Monday, September 30, 2019

Amazon Primed


 The Amazon Synod is approaching wherein the Argentinian apostate of the Vatican II sect, Jorge Bergoglio, looks primed and ready to decimate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It is widely believed that he will make de jure what has been the case de facto, namely, to allow those divorced and "remarried" adulterers to receive their invalid "communion" as long as the adulterer subjectively feels alright about it.  According to the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators authored by Kenneth C. Jones [pub. 2003], in 1968, the nascent Vatican II sect granted just 338 annulments to its U.S. members. Thirty years later, in 1998, there were 50,498 granted in the United States. (See pg.70). These were divorces euphemistically referred to as "annulments;" if  someone could pay the price you got the worthless piece of paper that declared a marriage null and void.

The reason behind the dramatic increase came especially after 1983, when the Vatican II sect's "Code of Canon Law," based on the heresies of the Robber Council, added "psychological immaturity" (whatever that means) as a reason to abandon your spouse and commit adultery. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, an approved pre-Vatican II canonist, sounded the alarm through the media (even making an appearance on NYC talk radio) that this would wreak havoc on the institution of marriage and cause many divorces in the name of "religion." It happened exactly as he said it would. Not being content with phony annulments, which declare marriages as non-existent at the time of their inception, Bergoglio seeks to undermine marriage by allowing adulterers who don't even pretend their first marriage was invalid to receive "communion." He has already done so in Amoris Laetitia (2016), and that will most likely be "ratified," so to speak, at the Amazon Synod; perhaps even made more radical.

The apologists for the Vatican II sect claim that this abandoning of Church teaching concerning the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is merely a "development of dogma." On April 8, 2016, The Washington Post published an opinion piece by one Stephanie Coontz, who made the following ignorant and unsubstantiated claim:

The Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 13th century, and only began to enforce strict religious conformity in marriage in the 16th century — in part as a reaction to criticism from Protestants that Catholics were insufficiently enthusiastic about the institution. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/04/08/the-catholic-church-didnt-even-consider-marriage-a-sacrament-for-centuries/)

While I understand this is an opinion, I also agree with a former New York politician who said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts." The article contains no citation to any relevant authority for the purpose of even attempting to make this lie seem plausible. It merely stands on the author's own ipse dixit.

The purpose of this post is to explain what is (and what is not) a true development of dogma, showing the truly Catholic meaning with the heretical Modernist understanding which holds sway over most people today.

The "Evolution" of Dogma is Condemned by the Church
What Vatican II apologists refer to as "development of dogma" is in actuality an "evolution" into something altogether different. One need only refer to what happened on August 2, 2018.  Bergoglio announced that he was changing the Vatican II sect's stance on capital punishment. According to the Modernist Vatican's Congregation for the [Destruction of the] Doctrine of the Faith:

Ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people.

Compare with the true teaching on capital punishment:

Theologians McHugh and Callan teach, "Killing human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment)" (See Moral Theology 2: 100). They also assert, "Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means." (See Moral Theology, 2: 101).

Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas taught, "It is lawful to kill an evildoer insofar as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the communities welfare...[to] lawfully put evildoers to death." (See ST II-II, 64, 3)

Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori taught, "...if it is necessary for the defense of the republic...[or] in order to preserve the order of law" the death penalty is licit." (See Theologia Moralis III, 4, 1).

How is it possible to go from a position that capital punishment is in principle licit (although not mandatory to use), to a position where it is "inadmissible" in principle, and not call it a denial of Church teaching? This is not, in any way, a "development" of doctrine. If capital punishment really were, after all, always and intrinsically immoral, this would be an admission that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium can teach error and give evil---a denial of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church.

This is the most recent and concrete denial of dogma disguised under the Modernist conception of "development of dogma."

The Church teaches:


From the letter Quantum presbyterorum of Pope St. Simplicius to Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, January 9, 476]:

Because, according to the extant doctrine of our predecessors of sacred memory, against which it is wrong to argue, whoever seems to understand rightly, does not desire to be taught by new assertions, but all [matters] in which either he who has been deceived by heretics can be instructed, or he who is about to be planted in the vineyard of the Lord can be trained, are clear and perfect; after imploring trust in your most merciful leader, have the request for calling a synod refused. I urge (therefore), dearest brother, that by every means resistance be offered to the efforts of the perverse to call a synod, which has not always been enjoined in other cases, unless something new arose in distorted minds or something ambiguous in a pronouncement so that, if there were any obscurity, the authority of sacerdotal deliberation might illumine those who were treating the ambiguous pronouncement in common, just as first the impiety of Arius and then that of Nestorius, lastly that of Dioscorus and also of Eutyches caused this to be done. And --may the mercy of Christ our God (and) Savior avert this--it must be made known, abominable [as it is], that [the purpose is] to restore [to their former positions] in opposition to the opinions of the priests of the Lord of the whole world and of the principal rulers of both [scil., worlds] those who have been condemned. . . .

This letter clearly instructs the bishop to oppose summoning a council on the grounds that said council was intended to teach new doctrine, whereas the Church already possessed all true doctrine in its entirety and used councils only for the condemnation of new heresies or for the clarification of ambiguities. Compare to Roncalli, Montini, and Vatican II.

From the Vatican Council of 1870, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:

 For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3]. (Emphasis mine)

Canon III: If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

From the Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (1910):

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

From Lamentabili Sane of Pope St. Pius X (1907):

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 21: Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.

True Development of Doctrine
Dogma cannot change. This is made absolutely clear by the Church, as cited in the section above. However, there is an authentic, Catholic, non-Modernist way in which doctrines can be said to "develop." This will be outlined below.

1. A doctrine can be formulated more clearly than it had been previously. The term Transubstantiation was adopted by the Church in the Middle Ages as the most precise way of expressing the manner in which the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ during the Consecration at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

2. A doctrine may be defined by the Church, which was part of the Deposit of Divine Revelation, but that was not recognized as such by all. Two such examples are the Immaculate Conception, and the Particular Judgement.

3. When heretics put forth statements incompatible with Catholic belief, the controversy that ensues exposes them as errors. Their solemn condemnation increases the number of beliefs Catholics are bound to accept. However, that simply means that the implications of the unchanging Deposit of Faith have been manifested by the Church; the infallible Guardian and Teacher of that Divine Deposit of Revelation. The condemnation of the errors of the Modernists by Pope St. Pius X is a good example of this type of development.

Notice that none of these three ways constitutes a change in doctrine. The first way is a linguistic improvement to make something more lucid. The second way gives a Divine guarantee as to their apodictic certainty. The third way establishes the logical consequences of doctrines. Notice it is not a true change in meaning, nor an addition or deletion of what has always been believed since public revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle in 100 A.D. 

The Spurious "Defense" of Giving "Communion" to Adulterers by the V2 Sect

 Given all the above, how can V2 sect apologists claim giving their "communion" to divorced and "remarried" adulterers is not a change in doctrine, but a permissible development? One such lofty sounding defense was offered by Paul Fahey on the blog Where Peter Is (See https://wherepeteris.com/communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried-a-defense-of-amoris-laetitia/). 

The article begins thus:

In chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis teaches that individuals in objective situations of sin (being divorced and remarried), but who are not subjectively culpable because of mitigating factors (insufficient knowledge and/or consent) may, in certain cases, receive Communion...This is entirely in line with the Church’s teaching concerning mortal sin. The [Vatican II sect] Catechism says that mortal sin prevents one from legitimately receiving Holy Communion (CCC 1415). However, the Catechism also says that "Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” (CCC 1859). Further, the Catechism states that, "Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors" (CCC 1735).

Here, Fahey is trying to circumvent the idea of a change by claiming that the Church forbids Her members in mortal sin from receiving Communion (this is true). He then reminds his readers that mortal sin requires full knowledge that the act is wrong (and the act must be a grave matter), as well as full consent of the will. (This also is true). From these starting principles he will try to make a case that in certain instances the necessary consent of the will to make living in adultery a mortal sin is absent. If there is no mortal sin, then there is nothing stopping that adulterous person from receiving Communion. I will demonstrate why his theory falls flat on its face. 

Someone who is divorced and contracts a second phony "marriage" is living in adultery, a mortal sin against the Sixth Commandment and may not be admitted to Communion. If they wish to be forgiven and admitted to the sacraments, the adulterer must separate bed and board from their partner. If, because of children and/or lack of financial ability to do so, they must live as brother and sister. In addition, the admission to Communion must avoid the appearance of scandal. It is thought that the Amazon Synod will allow those living in open adultery (having sexual relations) to receive Communion. Bergoglio allowed it in "certain cases" in Amoris Laetitiae (2016). Even if the Amazon Synod enshrines Amoris with the same qualifier of "certain cases" it cannot escape the charge of heresy. Amoris is a heretical change of doctrine. 

Fahey doesn't claim the person living in adultery doesn't have full knowledge. This is good because Amoris Laetitia talks about people no longer being barred from Vatican II sect "sacraments." Hence, they had knowledge of the sinfulness of their living in adultery since they had been publicly denied the Novus Bogus "communion." Fahey gives us two examples that center on "full consent of the will." 

Say there’s a woman who is divorced and civilly remarried. She is Catholic and has recently gone through a personal conversion and wants to be reconciled to the Church. However, her "second husband" who is also the primary breadwinner for the family, threatens to leave her and the kids if she stops having sex with him for the twelve or more months it will take for their annulment to come through (this is assuming that they live in an area that has a functioning tribunal). Because of the threat to her and her children’s well being, she is not fully able to say no to the objectively sinful act of having sex with her civil husband...Another possible example could be a situation where there’s a Baptist couple who have been married several years and have multiple children. After attending Mass with a friend the husband finds himself intrigued and attracted to Catholicism and begins RCIA [Vatican II sect's "Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults"] with the intention of joining the Church. During those classes he learns that he and his wife aren’t really married because she was previously married to someone else for six months when she was in his early 20s. Thus, in order for the husband to receive Communion, he and his wife must abstain from sex for the rest of their lives because they live in a diocese that does not have a tribunal. The wife simply refuses to submit to Catholic teaching on this matter and won’t accept living with her husband in total abstinence.

As we learned in law school, "hard cases make bad law." In other words, trying to make a principle of general applicability based on difficult, rare cases, leads to a faulty principles. Here, when dealing with God's Law, the cases are meant to (a) appeal to the emotions and (b) make "compulsion" reduce adultery from the status of mortal sin. As the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians tells us, there are five (5) factors that mitigate the seriousness of a sin: ignorance, concupiscence (or "passion"), fear, habit, and violence (See theologian Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], 1:11-16; See also theologian Davis [1934], Moral and Pastoral Theology, 1:16-30).  As already demonstrated, ignorance cannot be a mitigating factor

What about concupiscence? Theologian Slater says concupiscence "signifies the inclination to evil, which in human nature is a result of the Fall of our First Parents." Further, it is a strong feeling and "movement of the sensitive appetite" towards some perceived object of desire. Concupiscence may be antecedent or consequent. Only antecedent concupiscence diminishes moral culpability. (See Slater, Ibid, pgs. 13-15). Example: A man find's out his wife has been having an affair with his neighbor. He sees the neighbor, and in a fit of spontaneous rage, beats him severely. His passion (anger) temporarily deprived him of right reason. Nothing even remotely analogous applies to those persistently living in adultery.  Hence, concupiscence is not a mitigating factor.

What about habit? According to theologian Jone, a habit is "a facility and a readiness of acting in a certain manner acquired by repeated acts." (See Moral Theology, [1962], pg. 10). A bad habit would be, e.g. consenting to impure thoughts. Habits mitigate culpability only if a person would "strive earnestly to rid himself of a bad habit," and "does not sin in doing the evil deed by force of habit without advertence [full knowledge] to its sinful character." (Ibid, pg. 10). Living in a state of adultery can in no way be deemed a "habit."

What about violence? If you are violently compelled to do something evil, there is no culpability provided one offers as much resistance as possible externally, and does not consent internally. (See theologian Jone, Ibid, pg. 7). However, if one is not simply passive, but cooperation is offered (or no external resistance is given when possible), the action will be voluntary and imputable to that extent. (See Slater, Ibid, pg. 18). Therefore, as the adulterer chooses to stay in that situation and consent to an intrinsic evil, violence cannot be a mitigating factor. Here, you'd basically be discussing forcible rape. No one should stay in such a situation. Take the children (if any), go to a shelter, and have the perpetrator arrested and prosecuted. There are also people to help such victims get back on their feet.

What about fear? This is one of the driving factors used by Fahey in his hypotheticals quoted above.  According to theologian Davis, "Fear is defined as a shrinking from impending evil." (Ibid, pg. 27). Fear, unless it "deprives a person of the use of reason" does not excuse from an intrinsically evil action. That's why fear of death is not an excuse for apostasy. (Ibid, pgs. 27-28).

What about "...inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors" (CCC 1735)"? Pure Modernist claptrap that was never considered "mitigating factors" prior to Vatican II. Since it is Modernist drivel, it need not be considered.

Therefore, "communion" for divorced and remarried adulterers is not a "development of doctrine." It is the heretical denial of the Indissolubility of marriage.

Conclusion
Bergoglio seems primed and ready to continue Modernist decimation of any last remnants of Catholic teaching from his sect. Holy Matrimony is under attack as never before from both the world and the Vatican II sect. Sodomite "marriage," so-called domestic partnerships, no-fault divorce, easy to obtain phony annulments, and now "communion" for open adulterers, makes a sham of true marriage. There are more broken families than ever before, and the number of psychologically scarred children grows steadily. 

The Amazon Synod will attempt to portray any heresy, like the one in Amoris Laetitia, as another "development of doctrine." It has been demonstrated that this idea of "development" is a heretical, Modernist concept solemnly condemned by the Church. One of the many sickening implications of this teaching in regards to marriage, is that King Henry VIII was right and St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher both died in vain. They didn't realize that living in a persistent state of open adultery might not be seriously sinful if done for the social factor of wanting a male heir; it's a doctrinal development. I'm sure it will be extra hot in the Amazon during the Synod--not to mention the stench of brimstone. 



53 comments:

  1. I have read, too, that this Sin-Nod will put the Bergoglian stamp of approval on the things you detail.
    I have seen in an article at TIA about a Bergoglian plan, in conjunction with the U.N., to create an eco-zone to be called "Amazonia", carved out of 7 annexed South American countries, and which will have no nation status? If this is true, it sounds like a try-out on small scale for the NWO. I hope it is only a rumor. But then egomaniac Bergoglio has seen fit to corrupt the teachings of the Church completely, so what's a few countries having to surrender to his geopolitical dictates, as well? It is scary to contemplate!
    Thank you, Intro.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      God only knows what will transpire, but we both understand the results will be evil. Horrible times in which we live!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,
      Just saw an article about the Synod and an interview with "Cardinal" Tobin who states: "Rethinking of Mystery of Human Sexuality is Important". What mystery - God made male and female! The Vatican 2 sect is obsessed with propigating and advocating for the LGBT's. No doubt the next imposter "Pope" will be a full blown transgender. Due to the rampant homos and the child abuse crisis, I am embarrassed and ashamed to say that I am in any way associated with the "Catholic" Church. When I am asked about my religion, I won't even say Traditional Catholic anymore. I just say I go to a Latin Mass.

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      I always State “I’m a Traditionalist.” When people ask me what that is, I can launch into my defense of the True Church against the V2 sect. The LGBTQ+++ perverts are ubiquitous. There will soon be no marriage; the name will mean hooking up with whomever you want.
      It’s beyond sick.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo,
      Just curious as to your thoughts as to why the heterosexuals are allowing the LGBT's to take over society? I don't understand why heterosexuals are supporting them? If there was a heterosexual parade, I bet there would be a backlash by the LGBT community like crazy. Heterosexuals are the minority it seems, especially ones that don't go along or support the LGBT's.

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      There recently was a “Straight Pride Parade.” It was not well attended, had counter demonstrators from the sodomites, and large numbers of police. (Expecting violence from the SODOMITES who want “acceptance”). You can do a Google search.

      The sodomites are winning because of indoctrination.

      1. My friends who remained as teachers in NYC public schools tell me “accepting” sodomites, transgenders, etc. is ENFORCED. To give but one example, a boy identified as a girl was allowed to use the girls’ locker room for phys Ed and girls were told if they didn’t like it THEY would need to go change in a single person bathroom in The nurse’s office.

      2. It gives an excuse for people to act on their most perverse desires and seem “normal”

      3. The Vatican II sect and most others sects now “celebrate” perversion.

      4. If you speak against them, be prepared for an onslaught of attacks calling YOU “homophobic”—as if YOU have the mental problem. You will also be accused of bigotry and even a “hate crime” in some places.

      Pope St Pius X said the cause of all evil was lukewarm and bad Catholics who do nothing. Prophetic as he spoke this circa 1910.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo,
      Where were the girl's rights who were forced to use another bathroom? I guess the only ones who have rights anymore are a bunch of depraved perverts.
      The Novus Ordo and the imposter "Popes" are responsible for the majority of this depravity. The rate at which the Vatican II Sect is changing dogma and doctrine, I wouldn't be surprised if they removed scriptures from the Bible which refer to sodomites and their sin out of the Bible. Anything to appease and please the perverse.
      "As it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorraha so shall it be in the days of the Son of Man.

      Delete
    7. Joann,
      You’re exactly right!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Alistar Crowley taught
      "God is both male & female."
      Will the novus Ordo anti-Church pew sitters ever wake up?
      -Andrew

      Delete
    9. Andrew,
      I’m afraid the answer to your question will be either “Never” or “Too late.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. JoAnn,

    When people ask me what I am. I just say I'm a Catholic sedevacantist. When they ask me what sedevacantist means I tell them it means the chair of St. Peter is vacant due to an impostor who pretends to sit in it. I'll then tell them that I as a Catholic have nothing to do with the Robber Church because it simply isn't Catholic. If they want to know any more from there (usually they don't) I'll tell them more. Now of course I've been corrected by some particular people who quote Pope Benedict XV and how he says that we should not add, subtract or come up with anything that calls ourselves something else other than just Catholic. I don't disagree with him one bit but in order for those who are not Catholic or those in the Novus ordo to know that we are not united to Francis, his cardinals, bishops etc. they must know that we do not recognize them as our leaders, otherwise it would be shameful as you say to say I'm Catholic when few nowadays really knows what the true meaning of it is.

    What Cardinal Tobin says isn't surprising. There is a "bishop" who went on an LGBT march a couple yrs ago that I'm aware of. They are all on team Anti-Christ.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      I do the same. I proselytize by using the term Traditionalist. They will ALWAYS (in my personal experience) ask “What’s a Traditionalist.” I take it from there!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. "The Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 13th century..." Um, no; both historically inaccurate and heretical. This is correct: A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by CHRIST [not the Catholic Church; sacramentals are instituted "by the Church"] to give grace. Also, Christ lived in the 1st century, not the 13th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @BlackTrad,
      Yes, you are correct. That doesn’t prevent ignorant trash like that from being published by the “Washington Post.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. I have a question.
    Say if someone's "spouse" was previously married by Justice of the Peace,had a child,only to divorce later and get
    "Married" to someone different in the V2 sect...is the first marriage still valid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon@11:52
      If the spouse was Catholic and married by a Justice Of The Peace, the marriage was invalid. If the spouse was NOT Catholic, the marriage WAS valid and the subsequent marriage invalid.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The person was not Catholic during civil ceremony but was "Novus Ordo" during 2nd marriage.(meaning they got baptized right before marriage)
      So would a novus Ordo
      annulment be required?

      Delete
    3. @anon12:13
      If they were both non-Catholics and married by a Justice Of The Peace, the marriage was valid as they would not be bound by the canonical forum. V2 annulments are invalid—-but one would not be needed. I would wonder why the V2 sect would marry them? Then again nothing about them surprises me.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. One could make a very good argument that the average Novus Ordite is not Catholic.

      Delete
    5. Tom,
      Yes, you could. Are the V2 sect members bound by Canon Law to be married in the canonical forum? A question that needs to be revisited so many years now into the Great Apostasy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Do you know when annulments were instituted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the Church began, but not with the same exact process.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To my readers:
    The commenter directly above asked if it is morally justified to kill an abortionist. The short answer is “No.” I will get into more in a future post. The commenter linked to a site in a foreign language so I don’t know what it was about, and he said my readers AND LISTENERS would be interested in my answer. As you know, I have no podcast, so there’s no way to listen. I don’t know if the request was sincere or the ramblings of a troll. Therefore, I deleted the comment and will write a post sometime in 2020 on the subject.

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  8. If annulments can't be obtained from the church, how can you say the church is still functional and operational?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:43
      In the same way I can say there can be no ex cathedra decisions for now. The Church operates differently during an extended time of Sedevacantism. All that is necessary for salvation still goes on.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The function and operation of the Church is to lead people to heaven. It is still performing that function. People are still practicing the Faith, being sanctified by the sacraments and prayer, and dying in sanctifying grace. Furthermore, we still have all the prior teachings of popes and theologians to guide us. The only function the Church doesn't have at the moment is to answer disputes in real time, but as soon as we get another pope, we will have all our current questions and problems resolved. When that will happen will be in God's good time.

      Delete
    3. Anon @6:43 - God did not create this crisis in the Church, man did. The only "Pope" you are going to get next is one worse than Frankie. Don't put the onus on God allowed it so God will fix it. Man did this mess and it is up to man to fix it, but unfortunately that is unrealistic as 50 yrs of Trads fighting has done nothing. We are in the Great Apostacy. Read your Bible as to what transpires after the Great Apostacy.

      Delete
    4. The Trads have no unity and the various groups cannot agree on much of anything. If God would send, which I doubt, a True Pope, the various Trads wouldn't agree on the validity of the new Pope. Wake up this is the last days.

      Delete
    5. Introibo, How can you state "all that is necessary for salvation still goes on". I have no church to attend for hundreds of miles away and cannot receive sacraments as a result. How is the Church saving my soul?

      Delete
    6. @anon8:10
      I’m sorry for your unfortunate situation. However, think of the Japanese Catholics who had no access to priest during persecution for very many years. The Church doesn’t stop saving your soul because you can’t get to a priest.

      1. Join Mass spiritually over the Internet

      2. Give a Traditionalist priest a stipend to offer Mass for your intentions

      3. Gain Indulgences

      4. Read good spiritual books

      Please read my post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/12/what-to-do-when-youre-home-alone-but.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. To the person who started this thread (Anon. Oct. 1, 2:43 PM):

      You seem to be a person of good will who is seeking the truth and has questions about the Faith. The questions you are asking are very good questions, but you seem to be discouraged about the state of the world and the Church. First, let me commend you for your earnest seeking of the truth, but encourage you not to despair that the Church no longer exists and we are going into the end of the world. We can address some of your questions here, but an anonymous forum like this is a very imperfect venue to address the serious and complex questions you bring forward.

      But don't worry! There are numerous traditional Catholic priests out there who would like to discuss these questions with you, and would spend their time generously with you, and would be more knowledgeable than we are here. I urge you to get in touch with either St. Gertrude the Great (sgg.org) or the CMRI organization (CMRI.org) where you will find priests who would be happy to help you with your questions.

      Delete
  9. By taking the Sede position aren't you stating that the Church has defected? If the Novus Ordo isn't the Catholic Church then the Church has defected regardless how much spin you place on it and try to defend the Sede position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:41
      No. It's precisely BECAUSE I believe in the dogma of Indefectibility, that I'm a sedevacantist.

      If Bergoglio were pope then we must believe:
      * Capital punishment is intrinsically wrong contrary to all Catholic teaching prior

      * false sects are a "means of salvation" (Unitatis Redintegratio #3)

      * people have a right to practice false religions (Dignitatis Humanae; "Proselytism is solemn nonsense"--Bergoglio)

      * The Church of Christ is not identical with the Roman Catholic Church; it "subsists" there and in other false sects according to how many "elements" the sect has--to have all is best but just to have some is equally good and leads to salvation ("Lumen Gentium")

      * The Mass and sacraments with defects in matter, form and intention are valid and good DESPITE almost 2,000 years of teaching to the contrary

      You MUST believe this if you accept Francis as pope. You do NOT get the right to decide (like a Protestant) what you will and will not accept (SSPX and other R&R) IF THIS IS THE CASE THEN THE CHURCH HAS DEFECTED.

      However, there is another solution. The Indefectibility of the Church means the Church CANNOT (a) give that which is evil and/or (b) teach that which is false. Yet it seems as if the Church HAS given that which is both false and evil.

      The Church always taught pre-Vatican II that the Roman Pontiff, as a private theologian, could teach heresy and lose his authority BY DIVINE LAW (continued below)

      Delete
    2. Proof:
      St Robert Bellarmine (1610)
      "A pope who is a manifest heretic (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."De Romano Pontifice. II.30.

      St Alphonsus Liguori (1787)
      "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes. 9:232.

      Serapius Iragui (1959)
      ...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae." Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.

      I could go on and on, but hopefully you see my point: It is Church teaching that sedevacantism can occur, not some kooky conspiracy theory, not some bad theology made up by sedevacantists ex post facto. Even a pope decreed:

      Pope Paul IV (1559)


      "Further, if ever that it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:- Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.- It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded to him by all.-Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way....- Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected - and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom - shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.- Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power."Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. 16 February 1559.

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    3. Since the Church cannot give evil or teach error AND since the Church can never do so; I must conclude that (external appearances to the contrary) THEY DID NOT COME FROM THE CHURCH BUT FROM HERETICS WHO LOST THE PONTIFICATE.

      But could a period of sedevacante last over 60 years? Yes. According to theologian Dorsch:

      he 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)

      Far from denying Indefectibility,sedevacantism PRESERVES IT.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Anon 4:41, Introibo gave you the details but the short response to you concern is to simply say, “If the Novus Ordo Church is the Catholic Church, then the Church has defected.” So one is left with the task of determining what the Church actually means by “indefectible.”

      Delete
    5. "By taking the Sede position aren't you stating that the Church has defected?"

      Um, no. If you think those two ideas are logically equivalent, or that the latter necessarily follows from the former, then it would be up to you to prove that. Novus Ordo people like to say that if sedevacantism were true, the Church has defected, but they never offer any proof for that assertion. I'm not aware of any pope, for example, who ever defined ex cathedra that the Church cannot exist without living people occupying the Chair of Peter or the college of bishops, and who specifically argued that because then the Church would have defected.

      The whole "if there is no pope/bishops then there is no Church, which is impossible" is nothing more than an ipse dixt, an unsupported assertion.

      Delete
    6. Nor do they ever consider the argument that is backed up by Church teaching and the Magisterium and can be proved. Namely, that if the Novus Ordo and Vatican 2 came from the Church, then the Church has defected.

      Delete
    7. Anon@6:31 - The Trads and even the Sedes can't agree on anything. There is no unity. One group refuses communion to another, etc, etc. The Novus Ordo is not the Catholic Church and I doubt very much if the Trads/Sedes who claim to be are either as there is no unity.

      Delete
    8. Well anon 12:14, duh????? How can their be unity if there is no Pope? That’s the whole point of sedevacantism.

      Delete
    9. How can there be a Catholic Church for 50 yrs without a Pope? Without a Pope, there is NO Catholic Church. It is gone. Saying the Sedes are preserving the Faith in a headless Church that is broken up into sects is Protestant.

      Delete
    10. @anon7:37
      According to theologian Dorsch:

      he 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)

      There Church continues to exist but in “a different way..” This was Church teaching PRIOR to Vatican II. We were de facto without a pope for about 40 years during the Great Western Schism.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. "How can there be a Catholic Church for 50 yrs without a Pope?"

      Who says the Church can't exist for 50 years without a pope? What is your basis for this claim? No pope has ever taught that the Church would expire or vanish somehow if it ever exceeded some duration of time without a pope. This notion is a myth invented by Novus Ordo people, but they have never quoted any theologian who said something like this. In fact, as Introibo quoted above, theologians have said the opposite, namely that some day it is likely the Church will be in great persecution in which it will go for many years without a pope. I believe this was a priest named Fr. Berry who wrote around the year 1900, but it's not an unknown idea at all. What IS an unknown idea, though, is the idea of a pope teaching heresy to the whole Church like Bergoglio is. Now THAT is something that the Church has taught cannot ever happen. But the Church has never denied that an evil impostor pretending to be pope could put on white robes and speak heresy and lie to the world about being pope. In fact, we've had a number of papal impostors over the centuries; actually technically they're called "anti-popes", and Bergoglio is just the most recent specimen.

      "Without a Pope, there is NO Catholic Church. It is gone."

      Again, this is an unsupported assertion. Without a pope, the Church continues to exist in the hearts of all faithful Catholics who adhere to the Catholic Faith. The idea that the Church would cease to exist if it went X number of years without a pope is false and a myth made out of thin air.

      Delete
    12. Isn't the Papacy what makes the Church Catholic, otherwise it would be Protestant?

      Delete
    13. @anon9:14
      The papacy can (and dies) exist without a live pope on the throne.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    14. To 9:14

      Yes, the Papacy is what makes us Catholic. We all here wholeheartedly believe in the Papacy. We are not protestants. We look forward to the day when we will have a true Pope who will believe and teach the Catholic Faith. A true Pope cannot lead the Church astray, we have Christ's promise for that. Some day God will restore the Church and give us a real Pope. We just have to work on saving our souls in the meantime, and stay away from the evil Vatican 2 heretical church.

      Delete
  10. Introibo,
    What does the Church says regarding hypnosis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon12:17
      According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913):
      Hypnotism, therefore, is a dangerous, if not a morally detestable, practice. In the process of suggestion the individual alienates his liberty and his reason, handing himself over to the domination of another. Now, no one has any right thus to abdicate the rights of his conscience to renounce the duty towards his personality. It has been objected to this view that there is the same effect in intoxication or in the use of chloroform; but the argument is of no validity. Drunkenness is not justifiable; it is a grave sin against temperance. As for chloroform, it has its precise indications strictly marked. It is only lawfully employed in medicine to make insensible sick people who are about to undergo a surgical operation. Can hypnotism be employed in the same way as chloroform? Has it any social utility, or does it play a humanitarian rôle in any way? Its supporters have vainly endeavored to endow it with practical uses, in order to give it a scientific turn, but in spite of all their efforts, hypnotism remains, not only an idle curiosity, but a dangerous game.

      This was written over 100 years ago. The principle remains valid: If hypnosis can be conducted safely—like an aesthetic—to help the will overcome smoking, etc., there would be no problem. Other than that it is dangerous to allow anything to affect the intellect and should be avoided. Some Pagan shamen induce an hypnotic state to allow for possession.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,
      Would it matter what the person believes who is administering the hypnosis? The person I know believes in "past lives and claims to hynotize people and takes them back to their "past lives". I want hypnosis to give up smoking and I am concerned because this person does "past lives" hypnosis.

      Delete
    3. @anon5:19
      Stay away! So called “past life regression” opens one to demonic possession. I would urge you to have NOTHING to do with that person. I would go to a psychiatrist trained in hypno-therapy and has no belief in New Age/occult nonsense.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. The following is a quote I read from the Synod - unbelievable!!

      "The Pope tells it, he had overheard someone making fun of the indigenous people of the forest headdress worn by a man bringing up the gifts at the opening Mass. So he had this to say.

      Pope Francis: "What is the difference between this headdress, and the biretta used by officials of this dicastery?"

      And of course that little stab at those wicked, mean-spirited, small-minded, traditional types brought down the house".

      Anyone who believes Francis is " Pope" after regarding the above is beyond deceived.

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      Bergoglio= the most wicked man in the world and false pope

      —-Introibo

      Delete