Monday, January 25, 2021

Crazy For God?

 

During the many years when I attended Fr. DePauw's Ave Maria Chapel, there were some colorful characters. Even though I spent 24 years of my life at the Chapel every Sunday and Holy Day (as well as many First Saturdays), I never knew or socialized with most of the people. Since more than half the congregation had far to go (some traveling over three hours one way from other states), the people dispersed rather quickly after Mass. There are are still some Traditionalists at Ave Maria, members long before I started attending in 1981, whose names I do not know, nor would they know anything about me. Fr. DePauw told me that is one of the reasons Traditionalists get labeled "clannish," and unwelcoming. We also hold to a worldview that most of society outright rejects as "strange" and not everyone is up for being hassled all the time, so their guard is up even at Church.

It is also true that, like people everywhere, each person has their quirks; those of us in the One True Church being no exception. There has, however, been a disturbing trend over the last two decades to label anyone who disagrees with the secular humanist/liberal agenda as suffering from mental illness. It is a return to the Cold War era Communist tactic: "You don't think our glorious leader is perfect? You must be crazy!" The dissident in question would wind up in a straightjacket and a padded cell, to be tortured to death and serve as a warning to others who dare to think differently. 

In 2006, the wicked "New Atheist," Richard Dawkins, published his book The God Delusion. The clear message is that if someone believes in God, they suffer from a "delusion," a form of mental illness. Now, anyone who thinks homosexuality is unnatural and sinful has an irrational fear or "phobia." They aren't merely told they are wrong and presented with counter-arguments, they're homophobic--a made-up word to portray those who oppose sin as neurotic and therefore being mentally disturbed. If a person doesn't believe there are fifty-eight genders and it's OK to "pick your pronouns," they suffer from transphobia. Someone who correctly denounces Islam as a false, demonic, and violent sect is suffering from Islamophobia.

Indeed, not only are Christians having their sanity questioned, the world has gone so far as to blaspheme the saints as being insane. Pictured at the top of this post is St. Simeon Stylites. A Syrian ascetic saint, St. Simeon is famous for living 37 years on a small platform on top of a pillar near Aleppo. According to Britannica.com:

Simeon entered a monastic community but was expelled because of his excessive austerities and became a hermit. His reputed miracle-working generated popular veneration to such a degree that, to escape the importunities of the people, he began his pillar life northwest of Aleppo about 420. His first column was 2 meters (6 feet) high, later extended to about 15 meters (50 feet), and the platform is said to have been about 1 square meter (about 11 square feet). He remained atop the column for 37 years, permanently exposed to the elements, standing or sitting day and night in his restricted area, protected from falling by a railing, and provided with a ladder to communicate with those below or to receive meagre gifts of food from disciples. Visitors sought spiritual counsel, relief from sickness, intervention for the oppressed, and enlightenment in prayer and doctrine. Simeon apparently converted many people, and he influenced the Eastern Roman emperor Leo I to support the orthodox Chalcedonian party during the 5th-century controversy over the nature of Christ. When he died, his body was found by a disciple and was apparently stooped in prayer. (See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Simeon-Stylites). Someone I know brought him up as an example of a religious man with "[mental] problems." Wanting to live as a hermit, saints who performed self-flagellation, those who would eat only bread and water, are alleged to show that religion, if taken seriously, leads to strange behaviors that are manifestations of severe neurosis (if not outright psychosis). Christianity, so they claim, is for the feeble-minded who have problems, or the gullible who will become neurotic. Jim Jones will usually be brought up at some point as "proof" that religious people are "nuts." 

What should be our response to such attacks? This post will delineate Church teaching on what constitutes sanctity and stand in defense of the saints. As to the nice man or lady at Church who seems a bit odd, I will attempt to answer the question, "Is sanctity incompatible with neurosis?"

What is "Sanctity" According to the Church?

For this post I wish to cite Fr. Faber's classic work "An Essay on Beatification, Canonization, and the Process of the Congregation of Rites," and Heroic Virtue, a commentary on Pope Benedict XIV's treatise on the issue, [translated by the Fathers of the Congregation of the Oratory in 1850] as my principle sources.---Introibo

Every human being should realize that he is called by God to be perfect even as He is perfect. "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (St. Matthew 5:48). Every person must do all in his power to be a saint and live on Earth a beautiful life of charity that characterizes the saints in Heaven. It is true that none of us can be perfect, but we must try. It is an dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of Original Sin, and it is an article of Faith that, by a special privilege of Almighty God, in contradistinction to all other humans, she never committed any actual sin (not even the slightest venial sin) during her entire life. (See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, [1916], 6:39-80). 

Many approved theologians teach that St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist were pre-sanctified in their mother's wombs from Original Sin, and were also free from actual sin during their lives in view of their exalted callings in life. As the Council of Trent infallibly teaches in its Decree on Justification, CANON XXIII.-lf anyone saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

In regards to certain saints (e.g., St. Aloysius Gonzaga), it is piously believed they never committed a single mortal sin their entire life. While it is impossible to achieve the sanctity of the Immaculate Mother of God, or the great St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist, we must all strive to be without mortal sin and avoid venial sin as much as possible. In the words of Pope Pius XI, "For all men of every condition, in whatever honorable walk of life they may be, can and ought to imitate that most perfect example of holiness placed before man by God, namely Christ Our Lord, and by God's grace to arrive at the summit of perfection, as is proved by the example set us of many saints." (See Casti Connubbi [1930], para. #23). 

Lest anyone feel overwhelmed and despair over achieving salvation, it should be pointed out that it is not necessary to obtain spiritual perfection as the saints in order to belong to the One True Church and attain Heaven. Pope Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorum Fidei (1794), condemned as heretical the proposition that only those belong to the Church who are perfect adorers in spirit and in truth. One will save his soul if he dies within the Church and is in the state of sanctifying grace, even without having achieved the spiritual perfection of the saints. However, keep in mind Our Lord's words, "How narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" (St. Matthew 7:14). Whether or not the majority of humanity will be damned has never been decided by the Church. Some theologians (e.g., Godts) believe this is the case, while others (e.g., Klee) think it is repugnant to believe the Kingdom of God (Heaven) to be less populated than the Kingdom of Satan (Hell), especially after the incredible sacrifice of Christ on the Cross to save us. What the Church does teach, is that few answer Christ's call and set out on the way of perfection in this life. 

Theologian Fr. Gabriele de Ste. Marie-Madeline, quotes from an Allocution given by Pope Benedict XV in 1916, wherein the Holy Father gives a very concise and theologically sound definition of sanctity: Sanctity properly consists in simple conformity to the Divine Will expressed in an exact fulfillment of the duties of one's proper state. (See Present Norms of Holiness in Conflict and Light, [1952], pg. 158). This definition by Pope Benedict rightfully declares that sanctity is open to all, but that doesn't make it any easier to attain. It will, however, stimulate many to take up its pursuit precisely because it is the greatest of all goods and within the grasp of anyone who asks the help of God, tries his best to get it, and never gives up. 

All must realize that to obtain the Beatific Vision in Heaven, where we shall see God as He is, we need supernatural help. In these perilous times of the Great Apostasy, how lucky we are if we have the True Mass and Sacraments available to us! Anyone who is so blessed to have such access, and would fail to go as frequently as possible (except under the most serious of circumstances) is not earnestly seeking sanctity. That person is saying to God, "Thanks, but no thanks" for a Gift so great we won't fully understand the enormity of the blessings until we go to Judgement. Woe to that individual! No one can achieve perfection except with the aid of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do not be troubled if, through no fault of your own, you don't have access to a Traditionalist Church or Chapel. God will make it possible for all who truly seek Him, no matter where they may be, to find Him and become holy. The ordinary means of sanctification that all can (and must) use to sanctify themselves are:

  • prayer (both vocal and mental)
  • spiritual reading
  • the practice of self-denial
  • the exact and loving fulfillment of the duties of one's state in life

The Heroic Sanctity of the Canonized Saints

It is unlikely that even those who attain to the heroic sanctity of the saints will be canonized because Holy Mother Church can only canonize a few to serve as examples for the faithful to emulate. What a joke are the "McCanonizations" of the Vatican II sect. Wojtyla (JPII) "canonized" more "saints" from 1978-2005, than the True Church did from 33 to 1958. In order to be a canonized saint, the candidate for sainthood must demonstrate that during his/her life he/she practiced the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity to a heroic degree. I shall examine all three virtues, and what makes them heroic, as described by Pope Benedict XIV.

1. Heroic Faith

According to theologian Tanquerey, Faith is "the supernatural assent by which the intellect, under the command of the will and the influence of grace, firmly accepts revealed truths because of the authority of God Who is revealing." (See Dogmatic Theology 1:193).

First, the candidate must demonstrate the habitual ordinary theological virtue of Faith and there are ten questions that are asked by the Church, the answers to which will determine if the canonization process will go on any further, "Did the candidate...":

  •  openly confess the True Faith in all matters that must be believed, especially when circumstances demanded an open confession?
  • keep the Ten Commandments and the precepts of Holy Mother Church?
  • manifest submission of the heart and mind to God, all decisions of the Church, and to the Holy Roman Pontiff in all things that must be believed and done to achieve salvation?
  • pray frequently to God?
  • have his faith increase, or at least desire such an increase?
  • have the Fear of God?
  • adore God and honor the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints?
  • have a horror for sin?
  • show patience in all the trials of life?
  • have joy in carrying out good works, in humility and humiliations?
If all are answered and found favorably, the candidate must show they were performed in a heroic degree. How is this demonstrated? According to Pope Benedict XIV, heroic faith is "...discerned by the same acts, that is, if there be a frequency in their performance, if they are accompanied with ease, readiness, delight, and if the circumstances under which they are done there be something eminently arduous, to excite admiration, and so to elevate the agent above the ordinary manner of working, even of good men." (See Heroic Virtue, pgs. 81-82).

Examples of heroic Faith: St. Teresa of Avila's knowledge of the Divine Presence was so clear, it was akin to a vision. The same was true of St. Peter of Alcantara.

2. Heroic Hope

According to theologian Jone, the theological virtue of Hope is "...a supernatural infused virtue, by which, with reliance on God's Omnipotence, Goodness, and Fidelity, we look forward to eternal salvation and the necessary means to obtain it." (See Moral Theology, [1961], pgs. 73-74).

The Church distinguishes four levels of hope from its complete absence to the heights of perfection.

  • Absence of Hope: no belief in the soul and afterlife
  • Latent Hope: an earnest striving to avoid mortal sin
  • Explicit Hope: a devout spiritual life accompanied by thoughts of eternity and future union with Christ in the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision
  • Heroic Hope: when the soul, by the grace of God, has freed itself from all earthly desires and no longer has any interest in what does not pertain to God and His service. There are various degrees of this fourth level, culminating with an intensity of yearning for Christ that seems, for a time, to bring the soul to the point of seemingly "leaving the body" to be united with Him
How is heroic Hope demonstrated? By the great labors that the person has undertaken for His sake, and the severity of their penitential life, because such labors and penances would never be undertaken without great hope in eternal life. Examples include: entering a religious order and giving up great wealth and power; joy at the news of imminent death; the patience of the martyrs in their horrible torments; special confidence God will aid you when no help seems possible and which help comes to pass,

3. Heroic Charity

According to theologian Jone, the theological virtue of Charity is "...a supernatural, infused virtue by which we love God as the highest good for His Own sake and ourselves and our neighbors for God's sake." (Ibid, pg. 75). 

Pope Benedict XIV lists the common signs of ordinary charity:

  • spending temporal goods to help others
  • undertaking bodily labors on behalf of others
  • correcting those in error and leading them back to the truth
  • the forgiving of injuries
  • the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy
Heroic Charity is "...doing the same whenever the occasion offers, promptly, easily, expeditiously, pleasurably, not once or twice but frequently, and above all if the works which are done be difficult; so that from the whole collectively it may be inferred, that the man so working surpasses the ordinary mode working in good men." (See Heroic Virtue, pg. 131).  Examples of Heroic Charity: St. Francis of Assisi's works for the poor and to convert the Moslems; St Maria Goretti who sincerely forgave her murderer and attempted rapist as she lay dying from the stab wounds he inflicted upon her. She wanted God to forgive Him so he could join her in Heaven. 

Were The Saints Insane?

Isaiah 55:8 says, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. Those who follow God will appear strange to those of the world. The closer to God, the more strange do the worldly see them. Hence, someone spending years atop a pillar to concern himself only with the things of God seems strange. This opposing worldview is what causes most of the unfounded accusations of insanity. To be certain, not everything done in the name of religion precludes justified accusations of psychosis. Hence, some signs a person is truly mentally deranged:

  • claiming visions, locutions, and apparitions with no confirming signs (it could also be fraud not insanity)
  • grandiose claims, e.g., to be God or a prophet, etc.
  • inability to function in society
  • stating things contrary to Church teaching while claiming direct communication with God (could also be demonic or fraud)
  • attempts to kill or seriously hurt themselves and/or others
Psychosis, also referred to by the Church as habitual insanity, makes one not have right use of reason. If one is not in their right mind, it precludes both sin and acts of virtue. It also makes one incapable of attaining to (or remaining in) the office of the papacy. According to canonist Badius:

“c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…” (See Institutiones, pg. 160; Emphasis mine). 

A saint's control over emotions and impulses and power of guiding life to a noble end by the theological virtues (and moral virtues) is not merely outside the region of psychotic defect, but it shows what is possible for human beings at their very best. A psychotic individual is incapable of the managing his life with the perfection of virtues; even pagan psychiatrists and psychologist would agree that severe mental disorder is incompatible with a controlled, regulated life in reasoned self-giving to God and others for the sake of God. Furthermore, to call a canonized saint a psychotic is not only wrong according to the principles of psychology, it is to call into question the judgement of the Church in Her infallible decree of canonization. (See, e.g., The Psychopathic Personality, [1952], a classic study by Dr, David K. Henderson and still cited, showing serious mental illness to be incompatible with the kind of life led by devout souls.). 

What about the neurotic? Those who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder, acute anxiety disorder, specific phobias (fear of spiders, large bodies of water, etc.), hypochondria, etc.--are they precluded from attaining sanctity and even becoming saints? The answer is a resounding NO.  Those who have such afflictions, and manage them as best they can, are no different than those who suffer physical ills and offer them up as a sacrifice to God. Think of how meritorious it would be for someone who suffers from acute anxiety to try to push those anxious thoughts aside and pray. 

We have the good example of St. Francis de Sales, whose feast day we celebrate this Friday, January 29th. His biographer, M. Hamon, The Life of St. Francis de Sales [1875], recounts how the saint was  about 17 and suffered for six weeks with acute anxiety. He thought this was a sign of God's displeasure with him, and he would most certainly be damned. Depression came upon him as well, but he persevered in his service of God. The mental torture affected him even physically, to the point where he became weak, jaundiced and had intense bodily pains. After six weeks of this enormous suffering, he was passing by a statue of Our Lady. He stopped and devoutly recited the Memorare, asking God by the intercession of Mary to give him back health of mind and body. He then made a vow of perpetual chastity, and promised to recite six decades of the Rosary every day. Immediately, he felt "a movement" come over his entire body. His jaundice, weakness, and pains were gone--as were his anxiety and depression. 

This short account of the mental sufferings of a saint shows us the way in which one can manage mental and physical ills and be sanctified in the process. Abnormal states of anxiety, depression, and the like are not incompatible with sanctity but when properly managed may lead to an increase in spiritual growth. St. Francis died from a cerebral hemorrhage. Suppose instead of a large hemorrhage resulting in death after a few days, he had multiple microscopic hemorrhages over a period of many months which resulted in a condition of habitual insanity with marked cognitive defect and change of character. Would that condition of its own account mean a loss of sanctity and a state of mind incompatible with canonization? Not at all, because what transpires through no fault of our own does not take away from our past merits, nor mean a loss of sanctity previously attained. 

Conclusion
All of us have crosses to bear. In today's world, it is almost impossible not to become overly anxious, depressed, and stressed. That doesn't mean you can't be holy. Use those times in your life to grow spiritually, while managing your problem. God will not fail us. If anyone suffers from a neurotic condition, that will not prevent their sanctity either. People who deride devout Christians as "crazy," speak from either culpable ignorance or disgraceful discrimination and hatred. (We could maybe turn the tables and call them "Christophobic"). 

As for the person at your chapel or church who seems depressed, anxious, or a little "strange"--be extra nice to them and remember three things: (1) You don't know what they are going through and how you would handle it, (2) The people who think they "have it all together" never do and have no clue as to how strong that person really is by God's grace, (3) You might be in the presence of a future saint. 

79 comments:

  1. Beautiful post!! Thank you and God bless you!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon12:51
      Thank you my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Agree.
      I hadn't heard of St.Simeon
      Stylites until this this article.
      -Andrew

      Delete
  2. One thing I noticed when I acquired the addiction to masturbation some time ago was that it made me develop anxiety and a certain degree of social isolation. I am still fighting against this evil, but intending, on the merits of Christ, to overcome it.

    Now speaking in general, I believe that a life committed to sin causes mental illnesses to develop in the sinner, in addition to a possible demonic possession over time. I see this a lot in young people, many of them with serious disorders, this is certainly due to lives devoted to degeneration and demonic ideologies like feminism and Marxism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have the same problem with masturbation and pornography. I was reckless and I got involved in this vice without ever being warned about the dangers of this world. But I will do anything to correct myself. May God help me!

      Delete
    2. @anon1:53
      Life committed to sin is disastrous on many levels--including mental health.

      @Simon,
      God will always help. Go to frequent Confession and Communion if possible.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. The first 2 times one resists the urge to masturbate and or look at porn,are among the most difficult.
      There are other times which are just as difficult but you become better at resisting this urge.

      -Andrew

      Delete
    4. Pornography addiction is like drug or tobacco addiction. It takes willpower to get by and help sometimes too. It is an evil trap that comes from the demon but many people see nothing wrong with it ... When the true God is denied, man becomes like a god and believes himself to be the master of good and evil.

      Delete
  3. A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, "You are mad; you are not like us." Saint Anthony the Great

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon1:54
      It seems the time spoken of by St. Anthony may have arrived. God pity us.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I've read this quote before and sadly it sounds like that time has been here for the past 10-15 yrs.
      The vacancy of the Holy See,
      Abortion,forced acceptance of homosexuality,and
      Internet pornography,have finally caught up to mankind.
      Remember that California rejected "Gay marriage" in a popular vote,only to be voted down and made legal by the Courts.
      -A

      Delete
    3. Romans 1:22

      "While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid"

      Delete
    4. Anonymous,
      Guess I should have read through the combos before posting you beat me to the punch lol

      Delete
  4. People who denounce perversion and false religions are not only accused of suffering from "phobias" but they are also prevented from expressing themselves. I was censored by FB last week for 24 hours because I wrote on the sedevacantist FB page Catholic Religion that transgenderism is a mental disorder. If I have always believed that I was Alexander the Great, Elvis or JFK, am I sane? What if I adopt the behavior of an animal, am I mentally ill?

    I often think of the words of Christ in Matthew 7, 13-14. We are on our way to Heaven, but it is not an easy path. It is bumpy and filled with obstacles posed by the Enemy to drag us down the wide and easy path of perdition that many follow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      Continue to speak the truth while staying close to God!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Remember all the times you have been oppressed for speaking when you are in doubt, for they validate the truth which was spoken.

      Delete
    3. There are several transgenders where I work, including someone on my team. It's truly very sad to see the utter despair that this life brings to them. Unfortunately, when I pointed out on FB several years ago that Bruce Jenner is a man and not a woman, people protested and wanted me to be thrown off the Board of Directors. In today's environment, I would lose my job to point out the obvious. I decided to deactivate all of my social media accounts since I've decided that engaging with this perspective (sin) isn't worth it.

      Delete
    4. Cyrus Tar,
      As I type anonymously, I understand all too well how speaking the truth is punished should it go against the PC crowd. At best you'll be branded "a hateful, transphobic bigot" and have to undergo brainwas--I mean "sensitivity training." At worst you'll be fired or have people afraid to do business with you and see your income plummet. All done in the name of leftist "tolerance."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. "If you don't like being around homosexuals and think homosexuality is a mortally sinful abomination,then you must be homosexual!"
    If someone ever says this to you,ask that person if they dislike serial killers and if serial murder is evil.
    If that person yes to both questions,then say,
    "Using your logic,you must be a serial killer."
    God bless -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's like the argument that a so-called "homophobic" person is a repressed homosexual. It is a way of passing criticism off as mentally ill, as in the case of "islamophobia".

      Delete
    2. If you don't like islam, then you are a covert muslim terrorist!
      And if you don't like iSlAmOpHoBia, then you are an islamophobe!

      If you don't like rock music, you're Elvis in disguise
      And if you don't like fascism, you're Hitler!

      If you don't like Joe Biden, you're a democrat in disguise
      And if don't like Trump, you wear a MAGA hat!

      😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
      I could go on

      Delete
    3. Those who don't like God, Jesus, Mary and the True Church are hidden Catholics. ;-) Seriously, I believe that these people who hate God and the Church really need it because their error is leading them into perdition.

      Delete
  6. What's truly crazy is beLIEving that John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II were actual saints/popes and that the Vatican II religion is the Catholic religion while knowing a little or a lot about it and thinking it was a good thing that happened.

    What's ironic is how most of these people will tolerate or accept false religions but the moment you say you don't believe the last six claimants as popes or that you are a sedevacantist they immediately get offended or think you are condemned as if that is forbidden while none of the other religions are. In other words, it's okay to be a Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist who rejects Jesus Christ but you cannot reject those who for the last 63 yrs. have rejected Jesus Christ and his Church and have pretended to be leaders and members of his Church.

    Saints became saints because they loved the way, the truth, and the life (Our Lord Jesus Christ). They also loved his Church "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15 St. John Climacus said "If you want to become like the few, then live like the few" referring to the few that are saved.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      The Vatican II sect accepts everything EXCEPT the truth!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. That Richard Dawkins (and other atheists) considers the belief in God "delusional" is rather fascinating, because a delusion - defined per Oxford Languages as "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder"; historically a delusion has always been defined in terms of being a false belief or an erroneous belief - in no way corresponds to the underlying probabilities regarding the creation of the universe.

    As this 2017 paper from Dr. Raymond M. Bergner (who, having a Ph.D in the field of clinical psychology is all about the sound state of the human mind or lack thereof) argues, without even getting into the matter of whether Intelligent Design is true or false, to say that such a belief is "absurd" falls flat on its face: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317332700_Intelligent_Design_Maybe_True_Maybe_False_But_Not_Absurd

    The money quote is from the conclusion, which illustrates just why those who have deified "Science" at the expense of everything else are simply being foolish:

    ----

    The foregoing discussion is not proffered as an argument for intelligent design. It is, rather, an objection directed at those who, in response to any suggestion that intelligent design beliefs may have some merit, blithely assert that, "We have no need for that hypothesis. We have it all covered scientifically." Aside from the fact that, properly understood, there is no conflict between science and intelligent design, it is simply not true that "we have it all covered scientifically." As M.I.T. physicist Alan Lightman reports in his fascinating article, "The Accidental Universe," there remain very deep and unresolved questions about the extraordinary improbabilities in our cosmos.

    I do not claim to have a settled answer for myself. I just don't know. Intelligent design may or may not be the case -- I believe we will not, indeed cannot, ever know for sure -- but it is hard for me to dismiss as merely foolish Einstein's conjecture that there may exist "an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." At the end of the day, the existence or non-existence of such an intelligence cannot be established empirically, is not a matter for science, and should not be taught in science courses. It is a matter for belief, and I have tried here only to argue that such belief, at least in certain of its forms, is not unreasonable, ought not to be unreflectively branded "creationism", and should not be viewed with contempt. The possibility of intelligent design falls in the realm covered by Wittgenstein's famous assertion that "even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched."

    ----

    (Of course, even the above argument falls prey to that particular strand of thought which states that if something cannot be decided empirically, it therefore cannot be judged as absolutely true. But the overall point stands.)

    Sincerely,

    A Simple Man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple Man,
      Great insights as usual!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hello Simple Man,

      Interesting insight, but I do want to bat with you the idea that we can never know whether Intelligent Design is the true explanation to creation, as I think it is quite easily demonstrated Scholastically that evolution is indeed incompatible with reality. The only regret is that such Scholastic proofs could not have been disseminated earlier when we had true Popes.

      This article posted below is from an Austrialian Thomist (though regrettably of the R&R variety). Hopefully it will prove to be quite a profitable read for this subject matter!

      https://superflumina.org/evolution_is_impossible.html

      Delete
    3. Well put. In regards to that "strand of thought which states that if something cannot be decided empirically, it therefore cannot be judged as absolutely true", I'd find it odd that one could regard anything inductive by nature as "absolutely true". I find the main problem with those who deify science to be that they fail to understand that inductive reasoning serves to suggest rather than establish. Thus, if it were to stand in contrast to something deductively established, one could safely side with the deductive conclusion. The definition of delusion that you provided certainly does apply to many today. There are those that strive so hard to sever themselves from God that they seek means to reject causality or even noncontradiction.

      Sincerely,

      Dapouf

      Delete
    4. neyoriquans,

      In the interest of clarity, I did not intend to imply that I *personally* believe ID cannot be known with certainty. It was merely to present an argument from someone who - without getting into the truth value of Intelligent Design as an explanation for Creation - desired to show that such a belief cannot rightly be called "absurd" by any stretch of the imagination, as the modern atheists like to assert so gratuitously.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    5. @A Simple Man

      I see now, apologies for assuming otherwise!

      God bless,
      Neyoriquans

      Delete
    6. Neyoriquans,

      An interesting thought I've had for some time with regards to evolution is that it's generally described as the changing of forms from something else to another, and forms are considered immutable from a Scholastic standpoint (as is noted in the link you reference).

      To that, I would raise the following observations from a field separate from biology; namely, molecular chemistry. To wit:

      - St. Thomas Aquinas argues that no being can convey more act than it actually possesses (or, in simpler terms, a less perfect being cannot give rise to a more perfect being).

      - However, it is an empirical fact that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine through a chemical interaction to form one molecule of water.

      In light of the above, I would ask the following:

      1. Would this chemical transformation (from hydrogen and oxygen to water) be considered a change in form?

      2. Hydrogen does not by itself possess the capacity to become water; likewise, oxygen does not possess the capacity by itself to become water; it is only through a particular combination of these elements that they are able to become water. How would we square this with the general Thomistic understanding that a given being cannot convey what they themselves do not possess?

      3. From the Thomistic viewpoint of what perfection is as regards to creatures and material things, would water be considered more or less perfect than the hydrogen and oxygen separately?

      I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    7. PART 1 -


      Hello A Simple Man,

      Good questions you pose, however I do not see much difficulty in squaring them with the Scholastic tradition, though admittedly I am but a low layman who is almost undoubtedly failing to grasp the full picture and intricacies of both the nature of the question and my response, but try I will nevertheless to answer!


      1) As per the Catholic Encyclopedia, form in its strict philosophical usage can be defined as a signification of the intrinsic principle of existence in any determinate essence. Now, here is where my lack of experience in Scholastic study may bite me in the rear, but I will attempt to try and apply principles to the question posed. It would seem to me that 3 essences are in question here, the essence of hydrogen, oxygen, and the subsequent water molecule. The essence of both hydrogen and water are not altered in the chemical reaction that produces water, as the First Law of Thermodynamics when applied to matter teaches; this is much like how the essence of bricks and glass are not altered in the production of a house. Because this chemical reaction is only uniting two separate atoms, two building blocks if you will, which requires specific conditions to be in place, and which cannot be reproduced with different atoms to get the same result, I would posit that there is no transformation of the form of hydrogen and oxygen to create water, much like there is no transformation in the form of bricks and glass to produce a building. United, these building blocks create something new and separate, with a distinct form, but leaving the original forms in tact and readily extractable at a moments notice, as I understand it at the very least. (One would not be able to extract the form of a monkey from the form of a human, unlike how one can easily extract hydrogen and oxygen from water given the proper tools to facilitate such a reaction).

      2. The chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen into water is a product of scientific and natural principles. The cause for such an effect lies in the ordering of nature such that the electrical instability of both hydrogen and water can be stabilized through the two atoms reacting and merging together. Hence, there is a consequent amount of energy expended, and a requisite set of conditions required for such a reaction to take place. However, if one takes hydrogen and places it next to a gold atom, try as one might he will not achieve anything remotely close to the specific form of water. Hence, there is something embedded in the nature/substance of both hydrogen and oxygen that makes their reaction together produce a specific result. Hence, I would respond that while Hydrogen does not possess the ability to become water on its own, the nature of hydrogen possesses the capacity to become water, and water can only be made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore, I do not believe it would follow that the Thomistic understanding of a given being only conveying what they themselves possess is violated here, for hydrogen by its very nature possesses the capacity to become water when mixed with oxygen. The capacity of water therefore *is* contained in the nature of hydrogen, regardless of the fact that other prerequisites are required to make such an end be realized.

      3. Water would indeed be more perfect in my (and I must emphasize, quite inexperienced) view. The reasons for such a conclusion lie in the chemical and electromagnetic stability of the water molecule as opposed to the individual hydrogen and oxygen atom. Likewise, a house made up of individual bricks, mortar, glass, wood, and steel when all put together in a specific order creates a product more perfect than the individual parts left on their own. However, given my assertion that the form of hydrogen and oxygen is not changed when water is produced, this does not seem to pose any difficulty to the Scholastic rebuttal of evolution if everything I’ve posited does indeed hold up.

      Delete
    8. PART 2 -

      Now for some conclusions from me:

      1) Even if it is conceded that molecular chemistry observes the transformation of one form into another, it would not immediately follow that such a phenomenon is replicable in our scale of the universe. As I am sure you are well aware, quantum mechanics proposes that a whole host of contradictory, strange, and seemingly impossible phenomenon are indeed quite possible and frequently occur in the molecular/quantum scale. For example, in quantum mechanics a light beam is both a particle and a wave at the same time. How such a contradiction in the nature of light can be I do not know, and I suspect you will not find a sufficient answer from any scientist either, but such is the framework these men have constructed in modern science, presumably not without merit.

      2) Hence, given that this is the case, it would seem to me not to be sufficient to merely demonstrate something as being true in the quantum level and then attempt to apply it to the macro level that we operate on, since as the mainstream scientists themselves admit, the two realms operate on completely different rules. I will here admit some skepticism on my end of the seemingly fantastical principles the quantum realm operates under, but that is neither here nor there. I am not a quantum scientist nor would I want to be!

      To conclude, I hope I was able to answer the questions you posed in a satisfactory manner, and I would not be surprised in the slightest if you manage to expose a fundamental flaw in my logic, of which I pray for the virtue of humility to accept the correction!

      God bless,
      Neyoriquans

      Delete
    9. Hello Neyoriquans,

      My questions were not placed in the spirit of accusation, but of genuine inquiry, since much of what constitutes modern science (insofar as we have empirically deductive knowledge and not that which is assumed through purely inductive reasoning) was unknown during the time of St. Thomas. A way I've seen some consider the matter of chemical transformations is that there is some supernatural element (be it angels or God Himself) that applies the missing perfections that enable individual elements to become molecular compounds (which I don't think is an unreasonable opinion to hold, since it is a given from Thomistic philosophy that God holds all of Creation in existence from moment to moment; it would only be unreasonable if you hold to a strictly material worldview, which isn't our case). The question is whether such missing perfections could be similarly supplied supernaturally to organisms in a theistic evolutionary framework (which would remove random chance and matter as the efficient cause for evolution). I'm not entirely convinced on such a possibility, but readily admit that my reading on the subject is still lacking to render a judgment on anything beyond what the Church has definitely taught (such as in Humani Generis).

      With regards to the quantum experiment you mention, here's a short and rather charming video that my father showed me over a decade ago when the subject of quantum mechanics came up around the dinner table: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btImof4nyzo (The way my father often likes to describe it, the collapsing of the wave function was God telling physicists "You are not yet ready to learn this knowledge.")

      Lastly, with regards to the matter of perfections: St. Thomas would be in agreement with your answer. Per ST I, q. 3, a. 7, in response to the objection "Further, whatever is best must be attributed to God. But with us that which is composite is better than that which is simple; thus, chemical compounds are better than simple elements, and animals than the parts that compose them. Therefore it cannot be said that God is altogether simple.", St. Thomas answered as follows: "With us composite things are better than simple things, because the perfections of created goodness cannot be found in one simple thing, but in many things. But the perfection of divine goodness is found in one simple thing (I:4:1 and I:6:2)."

