The Vatican II sect replaced the Mass with an invalid "Celebration of the You-charist" presided over by the "president of the assembly," and it gives people an encounter with God. If you want to invite someone to "come into full communion" with the sect (you never proselytize because "proselytism is solemn nonsense"), or to turn from a life of acts unworthy of a Christian (sin no longer exists), you don't tell them they are wrong, they need an encounter with Christ. If you think I'm exaggerating, here are two concrete examples:
1. Elton John is one of the most prolific rock musicians of all time. He is a sodomite who flaunts it, and advocates for sexual deviancy every chance he gets. He married Renate Blauel in 1984, but she was seen as merely his "beard" (term for a woman who pretends to be with a man to disguise his homosexuality). John is noted for his outlandish costumes on stage, most of which portray him as feminine or androgynous. John divorced Blauel and declared himself a bisexual. Later, he said he had enthusiastically embraced homosexuality. John "married" his lover since 1993, David Furnish, in 2014. They have custody of two children, both boys, born of the same surrogate mother; one in 2010, the other in 2013. John declared, "I'm going to fight for them [sodomite "rights"], whether I do it silently behind the scenes or so vocally that I get locked up." (See BBC News of November 12th, 2006).
As to his sick lifestyle, John sees nothing wrong except perhaps bestiality (sex with animals). He said, "There’s nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex. I just think people should be very free with sex…They should draw the line at goats." (Rolling Stone, October 7, 1976, p. 17). He has admitted to having numerous lovers and hook-ups with both men and women, but exclusively men after he declared himself a sodomite. In 2014, John stated Christ would've backed "gay marriage." He said, "If Jesus Christ was alive today, I can not see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen." His cited authority for this comment was..."Pope" Francis! According to Elton John, Bergoglio has"... stripped (the Vatican II sect) down to the bare bones and said it's all basically about love..and inclusiveness." (See The Telegraph, 6/30/14, article entitled "Elton John says Jesus would've backed gay marriage. Millions will presume he's right" by Tim Stanley).
John has declared that Bergoglio is staunchly in the camp of the sexual deviants, and an ally of sodomites. According to The Catholic (sic) Herald:
On BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme the musician said he considered Pope Francis an "ally" against conservative bishops in Africa in his views on same-sex relationships.“My sly bet is yes he is. He’s just had the [synod] in Rome and I think he’s fighting an uphill battle against the African cardinals and bishops.” Elton John said his message to the Pope was: “Keep going, keep pushing it. Change is very hard, especially in the Catholic Church, you don’t get things done immediately, you’re not going to persuade people, just keep going and keep going and eventually the wall will fall. I think he's on our side.”
The singer, who is in a same-sex marriage, added: “I would love to meet him. I’m not a Catholic but from the first day he was elected he tried to bring a new message and change the Church and bring it into the 21st century. To be an inclusive Church. He has brought hope and change." (See http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/11/05/elton-john-says-he-would-like-to-meet-his-hero-pope-francis/).
Elton John has said Bergoglio is a "saint" and should be "canonized" now. (With all the requirements of canonization trashed, why limit it to those who have died, right?) Keep in mind that John has no intention of amending his life, rather he likes the fact that Bergoglio is joining him in the quest to completely eradicate true Faith and Morals. Francis wants Christ to conform to the world and not have the world conform to Christ.
Mr. Mark Shea, a Vatican II sect apologist, sees John's praise of Bergoglio as something wonderful (of course). According to Shea, the false pope is causing John to "revisit what the Gospel has to say." Furthermore, John doesn't need a set of moral precepts, but an "encounter with a person." (See https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/10/elton-john-greatly-admires-pope-francis.html).
This is Modernist drivel, pure and simple. Mark Shea wants us to believe Elton John has revisited the Gospel. No, Mark, he's revising it to justify his perversity---even citing to Francis himself-----in order to make people believe the unnatural is acceptable. Does Francis condemn any of this, you ask? Has he told Elton John he will not and cannot change God's Moral Law against sodomy? Has he told him that he must repent, convert, or go to Hell? Why no! Elton is having an "encounter," don't you see? Raised an Anglican, John is a God-hating pervert on his way to perdition, and Bergoglio does nothing to correct him. Why? Because Francis isn't the pope.
2. The Vatican II sect's "liturgy" denigrates the Real Presence (which they don't have anyway), and it is replaced by various encounters with Christ. According to one V2 sect blogger, citing Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) and drawing out the logical conclusions, had this to say:
"We all know that we encounter Christ in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. But the Church teaches us we really encounter Jesus in three other ways as well. In Sacrosanctum Concilium—The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [CSL], four such encounters are articulated:
Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, “the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross," but especially under the Eucharistic species. By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes. He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”. [CSL 7]
To summarize, Christ is truly present in the Mass in four ways:
1. in the celebrant during the Eucharistic prayer. He is then in the person of Christ.
2. especially in the Eucharist.
3. in his Word—the Scriptures. It is Christ who speaks when the Word is proclaimed.
4. in the gathered assembly—the Body of the Risen Lord." (See https://bemissionarydisciples.org/an-encounter-with-christ/; Emphasis and font color change in original).
As the Council of Trent declared in the Decree on The Most Holy Eucharist, Chapter 1:
In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things.
The Vatican II sect now adds three additional "truly present" means by which you can encounter Christ. The Real Presence is not uniquely Christ, He is there in the "fullest" or "best" way---"especially" present.
So where did all this idea of having an "encounter" originate? It comes from a false philosophy known as existentialism, and was pushed during the Council by arch-heretic Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J.
Existentialism
(For this section, I have condensed some material on existentialism from Phillip Trower's work, The Church Learned And The Revolt Of The Scholars, [1979], pgs. 29-40---Introibo).
It is almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of this philosophy, which has transformed religious thinking everywhere — inside and outside the Catholic Church. In existentialism, reason is not just downplayed it is, in effect, abolished. To use it for thinking in the normal way by distinguishing object from object (cat from dog, and cat's tail from cat's body), or objects in the outside world from the thoughts in one's mind (object from subject) is considered wrong. This kind of normal thinking, though plainly designed for us by God, was supposedly introduced by wicked "Greek intellectualism," and is said to falsify reality, which does not consist of separate creatures with distinct natures, but is envisaged as a liquid continuum--like soup. For example, making statements about the nature of God, such as He exists as a Trinity, should be forbidden because they turn God into an "object," and God cannot be considered as an object among a variety of other objects (even if we are unquestionably objects to God).
The fallacy at the root of all existentialist thought is the idea that "experience" can be a path to knowledge on its own, separate from and, in some sense, in rivalry with the use of the mind. In reality, experience is merely the stuff out of which knowledge is derived. Unless we analyze or think about what we have experienced (which necessarily involves the use of abstract ideas and propositions) our experiences will tell us nothing or deceive us. Existentialism also assumes that we all experience reality differently; each has his own version of the "truth." This is why each must be allowed to "do his own thing"; whatever he finds "meaningful" or "relevant." The word meaningful in existentialist talk does not mean true, right, or intelligible, but what gives the individual satisfaction.
The way we can know something is by experiencing it subjectively, in an encounter, with "the other." Most existentialist philosophers were atheists, as there was no God they encountered. Life was simply absurd and meaningless to these existentialists (Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Friedrich Nietzsche to name three of the most famous and influential). There were some who believed in "The Other" (God) who could be encountered through our experiences with each other and in Whom we sometimes need a "leap of [blind] faith." The most famous of these philosophers were Karl Jaspers (Protestant), Soren Kierkegaard (Protestant), Martin Buber (Jewish), and Gabriel Marcel ("Catholic"). Marcel (1889-1973) was an atheist son of a French agnostic. He converted to Catholicism in 1929, at age 40. He followed the Vatican II sect happily. Marcel was friends with Jacques Maritain, whose philosophical writings were going to be censured by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII. Marcel likely would have been next, but both he and Maritain escaped censure with the death of Pope Pius XII and subsequent usurpation of Roncalli. Marcel's philosophy influenced a Polish bishop; Karol Wojtyla. (See Derek Jeffreys, The Legacy of John Paul II: An Evangelical Assessment,[2007]).
Enter Karl Rahner
Karl Rahner was born on March 5, 1904, in Freiberg, Germany. He was ordained a Jesuit on July 26, 1932. In the twentieth century (beginning in the late 1930s), Rahner, along with theologians Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Louis Bouyer, Jean Daniélou, Jean Mouroux and Joseph Ratzinger (later "Pope" Benedict XVI) began a Neo-Modernist movement that despised the Neo-Scholasticism which had served the Church so well. The movement was called "Nouvelle Theologie" (French for "New Theology") by the great anti-Modernist theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, often pejoratively called "the sacred monster of Thomism" by his enemies because of his love of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and his hatred of Modernism.
In 1946, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote a scathing criticism of the movement (which liked to call itself ressourcement ---"return to the sources"), because they claimed they were "returning to patristic thought." Garrigou-Lagrange demonstrated that the theologians of the movement did not "return to the sources" but deviated from the long-standing theological tradition of the Catholic Church, thus creating a "new theology" all their own, and a disguised resurgence of Modernism. In 1950, Pope Pius XII responded with his great encyclical Humani Generis which condemned many of their errors, such as rejecting the traditional dogmatic formulations that emerged throughout Church history as a result of scholastic theology, re-interpreting Catholic dogma in a way that was inconsistent with tradition, falling into the error of dogmatic relativism and criticizing biblical texts in a way that deviated from the principles of biblical hermeneutics outlined by his predecessors (principally Pope Leo XIII).
- The supernatural existential is an implicit denial of Original Sin and the whole doctrine on Grace
- The Incarnation and Redemption by Christ are mythological, but are useful narratives
- All Marian Dogmas are myths
- There is no "One True Church" because all religions lead to God
- All humanity will be saved
Saint Paul warned us that in the last days people would abandon true doctrine and stick to fables. This is what we have seen for 60 years.
ReplyDeleteIt also reminds me of the parable of the weeds. The enemy came and sowed all kinds of bad ideological seeds that eventually sprouted in Vatican 2.
Elton John should read the gospel carefully. Jesus did not approve of the behavior of the adulterous woman, nor any sin. He wouldn't approve of the perverted sodomite lifestyle either. And I wish Elton John to meet, not Bergoglio, but a true traditionalist Catholic priest who will put him on the right path.
Simon,
DeleteYes, what Elton John needs is the truth; not some "encounter." Unfortunately, having divested itself of the truth, "encounters" is all the sect has left to offer. The people need bread and were given stones to eat.
---God Bless,
---Introibo
Existentialism leads to the first sin. They "encountered" the serpent. They "encountered" the tree. They "encountered" the fruit. They "encountered" the consequences after eating the fruit once the serpent told them what would happen to them if they ate it. Nothing to worry about because it was all about the "experience" with the "other" which lead to their personal satisfaction. I say tomato, you say tomahto, I say 2+2=4, you say 2+2=5 but as long as we both say something close enough it is okay because there is no such thing as objective truth so long as your "encounter" leads you to your own truth. In other words, there is no winners or losers because we are all winners through our imagination by our "encounter" with the "other." Such an incredibly stupid philosophy, it's no wonder why our world is at the point to where it is now.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that John Paul the great apostate was influenced by Gabriel Marcel. I've seen where JPII was also into phenomenology which is similar to existentialism. At the end of the day these fakes were all into themselves and this is why the Novus ordo religion is the religion of man and not God.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteYou're right on the money as usual, my friend! Now, with the damning report about "Uncle Ted" McCarrick, even the secular press is saying that Wojtyla shouldn't have been "canonized"! There are even some V2 sect "bishops" who are calling for his veneration of as a "saint" to be curtailed (e.g., keep him "on the books" but do not name Churches, schools, etc after him). There's one report that in Poland, a "John Paul II Street" had the words "Victims of" painted before it!
God Bless,
---Introibo
If Catholics knew about Catholic doctrine and Wojtyla's heresies and acts of apostasy (in addition to everything we know about the scandal of the Novus Ordo pedophile priests), they would not have called for his immediate canonization because it is obvious that he is not a saint.
DeleteSimon,
DeleteThe members of the Vatican II sect are hopelessly lost as far as Catholic doctrine. Look how many follow and donate to $teve $kojec and read Salza's arguments for the reason-challenged. Even now they want to "curtail his cultus as a saint." There is no such thing! No one is willing to admit the obvious--he was neither pope nor saint.
In 2005 (Wojtyla's death) there was plenty of info on his kissing the Koran, etc. You're more optimistic than me, my friend! If they really knew his acts of apostasy, they would become sedevacantists!
God Bless,
---Introibo
ReplyDeleteIt is not surprising that the conciliar sect is infested with faggots. Their own false doctrines are extremely effeminate.
@anon10:14
DeleteThe "luv" and "group hugs" and getting in touch with your feelings about God? Effeminate indeed. The sodomites like the idea of "inclusive luv" but hate the idea of crucifixion caused by sin, doing penance, amending your life, and avoiding the real possibility of Hell.
God Bless,
---Introibo
To the existentialist, they - the subject - are the only ones capable of giving their life meaning. It follows that upon their death, their life ceases to have any meaning, for the subject no longer is. Thus, the honest existentialist will admit that life cannot have any meaning whatsoever.
ReplyDeletePer Jean-Paul Sartre, the existentialist assumes that "existence precedes essence." (By essence, he refers to it not in the Thomistic sense, but defines it as the relational property of having a set of parts ordered such that they collectively perform some activity.) Furthermore, he stated that existentialism is "the attempt to draw all consequences from a position of consistent atheism." However, to proceed on these presumptions is to deny existentialism altogether, for how can abstract ideas - the assumption "existence precedes essence", or the assumption that consistent atheism is true - be said to have a concrete existence in and of themselves? It is akin to basing a real house on a foundation of imaginary concrete.
To the existentialist, "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world—and defines himself afterwards". This cannot be said to apply universally, for most people first encounter their family - recognizing them as distinct beings separate from themselves - before turning to questions about personal identity. It also implicitly assumes materialism, for there is no thought or question granted regarding the existence of the immaterial soul.
To the existentialist, authenticity of actions (namely, that one acts according to the "self" that you create) is of prime importance. Inauthentic acts (such as acting according to the will of external agents if you internally disagree with them) are to be shunned. Yet, what universal standard can there be had to determine authenticity of any action? If authenticity is relative to each individual person, then you can never claim to know whether someone is being authentic or not without them telling you. And even then, if someone were lying to you about their authenticity, you would not be able to determine whether or not such a statement had any value (for what if they authentically decided to be a liar, to the extent that fooling everyone was what they desired?). In summary, it implicitly undermines the notion of objective truth.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Existentialist philosophy, taken as a whole, is a doorway to societal, cognitive, and spiritual chaos. As such, attempts to wed it with Catholic philosophy and theology are yet another sign of the Devil's work.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A Simple Man,
DeleteYour analysis of the subjects upon which I write are always brilliant and adds tothe quality of this blog! If I ever need a couple of weeks off, I might ask you to fill in for me!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI would be happy to do so if the opportunity arises. Would you like my contact info in a follow-up post (provided that it won't be posted, naturally)?
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Simple Man,
DeleteThe clarity of your thought, precision in writing, and gift of the One True Faith make you the perfect candidate. Please send me your email in this comment section (I promise not to publish it). I will contact you with an email that protects my identity. It will read "Hello From Introibo" in the subject line. We can communicate further through email.
---Introibo
Hello Introibo! Very good article as usual.
ReplyDeleteContra is back again. He sent me this this morning:
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/10/contra-sedevacantism-definitive_30.html?m=1
Please check it Introibo if it needs addressing.
God bless!
-JCA
JCA,
DeleteThis person is a joker trying to get notoriety by peddling recycled (and refuted) Siscoe and Salza arguments from their book and blog. I replied via a post to his garbage before, See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/06/contra-catholicism.html
He has exactly 16 posts as of today; 14 in June, one in October, and one this month--not exactly a prolific or original writer/thinker.
I started to read the post from October which you cited. After about two minutes of reading, I couldn't help but laugh. He simply ignored or sidestepped what I had written. Within the Introduction, "Contra" claims ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for the Church to be Indefectible. We are then treated to this gem:
"A common ploy used by sedevacantists is to cite the Western Schism (1378 – 1417), where the identity of the legitimate pope was in question. Although there may have been some doubt regarding who the legitimate pope was, one could still be morally certain regarding who its legitimate bishops were. All one would have to do is to look at the bishops who were consecrated before the so-called Western Schism began."
Really? The Black Plague emerged in Europe from 1346 and was still a significant factor in deaths until 1815. (See The Journal of Economic History, Volume 77, Issue 2
June 2017 , pp. 406-439) The average male (regardless of status) from 1300-1400, had a life expectancy of about 45 years old. With the last surely known consecrations approved by the pope occurring in 1378 and assuming an incredibly young bishop of age 20 in that year--he would be 58 by the year before Pope Martin ended the Great Western Schism. How likely is that? Very unlikely that ANY bishop pre-1379 was around by 1400. In an age before the Internet or even daily newspapers, how would the common people know who was consecrated when? How does Contra know there were existing bishops pre-1379? What records does he have? He certainly doesn't cite any. It's all pure conjecture at best. This is a flaw in the very BEGINNING of his post---need I say more?
---Introibo
Thank you Introibo! I’ll look at that article you wrote.
DeleteYes please. Say more if you don’t mind Introibo. It’s very interesting.
God bless!
-JCA
Intro, your rebuttal is weak and quite stupid. You are saying the church may not have had moral certainty that legitimate bishops with ordinary jurisdiction existed through the GWS because of the black plague? That is as dumb as it gets. For one thing there was a legitimate pope at all times during the GWS even though his identity was disputed. I fail to see any precedent between the GWS and Sedevacantism today. Contra is correct.
Delete@anon8:41 aka Contra,
DeleteHow are you Contra? Like a bad penny you were bound to show up. Please go back and read what I wrote.
1. The life expectancy was 45 regardless of societal status, and in large part due to the Black Plague. I gave citation.
2. The youngest bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction from pre-1379 would be approximately 24. A 24 year old bishop would be 63 by the time of Pope Martin V who ended the Great Western Schism. The odds of ANY bishop being alive in 1410 who was consecrated pre-1379 is virtually nil. There can only be empty and unlikely conjecture to the contrary.
3. No one knew who, IF ANYONE, was pope! There was a real possibility that NONE of the claimants was pope, and there were some Catholics at the time who thought just that. The only reason we know there was a real pope at all times was because this were sorted out AFTER the Schism by real popes. Nevertheless, no one thought that having no pope to appoint bishops and no bishops surviving from 1378 until the end of the GWS meant the Church defected.
Nice of you to try and defend yourself, but such ignorance is indefensible.
---Introibo
Here's a snippet from Father Edmund J. O'Reilly speaking about the temporary uncertainty of Papal succession during the Great Schism, and the implications it has for the future (full context can be read at the archive link):
Delete"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*."
(Rev. Edmund J. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society [London: John Hodges, 1892], pp. 287-288; https://archive.org/details/relationschurch00oreiuoft.)
Clearly the Great Schism was allowed for a reason, and has important and salutary lessons for today. To try and paint ordinary jurisdiction as being intrinsically tied to indefectibility is quite a mental pretzel of logic. Furthermore, even in the worst case scenario, granting somehow that sedevacantism is now heretical because it recognizes the fact that there is no ordinary jurisdiction today, what would that leave us as an alternative? The Novus Ordo being apostolic and containing ordinary jurisdiction?
That's undoubtedly off the table, since as Contra himself quoted for genuine apostolicity from the theologian Van Noort, the Apostolicity, in order to be genuine, requires a continuity in government, mission, adn/or authority, of which it would be laughable to claim the Novus Ordo possesses.
Thus, the only inescapable conclusion would be that the claims of indefectibility of the Church are false, and the Catholic religion therefore is false, something which any sound person can reject a priori through faith in the promises of Christ.
Neyoriquans,
DeleteGreat point!
God Bless,
---Introibo
For those who missed it, i want to ask for prayers because i am feeling dizzy and having headaches almost every day an feel it is either my computer screen or something else. I think i will be checked this week or the next one,
ReplyDelete@anon4:41
DeleteI will pray and ask all my readers to do the same. Please get checked out; the sooner the better my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Me too! This has been going on for some time. Everyday i wake up with a headache and it gets worse as the day progresses. At times during the day when I move my neck it literally snaps / cracks and you can hear it across the room. Never had anything like this before. At first I thought it might be my pillow and then certain food supplements but none of them changed anything. I too wonder if this could be my PC screen or all the wireless stuff in our neighborhood. Is anyone else experiencing this?
DeleteAnon @8:50,
DeleteI was told of a condition known as "tech neck" by a physician who told me his son had it from being on computer and cell phone so much.
Anon @4:41,
Just a thought, but have you had your blood pressure checked recently?
JoAnn
anon: 8:50
DeleteMaybe it can be meningitis. Is your neck rigid? do you have flu like symptoms? Just sayong
JoAnn
I am going to the doctor tomorrow.. Thank you for the advice
@anon4:41 and 8:50
DeleteYou're both in my prayers and I ask my readers to pray for you as well. Let us know how you're doing when you get checked by a doctor.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Look into Atlas Subluxation Complex
Deletehttp://www.atlasprofilax.org
My son was cured of 10 years of headaches and dizziness, they even wanted to drug him up. I was the crazy Mom, he had MIR’s, went to three children’s hospitals, and found nothing and then one night I watched Mystery Diagnosis and learned about the atlas. A difficult birth could be the culprit or even a fender bender in the car. This treatment is common in northern Italy, Switzerland and Germany I found out. We live in Europe and my son was treated 5 years ago, and his life changed!
I am attaching a link, we didn’t use these people, we used Atlantotec in Europe but I found a similar treatment for the USA and I believe it is what my son had.
Oh, chiropractors and traditional doctors will disparage the treatment, but my son was ill a long time and they could not help. Even when my son was cured, we went back to show the doctor and we got an eye roll. And she wanted him on addictive meds to turn him into a zombie. Everyone can do their own research. But for us it was a blessing from Heaven.
Joann;
DeleteMy blood pressure is low
Anon 4:41
Anon @4:41,
DeletePlease get checked out by a Dr. Don't delay. Keep us updated as to how you are doing. Sending prayers.
JoAnn
Feel better :)
DeleteI republish my comment for those who missed it.
ReplyDeleteI want to recommend Catholics to download any catholic material they want/need. I am afraid of future internet censorships and i think it would be a good idea if all of us download catholic books, articles, and papal writings not only for ourselves but also to share them with potential future converts.
To give you ideas, I think you can download out of print books in the internet archive, for example, i found the Summa Theologica. Also, i have downloaded many articles form the web using the Books application in my I-Pad; i ignore if a mac compute or a cellphone can do so, but i believe it is worth a try.
@anon4:42
DeleteA great recommendation!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thanks for this blog post. Sometimes I become preoccupied with the liturgical and cultural disaster that started with the Eclipse of 1958 while forgetting the disordered thinking that predated it and paved the way for the Robber Council. The article focused on Existentialism, but my close encounter was with Phenomenology as taught at the University of Dallas in the 1980s. Subjectivism leads to insanity. This conceit that we should base our understanding of reality on our perception denies Original Sin because it places reliance on a flawed and disordered creature's perception. It puts man ahead of God, and that never ends well.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder the Novus Ordos prefer it. What could be more subjective and phenomenological than "encounter"?
Milkbone,
DeletePhenomenology is another dead end indeed. I'm glad, by God's grace, you weren't taken in by it! Thank you for commenting.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Francis's aspirations of becoming the next "Saint" of the Vatican II "Popes" may have just come crashing down!! His sins and,hopefully, his fake Papacy as well as JPII's are being exposed. See below link.
Deletehttps://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/16/opinion/pope-john-paul-ii-was-no-saint-neither-is-pope-francis/
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteThank you for the link. Can people wake up? Time will tell!
---Introibo
Thank you for the link JoAnn very eye opening.
Delete-A
Great piece, Intro. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI'm no philosopher, but the revolutionary thinking you discuss here reminds me of that popular old piece of bar-room philosophy that went:
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"
A waste of time to contemplate, it was one of those thousands of "cool" academic theories meant to get us to buy into the state of induced cognitive dissonance for the masses. Anyone grounded in reality knows our constant experience in seeing and hearing the sound of anything falling proves that when trees in a forest fall, they too must behave according to the law that a falling object, when meeting resistance, always makes a proportionate sound. Whether or not someone is not near enough to observe it is immaterial. St. Thomas was the Doctor of reason. Reason is the scientific language of reality which is truth. That's why the Modernists hate him.
The thinking of existentialism and phenomenology taught by V2, its "popes" and "saints", is illogical, not real and a lie. A lie from Hell.
Jannie
Jannie,
DeleteYou're so right! How many are led astray by sheer ILLOGIC, and continue to go down the wide path to destruction. God help us all.
God Bless,
---Introibo
It sucks to be alive in this era.
ReplyDeleteMy age group was born in the apostate very late 1970's.
We haven't ever known anything except misery chaos tragedy disorder + it seems to be getting worse,mayve even completely hopeless.
This article reaffirms the above paragraph.
Great article + God bless.
-Andrew
Andrew,
DeleteIt's hard not to despair, but if we are on God's side, who can stand against us? We have a chance to earn more merit than possibly at any other time since the foundation of the Church! We may know greater happiness than ever, not only Heaven, but even in this life. Only God knows the future.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteI have met people who describe themselves as being "born again Catholics". Is this another description for the philosophy of encounter? Thanks.
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteThe analysis of Simple man below is correct.
---Introibo
JoAnn,
ReplyDeleteThe "born again" verbiage is very common to the American South, and to Baptist/Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestantism in particular. It is generally a term used to describe someone who - to use the Protestants' words - has "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior", has been baptized in water (always as an adult, since they do not practice infant baptism and do not consider it a sacrament, but rather an ordnance), and generally accepts the Bible as the only authority in their life.
I don't know the mentality of the Catholics who claim to be "born again", whether they be ecumenists, trying to be "cute", or if they're trying to reclaim the verbiage of being "born again" from the Protestants. However, given the possible occasion for scandal, I would advise them to be clear on what they mean by "born again", because it carries very different connotations for someone with a Southern background.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A Simple Man,
Delete"they do not practice infant baptism and do not consider it a sacrament, but rather an ordnance)"
What do you mean by they consider baptism an "ordnance"?
JoAnn
JoAnn,
DeleteMy apologies, "ordnance" should have read "ordinance". In other words, certain sects of Protestantism (certain Evangelicals, all Baptists, Pentecostals, and so on) consider baptism an ordinance, i.e. a religious ritual whose intent is to demonstrate an adherent's faith. In other words, they do not view baptism as a sacrament which imparts graces from God.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A Simple Man,
DeleteThanks for the clarification. Protestantism is so very contrary, it makes my head spin!
JoAnn
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThank you Introibo for an excellent lecture on the philosophical errors of Vatican II and its authors. It is worth adding that Ratzinger was the right hand of the much older Karl Rahner, who, together with Hans Küng, took control of the council. However, Novus Ordo consevatists still consider him a great pope, because he wore red shoes and beautiful vestments.
I have a question about priesthood. Namely, the Novus Ordo clergy and the official new catechism approved by Wojtyła in 1992 speak of two priesthoods: common priesthood and ministerial priesthood. Wojtyła's Catechism says: "The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet and king." Is such a distinction of priesthood confirmed by traditional Catholic theology?
God bless,
Paweł
Pawel,
DeleteThe exaggerated claims made by the Vatican II sect regarding baptism and "common priesthood" is the Protestant heresy of the "priesthood of all believers." See my post:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-role-of-laity.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
The biggest lies of our era are
ReplyDeleteabortion being referred to as a
"Right" + that Women and Men are equal.
These 2 bold face lies cut through our society like a hot knife through butter.
-Andrew
Introibo, have you wrote an article about the equality/inequality of men and women? Or what's the Catholic teaching in a few words?
DeleteWomen, submit to your husbands. Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves His Church.
DeleteTo be as pithy as possible, here are some fundamental points:
Delete- Every human soul has an inherent nature due to being formed in the image of God. From this, one can conclude that each human being is equal in their essential qualities (i.e. we all have a rational soul; we are all mortal; we will all face a final Judgment; we are all conceived with the stain of Original Sin; and so on).
- However, every human being is born into different temporal circumstances, and they also also attain to different stages of life based on their freely-chosen actions, and so they will differ in terms of accidental qualities (born into wealth or into poverty; born as a citizen of America versus born as a non-American; someone who attains to the position of a magistrate will have greater political authority than one who doesn't; and so on).
- In particular, men and women have complimentary roles with regards to the human family (which are driven to a significant degree by the biological and physiological differences between the sexes), and human societies throughout the millennia have often organized themselves in recognition of these realities (though Modernists are doing their utmost to try and ignore this, as seen with the Transgender movement).
In summary: men and women are *equal* in certain essential categories *common to all humans* in light of being created by God. However, in terms of accidental categories, they are not the *same*.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
@anon4:51
DeleteI agree with Simple Man. Men and women are equal insofar as they are Created by God and called to spend eternity in Heaven (God Wills the damnation of no person, but many go to Hell because they reject God of their own free will and refuse to cooperate with His grace).
Men and women are different as to their roles in life. To give but one example, women bring people into the Church by means of the physical order (giving birth). Men can become priests and bring people into the Church in the supernatural order by baptism and keep them in grace via the Sacraments. Both roles are equally important but not the same.
---Introibo
Thank you very much.
DeleteNot sure if this is related, but about men and women, do we still hold the position that St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with, that the soul comes from the father, (passable qualities of the soul, such as intelligence), and the body from the mother alone? If yes, doesn't modern science prove that intelligence comes from the mother
@anon5:31
DeleteThe Angelic Doctor was working with the science of his day (13th century), not to mention doctrines have developed. It is od Faith that the soul is created "ex nihil" ("out of nothing") immediately by God and infused into the body. There is a whole debate over "nature vs. nurture" but basic traits are passed down by both biological parents, for the most part.
God Bless,
---Introibo
It should have read "off faith" not "od faith".
Delete"Women, submit to your husbands. Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves His Church."
DeleteThe beginning of the above verse is quoted often by many, but not so much the second part of the verse: "Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves His Church". Neither have I ever read anything about this part of the verse being expounded upon. It seems to be quite ignored. I would like know various thoughts as to why this verse is so widely ignored and not expounded on? Seems to be a good topic for a post Introibo?
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteIt does indeed! The short answer is that it means, "Husbands, take a long, hard look at the love of Christ manifested on the cross, and that’s how you treat your wife – self-sacrificial love.”
---Introibo
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/category/first-timothy-212/
Deletehttps://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/07/28/feminism-the-first-sin/
Introibo, thanks for answering. As well as A Simple Man for the first question. Much appreciated
DeleteMr. Steven is arguing that women can't be civil leaders? Isn't that wrong? St. Thomas Aquinas so no problem with that in his Summa.
DeleteHe also states that women shouldn't vote.
Anon 6:35,
DeleteThe point of his first article is to show why it is wrong for women to exercise authority over men which not only traces back to 1 Tim 2:12 but also from where he quotes a Catholic Encyclopedia. He does lists exceptions to the rule (which there are some) but makes the distinction that it shouldn't be the norm. As far as voting he never said it was wrong for women to vote but why women weren't allowed to vote based on how it used to be understood.
@anon6:35
DeleteMr. Speray does not denigrate women. As anon1:01 correctly pointed out he was explaining why women weren't allowed to vote. His second post makes clear his position:
Within the realm of human dignity, women should have a right to work and have a higher education. However, we are not equal in authority (II Tim. 2:12-14).
"The “women’s rights” which are advocated in society by the feminist movement necessarily place women in an equal or higher authority. These so-called rights attack the dignity of the human person. The unborn are murdered, motherhood is downgraded, and masculinity is frowned upon and rejected. Feminism of the feminist movement is a rejection of truth. It is in this understanding of feminism which I’m referring to in this study."
I'm in agreement with Mr. Speray.
---Introibo
I agree with Mr. Speray as well because his argument isn't downplaying women but rather explaining the role of genders. We are equal in human dignity but God did not design it to where men and women are equal in authority. It's true that women can be fierce and tomboyish but one thing they aren't meant to do is command men around like in the Army or police force (which is another story).
DeleteIMO, feminism is a reason why the family is being attacked and the LGBT movement getting bigger. People are on their way to hell in a handbasket.
+Catherine+
There isn't nothing that disgusts me more than a woman acting like a man and a man that acts like a limp wristed soy boy. Speaking of which, Paul Joseph Watson has a good explanation about soy boys here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az352YaZNM0
DeleteLee
Catherine,
DeleteYes, feminism is fueled by sodomites, which in turn expands their numbers and harms the family.
Lee,
This is the behavior of the denizens of the "New Sodom and Gomorrah" in the 21st century.
---Introibo
Don't forget mixed education. I know two persons who were bullied because of the sexual competition that exists in our schools. Not lying. It is also truth that it damages the competitiveness of men; this makes them more prone to misogyny, nihilistic and destructive behavior. Add sex ed and all you have is a bunch of oversexed and lost teenagers.
Delete@anon6:45
DeleteIndeed. See my post:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-end-of-innocence.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Your post is just another example of the evils of sex ed
DeleteIn other words, what have we done to our children?
DeleteI am going to sound like a broken record, but why don't men in particular want to discuss the bible verse: "Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves His Church." Seems most want to gloss over the verse like it doesn't exist or doesn't pertain to them.
DeleteJoAnn
Introibo,
DeleteHow do you explain the following bible verse?
Romans 16: 1-2
"And I commend to you Pheobe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae: [2] That you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints; and that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. For she also hath assisted many, and myself also."
I am not a feminist by any means, but I see 1 Timothy 2-12 quoted a lot but hardly ever see the above verse quoted, explained or expounded upon. Phoebe was very highly esteemed by St. Paul and very important in the Church at Cenchrae.
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteAccording to theologian Haydock, "...was employed in the ministry, as women, called deaconesses..privately instructing catechumen, assisting particularly at the baptism of women, distributing charities, etc." (See Catholic Commentary on the New Testament, pg. 1499).
These were women who assisted other women much in the way Traditionalist nuns do. Unlike the V2 sect, modesty was important, especially in interacting with women so women were used. It was not a sacrament. The women were not ordained using the invocation of the Holy Ghost, they were not listed as clergy, and the Church never considered it a sacrament. She was highly esteemed because she was a holy woman who did the Will of God.
---Introibo
Hi Introibo.An great article.I don't know how one could be a FSSP "priest" and turn a blind eye to what is going on in the Vatican Two Sect.How anyone could claim to be in communion with an apostates is beyond words.The SSPX are also playing goofty games with their faithful.God bless you all readers.
ReplyDeleteNeither the ICKSP + FSSP are NOT valid Priest's.
DeleteGod bless
-Andrew
It strikes me so odd that they (ICK/FSSP/SSPX) use their own judgement to ignore the NO and V2 while accepting the new ordination rites.
DeleteTom,
DeleteThey also accept the validity of the Vatican II sect "mass" and "sacraments"! Sad indeed.
---Introibo
ICKSP + FSSP use new Rite "Bishops."
DeleteThey use the new
"Sacramental Rites."
-Andrew
What can you say about the development of a sense of self?
ReplyDelete@anon10:51
DeleteCould you elaborate more on the meaning of your question?
---Introibo
I want to know
DeleteWhat is self
I think it is related to something Simple Man said above, Something about how children understand they are distinct from others. Is it clearer?
@anon4:14
DeleteAccording to most developmental psychologists "...selfhood starts at birth, but children don’t start expressing an “idea of me” until toddlerhood. Children then start to gather information about themselves and store autobiographical material, starting a life narrative that guides their responses to the world." (See https://theconversation.com/us/ethics; et.al.)
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI have heard many people state that they are "trying to find their self". Oddly, or perhaps not, it wasn't until I found the Traditional Catholic Church that I finally found myself! I was 61 yrs old at the time!
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteWe are never too old to find our way home to God!
---Introibo
At 36 I discovered the true Catholic Church.
DeleteIt's been 9 yrs since then and newcomers need to know this important information.
Your conversion + life will become more difficult.
You need confession at least once a week.
Without it you will fall relapse and backside.(speaking from personal experience)
If all you have available is a pre-June 1968 Priest,go and go as much as possible.
-Andrew
How would you respond to such alleged "evidence" of reincarnation?
ReplyDelete"People who remember past lives with obscure historic details they do not know, a 5-year-old kid who can show that he can fly a military plane on a simulator, all kinds of children geniuses with innate skills for art or music they never were taught, people starting speaking foreign languages in a sleep or trance, people being healed from phobias or chronic illnesses by past life regression, etc. "
Your article "A Sensation Of Reincarnation?" it does not disprove all such "evidence".
@anon4:43
DeleteIt can be explained in several ways:
1. A form of "idiot savantism." There are people retarded yet know how to play the piano like an expert. Darold Treffert, a world-renowned expert on savant syndrome believes savants are the best example of innate talent and "represent ‘nature’ in its most basic form.” To explain the emergence of savant skills, Treffert proposes the notion of “genetic memory,” which he defines as the biological transfer of proclivities and knowledge that don’t require additional instruction or learning. He argues that this knowledge is “factory- installed” in all of us but remains dormant because we tend to use the same well-worn pathways and circuits that serve us well. He believes this inhibits the "little Rain Man in all of us.” (See https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/where-do-savant-skills-come-from/) Some of these kids could have a form of savant syndrome.
2. People who are highly open to suggestion, can be cured of phobias, etc because they believe the brain generated scenario, and the power of suggestion cures them
3. People who undergo hypnosis without serious reason open themselves up to demonic influence
---Introibo
Sorry Introbio my degenerative Greek mind can't comprehend the incoherence of a philosophy where everyone has an encounter with God, which is totally subjective, except for those people who really do have an encounter with God in miracles and prophesies where God actually tells them concrete things.
ReplyDeleteRyan,
DeleteI guess we both have degenerate Greek minds!
---Introibo