Monday, January 13, 2020

False Christs

Recently, my best friend called me and said, "You have to come over and watch something I saw." I inquired what it was, but he just told me to come over and watch it with him as soon as I had some free time. A little while later, he showed me a movie he watched earlier entitled Zeitgeist: The Movie. Produced in 2007 by one Peter Joseph (b. 1979), it is an over two hour long movie in three parts. Joseph is the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement which has been accurately described as "the New Age Movement meets conspiracy theorists," and it produced the coined term "Conspirituality"---(Conspiracy + Spirituality).

The movie is full of the material published in rags like The National Enquirer, where Bigfoot, aliens, and nutty conspiracy theories are the tabloid fodder each week. Unfortunately, many of these same ideas are entertained by Traditionalists, and held dear by some. Such interesting notions include: the moon landing was faked, the Earth is flat, and 9-11 was staged. Zeitgeist does not mention the moon landing or the alleged flat Earth, but it has the same central idea, stated in the movie itself, "there are people guiding your life and you don't even know it."

When my friend asked for my reaction, I told him, "This is basically the same as The Matrix." I referenced the blockbuster 1999 film starring Keanu Reeves, which takes place in a dystopian future. Sophisticated computers and humans had a war in which the machines won and all surviving humans were placed in a giant computer simulation wherein they believe everything to be normal, while in reality the machines have people in pods, draining their energy for their nefarious purposes. The protagonist "Neo" (an anagram of the "One"), feels something isn't right with reality, and with the help of a few others like him, he realizes the truth about the world while the others remain as puppets, thinking all is as it appears to be. To be clear, there really are conspiracies at work in the world. There is even the crime of conspiracy (e.g., conspiracy to rob a bank or commit murder). The problem is when everything becomes a wild-eyed conspiracy tale (I refer to it as "The Great Conspiracy").

New Agers are basically Gnostics of old, those heretics who believed they held special knowledge of God apart from the Church. They are the "enlightened few." My friend really wanted my input on Part One of the movie, which is based loosely on the works of Dorothy Milne Murdock (d. 2015) who wrote mostly under the pen name "Acharya S." She supported the Christ myth theory; i.e., Christ never existed as an historical Person, but was rather a hodgepodge of various pre-Christian myths. Her books include The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1999), and Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver (2014).

The idea of the "Christ Myth" will be the subject matter of my post. It is important because, as aforementioned, many Traditionalists buy into this "everything is a conspiracy" lunacy with devastating impact on the Faith. A Traditionalist I knew actually lost the Faith and became an atheist for some time before (Deo gratias) returning to the Church. When I asked him how he could possibly go from the True Faith to atheism, his answer was not what I was expecting. He believed that Jesus Christ never existed; He was invented as part of a Jewish conspiracy to weaken and undermine the Roman Empire from within, so that they would "turn the other cheek," and become "emasculated" by Christianity.

I had a long talk with my friend, and he was glad that the "Christ Myth Theory" is itself a myth. I will now set down in this post the information I imparted to him.

A Messiah from Paganism?

The Zeitgeist movie informs us that in the ancient religions of Egypt, Persia, and Greece (among others) there were gods born of a virgin on December 25, were accompanied by twelve followers, performed miracles, were crucified, and rose from the dead. Therefore, Jesus Christ is a fabrication from various mythologies. This goes much father than the assertion that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Christ; it claims He never existed at all. This is not a view held by a small minority of New Age loonies led by Peter Joseph. There is a 2011 book by Joseph Atwill entitled  Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, and a 2014 book by Kenneth Humphries called Jesus Never Existed: An Introduction to the Ultimate Heresy. The synopsis of Atwill's book on Amazon.com reads:

Was Jesus the invention of a Roman emperor? The author of this ground-breaking book believes he was. "Caesar’s Messiah" reveals the key to a new and revolutionary understanding of the origin of Christianity, explaining what is the New Testament, who is the real Jesus, and how Christ's second coming already occurred. The clues leading to these startling conclusions are found in the writings of the first-century historian Flavius Josephus, whose "Wars of the Jews" is one of the only historical chronicles of this period. Closely comparing the work of Josephus with the New Testament Gospels, "Caesar’s Messiah" demonstrates that the Romans directed the writing of both. Their purpose: to offer a vision of a "peaceful Messiah" who would serve as an alternative to the revolutionary leaders who were rocking first-century Israel...

What are we to make of these claims? In short, the assertions are absolutely false on several counts:


  • The so-called similarities between paganism's myths and Christ are either twisted out of context, or proven lies

For example, the Zeitgeist movie claims that "Mithra [Sometimes "Mithras"] of Persia [a false god], was born of a virgin on December 25th; he had twelve disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for three days and resurrected." Mithra was not "born of a virgin." He emerged fully grown from a rock. The fact that rocks don't have sex does not make it a "virgin" except in a most contorted and deceptive way. This description of a "virgin" does not comport with the accepted English definition. There is no proof that Mithra was born on December 25th. It was simply made up (read:"they lied"). Furthermore the Church never defined the date of Christ's birth and December 25th isn't mentioned in the Bible. How could there be a similarity?

There is a painting of Mithra surrounded by twelve figures, but there is no mention anywhere of them being disciples; they actually correspond to the pagan Zodiac signs. Nor is there any ancient record of Mithra dying and being resurrected.  (See history scholar R.L. Gordon, "Mithraism and Roman Society: Social factors in the explanation of the religious change in the Roman Empire," Religion, Vol.2 , Issue 2, Autumn 1972, pg. 96. Gordon states bluntly, "There was no death of Mithras.") So far, it doesn't sound very similar, does it?

The movie claims the same similarities between Christ and the Egyptian false god Horus. Horus was conceived when his mother had sex with the dead body of his father Osiris. Again, in what sense is necrophilia a form of a "virgin birth"? The claim the Horus was crucified comes exclusively on images of Horus with his arms spread out--there is no "crucifixion" shown. The story ends with Horus being stung by a scorpion, and his mother begging the false god Thoth to bring him back from the dead; not a resurrection whereby Christ rose by His Own Divine Power.

The "similarities" are actually dissimilarities.


  • Pagans copied from Christ
According to historian R.L. Gordon, the Mithra cult began no earlier than the early second century, so there's no possible way it could have influenced the New Testament which was already completed by the year 100 A.D. (Ibid, pg. 93). The cult of Isis and Osiris (apart from Horus) ends with Osiris becoming lord of the underworld while Isis regathers his dismembered body from the Nile River and subsequently magically restores it. E. A. Wallace Budge, recognized as "one of the greatest authorities of our century on ancient religions," (See Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand ,[1981], p. 583) has this to say about the cult of Osiris: "There is nothing in the texts which justify the assumption that Osiris knew he would rise from the dead, and that he would become king and judge of the dead, or that Egyptians believed that Osiris died on their behalf and rose again in order that they might also rise from the dead." (Ibid).  Smith also quotes French scholar Andre Boulanger’s observation that, "The idea that the god dies and rises again to lead his worshipers to eternal life does not exist in any Hellenic pagan ["mystery"] religion." (Ibid).

Religion scholar Mircea Eliade points out that not only is the idea of Christians borrowing from the pagans wrong, but that any borrowing probably first began on the part of the pagans:

In 1958, one year before Campbell started publishing his fanciful theories in the Masks of God volumes, Mircea Eliade published in Patterns of Initiation a series of lectures he had given at the University of Chicago in the fall of 1956. In one of those lectures, Eliade said recent research did not support the theories that the origin of Christianity was influenced by pagans. "There is no reason to suppose that primitive Christianity was influenced by the Hellenistic mysteries," said Eliade. In fact, the reverse may actually be true:
"The renaissance of the mysteries in the first centuries of our era may well be related to the rise and spread of Christianity…. certain mysteries [pagan myths] may well have reinterpreted their ancient rites in the light of the new religious values contributed by Christianity." (See Tom Snyder, Myth Conceptions (1995), p. 191).


Eliade added that it was only much later, when Christianity had to compete with the renaissance of the pagan religions, that Christians began to borrow from the religious symbols of these cults. They did this in order to help them explain their religion to others (not to modify it), thereby hoping to win converts.


  • Demonstrable drivel about "pagan" Easter from the "New Atheists"
Richard Dawkins, a God-hating atheist (or really an anti-theist; one who wants God stamped out of society) promoted a meme on Facebook that claimed the following:

Easter was originally the celebration of Ishtar, the Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of fertility and sex. Her symbols (like the egg and bunny) were and still are fertility and sex symbols (or did you actually think eggs and bunnies had anything to do with the resurrection?) After Constantine decided to Christianize the Empire, Easter was changed to represent Jesus. But at its roots, Easter (which is how you pronounce Ishtar) is all about celebrating fertility and sex.

The truth:
1. Ishtar is pronounced "Easter." No. There is not one credible linguistic source I could find to support this assertion. It is pronounced "ISH-tar" not "EAST-er." According to historian Anthony McRoy: "The argument largely rests on the supposed pagan associations of the English and German names for the celebration (Easter in English and Ostern in German). It is important to note, however, that in most other European languages, the name for the Christian celebration is derived from the Greek word Pascha, which comes from pesach, the Hebrew word for Passover. Easter is the Christian Passover festival.

Historian Anthony McRoy puts things in context, since the Church celebrates "Maundy Thursday" and "Good Friday" and "Holy Saturday." The names of the days of the week all derive from pagan origin; Thursday for the Norse pagan "god" Thor, Friday for the Germanic pagan "goddess" Freya, and Saturday for the Roman pagan "god" Saturn. Does the use of these names denigrate the True God, or imply we honor these false deities? Does it render the historical Last Supper, Crucifixion, and Vigil of the Resurrection "pagan"? This is a classic case of "guilt by association." 
(See https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2009/april/was-easter-borrowed-from-pagan-holiday.html).


2. Easter is originally the celebration of Ishtar, the Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of fertility and sex.
Ishtar was associated with fertility and sex.  Easter is always celebrated near the Feast of Passover, when it took place. The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) set the formula for calculating the date. (The Eastern Schismatics use a different calculation, and usually celebrate Easter a week later than Catholics and Protestants). In short, Easter has everything to do with Passover (when it took place) and nothing to do with the pagan deity Ishtar.

3.  Her symbols (like the egg and the bunny) were and still are fertility and sex symbols (or did you actually think eggs and bunnies had anything to do with the resurrection?)
Ishtar's symbols were the lion, the gate and the eight-pointed star; I can’t find any evidence of eggs or rabbits symbolically belonging to this pagan deity. (See, e.g., https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ishtar-Mesopotamian-goddess; there is no mention of rabbits or eggs). Admittedly, most of the popular associations with Easter do come from pagan traditions rather than Christian. However, traditionally the Church has taken these pagan elements and "converted" them to convey Christian principles. For example, the egg is a common pagan sign of fertility, but for Catholicism, the egg is often used to signify the resurrection to new life promised us by Christ's resurrection (See 1 Corinthians 15:37-38). The Polish were prominent in making this connection: "Polish traditions taught that eggs were symbols of 'new life' and used them in church services, which represented rebirth through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hedgerow/2017/04/know-easter-eggs-lent/).

Rabbits likewise are known for being fruitful and multiplying.  Butterflies are indicators of spring, and therefore new life, and at Easter, make a great symbol of the resurrection. Just as the caterpillar "dies," is "buried" in its cocoon, and then emerges in a "new body," so too Our Lord died, was buried, and was resurrected on the third day. We who belong to Him will be resurrected also (See Romans 8:11). Hiding eggs once symbolized the mysteries of the world of the gods and goddesses, who had to be coaxed into returning life to the Earth in spring. Early members of the Church used hiding-and-finding Easter eggs as a teaching tool to children that we have been "hidden" from God’s loving presence by our sin, but we are "found" by Christ, who forgives us, loves us, and treasures us (See St. Luke 15:4-7).

4. After Constantine decided to Christianize the Empire, Easter was changed to represent Jesus.
There is no citation to any relevant historical authority to support this ludicrous claim. When Constantine was alive, English--in any known form today--didn't even exist, and the emperor spoke Latin, in which the word would be pascha. According to Merriam-Webster, "The history of English is conventionally, if perhaps too neatly, divided into three periods usually called Old English (or Anglo-Saxon), Middle English, and Modern English. The earliest period begins with the migration of certain Germanic tribes from the continent to Britain in the fifth century A.D., though no records of their language survive from before the seventh century, and it continues until the end of the eleventh century or a bit later." (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq-history; Emphasis mine).

 There was no "Easter" at the time, and the celebration of Christ's Resurrection had been going on for almost 300 years.

5.  But at its roots Easter (which is pronounced Ishtar) was all about celebrating fertility and sex. 
It would be more believable to say Easter is all about the Tooth Fairy. Dawkins is a biologist and biology professor. He should stick with the subject. To promote a meme containing such blatant falsehood which an eighth grader could debunk doing minimal research, should drive Dawkins out of academia permanently. 

Other problems with Christ as a "Pagan Myth"
  • Similarity does not prove dependence. The fact of some similarities between Christianity and the pagans no more proves Christianity was derived from them than similarities between people and monkeys proves people derived from monkeys
  • As a devout Jew turned Catholic, the Apostle Paul would never have considered borrowing his teachings from pagan religion. There is not the slightest hint of pagan beliefs in his writings
  • Christianity is demonstrably grounded in the actual events of history, not myths. Even hard core atheist historians admit Jesus of Nazareth was truly an historical Person
  •  If any borrowing did occur, it was the other way around. In other words, as Christianity grew in influence and expanded in the second and third centuries, the pagan systems, recognizing this threat, would be likely to borrow elements of Christianity to capitalize upon its success. For example, the pagan rite of bathing in bull’s blood (taurobolium) initially held its spiritual efficacy at 20 years. But once in competition with Christianity, the cult of Cybele, recognizing that Christians were promised eternal life by faith in Jesus, raised the efficacy of their rite "from 20 years to eternity." (See Ronald H. Nash, Christianity & the Hellenistic World, [1984], pgs. 171-172). 
Conclusion
My good buddy was put at ease that Christ is not a fictitious creation of some conspiracy that made up a story from pagan myths.  Unfortunately, there are those modern day Gnostics who believe, like Peter Joseph, that nothing is as it seems, and only a chosen few can know the truth. Everything is part of the "Great Conspiracy." The Earth is flat, Elvis is alive, the Newtown shootings never took place and no one died there. If you confront them with facts, they will dismiss them as "part of the Great Conspiracy." I admit that I have a hard time dealing with such people because you can't reason with them. Once, I asked such a person, "How do you know 9-11 being faked isn't what the conspirators want you to believe because they don't want you to think it was real?" "That's crazy!" was the response. I had to suppress my laughter. 

Now, we have New Age conspiracy theorists selling the lie that Christ came from pagan myths and never existed.  Dorothy Milne Murdock, one of the "Christ Myth" theorists I referenced above, went to Judgement in 2015. If she didn't repent before death, she learned to her chagrin (and everlasting regret), that Christ is real and so is Hell.  

46 comments:

  1. Very interesting post, Introibo! Curiously, some days ago I read an article about the same issue (on the part of pagan religions and christianity). You can use a web translator from portuguese to english (PS.: The website is R&R/NO Conservative): http://www.montfort.org.br/bra/cartas/historia/20191118173905/

    - Silvio

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Silvio,
      Thank you for the information!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. I don't think it's crazy at all to believe the government was behind the 9/11 attacks, or knowingly allowed them to happen. Just because you don't agree with an idea doesn't make it crazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:15
      You’re correct. What is crazy is the “Great Conspiracy” where NOTHING IS AS IT SEEMS. That is a rejection of a basic premise: I should believe what appears to my senses and intellect to be true unless there is a defeater to make me believe otherwise.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. You referred to the idea that “9-11 was staged” as being a “nutty conspiracy theor[y],” so you obviously think it is crazy. Of course, the official story is that a conspiracy of 19 jihadis led by a guy living in an afghan cave pulled off the attacks.

      You don’t give credence to any evidence unless it comes from credentialed, official experts in the field. There is a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, composed of many of the top experts in the fields of architecture, engineering, and science, with many holding doctorates and having decades of experience in their fields. As of today, 3,238 engineers and architects have signed their petition calling for an independent inquiry because the physical evidence contradicts the government’s version of the story, and you can see their names and titles here: https://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/AE/ This should certainly satisfy your demand that evidence come from credentialed experts.

      They have a video gallery here summarizing their evidence that the government’s story is false. With your science background, you should certainly appreciate it. It should take about an hour to watch. https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/category/25-9-11-experts-speak-out-individual-chapters

      Per the video series, there are these pieces of evidence.

      The three buildings in the World Trade Center that came down (yes, a third skyscraper, World Trade Center 7, came down even though only two were claimed to have been struck by planes).

      The buildings fell at free-fall or near free-fall speed. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition (they show it side-by-side with an acknowledged controlled demolition).

      Temperatures were too high for the government’s claimed explanation. There was motlen steel that burned for weeks, and iron microspheres resulting from high temperatures were present in the dust. Jet fuel burns at no more than 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit. Molten steel must be heated to 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/174-ground-zero-crime-scene-part-1-melted-steel-beams-and-molten-iron

      Remnants of explosive material called thermites were present in the WTC dust. It was nanothermite, which is more powerful and effective than regular thermite. https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/172-ground-zero-crime-scene-part-3-high-tech-incendiaries-in-the-wtc-dust

      Delete
    3. @anon12:46
      Let me be clear that I do not believe everything the government says, and I am certainly open to alternate theories. However, I had people write in the comments that 9-11 involved no planes (they were holograms) and nothing was as filmed on TV. Trust me I was here in NYC when it happened. The film footage is not faked--at least not to a very large extent.

      If it makes people happy to think otherwise, it is not, per se, contrary to the faith--but it can take you into that Gnostic view of the world of the Great Conspiracy. That can indeed endanger the Faith.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. Introibo, Coincidentally, recently I have been engaged in an ongoing conversation with a lady who was raised pre-Vatican II. She converted to Protestantism years ago. She keeps saying that the Catholic Church is Pagan and Heathen. She stated to me that votives, Holy Water, incense, processions, etc., are of pagan origin. How do I respond to her?
    I am used to conversing about Religion with Novus Ordoites and I don't have the difficulty communicating with them as I do Protestants! I guess it is because I don't know that much about the various Protestant religions.
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Protestants see paganism where it doesn’t exist. To give but one example, they cite the First Commandment against “graven images” to be worshipped as an argument against using statues in Church. They don’t distinguish that statues are not worshiped, they are reminders of Christ whom we worship or the BVM and saints we venerate and pay homage.

      When a man kisses a picture of his wife and kids, he’s not in love with the piece of paper that has the image BUT HE LOVES WHAT THE IMAGE REPRESENTS.

      Hope this helped!!

      ——Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, Thanks much!! Didn't know about the Protestant interpretation of the 1st Commandment. Why would the person who I have been conversing with state that Holy Water, incense and votives are of pagan origin? I have difficulty knowing how to respond. I think I am in over my head?!
      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      The Protestants’ most common error is to assume because if the pagans did something, it must be evil and pagan. They don’t make necessary distinctions. For example, pagans used incense, so using incense must be wrong and pagan.

      However, pagans also prayed. Is praying pagan, or Is it WHOM YOU PRAY TO that makes it pagan or wrong?

      That’s a major reason they see “paganism” everywhere.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Introibo, another good article but I must concur with the above commenter in that I do thinks it's very plausible some conspiracy theories. I personally see many holes in the "moon landing" and "911" especially. I just see all these masons all over the government and NASA so why should we trust enemies of Christ? Our Lord did say we are fighting against the forces of darkness so to me its entirely possible that the powers at be, that have rebelled against God, would definitely lie to the public and pull these kinds of things in order to push some agenda. My tin foil hat is showing maybe? Lol

    God bless
    David.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,
      You have no tin foil hat my friend! You’re level headed and I agree that there are conspiracies. Take a look at the Vatican II sect; it came about as the concerted efforts of the Modernists working behind the scenes.

      I don’t trust the government either. There are many untruths told to the public. The only problem I have is when everything is not as it seems due to a Great Conspiracy that controls (literally) EVERYTHING without exception. That idea is, in my opinion, over the top and can lead to loss of the Faith.

      Always enjoy your comments David!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reply my friend. Hey I was wondering if you could recommend any good books on Pius XII? I recently saw some article on wikipedia saying that he was friends with a Mr. Mendes(some Jewish guy) and participated in a Jewish service? This must be some mistake or something.
      Thanks again
      David.

      Delete
    3. David,
      I would recommend “ Crown of Glory: The Life of Pope Pius XII” by Alden Hatch from 1957. You can buy an old copy on Amazon.com for about $20 or so. There is so much calumny heaped upon this good (and last known) pope!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Sometimes I wonder what planet some of these people are from who come up with these ideas. I don't mean flat ones either. While I don't believe in any Great Conspiracy where nothing can be trusted, I do believe that if there is any such thing as a Great Conspiracy, it would have to be lead by the devils who are constantly sowing the seeds of doubt in the minds of many about Christ and His Church. I do believe there are many conspiracies, mysteries, and unexplained things. Some are stupid, while others are important to know about specifically when it comes to those that directly affect our freedom or our health. What's more concerning to me isn't conspiracies but the lost state of the world due to the times we're living in. As scripture says "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." Matt 24:24

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
  6. These neopagans want to overcome what they call the age of fish, which is Christianity. Neither Julian, the apostate, succeeded.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Dimonds are great conspiracy theorists plus they see demons everywhere!
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Absolutely! Fred and Bobby thought Protestant minister James White was “demon possessed” because the curve of his bald head “looked like devil horns”!! Can’t make this stuff up!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. What bugs me is the Trads who think they have it all figured out based on some private revelation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Yes, the Apparitionists. Placing private revelations above Church teaching.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. For some reason there seems to be a lot of Holocaust deniers also.
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Introibo, In doing my taxes, I ran across a State deduction for "relatives of Holocaust victims". What about the other victims of that evil regime? Why the Holocaust? Why not victims of Pearl Harbor, etc? It is infuriating!

      Delete
    2. @anon1:04
      I agree with you 100%!! I wonder if that deduction could be challenged under the State Constitution as discriminatory or even a violation of equal protection.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Introibo, Forgot to sign my name to the above. For some reason the State deduction for "relatives of Holocaust victims" was signed into law in 1999. This struck me as incredulous when I saw it. Will research it further.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    4. Introibo, While looking into the Holocaust survivor tax deduction above, I came across numerous articles written in 2019 requiring middle schools and high schools in this State to make Holocaust education a requirement. Why this? In these schools one can't say a prayer or hardly mention anything regarding Christianity or even Christmas. However, teaching the Holocaust is a requirement?!
      JoAnn

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      No argument from me on this point! What about the "priest barracks" Hitler had? What about the torture and murder of Fr. Kolbe? It's more PC nonsense. Yes, the Holocaust was terrible, but to single it out for special consideration is, in my opinion, wrong.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Thank you for your good work Introibo! I have questions not related to the topic. You have very rigorous researching skills. I think you might be able to answer them. Should I post them here or in an email?
    -JCA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JCA,
      If your queries are of a general nature on theology, and you believe other readers would therefore benefit, you can post them here for all to read.

      If your questions are of a sensitive or personal nature, you can send them to me via these comments with your personal email address which I promise not to publish. I will respond to you with an email that protects my identity and will have “Hello from Introibo” in the subject line.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you Introibo! I just have a two very interesting questions. I’m sorry if they’re quite long. They’re not directly related to sedevacantism. They’re just about the faith.

      I encountered some people who left their valid Mass and run to the Indult whose validity we doubt. They said that the priest said a heresy in the sermon. The priest said that “Christ is not really physically present in the Eucharist.” I tried to tell them it’s not necessarily a heresy. I based my argument on what Bishop Sanborn said. He said that Christ is not physically present but is substantially present. I scrambled for quotes in the Summa to no avail. They say: “You’re cherry-picking St. Thomas, a Doctor of the Church doesn’t necessarily mean a canonisation of his works, we can contradict St. Thomas with the Immaculate Conception, and etc.”

      One of them who claims to know the Summa but will contradict it in some places says that bone and nerve doesn’t belong under the accident of quantity because St. Thomas said that the Eucharist is bone nerve and etc. He also says that the Council of Trent defines as “truly, really and substantially present” means that truly, really and substantially are not synonymous otherwise those terms wouldn’t have been used together. He adds that substantially includes physically (accidents) because it’s the purpose of the Incarnation.

      My second question is about Thomas A. Nelson’s book “Which Bible Should You Read?” I was quoting the opening paragraphs regarding the value of the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims translation. Somebody from the Novus Ordo shot down the argument from the get go. It would be hard to rely on the book if there’s something wrong with the Vulgate. He told me that the information I have is wrong. He said that St. Jerome didn’t translate the Bible from the original sources. He just merely compiled existing Latin translations of the various books (of diverse quality), some of which he edited, others he did not. His main purpose was to make a liturgical text for the universal Church. This Novus Ordo guy said that it served its purpose for many years, even though it suffered greatly of copyist errors and editing.

      This Novus Ordo expert says that the original text of St. Jerome is not extant. The “Vulgate” usually referred to (incorrectly) as “translated” by St. Jerome is the Sixtine-Clementine Vulgate, which was a correction of various Latin manuscripts extant at the time of the Council of Trent.

      He tells me that the Church’s guideline for translation is to go back to the original languages in consideration of other ancient translations, especially in the Latin tradition.

      He clarified that St. Jerome translated the Old Testament from Hebrew. Also that there was a contention between him and St. Augustine because of this. Jerome rocked the boat by using the Hebrew as his source and not the Septuagint Greek used by Christ and the Apostles! To him, St. Jerome’s point was that: it is better to translate from the original languages. Whenever you have a translation, it’s never a word for word, there’s always a loss.

      This Novus Ordo biblical “scholar” highly recommended to me the Revised Standard Version. He says it is a lot closer to the original manuscripts and in clearer English. He even said that even the Haydock notes correct the Douay–Rheims translation by going to the original languages.

      I’m wondering if the book of Thomas A. Nelson is wrong. I have also heard of other traditionalists who condemn the “Douay-Rheims only” movement as being Protestants. Peter Kwasniewski is one of them. I would really like to know what you have to say.

      Thank you very much Introibo and God bless!

      JCA

      Delete
    3. JCA,
      I would not trouble myself with those who attend an "Insult" so-called Mass which is most likely invalid if the "priest" is not validly ordained, and offered in actual union with Bergoglio. Many times even valid priests (the few they have left) will use invalid matter, such as hosts made with the addition of honey, etc. Vatican II sect "experts" should not be listened to under any circumstance.

      As to your query concerning the Real Presence, I agree with you that the priest in question, as long as he adheres to the Decrees of Trent, did not speak heresy. It was a clumsy thing to say, and should not be used in a sermon with those not theologically astute listening. Bishop Sanborn is correct.

      The Council of Trent infallibly declared:
      CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

      According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Ligouri, in his monumental work "On The Council of Trent" explains exactly what the words truly, really and substantially" mean.

      "Vere [truly], to exclude the figurative presence of Jesus Christ, which was taught by the Sacramentarians; the figure is opposed to the truth so the word truly was used. 'Realiter' [really] to exclude the imaginary presence...'substantialiter' [substantially], to exclude the presence of mere efficacy or virtue to which Calvin reduced the presence of the real Body of Jesus Christ, saying that the Eucharist does not contain THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST, but its virtue or efficacy..." (pgs. 160-161; Emphasis mine).

      What does it mean that the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ is present? According to the eminent theologian Pohle, "The Body of Christ is present under the Eucharistic Species, NOT AFTER THE MANNER OF MATERIAL BODIES, BUT AFTER THE MANNER OF SPIRITS...The Body of Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist as the human soul is present in the body." (See "Dogmatic Theology" 2:100-101)

      This reminds me of atheists who claim Christ's Body can't be present because the matter (molecular structure) remains that of bread. Not understanding Scholastic philosophic concepts, they don't understand that substance isn't matter, and why substance matters.

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    4. As to St. Jerome Latin Vulgate Bible, the Council of Trent declared that "the Vulgate alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence" (Sess. IV, decr. de editione et usu sacrorum librorum). By this declaration the Council, without depreciating the Hebrew or the Septuagint or any other version then in circulation and without forbidding the original texts, approved the Vulgate and enjoined its public and official use as a text free from error in doctrine and morals." (See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm)

      While it is not perfect (and I do not subscribe to the idea that other pre-Vatican II editions should be disregarded--I like the Confraternity Edition), the Vulgate is free from error, has the endorsement of Trent, and was promulagated with necessary revisions in 1641 by Pope Clement VIII.

      That's good enough to make it the best translation, but without denigrating others approved by the popes pre-Vatican II.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Sorry Introibo! I forgot to sign my name in the reply to your reply. Thank you!
      -JCA

      Delete
    6. Did you get my last question Introibo? I posted it without a name. It looks like it didn’t go through. I’ll post it again in case you didn’t see it.

      I was basically agreeing with you about the people who left their valid Mass. The priest was imprudent to give a philosophy class in a sermon to people he knows are not that astute. The problem is, now they have deprived themselves of the graces they could be receiving. You are right about the Insult “Mass.” The other problem is that they are also sinning by spreading word about this priest being a heretic.

      My question is about Vatican II sect “experts.” You said that under all circumstances, they shouldn’t be listened to. I would to mention a circumstance that I might agree. For example, in the case of an historian. If he is honest and disinterested, he will just report on the facts and get things right. I noticed this when in one instance, someone sent me an article from NCR (Register not the leftist Reporter) defending the Spanish Inquisition. It appeared to be a very good defence from a Vatican II sect source. Another instance I can remember is the book of Vatican II sect historian, Warren Carrol entitled “The Last Crusade.” It is a very good book to my knowledge and I got over there in the SSPV bookstore in Oyster Bay when I was visiting. Do you think Catholics have a right to rise up against a legitimately elected government? Do you agree that Franco, though a good Catholic and very successful in the battlefield, made a huge mistake by not fully supporting the Carlists? I tend to agree with Warren Carrol and wholeheartedly support the Carlist movement. I would add that Franco also blindly trusted the so-called “Catholic” technocrats of the Opus Dei sect believing them to be “conservatives.” They’re nothing but a Trojan Horse of Liberalism.

      Anyway these are just Vatican II sect historians. The same may not apply to Vatican II sect theologians, apologists, biblical scholars, and etc. They will probably get things wrong no matter what. One fellow traditional Catholics told me that Vatican II sect “experts” are like drunks. They have their moments of lucidity.

      Please correct me if I’m wrong Introibo in trusting these Vatican II sect “experts” in a particular instance and thank you for the very good reply above!

      -JCA

      Delete
    7. JCA,
      I did not receive your comment @2:44 previously.

      My personal opinion regarding V2 sect historians is to stay away. The reason is simple: slight changes in the historical setting can have theological nuances with serious consequences. For example, if you ever compare the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia to the 1967 edition, there are slight differences in the historical record (omissions, etc.). When Michael Davies, the late apologist for the R&R movement in general and the SSPX in particular, would discuss "bad popes" prior to Vatican II, he would always cite the 1967 version because it made certain popes appear as heretics who retained their office--exactly what the V2 sect AND R&R want you to believe (for different reasons).

      Do I believe Catholics can revolt against a legitimate government? Only under very special circumstances and for the most severe reasons. I wish I could elaborate more, but Franco, revolt, etc. would take an entire post, and I'm still finishing up my post for Monday!

      Can V2 historians have "moments of lucidity"? Yes. Just remember, it only takes one drop of poison to make an otherwise refreshing glass of water deadly.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Thank you for the reply Introibo! So essentially, you’re saying that we generally can’t trust drunks. I get it. Now, I’m wondering about the book of Warren Carroll. I got it there from Oyster Bay where you go to Mass. It also got a very good review from True Restoration. Would be nice if you could write about the book or the Spanish Civil War in general. Please consider that as a future post. A few months back, the current government of Spain disinterred one of its great heroes and called it a great “victory” for democracy.

      God bless!

      -JCA

      Delete
  11. Man has tried to usurp God and place himself in the place of God. Society is self-obsessed. Self-esteem, self help, self service, selfies etc. Today, if one is not self-obsessed they are looked upon as weak. Serving and helping others is scorned. Hasn't the NO, by the "Priest" facing the parishioners in essence worshiping man?
    We are to love our neighbor as ourself, however loving ourself and our neighbor is not being selfish or self-worshipping as some claim. Jesus came to serve, not to be served. Isn't all this self-obsessed and self- worshipping nothing more than vanity?
    "Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes vanity of vanities, and all is vanity."
    Ecc 1:2.
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Very true and well-stated observation!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. IAAD:
    What are the best Catholic Libraries on and off line?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poni,
      I rely on my personal library of over 4,000 titles (closer to 5,000 now) as I collect the best I can find. Fr. DePauw's library was a gem with about 7,000 titles. I really don't use online libraries, or ones other than my own.

      Maybe my readers have some suggestions?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I found a very good online library. Full of good books and a very large collection. Just beware of the R&R books that got included:
      http://www.traditionalcatholic.co/free-catholicbooks/

      -JCA

      Delete
    3. JCA,
      Thank you for the information!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. IAAD,
    Maybe you can do a post on Catholic education.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As far as the Moon Landing goes, the Apollo command and service module program – as well as many other NASA programs such as Mercury, Gemini, Skylab, and the Space Shuttle – was run by a thirty-third degree freemason named Kenneth Samuel Kleinknecht, whose brother Christian Frederick Kleinknecht served as Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States from 1985 to 2003.

    Many of the astronauts are admitted to be freemasons, including Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell, and Jim Irwin. http://freemasoninformation.com/masonic-education/famous/masonic-astronauts/

    Buzz Aldrin presented to Grand Commander Luther Smith the masonic flag that he supposed carried on the Moon. https://scottishritenmj.org/blog/to-the-moon-and-back-with-buzz-aldrin

    You can see a short video, narrated by a smirking freemason, about that flag. https://scottishrite.org/scottish-rite-myths-and-facts/featured-artifact-scottish-rite-flag-went-moon/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:01
      And the Masons want to fake the Moon landing because...why? This reminds me of the Masonic bishop nonsense. If a bishop was a Mason he MUST have a positive contrary intention when administering the sacraments, hence Archbishop Lefebvre's ordination by Lienart (another "proven" Mason)must be invalid, and so his subsequent consecration. The Church teaches otherwise. Simply because someone is a Freemason doesn't make everything false, anymore than a devout Catholic is incapable of telling a lie.

      if the Moon landing was fake, why take a Masonic flag to the Arizona desert, or wherever it was "faked."

      Again, this blog is concerned with the continuation of the One True Church in this time of near universal apostasy. If you want to believe the Moon landing was faked--go for it.

      ---Introibo

      Delete