into doubt--and with him all the Traditionalist clergy he ordained. 
Assuming, ad arguendo, Lienart was a Freemason, it does nothing to impugn the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's orders.

I have written on this topic in depth, and I invite all interested readers who want to know the reasons Masonic membership does nothing to cast doubt on the validity of the sacraments, to read my post: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/05/intent-on-causing-harm.html

The Vatican II Sect: Promoting the Masonic Ideals of Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity

 The Masonic inspired French Revolution had as its motto, "Equality, Liberty, Fraternity." It sounds good until you realized they corrupted the meaning of the words. Equality came to mean an absolute equality wherein there is no rightful authority appointed by God over men; all people being "equal" in all aspects. Liberty now meant the "right to do wrong and believe in anything." Fraternity devolved into unity between believers and unbelievers, as God is not acknowledged. A perfect example is the heretical Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (hereinafter GS), the "Constitution of the Church (sic) in the Modern World." While the True Church always acknowledged the world (along with the devil and the flesh) to be Her enemies, the Vatican II sect seeks to unite itself with it. While not all Modernists are Masons, all Masons are Modernists. They were working together for the destruction of the True Church and society.

On Equality:

GS, Ch. II, para. 29: Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent. (Emphasis mine)

The True Religion cannot be given preference over false sects. That would be "discrimination." 

On Liberty:

GS, Ch. I, para. 21: Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person.(Emphasis mine).
What "fundamental rights of the person" prevents the State from making distinctions between those who profess the Truth, and those who are partisans of error?

On Fraternity:

GS, Ch. V, para. 91: Drawn from the treasures of Church teaching, the proposals of this sacred synod look to the assistance of every man of our time, whether he believes in God, or does not explicitly recognize Him. If adopted, they will promote among men a sharper insight into their full destiny, and thereby lead them to fashion the world more to man's surpassing dignity, to search for a brotherhood which is universal and more deeply rooted, and to meet the urgencies of our ages with a gallant and unified effort born of love. (Emphasis mine)

Atheists, agnostics, and members of the Church can "fashion the world more to man's surpassing dignity" and achieve "universal brotherhood" in which God is irrelevant at best. Pure Masonic poison. 

Conclusion
Masonry continues to be one of the deadliest foes of God and humanity. Working with the other enemies of the Church, they engineered the creation of the Vatican II sect, a counterfeit Catholicism based on Modernism. As Pope Leo advised, we must expose these enemies, and seek the supernatural aids (which Traditionalists still possess) to combat them (e.g., Mass, sacraments, true doctrine,etc.) Many Masonic ideals are identical to the ideology of the Modernists. Naturalism seeks to banish God from society and deify humans with false and exaggerated claims of "human dignity" and "human rights." Pope Leo XIII said it best, "About the 'rights of man,' as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God." (See Tametsi November 1, 1900). 


68 comments:

  1. Maybe Salza isnt an ex-Mason at all. Seeing how Masons work to destroy the True Faith, Salza et al have continued right along with that task by promtoing their falsehoods regarding a defective Church and irrelevant Papacy. So you are right, he isnt an ex-mason. He still on thier payroll most likely.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of your best articles. Thank you

    One thing that I want to mention is how many (in the Novus ordo, traditionalist as well) put patriotism for the country as a greater priority than standing up for true Catholicism. Yet true Catholicism condemns the ideals of Americanism (when you look at who founded America Masons and Deists). Hence the reason nobody cares what religion one belongs to, how authority in the workplace doesn't matter when it comes to men, women, (transgender), why anybody can claim "discrimination" on just about anything, public school perversion of the world and devoid of true religion etc. etc.

    This reminds me of Acts of the Apostles Chapter 5: 27-29 "And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, Saying: Commanding, we commanded you that you should not teach in this name. And behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine: and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God rather than men."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you my friend! What you say is VERY true. It’s “Pro Deo et Patria”—for God and country—not the other way around. I’ll share a personal story. In the mid-1990s I was attending a political dinner in NYC. One of the speakers was NYC Councilman Alfonso Stabile from Queens. He was know as “Big Al” because of his girth (over 400 lbs.)

      He was denouncing a Democratic congressman for opposing a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. During his speech he said, “I hold the flag in greater esteem than the Crucifix, and I’m a Catholic.” I let everyone know I was offended by the comment and why. Stabile defended his comment—I’m Catholic and the flag protects us. He walked away from me promptly.

      When he ran for re-election, a friend sent me one of his political ads. Among the organizations to which he “proudly belonged” was—you guessed it—-the Masonic Lodge!

      Need I say any more?

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the story. Ever since I found out how the Masons took control over pretty much everything and started to warn people the evils concerning Masonry, all I would hear was things like "My daddy was a mason and he was a believer in Jesus," "They are just a charitable organization," "If you tell them what you are telling me they would laugh at you because what you say sounds like a conspiracy theory and is not realistic." Even an old Novus ordo priest once told those in our parish (I used to go there in the 90's. I'm sede now) that it was okay to be part of a Masonic lodge while being apart of the Church. It's sickening.

      Delete
    3. Pope Clement XII In Eminenti 1738

      "...We therefore, having taken counsel of some of Our Venerable Brothers among the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and also of Our own accord and with certain knowledge and mature deliberations, with the plenitude of the Apostolic power do hereby determine and have decreed that these same Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations, or Conventicles of Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons, or whatever other name they may go by, are to be condemned and prohibited, and by Our present Constitution, valid for ever, We do condemn and prohibit them.

      Wherefore We command most strictly and in virtue of holy obedience, all the faithful of whatever state, grade, condition, order, dignity or pre-eminence, whether clerical or lay, secular or regular, even those who are entitled to specific and individual mention, that none, under any pretext or for any reason, shall dare or presume to enter, propagate or support these aforesaid societies of Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons, or however else they are called, or to receive them in their houses or dwellings or to hide them, be enrolled among them, joined to them, be present with them, give power or permission for them to meet elsewhere, to help them in any way, to give them in any way advice, encouragement or support either openly or in secret, directly or indirectly, on their own or through others; nor are they to urge others or tell them, incite or persuade them to be enrolled in such societies or to be counted among their number, or to be present or to assist them in any way; but they must stay completely clear of such Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles, under pain of excommunication for all the above mentioned people, which is incurred by the very deed without any declaration being required, and from which no one can obtain the benefit of absolution, other than at the hour of death, except through Ourselves or the Roman Pontiff of the time."

      Now that is what I'm talking about.

      Delete
    4. @anon9:20
      Yes, it’s sickening and people have their heads in the sand about Freemasons.

      @anon9:33
      Another excellent decree from a true pope!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. Thank you for publishing this! I had bits and pieces in my mind, but this gives me a very good starting point for further study.
    Also, I agree that Mr. Salza is still a Mason otherwise he would be dead by now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad my post was helpful Michelle!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. It's hard to find experienced people about this subject, however, you sound like you know what you're talking about!
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's funny, I recently had a similar "lightbulb moment" about Mr. Salza, too. There's no way you can get to 32nd degree but then "leave," spill the beans, become an ardent traditional Catholic.... all while living to tell the tale! If he truly was 32nd degree, they have way too much dirt from all the humiliating initiation rituals on him to allow him to walk away (which is exactly the point of the rituals).

    What seeded this thought was learning about Malachi Martin. Martin was a duplicitous self-promoter who is on record undermining the church as a double agent. Very interesting that Martin's last act was to connect with (read: infiltrate) the traditionalist movement. It shows that traditionalism is a target for double-agents and spooks because it spouts the truth. So when I learned that fact, I made a similar connection with Salza. It's a little too convenient that he's a dogmatic Recognize-and-Resister who is an outsourced lay theologian to keep people on the neo-Gallican ranch.

    In any case, I must end on a sour note: Leo XIII was arguably the greatest intellectual the church raised this side of St. Thomas Aquinas. However, his administrative skills left much to be desired. He was generally distant from regulating church affairs. He delegated appointments and management to pursue intellectual hobbies, such as Latin poetry. Under his pontificate, modernists were able to rise to key positions in the church, most notably the seminaries. When St. Pius X was elected pope, St. Pius had to undo many appointments that Leo should have prevented!

    I'm not saying this to slander the great pope, I am saying this to point out that we need to be prudent and shrewd in who we deal with. Our Lord warned us to be wise as serpents as well as innocent as doves. Unfortunately, Leo XIII and Pius XII were too trusting and naive regarding wolves in sheep's clothing. We can't afford to make this mistake again, as I alluded to with the likes of Malachi Martin and you alluded to with John Salza. By contrast, Pius X was not only a brilliant theologian, he was an exceptional ecclesiastical "manager." He ran a tight ship and was able to navigate bureaucracy to get work done, and he put the right people in the right places.

    There's something we can learn from all these great men, and history is giving us the perfect hindsight to learn from and move forward thanks to all their contributions.

    Great post as always!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you my friend! Great minds think alike:
      Check out my post on Malachi Martin:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-chameleon.html?m=1

      And this one on John Salza:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/01/double-agent.html?m=1

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. Thank you for this article and double thank you for defending Archbishop
    Lefevbre's Holy Orders.
    I pray for unity amongst all traditional Catholic clerics including the Thuc Mendez Lefebvre lines and all clerics who received Holy Orders pre July 1968.
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      I too pray for Traditionalist unity against the V2 sect!!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. Introibo - As always, thanks for the great article!!

    Has anyone noticed a lot of Freemason TV commercials recently? The devil is sure bold and brazen about promoting it. I also see a lot of “Job’s Daughters” bumper stickers and license plates. Seems they are targeting the youth so they can start their brainwashing early. The Masons are nothing but a facade of deceit hiding behind their benevolent sounding slogans of Equality, Liberty and Fraternity to lure unsuspecting individuals to do Satan’s work. Also, I don’t see much of a difference between the Novus Ordo and the Freemasons at all. From the NO handshake to the communion table, one can see Freemasonry written all over the NO. Also, the heretical Vatican II Sect documents have Freemasonry written all over them. One NO school in my area holds their Proms and special events at a Boumi Temple. I guess it is true - “birds of a feather, flock together”!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      You’re right on target! I’ve noticed more and more cars sporting Masonic symbolism. They are proud of belonging to the Lodge and laugh at those who condemn them as “conspiracy theorists.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The Novus Ordo "altar" looks just like the altar in a freemasonic lodge.
      In fact there is a brief video on YouTube about this very fact

      Delete
    3. @anon10:41
      Yes, the Novus Bogus “mass” was in part created by Masons!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. There is only one religion that uses the synagogue as a place of worship, and you didn’t mention its connection with Masonry and the role of Masonry in carrying out its agenda. I will direct you to “Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked: As the Secret Power Behind Communism” by Monsignor George Dillon with the foreword by Father Denis Fahey. https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-6COJrv8mToZgoYSa/Dillon%20-%20Grand%20Orient%20Freemasonry%20Unmasked%20-%20As%20the%20Secret%20Power%20Behind%20Communism%20(1965)_djvu.txt

    It is worth reading the whole book, but a few relevant excerpts are below.

    “The Jewish connection with modern Freemasonry is an established fact everywhere manifested in its history. The Jewish formulas employed by Masonry, the Jewish traditions which run through its ceremonial, point to a Jewish origin, or to the work of Jewish contrivers. It is easy to conceive how such a society could be thought necessary to protect them from Christianity in power. It is easy also to understand how the one darling object of their lives is the rebuilding of the Temple. Who knows but behind the Atheism and desire of gain which impels them to urge on Christians to persecute the Church and to destroy it, there lies a hidden hope to reconstruct their Temple, and at the darkest depths of secret society plotting there lurks a deeper society still which looks to a return to the land of Juda and to the re-building of the Temple of Jerusalem. One of the works which Antichrist will do, it is said, is to reunite the Jews, and to proclaim himself as their long looked-for Messiah. As it is now generally believed that he is to come from Masonry and to be of it, this is not improbable, for in it he will find the Jews the most inveterate haters of Christianity, the deepest plotters, and the fittest to establish his reign.”

    “Chapter XVI of William Thomas Walsh’s splendid work, Philip II, is entitled Freemasonry in the 16th Century and shows that there was already at that time some sort of secret organisation engaged in working for naturalism against ordered submission to Christ the King. He adds that ‘it is no longer debatable that, if the false leaders of the Jews did not originate the secret societies to cover their own anti-Christian activities and to influence credulous members of the Christian communities, they had a great deal to do with the business. The degrees and ritual of Freemasonry are shot through with Jewish symbolism: the candidate is going to the East, towards Jerusalem, he is going to rebuild the Temple (destroyed in fulfilment of the prophecy of Christ),... The Grand Orient and Scottish Rite lodges, sources of so many modern revolutions, are more militant, more open and apparently more virulent than some of the others whom they are leading into a single world-organisation by gradual steps.’”

    “‘The subservience of Freemasonry with regard to the Jews’, writes l’abbé Joseph Lémann, ‘soon showed itself [after the French Revolution]. How?... When the question of Jewish emancipation came to be examined by the Constituent Assembly (1789-1791), the deputies who took upon themselves the task of getting it voted were all Freemasons. Mirabeau gave it the persevering help of his eloquence, and Mirabeau was a Freemason of the higher degrees, intimate with Weishaupt and his associates, and closely linked up with the Jews of Berlin. When, after having hesitated for two years, the Constituent Assembly in its second last meeting, was still hesitating, it was a Freemason and Jacobin, A. Duport, who demanded the vote with threats... Such was the first secret service rendered to Judaism by Freemasonry. After that one others will follow.’”

    (Cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. (Cont.)

    “(4) Philip II, pp. 308, 309. The Jewish writer, Bernard Lazare, so remarkable for his hatred of Our Divine Lord and the Catholic Church, is in full agreement with William Thomas Walsh, who was a splendid Catholic. ‘It is certain’, writes Lazare, ‘that there were Jews at the cradle of Freemasonry – Kabbalistic Jews, as is proved by some of the rites that have been preserved. During the years that preceded the French Revolution, they very probably entered in greater numbers still into the councils of the society and founded secret societies themselves. There were Jews around Weishaupt, and Martinez de Pasqualis, a Jew of Portuguese origin, organised numerous groups of Illuminati in France, recruiting many adepts to whom he taught the doctrine of reintegration. The lodges founded by Martinez were mystical, whilst the other orders of Freemasonry were rather rationalist. This permits one to say that the secret societies represented the two sides of the Jewish mind: practical rationalisation and pantheism.’ (L’Antisémitisme, p. 339). Both sides of the Jewish mind mentioned by B. Lazare are opposed to ordered submission to God through Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    “(6) For the manner in which the Jewish nation exercises control over Freemasonry, see The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganisation of Society, pp. 234-236. ‘The Jews have swarmed into it (Freemasonry) from the earliest times and controlled the higher grades and councils of the ancient and accepted Scottish rite since the beginning of the nineteenth century.’ (The X-Rays in Freemasonry, by A. Cowan, p. 61.)”

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good post, Introibo! Thank you.

    IMO, Bergoglio and the whole V-2 hierarchy comprise the sectarian arm of the NWO. I never doubted he was one more V-2 imposter "pope", but I became convinced he was involved with Masonry when I saw a photo of him that had been taken while he was "bishop" of Buenos Aires, riding on a commuter train with his hand tucked up to his knuckles inside his suitcoat. It was shocking to see that, but it makes sense when you consider everything that has happened since his election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      Thank you for the kind words! Yes, Bergoglio is part of everything that works to destroy the One True Church.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. I don’t think there are hardly any people that haven’t heard of the 12 Step Programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, etc., or had their lives touched by one of these programs. The medical profession as well as the Court system refers people to these programs all the time. The 12 Steps are of Masonic and Occultic origin. They promote belief in a “Higher Power” of your own choosing. Any deity will do. I believe Introibo has done a post on the 12 Steps. While we are on the subject of the Masons, I think it pertinent to bring up the Masonic 12 Steps that are so pervasive throughout the culture and have impacted so many lives. Just my 2 cents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. I did a post on AA a while back.
      See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/01/addicted-to-masonry.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. When will you be posting your next piece on music?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Always the first Monday of the month. Next one will be this coming Monday, May 6, 2019.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. Thank you very much for your great work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the kind words my friend!


      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. question for the sede:

    If the sin of heresy itself deposes a bishop/pope and not the crime, then why does the heresy have to be public and manifest according to the theologians and canonists?

    Occult formal heresy would suffice. In fact, according to sedevacantist reasoning occult material heresy should suffice, since bishops/popes should know better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Answer: According to Theologian Van Noort,
      Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. “For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church”? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church. (See Dogmatic Theology 2:141-142)

      Delete
  15. Your citation doesn't answer my question. Van Nort is referring to manifest material heresy. One does not need to be a formal heretic to be outside the church, but one does need to display pertinacity of the will as per St. Robert Bellarmine.

    You see, the question is, if the sin of heresy itself, and not the crime (which refers to the pertinacity of the will) deposes a pope, then why does it need to be public versus merely private?

    By sedevacantist own internal logic, it shouldn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong. Notice it is the SIN OF PUBLIC HERESY. This is clear in Van Noort. Why?
      An occult heretic must remain a member of the Church, otherwise you could never discern who is and isn’t a Catholic and the Church would no longer be visible.

      An occult heretic still “professes the same Faith” externally. The sin of public heresy does away with such profession and hence the bond of Faith is broken. It’s not a lack of logic on the part of Sedevacantism, rather it’s lack of understanding on the part of R&R as well as V2 sect apologists.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  16. “Notorious” as widely known to be an imputable crime

    For a pope’s heresy to be “notorious”, not only would the heretical act have to be widely known of, as we have seen, but it would also have to be an act whose criminality had been legally recognised. But, for the criminality of a pope’s heresy to be legally recognised, such as that his heresy would be canonically “notorious”, not only would a knowledge of his heresy have to have spread widely through the Church, but it would also have to have been widely recognised as a morally imputable crime. Indeed, the doubt or denial of a Catholic dogma is only a heretical crime at all if it is committed stubbornly, with the knowledge and intent that one does not accept a Catholic dogma (canon 1325 of the 1917 Code; canon 751 of the 1983 Code).

    “Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines.” (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Woywod Smith (1943))

    It would have to be so recognised because a crime is termed “notorious” in canon law only if it is either notorious with a notoriety in law or notorious with a notoriety in fact. It is notorious with a notoriety in law only if it has been judged by a competent judge or its guilt has been admitted in a juridical confession.

    “Delicts [crimes] may be notorious in law or in fact. They are notorious legally after a judicial sentence rendered by a competent judge in a matter which has become adjudged (res judicata) in any of the three ways outlined in canon 1902; they are legally notorious also by a judicial confession of guilt according to the norm of canon 1750.” (Ayrinhac, Lydon Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (1944))

    However, a pope has no superiors and no one has juridical competence to judge him; as the 1917 Code of Canon Law simply says: “The first see can be judged by no one” (Canon 1556 (Canon 1404 in the 1983 Code)). But neither has there been made a juridical confession of heresy, which is not to be confused with an ordinary sacramental confession. Hence any heretical crime of John Paul II cannot be notorious with a notoriety of law.

    That being so, an act of papal heresy could be legally notorious only with a notoriety of fact. But for it to be so, it would have to be widely recognised as both heretical and morally imputable – as pertinacious. That is to say that it must not only be materially notorious, the heretical act being widely known, but also formally notorious, the act being widely recognised as a morally imputable crime of formal heresy. If the act is known but is not known to be morally imputable, then it is formally secret and not notorious with a notoriety of fact.

    We may see this from the comments of the canonists.

    “An offense is notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any subterfuge, nor excused by any excuse admitted in law (i.e., both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known); an offense is occult if it is not public; it is materialiter occult [materially secret], if the offense itself is not publicly known; it is formaliter occult [formally secret], if the offense is public, but its imputability is not public (Canon 2197). [...] In order that a crime may be called public, it is necessary that the fact be publicly known as a criminal or morally imputable act--in other words, that the act is known as a crime. Thus, if a person has been dangerously wounded or killed, it is not enough that the fact is known, but it must also be known that the act was a criminal one, and not committed by accident or in self-defence.” (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Woywod Smith (1943))


    http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/indefectibility.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m afraid you miss the point entirely. Loss of office is effectuated by the PUBLIC SIN of heresy NOT THE CANONICAL CRIME. Hence, your citations to Canon Law are quite beside the point.

      As far as being notorious, The public notice (notitia publica) required for notoriety is also present when the existence of an offence is “established in a public way” (constat publico modo).
      This occurs, canonist Michels says, when it “is established through authentic public documents... because such documents of their nature are open to inspection by many people, and therefore necessarily bring with them public notice.” (De Delictis 1:140)
      The authentic public digest for all the documents of the Holy See is the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. (See canon 9.) Publishing heretical decrees, pronouncements and encyclicals in the Acta would therefore render heresy notorious.

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

      It was Fr Cekada who first brilliantly brought forth the distinction between the sin and crime of heresy, and to whose work I just cited as to Michels.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  17. Van Noort is referring to the sin of heresy insofar as imputable. This can only occur after it has become notorious. A sin only becomes notorious after two corrections but competent authorities, ie the college of cardinals as per the words of St. Bellarmine

    The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope. In Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (1559), Paul IV decreed that no declaration was necessary for a heretical pope to lose his of- fice; it would occur automatically. (See para. 6: ”eo ipso, absque aliqua desuper facienda declaratione.”)
      Nearly all theologians who treated the question after Cum ex Apostolatus (including St. Robert Bellarmine) taught that a heretical pope would lose his authority without any declaration.

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

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. you sedes are a bunch of idiots. worse than flat earthers.

      Delete
    3. St. Bellarmine clearly teaches that bishops/popes must be corrected twice by competent authorities before they become *manifest* heretics.

      In any event, I agree that no declaration effects the pope's deposition, but one is needed as a declaration of fact.

      Public heresy only becomes a "sin" (read crime), when it becomes manifest, that is, when the offending bishop persists after correction.

      Delete
    4. @anon9:42
      More ad hominem claptrap. No rational argument. If I were to think anyone an idiot it would be those who call a man who publicly declared there is no Catholic God, proselytizing is solemn nonsense, to be “pope.”

      Do you follow your pope?? If so, Atheists can go to Heaven and non-Catholic sects are a means of salvation! So why are you here since my Faith (if any) doesn’t matter?

      Now THAT would be idiotic! LOL

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. @anon10:11
      Wrong again. Bellamine: This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction… NOT AFTER WARNINGS OR DECLARATION BECAUSE heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms…(See De Romano Pontifici 30; Emphasis mine)

      Do you ever read anything completely and in context?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  18. “A crime is notorious notorietate facti [with a notoriety of fact] when it is publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence. […] The second clause refers to imputability, which may be lessened by extenuating circumstances, according to can. 2201-2206. Hence not only the fact itself must be notorious, but also its criminal character. […] Every crime which is not public, says our text, is occult or secret. The Code distinguishes a twofold secrecy, viz.: merely material (materialiter occultum), which exists when the fact is unknown, or known only to the perpetrator and a few reticent persons; and formal (formaliter occultum), when the moral and juridical guilt is unknown.” (Augustine, A Commentary on Canon Law (1931))

    So for the act to be notorious with a notoriety of fact, it must be publicly known and have been committed in circumstances in which “it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence”: “not only the fact itself must be notorious, but also its criminal character”. Its “imputability”, its moral culpability and legal inexcusability must be notorious amongst the people of the Church. Otherwise it is not notorious with a notoriety of fact but is, canonically speaking, formally secret.

    Thus it would have to be necessary not only that knowledge had spread through the universal Church of that the pope had committed heresy but it would also be necessary that knowledge of guilt on his part of formal, of pertinacious heresy, had likewise spread through the Church. Even if the crime could not be covered up and there were no legally admissible defence or excuse for the act, nevertheless the greater part of the Church would still have to know of his moral guilt and that the act was legally inexcusable. Otherwise heresy is formally secret in canonical terms, regardless of how clear it might seem to the occasional Traditionalist: his acts have been widely recognised neither as heretical nor as morally imputable and legally inexcusable. Then heresy is not legally recognised as notorious in fact; accordingly it is not notorious; and the legal conditions have not been fulfilled which canonists have specified for a pope to lose his office by heresy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’re still arguing apples when the topic is oranges. It is the SIN OF PUBLIC HERESY that causes the fall from office NOT THE CANONICAL CRIME.

      I don’t know where you get your false ideas, but canonist Augustine does not support it.

      You seem to think for an alleged pope’s heresy to be “public,” canon law requires that large numbers of people throughout the Church actually recognize a pope’s statements as heretical. This is false and not stated by Augustine.

      Such “actual publication [divulgatio seu notitia actualis]” the canonist Michels says, is not required — only “the positive danger that publication can easily and proximately take place [facilis et proximae divulgationis].”This would occur, for example, “in surroundings necessarily accompanied by publication, such as one committed in a public place or gathering with many persons present, or through a means naturally directed toward publication, such as heresy professed in a public journal.” (De Delictis et Poenis [Paris: Desclée 1961] 1:131).
      Heresy proclaimed to the crowds in St. Peter’s Square or published in Osservatore Romano, therefore, is public as regards ecclesiastical law, no matter how few people fail to recognize what is said as heretical.

      Read the documents of Vatican II. It’s heresy on parade!!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  19. hey sede heretic, which bishops have ordinary jurisdiction?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s heresy not to recognize a heretic as pope? What article of faith have I denied?

      Ordinary jurisdiction is not necessary as the Church exists but Her government continues in a different way. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

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

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

      Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

      Do you follow Jorge? Do you believe proselytizing is solemn nonsense? Do you believe there is no Catholic God?

      Frankie doesn’t want you converting heretics, so why are you here? Don’t you obey your “pope”? As Unitatis Redintegratio says, heretical sects “have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation” because “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using [them] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” So your own pope and Vatican II Documents praise heretical sects!! So, if I’m a heretic, why do you even care??? Obey your “pope.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. it is a dogma of the church concerning the perpetuity of orders. If there are not bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, then you can't elect a pope dummy.

      Delete
    3. @anon9:44
      Wrong. See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/09/when-can-we-say-habemus-papam-again.html?m=1

      When people have nothing intelligent to say they resort to the ad hominem. Thank you for proving what I’ve already known and putting it on display for my readership!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  20. if the sin of heresy and not the crime (which takes into consideration pertinacity of the willy) severed one from the body of the church, it wouldn’t matter whether the heresy was in the internal or external forum.

    Yet if it is the case that the pope could lose his office by formal heresy in the internal forum, you would never know which acts were valid or not, e.g., whether a canonization were valid or not, whether a dogma were in fact a dogma, etc. Do you not recognize the absurdity of this position?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you not recognize the English language? The sin of PUBLIC HERESY severs one from the Church, not the OCCULT SIN KNOWN BUT TO GOD. An occult heretic remains pope.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. In the same way, the tort Of slander in American law, must be transmitted to a third party. To speak a known falsehood about someone to that person alone, while immoral and sinful, is not actionable. The public nature makes the difference. All theologians specify the heresy must be public. I guess Theologians like Van Noort don’t see the “absurdity” as you do!!!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. "An occult heretic remains pope."

      Yet Torquemada, Suárez, Billuart, Franzelin taught that an occult heretic loses his office.

      But you can't answer my question. If the SIN OF HERESY DEPOSES A POPE IT WOULDN'T MATTER WHETHER IT WAS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, since the nature of the sin is the same.

      There is no need for pertinacity of the will (i.e. malice/obstinacy) in your framework, quite contrary to the teaching of Dom Augustine and other theologians/canonists.

      Delete
    4. I’m answering your question but you don’t understand. THE NATURE OF PUBLIC AND OCCULT HERESY IS NOT THE SAME. One separates you from the EXTERNAL PROFESSION OF FAITH.
      Pope Pius XII declared in Mystici Corporis Christi: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

      Got that? “Profess the true faith”... which can only be done in the EXTERNAL FORUM. No on professes in the internal forum.

      The Nature of public heresy severs the PROFESSION OF FAITH. Not so with heresy known but to God!!

      Answer my question: Since V2 teaches that Christ uses non-Catholic sects as a means of salvation (Unitatis Redintegratio #3) and Frankie says atheists can go to Heaven, why do you care what anyone believes? Isn’t proselytizing solemn nonsense? Don’t you follow Jorge as “Pope”?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. If it weren't the same you wouldn't have theologians arguing that occult heresy deposes a pope.

      Delete
    6. In any event, when the "sin of heresy" becomes public it becomes a crime.

      The sin of heresy refers to the internal forum dummy.

      Delete
    7. @anon5:03
      Wrong on two counts.
      1. If it was the same ALL WOULD BE AGREED AS TO DEPOSITION.

      2. The COMMON TEACHING is against loss of office by occult heresy, especially the theologians from 1940s onwards. Pope Pius XII settled it with his encyclical on the Mystical Body Of Christ, Mystici Corporis.

      You haven’t answered me: Do you follow your pope that atheists go to Heaven and proselytizing is solemn nonsense??

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. @anon5:03
      Once more you prove tony readers that you have no real argument just ad hominem insults. That’s what Salza-sycophants and apologists for the Masonic V2 sect do.

      The sin of heresy comes into the External forum and severs one from the Church before and crime can be declared—and the First See is judged by no one (canonically).

      And you call ME dumb? This verse of Scripture was made for Salza-sycophants and V2 apologists:

      “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” (Romans 1:22)

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  21. Fr. Augustine writes:

    “The crime of apostasy, heresy, or schism must be exteriorly manifest … according to canon 2195.1; because merely internal apostasy, heresy, or schism do not belong to the external forum and therefore are not intended here."

    The sin of heresy is in fact the crime of heresy, insofar as the sin is imputable. that's what you dumb sedes can't get your heads around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. “Because the act of heresy is an erroneous judgment of intelligence, to commit the sin of heresy it suffices to knowingly and willingly express this erroneous judgment in opposition to the Church’s magisterium. From the moment that one sufficiently knows the existence of the rule of the faith in the Church and that, on any point whatsoever, for whatever motive and in whatever form, one refuses to submit to it, formal heresy is complete”

      The crime of heresy presupposes the sin!

      Are you obeying your “pope”?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. sedes are good a plagiarizing each others works aren't they?

      Delete
    3. @anon4:59,
      The quote is from Michels, and I gave full credit to Fr Cekada for making the case so clear in my comments above and purchased the books he cites.

      Salza-sycophants are good at calumny.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. The reason it seems like sedes are always plagiarizing each other is because we are mostly plagiarizing authentic traditional authoritative magisterial papal documents to make one very simple point. Heretics cannot be the Pope because they are not Catholic. Why you R&Rers cannot grasp this simple fact leaves us with three conclusions:

      1. You are decieved by some one else
      2. You are one of the decievers.
      3. Or, you are a fool.

      Delete
    5. you are fond of plagiarizing as I've noted before.

      Delete
    6. @anon4:41
      I always give credit to my sources in my posts and in my comments. On the rare occasion I quote without reference in the COMMENTS (because I’m usually working—like I’m doing now!), I’ve always apologized and added the source ASAP.

      I’ve stated my source as Fr Cekada for the proper distinction between the sin and crime of heresy—and I obtained the books of the theologians and canonists he cites (and whom I also credit).

      So stop calumniating me. Do yourself a favor DON’T READ MY BLOG. Do what’s really important in life according to “Pope” Bergoglio—-keep the environment clean, find jobs for unemployed youth and keep the elderly from being lonely. The salvation of souls comes to everyone including atheists and proselytizing someone to join your Church (sic) is solemn nonsense!

      Now go get busy doing what Frankie expects of you!!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  22. Mr. Introibo,

    How do you know that Mr. Salza was "of" the Masons and not just "in" the Masons (presumably you can make the distinction)? Did Mr. Salza admit somewhere that he was "of" the Masons and fully on board with Freemasonry's nefarious ends?

    The 33rd degree upwards is when a Mason really begins to comprehend the wickedness he's become involved in.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Compiled from many sources, Masonry’s top level begins at the 30th degree. He couldn’t be an innocent lamb like the first three degrees.

      See my post,
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/01/double-agent.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  23. What's the definition of a loser?

    Someone who plagiarizes Salza & Siscoe.

    ReplyDelete
  24. How does the R&R decide which "Canonizations" of their "Pope" are true or false? Collectively or individually?

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Like everything else they pick and choose! Choosing what to believe is the very definition of heretic!!

      —-Introibo

      Delete