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    10. I thank you for your clarification, and I apologize if my response came off as combative in any sense, such was certainly not my intention! Know of my respect for you and your wonderfully worked out and sensible comments. Evolution as a concept has not been approved of or rebuked definitively by Holy Mother Church of course, and so we must await the Restoration and triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to grant us a True Pope who can answer this and many other questions that have arisen since the death of Pope Pius XII. I appreciate your respect and charity in this exchange nevertheless, as the Lord knows the world is in dire need of such practices of virtue!

      I very much enjoyed racking my brain for this one, and it has given much food for thought in applying Scholastic principles to things we've learned more recently. Thank you for the physics video, I look forward to watching that as well. I always enjoy a good science video, which sadly are becomming harder and harder to come by in my experience these days, at least on sites like YouTube.

      God bless!

      Delete
  8. People generally regard geeks (people fascinated with Star Wars, Manga and Nintendo) as cooky but they do not treat them as mentally disordered Jim Jones psychos. We are considerably less violent than myslims. Why does the modern world treat us as mentally disordered psychos? 🤔
    Also, people with Aspegers clearly have mental health issues. Yet, everybody treats them as only "neurodiverse" and completly sane. I am told Michael Knowles was expelled from Fox News because he said Greta Thunberg "was mentally ill". I could be worng but this only makes parents to be overtly permissive with them and makes them less likely to recognize they need help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jonestown was using pages of the Holy Bible as toilet paper in the last year of that unspeakable nightmare.
      J.Jones was an avowed atheist by the time 1977 rolled around.
      Dont allow people into fooling you he was "Christian."
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    2. Like certain fake Marian apparitions Jonestown was likely a CIA op. Thuc's involvement with the Palmarian sect also -Q

      Delete
    3. Prove it.
      -Andrew

      Delete
  9. St. Anthony:
    “A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.”

    Also didn’t St. Athanasius say something to the effect of: “If I shall be the only person left who keeps the faith the. It shall be Athanasius against the world” ?

    They say no man is an island, but perhaps living alone on a tower is not so crazy as it seems?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan,
      It's much more sane than much of what goes on in today's world!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Is apostasy under fear a sin?

    ReplyDelete
  11. @anon12:36
    Yes. As theologian Jone teaches, "The Denial of the Faith, direct or indirect, is never allowed." (See "Moral Theology" [1961], pg. 66). Our Lord said, "But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in Heaven." (St. Matthew 10:33). Fear, even grave fear, does not mitigate this requirement to profess the Faith.

    God Bless,

    ---Introibo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've read there were Priests during the Roman persecution who renounced the faith + our Blessed Lord yet were murdered seconds after their apostasy.
      It was a twisted sick joke some Romans partook during the reign of Diocletian.
      The first time I read about this it scared me.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    2. Andrew,
      They thought by apostasy they could trust Satan and his agents. As wrong as it gets.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. Always had this question, so when the saints who chose a life as a hermit left the world to be alone, did they always attend Mass? I would assume they would but I have never read anything that says so. I would assume giving up the Sacraments and Mass for a hermit life would be a sin?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,
      Mass is part of spiritual growth, so yes, they attend Mass. Many hermits were priests, and therefore it was no problem. Not all hermits live atop a pillar or alone in the wilderness. Some live in a type of community where they spend their days alone in a cell and only talk and have contact when absolutely necessary. So, yes, hermits may not "give up" or forgo the Mass and Sacraments.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Here is a link of the story of St. Mary of Egypt: https://stmaryofegypt.org/files/library/life.htm

      It's a little long but well worth the read if anybody is interested St. Mary of Egypt, Pray for us!

      Lee

      Delete
  13. In a comment, under one of the previous posts, I wrote a request for prayer for my grandmother, who was undergoing heart treatment. Grandma returned already home, cardiology and other medical procedures were successful. Deo gratias!
    Thank you very much all for your prayers.

    God bless you,
    Paweł

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pawel,
      I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say how happy we are that your grandmother is back home and doing well!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. This particular comment could go for either this post or the prior post ("Romanticizing Heresy"), since the subject matter is appropriate in different ways.

    Sister Mary Bernadette of CMRI has provided a personal interview regarding her experience with the changes wrought by Vatican II during the 1960s, hosted by Novus Ordo Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzoKhGQI5OE

    I think stories like these are invaluable, because they provide the experience of people struggling to be faithful Catholics as the world changed around them (which is something I think more people should keep in mind in this day of mass communication in an instant).

    I think my favorite line from Sister Mary is this: "piety is no substitute for orthodoxy."

    Sincerely,

    A Simple Man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Simple Man,
      I love this line as well!
      I never realized that the social ostracism in the 60s was that bad - having things throwned at you for wearing modest clothing? How wicked is that?!
      Such a blessing to be able to look at and listen to a faithful (and very down-to-earth) Sister!

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
  15. Introibo,
    This post is one of my favorites!!
    Can you tell me if being a perfectionist is the same as being scrupulous?

    Thanks!!
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Glad you enjoyed the post! The two conditions are related but not the same. A neurotic perfectionist seeks unrealistic goals and is ever disappointed in himself. Scrupulosity is thinking everything (or nearly everything) you do is sinful, and venial sins are (in their minds) mortal sins. Can perfectionism "bleed over" so to speak into one's spiritual life? It certainly is possible. However, it is entirely possible to be scrupulous and not a perfectionist, and to be a perfectionist without being scrupulous.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Fr. Frederick Faber's classic book "Growth in Holiness, or The progress of the spiritual life" has a chapter on scruples:
      https://archive.org/details/GrowthInHoliness/page/n7/mode/2up
      Chapter XVII, pp. 304-329

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
  16. "Some theologians (e.g., Godts) believe this is the case, while others (e.g., Klee) think it is repugnant to believe the Kingdom of God (Heaven) to be less populated than the Kingdom of Satan (Hell), especially after the incredible sacrifice of Christ on the Cross to save us."

    Interesting... I would never disrespect moral theologian like Klee, but doesn't St. Leonard of Port Maurice say that fathers are unanimous in the opinion that majority of people are damned? Isn't it necessary to follow unanimous opinion of Fathers?

    Also, how would we explain Extra Ecclesia nulla salus in this perspective, given that majority of men aren't Catholics? I understand that it is possible for a person to have an implicit faith and to be thus in some way connected to the Church without being in the visible boundaries, but it still seems that salvation of those outside visible unity should be looked upon as an exception, rather than a rule. How would Klee approach this question?
    SAP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anoniman,
      In law, you're asking me to "speculate as to the mental state (or intention) of another"! I'll do my best to represent theologian Klee.

      First, it is not true that in the unanimous opinion of the Fathers the majority of people are damned. If that were the case, the matter would be settled, and theologians [like Klee] would be censured and/or excommunicated.

      Second, Klee (along with other theologians like Schell and Glorieux) had an interesting theory regarding the possibility that infants and the unborn could achieve salvation via a test like the angels in the moment before death. Unlike a similar theory regarding adults which was condemned by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in the 1930s, this theory was neither condemned nor censured. Theologian Ott even calls it "possible" (See "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" [1955], pg. 114).

      Therefore, if you think of all the miscarriages and SID victims throughout history [many more pre-20th century], and the number of those who may receive BOD, it is possible (so Klee would argue, in my opinion) that 51% of the human race gets saved.

      To be certain, the majority of theologians teach that the most of the human race is lost, and most of those within the Church are saved. Yet, to hold the opposing view is entirely permissible as it is a matter open for debate and never definitively settled by the Church.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Clarification:
      It is permissible to hold that the majority of the human race is saved, but not simultaneously believing a majority of those in the Church would be damned. In my opinion that would make the Church a "liability"--a blasphemous idea, and no theologian teaches such.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. I must say though I found Fr. Klee's article on Salvation in the Catholic Encyclopedia very deplorable to say the least in its treatment of the Rigorist theory of salvation. It was seeping with liberalism and Americanism as far as I could tell, in stating for example how it was "fairly certain a majority of Christians (this referring even to protestants) were saved". I paraphrase of course.


      As I've read more and more articles I've been thoroughly disappointed with the Catholic Encyclopedia, seeing a great many seeds of the modernist thinking that Pope St. Pius X so forcefully fought against. I pray we get a true Pope soon to continue that holy Pontiff's work.

      Delete
    4. Neyoriquans,

      I'm looking at the article on Salvation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm) and am finding no mentions of Protestantism or Rigorism. Were you referring to a different article?

      Delete
    5. Hello Anon - 8:50 PM

      You are correct in pointing that out, thank you for bringing it to my attention! I cannot appear to find the original article from the Catholic Encyclopedia I was referencing, much to my dismay, though I know it treated upon salvation in some manner or another, hence why I assumed it was that article in particular.

      Perhaps I'll get lucky and find it again, but I do distinctly remember reading that and being not a little scandalized. I regret not having marked it down for future reference. If anyone perhaps knows at all what article I was talking about, I would be most appreciative!

      Delete
  17. I don't understand why sedevacantists reject the new Mass. After all, the Ottaviani Intervention is not a Magisterium document. The pope has the right to make changes to the liturgy (for example the reforms of Pius XII, which some sedevacantists reject). Hence, Paul VI could introduce national languages and a Mass celebrated facing the people (unless celebrating facing the people is not heresy). The new Mass can be celebrated with dignity (you can use incense, Latin and beautiful vestments). The Novus Ordo Missae reflects the Catholic faith. For example, the variable prayers over the gifts speak of the propitiatory nature of the Mass. You can use the Roman Canon that expresses the Catholic faith. Paul VI never said that the Mass was not a sacrifice and neither did the new Mass say so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are of good will, please:
      1.) read "Mediator Dei" by Pius XII (which, being an encyclical, belongs to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and thus enjoys INFALLIBILITY).
      2.) Get a copy of "The Work of Human Hands" by Fr. Anthony Cekada and study it thoroughly. Chapter summaries are available on Youtube as a great starter. I'm giving you just a few links to videos which discuss the points you mentioned:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVu_kY5CYO8&list=PLDA085477E90AC096&index=11 (the preparation of the gifts)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozuRntHB1Zc&list=PLDA085477E90AC096&index=12 (what happened to the Roman Canon in NOM).
      Mind you, even Rorate Caeli found Fr. Cekada's "Work of Human Hands" valuable, so don't dismiss Fr.'s work as some sede stuff and give it an unbiased try. It's an eye opener.

      3.) Then reflect on your own comment. If you still don't see any contradictions against the Catholic faith in what you wrote, repeat the aforementioned steps.

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    2. @anon3:21
      1. Sedevacantists reject all papal claimants from Roncalli through Bergoglio (John 23-Francis). So while the POPE has the right to make changes, a FALSE POPE (Montini aka Paul VI) did not.

      2. You are correct that the Ottaviani Intervention is not Magisterial, but it is based on the perennial teachings of the Church. For a full explanation as to why the Novus Bogus is an invalid bread and wine service, please get a copy of the late Fr. Cekada's phenomenal book, "Work of Human Hands."

      3. The Novus Bogus IN NO WAY "reflects the Catholic Faith." It was composed by six Protestant ministers, and is adopted to the Vatican II heretical ecclesiology and ecumenism which flows from it. A Protestant service said in Latin with incense and beautiful vestments is still a Protestant service.

      4. Its invalidity is threefold:
      *All "priests" ordained in the Vatican II sect since 1968 in the invalid ordination rite of Paul VI are mere laymen. ANYTHING they do would be invalid.

      *Until recently, the Novus Bogus introduced heresy in the Words of Consecration over the wine. It changed "FOR MANY" to "FOR ALL" The Council of Trent explained that the words FOR MANY were used and not FOR ALL because Christ was speaking of the EFFICACY of His Blood, not its SUFFICIENCY. In other words, Christ shed His Blood and died for all--there is sufficient grace for all to be saved; however, some human beings, by their own free will reject that grace and are damned. Hence, His sacrifice is EFFICATIOUS only on the MANY who cooperate with His grace. BY using the words "FOR ALL" the heresy of Universalism was introduced. A substantial change in the meaning of the Form of a sacrament renders it invalid.

      *Even with the change back to MANY, it is still invalid by virtue of invalid priests AND the fact that an "Institution Narrative" is used. Theologians, such as O'Connell, teach that the Words of Consecration must not be spoken as part of an institution narrative--telling a story about what happened almost 2,000 years ago. They must say the Words "in persona Christi" after he stops speaking and recites them clearly, distinctly, attentively, and secretly (a low voice) so as to show he is EFFECTUATING TRANSUBSTANTIATION HERE AND NOW. Even presuming a valid priest from before Vatican II and the correct words, the Institution STILL renders it invalid.

      5. To list all the incentives to impiety and how it is (in the words of Card. Ottaviani) "The systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence" would take several posts. Please get a copy of Fr Cekada's aforementioned book.

      I'll be praying for your conversion my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Joanna S., I will read the encyclical and thank you for your answer.

