Monday, April 27, 2020

The Hope Of Our Salvation


During these trying times we are in desperate need of hope. To whom can we turn with the assurance of receiving hope in all our trials? The one whom the Church calls "our Life, our Sweetness, and our Hope;" the Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. I have a special devotion to Our Lady under her title Our Lady of Hope, based on the Church-approved apparition of Our Blessed Mother in 1871. While it is good, totally Catholic, pious, and laudatory to have devotion to one or more saints (such as my Patron Saint, King St. Louis IX of France, who always comes through for me), devotion to the Blessed Mother is indispensable. The Church even assigns a special theological term for the veneration due to her.

According to theologian Parente: "Worship, in the sense of religion is due to God alone (hence, the grave mortal sin of idolatry). However, an inferior form of religious worship may be licit with respect to creatures insomuch as these have reference to God and manifest His Perfections (Emphasis mine)...the singular worship due to God alone is called latria or adoration; that given the saints is called dulia or veneration...the Blessed Mother is called hyperdulia."  (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology [1951], pg. 68). Hyperdulia, then, is the most special veneration given to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is elevated to receive greater veneration than that given to all the angels and saints combined. This is because Mary is intimately united to Christ Our Savior.

Mary plays a unique role in our salvation. Just as Adam and Eve brought us death, so Christ the Second Adam, brings us salvation and eternal life. Just as Eve cooperated intimately with Adam in our downfall, so too does Mary cooperate intimately with Christ as the Second Eve in securing our restoration to God's friendship and salvation. In Latin, Eve is Eva, the reverse of which Ave, is the first Latin word of the Hail Mary--that Angelic Salutation by which the Immaculate Virgin was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to become the Mother of God--He Who would save humanity.

Christ was sinless by nature, Mary was sinless by grace. Christ was rose by His own power, body and soul, from the dead. Mary was assumed, both body and soul, into Heaven. Their lives were uniquely interwoven for the purpose of saving humanity. So many unique and awesome privileges were bestowed upon Mary.
My spiritual father, Fr. DePauw, had informed me that just prior to the death of Pope Pius XII, the pontiff called together a small group of anti-Modernist theologians and they were told to begin the groundwork for a dogmatic definition of Mary as "Mediatrix of All Grace." Unfortunately, it went nowhere when His Holiness died and false pope Roncalli [John XXIII] ordered the work scrapped because it would "offend our Protestant brothers and sisters."

One of the privileges and titles that has never been officially settled in reference to Mary, is that of Co-Redemptrix. Rightfully understood, a Traditionalist Catholic may accept or reject this title to the Mother of God. Among the approved theologians, there was no unanimity prior to the destruction of Vatican II.  Some approve and advocate for the title, and others feel it should be a title denied to her as it is unbecoming Our Lady. Neither side declares the title to be a matter of heresy or worthy of some censure short of heresy. I believe that the case for Mary being our Co-Redemptrix is much stronger than the case against it. Nevertheless, I will not condemn anyone for disagreeing--indeed, I cannot do so as I have no Magisterial authority, nor do I claim to be some ersatz "theologian" or "canonist;" as I am not.

Of course, that doesn't prevent the fiendish Feeneyites in New York, Fred and Bobby Dimond, from declaring anyone a "heretic" who dares to accept Mary's title and role as Co-Redemptrix. "Brother Peter" Dimond wrote an article that is as error-laden as their writings denying Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB), and denouncing Church teaching on Periodic Abstinence. The Dimond bothers are never happy unless they are denouncing someone to Hell. The suffer from the "sickness of soul" endemic in all Feeneyites.

(See my post
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html, about the infamous heretic Fr. Leonard Feeney).

In this post I will put forth the theological arguments in favor of Mary's title as Co-Redemptrix, and show how Dimond's article (claiming the title as "heretical") is false and deceptive. The article may be read in full here: https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/mary-co-redeemer-co-redemptrix/#.XqTGK9QrKt-.

Mary's Role as Co-Redemptrix
Redemption designates the sum total of meritorious and satisfactory acts performed by Christ while on Earth, offered to the Eternal Father in and through the Sacrifice of the Cross, in virtue of which the Eternal Father was moved (humanly speaking) to reinstate the human race into His former friendship. When we say Mary is Co-Redemptrix of humanity, we mean that together with Christ (although subordinately to Him and and in virtue of His power) She atoned or satisfied for our sins, merited every grace necessary for salvation, and offered Her Divine Son on Calvary to appease the wrath of God, and that as a result of this, God was pleased to cancel our debt and receive us into His former friendship. This co-redemptive role of Mary actually began when She accepted to become the Mother of God by her own free will. (See theologian Carol, Mariology, [1956] pgs. 56-65).  It is to be noted that this unique role does not make Mary a "priest" in any way. The idea of Mary as "priest" was condemned by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1916, and again in 1927. 

1. Proof from Holy Scripture
There is no direct mention  of Mary as Co-Redemptrix in the Bible, but neither is there anything about her Assumption which is a dogma. However, in Genesis 3:15, we read that after the Fall, Almighty God addressed Satan with these words, "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed. He [the woman's seed] shall crush thy head and thou shall lie in wait for his heel." The crushing of the serpent's head is a figure of speech used to describe the work of Redemption which will totally destroy the devil's dominion over humanity. According to theologian Rabanos, the seed of the woman is Christ, as an individual, and the woman mentioned in the text designates Mary. Since, according to the Magisterium, Mary is here portrayed as intimately sharing Christ's identical victory over the devil, it logically follows that she is foreshadowed as Co-Redemptrix. (See The Co-Redemption of Mary in Sacred Scripture, [1943], pgs. 9-59)

In St. Luke 1:26-38, when the angel Gabriel was sent by God to obtain Mary's consent to become Mother of the Redeemer, she answered, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." In a very real sense, God conditioned the Redemption of the world dependent on Mary's consent, which she knowingly, willingly, and freely gave. This consent was ratified when she stood at the foot of the cross suffering with her Son as Simeon had predicted 33 years earlier: "And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother: Behold this Child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed." (St. Luke 2:34-35). She suffered for the same purpose as her Divine Son; the reconciliation of God and humanity. (See theologian Carol, op. cit., pg. 62)

2. Proof from Sacred Tradition
The idea of Mary as Co-Redemptrix began with the analogies between Adam and Eve/Christ and Mary.
In particular, St Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus draw the parallels. These were developed in the 12th century by Arnold of Chartres and it continued to develop until it was expressly taught by approved theologians in the 17th century. (Ibid, pgs. 62-63). 

3. Magisterial Proof
Many popes have taught Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix (as I will demonstrate later on). In his dogmatic definition of Our Lady's Assumption, Pope Pius XII taught:

"Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages." (See the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, Para. #40; Emphasis mine). 

On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined. The petition was well-received by the Supreme Pontiff, and the bishops were not in any way censured or condemned.  

Faulty Feeneyite Findings
Presented here is the inane idea of Dimond that the title Co-Redemptrix is "heretical." Each argument (if you can really call it that) will be presented with the refutation by me below. Although only "Peter" wrote the article, Fred and Bobby operate as one unit, so I will refer to them both (as they both profess the same errors). 

1. It’s an infallibly defined dogma that Jesus Christ alone is the Redeemer.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “… the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior… And they must also teach that images of Christ, the virgin mother of God and the other saints should be set up and kept… But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984)
This dogmatic definition, that Christ alone is our Redeemer, even mentions Mary.  So, in the very context of mentioning the Blessed Virgin and the saints, the Council of Trent declares that Christ alone is the Redeemer.  That proves that Mary is not the Co-Redemptrix. (Emphasis in original)

Response: What the Dimonds, in their duplicity, choose to omit are the following words between the ellipsis, "and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ...(Emphasis mine). It's clear that Trent was condemning the Protestants who think that because there is ONE MEDIATOR (not two or more--See 1 Timothy 2: 5-6), that saints are not to be invoked and cannot pray and intercede for us without derogating from the one Mediator, Jesus Christ. The Dimonds have no problem calling Our Lady Mediatrix, with no fear of minimizing Our Lord's unique role as the one Mediator. Likewise, Trent was not defining Christ to be the only Savior so as to exclude the possibility of Our Lady having a secondary and subordinate role in redemption. Just as Mary has a role in dispensing all grace (subordinate to and united with Her Divine Son) so as to merit the title Mediatrix without dishonoring or denying Her Son as the one and only Mediator, the title Co-Redemptrix would be given in the same manner.  So much for their contorting the meaning of Trent, just as they do in regards to its decrees on Baptism and the sacraments.

2. The Council of Florence and the Catechism of the Council of Trent
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the faith of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, ALONE BY HIS OWN DEATH LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost…” (Denz. 711)---Emphasis in original.

Response: When the Church teaches Christ alone is our Redeemer, they are referring to the primary, universal, and self-sufficient causality of Christ in the redemptive process which does not exclude Mary's secondary and totally subordinate cooperation which drew all its efficacy from the superabundant merits of her Divine Son. This is what they simply do not understand (or willfully ignore).

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: "True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us."

Response: It also states "there is but one Mediator," yet don't we call upon the Blessed Virgin Mary as Mediatrix? Do we not pray for the intersession of the saints? Don't Protestants use the "one Mediator" argument to exclude secondary mediators? Yet the Dimonds insist, " However, we’ve been disappointed by the fact that some people just aren’t satisfied with the dogmatic definitions.  They insist on calling Mary Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer, even after seeing these dogmatic definitions.  This is problematic.  They are deviating from dogmatic truth." They claim that holding Mary as Co-Redemptrix is going against dogma and hence a heresy. This will come back to haunt them.

 3. St. Robert Bellarmine and Theologian Pohle
Also consider that pre-Vatican II theologian Fr. Joseph Pohle, in a work published and given an imprimatur before Vatican II, rightly noted that the title ‘coredemptrix’ is not appropriate for Mary.

Fr. Joseph Pohle, A Dogmatic Treatise On The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother Of God, Imprimatur, 1919: “… it would be wrong to call her [Mary] redemptrix, because this title obscures the important truth that she herself was redeemed through the merits of Jesus Christ by what theologians technically term preredemption.  Even the title coredemptrix had better be avoided as misleading.  The titles redemptrix and coredemptrix were never applied to the Blessed Virgin before the sixteenth century; they are the invention of comparatively recent writers…”

Response: Incredibly, they cite.. approved theologians!! Theologian Pohle's objections are more about the fear of misunderstandings that could derogate from Christ's unique salvific role, not a condemnation of the correct understanding of Mary's role in redemption. He simply thinks it wrong; he does not call it an error or a heresy. The same theologian in the same set of approved theology manuals (Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats) also teaches: "In adults the place of Baptism by water can be supplied in case of urgent necessity by the so-called Baptism of desire...Martyrdom (baptismus sanguinis) can also supply the place of Baptism." (See Dogmatic Theology, 8:243,248).

Notice what was written by Dimond; a pre-Vatican II theologian who wrote under a true pope, and had his work approved by those with authentic Magisterial authority to be free of error, should be believed when he wants to deny Mary the title of Co-Redemptrix. However, that same theologian in the same series of manuals, with the same Magisterial approval, when he teaches the reality of  BOD and BOB is to be rejected as wrong. The Magisterium can be trusted in the matter of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, but should not be trusted and definitively rejected on the teaching regarding Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. How convenient! What kind of Magisterium can't teach? How do we know when and if they "get it right"? The answer: Fred and Bobby will tell you. There's a word for those who pick and choose what to believe---heretic. Moreover, the title Co-Redemptrix has approved pre-Vatican II theologians that write in favor of it (the majority) as it is a disputed point of theology. All pre-Vatican II approved theologians teach BOD and BOB. Yet, they treat the issue of Co-Redemptrix as one that contradicts defined dogma.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Christo, Book V, Chap. 1: 
"But Christ Himself alone [solus] paid for us, and reconciled us to God by His own blood." (our translation from the Latin)

Response: Bellarmine was not denying Mary's unique cooperation by stating the truth of Christ's  primary,universal, and self-sufficient causality in the Redemption. St. Robert Bellarmine also teaches BOD and BOB. Do they quote the great Doctor of the Church and saint when he writes:

De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity”....."it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”

The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 3: "I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved."

4. The idea that Mary is formally “Co-Redemptrix” would be consistent with the idea that the original sin was the sin of Adam and Eve.  But that’s not Catholic teaching.

Response: What's not Catholic teaching is anything that comes out of "Most Holy Family Monastery." I don't know if it's more charitable to believe that Fred and Bobby lack the basic intelligence to understand the title Co-Redemptrix as correctly formulated, or they purposely deceive others. The essence of the antithesis between Adam/Eve and Christ/Mary lies in the fact that just as Eve cooperated with Adam in the sin that doomed the human race, so Mary has cooperated with Christ, the Second Adam, in bringing about the rehabilitation of humanity lost by that sin. We are talking about cooperation in sin and cooperation in redemption.

Eve fell for the lure of Satan and urged Adam to sin, thus cooperating in Original Sin. Mary was sinless and by her obedience to God allowed the savior to receive His human nature through her and became the God-Man Who redeemed us. It was Adam's sin, but Eve played and important and cooperative role. It was Christ's saving death, but Mary's cooperation with God in the role of redemption. Just as Adam alone brought sin in the world, yet had the cooperation of Eve, Mary is the Second Eve. Christ alone brought redemption to the world with the cooperation of Mary.

5. Mary wrongly becomes one of two Redeemers.
They say Mary is the “Co-Redemptrix,” just as others (e.g. St. Paul) help carry out the work of Redemption...They hold that Mary (in terms of the Redemption) is in a category with Jesus that does not belong to the other saints.  It is different not just in degree, but in kind from St. Paul, etc.  Thus, all the arguments they bring forward that St. Paul, the other saints, etc. can be loosely called “redeemers” do not support their position.  When they argue in that fashion, they are contradicting their position and asserting that Mary is just one of many co-redeemers.

Response: Mary cooperated uniquely in a way St. Paul and the others could not. She was the one through whom He came into the world, and with secondary and totally subordinate cooperation participated in His suffering and death as only a Mother could love her Son.  No other human being can make those two claims.

6. The popes were wrong. Pope Benedict XV was wrong about Mary's role in redemption and Pope Leo XIII was mistranslated.

Leaving the alleged mistranslation of Pope Leo aside for the moment, here's what Dimond writes about Pope Benedict XV:

  OBJECTION– In his March 22, 1918, document Inter Sodalicia, Pope Benedict XV teaches that Mary has redeemed the world with Christ.

Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918: “For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race.”

ANSWER– Simply put, Benedict XV’s statement in this document is flat out wrong.  Many people cite the Latin title of this letter (Inter Sodalicia) as if it’s some major or authoritative document of a pope.  Well, it’s not.  The truth is that Inter Sodalicia was a letter of Pope Benedict XV to the Sodality of Our Lady of a Happy Death.  In other words, it’s basically a letter of the pope to a prayer group.  It’s not addressed to the universal Church.  It’s not an encyclical. It’s not in any way infallible.

Response: Here's where the Dimonds really get into a conundrum from which there is no escape. (a) They claim that Mary's title and role as Co-Redemptrix goes directly against Catholic dogma. (b) Pope Benedict XV taught something directly against the (alleged) dogma that precludes Mary from being Co-Redemptrix (c) Therefore, Pope Benedict made a mistake. However, it is their conclusion that is wrong because...

If what the Dimond's teach is true, Pope Benedict XV wasn't merely "wrong;" he is guilty of teaching heresy as a private theologian and could not have been the pope.

Fred and Bobby will only accept their private interpretations of infallible statements as "Catholic truth." If you cite to them the teaching of the theologians (St. Alphonsus Liguori, etc) in favor of BOD and BOB they will say "theologians and Doctors of the Church who are saints are not infallible." Bring up an official catechism and "it's not infallible." Bring up the teaching of a pope and "it's not infallible, it's just a letter, it's just an encyclical" etc. However, a pope cannot profess heresy and lose office while speaking ex cathedra. He has the protection of the Holy Ghost Who would not permit him to teach falsehood. The profession of heresy which leads to loss of office can only come about when speaking as a private theologian in a non-infallible statement.

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

Vatican Council of 1870: "What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the [First] Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy?The response was thus: 'Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.' [See Mansi 52:1109]

Moreover, letters, allocutions, and Encyclicals have papal authority in teaching, even if not infallible.

Proof: Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, para. #20:
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (Emphasis mine)

Finally, the Dimonds, when confronted with the teaching of St. Alphonsus Liguori on BOB and BOD, will say "he made an innocent mistake." It could neither be innocent nor a mistake. A mistake is when Pope John XXII (1316-1334) preached sermons in Avignon, France  in which he maintained that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement. It is a mistake, not heresy because: (a) the fact that the souls of the blessed departed do attain immediately unto the Beatific Vision upon entering Heaven was not yet defined dogma, (b) it was still open to discussion among the theologians, (c) he stated publicly that if he were wrong he would allow himself to be corrected by the Church.

Teaching something that contradicts defined dogma is not "an innocent mistake," it is teaching heresy. If baptism by water is the exclusive way to achieve entrance to the Church and salvation, then when St. Alphonsus taught BOD and BOB he was teaching heresy. Ditto for Pope Benedict XV teaching Mary is Co-Redemptrix. If the title and doctrine behind it contradicts a dogma that positively excludes it, that would constitute heresy.

But what if they just didn't know any better? What if clerics of the highest level of learning and ecclesiastical training didn't know they were contradicting dogma (i.e., not as educated and learned as Fred and Bobby)? Wouldn't that save them from being heretics if they didn't know better or didn't realize the title and doctrine of Co-Redemptrix is heretical? In a word: No.

Proof: According to theologian MacKenzie, a cleric's claim that "I was ignorant" does not excuse from the sin ("delict") of heresy: "...if the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine. His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church's attitude toward heresy was imparted to him...Hence his present ignorance is unreal; or, if it be real, it can only be explained as deliberately fostered..."(See The Delict of Heresy, [1932], pg. 48; Emphasis mine).

Inescapable conclusion: Pope Benedict XV wasn't a true pope according to the Dimonds.

Fred and Bobby can now join the ranks of their former Feeneyite associate and "Vacancy Pusher" Richard Ibranyi who pushes the time of the vacancy back to 1130 AD with the papacy of Pope Honorius II. (Or at least Michael Bizzaro--his real name--who pushes back the vacancy to 1914 when Pope St. Pius X died).

7. Pope Leo XIII was mis-translated in Iucunda Semper.
As this is their last "argument," I don't even need to bother with translations. Here's what the popes had to say on Mary's position as Co-Redemptrix:

Pope Leo XIII, Supremi Apostolatus Officio (1883), para. #2
"And truly the Immaculate Virgin, chosen to be the Mother of God and thereby associated with Him in the work of man's salvation, has a favor and power with her Son greater than any human or angelic creature has ever obtained, or ever can gain." (Emphasis mine)

Pope Leo XIII, Parta humano generi, Apostolic Letter dated September 8, 1901
"For us nothing can be more effective in winning the Virgin's favor and in meriting the most salutary graces than to surround with the greatest possible honor the mysteries of our redemption in which she not only shared but also took part."(Emphasis mine).

Pope St. Pius X, Ubera cum Fructu, Apostolic Letter dated April 30, 1911:
"It was in the presence and under the very gaze of Mary that the Divine Sacrifice of our redemption was consummated; she took part in it by giving to the world and nourishing the Divine Victim, she the Queen of Martyrs." (Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XII, Ad Caeli Reginam, (1954), para. #38
"From these considerations, the proof develops on these lines: if Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God's design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of "recapitulation,"in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; (Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, (1943), para. #110
"It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members." (Emphasis mine).

Conclusion
In these perilous and unprecedented times of evil and pandemic, let us turn to Our Lady of Hope; she who is the Mother of Him Who can do all things. Without fear of being heretics, we may rightly call Mary our Co-Redemptrix. By her intimate connection to her Divine Son, she gives us our hope of salvation---Mary who cooperated in the very act of our redemption. How could her Son fail to hear the Queen of Martyrs' pleas for help on our behalf? 

If you do not join me in calling Mary our Co-Redemptrix, you're not a heretic either, because the Church must settle the matter, not Fred and Bobby Dimond. When making up your mind on the issue, remember the axiom of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, "De Maria Numquam Satis,"--"Of Mary, Never Enough." 


103 comments:

  1. It's nice that both Novus Ordo Watch and Introibo also believe that Mary is our Co-Redemptrix!

    Also, notice how Pappy Frank scoffs at the idea of Mary being the Co-Redemptrix:

    novusordowatch.org/2019/12/francis-denies-coredemption/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quam Oblationem,
      No surprise there!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. I know Our Lady has obtained amazing things for me in my life including a true conversion! She is truly a wonderful gift to us from Our Lord.

    The Dimonds are again adding to their list of "approved theologians teaching error" these days. In addition to there argument to which you addressed in a previous post about Florence and Scripture, they added the Immaculate Conception and some early Church fathers teaching about heretics invalidly baptizing. They fail to mention both issues were not settled dogmatically at the time they taught the "error".

    You would be doing me a solid by playing their game with a phone debate since they wont do a written exchange.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,
      I will debate but only in a written format. I will not risk someone recognizing my voice or not convincing people because of the poor quality of the sound. They don’t want their stupidity exposed in permanent written form!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. Outstanding as usual! Great work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saddlery Tack,
      Thank you my friend!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Quotes not mentioned in the article by popes referring to Mary as the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix etc.:

    Pope St. Pius X
    But, since Divine Providence has been pleased that we should have the Man-God THROUGH Mary, who conceived Him by the Holy Ghost and bore Him in her breast, it only remains for us to receive Christ FROM THE HANDS of Mary... But Mary, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the CHANNEL (Serm. de temp on the Nativ. B. V. De Aquaeductu n. 4); or, if you will, the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head — We mean THE NECK. Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, “she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts” (Quadrag. de Evangel. aetern. Serm. x., a. 3, c. iii.)...And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the REPARATRIX of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and DISPENSATRIX of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood... Nevertheless, by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the Mother and the Son, it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be the most powerful MEDIATRIX and advocate of the whole world with her Divine Son (Pius IX. Ineffabilis)." Ad Diem "Illum Laetissimum" On the Immaculate Conception 1904

    Pope Pius XI:
    And now lastly may the most benign Virgin Mother of God smile on this purpose and on these desires of ours; for since she brought forth for us Jesus our Redeemer, and nourished Him, and offered Him as a victim by the Cross, by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously called a REPARATRESS. Trusting in her intercession with Christ, who whereas He is the “one mediator of God and men” (1 Timothy ii, 5), chose to make His Mother the advocate of sinners, and the minister and MEDIATRESS of grace, as an earnest of heavenly gifts and as a token of Our paternal affection we most lovingly impart the Apostolic Blessing to you, Venerable Brethren, and to all the flock committed to your care." Miserentissimus Redemptor 1928

    "Let them pray to Him, interposing likewise the powerful patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, MEDIATRIX of all graces, for themselves and for their families, for their country, for the Church; Caritate Christi Compulsi 1932

    "Mother most faithful and most merciful, who as COREDEMPTRIX and partaker of thy dear Son's sorrows didst assist Him as He offered the sacrifice of our Redemption on the altar of the Cross ... preserve in us and increase each day, we beseech thee, the precious fruits of our Redemption and thy compassion." 28 April 1935 in a Radio Message for the closing of the Holy Year at Lourdes

    There is more, but that is off the top of my head. It's totally ridiculous that people who call themselves traditional Catholic have a problem with Mary being called the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, etc. when we have true pope after after true pope calling her that. But it's unfortunate that people have to make people like the Dimondback brothers their pope instead.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      The list of true popes citing Mary as a Co-Redemptrix could take up a whole post in itself! Amazing how people put their faith in “Pope Fred” and “Pope Bobby.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. It's a sickness of the soul.

      Lee

      Delete
  5. In spite of all the Scriptural indications and the writings of Saint-theologians about the unique privileges given to Mary, and the infallible dogmas proclaimed about her, Bergoglio still scorns and insults her. What a "pope" he is!
    There is a story, accompanied by video, that I saw recently about an "LGBT" woman who violently toppled a statue of Our Lady that was displayed outdoors by a small group that was peacefully gathered. She was so wild that she needed to be physically restrained. It takes alot of hate to behave that way.
    It is a frightening thing to see souls hell bent on the destruction of what is holy.
    Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      Sodomites are the ones who hate God (and everything holy) the most. It’s not without reason homosexuality is one of the “Four Sins That Screams To Heaven For Vengeance”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. The matter of Mary seems to be a big one preventing Protestants from returning to the One True Faith (the Papacy and Purgatory being other ones as well).

    Case in point, my younger brother (trained in a Protestant seminary) has a rather large disagreement with how Catholics revere Mary. He claims to have nothing against her personally (in fact, he considers her a model par excellence of obedience), but rather that Catholicism goes too far in its veneration (even to the point where he says that Mary would not want us to ascribe any kind of title or Queenship to her, as such would detract from her own humility).

    What particular arguments or ideas, in your experience, have been the best at helping Protestants see the light with regards to Mary?

    Sincerely,

    A Simple Man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple Man,
      In my experience, Protestants can only be reached if you get them questioning “sola scriptura” and/or “sole fide.” Those are the two foundational heresies that prop us the falsehood of their sects. Once they realize the richness of Sacred Tradition and the need of a Magisterium, the Marian dogmas will make complete sense.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. Dear ASM
    Perhaps it would help them if they understood that Mary obediently accepted the honors her Divine Son accorded her as a humble doing of His will?
    Jannie

    ReplyDelete
  8. I noticed in your quoting of scripture in Genesis 3:15 you cited the phrase as saying "he shall crush thy head..."

    However, as per the Douay Rheims vernacular translation, it is instead rendered as the following:

    "[15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
    [Genesis 3:15]


    I only wanted to bring this up because I had been taught that the NRSV Bible for example, changes the pronoun from "she" to "he" as an ecumenical gesture to take away from Our Lady's first prophecy and better appeal to Protestant sensibilities.

    To be clear though, as must be admitted, even in the Douay Rheims Bible commentary on this passage, it states how the meaning of this verse is as you described it, Our Lady would crush satan's head through her Son Jesus Christ, so I'm certainly not accusing you of crypto-ecumenism haha, I was just curious as to your thoughts, if any at all, on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pronoun should be she but is mistranslated as he because the Hebrew "Hu" is masculine. However, "hu" is referring to the crushing of the serpent which is a masculine thing to do. The “woman” and not the “seed” is the antecedent of “hu.” See that Gen 3:15 says the enmity is between the “woman” and “Satan”, then it says, between her “seed” and Satan’s “seed.”
      If you read the Hebrew pronoun as “he” crushing the head of “Satan” then you have misplaced the context of who has enmity with whom. “She” will crush the head since she was the object that follows and the one who was said to have enmity with “Satan.” We know of course that it is because of her “seed” that she does this. St. Jerome knew what he was doing when he translated the word to "she".

      There’s also the Hebrew poetic technique known as parallelism, where Jewish philosopher Philo (40 AD) argued that the pronoun is “she.”

      Another problem exists with the controversy. In the late 6th century, Jewish scholars “Massoretes” invented a vowel system known as “Massoretic points.” Depending on where you placed the point, the same consonants could mean “he” or “she.” Many texts were purposely mistranslated because of hatred for Christianity. This means that after the 6th century, some of the Hebrew texts were corrupted.

      The Jewish historian Josephus translated the pronoun as “she.” (Book 1, ch 3.)


      Delete
    2. @neyoriquans,
      Saddlery Tack just answered for me! My readers are the best!

      I will add that theologian Carol used “he” but the explanation was completely orthodox, which is vital. In his defense, Carol does not purport to be a Scripture scholar! I agree “she” is correct yet I used the translation of Carol.

      You’re right that I’m not a “crypto-ecumenist” lol.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. Can anyone recommend me a priest?
    The Glories of Mary by St. Alphonsus Liguori is 100% excellent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poni,
      Where do you live? My readers and I will try and help find a Traditionalist Chapel.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I have uncovered that Poni is from Mexico. But I don't know which city he's in.

      Delete
    3. Correction: Based on Poni's profile, she's a female so it's a 'she' not a 'he'.

      Delete
    4. This is my go-to resource for finding True-mass locations. In it are listed most, if not all, true Traditionalist Catholic priests who pray the non-una cum mass:

      https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1bbA1VmUeOZE7F5Cqz1etr5yPNH1bVp_D&ll=41.74896553091094%2C-75.37740587842308&z=7


      This should be of some help in finding you a priest Poni

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Thank you for the link Neoyoriquans.

      Delete
    7. Poni,
      Let me know if Quam Oblationem’s resources have helped you. I ask my other readers familiar with Mexico to please help if you can.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Bishop Davilla's blog
      https://www.obispoenmisiones.com/sociedad-sacerdotal-trento/
      -Andrew

      Delete
    9. Poni
      If it is of any help to you, Colima, on the western side of Mexico, has a Traditional chapel run by the Company of Jesus and Mary. Even if you are not close to it, you might try contacting the priest for help in locating something closer to you through the information at the website:

      olotr.rosarychapel.net

      Delete
    10. Thank you Jannie, Quam Oblationem, and Anon for helping Poni !

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. "neyoriquans" too. He was the one who gave the resources actually, not me.

      I really like the Sociedad Sacerdotal Trento (formerly Union Catolico Trento) in Mexico, too. They are the original sedevacantist organization in Mexico. Probably the largest group in the world after CMRI. (Or is it the IMBC?) Bishop Davila, who was consecrated by Bishop Pivarunas, is Bishop Carmona's successor. Bishop Dolan also has missions in Mexixo. So there are two non una cum missions in Mexico. Plus you also have the SSPX if there's no non una cum Mass nearby.

      Delete
    12. @Poni
      This website is Bishop Madrigal located in Mexico.
      He was ordained/consecrated by
      Bishop Vezelis.

      Delete
    13. @Poni
      Contact one of these priests and they'll put you in touch with Bishop Madrigal in Mexico.
      I placed a comment with his website earlier but that website is not functioning.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    14. Contact Bishop Madrigal via this website.
      http://friarsminor.org/Contact.htm
      Sorry for numerous comments I've been busy + not thinking.
      Bp.Giles Butler takes care of the East Coast.
      BP.Madrigal takes care of Mexico.+ West Coast.
      -Andrew
      P.S. I'm not involved w/them but heard they're solid + Catholic.

      Delete
  10. You have written:
    "Rightfully understood, a Traditionalist Catholic may accept or reject this title to the Mother of God. Among the approved theologians, there was no unanimity prior to the destruction of Vatican II."

    But what about the point c) here?

    "a) That Mary cooperated in the work of redemption, at least mediately, is a matter of faith (de fide).

    b) That she also cooperated immediately is a doctrine more in conformity with the quoted texts of the Holy Pontiffs. Indeed these texts, taken together as a whole, signify the constant teaching for a century of the Roman Pontiffs proposed to the whole Church more clearly with the passage of time. For they are not unaware of the disputes of theologians over this matter.

    c) That the title of Corredemptrix is used rightly is certain; and it is not licit to doubt about is suitability."

    (Rev. Joseph A. de Aldama, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIIA: On the Blessed Virgin Mary, n. 158; italics given.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. @anoniman,
    I have theologian de Aldama’s work. He is expressing his (strongly supported) opinion.
    Please note:
    1. On pg 445, section 158, de Aldama writes (a) The title Co-Redemptrix is expressly affirmed IN SPITE OF THE OBJECTIONS OF SOME THEOLOGIANS (Emphasis mine). He doesn’t claim they are heretical, or deserving of some censure short of heresy. Their objections are permissible.

    2. Theologian Pohle in “Dogmatic Theology “ 6:120-123, is not against the theological role of Mary in redemption, going so far as to write approvingly of the title “Salvatrix.” His problem with the title is MISINTERPRETATION by Catholics as e.g., seeing Mary as a “priest”—an idea twice condemned by the Holy Office. He believes that “Mediatrix” encompasses her role in the redemption adequately.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank You, but I still do not understand. What does Fr. de Aldema mean then when he says that it is "not licit to doubt about suitability" of the title Corredemptrix?

      Delete
    2. Anoniman
      It means that, in his opinion, given the further development and use of the term “Co-Redemptrix,” theologians like Pohle should drop their opposition as to the title’s use.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. Jorge Bergolio's attacks to a title of Our Lady is an attack to Mary. The pachamama worshiper is now calling the Queen of Heaven a fool. Satan must be delighted.

    https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/12/pope-calls-idea-of-declaring-mary-co-redemptrix-foolishness/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Introibo, according to Wikipedia, in the middle ages, the Franciscans heavily promoted this idea, but the Dominicans resisted. Do you know, if any, what was St. Thomas Aquinas' thoughts on this? He's a Dominican after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quam Oblationem,
      St. Thomas Aquinas acknowledges that no other human being could have helped begin our redemption except for Mary. He writes in ST III q. 30 a. 1, that Mary spoke in place of all human nature (loco totius humanae naturae) when she gave her consent to be the Mother of the Incarnate Word.

      This is the beginning point of the doctrine. While, to the best of my knowledge and belief he never used the actual title, Aquinas in fact, taught the theological foundations.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. On the subject of Bergoglio, spouse and I tuned in to a first-run two hour PBS presentation of "The Vatican" last night. Did anyone else see it? It was, we had thought, going to be a tour of the Papal palace and St. Peters Basilica, and there was that; but it was more of an exercise in glorifying Jorge and all his new cardinals and the change he has wrought in the (V2) church. Time was spent on a papal chorister who has had a prestigious role as soloist at Jorge's masses for three years. He openly admitted to the film's narrator that although he looks directly at Bergoglio while singing the Credo at high mass, he can't say he really believes the words he is singing, because he is more "spiritual" than "religious". (Maybe looking at Bergoglio is the reason why he can't believe.)
    That showed a slice of the sad state of Frankenchurch today.
    A couple of laughably "conservative" interviewees - Sandro Magister and an English (NO) catholic newspaper editor - were brought in only to be painted as cranks who do not like the progress that the people's pope has brought to the "church".
    We turned the thing off about 90 minutes in, so dont know if the show was put together with only footage from before the pachamama drama. We just couldnt take any more in any case.
    The world is simply sick from rejecting Jesus Christ, and I thank Him for leaving the faithful His True Church.
    Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      Didn’t see it, but honestly I probably couldn’t stomach it more than 5 minutes! Thank God for the True Church indeed!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Llama llama mad at mama. Jannie's trauma withdrew before pachamama drama.

      Here is a video that was not surprisingly taken off youtube, since they and most other major outlets hate the truth: https://banned.video/watch?id=5ea4994ea881fd00808e95ad

      Lee

      Delete
  15. Lee
    Hmmm...I had heard on a major network that that video was scrubbed (or was going to be) from YT. But that was a few days ago. In any case, there are the intrepid alternate-news hunters that capture videos and will re-post them if necessary.
    So glad for their determination in doing it.
    Jannie
    Jannie

    ReplyDelete
  16. Off subject, but do you have the guts to address this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLD841087C099E5B90&time_continue=108&v=na4wtBRD5zw&feature=emb_logo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:48,
      I shy away from nothing, and adressed this in last week's comments. Here's what I said:

      I am not surprised by the horrific report. SSPX always wanted to emulate the Vatican II sect to one degree or another. They allow “priests” from the sect to now join without being validly ordained.

      The problem of perverts is not new. My spiritual father, Fr Gommar DePauw, JCD, was in charge of admissions to Mt St Mary’s Seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore from 1955-1962. He told me he would reject more than 80% of all applicants based on the slightest hint of Modernism or perversity. The seminary was still full! When Archbishop Keough died in December of 1961 and replaced by the despicable Modernist Lawrence Sheehan, the first thing he did was to pull out Fr DePauw and replace him with a priest in his 20s (ordained less than three years), who was “pastoral” towards those with “same-sex attraction.” The seminary in Baltimore is now called “The Pink Palace.”

      I knew someone who applied for admission to SSPX seminary in Ridgefield, Connecticut back circa 1986. Richard Williamson, was rector, and not yet a bishop.

      The man had serious medical issues and didn’t think he’d be accepted. Upon his arrival, he asked Fr Williamson about what he would do in place of manual labor (expected of first year seminarians). Williamson reacted with shock. “Why do you need to be excused?” He told him, “I sent you all my medical information when I applied.”

      Williamson actually said, “You can’t expect me to read every application!” He asked what would happen if he needed hospitalization. Williamson basically told him not to worry and “get more into God.” The man left the next day.

      They don’t vet their candidates and when sodomites try to fill the ranks, they do what their “pope’s” sect does. If they cannot understand faith, they will not understand morality.

      The SSPV is very careful as to whom they take in, and I personally believe they would blow the whistle on those who would (God forbid) do something wrong.

      I never attack the Vatican II sect for the scandal itself, but for what they did to promote it. I reject V2 on theological grounds. Likewise for SSPX. Let’s not forget Christ showed us that corrupt clergy would always exist by choosing Judas as an Apostle.

      Let’s hope the SSPX wakes up on several levels and stops making the remnant Church seem as corrupt as the V2 sect.

      In the interest of fairness, below is the link to the SSPX response to Church Militant.

      https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/us-district-responds-church-militant-57641

      Also, let's not forget Voris is an admitted former sodomite himself. The video is also next to Fred and Bobby's videos. Although that does nothing to prove the allegations false, it certainly doesn't help it's credibility as 100% true either.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hey anon, do you have the guts to make a post with a real username instead of anonymously?

      I hate to sound overly edgy, but I certainly didn't appreciate the tone of your comment towards Introibo seeing as you were literally hiding behind anonimity while making it.

      I apologize in advance however if you did not intend to be aggressive. I know that tone can be lost over text. God Bless.

      Delete
    3. neyoriquans,
      What is up with the critical attitude toward a user posting as Anon? A lot of people post as Anon and it has never been a problem. Introibo, himself, is basically anonymous as well. Is the name neyoriquans your real name? What gives?

      JoAnn

      Delete
    4. @JoAnn I was afraid people might interpret it as an attack on anonimity itself, I apologize for that.

      The point of my comment was directed specifically towards this individual user and what seemed to me his ironic phrasing. By questioning whether Introibo had guts to address such a public issue, all while this particular user was hiding behind anonimity, I personally found it rather amusing and wanted to call that out.

      I am also aware of Introibo's desire for anonimity, as well as the rather prudent use of it for online interactions, so I was by no means meaning to attack the concept of anonimity itself, but rather some person seemingly hiding behind anonimity to slightly slander our dear Blogger friend.

      I furthermore attempted to hedge my comment acknowledging that tones can be lost over text, and apologizing in advance if that was not the intention of the original post to challenge Introibo in that way.

      Delete
    5. neyoriquans,
      Appreciate the clarification.
      Thanks.
      JoAnn

      Delete
    6. Neyoriquans,
      I thought the comment seemed a bit rude. Like you pointed out, things are lost in text. I got the gist of your comment and I appreciate it. Thank you for letting Joann and everyone else know your motives are honorable (and of which I was never in doubt).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. @neyro...or whatever your name is. Yes; I meant in the way that it sounded; and no, I don't care what you think. Tell you what: If Introibo reveals his name, I will reveal mine, but in the meantime I'm not going to be lectured by the likes of you...or anyone.

      On another note, it is a scary thing, in my opinion, that when priests break their vows---bad in itself---but it wouldn't be as bad if it were WOMEN. I frankly don't understand what man could see in another man. Gross!

      Delete
    8. Not so fast, Introibo. Do you have the guts to admit that there are plenty of the same HOMO allegations in other trad groups?

      Delete
    9. Anon2:14 & 2:15
      Guess what? I’M going to lecture you. While I’m open to questions and debate, as well as opposing points of view, there are certain rules I enforce on my blog:
      1. No profanity
      2. No blasphemy
      3. No insulting or Ad hominem attack to my other readers.

      If you don’t like it, don’t come here or read my posts. You broke rule #3, and you will not be permitted to attack a reader like that. Moreover, you come off “daring me” like some kindergarten bully.

      I’m not aware of sodomites in Traditionalist Sedevacantist clergy. Of course that doesn’t mean there are no “bad apples.” Didn’t even Christ have one in twelve that was rotten?

      I’m fair in applying the same standards.

      A) Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence
      B) If proven, was the perpetrator hidden or turned over to the authorities? If the latter, they took in an evil man, but they did the right thing, so I wouldn’t blame the leadership. If the former is proven, they should all rot in prison for life.

      Over and out,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. Reading this anon's comments gave me some serious David Grey vibes, but it's probably just a coincidence...

      Mr. Gray wouldn't be *that* pathetic to linger around and post anonymous comments after having been wiped the floor with, would he?

      Hmm, probably just my imagination.

      Delete
    11. Lately it seems that more and more Novus Ordos are desperately trying to deflect the sins perpetrated by their clergy onto Trad clergy. The Novus Ordo needs to clean and keep clean their own house before trying to clean other houses. The NO comes across as desperate and pathetic in their endeavor of transference unto Trad clergy. But then again, the NO is desperate and pathetic with their fake "Priests", fake sacraments, fake "Pope", etc. Just my 2 cents.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    12. Joann,
      The V2 sect is desperate to drag us down. They want us to seem “just as bad.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  17. Are the SSPV confirmed Sedes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:17
      I know most of them personally. As to the three bishops, they are sedevacantist. I know all the priests are as well (with only one possible exception).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Quam OblationemMay 2, 2020 at 3:50 AM

      Introibo. I believe the SSPV does not impose sedevacantism as obligatory. Although it's a theological conclusion, it's not binding. Is this correct, Introibo? And do you agree with them.

      I think that's the correct position personally.

      Delete
    3. Quam Oblationem,
      Their official position is Sedevacantism. They do not require anyone to adhere to it and do not deny Communion to R&R who attend Mass.

      I think they are correct in not denying Communion to R&R but I also believe they have to preach on Sedevacantism as the only viable explanation of what is happening.


      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. So the SSPV don't deny communion to the SSPX adherents, but they do deny it to Catholics who go to Thuc-line priests? I wasn't aware of that.

      Hopefully they will have updated their stance on the Thuc-line prohibition by now, or in the near future if not already at the very least.

      Delete
    5. Neyoriquans,
      Bp. Kelly (unfortunately) will never admit he was wrong. However, many of the priests have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards the so-called "Thuc line followers."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. That's regrettable to hear about Bp. Kelly, but at least there's some progress with the "don't ask, don't tell" SSPV priests. I pray all these divisions and enmities between the remnant hierarchy of the Church may draw to a close, but for that it seems as if we'll need a Pope to gather us all together once again.

      Delete
    7. Neyoriquans,
      I agree. When the Shepard is struck, the sheep are scattered.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  18. I keep seeing a commercial on TV for Catholicscomehome.org. For years, I had been trying to come home to the Church and every time I attempted to go home by attending the Novus Ordo, the Church of my 1950's upbringing was gone. It wasn't until I found Tradition that I was able to go home to the true Church. I know this is off topic, but just wanted to alert people if they are seeing this Catholic comehome.org commercial and are seeking the true Church, it is not to be found in the Novus Ordo. I have had relatives and people who usually give no thought to religion speak to me and question if this could possibly be the end of the world, or if God is judging the world by allowing this Pandemic. People are scared and seeking answers. As a result I have found myself being questioned regarding God, Faith the Church and have been prostelizing more than usual. I will get off my soap box now.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      That’s no soapbox, that’s something that needs to be said. People are now facing questions regarding faith and God during this pandemic. There’s no better time than now to bring up the True Faith and proselytize!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  19. Introibo,

    Even though you have finished your Singing for Satan series, here is an honorable mention. Meet Padre "Bob" AKA Irrev. Robert Culat https://novusordowatch.org/2020/05/meet-high-priest-of-heavy-metal/

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      Unbelievable! Thank you for sharing!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  20. Hey, Introibo. I'd ask if Vatican I was closed? If no, that wouldn't affect its definitions, right? Why did no pope close it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:49
      Not closing the Council does not affect its definitions. Pope Pius IX was hoping to resume the Council, but that never happened. No subsequent pope closed it, and I don’t know their reasons.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I learn something all the time from you and your readers, Intro. An official closing of a Council and how that would affect or not affect subsequent teaching is something I haven't ever really considered. Thank you, one and all. I think of you as friends in Christ.
      Jannie
      Jannie

      Delete
    3. Jannie,
      I consider all of my readers my friends in Christ; I hope everyone also feels as you do!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  21. Introibo,
    Please tell me how to refute an evangelicals insistence that before the end times there will be a rapture? Thanks.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quam OblationemMay 2, 2020 at 7:14 PM

      Here's a refutation:

      https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/assets/newspaper_campaign_8-b69881f822865f94687dc1db4382012b215c46d120e769d05c3368fb829fe62c.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwipjPW-zpbpAhUHq5QKHbpUC-AQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0oMy5Jz0y65DFj6t9OPvTo

      And, to make it rhyme with this post, let's remember that there was a rapture 2000 years ago, when the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed to heaven.

      Delete
    2. Joann,
      See my post
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/08/getting-caught-up-in-rapture.html

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Quam OblationemMay 2, 2020 at 8:42 PM

      Oh, I didn't know you already had an article on it. Sorry. Could you delete my reply, Introibo?

      Delete
    4. Introibo & Quam Oblationem,

      Thank you both for the links. I learned alot regarding the Protestant rapture. Evangelicals make my head spin!!

      JoAnn

      Delete
  22. Because there are already many unrelated questions here, I'd join too.

    Introibo, when does one become a priest? At the reception of the graces (imposition of the hands and form) or at the reception of the character (giving of the chalice)? Or was St. Thomas Aquinas wrong?

    (Is it correct to say Thomistic theology is Catholic theology?)

    Why can't a deacon be delegated to confirm someone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:19,
      1. That question wasn't settled until 1947 by Pope Pius XII in "Sacramentum Ordinis." The sole matter is the first imposition of hands alone, and the words of the Preface after the imposition are the sole form (the exact words were clearly defined).
      The "tradition--or handing over--of the instruments of sacrifice, are NOT necessary for validity. Hence the deacon becomes a priest as soon as the matter and form are applied. Both graces and character are then conferred.

      2. There are various schools of theology, Thomists being one of them. No one can claim to be Catholic who despises either Thomistic theology or Scholastic philosophy. They were invigorated by Pope Leo XIII. So, yes Thomistic theology is Catholic by definition--but it does not rule out other schools of theology approved by the Church.

      3. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no definitive theological reason. however, the constant practice of the Church tells us that deacons cannot be so deputized. Deacons became a transitory path to the priesthood, as the Holy Ghost lead the Church. They were not meant to be "married wanna be priests" as in the Vatican II sect.

      The character their soul receives is very limited in the functions it allows them to perform. Hence, they are more like laity than bishops in that way. That may be the answer as to why they cannot be delegated to confirm.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. So, Aquinas was wrong?

      Delete
    3. Didn't Pope Benedict XV declare: "This [Dominican] Order ... acquired new luster when the Church declared the teaching of Thomas to be her own and that Doctor, honored with the special praises of the Pontiffs, the master and patron of Catholic schools."

      So isn't it not just "one of the many" schools?

      Delete
    4. @anon8:44
      Sure. It was a matter that was in dispute. He was wrong on the Immaculate Conception when it was up for debate as well.

      @anon9:04
      You misunderstand the technical theological use of the meaning of "schools." Pope Benedict XV was talking about St. Thomas the Patron Saint of Catholic schools (elementary, middle, high, colleges, universities, seminaries, etc). He was referring to the places of learning. "Schools" of theology refer to theological giants who have theologians follow their principles. Such giants include John Duns Scotus and Louis de Molina.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. No, Introibo, I didn't mean that. That's funny if I actually thought that schools of theology are the same as schools where you learn. Hahaha

      I meant that Pope Benedict XV said: "when the Church declared the teaching of Thomas to be her own"

      Delete
    6. Anon10:55
      That Thomism enjoys preeminence, agreed, that it is the ONLY school, denied. I believe the Molinist Middle Knowledge of God and his solution to the Catholic understanding of predestination to be more solid. The Church has never condemned or censured other legitimate schools of theology.

      ——Introibo

      Delete
    7. Oh yeah, Introibo, pardon. One more. Since the Council of Trent defined that the apostles became priests when Our Lord said "Do this in memory of me", not when he laid hands on them and said words,

      does that mean that the apostles did not receive the reality of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but only the graces of the sacrament? Like the fact that the apostles and many of the early Christians did not receive the reality of the Sacrament of Confirmation but nevertheless did receive the graces of the same sacrament when the Holy Ghost descended on them as fire?

      When did the Apostles become bishops btw?

      Thanks you and may God bless you and this blog.

      Delete
    8. @anon12:24
      It is Catholic doctrine that the Seven Sacraments were all instituted directly and immediately by the historical Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In Baptism and the Holy Eucharist the form was specifically determined. In the other five sacraments the form was determined according to the sense that must be conveyed, not the precise words, and left the Church to fix the exact verbiage.

      The Sacraments were uniquely conferred by Christ. For example, the Apostles did not receive the glorified Body of Christ, as we do, because Christ had not yet been resurrected at the Last Supper.

      The Apostles were instructed in what they needed to do as to the substance of the Sacraments. The Holy Ghost made this clear to them on Pentecost. The Apostles were made bishops at the Last Supper—the fullness of the priesthood. “Do this in memory of me” is not used as the form of Hoy Orders, yet the substance remains in the forms approved by the Church. Therefore, the Apostles received the substance of the Sacraments in a unique mode, while we receive them in an equally valid way, yet with the substance applied as the Church mandated.

      To now answer your question, the Apostles received the fullness of the priesthood at the Last Supper. The Apostles did receive Confirmation.

      For a full treatment of the principles involved, please see Theologian Ott, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” 1955, pgs. 337-338.

      I hope this helped!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. Thank you and it helped.

      I'll try looking at that book.

      By unique, do you mean that Christ didn't lay hands on them? Or as fire was used instead of oil at Confirmation? I believe the graces are indeed applied equally as we receive them. But if they received the character, or as Aquinas says, "reality," is a different question.

      Like people who have received the Baptisms of Blood and Desire get the same graces of the washing of original sin as do the Baptism of Water, but nevertheless, they weren't instituted by Christ so they don't give the character or reality of the Baptism of Water.

      So when Pope Pius XII ruled that the form should contain an explicit a. reference to the order and b. reference to the grace of the Holy Ghost, then that was merely ecclesiastical and not divine?

      (Eeek sorry for talking about these here, and sorry for not being that quick to comprehend)

      Delete
    10. @anon8:17
      1. Christ may have imposed hands, but it is not recorded in the Gospels. Whether or not He did, He meant for it to be done from the Apostles onward.

      2. You are correct that BOD and BOB do not give the indelible Character. Nevertheless, the Apostles were confirmed and did receive the character.

      3. It was actually Pope Leo XIII who first wrote about the form in reference to declaring Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void." He was pronouncing upon the substance of what Christ wanted. That is of Divine Institution. The PRECISE words are determined by the Church. As long as the form has explicit reference to the order conferred and the Grace of the Holy Ghost, it is in keeping with the substance Christ instituted.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    11. Thank you.

      Delete
    12. Quam OblationemMay 4, 2020 at 6:23 AM

      Introibo - I don't think you understood what this anon meant. He meant that because the substance which Jesus instituted in regards to Holy Orders, that is, the two requirements, is not present at "Do this is memory of me", He didn't confer the reality of the sacrament of the
      priesthood on the Apostles, only its equivalent graces.
      The Church didn't decree as to if the Apostles and most early Christians received the reality of Confirmation under fire, which is technically not oil, and so I oblige myself to follow Aquinas' belief that they didn't receive the reality but only the equivalent graces.

      (Personally, I also follow St. Jerome's teaching that Sts. Peter, James, and John laid hands on St. Paul to ordain and consecrate him)

      Please correct me if I'm wrong on what you actually meant, @anon8:17

      Delete
    13. Quam Oblationem,
      That is not the teaching of the modern theologians as theology developed considerably since the 13th century.

      According to Theologian Tanquerey:
      “The Apostles were consecrated by a SPECIAL RITE and we’re deputed first special offices...Christ instituted the Apostles and them alone as priests.” (See Dogmatic Theology 2:352). They were given the fullness of the priesthood—the true Sacrament not merely graces. The graces of the priesthood do not effectuate the Sacraments, it is in virtue of the character conferred.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  23. Since there are so many Popes that teach this doctrine, it would not be smart to deny it. I do not think anyone can question it. It may not be declared ex cathedra, but still, we have the ordinary magisterium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quam OblationemMay 4, 2020 at 6:28 AM

      The Ordinary Magisterium defined it?

      I respectfully disagree. Other than the fact that the Dominicans resisted it in the middle ages, Introibo would be a heretic for saying you're not a heretic for denying the title.

      I mean, you're a heretic if you deny guardian angels.

      Delete
    2. Quam Oblationem,
      The title may be denied without being a heretic. I (and the majority of theologians and recent popes to Pius XII) endorse it, but it’s denial is not heresy. I think it was coming close to where the Ordinary Magisterium would’ve made it undeniable.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Quam OblationemMay 4, 2020 at 7:01 AM

      Now I agree 100% to that.

      It's not part of the Ordinary Magisterium, but by how many popes and theologians endorsed it, it's way way way too unwise to deny it.

      Delete
    4. Quam Oblationem,
      Yes, I agree.

      —-Introibo

      Delete