Monday, January 20, 2020

Poor Theology At A Steep Price

The pseudo-Traditionalist website 1 Peter 5 or 1P5, is run by Steve Skojec, whose name I prefer to write $teve $kojec. When you enter his website, you will be greeted by a large pop-up which reads:

  We've made it our mission to offer the unfiltered truth about the crisis in the Church and the beauty of the Faith. Your financial support makes our work possible. WE CAN'T DO THIS WITHOUT YOU! (Emphasis in original). You can click to make a donation, and he's making six figures from people gullible enough to donate (P.T. Barnum's old aphorism immediately comes to mind). The site is hard to define. It's not simply R&R like the SSPX. In $kojec's wacky world of theology-free "Catholicism," heretics can be pope, the Church can (and did) defect, and the teachings of the approved theologians must (of course) be eschewed. How that version of the "Church" can be passed off as "the unfiltered truth about the crisis" and the "beauty of the Faith (sic)" is beyond me.

1P5 has different members of the Vatican II sect writing articles. One such contributor, Michael Massey, authored a December 2, 2019 piece entitled, "Sedevacantism is Modern Luciferianism." The title had its intended shock value, as I thought $kojec had allowed someone completely off their rocker (as opposed to only "partially") to write for him. Mr. Massey is a young man (he appears to be in his 20s) from Australia, and we are informed that, "He writes history pieces for the Remnant newspaper in his spare time and struggles through law school the rest of the time." His writing made evident to me why he struggles through law school, and how the quality of lawyers in Australia must be abysmal if he was accepted to study.

Massey's tripe does not (as you would be led to believe from the title) claim that sedevacantists worship Satan. It actually is a reference to a Catholic bishop named Lucifer who fought the Arian heretics in the fourth century. You can read it in full at https://onepeterfive.com/sedevacantism-luciferianism/. The article is a masterpiece of shoddy "scholarship." To wit:

  • It makes claims assumed to be proven ("facts not in evidence")
  • Has no relevant citations to any approved theologians (pre-Vatican II or otherwise)
  • It makes a passing reference to a work of Ecclesiastical History, with no page number or context in which it could be read
  • Makes false and/or unproven claims about Pope Liberius
  • Has false analogies 
I will now dissect the many problems with Mr. Massey's work, and why no one should bother with 1P5. As always, I bring this to you, the readership, free of charge! 


The Devil's Advocate-In-Training

Massey begins his anti-sedevacantist drivel thus: 
At some time, we have all encountered a sedevacantist — if not in person, at least online.  I won’t bore you with the theology of the sedevacantism except to say they hold that a heretic cannot be pope, with the most common strain affirming that Pius XII was the last legitimate pope (although I did once come across one who believed that Pius V was the last legitimate pope).

He won't "bore you" with the Catholic theology regarding sedevacantism because Massey doesn't know or understand it well enough to write about it. "They" (i.e., sedevacantists) do not hold a heretic can't be pope, the Church so teaches. 

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

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

Canonist Badii: "A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."( See Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina [1921], pgs. 160, 165). 

Theologian Prummer: "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943],  2:453). 

There are "Vacancy Pushers" as I call them, those pseudo-Traditionalists like Mike Bizzaro (his real name) who posits Pope St. Pius X as the last pope through twisted citations and wrong application of theological principles. Then there is cult leader and Feeneyite Richard Ibranyi (a former follower of the Dimond brothers--no surprise there) who pushes the time back to Pope Honorius II in 1130 AD. I haven't heard of any who push it to Pope St. Pius V, although it could be so. More likely than not, the person probably mispoke. In any case, it is completely beside the point. Massey throws out a red herring to obfuscate the issue. Just because there are some disturbed people who claim to be sedevacantists, does not mean there are not legitimate theological principles for determining that the pope has lost his office through the profession of heresy as a private person. This is a false "guilt by association."

Massey:
The one error of sedevacantism is essentially pride. They raise their opinion over that of the Church when judging that the pope is a formal and manifest heretic, while we know that the Church teaches that the First See is judged by no man.

False. The maxim "The First See is Judged by no one" is a procedural norm, asserted by the Church against the Gallican heretics who claimed that an Ecumenical Council was superior to a pope and could judge him and his decisions. According to canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. ‘The First See is judged by no one.’ (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19) Pope Innocent III informs us the sin of heresy is the one sin we are permitted to judge when it comes to the pope. 

"To this end faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for a sin committed against faith that I may be judged by the Church. For ‘he who does not believe is already judged’.”(See Sermo 2: In Consecratione, Patrologia Latina 218:656). Moreover, "You are the salt of the earth… Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather he can be
shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy."
(Sermo 4: In Consecratione,Ibid, 218:670). No council needed. A manifest heretic cannot be pope.

Please note that Massey is writing for $kojec, a man who thinks he knows better than the approved theologians and pompously tells others not to "think with the Church" but "think for yourself," as if once you have thought for yourself and are convinced that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, you must not submit to Her authoritative decisions and approved theologians. Yet sedevacantists are prideful according to Massey.

I will now piece together the pertinent points Massey makes throughout the remainder of the article:

Most Catholics know of St. Athanasius’s heroic defence of orthodoxy during the crisis, but few will know of his good friend and stalwart defender of the faith, Lucifer of Cagliari....

In his wonderful work History of the Catholic Church, Fr. Mourett described Lucifer as “an impetuous orthodox bishop.” In 360, Lucifer advocated shunning dealings with Arian heretics in De non consentiendo cum haereticis and compared Emperor Constantius with the idolatrous kings of Israel in De regibus apostaticis. At no stage throughout the crisis did Lucifer succumb to heresy; however, he certainly gave in to imprudence. Finally, after many more trials and tribulations too long to expound upon, Athanasius, Lucifer, and the orthodox prelates were restored, and a council was convened in Alexandria to finally resolve the Arian crisis...Seeing the Arians and semi-Arians he had fought against at Milan and elsewhere rehabilitated was too much for his [Bp. Lucifer] pride to swallow. How could they, who had been at enmity with Christ and His Church, be returned to their sees and positions of power above him, when he, a valiant defender of orthodoxy and veteran of the underground Church, still fought the good fight?

Lucifer declared that heretics — even repentant heretics — could not hold ecclesiastical offices, and he proceeded to condemn Liberius, Athanasius, and all the bishops of the Church who would not support him. He abandoned the Church and retired to Sardinia with his followers, who took up the name “Luciferians.” There Lucifer would live out the remainder of his life separated from communion with the pope, Athanasius, and the Church. The once great defender of orthodoxy died in schism...

When one is tempted to reject the pope and all the bishops of the Church due to the heresy and scandal they constantly promote, remember the example of St. Athanasius, who always fought to remain in communion even with the heretic Pope Liberius. When you recognize and resist the pope, you are in communion with St. Athanasius, but when you reject and resist him, you are in communion with Lucifer. (Emphasis mine).

Where to begin? Three points need to be refuted for this steaming pile of jabberwocky to completely collapse; the first of which was already done, namely, a heretic can be pope. The Church teaches such is not the case, and Massey assumes that a heretic can be pope without even attempting to prove his gratuitous assertion. The other two false points will now be tackled:

1. Pope Liberius was a heretic and
2. Sedevacantists are "schismatics" like Bp. Lucifer

Pope Liberius Vindicated by St. Robert Bellarmine

That Pope Liberius was not a heretic was amply demonstrated by Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine, in his tome Papal Error? A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Faith. First, I must comment on the whole Pope Liberius-St. Athanasius affair. Pope Liberius is one of the most calumniated popes in history. Michael Davies, the best known apologist for the R&R position of the SSPX, made as his raison d'etre the attempt to equate the Arian heresy of the fourth century with what happened in the wake of Vatican II (calling Abp. Lefebvre "the modern day St. Athanasius").  It is noteworthy that $kojec's website sells Davies' books.

Here is a brief background from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Liberius, (born, Rome [Italy]—died September 24, 366, Rome), pope from 352 to 366. He was elected on May 17, 352, to succeed Pope St. Julius I.

Liberius was pope during the turbulence caused by the rise of Arianism—a heresy teaching that Christ was not truly divine but was rather a created being. Liberius was pope under the Arian Roman emperor Constantius II, who opposed both the Council of Nicaea (which had condemned Arianism) and Bishop St. Athanasius of Alexandria (who was Arianism’s most virulent opponent). Liberius’s first act as pope was to write Constantius requesting a council at Aquileia, Italy, to discuss Athanasius, but the emperor independently effected Athanasius’s condemnation. In 355 Liberius was one of the few bishops who refused to sign the condemnation, which had been imposed at Milan by imperial command upon all the Western bishops. Consequently, Constantius exiled Liberius to Beroea (modern Véroia, Greece), and the Arian archdeacon Felix (II) appropriated the papacy.

In late 357 Liberius went to Sirmium (modern Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia). Supposedly dejected, he agreed to sign certain unorthodox formulas that served to emasculate the Nicene Creed (the Creed had implicitly disavowed Arianism). Liberius also agreed to sever relations with Athanasius and submitted to the authority of the emperor. But Constantius recalled him to Rome, where he returned in 358, joyfully received by the Roman Christians. (See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Liberius).

Davies (and other R&R) claim that Liberius was a heretic for (a) signing the heretical Arian formulas (b) consorting with heretics, and (c) excommunicating St. Athanasius. Are these allegations accurate?

First, here is a list of the main facts by noted Traditionalist author John Daly:

1. Pope Liberius was in reality a staunch opponent, not only of the Arians, but also of the Semi-Arians.

2. He was sent into exile by the Semi-Arian Emperor Constantius precisely because of the failure of the attempts of that emperor and his toady bishops to influence him to excommunicate St. Athanasius and accept as orthodox a compromised Semi-Arian statement of Catholic doctrine concerning Our Lord’s Divinity.

3. Constantius appointed Felix to replace the absent Liberius in the See of Rome, but Felix was not at that time accepted as pope by the Romans.

4. Felix himself did not in fact subscribe to Arianism, but he did acknowledge ecclesiastical communion with arianisers, for which reason, the fifth century historian-bishop Theodoret informs us, "none of the citizens of Rome entered into the church while he was inside." (History of the Latin Church, Bk. II, c. 17)

5. The people of Rome remained loyal to Liberius and protested to the emperor at his detention.

6. Eventually their peaceable protests gave way to rioting, and as a result Liberius was permitted by Constantius to return to Rome.

7. On his return he was received as a victor there by the populace.

8. His reign in Rome then continued for a few years more, during which time he remained entirely orthodox, refused to compromise in the slightest degree on the orthodox doctrine of the Council of Nicea, and was in full communion and friendship with St. Athanasius.

9. Some extant historical texts apparently of that period assert that the immediate reason for his return to Rome was that he had subscribed to a Semi-Arian formula. But many others favour the contrary view.

10. The weight of subsequent scholarship is strongly in favour of Liberius’s orthodoxy, and orthodox Catholic scholars in particular – and it is they who have studied the subject in greatest depth and are most reliable – are overwhelmingly of the view that Liberius never fell, remained orthodox throughout his exile, and always remained in full communion with St. Athanasius.

(See Michael Davies: An Evaluation, Tradibooks, [2015], pgs. 434-435).

I will now summarize St. Robert Bellarmine's defense of Pope Liberius in Chapter Two of his work Papal Error?, pgs. 17-30.


  • There are two things certain about Liberius, and one in doubt. It is certain that from the beginning of his pontificate even to exile, he suffered for the Catholic faith, and was a keen defender of the Catholic religion. All writers who spoke on those times witness this fact
  • It is certain that Liberius, after he returned from exile, was also truly orthodox and pious
  • It appears he did wrong when in exile
  • St. Athanasius teaches teaches that Liberius was not truly a heretic, because he was compelled against his will by the force of the rack to do what he did. Nor must it be thought to be truly his opinion, which had been twisted from him by threats and terrors 
  • As is gathered from the words of St. Athanasius as well as by the epistles of Liberius himself, Liberius committed two faults: First, that he subscribed to the condemnation of St. Athanasius, the Second, that he had communicated with heretics--but in neither did he expressly violate the Faith
  • Although heretics persecuted Athanasius for the faith, nevertheless they pretended it was not due to the faith but morals and Liberius consented to the condemnation on that basis, not on account of the faith
  • For equal reason, Liberius communicated with heretics because they feigned that they were Catholics. In his epistles, Liberius says that he communicated with Oriental Bishops because he discovered that their faith agreed with the Catholic faith, and was foreign to Arian treachery
  • The confessions Liberius signed did not have the word Homoousion, but still were entirely Catholic. It happens that Liberius not only did not subscribe to the Arian confession, but even published a Confession before he left Sirmium wherein he excommunicated those who denied that the Son is the same as the Father in substance, as well as in all other matters. This he did because the Arians spread a false rumor that Liberius began to teach the Son is not consubstantial with the Father
  • If this is so, why does Jerome say Liberius bent and subscribed to heresy? Although Liberius did not expressly consent to heresy, still he was interpreted as having done so because he permitted Athanasius to be condemned, and communicated with heretics who feigned being Catholics 
That pretty much exonerates Pope Liberius of the charge of heresy. To those who repeat with Michael Davies the oft mentioned canard that St. Athanasius was canonized and Pope Liberius was not; this is not accurate. As John Lane explains in his work cited above (chapter 10):

"Another fact which Davies does not mention, even if only to try to explain it away, is that Pope Liberius is honored as a saint in the ancient Latin Martyrology. Although Davies says repeatedly that Athanasius was canonized and Liberius was not, this is in fact quite false. Neither was formally canonized, as the formal procedure of canonization did not exist at the period that the Church began to revere them (which was immediately after their deaths); but both benefited from the Church’s official recognition as saints in the form which did then exist, by their inclusion in the martyrologies of West and East." (Emphasis in original).

The Luciferian Analogy
Other than a brief quote from an ecclesiastical history text, there are no citations to Bishop Lucifer given by Massey. According to ecclesiastical historian Fr. Charles Poulet, "...certain writers representing an unorthodox reaction against Arianism, who held firmly to the view that penitent Arians should not be directly reconciled with the Church, but made to do penance and merit that favor...Lucifer's writing were purely invective in character and their titles betray his intransigence. He held that orthodox Christians should have no social intercourse with heretics and no mercy should be shown the enemies of God. The principal followers of Lucifer of Cagliari were Gregory of Eliberus, and the Roman deacon Hilary, who even demanded that all repentant Arians be rebaptized." (See A History of the Catholic Church: for the Use of Colleges Seminaries and Universities, [1934], 1:170; Emphasis mine). 

Let's now compare to the last paragraph of Massey:
When one is tempted to reject the pope and all the bishops of the Church due to the heresy and scandal they constantly promote, remember the example of St. Athanasius, who always fought to remain in communion even with the heretic Pope LiberiusWhen you recognize and resist the pope, you are in communion with St. Athanasius, but when you reject and resist him, you are in communion with Lucifer

  • The Church cannot promote, even once, that which is heretical or immoral through the popes and bishops because the Church is Indefectible; a dogma. 
Proof:
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; Emphasis mine)

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

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

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

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

  • Pope Liberius was not a heretic, therefore there was nothing for Bishop Lucifer to "resist." When he resisted his decision on reception of repentant Arians, that is when he became schismatic and outside the Church
  • A pope cannot be a heretic without loss of ecclesiastical office, so there would be no pope to resist. Massey's statements to the contrary are not supported, nor does he even attempt to prove them with relevant citations to Church decrees or the teachings of the approved theologians
  • Bishop Lucifer did, after his break with the Church, consort with heretical rebaptizers. He was not as "theologically orthodox" as Massey would like us to believe 
It becomes pretty apparent that there is no similarity between the followers of Bishop Lucifer and sedevacantists. An accurate final sentence for Massey should read, "When you recognize and resist the pope, you are not being Catholic, and are in union with the theologically confused (at best), or the heretical who believe in a 'Church' that can defect." 

Conclusion
Sedevacantism is the only theologically coherent explanation for Vatican II, and the sect it spawned, which gives its members new morals, new faith, and new sacraments antithetical to all that is true and good. The Church cannot defect from the faith--as that very same faith proclaims---but individual members of the hierarchy can so defect, as the faith likewise teaches. 

$teve $kojec of 1P5 wants you to "think for yourself" and reject the teachings on the ordinary papal Magisterium as "ultramontanist," and disregard the teachings of the approved theologians. Instead, $kojec will do your thinking for you, as he will read over what claptrap the Modernist Vatican II sect decrees and let you know, by his own "authority," whether or not it conforms to tradition and should be accepted or "resisted." His "reason-challenged" writers, whom he publishes, will do the same, so read 1P5 and check both your brain and faith at the door. 

By so doing, $kojec is keeping numerous people in Bergoglio's sect and endangering their eternal salvation. It doesn't seem to bother him at all that these theology-free opinion pieces don't even make sense, as long as he's making lots of cents (and dollars). "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" (St. Mark 8:36). 

83 comments:

  1. This poor, disabled veteran of a sedevacantist hermit thanks God for your charity in writing for us and giving us The Faith for free faithfully every week in this blog. May you always be blessed and may all always be for the glory of God.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Vatican II and it's "Popes" are preaching another gospel. God does not change. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday today and forever". Hebrews 13:8.
    "If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema". (Gal.1:9).
    "Contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints". Jude 1:3.
    As I see it the above Bible verses totally discredits the validity of Vatican II and it's "Popes".
    Didn't the R&R read those Bible verses??

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      They “recognize” those verses, but “resist” those who don’t follow them! Sad beyond words.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. Thank you for this very good post Introibo! I visited one of your readers today from Flushing, NY. Her name is Linda Zentner. She used to comment here a lot. She seems to be doing well.

    Please write more on Michael Davies or better yet on Dietrich von Hildebrand. John Daly only gave a few paragraphs about him. It was very good but maybe, we need some more about him. Too many traditionalists continue to look up to him as if he were better than Aquinas. So, he was just a phenomenologist who happened to love the Latin Mass? A nice post on a blog format about him would be very helpful instead of going through the PDF about Michael Davies.

    God bless!

    -JCA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JCA,
      Yes, Linda would make great comments here! I’m glad she is doing well and hope she still reads here. Your suggestions for posts on Davies and/or Von Hildebrand are good ones. I just cannot promise when I can get to it!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. This is my first time commenting here. I have been reading this blog every day now for a couple weeks (working through it chronologically), and I am thankful that I found it.

    For about a year now I have been wrestling with the question of sede vacante (and tormenting my wife and children about it as well!). I, my wife, and even my older children, have come to the point where we cannot bring ourselves to believe that Bergoglio is a genuine pope. My 11 year old daughter asked me the other day, "Dad, what does 'sedevacantism' mean?" Trying to be simple about it, I said that sedevacantists believe that Francis is not really the pope." She replied, "Well, if that what it means, then I guess I am a sedevacantist!" And I, rather surprised, asked, "Why do you not think he is the pope?" Immediately, she stated, "He's not Catholic. And you have to be Catholic to be the pope."

    Ah, the honesty and simplicity of a child. When I read Massey's article some weeks ago, I had to shake my head. I am increasingly impressed by how invariably the criticisms of sedevacantism rely on misrepresentation of the sedevacantist position, or ad hominems and other fallacies of irrelevance. And I am impressed by how many spokespersons for Catholic tradition who are prominent in the media insist that a pope can be non-Catholic so long as he doesn't declare heresy ex cathedra. As Fr. Jenkins observed recently, that sets a bar of orthodoxy for the pope that is lower than it is for anyone else! Really? I am out of the Church if I were to become a formal heretic, but not Bergoglio? Unbelievable.

    I will admit, I am still wrestling with the question regarding the other V2 popes, the rest of the hierarchy, and the validity of the changed sacraments. And I am trying to understand all the implications, especially the practical ones for me and my family. I have a major concern holding me back, and it is not something I hear very many sedevacantists address: I am not afraid of persecutions or difficulties; I am afraid of making a mistake, and thereby placing myself out of the Church. All I want is to be Catholic. I would rather suffer and die than be outside the Catholic Church. I pray each day that I would be and remain a Catholic, that I would suffer whatever I must, and even die in order not to sin against God by leaving his Church.

    I don't believe that "conciliar catholicism" is the real Catholic religion. I don't believe that I could ever participate in a novus ordo liturgy. But I have unanswered questions, or some lack of certainty I want, and sometimes it seems, there is danger in all direction and there is no one around I can talk to about it. I pray I find my way to the truth about this. Please pray for me. I would be grateful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This site has a lot of great articles, and I'm glad you found your way here. Also try Novus Ordo Watch, because they have a lot of historical info on the V2 popes which shows they are anti-popes. It was reading through this info that finally decided me to get out of the NO, because Jesus promised that the faith of true popes would not fail, and Jesus is not a liar. Steven Speray and John Daly are two other good bloggers to read.

      Delete
    2. @erroniusmonk,
      I’m glad you’re liking my posts! My whole purpose is to try to educate and warn others about the V2 sect and the unique problems we find ourselves in during this time of Great Apostasy.

      Some have asked me, “Are you afraid of being wrong and going to Hell?” My answer is No. I have not denied any truth of faith. I accept the papacy not these particular claimants precisely because I WANT TO BE CATHOLIC. There is no intent to go contrary to the Church or leave Her, which is necessary to separate oneself.

      If you have any questions please feel free to ask via these comments and I will respond. Be assured of my prayers my friend!

      @anon3:44
      Yes, NOW, Steve Speray, and John Daly are superstars!

      God Bless you both,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Hey Introibo, a question on theology I have is in regards to universal discipline laws. So being that they are infallible, can the Church give a new universal discipline that contradicts the former? Like I've heard that priestly celibacy was not always prevalent in the very early Church, unless I've been misinformed. But since that time the discipline has been to be celibate, so in light of the new Borgolio fiascos, could a true Pope contradict that law seeing that it is disciplinary in nature? Thanks

    David.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,
      A distinction must be made. When a dogma is promulgated (e.g., the Assumption) it must be believed and nothing contrary to it may be held. When a universal disciplinary law is infallible it does not mean only that discipline can be used or believed. It means the law is (a) free from all heresy and error; (b) there is nothing contrary to morals and (c) it is not an incentive to impiety.

      It does not mean it is the only or best disciplinary law. The midnight Eucharistic Fast was infallible and so is the 3 hour fast.

      Likewise, celibacy is infallible but so is the practice of the Eastern Rites of allowing married men to become priests. They are not contradicting each other (e.g., only one is true), but rather both are free from error and heresy, neither is contrary to good morals, and neither is an incentive to impiety.

      Hope this helped!

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Ok yeah that makes sense thank you! Another random question for you if that's alright is in regards to sedeprivationism. I've read your article and have listened to and read BP. Sanborn on the subject, I was discussing this with some fellow sedes on FB and was just wondering your take. Basically I posed the question like this. If Francis by some miracle had a true conversion, publicly denounced modernism and V2, and sought to obtain true Holy Orders, what would your reaction be? Would you follow him as Pope? For me I guess I dont see why I would have cause to not submit to him.I had a reply from Griff Ruby who said he would need to be unanimously accepted by Traditional clergy. Just wondering your thoughts as I enjoy your input, thanks again.

      David.

      Delete
    3. David,
      If everything happened as you describe, I would accept him as pope and acknowledge sedeprivationism as true.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. $teve $kojec who makes $170,500 (before taxes and deductions) needs to make an honest living doing something else instead of misleading souls to hell by his false form of Catholicism. Here is a good article https://novusordowatch.org/2019/11/onepeterfive-fear-catholicism-wrong/ by Novus Ordo Watch which exposes what Stefanie Nicholas (a writer for 1P5) wrote as a letter to her pope Francis where she states in the letter saying "We all have to face this fear above all fears: that Catholicism may be wrong, and that you, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, may be the one to prove it." She should say “We all have to face this fear above all fears: that we at OnePeterFive may be wrong and that by not accepting you Jorge Mario Bergoglio as our pope (whom we believe you to be) proves it.”

    Thank you for another great article in exposing the pathetic work done for money over at 1P5. I find it ironic that Massey would bring up Bp. Lucifer from St. Athanasius' time by implying (for those who don't read it) that those who hold the sedevacacntist conclusion are prideful not only like him (Bp. Lucifer) but also like the devil.

    It's actually prideful that they over at 1P5 reject Catholicism's traditional teachings and consequently end up in a religion which literally prays with pagans who in reality worship devils. Does "St." John Paul "the great" ring a bell when he worshiped with Animist and Voodooist at Assisi or more recently Pachamama being retrieved from the Tiber to be used as a sign of respect when closing the Amazon Synod or when the god Moloch was erected in the Vatican Gardens or when the Innsbruck Cathedral literally made a clock with an upside down corpse of Christ. The list goes on. Talk about Luciferian. 1P5's church is full of it and they dare compare a Catholic who holds the sedevacantist position with Bp. Lucifer?

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      That website is truly a disgrace. Leading souls to Hell for a price.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. Thank you Introibo for tackling this silly article. I attempted to make a comment on 1P5 at the time but it was rejected, and $kojec closed the comments box soon after.

    Massey’s article is all over the place, and is peppered with gratuitous remarks, rash judgment, and just plain old lies. He even contradicts himself, because he concludes with an admonition to “remember the example of St. Athanasius, who always fought to remain in communion even with the heretic Pope Liberius”. Now, this makes no sense whatsoever, as earlier in the article Massey said that “heretics are to be shunned”. Now if Liberius were a heretic (and he wasn’t!) and to be shunned then why on earth would St Athanasius fight to be in communion with him!

    So he’s planning on being a lawyer... if he ever has to appear before a judge he’d better make sure his submissions are better than this, otherwise he’s looking at getting a good dressing down in court. I’d even say this is worthy of contempt which will land him in the cells overnight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Librorum,
      You’re spot on! I wish he could somehow be a lawyer in NYC and I could have him as my opponent. It would be the easiest win I ever had!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. If there is no Pope,can you tell us where is he going to come from.We have a duty to pray for Pope Francis.Being former sedes,we came to realise that this idea is only a opinion and not dogma.You should realise as we did the there are many rotten bad sede clerics out there.Wake up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon
      1. Just because you don’t like the consequences of a situation doesn’t make the situation wrong. Another words Bergoglio isn’t “pope by default” because we don’t no exactly when, if or how we get another pope. Maybe by an imperfect general council, as some theologians taught. Maybe Sedeprivationism proves true. Maybe we are approaching the last days.

      2. When you say it is “an opinion” that doesn’t mean that it’s a matter of preference as in what flavor of chocolate you like best. Think of a legal or medical opinion. If a doctor says it’s his medical opinion that you need heart surgery, that doesn’t mean he likes that particular malady over another. Ignore your cardiologist and those chest pains at your own risk.

      3. If you accept Bergoglio as pope you must submit to him in all matters. There is nothing a Catholic is permitted to resist. The pope is your rule of Faith. Do you believe there is no Catholic God and proselytizing is solemn nonsense? How about a “mass” with no words of Consecration as approved by Wojtyla the “saint.”

      4. Bad sede priests? Sure. Bad doesn’t mean heretical. Big difference.

      You want ME to wake up? Seems like it’s Bergoglio who’s put you to sleep! And with HIS “priests” that’s a dangerous place to be—-even more so for children.

      I’ll be praying for you to return to the Faith.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Anon @6:12 - "You should realise as we did the there are many rotten bad sede clerics out there."
      You should realize that there are many rotten Novus Ordo "Priests" out there. In particular the Homo/Pedophile "Priests" who have destroyed countless souls.
      If you think Francis is Pope, you are in essence stating that all the Popes for the last 2,000 years have been wrong, and Francis is right. Francis and the Vatican II sect are preaching another gospel!

      JoAnn


      Delete
    3. First to comment on this blog.We too are former sedes.God will judge the soul of Pope Francis.Pray for him.

      As to rotten fruits.Ask Daniel Dolan and his chum Tony where the 100K is they stole from the bank account of the now defunct St Clares Church in Columbus,OH.These two are rotten and we know Sanborn accepts this crime.Pages could be written.The recent health problems of Tony are a common problem with h..........Ask all the faithful who gave thousands over the years.We too want people of goodwill to wake up.Prayers for you

      Delete
    4. Agree to above being former SGG supporters.The original group of 200 plus back in 2009 spilt in in three.One group now St Therese,the one with Father Bernard Hall and the other with Bishop Ramolla.Another group went over to SSPV at Norwood.Ask all those faithful who also gave much funds over the years.

      Delete
    5. @anon6:15
      I have my differences with Fr Cekada, but to accuse him of being a practicing sodomite without incontrovertible evidence is calumny. It reminds me of the now defunct website “Pistrina Liturgica” which questioned the validity of Bp. Dolan’s orders based on an alleged “one-handed ordination.” The fact that one hand in no way invalidates the Rite aside, they had not one shred of evidence such an ordination ever took place. Baseless hearsay.

      Even **IF** any such allegations you made were true, all you have is corrupt clergy, not heretical clergy. There are very Holy sede priests—such as Fr Jenkins, whom I know. You are giving up the Faith where there is no heresy, and embracing a false sect full of heresy and CONVICTED PEDOPHILES. Many of them. Your position simply makes NO sense.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. I have met Father Cekada. He is a holy and good priest.

      Delete
    7. David,
      I have no reason to believe otherwise. Those who accuse him of evil have no evidence and should be both ashamed and repent of calumny.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. The allegations above concerning Fr. Cekada are very disconcerting and upsetting to say the least. If I wasn't already a Trad, I would not even consider becoming one by the demonstrations of such behavior toward a person with no substantiation to back up said allegations. It is gossip, false witness and a total turn off. Whoever the person is who said the above about Fr. Cekada needs to repent and promptly go to confession and cease from spreading such allegations in the future. My 2 cents!!

      JoAnn

      Delete
    9. You said here http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/09/blasphemy-as-humor.html?showComment=1568612082445#c5160708077958707585 that Cekada calumniates his neighbors by making up false accusations against them.

      What exactly was the scandal at his church school? I see a lot of innuendo online about it but no details.

      Delete
    10. @anon2:18
      What I said was, “ How does he know the medical status of Fr. Jenkins? Was he there when the doctors examined him? Did he somehow obtain his medical records in violation of HIPPA? He tells people to forego Holy Viaticum if the Host was Consecrated at an Una Cum Mass. Sheer nonsense. Moreover, a real approved pre-Vatican II theologian, Fr Martin Stepanich wrote against his position because the authorities he quotes were not contemplating a state of sedevacante. He never even attempted a refutation, yet people stay away from SSPX Masses based on a non-Magisterial opinion by which he declares something a SIN. For more, see my post: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/07/combating-cooties.html.”

      Perhaps it was more rash judgement. I leave that up to God. What happened at the school? I have no idea, I only heard a bunch of conflicting opinions and reports.

      Fr. Cekada, despite the flaws he (and all of us ) have, has done much good. He is sick and recovering. We should all pray for his complete recovery to perfect health. That’s what I will be doing for certain.

      ——Introibo

      Delete
    11. You said that Cekada made up - i.e., lied - about Gommar DePauw being a Knight-Commander of Justice, Prior, Chaplain, in the heretical, ecumenical, likely Masonic Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem (OSJ).

      You concurred with the commenter's assertion that Cekada is a liar who "is committing grievous sins against the eighth commandment by slandering his neighbors...."

      Delete
    12. @anon6:07
      Objectively, he is wrong. What he said about Fr DePauw and Fr Jenkins can only be described as slanderous. However, I believe in Christian Charity. I don’t know the state of Fr Cekada’s soul, nor do you—or anyone else except Fr Cekada himself and God. Did he call Fr DePauw to ask forgiveness? Is he sincerely sorry now? Same with his standing regarding Fr Jenkins.

      Fr Cekada has done good things in this time of Great Apostasy. When someone like this falls ill we should pray for him, body and soul. Keep in mind the good and pass over the bad, leaving judgement to God. I think both Fr Jenkins and Fr DePauw would agree.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    13. Cekada apparently never retracted his allegation about DePauw. The essay on the OSJ is still on Cekada's website with no disclaimer or retraction appended. You won't disclose what you know of DePauw's relationship with the OSJ. Of course, I will pray that Cekada repents of all his sins and dies reconciled to God.

      Pistrina Liturgica documented here http://pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com/2018/01/errant-phonies-of-roman-rite-displayed.html?showComment=1517105899074#c6307397542541146786 that Daniel Dolan dispensed his parishioners from Friday abstinence on Friday, February 2, 2018. By what authority can he do that?

      Delete
    14. @anon8:37
      Once more, we don’t know the state of Fr Cekada’s soul, or if he (at this very moment) repents. If Bp. Dolan dispensed from abstinence, he is wrong for so doing, as he lacks jurisdiction.

      However, the (thankfully) defunct blog Pistrina Liturgica is full of its own lies. They attempt to cast doubt on Dolan’s orders by alleging a “one-handed ordination” by Apb. Lefebvre.

      They claimed “many witnesses” but COULD NOT NAME EVEN ONE. The priests of the SSPV claimed a one-handed ordination but NONE OF THE signatories was there, none named witnesses, and one was a 12 year old boy in Kentucky when it took place. PL then made up a theological principle that the “charism” of the priesthood wouldn’t allow them to sign unless they were morally certain.

      So this “charism” prevents someone from signing something incorrect, but it allows Fr Cekada to do all the evil they ascribe to him? It also doesn’t prevent priests from soliciting in the Confessional as the theologians discussed the duty to denounce such priests (e.g. theologian Davis). Funny how that “charism” works, no?

      This blog is not dedicated to advance such nonsense and rancor among Traditionalists, but to try and help people make their Catholic way the best they can through this time of Great Apostasy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    15. Satan's job is to divide and conquer. When we don't practice charity but constantly bicker among ourselves Satan gets the upper hand. When we find fault and pick apart other Trads instead of looking at our own faults and shortcoming, Satan gets the upper hand. The only person we can possibly change is ourselves. We would do well to concentrate on ourselves and leave our perceived ideas regarding other Trads and the state of their perceived sins and souls in God's hands.
      JoAnn

      Delete
    16. Joann,
      I couldn’t agree more!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    17. Anyone who defamed his neighbor publicly must retract publicly as a condition of being forgiven. IF Cekada’s assertion that DePauw was a Knight-Commander of Justice, Prior, Chaplain, in the heretical, ecumenical, likely Masonic OSJ is untrue, Cekada must retract publicly, at a minimum by posting a retraction on his website. We do know that DePauw was publicly affiliated with the OSJ. Cekada claims his information came from a telegram that DePauw wrote to the head of the OSJ, Charles Pichel, on 6/23/1968. Does a copy of this telegram exist? Was it published by the OSJ? The OSJ spilt up after Pichel’s death, but some of the successor organizations still exist. You claim to know the details of DePauw’s relationship with the OSJ but refuse to disclose them even though it all happened before you knew DePauw and everyone involved in it is now deceased. Is this a form of Gnosticism on your part? I have no way of knowing if you are telling the truth about DePauw’s involvement with the OSJ or if Cekada is. Even if DePauw is innocent of Cekada’s allegation, he made it far to easy to be accused by becoming involved with such a shady organization in the first place.

      You seemed to be talking out of both sides of your mouth regarding Cekada, concurring above that he is good and holy when previously you had affirmed that he was a defamer.

      Since there is no visible Catholic hierchy, for the sake of his soul, one must scrutinize the men claiming to be Catholic clergy and determine if they are sincere, valid, and licit before entrusting them with his soul. I have, and I find them all coming up short.

      Since Dolan (and Cekada, and apparently all the rest of the sedevacantist, SSPV, and SSPX clergy) have no jurisdiction, as you pointed out, how can they operate and celebrate Mass? No Catholic clergy today can operate or celebrate Mass other than a priest/bishop who was ordained/consecrated under Pope Pius XII and given a lifetime papal mandate and who had never committed communicatio in sacris by joining the Vatican II sect or performing a new mass. Since most Pian clergy went over to the dark side after Vatican II, since papal mandates typically expire after a limited period of time, and since most Pian clergy are now deceased, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to find a valid and licit priest under whom to attend Mass and receive the sacraments. To my knowledge, no such priest exists.

      Delete
    18. @anon1:27

      My patience with you has reached its end.

      1. Moral impossibility excuses from restitution to calumny (See theologians McHugh and Callan, "Moral Theology" 2:225)Do you know if this principle applies? (rhetorical question--don't strain yourself trying to think).

      2. Gnosticism? Seriously? I am under NO OBLIGATION as the owner of a blog to give you (or anyone else) information. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I gladly answer questions and reply to comments to reasonable people of good will, not boorish idiots. (If you think that appellation was directed at you--take one giant step forward). Information given to me in confidence shall ever remain that way. The historical record, for those capable of rational thought, demonstrates Fr. DePauw as a hero. Period.
      There is no need for me to tell anything to anyone. Keeping one's word of honor is not "gnosticism." Making such a charge is "stupidity."

      3. Fr. Cekada has done laudable things to advance the cause of Christ. He also has failings. That's called "being human." The poor man is sick and I choose to be charitable--something I find difficult if not impossible to act towards one such as yourself. It does not constitute "talking out of both sides of one's mouth."

      4. Finally, your contention in the last paragraph is refuted by theologians such as Dorsch and O'Reilley--and I've written on the subject. Typical Home Aloner nonsense. (Kudos to Fr. Cekada for the term "Home Aloner").

      Perhaps you SHOULD be a Home Aloner. In this way you will not annoy and people and make insulting insinuations. By staying home alone you may very well prevent people from committing sins against the Fifth Commandment.

      Over and Out,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    19. Don't understand all the nit picking at Fr. Cekada and Fr. DePauw, two good Trad Priests. Anon 1:27 must think himself to be perfect and everybody else chopped liver. If Anon 1:27 wants to nit pick at people he needs to start with the bogus "Popes" and the bogus Vatican II sect who started the crisis the Church is in today. Without a true Pope, we are all struggling to make our way in this time of great apostacy and that includes Trad Priests and Bishops. Thank God that God is our judge and not the likes of Anon 1:27!!
      JoAnn

      Delete
    20. Joann,
      Thank you for saying it so well !

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. The view of Sanborn,etc is a laugh.Mortal sin to attend a una cum Mass with Francis but at the drop he can become Pope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:16
      I’m not endorsing sedeprivationism nor am I discounting it. It comes from the theological giant Guerard des Lauries. I think the “Una Cum” being mortal sin is ridiculous.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. You already have many popes in sedeland.Pope Dolan,Pope Sanborn,Pope Kelly and Pope Pivarunas.Several years ago at Spokane some deluded women saw Pivarunas being crowned Pontiff by Saints Peter and Paul.They said he took the name Pius XIV.

      Delete
    3. @anon6:22
      A deluded woman saw something and it proves...what? These Bishops are doing the best they can during the Great Apostasy.

      You alternatives are to reject Catholicism, become R&R and recognize a heretic as “pope” or actual join the V2 sect. Sede land was the pejorative term used by the calumniating jackass at Pistrina Liturgica.

      So filled with hate and devoid of reason they were truly pathetic.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Pathetic.They did some good and made even more leave the cult of Saint Gertrude the Great over the last few years after the great spilt in 2009.

      Delete
    5. If people want the safe course I recommend St. Therese in Lebanon. There are many red flags at SGG's SSPV, Fr. Hall's or Bp. Ramolla's. If one is in a pinch and and needs to go to one of the four groups listed then go but go with caution. I'm not saying CMRI is perfect either, but people will be least scandalized and not as theologically screwed up as going to the four groups in Cincy. There is a another group in Northern Ky which is Bp. Giles Butler's is helping and I will briefly mention.

      While SGG's is a pretty church and has good things about it, there are many people who left for good reason (not for heresy) but just plain injustice with regards to the school's past and the way the clergy handled it, the way peoples donations are used, and the way people have been personally affected in other ways.

      SSPV also has a pretty church and has good things about it but reject any Thuc line consecrations and as a result refuse those parishioners the sacraments (Holy Communion etc.) if they know they attend such places and are not willing to only come to them for the sacraments. They also are tainted with the idea that the sedevacantist position is a mere theological opinion as expressed by Fr. Jenkins from his you tube channel here starting at 22:12 and ending at about 23:01 https://www.ydr.com/story/news/watchdog/2018/11/15/rogue-priest-father-tetherow-gabriel-convicted-child-porn-st-michael-archangel-roman-catholic-church/1998395002/ The sedevacantist position is a theological conclusion based on manifest heresy and is a necessary teaching which Catholics are not free to have an opinion about as if the pope issue isn't important enough.

      Fr. Hall is a gentleman and who cares about people in a genuine way, but nevertheless defends and is associated with a priest named Fr. Tetherow (not sure who ordained him after he left the Novus Ordo) who admitted to watching child pornography and masturbated several times in 2005 when still in the Novus Ordo. article here: https://www.ydr.com/story/news/watchdog/2018/11/15/rogue-priest-father-tetherow-gabriel-convicted-child-porn-st-michael-archangel-roman-catholic-church/1998395002/ He also shares the opinionist ideas as the SSPV but is a little more loose about it in so far as he believes it's not necessary for salvation. The SGG haters at Pistoria Liturgica are in connection with Fr. Hall and some people who are of his congregations calumniate many people who don't see as they do.

      Bp. Ramolla is a devout person and is probably the least offensive compared to the rest but other than rejecting the Pius XII liturgical changes like all the rest (and which I don't agree with) he was consecrated by Bp. Dymek who himself had delusional ideas with no training when ordained and consecrated by Bp. Slupski . Why Bp. ramolla would get Consecrated by him is anyone guess.

      Bp. Giles believes he has jurisdiction by divine right as did Bp. Vezelis when he was alive and therefore all other groups are forbidden to be sought after according to them since he believes he and the other bishops in union with him are the only legit Catholics in the world.

      Again, if one needs to go to these places if they live in the area or those associated with them who live in other areas, just be careful. Just Sayin.

      Delete
    6. Please excuse my typos.

      Delete
    7. Hello.Do you Introibo or Anonymous Jan 23,2020,10:25 have any ideas how many folk attend these groups in Ohio?We were told that the numbers at SGG are down down to only about 150.Back in 2003 it was 600.

      Delete
    8. @anon1:56
      I do not have any information on how many people left or why.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. I live in Rochester NY where the choice of attending a true Catholic Mass and other sacraments are between a SSPV church and Bishop Giles Butler's church. What does it mean to "just be careful"? How does one do that?
      I disagree with the SSPV on the Thuc validity, and not being a Canon lawyer do cannot distinguish between the pros and cons in the theological reasonings regarding jurisdiction of Bishop Giles Butler. My sense and belief is that Bishop Vezelis was, and Bishop Butler are incorrect. I do not know if they will refuse sacraments to someone who doesn't believe in their jurisdictional claims.
      I wish there were a clear listing of true valid Bishops and Priests where the true faith was followed without the theological disagreements that are difficult for a lay person to understand and therefore make a decision on where to attend Mass without the fear of error.
      Is there a true Mass offered in the New York City area?

      Delete
    10. Anon@3:50
      The Vezelis group is wrong on jurisdiction, and they positively claim to have authority they don’t have. SSPV is wrong on the Thuc issue, but that is not something like claiming jurisdiction. They don’t(for foolish reasons) accept them as valid, but unless you make it public, they don’t act like the “Mass police,” and you receive Communion,

      My opinion: Vezelis’ group claims power they do not have. SSPV is wrong on a matter that they rarely even know about to enforce and does not state or imply authority they don’t have. Are they wrong? Yes, but not to the same degree (and kind) that Vezelis’ group is wrong. I would recommend SSPV, I know many of the priests and two of the bishops quite well.

      In NYC, there are no true Masses. You must go to Long Island. There is the SSPV and Fr DePauw’s Ave Maria Chapel both accessible from Manhattan by train.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. Where is your imperfect Council going to come from?All the sede bishops coming together to elect one of their own to be Pope.They are a house divided.We already have a Pope.His name is Pope Michael in KS.Accept him please.Prayers for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:22
      I have only sympathy and prayers for the deluded David Bawden. A “conclave” does not consist of Mr Bawden, his mommy, his daddy, two nice neighbors and the “female theologian” who put it together and now repudiates it.

      He’s no more the pope than I am Napoleon.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. "female theologian?
      women can be many things, but not theologians. That says a lot about NOPE Michael.

      Delete
    3. poni - I differ with you regarding "women can be many things, but not theologians".
      Hildegard of Bingen, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and Therese of Lisieux are all DOCTOR'S of the Church.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    4. Joann,
      While those women are outstanding saints, they were made “Doctors” of the Church by the false popes after Vatican II.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Introibo, You are so right. Thanks for correcting me!

      Poni - My apologies for the error.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    6. Popes Gregory XV and Urban VII declared St. Teresa of Avila a Doctor of the Church. She is the only female Doctor of the Church.

      Maybe if the Church is restored, there will be another Teresa named Doctor of the Church - a St. Teresa of Kansas!

      Delete
    7. @anon6:16
      Where on Earth do you get your information? Montini made her a “Doctor.” Even secular sources confirm this fact:
      See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Teresa-of-Avila

      Teresa of Kansas? The nutty female “theologian” who had David Bawden made “pope” in a farmhouse “conclave” then repudiated it? Please.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. My source is the reprint of the 1945 St. Andrew Daily Missal sold here: http://www.libers.com/sam.htm

      If you turn to page 1510 for St. Teresa of Avila on October 15, you will see this commentary: "She attained through prayer the highest degree of mystical life and there found such enlightenment concerning divine things (Collect) that her works earned for her from Popes Gregory XV and Urban VII the august title of Doctor of the Church, which has been given to no other woman."

      Delete
    9. @anon7:57
      I looked at your citation and you misunderstand it. Pope Urban VII reigned for only 12 days—the shortest papacy in history (September 15-27, 1590. Pope Gregory XV reigned from 1621-1623, and he canonized St Teresa. Neither of them declared her a “Doctor of the Church” formally but only as a figure of speech as praise for her sublime writing—an honor bestowed on no other woman.

      Proof is in the fact that the Roman Missal does not celebrate her in a Mass for a Doctor of the Church, but rather as a Virgin. Compare Page 1360 where St Alphonsus Liguori is celebrated as a “Doctor.” No such title is given to St Teresa, only “Virgin.”

      Even in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, where it enumerates the Doctors of the Church, you will look in vain for St Teresa. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm

      St Teresa was only METAPHORICALLY and not literally called a “Doctor” of the Church. A hand missal for pre-Vatican II laymen is not a theology manual. People who use it as such are not theologically astute and might wind up believing many wrong things—like some crackpot in Kansas is “pope.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. Michael J Matt, the son of the R´n´R Michael Matt, has suffered a serious accidents. Prayers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt the dimond brothers will claim God did this to Matt in order to punish him for obstinately rejecting "their" truth.

      Delete
  12. Introibo, What does the term "reprobate sense" mean in the following Bible verse:
    "And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;"
    Romans 1:28. Thanks.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      It means that God withdrew His Grace from those obstinate sinners so they would become lost in their sins “as they liked not to have God in their knowledge.” (See, e.g. theologian Haydock.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. Introibo.A question to ask you on Traditional Bishops here in the States.Apart from those from the Thuc line,what about Bishops like Patrick Taylor and others who orders come from the Old Catholic Line.Alright to attend their Masses?Have you ever made a study of this issue?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:20,
      I have never made a formal study, but from what I have learned, you should stay away unless you can research each bishop’s episcopal lineage with great diligence.

      There are several problems with Old Catholic and Duarte Costa lines. Most will ordain and consecrate men without bare minimal training in theology. Do they really understand how to confect the Sacraments and advise the faithful? Second, unlike Thuc, Lefebvre, and Mendez, these bishops were not willfully outside the Church as open heretics and an excommunicated Modernist.

      Third, most recognize and attempt to confect the Sacraments with Anglicans whose orders are “absolutely null and utterly void.”

      Case in point: Duarte Costa was Bishop in Brazil. He was solemnly excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1945 and died unrepentant in 1961. He consecrated several bishops. These bishops, since they were excommunicated Catholic priests who joined him, were validly consecrated as HE USED THE CATHOLIC RITE. In the early 1990s, a new sect was spawned when some “conservative Anglicans” broke away to form the “Episcopal Charismatic Church.”

      They wanted to combine the Charismatic Movement with V2 sect Catholicism (sic). Their leader “Bp.” Craig Bates, claims valid orders “through a Catholic line.” Problem: The Duarte Costa bishop recognized Anglican orders. Bates was an Anglican “priest” and was not conditionally ordained. (I don’t even know if the Catholic Rite was used). In any case the consecration is dubious at best, and so all clergy that come from him.

      It is incredibly complex to ascertain the validly of these “bishops” on numerous counts.

      Your best bet—unless you can hunt down a ton of info is to stay away.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Correction: Second, unlike Thuc, Lefebvre, and Mendez, these bishops WERE willfully outside the Church as open heretics and an excommunicated Modernist.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Wow,thanks for info.Believe Taylor has a number of "bishops" in his line including a Joseph Macek who is a follower of the errors of Father Feeney.

      Delete
    4. Macek is a three-baptisms adherent. He is the one who conditionally ordained Tetherow, and was for a time affiliated with Ambrose Moran.

      Delete
  14. In reply to: AnonymousJanuary 23, 2020 at 8:51 AM
    I live in Rochester, NY. There is a choice here in trying to attend the true Mass and receive other sacraments between a SSPV Church and Bishop Giles Butler's Franciscan Friars Church. I disagree with the SSPV view on the validity of the consecrations of Archbishop Thuc. So it seems that I should not attend there.
    I am not a Canon lawyer and therefore have a difficult time distinguishing between the pros and cons of the theology relating to the jurisdictional claims of the late Bishop Vezelis and his successor, Bishop Butler. However, I have the sense, and do believe that they are incorrect. Do they require their parishioners to believe in their jurisdiction?

    So, how can someone "just be careful"? How does someone do that, yet receive the sacraments?

    I wish there were a listing of true Catholic Bishops and Priests, where an individual wouldn't be worried about second guessing these issues, while wondering if those theological disagreements brought questions upon the proper reception of the sacraments of the Church.
    Also, where can someone attend the true Mass in the NY city area?

    Thank you for offering this website and for all of the help that you, and your commenters, bring to the many confused souls in the world!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon@4:14
      The Vezelis group is wrong on jurisdiction, and they positively claim to have authority they don’t have. SSPV is wrong on the Thuc issue, but that is not something like claiming jurisdiction. They don’t(for foolish reasons) accept them as valid, but unless you make it public, they don’t act like the “Mass police,” and you receive Communion,

      My opinion: Vezelis’ group claims power they do not have. SSPV is wrong on a matter that they rarely even know about to enforce and does not state or imply authority they don’t have. Are they wrong? Yes, but not to the same degree (and kind) that Vezelis’ group is wrong. I would recommend SSPV, I know many of the priests and two of the bishops quite well.

      In NYC, there are no true Masses. You must go to Long Island. There is the SSPV and Fr DePauw’s Ave Maria Chapel both accessible from Manhattan by train.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much for the clarification! It is greatly appreciated!

      Delete
  15. I am not defending Skojec's theology, but at least he apparently obeys the Church's directive to eschew contraception, as evidenced by his large family, which is more than can be said for the great bulk of traditionalists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:20
      I agree that $kojec has a large family and obeys Church teaching in this regard. However, do not be so quick to judge those with families of few children. I know Traditionalist couples who have a hard time conceiving, and one who can’t conceive at all. They will not resort to IVF which is also against Church teaching and they are looked down upon as “contracepting” which is untrue.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Why must Traditionalists judge and argue on the basis of the size of a family?? I do not understand this?? The Duggards(sp?) have a very large family and they are Protestants. I am an only child because my Mother had Multiple Sclerosis and was told to have no children. I am here by a miracle as the Drs. told my Mother not to have me, but abort me as her health would be ruined if she had me. She wouldn't abort me, but couldn't physically have any more children. Many children, or no children is not what counts - ARE YOU IN THE STATE of GRACE - that is what counts!! My 2 cents worth!!

      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. I understand that some people have fertility problems, but that is the exception, not the norm. Just because you know of a few couples who can't conceive doesn't mean that most of the couples with few or no children are not contracepting. The large Catholic family of eight or more children is pretty much extinct, while many Mormons and Muslims still have large families.

      How many large Catholic families are there at your chapel?

      Delete
    4. @anon5:55
      In the places I attend Mass, I estimate that over 50% of child-bearing age couples have at least 5 children or more.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Somebody please tell me how many children one has is an indication of the state of one's soul? Traditionalists act as though the more children one has is an indication of holiness. If this is true, please quote a Bible verse or a Papal statement saying such.
      JoAnn

      Delete