      Introibo Ad Altare Dei, Thank you for answer and I have a few questions.
      1) Do you find the Novus Ordo Missae heretical by defect or directly? I have heard that there are these kinds of heresies, though I might be wrong.
      2) You believe that the new priestly ordination is invalid. Does a sedevacantist have the right to make such an authoritative statement without the adjudication of the infallible Church Magisterium?
      3) The theologian O'Connell speaks on the subject in the context of the Roman Mass. Does this also apply to the Novus Ordo Mass? In my opinion, no. Likewise, it probably does not apply to the Eastern rites of the Mass.
      4) Is it infallible to say that a heretic cannot be pope? For example, I have heard from the SSPX that there is no unequivocal teaching of theologians on this issue and no verdict of the Magisterium.

      God bless

      Delete
    4. @anon1:30,

      1. Both. It adopted the plan of the 16th century Protestant so-called "Reformers." By standing for "communion," putting it in the hand, reducing the number of genuflections, reducing drastically the sig of the cross, changing the Communion formula to the bare "Body of Christ," etc. is the denigration and negation of belief in the Real Presence(which they no longer have). That explains why a 2019 Pew Research study found that only 26% of Vatican II sect members in the U.S. under the age of 40 believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the most Holy Eucharist. Heresy consists in "dictis vel factis" — not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (See theologian Merkelbach, "Summa Theologiae Moralis," 1:746.).

      The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) re-defines the Mass in terms of the "Lord's Supper" and talks about the "President of the Assembly" (so-called priest) reciting the "Institution Narrative"--both Protestant concepts that deny the Mass as a sacrifice and affirm the "priest" is merely saying a narrative of events that took place centuries ago.

      2. I can not make an authoritative Magisterial pronouncement on Holy Orders--no one can in the absence of a pope. However, I also have no right in the United States to legally declare an abortionist a murderer. Yet, that's exactly what he is, and I don't need a legal declaration to recognize it as such. Likewise, if you saw a priest baptize a baby with the words "God Bless You" would you need an authoritative declaration to know it's invalid? Hence, we have moral certainty that the new consecration rite of bishops and ordination rites of priests are morally certain to be invalid. They are HIGHLY DUBIOUS at best. That alone is enough to stay away as per the old axiom, "A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all."

      3. O'Connell was applying a principle of theology--necessary for validity--to the Roman Rite, but it applies equally to ALL rites, namely that the Words of Consecration must not be spoken as if they were part of a Narrative. They must stand apart in some way so it is recognized that the priest is effectuating transubstantiation here and now.

      4. A pope cannot be a notorious heretic. This is even in Canon Law. According to canonist Badius:

      “c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…” (See Institutiones, pg. 160). The Code of Canon Law is a Universal Disciplinary Law and as such is protected by the Holy Ghost against error as the secondary subject of infallibility. The term "heretical pope" is as nonsensical as "meat-eating vegetarian."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. To anon@ 3:21 AM,

      I would also recommend the 1969 work from Patrick Henry Omlor titled "Questioning The Validity of the Masses using The New, All-English Canon", and is a relatively short read: http://www.the-pope.com/qtv.html

      Also, as an addendum: if you want see the fruits of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, simply see the statistics: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/

      They're not pretty.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    6. Are things like the celebration of Mass versus populum or Communion in the hand per se heresy? Could the Pope, as Supreme Legislator, introduce such rites? If the Church in antiquity approved such rites, could it also be today? (The Church in antiquity was infallible in approving liturgical practices.)

      Delete
    7. Look up Council of Trent
      Session 7 Canon 13

      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
  18. Could the Church not approve the new Mass, even if it contains errors? Theologians before the Second Vatican Council teached, that "The scope of the Church's infallibility also includes the norms of Church discipline." This claim was "sententia probabilior" and not "de fide", so it was not infallible. So it cannot be said with certainty that the Church could not approve the new Mass. The pre-Vatican II teaching of theologians on infallibility of liturgy, discipline, and the canonization of saints was not infallible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:33
      That is entirely wrong, my friend. The fact that something is not ex cathedra does not mean it can be discarded as erroneous, or that it does not demand our consent.

      The theologians from circa 1900-1958 were morally unanimous that those matters closely related to dogma are protected by the Holy Ghost as secondary objects of infallibility. As theologian Van Noort teaches:

      The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.

      The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.
      One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church’s rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

      When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints. (See Dogmatic Theology, 2:110)

      Continued below

      Delete
    2. As you can see, the general discipline of the Church (such as the Mass) means that the Church cannot (a) give something erroneous (b) give something evil or an incentive to impiety. Think about it what good is having a Magisterium that cannot teach?

      As to the infallibility of canonizations, that means that you could be praying to a damned soul if it were not infallible! See also my post

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/09/enough-bad-theology-to-plague-saint.html

      I cite Van Noort and more re: canonizations. The Church CANNOT give us a Novus Bogus bread and wine service as a "mass." If She could, you could never know what is right and good outside of the few de fide teachings, which is what Feeneyites wrongly believe.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Introibo -

      Can I feed van noot online? I know the first volume is on internet archive but that is all I can find

      Also the same for Nicolas (I think he’s the only Dominican manualist so I’m really trying to get my hands on his works). His first volume on dogmatics is on Isidore.co but I can’t find his other works

      Do I have to buy hard copies?

      God bless

      Delete
    4. @anon4:52
      I honestly don't know if they are online. I have rare hardcopies.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  19. What papal statements should be considered ex cathedra? For example, when St. Pius X condemned modernism was it ex cathedra?
    Must a Catholic under the sanction of losing salvation accept any teachings of the Church, apart from those ex cathedra, i.e. infallible? The SSPX says it does not recognize the Second Vatican Council, some post-Vatican II encyclicals, the new Mass, the new Code of Canon Law. The SSPX believes that this is not infallible and the Pope may make a mistake there. Is it true?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:45
      The SSPX are R&R ("recognize and resist") and there theology is wrong (dare I say "non-Catholic;" and there is less excuse for them each day to claim confusion caused by the Great Apostasy, etc).

      Things need not be infallible to demand our external and internal consent. To refuse to consent to an encyclical by Wojtyla (if you accept him as pope), is a mortal sin against the Faith and leads to Hell. Please see my post:

      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-ordinary-magisterium-of-papacy.html

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. To Anon@8:45 AM,

      There's an upcoming guest post by yours truly on the subject of papal authority and the Church's authority that should provide further clarity on your questions.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    3. @anon8:45
      And an awesome post by Simple Man it shall be! You won't want to miss it; it's a masterpiece!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  20. Introibo - a) where does Fr. Klee deal with the number of the saved being necessarily not so few as it would be repugnant to Our Lord's Passion?
    b) how would this tie in with various saints teaching Our Lord Himself sweated blood especially because He would see his Blood shed in vain for the vast majority? And c) if what some theologians say about God not only withholding efficacious grace but also sufficient, why would Our Lord be sad when it is He Himself Who withholds grace? Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete