Monday, October 28, 2019

A Neutered Christianity


On Tuesday, October 22, 2019, a group of feminists protested at the Amazon Synod to allow priestesses. According to The Guardian:
Campaigners have gathered in Rome to call for the lifting of a ban on female priests that would “save the Catholic Church” where it is failing to ordain enough men.

Activists from the Women’s Ordination Worldwide (WOW) group protested outside the Vatican on Tuesday as the church’s hierarchy pondered the idea of allowing married men in the Amazon to become priests in order to plug the shortage in the region. The activists argue that ordaining women priests would solve the issue as effectively and should be prioritized. The revolt at the Vatican shows the church is still failing women. 

‌"Empowering women would save the church,” said Kate McElwee, a Rome-based representative of WOW. “Our church and our Earth are in crisis – and empowering women in roles that they are already serving in their communities is a solution. We’re advocating for equality and that includes ordination.” 
(See www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/22/catholic-church-lift-ban-on-female-priests-activists-say).

These women are no longer part of the"lunatic fringe" in the Vatican II sect. According to Life Site News:

 The final document of the Amazon Synod calls for allowing women’s ministries at Mass, specifically saying that women can “receive the ministries of the Lector and Acolyte, among others to be developed.” While it does not specifically call for a permanent “diaconate” for women, it refers to the Commission set up by Pope Francis to study the question and says Synod Fathers will share their observations with the Commission and await the Commission’s report (para 103).

“It is urgent for the Amazon Church to promote and confer ministries for men and women in an equitable manner,” says the document (para 95). Quoting Pope Francis' exhortation Evangeli Gaudium, the synod document (para 99) calls for the Church “to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church.” Quoting again from Pope Francis (from a 2013 speech), it says, “Let us not reduce the commitment of women in the Church, but promote their active participation in the ecclesial community.”...

The document asks the Pope to create a specific ministry for women in the Amazon called “woman community leader.”
(See https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-amazon-synod-final-doc-calls-for-official-womens-ministry-at-mass).

A "woman community leader"---whatever that means---is just the next step to deaconesses, and finally, priestesses.

 The One True Church has always been pro-female, but anti-feminist. God created both male and female, who both have the same calling to reach Heaven. However, men and women have separate functions. Using the same Masonic formula of "liberty, equality, fraternity (sorority?)," the feminists demand that God-given distinctions between male and female be eliminated.  It is interesting to note how the whole feminist movement seems inextricably tied into the pagan worship of nature/ecology, and (ironically) the practice of lesbianism which is unnatural. In this post, I will give a brief introduction to three of the "founding mothers" of the "women's ordination movement," and the Church's teaching on why only men can be validly ordained.

The Mothers of All Heresy

1. Rosemary Radford Ruether (b. 1936) is the daughter of a Protestant father and Catholic mother. Her father died when she was twelve, and her mother raised her as secular humanist with religious overtones. Rather than leave the Church, she stayed to subvert Her and spew her venomous hatred. She attended college and received an MA in classics and Roman history, and later a doctorate in classics and patristics at Claremont School of Theology; Ruether considers herself a "theologian." She was Carpenter Professor of "Feminist Theology" at the Pacific School of Religion and Graduate Theological Union, and retired from her long-term post as Georgia Harkness Professor of Applied Theology at the Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary (a Methodist seminary). 

Ruether is a proponent of murdering children, and since 1985, has served on the Board of Directors of "Catholics (sic) for Choice," which advocates the murder of unborn children by abortion. ("Catholics for Choice" makes about as much sense as "Vegetarians for Meat"---Introibo). Ruether first came to notoriety in 1964, the year the Vatican II sect was spawned from Hell, when she wrote that Church teaching on contraception makes a woman "an unwitting slave of biological fecundity." She refused to have more than three children because it would interfere with her career. Here are just some of her pagan-Satanic beliefs, culled from her writings (See Women-Church, [1986], Sexism and God Talk [1993], Goddesses and the Divine Feminine [2006]):

  • There is no immortal soul
  • There is no need to worry about moral rules because Vatican II has made Protestantism the theology of the Catholic Church, therefore pluralism is in, and there's no going back
  • Women must reject Jesus Christ as Redeemer, and seek a "female substitute"
  • The image of God as Father makes women "inferior" and is to be rejected
  • Androgyny must be embraced as a way to escape "gender dualism"
2. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (b. 1938) was born in Romania and was raised in Germany after her parents fled the incoming Russian Communists in 1944. She subsequently earned the degree of Doctor of Theology from the University of Munster, and also considers herself a "theologian." She supports murdering unborn babies, and in 1984 was one of 97 members of the Vatican II sect who signed the infamous "A Catholic (sic) Statement on Pluralism and Abortion." The statement declared, "A Diversity of Opinions Regarding Abortion Exists Among Committed Catholics." The purpose was to help apostate Catholic Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first female running for Vice-President on a major party ticket, and she supported abortion while claiming to be a "good Catholic." While a few Vatican II sect "bishops" denounced Ferraro (most notably "Cardinal" O'Connor of NYC), she was not excommunicated, nor denied "communion" by "Bishop" Francis Mugavero of the Diocese of Brooklyn.

Fiorenza is a co-founder of the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, and teaches at Harvard Divinity School, where she teaches the equality of all religions, and in 1992, coined the word " kyriarchy," i.e., the alleged suppression of classes of people extending beyond women, to include " sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, xenophobia, economic injustice, prison-industrial complex, colonialism, militarism, ethnocentrism, anthropocentrism, and speciesism." (See Kwok Pui-lan (2009). "Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Postcolonial Studies". Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. Indiana University Press. 25 (1): 191–197).

3. Elizabeth A. Johnson (b. 1941) is a nun of the Sisters of St. Joseph. Born and raised in Brooklyn, she refuses to be called "sister" since the end of Vatican II. She earned a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Catholic University in America in 1981, the first woman to do so, and claims to be a "theologian" (N.B. only clerics can be theologians pre-Vatican II, and her degree is under the Modernist Vatican's non-Catholic theology).

Some teachings of Johnson:

  • In her 2007 book, Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God, Johnson promotes pantheism. The book was enthusiastically received by the Episcopalian sect
  • She denigrates Christ as "God walking around in clothes"
  • Johnson denies the Blessed Virgin Mary was "humble and obedient" 
  • In her 2009 book entitled, Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love, Johnson writes about God's "relationship with non-human inhabitants of Earth." It came out in honor of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of the Species; Darwin's book promoting evolution
It should be apparent that "feminist theology" and those who support "women's ordination" are far removed from anything even remotely resembling Christianity. However, what are the theological reasons that women are barred by Divine Law from Holy Orders? 

The Teaching of the Church on the Exclusion of Women from Holy Orders

Canon Law. Canon 968, section 1 of the 1917 Code is clear, "Only a person of the male sex who has been baptized can validly receive the Sacrament of Orders." As the eminent canonist Bouscaren comments, "...the constant practice of the Church from the earliest days as well as the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have excluded women from the reception of Orders..." (See Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, [1951], pg. 422). 


It is established that the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law. 

Proof: According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). 

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

Pope Gregory XVI teaches: "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (See Mirari Vos, para. #9).

This alone is sufficient to prove a male only hierarchy, but there are reasons from both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. 

2. Sacred Scripture. 
1 Corinthians 14: 34-35 states "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." In 1 Timothy 2: 11-12, we read, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." According to theologian Haydock, commenting on the last passage:

It would appear from this regulation..as well as from the writings of the earliest Fathers, that the practice and condemnation of women interfering in spiritual affairs is not new. Tertullian says, "We do not permit a woman to teach, to baptize, or to arrogate to herself any part of the duty that belongs to man." ...The woman has tried once to teach, when she persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, and has woefully failed. Let her now be content to remain in silence, and subjugation to man. (See New Testament Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, pg. 1567).

3. Sacred Tradition. 
The approved theologians and canonists have always held the ordination of women to be invalid. So too, the eminent Fathers and Doctors of the Church held the same.  Here are just some Church Fathers:

St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 79. 304 wrote: “If women were ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the church, it should rather have been given to Mary… . She was not even entrusted with baptizing… Although there is an order of deaconesses in the church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests, or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex [at nude baptisms]. Whence comes the recent myth? Whence comes the pride of women or rather, the woman’s insanity?” In 49. 2-3 St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white.”Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference’ For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, ” [Gal. 3:28]

St. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood 2. 2 points out that Jesus said “Feed my sheep” only to Peter. “Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church… let the entire female sex retire.” And in 3. 9 St. John wrote: “Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it.”

St. Augustine, On heresies 27 also speaks of the Pepuzians mentioned by St. Epiphanius. “They give such principality to women that they even honor them with priesthood.”

As to deaconesses, this was a mere sacramental, not a Sacrament. According to theologian Pohle, "The deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfills no function of priest or deacon...
If ever there was a woman who deserved the honors of the priesthood, it most assuredly was the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. But our Divine Lord Himself debarred her from the altar." (See Dogmatic Theology, [1924], 11: 126). 

4. Theological Reasoning.
From the Sources of Revelation, and the Magisterium, we see that women can never be validly ordained as deacon, priest, or consecrated as bishop. However, we must ask "why?" 

(A) The Different Roles of Men and Women. 
In marriage, women are the heart of the home, while the man is the head of the household. This in no way makes women inferior; the greatest human being was the Blessed Virgin Mary. (Christ was both True God and True Man, Mary was only human).God set up a specific order, and men are not to be subject to the authority of women in the home or in the Church. Yet, Holy Orders would put women in a place of precedence over men, so they cannot assume such a role.

(B) The Image of God. 
Although God is Spirit, He created man in His image and likeness. Woman was created from man. Therefore, men are directly in the image of God, and women are indirectly in the image of God. St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church, explains that Orders does not look to the soul alone, but to the soul united to the body, and by this reason the signification [of God's image] is produced which must be a visible sign.  Men are therefore directly in the image of God, Who has called Himself "Father," and Whose Son [masculine reference] took on a male body. Men can therefore signify the Image of God and Christ in a direct manner, which women cannot do. (See theologian Wahl, The Exclusion of Women from Holy Orders, CUA Press, [1959], pgs. 45-55). 

(C) The male sex signifies the Image of God directly and is necessary for valid reception of Holy Orders.
From (A) and (B) above, it is demonstrated that the male sex is a requirement to the validity of the reception of Holy Orders, just as a healthy person cannot validly receive Extreme Unction. 

Conclusion
The feminists who scream for ordination, seek to invert the God-given natural order. Perhaps the reason we have so many broken marriages is that men refuse to take care of their wives and respect them, and women want to have absolute equality; being more interested in a career like a man, and less interested in being the heart of a home and family. The "female theologians" want to be "equal to men," making Holy Orders more about a "power grab," and not about service to Christ. They want power, not service. They do not want to serve God or man. Like Satan in his prideful rebellion, their battle cry is "Non Serviam!" ("I will not serve!), and Bergoglio will help them advance. 

128 comments:

  1. Introibo, Great post!! A couple of questions and concerns. Romans 16:1
    speaks of a woman named Phoebe who was probably a Deaconess in the early Church:

    [1] And I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae. "

    How do you explain the above verse? Perhaps women were Deaconessess in the early Church and the men wanted full power and quashed them. I am not advocating for women Priests, I am just questioning and thinking. Also, the majority of "Priests" today are hardly masculine as the Priesthood has been usurped by Sodomites. The so called men "Priests" have made a mess out of the Vatican II Sect with their pedophila and Homosexuality. It is a miracle that women aren't being blamed for that as Eve was blamed for Adam's sin!
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Phoebe was a deaconess. The difference is that the appellation “deaconess” referred to women who had specific jobs in the Church, mostly to help women with specific tasks.

      They did NOT receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. They would receive a sacramental blessing only.

      The Vatican II sect has neither real men nor real priests!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,
      Romans 16:2:
      "That you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints; and that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. For she also hath assisted many, and myself also".
      In the above verse Paul states that Phebe has assisted "myself also". This verse shows that Phebe was quite active in her Deaconess role in the early Church. Why did the term Deaconess cease being used? How do you know for a fact that she wasn't given "Holy Orders", only a "Sacramental Blessing"? Thanks.
      Jo Ann

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      We must turn to Sacred Tradition and the Church Fathers, as well as Ecclesiastical History.

      1. Women were forbidden to speak in Church, but the Order Of Deacon demands they speak at liturgical functions. Hence, it was not a Sacrament

      2. Deaconesses were not considered equal to Deacons or listed among the clergy. This would not be possible if they received Holy Orders.

      3. Holy Orders MUST contain two elements in the form: (a) the office must be univocally signified, and (b) the grace of the Holy Ghost must be invoked. The second element was missing in the Deaconess. Rather than calling down the Holy Ghost, it simply asked God to bless them in their work. The Church never considered it an ordination ceremony.

      For all these reasons women were not ordained as Deaconesses but simply received a sacramental.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo,

      The feminists in the Vatican II Sect want to be "Priests" but "Nuns" in the V2 Sect are very scarce. I guess becoming a "Nun" would be too lowly for them!
      JoAnn

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      Yes, they look down upon religious life as nuns. The few “nuns” the V2 sect has are mostly Communists and lesbians. Gone are the days of St Theresa and St Clare of Assisi.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Personally, I am delighted that we Catholic women are represented to such a degree by the great saints and mystics in the Religious Orders. I honestly don't envy the difficult tasks and burdens that men have before them in consequence of their prerogatives.
      I love the month of October because of the feasts of two of my favorite saints after the Blessed Mother: Therese of Lisieux and Teresa of Avila.
      For anyone interested, all 8 episodes of the 1983 Spanish mini-series from Spain, "Teresa de Jesus" can be downloaded on You tube. I cant recommend it enough.
      Not surprisingly, this series, which was shown regularly during the 1990's on EWTN, seems to have disappeared from their playlist in recent years.
      I've noticed by glancing through the channel guide that the network has been offering productions about alot of the new "saints" of the NO, lately. But like all things NO, EWTN gives stones instead of bread. Not worth tuning in to...

      Delete
    7. Jannie,
      You have the outlook of a true Catholic woman. The V2 sect peddles Wojtyla (whose “feast” just passed on October 22), and on my spiritual father’s birthday, the late great Fr DePauw, they celebrate “St.” Roncalli.

      Compare these heretical clowns to two of the greatest saints of the One True Church, Sts. Teresa of Avila and St Therese of Lisieux. This is what has replaced true holiness in the sect of Bergoglio.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. At this point, the V2 sect, controlled by Marxist operatives, has fully revealed itself as the world religious Agency for Atheistic humanism, directly opposed in every way to the true Church that Christ founded.
    They scourge Jesus daily, themselves breaking every commandment under the pretext of feminism, ecologism, and a thousand other isms. There is no longer any level they won't stoop to to smear Catholics of good will - even possibly making up the whole story of those idols being stolen and destroyed (and quickly "replaced" in good condition) - just to gain the support of the now thoroughly confused and feminized Novus Ordites for the poor pagan indigenous folks, their "culture", and "religious liberty".
    Sadly, the growing controversy and bitterness between the progressives and the "conservatives" since the Amazon synod, will likely spawn a "schism" within the VC2 sect. I tend to think that Athanasius Schneider or someone like him may be acclaimed as leader of this "schismatic" group. Ironically they will see no logical contradiction in the act of creating a non canonically elected head for themselves, and accusing Sedes of "Tradistantism" and heresy for simply rejecting the Apostasy while maintaining the Faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      Indeed, I see a possible Schism within the V2 sect. It will not matter one iota because they’re both Modernist, just to different degrees. The scary part is that some R&R types might be duped into going along with the “conservative” sect and loose their faith to blatant Modernism under the guise of “resisting” Bergoglio’s super-Modernism.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Maybe they'll schism, denounce Bergoglio, and crown a Pope in Avignon who will repudiate V2 ;) At least that's what I like to fantasize...

      Great article btw to expose the false teaching of women's orDUMBnation in christenDUMB!

      Delete
    3. John,
      Thank you for the kind words!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. They'll need to receive valid Holy Orders from a pre-1968 Bishop.
      Only 30 left so they'll have to hurry as the youngest one is 86.
      -Andrew

      Delete
  3. Introibo, excellent article. Just wondering if you possibly had a dummy email you use for private messages and wouldn't mind me asking a few questions to you in regards to the SSPV. If not that's ok to, and I can post a public comment, just don't want to post off topic here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown,
      Please send me an email via these comments where you can be reached. I promise not to publish it Within a day I will contact you via an email that protects my identity. In the subject line you will see “Hello! From Introibo”

      We can then communicate via that email.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Speaking of the sin of Adam and Eve, I've heard it explained that since Scripture never says that either one was more guilty than the other, to assign more blame to one or the other is an error in interpretation. (That could have something to do with feminists forever wanting to vindicate themselves against men, as well as some angry males tending to see women as wreckers of men.)
    The devil, knowing the natures of the sexes, and being a great tactician, first appealed to Eve's "weakest" point: though she was equally intelligent, she was more pliable than Adam. She would be most amenable to the logic of the idea (the fruit) he offered; then when she relayed it to Adam, he in turn agreed to it, submitting to her rather than do his job of correcting her and protecting her as he should. They both failed, differently but equally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      Your analysis is absolutely correct!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Andrew,
    So true. Thank you for the kind words!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  6. Although God ignored their excuses, (Eve blamed the cunning serpent), the Douay Rheims commentary notes that Adam ultimately put the blame on God, as he said to God, it was the woman that YOU gave me as a companion that led me to eat. The commentators note that a just man would put the blame on himself, and also that Luther and Calvin misinterpreted this blame to justify their heresies of man being unable to not sin.
    Thank you for the great article!
    Introibo, this New Age ex Catholic (German) priest died recently, Bert Hellinger at age 93 or so. A real whacko job. He promoted some crazy family constellation therapies and his organization even trademarked the name CosmicPower. I am enjoying your series about the sects and thought maybe you could include this one if convenient. Poor poor man.
    God bless you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:45
      Thank you! Hellinger sounds like an “interesting quack” so to speak. If I can find enough material, I’d do a post on him.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. AN interesting article.

    Totally off the subject but as a former seminarian at Mater Dei Omaha several years ago and keeping a eye on CMRI.Did you know that they have lost 2 priests in the last two years who have just disappeared.From info bp P has paid hush money to one of them and kicked him and the other one a benedictine has found out very disturbing things about the bishop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:15
      Hush money? For what? Do you have any pertinent information/documentation? I would be interested to read such.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. As readers of this site,we would like to know more too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A former seminarian.I was too some years ago.I left as I became quite sick as a result of the poor diet and other issues.I did take note that P always looked well fed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have anything substantial other than anecdotal “say so”?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. You should read a book called My journey through a Catholic cult by Sherri Schettler.I too am another ex seminarian.I too agree with the poor diet.I was there when Fr Gregory was.Often wondered how he kept going as he did not eat much and was thin as a rake.My heart sank when I read that book and found out much info.I expect thew powers at be have told her to close down her site or there will be legal action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will order a copy. I know the CMRI was a corrupt cult under Schuckhardt. The only complaints I’ve heard against Bp. Pivarunas, were the two disgruntled boots who ran The now defunct blogs, “Pistrina Liturgica” and “The Lay Pulpit.” The evidence must be more than anecdotal.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I spoke at length with a young CMRI Priest a few years ago when I first found tradition. The guy gave me the creeps. He kept asking me repeatedly about my husband when I was the one seeking Tradition, not my husband. I talked with him a second time, and, again, all he did was repeatedly ask questions about my husband and wanted to meet him! Got real bad vibes from the guy. I refused to attend the CMRI as a result.

      Delete
    3. @anon8:17
      Ok. If you meet a bad apple, remove yourself (or him if possible!).

      We must never return to the “cleric can do no wrong” mentality of the 1950s which paved the way for unreported scandals and horrors. On the other hand, one bad apple doesn’t make the orchid rotten!

      Fr DePauw was subjected to numerous calumnies; I should know as he was my spiritual father and I was there when he was repeatedly slandered by his enemies.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo, I just found out that DePauw founded a chapel near where I live back in the 60s. I have become curious as to how he justified this legally. Priests can't just go around to other diocese in other states "founding" chapels. That doesn't seem above board. How many chapels around the country (world?) did he found? Thanks!

      Delete
    5. @Unknown12:46
      Assuming non-Sedevacantism, Fr DePauw had the authority from Bp Blaise Kurz, exiled Roman Catholic Bishop Of Youngchow, China. Bp. Kurz retained Ordinary jurisdiction from Pope Pius XII and was allowed to set up a Chapel for himself and his priests (only Fr DePauw at the time) anywhere in the world.

      For more on this heroic bishop, see my post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-forgotten-hero.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. @Unknown,
      The only Chapel he founded was the Ave Maria Chapel in Westbury, Long Island, New York. Which still operates today.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Thanks, I'll check that out.

      Delete
    8. Check this out, its from a bulletin from the 80s:

      In 1965, a small band of faithful Catholics gathered around Fr. Gommar De Pauw and the seeds of St. Athanasius parish were planted, five years before the founding of the Society of St. Pius X. In 1969, one year before the SSPX was founded, St. Athanasius Church was founded to preserve the traditional Latin Mass and the traditional Catholic faith from the corruption initiated by Vatican II. By the grace of God, St. Athanasius has throughout the years remained faithful to its founding principles. St. Athanasius and the Society have worked side by side in the same vineyard of Our Lord for more than 40 years. We regard the Society as our friend, even to this day. As you know, the Society and Rome have been in negotiations in recent years to integrate the Society into the Conciliar Church. In our judgment, such an integration would violate our founding principles. We pray that the Society will make the right decision in favor of Tradition, that they will not take the bait. However, as we are not part of the negotiations, we have no control over the outcome. Dear people, please know that St. Athanasius will remain true to its founding principles regardless of the outcome.

      Delete
    9. http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/priest/priest_schism.htm

      Introibo, did Fr DePaux approve of this attitude toward consecrations like Lefebvres or Thuc's? Or are the people running the CTM drifting away from his vision?

      Delete
    10. @9:18
      Thank you for the excellent information!

      @11:28
      Fr DePauw wanted nothing to do with Lefebvre after the Archbishop refused to help him and help Bp Kurz. He never mentioned Thuc publicly. He was angry with them, but, in my opinion, the Board Of Directors drift away. They are well intentioned but not theologically astute.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. Thank you! What a mess , huh!? Did Ave Maria chapel ever find a priest to replace Fr De Pauw?

      Delete
    12. @Unknown
      Yes. In 2008, the Board Of Directors approved Fr John Evangelista, OSB, a Benedictine priest ordained in 1962, just before V2 started. He never said (not even once) the Novus Bogus “mass” of V2.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    13. Did Fr John accept the Docs of Vatican II? From that website, Fr De Pauws manifesto seems to rely on the docs of VII! Is that true? In other words, it seems like De Pauw was a conservative priest in the VII superstructure. Im not trying to attack De Pauw!

      Delete
    14. @Unknown
      They put up “early Fr DePauw.” They neglect how he changed his views as the Great Apostasy moved along. Fr Evangelista rejects the errors of Vatican II. A person I know who regularly attend there told me that Fr Evangelista recommends Novus Ordo Watch!
      Can Sedevacantism be far behind??

      ——Introibo

      Delete
  11. Hello Introibo

    A very Blessed Feast of All Saints tomorrow.

    AS a former Cult follower,read that former sister's book.Do know a number of other former CMRI folk who left over the years and they don't want to remember the past.We lived in Spokane when the great spilt happened with Schuckardt.Hundreds left.When Bp George Musey got ousted in 1986,we left along with another 150.The CMRI called the local sheriff to come and remove him.When it came out in 2001 after they left that Fr Louis and a sister(they married a few weeks later) had been having a intimate sexual relationship for years(read about this in Sherri's book,she and another sister asked Bp Pivarunas why they were never to be questioned and his reply was his hands were tied),more left and then more lay people left with the 16 sisters to the Novus Ordo in 2007.My extented family could write pages.

    Keep the True Faith.God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:37
      I’m surprised you kept the faith; you understand that even Christ had Judas—most people in these situations don’t see that. What did you think of Bp. Musey and why was he ousted, in your opinion?

      Where do you attend Mass now? Do you believe the CMRI is bad like it was under Schuckhardt?

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. Introibo.Thank you for your kind comments.usually in bed this time of nite.

    We gave the faith away for a number of years and returned later to a SSPX chapel.

    Bishop Musey was a kind man who did his best to change the cult like practices of CMRI but in the end he had to give up.There was a huge meeting at the Mount where the priests and religious turned against him and there was much screaming and yelling.My dad and mom walked out in disgust.

    In our view and gut feeling things are not right.All we will say is what the above comment said about a young priest asking about her husband.Need we say more.Once spoke with a family who attended Mass at our chapel who were former CMRI from Michigan.Their son was at Mater Dei.He left after a short time there and came home very mentally disturbed.He had also become sick after living on a poor diet(he noted that the bishop must of ate well due his belly) and saw some strange things.He noted that the bishops automobile was often gone at nite as he would go out side often for some fresh air.

    More could be written,maybe another day.

    Thank you for your excellent website and writings

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:41
      Thank you for sharing your story. I’m glad to hear Bp. Musey was a good Bishop.

      If any of my other readers have stories to share, I’d like to hear them—good and bad. While I’m hearing things like this, I also know a V2 sect priest bravely left the sect and was ordained and operates happily within the CMRI.

      Also, the V2 sect seminaries are LOADED with sodomites. Read the book “Goodbye Good Men.” I’ve also interviewed several men who were driven out for being normal.

      The horror of the Great Apostasy knows no bounds!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. We can't be too careful where we go and whom we trust. After Vatican II, it seems the devil is having a hay day and, everything has gone down hill and become infected to one degree or another. To error on the side of caution is best heeded in this time of Great Apostasy. People are leaving the Novus Ordo, only to find the same sort of things they are fleeing from in Traditionalism. Just my 2 cents.
      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      One cannot be too careful is correct. Check out Jannie’s comment below and my response. I believe that puts things into perspective.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. Wow, this thread has taken an interesting turn, Intro!
    I can't dispute any of the stories in the comments above, but I will say that my husband and I attended the 100th Fatima anniversary conference at CMRI, and neither one of us experienced anything even slightly off or disturbing. On the contrary, the Clergy, the talks, the good company, and especially the Sacraments and Masses offered were in line with Tradition. It was a very uplifting experience and I was almost sad to leave.

    We know that the early Church, not too long after bringing in converts by the thousands, started to develop cracks in unity of action and belief. Why not? We can be stubborn and cliquish human beings, and worse! But the early Church had Peter.
    Without a Pontiff it is so much harder to get over our errors and disagreements. I would be as disgusted as anyone at any scandals taking place in Trad chapels. Yet scandals broke out throughout Church history. One thing I do believe is that with the situation of sede vacante we are in, it can only be by God's providence that the Traditional Catholic faith is now growing and shining its light in the world even after decades of the great apostasy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      Your kind of experience is the overwhelming majority of what I hear regarding CMRI and most Traditionalist Churches and Chapels.

      There may be a bad apple or two, but the overwhelming majority are Holy and leading people to God. This, indeed, is a sign of God’s Providence!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, I can only relate to the experiences, I myself have had. Overall, they have not been very good. I was refused Communion a couple of years ago by a Trad Chapel because I had been attending an Una Cum TLM with a 90 yr old 100% VALID Priest. As far as I am concerned no Trad Priest could ever begin to fill this humble Priest's shoes, no matter how many Trad garments they wear - what they did by refusing me Communion was not CATHOLIC!!!
      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      True. That’s why we need to be vigilant and learn to discern.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. Looks like we are all suffering each in our own way because of this Great apostasy. To suffer is to walk to Calvary. Even the true clergy seem to be suffering the bad effects more than they did in better times.
    I had a very strange experience at an independent, traditional-style Mass a couple years ago, myself. We had acquainted ourselves pretty well with the Priest/pastor and done our research before attending one of the Masses there. Some time later, we visited the chapel for Mass again, and when I was kneeling at the altar rail waiting for Communion, he had me recite the Hail Mary out loud right there before he would let me partake. If I think about it I still wonder why.
    Some priests, valid as they are, make up their own rules. They almost seem to be overscrupulous and fearful. They may think they are being conscientious but they need more trust and humility. I know that mindset because I live it.
    One more thing...please fellow Catholics - do not consider home aloneism unless a Mass center is too far away from you. Christ promised we would not be left orphans so we actually do have valid Masses and Sacraments. How else to fulfill His mandate that we partake of His Body and Blood so as to have His life in us? I cant believe He meant it merely in a non material sense or else He would not have instituted the Eucharist using physical matter, or chastised the Apostles for being aghast at the command they eat of His actual Flesh.

    For home aloners: we can make spiritual communions but they don't satisfy the Church precept to receive sacramental Communion. Dont take your salvation in your own hands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      An excellent lesson for all.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hi Janie, I have seen so many problems in the traditionalism movement, that I can't in good conscience go to them any more. I have found it cult-like! But more importantly, I find the legal problem too difficult to overcome. Read the first 2 pages of Doctor of the Church, Francis De Sales' Controversy. He says the first thing we should be asking these men who come to us claiming to be sent by God to teach and to minister to us and to forgive sins is: "Where are your letters of credit?" None of them, of course, can produce any credentials of being sent by the Church.

      Francis De Sales rebukes the laity for accepting them. He says we have no business accepting them at their word, but by their credentials of being sent. Being sent is not a changeable trivial law. It goes to the heart of God himself! Jesus identifies himself as the "Sent One". Who sent these trad priests and bishops? Themselves.

      Saying that there is no bishop to do the sending does not justify people then taking the law into their own hands and setting themselves up as a Catholic parish or mission or mass center.

      You say that no one should not take salvation into their own hands. But thats exactly what trad "priests" and "bishops" have done. With no papal mandate, no orders, no mission, no paperwork, no way for the laity to verify their mission from the Church, these trad clerics want us to believe they are legitimately functioning. Based on what? A crisis in the Church? Thats exactly what Calvin said to trick people into listening to him. But don't take my word for it! Read the first few pages of Controversy!

      I would suggest its far riskier to go to these trad chapels than to pull back from the whole trad movement which is impossible to verify as legal. If they are not legal, they are not valid, no matter how they were ordained. Are we actually to believe that the trad movment bishops are the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? The ones that keep splitting apart like protestants? A house divided indeed!

      To me, its obvious its not of God. My own personal view is that Westerners are so spoiled that we think we DESERVE the sacraments. And if they are not available? No problem, I'll just make some phone calls, and get a few friends together and buy/rent a priest!

      But, as "Bp" Williamson said in a public Q&A, "You have to do what you think is best to save your soul, I will do what I think is best to save mine!"

      Delete
    3. @Unknown
      Bp Williamson is bizarre in the extreme, but that doesn’t make all Traditionalist clergy bad or “cults.” I speak from 38 years of experience.

      “They are not valid” no matter how ordained? Not according to Catholic theology.

      As to being “sent” that means being properly ordained. St Ansgar was consecrated by bishops of the area. Pope Gregory IV confirmed the arrangement, but he did so AFTER the fact, and the Bishops who consecrated him were not punished but praised.

      Among the Protestants heresies the Council Of Trent condemned was one which asserted that the assent of the people or of the civil magistrate is all you need to make someone a “minister of the word and the sacraments.”
      This heresy denies the sacramental character of Holy Orders. It reduces the priesthood to a political office devoid of any objective sacramental power. It has nothing to do with “necessary paperwork.”

      Do you baptize your children outside danger of death? Better not! Canon 755.1 prescribes that, except in danger of death, baptism must always be conferred solemnly (i.e., with the anointings and other prescribed rites).

      Home Aloneism is a dead end my friend. Please find a Chapel you like and I’ll be praying for you.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. St.Ansgar also started an entire diocese without the Pope's knowledge.
      It was approved subsequently plus St.Anthansius conferred Holy Orders outside the Church.
      -Anthony

      Delete
    5. Hmm! THanks for the food for thought. So what would De Sales say today?

      "Oh, scratch that about asking for the letters of credentials! Its really an emergency this time! Do your best to figure out who is a valid priest and ask around for who is the best, read articles, and then go to the nearest priest/bishops no matter the conditions they were ordained/consecrated in! But if there is no one near you, God wont abandon you, its not impossible to save your soul as Fr Cekada says in his article Grain of Incense. Good luck!"

      The Trad movement has no organization. Thats not a mark of the Catholic Church! The Catholic Church is organized and precise. I don't think the Church would make us think, "well, he tells me he is a valid priest, so I hope these are legal sacraments!" That doesn't make sense to me. Its safer to say nuts to all these floater priests and wandering bishops, all condemning eachother and making fun of each other. The Trad movement does not feel like the Church to me. It has the feel of another American Sect. I wouldn't go to them, but you can if you feel thats best!

      Delete
    6. Lefebvre, and Thuc were both excommunicated by their "Pope". Menendez did his consecration in secret. How is this a comparison that justifies the rebelliousness and odd behavior of these men and gives us confidence in their sacraments and ordinations?

      I bear no ill will towards those who I believe are dupes of these trad priests/bishops. But "trust me I'm a priest!" is not good enough for me. Catholics aren't rebels. We don't play fast and loose with the sacraments. There is no way to verify the claims these men have. Again, read De Sales.

      Delete
    7. The council of trent in Canon 7 on Sacraments of Order: “those that have not been validly ordained NOR sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority....are condemned” Number 967 in denzinger.

      The Council of Trent distinguishes ordinations and paperwork! You have to have both! The schismatics (which is what I believe the trad movement is) in England or in the East don’t have proof that they were, “…sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority.” Is the Council of Trent changeable human law?

      Delete
    8. Janie, so were the tens of thousands or even millions of Catholics over the centuries, who had no access to the sacraments to despair? Generations of English and Japanese Catholics had no access to the sacraments of the eucharist and penance. I don't understand your argument!

      Delete
    9. @Unknown,
      You misread Trent and ignore the teachings of the approved theologians and canonists.
      The holy Synod teaches, furthermore, that in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of other orders, the consent, or call, or authority of the people, or of any secular power or magistrate is not so required for the validity of the ordination; but rather it decrees that those who are called and instituted only by the people [original emphasis in 1954 translation], or by the civil power or magistrate and proceed to exercise these offices, and that those who by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as “thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door.” (Dz 960)

      From the first part of the sentence, it is absolutely clear who it is that the Council is denouncing as “thieves and robbers”: those who receive only a sort of lay ordination from the people or state (rather than true sacramental ordination from a bishop), and who then perform sacramental and ministerial functions proper to an ordained priest alone.

      The home-aloner also wrongly cites Canon 7 which follows the doctrinal decree on Holy Orders. The canon, he says, condemns in an infallible manner those who operate without “officially-delegated authority.”

      This too is utterly false. The passage in Canon 7 corresponds to the passage in the doctrinal decree, and (like the decree) says nothing whatsoever about “officially-delegated authority.” It merely condemns more solemnly what the doctrinal decree condemns: the protestant position that a sort of “lay ordination” suffices to confer sacraments.

      (Credit to canonists cited by Fr Cekada among others)

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. @anon4:31
      I’ve read DeSales as well as ALL OTHER RELEVANT AUTHORS. I’ve investigated Mendez, Thuc and Lefebvre extensively. I trust their priests are valid based on the teachings of the Church, not their ipse dixit.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. THank you, I'll keep studying this! I must say right now, without an authority, I don't trust any of them. They may be fine men, but De Sales says to ask for their paperwork, and that makes sense to me. Also, all the lists of "mass centers" (a phrase I've never seen in church history!) all contradict eachother! They are run by laymen, or by the "priests" themselves! I hope you can appreciate our skiddishness!

      Delete
    12. @unknown 9:33
      I understand. These are tough times. Keep studying. You appear to be a person of good faith!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    13. Who is there to bind anyone to anything?

      Delete
    14. @anon4:23
      God remains always. He binds is to the decisions of the Church prior to The Great Apostasy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    15. Who enforces the "decisions" of the Church prior to the Great Apostasy?

      Delete
    16. The last true Pope is dead. He died 50+ yrs ago. Who is enforcing decisions in 2019??

      Delete
    17. anon11:13
      Go back and read my answer to you at 9:19. I have no time for asinine games.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Is Friday abstinence dispensed because of All Saints?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @poni,
      Yes. Anytime a Holy Day Of Obligation falls on a Friday, all Traditionalists are dispensed from the law of abstinence.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you!
      Ps, could you tell me were did you learn this? Thank you for your attention.

      Delete
    3. Poni,
      Any pre-Vatican II book on the liturgy, or if you ask the SSPV, CMRI, etc for a Traditionalist Calendar.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Dispensed by whom? Don’t we need a bishop or pastor to dispense us from a law?

      Delete
    5. Tom,
      Dispensation from the Church Herself. This was the Ecclesiastical Law which dispensed from abstinence when a Holy Day of Obligation falls on a Friday. Since the law was never repealed (and can't possibly be considered to have become harmful over time), it still is in full force and effect.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo, the Church Herself? Who speaks for the Church Herself? In the practical realm that just means everyones own conscience.

      Delete
    7. Tom,
      The pope speaks for the Church, and that's what Pope Pius XII did. He approved and promulgated the rules of fast and abstinence with the dispensations for same included and permission for the bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction in a particular country to make minor changes subject to approval from the Holy See.

      Since this dispensation is contained in the law approved by the last true pope, they remain in effect. I know you hold to the (erroneous) idea that without a living "enforcer" of ecclesiastical laws, they somehow cease to bind. God enforces the laws via sin and excommunication "laetae sententiae" (automatically) for certain offences. Just as in civil law, once a law is passed, it continues to be law unless repealed or struck down as unconstitutional. In New York, it is still the law that adultery is a crime, even though it is not enforced. Ecclesiastical laws are always enfoced by God, "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." (St. Luke 10:16).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. In these times of Great Apostasy, it is dire that we learn the Faith as much as we can. Gone are the days of going through the motions. We need to discern, question and keep on questioning. We can't take anything for granted as the times are perilous. The devil and his imps know that their time is coming to an end and they are seeking whom they may devour. We also need to show our appreciation if we have a good and Godly Priest as they are a rare find. Just another 2 cents worth.
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      No argument from me on that statement!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  17. Introibo,

    What is the difference between going to the SSPX and the Eastern RCC? At least the Eastern RCC has valid Priests as their Ordinations were never changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:17
      Many changes were made in the 1990s so I’m not so sure about validity. Even so, with Eastern Rite, you accept AS GOOD AND TRUE all of Vatican II. The SSPX rejects it, while hypocritically and incorrectly calling Bergoglio “pope.” That’s a big difference.

      You support clergy who are open and notorious heretics belonging in fact to the V2 sect and thereby support V2.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I don't see how the SSPX rejecting V2 and accepting Bergoglio as Pope is no "big difference". By accepting Francis as Pope they are accepting everything he stands for whether they admit it or not. They can say they reject V2 all they want, but their actions speak louder than words.

      If your theory is correct concerning accepting Francis as Pope and not accepting V2, I know a Ukrainian Priest who was ordained way before any 1990 changes. He is valid. As far as any one in the Eastern RCC being in communion with Francis, that is on them, not me, as I am not responsible for what other people do or believe. I am responsible for myself. I don't accept Francis and have no way of knowing if the person standing next to me does or doesn't. Also, appearances can be deceiving. The SSPX accepts Francis but rejects V2, I reject Francis and reject V2, however. I am not responsible for what anyone one in the Eastern RCC believes or not. I am at Mass for one thing and one thing only and that is for the Eucharist consecrated by a valid Priest! That is all.

      Delete
    3. @anon11:39
      Then why not go to an Eastern Schismatic? They are valid. Who knows what they think subjectively?

      It’s what is externally manifested that counts. The Eastern Rite is openly professing heresy. The very heresy that (ironically) brings you there! The SSPX rejects what they don’t like about Francis. The Eastern Rite is in ACTUAL UNION. While the SSPX has confused theology (to say the least), they DO NOT accept everything he stands for, or they would become part of the V2 sect. That may happen, but until it does, they are not the same as Eastern Rite.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Francis is the SSPX Pope, therefore, regardless if they don't regard the V2 sect, they are, in fact, acknowledging it because they accept Francis as Pope. No matter what spin the SSPX puts on it Francis=V2.
      The Eastern Schismatics wouldn't give the Eucharist to a Catholic even though the NO will give the Eucharist to them.
      You disregard valid Priests unless they are Sedes. There is no 100% proof test that Sede Bishops and Priests are nothing more than charlatans dressed up to look like Bishops and Priests as their is no Pope to say they are genuine. For all you know Sede Chapels, Bishops and Priests are all FAKE, and you can't prove 100% otherwise.

      Delete
    5. @anon2:22
      I am not recommending SSPX, but they are an option. I do not disregard valid non-sede priests as the SSPX as off limits. There is no apodictic certainty for ANY particular sacrament without special revelation from God. Pre-V2, a priest could have withheld his intention at Mass. All we have is moral certainty.

      I'm morally certain that SSPV and company are real, and V2 is fake.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  18. Thank you for this excellent article about women and the priesthood. It is a very nice summary of the issues and I greatly appreciate the citations.

    I would like to respond to Jannie's comment about "home-aloneism," by asking where in Church teaching we are promised to have access to the Eucharist at all times? If this promise exists, why have many good and faithful Catholics in history, such as the English recusants, laity in Communist countries, Japanese Catholics and those in remote areas visited by traveling missionaries, been deprived of the sacraments, often for many years? Should they have simply waved the magic wand of 'epikeia' over good men and ordained priests of their own?

    "Traditional Catholic" mass centers and clergy are not traditional at all in their denial of the necessity of the papal mandate for the consecration of bishops, the establishment of parishes and founding of orders of clergy. The division which characterizes these groups is a sure sign that they are not part of the Catholic Church or approved by God.

    "Home-aloneism" is a slur. If the English recusants had not remained "home alone" the Church would have died in England, but instead it survived and presumably saved many souls. They were not "home alone," they were home with the faith, the angels, the saints, the Blessed Mother, Scripture and Christ Himself. They did not want to be without the sacraments, but they were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon7:40
      Jannie can respond for herself but I’ll add my two cents.

      1. A papal mandate is a necessity of Ecclesiastical law only. St Ansgar was consecrated without one in time of need.

      2. The analogy to Catholics during time of persecution is inapposite. They had no access in their particular place, not worldwide. The Great Apostasy May wipe out the Sacraments worldwide at the time of Antichrist which hasn’t arrived.

      3. The division that exists among Traditionalists is due to non-Dogmatic issues that require a pope to settle. I’d expect this state of affairs, but they have it in the V2 sect WITH an alleged “pope.” Hence, its falsity.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps Francis is Pope and the Vatican 2 as well, regardless if YOU like it or not? You Sedes think you are so special and Sedevacantism appeals to the Narcissistic characteristics in your personality. Everyone and everything is wrong except what is accepted or rejected by the mighty and special Sedes.

      Delete
    3. @anon2:29
      My belief in sedevacantism has nothing to do with my likes and dislikes. In similar fashion, I believe that death is real and not apparent like the "Christian Scientist" sect. I don't like the idea at all, but it's what right reason tells me. I believe in Hell and I might go there (God forbid). Yet I don't reject something as false based on my wish it were not so, nor do I accept something based on my wish it is true.

      I'm not a theologian or canonist, nor do I have any Magisterial authority. I would hardly call that "narcissistic behavior." I'm merely trying to find my Catholic way through these times of the Great Apostasy and help as many people with the knowledge I gained from Fr. DePauw over the years.

      By the way, since you call us "you sedes," that implies you are NOT sedevacantist. Doesn't that mean YOU are right and WE are wrong? Does this make you a narcissist?

      I can no more accept Bergoglio as pope than I can
      accept a "square circle" or a "meat-eating vegetarian." Pre- and post- V2 ecclesiology are mutually exclusive.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Thank you for your kind response to my comment at 7:40 am.

      1. St. Ansgar possessed orders AND jurisdiction. His consecration was approved by Gregory IV in 831, the same year he was appointed to the Archbishopric of Bremen. In contrast, the traditionalist "bishops" have no jurisdiction and no one has the authority to give it to them. Furthermore, Lefebvre, Thuc, Mendez-Gonzalez were all schismatics as they accepted the VII popes. Therefore the ordinations and episcopal consecrations of the traditionalists are not lawful.

      2. We must take it on faith that the true Mass does exist somewhere, perhaps in formerly Communist countries where priests and bishops went underground and may have remained there after VII and by elderly priests who never embraced heresy.

      3. The divisions among traditionalists regarding the lawfulness of episcopal consecrations are serious and obscure the fact that none of them are lawful.

      We must hope and trust in God while recusing ourselves from doubtful sacraments.

      Delete
    5. @anon4:58
      1. Not true. St. Ansgar was appointed to the See of Hamburg in 831 by the emperor, before the pope knew about it. The See of Hamburg was a brand new see which the emperor himself formed. He even formed dioceses (See "Church History" by Poulet-Raemers, [1954], 1:375) Abp. Thuc was a sede by 1980, when he consecrated Carmona and des Lauriers. You cannot be schismatic unless you are withholding obediance to lawful authority. They had a schismatic mindset, but could not be schismatic as there was no pope to whom they could refuse obedience. Mendez was sede by 1993.

      2. "The bishop in the woods." Not logically impossible, but rather improbable, like Elvis being alive. And if those exist where do THEY get jurisdiction to ordain/consecrate etc.? Even a special mandate cannot attach to a successor, only to the person named. If existent they will soon be gone.

      3. They are lawful, unless you want to defer baptisms until the danger of death. The idea of a mandate is of pure ecclesiastical law. That cannot stand in the way of the continuation of the Church by Divine Positive Law.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. What Divine Positive Law could possibly contradict Christ Himself who made Peter the rule of faith? Catholics are not bound to accept bishops consecrated in secret (or in public) with no papal mandate for these bishops erroneously teach that the hierarchy can perpetuate itself without a true pope, going against the faith as taught from the very beginning.

      It is clear that the traditionalist sects have no unity of government, which is one of the four marks of the Church. Thank you to God in his Infinite Wisdom for making this clear to us. And thus these warring sects must be avoided and the faith maintained at home in true suffering with Christ during this Passion of his Church.

      Delete
    7. @anon5:55
      So what do you think of SAINT Athanasius who ordained clergy AGAINST the orders of a true pope, and died excommunicated?

      A papal mandate is of ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. The problem with Home Aloners, Feeneyites, Vacancy Pushers, Apparitionists, etc. is that they fail to understand HOW the Church teaches. They rely instead on their own private interpretations which is a form of Protestantism.

      Let me lay it out for you:

      1. In the case of ecclesiastical law, says the theologian Merkelbach, the specific “common good” the Church intends is “the worship of God and the supernatural sanctification of men.” This is the overall aim or goal of all the Church’s laws. (See Merkelbach, "Summa Theologiae Moralis" [1946], 1:325)

      2. Canonist Cicognani teaches: “A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to which a law will be applied. Consequently, a law, though just in general, may, taken literally, lead in some unforeseen cases to results which agree neither with the intent of the lawgiver nor with natural justice, but rather contravene them. In such cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the intent of the lawgiver and according to the principles of natural justice.” (See Cicognani, "Canon Law" [1934], pg. 15)

      Since to abstain from consecrating bishops in prolonged sedevacante would result in the loss of the Sacraments, and since the Church teaches "the salvation of souls is the supreme law," the ecclesiastical law requirement of a mandate ceases to bind.

      That's Church teaching.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. @anon5:55
      You write:
      It is clear that the traditionalist sects have no unity of government, which is one of the four marks of the Church.

      Reply: No, the Mark is not missing only different.

      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)

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  19. Introibo,

    When I first found Tradition, I was told by various Trads NOT to go to a TLM in the Diocese even though the Priest was a 90 yr old pre-Vatican II Priest. I am glad I did not listen to these people or I would have forefeited the many Grace's I received and the opportunity to get to know one of the most genuine and humblest of Priests. He had a high Mass on Sundays and 3 low Masses during the week and I attended them all!
    Since there is no Pope who has the authority to tell someone where to go or not to go? As I see it, they can only suggest.
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      I cannot (and will not) tell people what to do. All I can do is explain the teaching of the Church. That's all any of us can do. I cannot, in good conscience formed by Church teaching, recommend the Eastern Rites.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Everyone seems to think that their Chapel, Group, Priest, Home Aloneism, etc., is the way or the answer. It is human nature to do so. It seems to me that instead of more unity among Sedevacantists the more and further apart they become, as each group/Chapel thinks their way is the only way. Not unlike Protestants in many ways.

      Delete
    3. @anon6:33
      That's a good sign in the sense that it goes against relativism. Beliefs do matter. What Traditionalists do is fight over non-dogmatic matters--which cannot be helped in a time of sedevacante. What's the V2 sect's excuse?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Is one group's refusal to give a baptized Catholic Communion because they went to a different group/Chapel a"non-dogmatic" matter?

      Delete
    5. @anon7:00
      It depends. If the SSPV really believe they are going to “dubious clergy,” there is no one to make an authoritative decision. Fr. Cekada refuses Communion to those who attend Una Cum; even Holy Viaticum is “tainted.” Does he really believe this is true? There is no pope to settle the issue and even an erroneous conscience must be followed.

      Unless they deny a Catholic truth, they should not, in my opinion, be off limits.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. "instead of more unity among Sedevacantists the more and further apart they become, as each group/Chapel thinks their way is the only way. Not unlike Protestants in many ways."

      It's very easy to criticize other people if you don't have any idea or position of your own, so let's look at you for a second here. Where do you think people should go to Mass? Novus Ordo? Indult? Stay home? Because all of those positions are open to just as serious criticisms as what you are leveling against sedevacantists.

      As I said, it's easy to criticize what other people are doing, but if you don't have an intellectually defensible plan of your own that you can offer people instead, you're basically just a troll.

      Delete
    7. I am searching where to go. The Sede chapel refuses Communion because people went somewhere they didn't like. How is that working toward the Salvation of souls? It is just the opposite. I don't personally like Home Aloneism. I am looking at what my options are in the area where I live, and there aren't many. There is the FSSP but, I understand they are off limits as well as the Eastern Rite. Accordingly, there is no place left to go. What do you suggest this "troll do"? I don't have a plan, I am searching. The options as I see them are zilch according to the Sedevacantist stance. Where do you think I should go? If you have an opinion, I am open to hearing it.

      Delete
    8. Okay, sorry to talk to you like a jerk. What I said was uncalled for.

      To answer your question, if the problem of some traditional Catholic refusing you Holy Communion is holding you back, I would say just give it a shot and see what happens. I think you'll find that these rules that parishes have against attending various other chapels get a lot more publicity than they really deserve, because they are all sound and no substance. What actually happens is that priests will tell people not to attend chapels they don't approve of, tell people it's a sin to do so, and that they won't be able to receive Communion at their own chapel if they do so, but in reality these rules at most places are rarely enforced. Priests are generally hesitant to refuse someone Holy Communion for a reason like that, and for someone like yourself who sounds new to traditional Catholicism, in my experience most sedevacantist priests will almost never hassle them for going to the "wrong" chapel.

      The only reason these sorts of things get talked about so much is because they are controversial, and people like drama, so we hear about being "refused Communion" all the time, but nobody seems to have any actual statistics on how often it happens. At Fr. Cekada's church in Cincinnati, for example, there was a lot of discussion about 10-15 years ago about someone getting kicked out for being a regular SSPX member as well, and that's what started this whole discussion, but to my knowledge that is the only case in which this rule was ever applied. Ever since that time, as far as I know, it has been all talk and no action.

      Usually people attend the same chapel 99% of the time anyway, so for most people it's not even a problem, and if you go out of town for some reason and attend another chapel, you have no obligation to tell your regular priest about it, and it's not likely anyone will ask.

      If you're really concerned about dealing with local made-up rules about where you can attend Mass, though, I would suggest attending the chapels of the CMRI, as they are known for having the most hands-off approach to their people, and the least amount of their own restrictions on things like this. I think they would only ask that you not attend the Novus Ordo Mass, which you probably are already doing, and besides that they would most likely leave you in peace. Here are their locations: http://www.cmri.org/traditional-latin-mass-directory.shtml

      Delete
    9. Read carefully the words of a French priest speaking to Catholics bereft of the sacraments in the 19th century:

      "You know of the efficacy of the sacraments; you know of the obligation imposed on you to have recourse to the Sacrament of Penance to cleanse us of our sins. But to profit from these channels of mercy, it requires ministers of the Lord. In our position, without worship, without altar, without sacrifice, without priests, we only see Heaven and no longer have mediators among men. Let this abandonment not deject us! We offer Faith to Jesus Christ our immortal Mediator. He reads our hearts, He understands our desires. He will crown our faithfulness. We are in the eyes of His All-Powerful Mercy. The sick one of thirty-eight years old, to whom He said to cure, not to get someone to put him in the bath, but to take up his bed and walk. If life's events change the position of the Faithful, the events change our obligations. Once upon a time we were the servants who received five talents, we had the peaceful exercise of our religion. Today, we have but one talent--our heart. Let us make it fruitful and our recompense will be equal to that of five. God is just. He does not ask of us the impossible. Respectful to the Divine and Ecclesiastical laws, which recall to us to the Sacrament of Penance, I must tell you, that in these circumstances, these laws do not oblige.

      Listen to what I tell you:

      It is essential for your learning and consolation that you should know these circumstances, in order not to accept your own mind for that of God. The circumstances where these laws do not oblige, are those where God's Will manifests Itself to obtain our salvation without the intermediary of Man. God needs nobody but Himself to save us when He so desires. "

      http://jmjsite.com/letter_of_father_demaristhey_have_taken_away_my_lord.pdf

      Delete
    10. Anon @5:06 - Thanks. There are no CMRI chapels near me.
      I was told vehemently by the office staff that I could not go to this certain chapel and receive Communion as I had been attending a TLM with a pre-Vatican II Priest because it was in the Diocese. I was treated terribly by this person who alluded to the "fakes" out there. I wouldn't even want to go there now after being treated so poorly. They sounded like some kind of a cult. There are no other options near me, except FSSP, and Eastern Rite and, I understand they are off limits. I would go to where I had been going, but the pre-Vatican II, 90 yr old Priest had to retire because of his poor health.

      Delete

    11. @anon7:48
      My friend, I hope this post of mine helps you. It’s about bring Home Alone—-but not by choice
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/12/what-to-do-when-youre-home-alone-but.html?m=1

      Good luck and God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    12. @anon6:31
      Inapposite. The priest was talking about non-Catholic ministers NOT clergy without a mandate in a state of sedevacante. These Traditionalist priests ARE proper clergy.

      "If life's events change the position of the Faithful, the events change our obligations."

      And ecclesiastical laws cease to bind when they become noxious to the salvation of souls. The Code says as much.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    13. Could you possibly tell us a little bit more about this conversation you had with this chapel because I don't really follow. I mean I don't really understand why it upset you that someone at a (sedevacantist?) chapel told you not to go to the priest who is part of the new church and warned you against fake sacraments. This all sounds like what any priest would say to a newcomer, especially someone coming in from the new church. It is not cult-like behavior. Cults deprive people of food and sleep, force them to watch hours of brainwashing, even imprison people who try to leave. It doesn't sound like anything like that happened to you.

      If you are comfortable telling us what state or city you live in, we could probably give you more specific help finding a chapel to attend in your area.

      Delete
    14. These Chapels from my experience are not welcoming and operate as a closed community and inclusive to a select few. They evidently need to protect themselves from us big bad newcomers who might be tainted lepers. They assume newcomers are to be up to speed on their brand of Sedevacantism. "This is how they will know you are my disciples, that you love one another". Jesus said that and, from my experience, Sede Chapels don't practice or possess it. I doubt, at this point, if I want anything to do with them. Go ahead and judge me all you want, but no one has the answers to this crisis or the authority to tell anyone where to go or not to go as there is NO Pope, hence, no authority. Sedevacantism is one theory among others for the crisis. I refuse to become dogmatic over an unproven theory or let others treat me as though I am less than those who attend their inclusive, closed community.

      Delete
    15. I'm sorry you feel that way, but most of the commenters in this blog are sedevacantists and we have tried to be friendly and helpful to you. This blog and the commenters in it certainly don't strike me as a closed community, nor has anyone here looked down on you for not being sedevacantist.

      May I encourage you to continue to search for the truth and not give in to emotions in dealing with other people.

      Delete
    16. @anon3:10
      It seems your rejection is more emotional than logical. Not practicing virtue, while hypocritical, doesn't make what is taught false. If Hitler said, "It's wrong to murder," he would be correct yet hypocritical. Notice I never claim the V2 sect is false because of the sodomites, rather welcoming them in is a sign that there is false teaching. It is on false teaching that they should be rejected as a false sect.

      No pope does not mean no authority. The laws still in place under Pope Pius XII (and of course dogmas and morals) continue to hold true. The SSPV is very welcoming, and I've made friends there quite easily.

      In the end we are responsible for our own souls, so I pray you make the right decisions. I cannot (and will not) tell anyone how to run their life. I can tell them Church teaching, and the rest is in their hands.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    17. Perhaps the GUY at the Chapel office was being more "emotional" to me than "logical" when he stated I could not receive Communion at the Chapel, even though I am a baptized pre-Vatican II CATHOLIC.

      Delete
    18. @anon4:24
      It seems from your answer you are a woman. I was assuming you were a man, which I shouldn't since I have regular female readers such as Joann and Jannie.

      Did you press the issue? Why, exactly, can't you receive Communion? What if you promise not to go to another Chapel? Did they say your "sin" was unforgivable? Did they say/imply it's because you're a woman?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    19. Introibo,

      No, I didn't press the issue as I was in shock!! I was told I couldn't receive Communion because I was going to an Una Cum Mass. I was told it didn't matter that the Priest was ordained pre-Vatican II. Nothing was mentioned about "sin". I was grilled about my dress. I got the impression, it was because I was a woman and that a man more than likely wouldn't get the same grilling. I did keep emphasizing that I had just recently found Tradition, but nothing seemed to matter except the attendance at a Una Cum.
      People grow in Grace and knowledge, something the Traditionalists need to take into account!

      Delete
    20. @anon6:16
      Now I would write a letter to the priest (or his bishop if he belongs to a society) and try to get this straightened out. I’m sorry you had to endure that, but don’t deprive yourself of the Sacraments. Make things right for you and others that come after. Sometimes people need a rude awakening.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    21. Introibo,
      Thanks! Excellent idea!!

      Delete
    22. I've been grilled by
      Traditional clerics.
      One in particular just shy of 3 yrs.(turned out to be a blessing)
      Contact Bp.Markus Ramolla,
      he is good to talk with + doesn't pretend to have
      Jurisdiction.
      -Anon

      Delete
    23. Anon @5:19 - Who is Bishop Markus Ramolla and where is he from?

      Delete
    24. To Anonymous 6:16 PM:

      It is normal to be surprised by rules when going to a traditional Catholic chapel for the first time, especially if you are coming in from the Vatican 2 sect. This is normal, and to be expected that you are entering a different culture with a different mentality and set of rules than what you are used to, so you shouldn't be put off by being told things you are not expected to hear.

      First of all, about receiving Holy Communion, most traditional Catholic chapels actually require a newcomer to talk to the priest before receiving Holy Communion. Unlike the Vatican 2 sect, which gives the "communion wafer" to anyone who shows up at the front, traditional Catholic teachings are very strict about who receives Holy Communion, and priests cannot assume someone they don't know meets the requirements of being validly baptized, professing the Catholic Faith, and being in the state of sanctifying grace. A priest will render an account if he negligently gives the Holy Eucharist to someone who receives sacrilegiously, so priests normally take precautions to avoid giving It to people who cannot receive It worthily. As far as your specific case, in which you were told to stop attending a Mass said by a priest in the Vatican 2 sect, this is because they (maybe I should say "we") believe the Vatican 2 sect is a false religion, and therefore attending the ceremonies of a false religion is a mortal sin. This is commanded by the First Commandment, which requires us only to participate only in the ceremonies of the Catholic Church, and forbids participation in the ceremonies of false religions under pain of mortal sin. Now, you may say that the priest you attend is ordained before Vatican 2 and says the traditional Mass. This may be, but the problem is that the ceremony is said as part of a false religion. Even the Tridentine Mass is evil if it is said as the ceremony of a false religion, just as the Greek Orthodox say the true Mass and have valid orders, but attendance at it is mortally sinful because it is said outside the Church.

      As far as your complaint about the dress code, this is another striking difference between traditional Catholic chapels and the chapels that operate under the Vatican 2 sect. Whereas the latter have almost no rules at all about what people wear, and barely enforce the few rules they have anyway, traditional Catholic chapels take modesty very seriously, as they believe (unlike the new Vatican 2 church) that dressing immodestly is a sin, particularly dressing immodestly in church. Thus, they discussed the dress code with you to be sure you didn't come to their chapel dressed in a manner inappropriate for church. You may think this is not necessary, and I'm sure you dress just fine wherever you go, but these people don't know you and need to be sure your attire isn't a problem when you come, as many people do show up at trad chapels dressed in a manner offensive to modesty. Just because you don't do this, doesn't mean nobody else does either. :)

      All that being said, it sounds like they told you (if I interpret your post correctly) that you could receive Holy Communion at their chapel if you promised not to attend any more ceremonies operated under the Vatican 2 sect. I'd recommend just giving them that assurance and attend the chapel for a while and see how it goes. You're not committing to anything, and if you decide later to leave you can always do so. Or if you're not comfortable promising not to attend ceremonies of the new church, just attend anyway and observe, and make a spiritual communion. Then, after attending for a while, you can make an informed decision which way you want to go.

      Either way, I'd recommend expecting a few surprises along the way, and try to roll with the punches, because it's quite a different world between the Vatican 2 world and the trad Catholic world. Good luck! :)

      Delete
    25. Anon 5:28,
      On the other hand, I don't know that these Trad Priests are real Priests. Perhaps I should ask for THEIR credentials proving they are indeed valid Priests.

      Delete
    26. You can certainly do that. Most trad priests are happy to discuss questions like that with newcomers.

      Delete
    27. Bishop Markus Ramolla.
      Our Lady of Victory.
      Fairfield Ohio.
      It's not because you're a Woman.
      The first trad-chapel I attended had a Bishop who grilled me hardcore.
      You've travelled this far,
      don't give up.
      We are all struggling and this is the most important issue we face in life.
      Please contact
      Bp.Ramolla via email.
      God bless.

      Delete
    28. I'm refused Holy Communion at the SSPV chapel because I hold the Thuc line is valid.
      I still attend Holy Mass at that chapel because every Sunday is a Holy Day of Obligation + we receive Graces at Holy Mass.
      Personally I pray an
      Act of Contrition before the Indulgentium at Holy Communion and beg for
      Spiritual Communion.

      Delete
  20. @anon7:48
    My friend, I hope this post of mine helps you. It’s about bring Home Alone—-but not by choice
    http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/12/what-to-do-when-youre-home-alone-but.html?m=1

    Good luck and God Bless,

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anon, you have to study all the relevant issues like una cum, 1968 Ordination Rites, SSPX excommunications, Indult Masses, SSPV vs CMRI Thuc dispute, home aloners, etc etc. Then you have to make up your own mind based on your conscience because there simply isn’t any authority out there to follow. If you think Bergoglio is Pope, then you should go to his clergy for sacraments for you are bound by his authority from Christ as Christ’s Vicar on Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dear Introibo.Just some brief info about the comment above two former CMRI priests.

    A young boy who attended the 2017 boys camp in Idaho after being taken home by his dad and mom try to commit suicide after arriving home.His dad and mom just got there in time.The info we have is that Fr Anthony had performed indecent acts on him at the camp.We know why this cleric has disappeared.

    We don't believe that Piv would pay him hush money because in a court of law Caleb(Anthony Marie) would use this against him and tell them what the bishop had been doing to him while in Mater Dei.This may shock you but its truth.As said above by other former seminarians,they left because they saw something.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete