Monday, June 22, 2020

Contra Catholicism


There are some things in life that are so apparent, you'd think everyone would be able to understand them. For example, there is no such thing as a "married bachelor." It's a contradiction in terms. Once you understand what a marriage is, and you know the definition of a bachelor, it's plain as day that you can't have a bachelor who is married. Unless you want to re-define "marriage," "bachelor" or both terms, there's no way to reconcile them. In this time of Great Apostasy, we have people who believe the term "heretical pope" is not contradictory. Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) can be both outside the Church and the Head of the One True Church at the same time. How is this accomplished? They either (a) redefine the papacy, (b) redefine/attempt to dismiss heresy, or (c) both.

The two methods most often used by those who try and defend the Vatican II sect as being the Roman Catholic Church are as follows: (1) misrepresent the Magisterium so that you can pick and choose what teachings of Bergoglio you want to follow and which you'd like to ignore (the favorite of the "Recognize and resisters" aka "R&R"), or (2) dismiss heresy and "make it go away" by the "hermeneutic of continuity" (the delusion of choice for Vatican II sect apologists). Let's see how impossible it is to make this work. Above is a picture of Bergoglio with "Sr." Lucy Kurien, the founder of "Maher" an interfaith organization in India dedicated to helping destitute and abused women and children.

While the corporal works of mercy are wonderful, our ultimate goal is to get to Heaven. Does Lucy want to convert these poor people and save their souls? No. She states, "We respect and love all religions. We never put down anyone’s religion, or uphold one religion to the exclusion of others. What we want is to believe and respect interfaith religion, inclusive of all faith traditions. In our community spiritual practices, we invoke our prayers to the Divine, rather than invoking any particular name or form of God to the exclusion of others." Maher celebrates the pagan Hindu holidays, and all the different religions pray together. (See e.g., archive.indianexpress.com/news/diwali-spreads-cheer-among-city-orphanges/1030265)

Bergoglio approves of this apostasy.

Compare: Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX, condemned propositions #16 & 17:
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

The Acts of the Apostles 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name [Jesus Christ] under Heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (Emphasis mine).
How can you reconcile what Lucy does (and which Bergoglio approves) with the teachings of the Church from 33-1958?  Answer: You can't.

Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent people from trying. One such individual, a Vatican II sect apologist, has a blog (of sorts) called Contra Sedevacantism (See contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com--I will hereinafter refer to him as Contra). Contra rehashes old John Salza and Robert Siscoe arguments in an attempt to prove sedevacantism is "heretical." Full of hubris and low on intellect, this individual then comments here, on Novus Ordo Watch, and Steven Speray's blog, seeking notoriety for his drivel. He calls sedevacantists "liars," "heretics," and "stupid." He obviously gets his manners from the Fred and Bobby Dimond School of Etiquette. The last four comments made at the end of my post on Theresa Benns--two by him with my two responses-- prove that he either didn't read what what I wrote, or didn't understand it. (See the last four comments here: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/05/betrayed-by-benns.html?m=1).

Here is the heart of the matter. His resurrected Salza arguments in his first post boil down to sedevacantism being heretical because we have no bishops (at least none of whom we know) possessing Ordinary Jurisdiction, which the approved pre-Vatican II theologians seem to tell us is necessary for Apostolicity; one of the Four Marks of the Church. Contra claims his first post "refutes" sedevacantism. In this post I will set forth the problem in context and demonstrate why he is wrong.

Where It All Started: Vatican II
Everyone recognizes that there are serious differences with what purports to be the Roman Catholic Church today and how She existed prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). What was always believed and taught was now outright contradicted. The Mass and sacraments were substantially altered. It is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible and will exist until the end of time. This presented a big problem for Catholics worldwide. It seemed like there was a new religion operating inside formerly Catholic churches.The clergy tried telling the people that only outward appearances changed, but the "substance" of the faith, morals, Mass, and sacraments remained. 

This simply was not the case. The teaching of the Church regarding such topics as ecclesiology, religious liberty, and collegiality was completely different. The "Mass" was now identical to the invalid bread and wine "Lord's Supper" at the local  Lutheran church, and it introduced practices that had been condemned pre-Vatican II. Either the Church had been wrong from its founding by Our Lord Jesus Christ until Vatican II (in which case the Church was never founded by Christ and is a lie), or the Church was wrong after Vatican II (however, the dogma of Indefectibility teaches that the Church cannot teach error or give evil and She will last until the end of the world). The answer is to be found in the traditional teaching of the approved theologians and canonists: that it is possible for the pope, as a private theologian, to publicly profess heresy as a private theologian and fall from the pontificate by Divine Law. It is also taught that a heretic cannot obtain the papacy. These very real theological possibilities are referred to as sedevacantism (meaning "the seat/See of St. Peter is vacant). Sedevacantism, broadly speaking, is the position that there is currently no pope, and the man Jorge Bergoglio, commonly accepted and called the pope, is in fact a false pope, with no known real pope at present. More specifically, it is the position that the men considered successors to Pope Pius XII are not legitimate successors, and the last known pope was Pius XII.

Vatican II was convoked by Angelo Roncalli, the man known to the world as "Pope" John XXIII. Just as a cause is known by its effects (e.g., the fine-tuning of the universe points to the transcendent God Who created it), Roncalli did things which no true pope, protected by the Holy Ghost, could do. For a complete analysis of John XXIII, see my post:
 The Case Against Roncalli:  http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html

The Church under Pope Pius XII had the Four Marks and was clearly the One True Church in continuity with all popes before going back to St. Peter. The problem began when Roncalli started to rehabilitate all the Modernist theologians censured under Pope Pius XII and called the Council to "update" the Church. Roncalli either never obtained to the papacy (in my opinion the more likely scenario) or lost his authority after the election by public profession of heresy as a private theologian. Only a false pope could have signed Pacem in Terris. 

Those who held onto the Integral Catholic Faith as was always professed until the death of Pope Pius XII, are commonly referred to as Traditionalist Catholics--those Roman Catholics who continue in these most unusual times and circumstances. The solution to what has happened (sedevacantism) is explained by an alternate theological thesis called sedeprivationism (that the Modernist false pope is a material pope but not a formal pope). Both sedevacantism proper, as well as sedeprivationism, have the same result; we have no pope. I set forth this background so that all who read this may understand that we live in a unique time of near universal apostasy. The Church continues to function but in a way that is different from times past when we had a legitimate pope. There are novel questions of theology that have no definitive answer, such as, "How do we get a pope back again?" The approved theologians never addressed such questions in depth. Three possibilities for getting a pope back are:

  • Sedeprivationism--the material pope renounces his heresy and becomes a formal pope or the material cardinals elect a real Catholic
  • Imperfect general council--the true bishops elect a new pope
  • Divine Intervention---God restores the papacy miraculously
Each possible solution has its problems. Keep in mind that just because sedevacantists don't have all the answers doesn't make our position false, nor does it make Bergoglio the "pope by default." Imagine that someone goes to a doctor, and after examining that person and doing appropriate medical tests, he was told by the physician that he had a rare and  progressive disease. The patient asks the doctor, "Can I be cured?" The doctor responds, "I don't know." The lack of knowledge on how to obtain a cure by the doctor does not thereby mean the patient doesn't have the disease. 

No respectable sedevacantist, neither Steve Speray, Dr. Thomas Droleskey, Novus Ordo Watch, nor I (taken individually or as a group) have all the answers to this unique situation. We are trying to make our own Catholic way the best we can. As a friend of mine from Church once said to me with a smile, "If I had all the answers, I'd run for God in November." With this background in mind, I will show Contra is completely wrong in claiming sedevacantism (and sedeprivationism) to be "heretical." 

The Whitewashed Tomb
To those not familiar to sedevacantism, and who are beginning to examine the matter for the first time, Contra's blog appears impressive. While it "looks nice" and erudite, it actually reeks of sophistry. It is like the Pharisees who wanted to appear holy to all, but were condemned by Christ as "whitewashed tombs" that look nice but are inwardly full of hypocricy (See St. Matthew 23:27-28). Rehashing John Salza's material, and putting out post after post, he cites to pre-Vatican II approved theologians and canonists to prove that Apostolicity is missing if sedevacantism is true because (he asserts) there must be bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction. If there are no such bishops, the Church does not possess one of the Four Marks the One True Church must have--"one, holy, catholic and apostolic."  Ergo, sedevacantists cannot be the remnant Church and the thesis is heretical. Contra has claimed that this is an absolute refutation for sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. All I need to accomplish to prove him wrong is to show that sedevacantism or sedeprivationsim does not necessarily entail a loss of Apostolicity, and it is thereby compatible with Church teaching. 

  1. Contra does not understand sedeprivationism and misapplies the teaching of the 1870 Vatican Council.
Although he cites a former sedeprivationist priest who apostatized to the Vatican II sect, what he writes is flat out wrong. In his post of June 10, 2020, entitled "Sedeprivationism is Heresy" he writes:
 Sedeprivationism teaches that the occupants of the Holy See since the time of John XXIII hold only a material succession of Peter; meaning, they lack the requisite jurisdictional authority. This teaching contradicts the dogmatic decrees of Vatican I.

If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema (Emphasis in original). 

Sedeprivationists do not teach that the material pope is the "occupant of the Holy See." A material pope is not the pope at all.  The material pope has mere designation to rule. Designation to power is different from the power to rule. The Electoral College elects the president of the United States, but the electors do not rule. The purpose of designation is to select someone to hold authority. However, someone merely designated holds no power to rule. The president-elect has been designated, but cannot make any presidential acts, like using the veto, until he takes the oath of office and assumes the mantle of authority to which he was lawfully designated. The president-elect is recognized as having the potential to rule, but he is not the president and not to be obeyed.

Someone can have a legal status (de jure) different from their actual status (de facto). A person can murder someone and be in fact a murderer, but if and until convicted, he does not have legal recognition as such. The converse is also true. Someone my be wrongly convicted of murder and have the legal status of a convicted killer, even though he remains innocent de facto. The power to rule the Church comes directly from God. The power to designate the ruler is ecclesiastical; it comes from the Church. There was a time when Cardinals were not the method of choosing the next pope. The Church changed the manner of designation several times in history.

 Since the profession of heresy by the hierarchy during Vatican II, the clerics lost all power to rule, but they retain the right to designate the ruler, since the Church never took that right away from the cardinals before the Great Apostasy. By Divine Law, heresy removes all power to rule, but not the power to designate the ruler.

 The chosen heretic is pope-elect, but not the pope, because his profession of heresy prevents the authority from vesting. He has material succession, not formal, and holds the office of pope potentially, not actually. In like manner, the president-elect can not receive the power to rule unless and until he takes the oath of office.

The false pope retains the ability to designate men who will, in turn, designate a material pope. In this way the succession of St. Peter continues materially. How does this thesis impact the Church?

 There is a simple, but far from easy, solution to get back a True Pope. If Bergoglio were to publicly abjure his heresy and embrace the Catholic Faith by swearing to the Profession of Faith and the Anti-Modernist Oath, he would remove the obstacle to the reception of his designation to rule. He would become a formal, (true, actual) pope. Bergoglio must then receive a valid ordination and consecration from a Traditionalist Bishop, and the interregnum of decades is finally over. Correctly formulated and understood, sedeprivationism in no way conflicts with the dogmatic teaching of the 1870 Vatican Council. The fact that someone may have formulated it differently in no way means the Thesis, thus understood, is heretical. (For more on Sedeprivationism, see my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2014/11/sedeprivationism.html)

Is Apostolicity gone? No. It would exist potentially, not actually, with the designee. Attempting to cite to any approved pre-Vatican II theologian to the contrary is useless because they were speaking about Apostolicity in normal times, not extraordinary times. There is a distinction which will be discussed next. 

       2. Approved theologians taught there could be an extended interregnum as we have today, and therefore it cannot be incompatible with maintaining the Four Marks.

According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

Therefore, the Church can remain for many years deprived of a pope, and the form of government remains "then in a different way." Moreover, there was a historical situation in the Church for 51 years called The Great Western Schism. From 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or possibly none) could have been the true pope. Which one, if any, was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit?  There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. In an age of much shorter life spans there could have been no bishops left with Ordinary jurisdiction, had none of the claimants been a true pope. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.

As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine). So too, Traditionalists stand "willing to give that allegiance" when there is a true pope. 

The real nail in the coffin was delivered by theologian Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century. He wrote a book in 1882 (a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...
The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. 

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. 

We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Emphasis mine).

The following points are made unmistakably clear:
  • The Vatican Council's 1870 decree on the papacy has been misconstrued. The institution of the papacy is perpetual; there is no need nor guarantee of actual men to fill that See at every point in time.
  • The Great Western Schism sets historical precedent for a de facto interregnum of 51 years, since no one knew which papal claimant was pope, and there was a real possibility that none of the claimants was Vicar of Christ. 
  • The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church.  Therefore, all Four Marks, including Apostolicity and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ. 
  • It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as a "heretical pope"--an oxymoron)
What I have written up to this point is enough to collapse Contra's case. 

       3. The Teachings of Theologian Berry Which Contra  Omits 

Contra cites gratuitously from theologian Elwood Sylvester Berry's work The Church of Christ [1955]. I wonder if he bothered to read it, or if he even understands it. Here are some of Berry's teachings from the same treatise:

Apostolic Indefectibility only belongs to the Apostolic See. On page 79, Hence, no particular part of the Church is indefectibly Apostolic, save the See of Peter, which is universally known by way of eminence as the Holy See. Therefore, it seems possible that every part of the Church could lose Apostolicity, except the Holy See. Sedeprivationism keeps that Apostolicity going de jure

A False church with a false pope and false sacraments lead by Satan. On pgs. 65-66,  The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church. (Emphasis in original). A false church! Could Bergoglio and the Vatican II sect be paving the way for the end times?

Apostolicity as one of the Four Marks. On page 88: Apostolicity, as a mark, is thus restricted to succession, and that a material succession, since legitimacy is not an external quality easily recognized by all, whereas material succession, i.e., an unbroken line of pastors reaching back to the Apostles, can be known even by the unlearned as easily as the succession of civil rulers in the State. But since Apostolicity of material succession may, and probably does, exist in some schismatical churches, it constitutes a negative mark only.
So material succession determines Apostolicity as a Mark of the Church. Berry, on page 104, explains why schismatic sects like the Eastern Orthodox don't have a positive Apostolic mark, In no case do they [Eastern Schismatics] have legitimate succession; there is no transmission of jurisdiction because they have withdrawn from communion with Rome, the center and source of all jurisdiction. Sedevacantists have never withdrawn from communion with Rome! In order to prove we have, Contra must beg the question by asserting Bergoglio is a true pope, which is the very matter under dispute. 

A Doubtful Pope is No Pope. On page 229, A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case no one is bound to obey him, for it is an axiom of the law that a doubtful law begets no obligation---lex dubiat non obligat. But a superior no one is bound to obey is really no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. (Emphasis in original)
Can you say, "Roncalli"? 

Sedevacantism is a real possibility. On page 229, Finally, if a pope, in his capacity as a private individual, should fall into manifest heresy, he would cease to be a member of the Church, and consequently would also cease to be Her supreme pastor...although the Church has never defined anything in the matter. Berry opines that it is unlikely to happen, but it is the opinion of all approved theologians and canonists that it could happen. Moreover, Bergoglio couldn't even attain to the papacy. As theologian Van Noort teaches, The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. (See Dogmatic Theology, 2:114-115). The 1917 Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law, and hence cannot teach error, heresy, or give evil. What does Canon Law tell us about those barred from obtaining the papacy?  According to canonist Baldii, Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics... (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

Vatican II Doublespeak
Lest anyone forget, whatever the enemies of Christ say against the Faith as it is now preserved, it does not make the Vatican II sect and Bergoglio into the One True Church and the pope "by default." The Vatican II sect apologists have no choice but to try and make contradictory positions compatible in order to avoid the charge of heresy. In George Orwell's classic novel 1984, the people of  Oceania were told "War is Peace," and "Freedom is Slavery." The Vatican II sect wants us to believe "Heresy is Catholic." They want to do this by "reading Vatican II in the light of Tradition." I will give but one example to show the patent absurdity of such a contention.

It is a dogma that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church outside of which no one can be saved. Someone must be united with Her at the moment of death and in a state of sanctifying grace to be saved.

  • Pope Innocent III in 1215 infallibly stated, "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved..." (Emphasis mine)
  • The infallible decree of the Council of Florence: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..." (Cantate Domino;Emphasis mine)
  • Pope Gregory XVI taught, "Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. (Encyclical Mirari Vos, para. #13; Emphasis mine)
The teaching is clear, all man-made sects are a means of damnation, not a means of salvation. What does Vatican II teach? From Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph #3: "The separated churches and communities [heretics and schismatics] as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Emphasis mine). 

By what mental gymnastics can you claim this teaching is in accord with those cited just before? Are false sects a means of damnation (pre-Vatican II teaching), or are they a means of salvation (Vatican II teaching)? They can't both be true. For those who try and equivocate on the word "means," sedevacantist author John Lane is quick to point out: We have heard it argued that the word "means", occurring in the aberrant passage in this decree, was perhaps intended to signify something like "stepping-stone"; but of course the word is not capable of that meaning either in itself or in the Latin word of which it is the translation. A philosophical axiom states that "a means which cannot achieve its end is not a means." Flying in an airplane is a means of getting from England to France, but riding on a bicycle is not, even if, on reaching the Channel, one tossed the bicycle aside and used some other form of transport instead.

I could spend countless posts on many other such contradictions that exist pre and post Vatican II. However, this will not deter Contra, from churning out large amounts of "cut and paste, easy to use" Salza and Siscoe arguments in an attempt to "overwhelm" Traditionalists and make it seem like he's having an easy time writing a large amount of research (and actually understands the subject). As a lawyer, I do much research and writing, and I argue in court for a living. To do real research and make sound, valid arguments takes time and effort. That's the reason I only put out one post per week. I seek quality, Contra wants mere quantity--and it shows. 


Conclusion
Sedevacantism (properly so-called and sedeprivationism) are the only real solutions to the Great Apostasy in which we find ourselves. To be against it is really to be against Catholicism. The R&R position depends on a non-Catholic view of the papacy and Magisterium. Vatican II and the post-concilliar "popes" whom they recognize will teach something, and then they decide what they will and won't obey. It is not Catholic to have a Magisterium incapable of teaching, and a pope you need to obey only when you agree with him. There are those like $teve $kojec who claim the Church can defect. They deny the dogma of Indefectibility. What good is a Magisterium you can't trust, and a "pope" who can bring about the ruination of souls?

Finally, we have the Vatican II sect apologists, like Contra, the subject of this post. They want you to hold contradictory positions, and put your head in the sand, thinking that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church which just appears different, but is really the same when "read in the light of tradition." The only light to be shed on those damnable documents of Vatican II should come from a bonfire, reducing them to ashes and sending them back to the flames of Hell which begot them.  




90 comments:

  1. It seems just about everything in the world today is turned upside. Good is called evil and evil good. People will believe the irrational, erroneous and delusional Novus Ordo and it's imposter "Popes" but refuse the reality of Sedevacantism.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes it's hard to admit that you're wrong. People prefer to keep their opinions, even if they are convinced that they are false, than to accept reality.

      Delete
    2. Joann,
      What you say is true.

      Simon,
      Yes, many people don’t want an “inconvenient truth”—they prefer a comfortable lie!

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Vatican II with it's imposter "Popes" has unleased nothing but chaos and confusion upon the world. With the acceptance of Ecumenism, anything goes in the N.O. even paganism and atheism. The N.O. accepts Ecumenism, but tell somebody that is N.O. or R&R that you are a Sede and they will go bonkers to the extreme!!

      JoAnn


      Delete
    4. Joann,
      Isn’t that the truth! I can’t tell you the number of times in the last 39 years that I encountered V2 sect clergy or laity who were more than willing to accept everything under the sun, but attacked me the second I said I was a Traditionalist!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. This is proof that it is not the true Catholic Church but a sect that has usurped the name and spread its false doctrines everywhere.

      Delete
    6. Introibo,
      My Husband is from Ireland. He has an Uncle who is a pre-Vatican II ordained N.O. Priest in Ireland. I couldn't wait to tell him I found Tradition and was going to a Latin Mass. As it turned out he was not at all happy for me. He went full out ballistic on me!! I thought because he was ordained pre-Vatican II he would be open to hearing about my finding Traditon. Was I ever wrong! What is wrong with these people??

      JoAnn

      Delete
    7. The old modernists are the worst. They know what they turned their back on with v2 and the NO. The new generation of NO fake priests never knew the true Mass or the true Faith.

      Delete
    8. Tom,
      You took the words out of my mouth! The apostate priests from pre-V2 are either convinced Modernists from before the Robber Council, or they defected to Modernism and broke their oath because they are cowards and hirelings who know they’re wrong.

      A very small number know it’s wrong but feel they must “stick with the pope.” They are the “conservative” priests who get treated worse than garbage by the Modernist “bishops.”
      So sad.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. @Jo Ann
      Have a valid Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered for that Priest.
      I've done that very thing for a few old valid novus ordo
      Priests and Bishops.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    10. Andrew,
      Great idea! Will do. Also, the Priest just retired and is not in very good health.
      Thanks.

      JoAnn

      Delete
  2. Speaking of apostolicity, does it really only refer to ecclessiastical jurisdiction? I know it mainly refers to it, but doesn't apostolicity also refer to the Church descending from the apostles themselves without a substantial break, especially in doctrine (something the Novus Ordo religion obviously can't claim). At least that how the Catechism of St. Pius X explains it.

    The doctrines we follow, the laws we observe, they were promulgated and defined by the successors of the apostles. On the other hand, those doctrines which the Novus Ordites follow were invented by modernists. Hence the Church we are in (that is, the Catholic Church) is apostolic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:41
      You are correct. Apostolicity refers to several features as you rightly point out.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. I also believe that the arguments of sedevacantism are the most logical position regarding the situation of the Church today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      I really don’t see any other way of making sense of this Great Apostasy.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. "While it "looks nice" and erudite, it actually wreaks of sophistry."

    'Wreaks' should be 'reeks'.

    It's actually logically trivial to realize that out of all the religions in the world, only one can be true:

    1) Every religion's beliefs can be categorized as a list of propositions, which must all be held and assented to if you are to be a follower of a given religion.

    2) Every religion ever known (or yet to be known) makes mutually exclusive truth claims about God and reality.

    3) Since we know from philosophy and reason that there exists only one being that can be called God (see St. Thomas Aquinas" five ways and his Summa, which argues for the existence of God and His characteristics before even getting to Scripture and Tradition), such a being has a religion corresponding uniquely to them.

    4) If a given religion contains a proposition which does not correspond to this God, then that religion is entirely false; this is because any logical conjunction of any given number of propositions is rendered false so long as only *one* of the propositions is false, and any given religion - as described above - is comprised of propositions which must be held by the believer of said religion at the same time (otherwise, if you pick and choose, you can't really be said to be a true believer, yes?).

    Therefore, to hold that false religions can be a means of salvation is especially pernicious, but this is what V2 holds. This in and of itself suffices to render the religion of Vatican 2 entirely false.

    Sincerely,

    A Simple Man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple Man,
      I corrected my grammatical error—hard to self-edit!
      Yes, the Vatican II sect is the main proponent of the insanity that all religions lead to God and are a “means of salvation.” They themselves are thereby a false sect.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. On a somewhat related thread, the spirited discussion with self-professed theologian David Gray from some months back came to mind when stumbling upon this particular character: https://mobile.twitter.com/RichRaho

    His Twitter bio is quite interesting: "Catholic theologian, M.Div. Campus Minister, Religious Studies Instructor @SaintPatrickHS. Chronicler of all things Catholic. #PopeFrancis rraho@stpatrick.org"

    Seriously, do people honestly not realize that "Catholic theologian" is not exactly a title you claim for yourself?

    Perplexed,

    A Simple Man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple Man,
      What passes for a “theologian” is anyone who works at a local V2 sect parish or school (if that). This is yet another manifestation that real expertise is unnecessary. The V2 sect does nothing to dispel the idea.

      In an age where being a “YouTuber” is a job, and a teenager can be considered an “influencer,” why can’t the local janitor who skimmed parts of the 1992 “Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church” and distributes the crackers at the Celebration of the YOU-charist be a theologian?

      David Gray did a video interview with a former Jehovah’s Witness who works for a V2 sect diocese named Cary Dabney. Gray referred to Dabney as a “Catholic theologian.” He’s working on a doctorate at HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL (Protestant!!) and his thesis is about something concerning “Black Catholics.” Pathetic. Just like V2 and the sect it produced.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, I actually emailed Mr. Gray before. Remember that he refused to debate with Mr. Speray? I asked why. I didn't yet say I was a sede, but then he went full mad, saying stuff about how we dig rabbit holes, not focusing on the main point, etc. Then he said the only reason he wanted to debate you is because you're anonymous. You're a coward, etc. Then I said that people who debate anonymous people just because they're anonymous and when offered to debate someone else they refuse, are themselves cowards.

      Then he went calm, saying that his work really in life is just writing, preaching, etc. and that the Holy Spirit will use them, i.e. he's not made to be an apologist, to debate. In the end, he didn't reply to my last reply.

      Delete
    3. @anon7:03–Simple Man?

      Very, very interesting! Do you noticed how obsessed many people are with my identity? I don’t care who Contra is because it’s his argumentation that matters, not who he is or what he does. Likewise, my arguments stand or fall on their own merits (or lack thereof) not on my identity.

      The problem I have with David L Gray is that he falsifies his credentials. If you want to be anonymous, no problem. I don’t hold anonymity against anyone—including Contra. If you search David L Gray on the web, he comes up as “An American Theologian”
      On what basis is he a theologian? A Masters degree? He’s not a cleric, nor does he possess either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology or in Canon Law. When I pressed him on the issue of who recognizes him as a theologian in the V2 sect( Bergoglio, local “bishop,” etc) he refused to respond.

      He also claims to be an “historian,” yet he has NO doctorate or even Masters degree in history. He claims to be an “author” yet his 3 books are all self-published.

      People like David L Gray seek to deceive based on authority that doesn’t exist. If a theologian, historian, and author says Vatican II is Catholic, and Sedevacantism is false he MUST know what he’s saying, and should be believed. Call him out on his baloney and he falls back on the false humility of “I’m just a writer and preacher.” Ok, then why not profess that from the beginning? What's with all the phony titles?

      In all fairness, I pray for him and hold out some hope. He has called BLM “Communists” which is true (and doesn’t make him popular in the radical wing of the black population which is the majority) and he is also very pro-life.

      His pride, the very thing he accuses Traditionalists of having, stands in his way of seeing the Truth.

      Thank you for sharing that information with me!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Your welcome. (Nope-not Simple Man)

      Delete
    5. Just for the record Introibo, I'll always append my posts with my username. Makes it easier to keep track of conversations.

      On a parallel track, your point about people using authority that doesn't exist is a well-founded one, and present in many different sectors of society. A common secular one are the "faux news" shows run by people like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, or John Oliver, who all have a decidedly Leftist tilt in their coverage. Then, whenever they're called out on their bias or any inaccuracies, they default to "we're just comedians, not journalists", as if that justifies it.

      Given how many young people turn towards programs like the Daily Show for their news, it's very vexing.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    6. @anon914
      Thanks again, and I now know you’re not Simple Man!

      Simple Man,
      Thank you for appending your user name always. Definitely makes things easier. Your analogy to guys like Colbert (a self -described “practicing Catholic”) is right on.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. Introibo,
    In light of the Black Lives Matter movement stating they are going to tear down statutes of Jesus and Mary, I have a Protestant telling me that "graven images" are forbidden anyhow. "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth." How do I answer?

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Your answer will show Protestant ignorance of the Bible. The Commandments only forbid the WORSHIP of images, not the making of them.

      In Exodus 25:18-21, God commands Moses to make two statues of angels (cherubim) for the top of the Ark of the Covenant where the Ten Commandments were kept. Later in Numbers 21:8-9, God commands Moses to make a bronze serpent, so that the people who were bitten by snakes could look upon it and be healed.

      Now, it is true that centuries later King Hezekiah destroyed it; however, this action was done because the people WORSHIPED it as a “god.” (2 Kings 18:4). In the Gospel, Jesus Christ compared Himself to the bronze serpent (John 3:14), something He could not do if it were wrong or evil to make a “graven image” since He is God. This is proof the Bible does not teach what Protestants claim.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,
      I can always count on you for true and concise explanations.
      Thanks much!!

      JoAnn

      Delete
  7. Bishop Bernardino Pinera died please pray for his Soul.
    He was last the last Bishop appointed during the Pius XII era.
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Another sad milestone. I will pray for the repose of his soul and ask my readers to do the same.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The article I read said he was a modernist, so pray he recanted his heresies before death.

      Delete
    3. Pray for his Soul it's too late to turn back the Clock.
      -A

      Delete
  8. Hello Introibo.

    An outstanding article as always.

    As you live in the State of New York,have you ever attended Mass with Bp Giles Butler in Rochester?I believe they still follow in Bishop Vezalis footsteps of making the claim they are the only True Church with Jurisdiction?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon11:15
      Thank you for the kind words! I know of Bp. Butler, but have never attended Mass with him. I think the arguments for only being the only True Church with jurisdiction is completely without merit. To the best of my knowledge and belief, he continues to maintain that the orders of Lefebvre are dubious because of the “Masonic connection.”

      When someone is that far off-base, I personally will not attend their Mass unless out of necessity.

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Bp.Butler is wrong.
      He tells us to stay away from all Clergy not associated with him,including Clergy that stems from Bp.Des Lauriets,who was consecrated by Archbishop
      Thuc himself.
      They are saying even other Bishop consecrated
      by Archbishop Thuc himself are wrong.
      They are EXTREMELY misguided.
      Fr.Noonan in North Texas is better to attend as opposed to sitting home alone.
      -Andrew

      Delete
  9. Do you have any idea how many would support his group.They have a internet radio program called the Catholic Hour based in Texas.Bishop Vezalis and Bishop Musey spilt the states in two told every traditional priest they had to accept them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:30
      What you say may be true, but simply making an assertion that you have Ordinary jurisdiction and giving yourself and arbitrary geographical boundary is not sufficient for me. Were they valid? Certainly. However, they did not prove their contention to my satisfaction. We must be careful not to accept something because we are sick of the evils we must endure. How many fell for Palmarian “Pope” Gregory and Kansas “Pope” Michael because they want to finally have a Vicar of Christ again?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Not anon @5:30, but yes this is true.

      Bp. Musey believed this until his death. Bp. Vezelis still also believs until now that he has ordinary jurisdiction.

      So do some Mexican bishops, but one case (Bp. Martinez) thankfully stopped thinking this and is now a respectable bishop.

      Delete
    3. Do you have any idea who said the Requiem Mass and did the burial for Bishop Musey back in 1992?CMRI gave him the ouster(started by the then Father T Pivarunas) back in 1986.Father Kevin Vailicourt still supported him.

      Delete
    4. @anon8:27
      I do not know. If any of my readers know, I will publish the answer.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. Yes.good comments.Do you know Bp Santay?I have only met him twice and I must say he is very nice and has a passion for Souls.It is sad regarding the Thuc issue but maybe one day this will change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:27
      Yes, I know Bp Santay very well. He is a good and holy bishop. It’s sad about the Thuc issue.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Look at all the good sisters in the Daughters of Mary.They have many young women joining.Folk say they are a cult but this is not true.

      Delete
    3. @anon8:28
      The Daughters of Mary are far from a “cult.” That word is bandied about way too easily. The V2 sect is a false religion but not a cult, whereas Scientology using coercion is a cult.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. The CMRI prior to its first constitution was definitely a cult

      Delete
    5. Anon @11:28

      I think you're referring to their first General Chapter.

      Anyway, since the one who approved their first General Chapter was Bp. McKenna, do you, (or anyone here) know why he just didn't proceed to conditionally ordain and ordain some priests and give them a bishop? Why did they need to ask from Bp. Musey and Bp. Carmona?

      Delete
    6. @anon2:20
      My guess is that Bp. McKenna wouldn't consecrate or ordain anyone who didn't agree with sedeprivationism (I've heard this from several reliable sources).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Thank you Introibo. Interesting.

      I knew that he consecrated Bps. Sanborn and Stuyver for this reason, continuing the line of Bp. des Lauriers in succession and teaching. But I thought the other five bishops weren't sedeprivationists. I didn't know Bp. Neville was a sedeprivationist.

      Delete
    8. @anon5:18
      This is what I've heard from a reliable source who said he was "almost certain" that Bishop McKenna only consecrated sedeprivationists. I've heard that Bp. Neville is also sedeprivationist, but I'm not certain. If true, it would explain Bp. Mckenna's actions.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. It is so sad to see beautiful Churches that have been standing for hundreds of years taken over by the sect of Vatican II and now potentially destroyed by BLM.
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
  12. The crazies want to replace the Star Spangled Banner with John Lennon's "Imagine". Lennon stated that "Imagine" was the "Communist Manifesto". See link below.

    JoAnn

    "https://www.infowars.com/yahoo-pushes-for-replacing-star-spangled-banner-with-john-lennons-imagine/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      For more on the evil Mr.Lennon and his satanic music, here is my past post for any of my readers who didn’t read or would like to read it again:

      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/02/singing-for-satan-part-7.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. At first glance I thought the majority of these people perpetrating the disorder and assaults were mentally ill. However, upon second glance it is though Legions of demons have been let loose. I am beginning to think that the majority of these people perpetrating these evil assaults are demon possessed.
      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      This is "Satan's field day" and it all started with Vatican II and the evil sect it spawned.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. The reality is that most of the evil done in the world is by many “good” people decieved by a very few evil people. The evil few are very proficient in decieving the sheep, using the ignorance of the masses, and turning them into a mob that unknowingly carries out their wicked plans.

      Delete
    5. Tom A.,
      Where are these "good" people? The only good people I know are in the State of Grace, and they are not the majority.
      JoAnn

      Delete
    6. I'm pretty sure Tom A. meant good intentioned/good willed people

      Delete
    7. Anon @10:19 - I don't have much faith that there are "good intentioned/good willed" people today. Perhaps in an earlier time there were some. I personally don't see them today. With all the humanism and self-worship people are into today, I think a "good" person, except for those in the State of Grace are rare.
      JoAnn

      Delete
    8. Joann, the “good” people I refer to are the naturally good. If the State was guided by the True Church, these naturally good people would most likely be Catholics and live a Catholic life. When the Church was tossed out of the life of the State, these naturally good people drifted into error. These are the people who are unwittingly tricked into doing much of Satan’s evil work.

      Delete
  13. Since FSSP has sold out to the modernists, they will obey their modernists overlords and refrain from defending their churches. Like the liberal mayors and governors, the modernist “bishops” sympathize with the communist revolutionaries. They will not defend the FSSP because secretely they want traditional catholicism destroyed. Why good Catholics stick with the FSSP/ICK groups is beyond comprehension. Why anyone would insert the unholy name if Bergoglio the Apostate into the Sacred Canon is blasphemy. Even the elect will be decieved and continue to be decieved.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Joann, and Andrew,
    I’m wondering why BLM is targeting V2 churches? Many of their members are black.

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tom,
    I agree, but the vast majority are not even priests. They were invalidly ordained in a false Rite by invalid bishops. Only a small handful are valid (those ordained by Lefebvre before they broke away to form the FSSP).

    The FSSP is nothing more than an extension of the V2 sect—their infernal masters—whose job it is to try and get Traditionalists to abandon the Faith.

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  16. We should do our best to ally with other Catholics no matter if they're misguided or not.
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  17. Andrew,
    I definitely think we need to be against BLM. I don’t think FSSP is Catholic, although some of their followers may be fooled and in good faith.

    Joann,
    Yes, they are Communist alright. That does explain animus against religion. They had better be careful not to attack any synagogue. If the Jews get mobilized with cries of anti-Semitic activity, BLM will have met their match!

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  18. Introibo,
    BLM knows who to attack and which States to attack in. “Pope” Francis supports BLM, need I say more?

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was referring to their
    misguided faithful.
    -A

    ReplyDelete
  20. The co-founder of BLM is a “trained Marxist”. Has connections to Bill Ayers. This whole fiasco has been organized for a long time. The Marxists are using the blacks and the blacks are using the whites. Just read where there is 1 black to 6 whites involved in these protests/riots. The communists have infiltrated the schools and universities in high places and filled young people’s head with garbage and lies. Sounds like what happened leading up to Vatican II when the Church was infiltrated by Communists to take the Church down and destroy it from within. What is the “New Normal”? A Country where there is no freedom of speech? A Country where you cannot go to Church? A Country where there is no more Star Spangled Banner, but replaced with the Satanic song “Imagine” by John Lennon instead? Etc., etc., etc.

    JoAnn

    https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/

    ReplyDelete
  21. Introibo,
    It certainly is scary. What I find even scarier is the amount of people I talk with who find the changing of songs such as the Star Spangled Banner, food brands changing their labels and names, and police being defunded etc, and these people laugh about it! Are the majority of people in this Country in denial or just plain don't care? Perhaps they think a Communist takeover is out of the question in this Country?
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
  22. It seems the FSSP church in San Diego is being targeted by BLM because they support Trump and, therefore, are white supremacists!! See below link:

    JoAnn

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/black-lives-matter-activist-tells-rioters-to-protest-catholic-parish-for-being-trump-supporters

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's a War against
    European Catholics.
    It's truly that simple.
    God bless.
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  24. It seems BLM, Muslims and some Jews want to take down a statute of St. Louis and change the St. Louis City name! "Catholics" are holding a vigil around the statute. See below:
    JoAnn

    https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/now-you-see-them-now-you-dont

    ReplyDelete
  25. King St Louis IX is my Patron Saint and one of the greatest rulers in the history of the world. We would do well to have a brave and virtuous Traditionalist Catholic Monarch like King St Louis IX to drive this scum out of the country.

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  26. Really unrelated Introibo, but is "God's Mercy is greater than His Justice" a novel (and useless) idea or a fact? And how would that affect us (if true)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:22
      There is an interplay between the Divine Attributes so that none is greater than another. If God’s Mercy were greater than His Justice no one would go to Hell and people wouldn’t get what they deserve. If God's Justice were greater than His Mercy, no one would get to Heaven.

      It’s kind of like asking is God’s Omnipotence greater than His Omnipresence? They are both infinite.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  27. I invite you to my Library: http://quisutdeusinenglish.blogspot.com/p/library.html
    It includes links to books i have access to in PDF and the Internet Archive

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anyone know or have a link with the
    Traditional Latin absolution of Sins pre-1972?
    Thank you.
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      The traditional formula in the Latin Rite is:

      Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat; et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis (suspensionis) et interdicti in quantum possum et tu indiges. Deinde, ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, + et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
      Translation:
      May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you; and by His authority I absolve you from every bond of excommunication (suspension) and interdict, so far as my power allows and your needs require. [making the Sign of the Cross:] Thereupon, I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, all excommunications that are reserved to the pope/local ordinary can be absolved by a simple priest today, correct?

      Delete
  29. I came across your article this morning. I respond to your nonsense here.

    https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/07/response-to-introiboadaltaredei2-on.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Contra,
      You response is as pathetic as the rest of your drivel. I told you that before I became an attorney I was a science teacher, but I never taught special education. Nevertheless, I will attempt to help out.

      1. You accuse me of plagiarism. False. I was merely giving another version of sedeprivationism (Bp. Dolan)and not claiming it to be my own. As a matter of fact, I used it in my post on Sedeprivationism in 2014, with full attribution to the source, See
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2014/11/sedeprivationism.html

      This was nearly six years ago when I condensed the Bishop's work. In retrospect, I should have cited my own post which I have done. Obviously, there was no intent to steal anyone's material as I gave proper credit on this blog already.

      2. As I wrote above about sedeprivationism, "The fact that someone may have formulated it differently in no way means the Thesis, thus understood, is heretical." The fact that some understood it differently is moot. It is one proposed solution to which no one has all the answers. Still with me Contra? Good, let's move on and see if I can improve your reading skills!

      3. All your citations about papal elections are inapposite. Why? We are not talking about a papal election but giving someone the potential to become one whuich is not the same thing. Hence, I wrote above, "Is Apostolicity gone? No. It would exist potentially, not actually, with the designee. Attempting to cite to any approved pre-Vatican II theologian to the contrary is useless because they were speaking about Apostolicity in normal times, not extraordinary times." Still there Contra? ADHD meds kick in yet? Ok, next will be continued below.

      (continued below)

      Delete
    2. 4. You write: " My argument that sedevacantism is heretical has nothing to do with whether there could be a prolonged papal-interregnum, but that your position that there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction is heretical."

      Here's what I wrote (reading comprehension is not your strength, I know):

      "The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church. Therefore, all Four Marks, including Apostolicity and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ."

      Therefore ***IF*** there needs to be a certain number of bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction (and I'm not conceding the point), THEN they exist even though there are no bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction OF WHOM I AM AWARE. (If your head hurts, go get some rest and pick up where we left off later)

      5. You didn't omit anything from theologian Berry? Really? Who's the real liar? (It's either you or me and it's not me) There is no mention of Berry's teaching on:
      A False church with a false pope and false sacraments lead by Satan. On pgs. 65-66--and the others I cite above. My readers can look in vain for them if they want to waste their time and eyesight.

      Now why don't you do something meaningful that would make your "pope" proud. Not proselytize silly! That's "Solemn nonsense." Not save souls! Atheists can go to Heaven, remember? Don't try and stop abortion, those are "narrow-minded rules."

      So go and protect the environment by cleaning up Styrofoam cups, and worry about youth unemployment--those are the things that REALLY matter!

      Why do you even care if sedevacantism is heretical? Remember that Vatican II teaches Christ uses non-catholic sects AS A MEANS OF SALVATION. Discuss all this with your local Vatican II sect "priests." I'm sure, like the old Flintstones cartoon used to say, "you'll have a gay old time!"

      You've been exposed in a small comment section as being both refuted and clueless. You know the old saying Contra:
      "Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, drunkenness can be sobered, and ignorance educated; BUT STUPID LASTS FOREVER!"

      Class dismissed!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  30. "You accuse me of plagiarism."

    Because you are a notorious plagarist as your other articles demonstrate.


    "As I wrote above about sedeprivationism, "The fact that someone may have formulated it differently in no way means the Thesis, thus understood, is heretical." The fact that some understood it differently is moot. It is one proposed solution to which no one has all the answers. Still with me Contra? Good, let's move on and see if I can improve your reading skills!"

    You are such a liar and a deceiver. You accused of misrpresenting sedeprivatioinism, and then have the gall to change the article after I exposed your nonsense. Do you take me to take you seriously?


    "All your citations about papal elections are inapposite. Why? We are not talking about a papal election but giving someone the potential to become one whuich is not the same thing. "

    We are talking about the right of designation. Heretics don't have a right to designation Are you stupid?


    "No. It would exist potentially, not actually, with the designee."

    Ordinary jurisdiction MUST ALWAYS exist in actuality not potentially. Your position is still heretical.


    "Therefore ***IF*** there needs to be a certain number of bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction (and I'm not conceding the point), THEN they exist even though there are no bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction OF WHOM I AM AWARE. "

    Factually, this is impossible as I demonstrate here

    https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/do-sedevacantists-have-ordinary.html


    you really are a pathetic creature. I can sense your ego being badly bruised when you have nothing substantive to respond with

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Contra,

      You write:Because you are a notorious plagarist as your other articles demonstrate.

      Reply: Seriously? You should have no problem pointing out the myriad "plagiarized" posts then, correct? I won't be holding my breath! By the way, have you given attribution to Johnny Salza for ripping off his work and passing it off as yours?

      You write: You are such a liar and a deceiver. You accused of misrpresenting sedeprivatioinism, and then have the gall to change the article after I exposed your nonsense. Do you take me to take you seriously?

      Reply: Who are YOU that I should care if you take me seriously? I don't take seriously anyone who uses recycled Salza material on why a man who claims "There is no Catholic God" can be "pope"

      I never changed anything other then referencing a past post wherein I condensed Bp. Sanborn's work and gave full attribution. I claimed nothing for my own..unlike you where there is no attribution to Salza and Siscoe. Sedeprivationism has been explained in many different forms.

      You write:
      We are talking about the right of designation. Heretics don't have a right to designation Are you stupid?

      reply: No, I've amply demonstrated you belong to the class of the mentally-challenged. The ability to designate a pope is of ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, and can therefore change. The way a pope has been elected changed many times over the centuries. Divine Law can never change. The law would cease to bind if it would prevent the Church from functioning. See Cardinal Amleto Cicognani (Canon Law, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Second, Revised edition, [1949] p. 625).
      Therefore, it may be possible for materiel cardinals to designate a material pope.

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    2. I could get into the fact that you lied about citing the passages I outlined above from theologian Berry, as none of the citations I provided above are anywhere on your little blog. How you could be THAT obtuse is mind-boggling.

      It really just boils down to this:

      You claim sedevacantism is heretical because in your own words:
      "My argument that sedevacantism is heretical has nothing to do with whether there could be a prolonged papal-interregnum, but that your position that there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction is heretical." (See https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/)

      Here is the defeater for your position put simply for pseudo-educated dolts who copy from Johnny Salza:

      1. The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church. Therefore, all Four Marks, including Apostolicity and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation.

      2. If an interregnum lasted 100 years (which is a possibility), there obviously would be no more bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction.

      3. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation such as that as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ

      4. Ergo, they must be compatible. There are two possible solutions.

      (a) Ordinary jurisdiction is not necessary. It is not a defined dogma. Therefore, the Church does not, strictly speaking need it at all times, just as She does not need a pope on the throne at all times.

      (b) It is necessary to have Ordinary jurisdiction, and it continues to exist in a way theologians never contemplated for these extraordinary times. Theologian Salaverri himself only very briefly touches on the possibility of sedevacantism. HE DOES NOT CONDEMN IT AS HERESY. He thinks it to be 'more pious and probable" that it would not happen, but he quotes Bishop Zinelli from the Vatican Council of 1870 as saying, "...we think it is sufficiently PROBABLE that this [pope losing his office due to heresy] will never happen. For God is not lacking in essentials, and therefore, IF HE WERE TO PERMIT SUCH AN EVIL, THERE WOULD NOT BE LACKING THE MEANS TO PROVIDE FOR IT" (See Sacra Theologiae Summa, 1B [1955], pg. 240; Emphasis mine).

      Ironically, it is you who are in error. For by declaring sedevacantism heretical, you're implying that the Magisterium approved as compatible with the Catholic Faith, a proposition which would, by it's very nature, allow the loss of Ordinary jurisdiction through a long interregnum. This means the Magisterium approved heresy in the works of Her approved theologians, such as Dorsch and O'Reilly. That very idea is itself heretical and smacks of the Feeneyites who see error in all except dogmatic pronouncements and claim the church approved heresy in the teachings of the approved theologians.

      Pathetic? Nah. I'm an unworthy follower of Christ, and not much of an ego. I'm just at a loss of how to respond to someone that doesn't get what was already written as "substantial" enough to defeat his claim. After the beat down you took from Steve Speray, I'd think you'd give it up. I guess stupidity and masochism go together.

      ---Introibo

      Delete