Monday, January 10, 2022

The Chair Of St. Peter And Sedevacantism

 

To My Readers: I am so blessed to have guest posters as I navigate work --and my many other responsibilities-- that increasingly grow and deplete my time to research and write for my blog. This week, Lee does a fine job (as always) of guest posting. Please comment, and I will check in for anyone who asks me a direct question this week. God Bless you all, my dear readers.---Introibo

The Chair Of St. Peter And Sedevacantism
By Lee

On January 18th the Church celebrates the feast day of the Chair of St. Peter in Rome, and has been doing so ever since the 4th century. However, in 1960 John XXIII removed this feast from the liturgical calendar along with some other feast days such as St. Peter in Chains on August 1st. How ironic that a usurper of the very Chair of St. Peter abolishes such feast days in a new calendar for a new religion. It's as though he is giving us a hint that by his very actions, he doesn't belong in the same Chair which he abhors and disdains.

Many websites (including this one) have already explained many aspects of the importance of sedevacantism. In this article I'm going to explain why it's of absolute importance for Catholics to adhere to the papacy and how the only option we are left with is sedevacantism in order to remain Catholic.

Let's first consider a Catholics obligation to believe in Vatican I when it states:

SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870  
First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ (Pastor Aeternus)

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

2.) For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood .

3.)Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received.

4.) For this reason it has always been necessary for every church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body .

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd .

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion."

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: "The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."

6. For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

The problem with those who fail to submit to the Roman Pontiff

If Francis I-John XXIII are truly the vicars of Jesus Christ on earth, then according to Vatican I their authority binds on all Catholic consciences and it would be schismatic to reject them. We see over and over again so called traditional Catholics ignoring and ridiculing their pope as if it's a traditional belief to resist a pope. In their case it isn't just over sinful commands but against his ruling authority, his teaching, and while they are so bent on saying they are popes, act as though that is all they care about it. They won't defend them in any other way but will in fact denounce him as though he were the most meaningless man on earth.

When in the history of the Church has a pope ever been resisted on a day to day basis as we see with the so called one today? How is it traditional to preserve tradition by resisting a pope, when traditionally speaking Catholics have always obeyed the pope? How can anybody dare say that he can error and still be the head and teacher of the whole Church? Did not St. Robert Bellarmine say "The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err."  De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3

Could a Council judge a pope if he were a heretic?

There is a common belief among pseudo traditional Catholics that a council will judge and depose a pope. These same people (mostly lay folk) know personally their popes are heretics but to avoid sedevacantism excuse their pope for the bishops and cardinals to decide that for them, when they know that it won't ever happen since a majority of the Vatican II sect Bishops and Cardinals side with Francis and subscribe to Vatican II.

Since Vatican I declared that the pope can be judged by no one, we have a beautiful historical example written by Count Joseph de Maistre in a book called The Pope where he explains how councils are convoked by the pope to settle issues and he alone has the power to assemble them and not the other way around. (Shout out to commenter The Catholic Archive for I found a link to this book off his website).

He states:

Wherever there is a Sovereign, and in the Catholic economy his existence is undeniable, there can be no legitimate assemblies without him, No sooner is his veto pronounced, than the assembly is dissolved, or its co-legislative power suspended; if it resist, their is a revolution.

This very simple and undoubted truth, which can never be shaken, shows in its full light, the extreme absurdity so much discussed: Whether the Pope be above the council, or the council be above the Pope? For it is the same as to inquire, in other words, the Pope be above the Pope or the council above the council?

I firmly believe with Leibnitz, that God has hitherto preserved the truly ecumenical councils from all error contrary to sound doctrine. I believe, moreover, that He will always so preserve them; but since there can be no ecumenical council without the Pope, what signifies the question, whether it be above or inferior to the Pope?

Is the King of Great Britain superior to parliament, or is the parliament above the king? Neither way; but the king and parliament united constitute the legislature or the sovereignty; but there is not an inhabitant of three kingdoms who would not rather have his country governed by a king without a parliament than by a parliament without a king...

To the Sovereign Pontiff alone belongs essentially the right of convoking general councils, which do not exclude the moderate and legitimate influence of sovereigns. He alone is judge of the circumstances which require this extreme remedy. Those who pretend to assign this power to temporal authority, quite overlook the paralogism into which they fell. They suppose an universal and (what is more) everlasting monarchy. They go back without reflecting, to those times when all the mitres in the world could be called together by one scepter only, or two. The Emperor alone, says Fleury, was able to convoke general councils, because he alone could command the bishops to undertake extraordinary journeys. He for the most part defrayed expenses of them, and indicated the place they were to be held in. The Pope confined themselves to asking for these assemblies,  and they often asked without obtaining. ( pgs.12-14)

Is sedevacantism just a opinion? 

A theological opinion is a position which has faulty and insufficient evidence in its favor, so that you would not be surprised to find out that the opposite is true. Sedevacantism would be a theological conclusion because it is an absolute certainty which can be connected to truths of the Faith in such a way that, if denied, you would have to deny the Faith as well. Therefore, Francis I- John XXIII either are popes or they are not popes because to determine obedience and unity of Faith a person would have to know this, which is precisely why it is an important subject matter. We must know because if we are not following a true pope we would be in danger of schism and if we are following a false pope we would be in danger of believing false doctrine. There is no middle ground and it is a pity that so many so called traditionalist even among some sedevacantist who treat this as though it is just an opinion that can be left up to the individual when unity of faith and government are part of the One true Church from how a Catholic would have to follow it.

The Catechism of the Council Trent explains the importance of Unity when it states:

Unity In Government

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all
occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the flood...

Unity In Spirit, Hope And Faith

Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one. 

Conclusion

If Francis I-John XXIII are true vicars of Jesus Christ since when did popes (like them) pray with Voodooist priests and animists to their false gods, or ever sympathize with Martin Luther and even go as far as saying he didn't really error on justification and that he is a witness of the gospel, or say that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not born a saint, or say that Christ didn't really descend into hell, or say that altar girls enrich the liturgy, or call Eastern Orthodox members and pastors in the Church of Christ, or say Sodomite people were born that way, or say that error has rights, or say the Moslem's worship the same God as Christians, or invite Protestants to construct a liturgy in more conformance with Protestantism, or have ties with the Freemason or global elites?

So much could be added but Our Lord was clear "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me." (St. John 10: 11-14). 


51 comments:

  1. Bergoglio and his five predecessors are false popes, that's obvious. No true Pope would teach that religious freedom is a right, that Protestants and Eastern schismatics are part of the Church of Christ, that Muslims pray to the same God as Catholics, that "good atheists" go to Heaven , that the sodomites were created as they are, that adultery can be a good thing and other similar heresies. They are impostors who deceive everyone by pretending to be true Popes and by passing off their sect as the Catholic Church. Christ tells us not to be content with knowing how to read the appearance of heaven and earth, but also to know how to recognize the signs of the times. And I think with what's been going on for 60 years, they're pretty obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      Yes, and yet there are those with eyes who cannot see!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. R&R's seem to think sedevacantism is a heresy or something. We don't think the Pope is heretical, we know a heretic cannot be the Pope.

    They also seem to think sedevacantists are a schismatic sect or something. We're not in schism from St. Peter's successor or the Church; they are.

    Great article!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. cairsahr,

      The accusation that sedes are schismatics always makes me cringe so hard. If this were the case, is it not also the case that Catholics during the Great Western Schism who, in hindsight, objectively sided with the wrong papal claimant are also schismatics? Surely not, for they desired to submit to the true Roman Pontiff, but the circumstances and confusion of the time made it difficult to be certain, beyond a shred of doubt, that one was supporting the true successor of St. Peter. In our case it's the same thing, except, far from being proven beyond a shred of doubt that Bergoglio and his predecessors are orthodox, the CONTRARY is proven beyond a shred of doubt. Namely, that they are public apostates.

      Yet the R&R folks love to push that brainless accusation and paint every sede as an uncharitable monster so as to keep their followers from even CONSIDERING the position. To be fair, though, feeneyites and ain't pope Michael have caused much damage and scandal to souls, which is, in my opinion, what let's the R&R get away with such accusations without much objection in the first place.


      Lee,

      Excellent article!

      God Bless you both,
      Dapouf

      Delete
    2. Dapouf,
      R&R don't understand the basic Catholic teaching re:the papacy and schism. According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, p.2).

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Introibo,

      Could you expound a bit on the "considers it too difficult" part (perhaps an example would suffice)? Also, regarding refusing obedience, presumably there would have to be sufficient evidence for such a suspicion, correct? If so, are there any bounds on what constitutes sufficient?

      You don't have to reply if the answer requires going through several books (and, consequently, much time), I just find the topic interesting is all.

      Thanks and God Bless,
      Dapouf

      Delete
    4. Dapouf,
      I will reply a little later this week when work slows down a bit!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Introibo,

      No worries!

      God Bless,
      Dapouf

      Delete
    6. Dapouf,
      Sorry for the delay getting back to you. "Considers it too difficult" could be something like a fast declared by the pope, and with no one near whom a Catholic can seek a dispensation, feels his health would be compromised refuses to fast.

      A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on "specific and articulable facts," "taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances." That is basically the same standard in the Church.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Introibo,

      Makes sense, thanks!

      God Bless,
      Dapouf

      Delete
  3. Minor correction of my own writing.

    Just to be clear, Catholic's may hold to theological opinions so long as the Church permits them. They could be right or wrong. What I said in the article could be misunderstood as saying that theological opinions are always faulty and unreliable. The main point was to show why sedevacantism is not a mere opinion as if in the present circumstances one can feel free to believe it or not believe it.

    My apologies for the confusion.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
  4. i have a question. if there is little to no chance that you can encounter a priest in your lifetime, can you be baptized/conditionally baptized by a layman?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 12:45,

      Have you contacted a priest or are you in a country or place which is very hard for a priest to get to?

      Lee

      Delete
    2. @anon12:45
      Yes, you can be baptized by a layman when no Traditionalist priest is available. Please videotape it. There is a presumption that whenever a properly trained and validly ordained cleric performs a sacrament it is valid. There is no such presumption for a layman which is why such baptisms must always be conditionally repeated. IF you have a video however, the cleric can see whether or not it was done correctly. Then the priest would supply the minor exorcisms and such that accompany the Rite, but not the baptism itself since he saw it was valid.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Thank you, Lee!

    My in-laws spent the first 45 years of their lives within the bosom of the true Catholic Church. In their ethnic neighborhood where the large, old, beautiful building that housed the True Body and supplied the Liturgy and Sacraments, the changes came slowly; I would say much more slowly than in many of the newer suburban Catholic parishes, so that the people there did not seem very suspicious of those changes.
    My mother-in-law, in her nineties now, has asked several times lately if we are "Old Catholics". We try to explain that we are definitely not, as Old Catholicism is a schismatic belief. Sadly, she either doesn't seem able to grasp the idea of sedevacantism, or she does not want to because of her lifelong connection to her old neighborhood and everything it means to her.
    Either mindset is understandable in someone of very advanced age which can bring cognition issues. My hope is to bring her around to see that the Novus Ordo she clings to is a false set of beliefs with a false front supporting it.
    I think most Sedes are facing this struggle, too, so I just thought that if all Sedes were to add an extra prayer each day, or even a Rosary, if possible, for the sole intention of helping the NO's and RR's out of their confusion, it could save souls.

    Thank you all, friends.
    Thanks, Intro.

    -Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,

      I will keep your mother in law in my prayers. Don't give up hope though. I knew a lady who died just a few years ago at the age of 102. She grew up in a small community where she remembered having Mass in the homes of the very few Catholics in her area (much like today in the sedevacacntist groups). This would have been in the early 20's. They would swap homes for the priest to say Mass until enough people were able to have the diocese build a Church for them.

      Even though she grew up much of her life before Vatican II, almost half of her life was when Catholicism was regular while the other half of her life the Novus Ordo Church gradually took over. Her daughter (now in her mid 80's) was not only convinced herself of sedevacacntism, even though she used to be a Eucharistic minister, but both her and her mother (who she convinced) converted and started receiving sacraments from a sedevacantist traditional Catholic priest. In the last couple of years of the mother's life, she did not receive sacraments from the local Novus Ordo priest and was able to receive Extreme Unction from the real priest before she died. The greatest part was the anger many local Novus Ordos who knew her had when they discovered this happen. They were tore up over it as though she went to hell "for leaving the Church" yet these same people won't bat an eye at any of their friends who have died who aren't Catholics.

      The Novus Ordo Church is the virus that infects mind to believe in lies.


      Lee

      Delete
    2. Jannie,
      I will certainly pray for your mother in-law. Lee is correct; no one is ever beyond the reach of God. He can always enlighten us with truth regardless of our life circumstances!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. My family and the few "Catholics" I know are impossible.
      They vehemently reject trad-Catholic Holy Mass centers and Theology.
      Pray for Nicholas Smith as he is the only one who's going through a genuine slow crawl conversion.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
  6. To anyone equipped to answer,

    How exactly did salvation work for those that came before the existence of Christianity? For instance, Adam and Eve, Moses, etc. I should know the answer to this but it's just not coming to mind.

    Thanks and God Bless,
    Dapouf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

      "Why He Descended into Hell"

      To Liberate The Just

      Having explained these things, the pastor should next proceed to teach that Christ the Lord descended into hell, in order that having despoiled the demons, He might liberate from prison those holy Fathers and the other just souls, and might bring them into heaven with Himself. This He accomplished in an admirable and most glorious manner; for His august presence at once shed a celestial luster upon the captives and filled them with inconceivable joy and delight. He also imparted to them that supreme happiness which consists in the vision of God, thus verifying His promise to the thief on the cross: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

      This deliverance of the just was long before predicted by Osee in these words: O death, I will be
      thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite; ' and also by the Prophet Zachary: Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water; and lastly, the same
      is expressed by the Apostle in these words: Despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.

      But the better to understand the efficacy of this mystery we should frequently call to mind that
      not only the just who were born after the coming of our Lord, but also those who preceded Him from the days of Adam, or who shall be born until the end of time, obtain their salvation through the benefit of His Passion. Wherefore before His death and Resurrection heaven was closed against every child of Adam. The souls of the just, on their departure from this life, were either borne to the bosom of Abraham; or, as is still the case with those who have something to be washed away or satisfied for, were purified in the fire of purgatory.

      Lee

      Delete
  7. Lee,

    Ok this an elaborate explanation of somewhat I was fairly familiar with, but similar to how a critical requirement for salvation is being within the Church now, would there have been a similar axiom back then before the Church? These are the lines upon which I'm pondering. Thanks.

    God Bless,
    Dapouf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Circumcision was a part of the law and treated much like the necessity of Baptism.

      Also salvation didn't always belong to those who were born of the Jews. Gentiles were among Abraham's bosom

      For example:

      "And the multitudes running together, he began to say: This generation is a wicked generation: it asketh a sign, and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign to the Ninivites; so shall the Son of man also be to this generation. The queen of the south shall rise in the judgment with the men of this generation, and shall condemn them: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold more than Solomon here. The men of Ninive shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas; and behold more than Jonas here. Luke 11: 29-32

      and

      "And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?" James 2:25

      The Ninivites and Rahab were Gentiles but because they did works of penance were saved.

      Don't know if that helps, but I hope it did.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Dapouf,
      Lee did a great job explaining. For a more technical answer, I defer to theologian Pohle, who summarizes the teaching of the theologians:

      1. After the Fall of Adam, there were three distinct eras according to how humanity was to be saved.

      2. From the Fall of Adam to Moses there was a "Sacrament of Nature" What exactly constituted this "Sacrament of Nature" is not known in detail, and I may do a post on it.

      3. From Moses to Christ, salvation came through adherence to the Mosaic Law.

      4. From Christ until the end of time, salvation is through the One True Church.

      (See "Dogmatic Theology" 8:18-31).

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Lee and Introibo,

    Thank you! This helps greatly.

    God Bless,
    Dapouf

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pius XII removed ancient apostolic Feasts and omitted the after Midnight Holy Communion fast.
    In this sense he's no different from
    J XXIII.

    _ God Bless Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,

      A pope can change feast days and make changes to the liturgy. This is not the same as changing the faith and teaching heresy. Plus John XXIII was a member of a Masonic organization according to renowned Masons, such as Yves Marsaudon.

      Pope Clement XII "In Eminenti"

      Wherefore We command most strictly and in virtue of holy obedience, all the faithful of whatever state, grade, condition, order, dignity or pre-eminence, whether clerical or lay, secular or regular, even those who are entitled to specific and individual mention, that none, under any pretext or for any reason, shall dare or presume to enter, propagate or support these aforesaid societies of Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons, or however else they are called, or to receive them in their houses or dwellings or to hide them, be enrolled among them, joined to them, be present with them, give power or permission for them to meet elsewhere, to help them in any way, to give them in any way advice, encouragement or support either openly or in secret, directly or indirectly, on their own or through others; nor are they to urge others or tell them, incite or persuade them to be enrolled in such societies or to be counted among their number, or to be present or to assist them in any way; but they must stay completely clear of such Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles, under pain of excommunication for all the above mentioned people, which is incurred by the very deed without any declaration being required, and from which no one can obtain the benefit of absolution, other than at the hour of death, except through Ourselves or the Roman Pontiff of the time.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. What does a lying F-Mason have to do with Pius XII omitting the Apostolic Holy Week and after midnight Holy Communion fast?

      -Andrew

      Delete
    3. Andrew: What ancient apostolic feast days did Pope Pius XII remove? He moved not removed the feast of Sts Philip and James Apostles from May 1 (from the 6th century) to May 11, and he suppressed Pope Pius IX's addition of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary. What's the problem?

      As for the Midnight fast, that's a disciplines popes can change since popes made the law to begin with. The midnight fast is not apostolic either. I came years later. It was removed to fit the more ancient practice of celebrating Easter Vigil in the evening. The pre-55 missal was something the Church CHANGED from apostolic times. Pope Pius XII brought back the ancient practice.

      As for John XXIII, he wasn't pope, so his changes are invalid. He didn't lose his papacy because of changes to the mass. He was never elected to begin with partly because he was a Freemason.

      Pope St. Gregory the Great changed a canon in the Mass and the Romans almost killed him for it.

      Pope St. Pius X revised the chant in 1909, in 1911 he introduced a radical new arrangement of the Psalter. By the motu proprio Ab hinc duos annos of 23 October 1913, Pope Pius X added to his reform of 1 November 1911: no feast was to be fixed to a Sunday except the Holy Name of Jesus and the Blessed Trinity - later, the feasts of the Holy Family and of Christ the King would be added. The octaves were equally simplified.

      These changes made it necessary to modify the Roman Missal also. This was effected in the 1920 typical edition of the Missal promulgated by Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV.

      While keeping on 8 December what he called the feast of "the Conception of Blessed Mary" (omitting the word "Immaculate"), Pius V suppressed the existing special Mass for the feast, directing that the Mass for the Nativity of Mary (with the word "Nativity" replaced by "Conception") be used instead. Part of that earlier Mass was revived in the Mass that Pope Pius IX ordered to be used on the feast.

      The Psalter of Pope Pius V abolished

      Are you ready to condemn Pope St. Pius X and accuse him of being no different from John XXIII?

      Delete
    4. Nice reply.
      Which Pope destroyed the after midnight Holy Communion fast before Pius XII?
      -Andrew

      Delete
  10. Lee,
    Thanks for great article!
    It bogles my mind how the R&R crowd can recognize Francis as Pope. Francis is nothing but a fake and a very blatant fake at that.
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JoAnn,

      Thank you. It's pretty simple. The R&R doesn't believe in the papacy. Yet they accuse us of the very thing they are guilty of.

      Lee

      Delete
  11. Pope Francis is the pope.You folk make us laugh.God is the judge.Take that sedes,hahahaha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your "Pope" is an heretic and a non-Catholic.

      Delete
    2. anon@2:21,
      Do the Eastern Orthodox make you laugh? How about the protestants? Maybe the Buddhists? Mohammedans? If we're just another sect, then that's still okay because your religion says so and we have ALL the "elements of truth" except Vatican II. ;)

      I hope St. Robert Bellarmine doesn't make you laugh too!

      God Bless,
      Dapouf

      Delete
    3. @anon2:21
      Wow, that's some impressive and erudite refutation of the sedevacantist position. You must have a Vatican II sect doctorate in theology! I understand your laughter. After all, if ignorance is bliss, to be devoid of reason must be hysterical!

      Praying for your conversion,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo,

      LOL! That has to be the FUNNIEST thing I've read in forever! Thank you for the great laugh!

      God Bless,
      Dapouf

      Delete
    5. WOW, thank you for your well thought, well written, very erudite, and completely DEVASTATING refutation of sedevacantism.

      After I read this, I immediately got out of my house and went to the local Novus Ordo church, went to confession (I especially liked it, the priest - err, Mass president - err, president of the Lord's Supper - didn't really give me a hard penance, he just told me to love and love more and be nice!), went to Mass - err, Lord's Supper (the people were so nice, I wanted to shake all of their hands but I can't, because of COVID-19, and the priest - err, the president of the People of God's Assembly - taught us about being nice and tolerating, that we should respect other religions, forget the Catholic doctrines of the past, support abortion, support the rights of our homosexual brothers and sisters - oops, siblings! - don't believe in hell, forget all the saints and theologians who taught that heretics cannot be popes, and that popes will cease to be popes when they fall to heresy, and of course, to love plants and hug trees, etc., etc., the usual) - and started selling ALL of my belongings to help the anti-sedevacantist cause! I am now planning to write and publish some books refuting sedevacantism.

      I now live a NEW and completely CHANGED life, all because of YOU! So thank you for this very insightful and very powerful comment of yours!

      Delete
    6. Anon 2:21

      Devils laugh out loud (lol) too when they know they have a majority of pseudo Catholics united to the Novus Ordo Church in their hands. It gives them great pleasure to know the world is fooled because of their lies and how each soul will suffer eternal consequences had it not been deceived.

      This is not to say that sedes are better than thou people because they will also have to be prepared but because they wish to be faithful to the Catholic Faith, their chances will be much better. Instead of laughing, study the difference between what used to be Catholic and what has been changed. It's a different religion. May the Lord have mercy on you.

      Lee

      Delete
  12. Yes,VERY POWERFUL.Ha,ha,ha.Why don't you all submit to Pope Michael or the dozen or more other Popes.No Logic.Word is coming about that Bishop Daniel Dolan is getting ready to declare himself the True Pope.Writing has been on the wall for sometime.We will keep LOL.

    Introibo,why do you hide behind a phony name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to refute sedevacantism, bring arguments, not laughs.

      Delete
    2. @anon4:44
      You write: Why don't you all submit to Pope Michael or the dozen or more other Popes.

      Ans. They are not sedevantists but rather conclavists who do not follow Church teaching on how to get a pope back in the absence of Cardinals. It's not easy, and perhaps we will remain without a pope until Christ returns as we are in the Great Apostasy.

      You write: No Logic.

      Ans. It is Church teaching that a manifest heretic cannot be pope. It is obvious that Bergoglio denies basic dogmas such as the necessity of the Church for salvation saying "Proselytism is solemn nonsense," "Atheists can go to Heaven," etc. That is the logic that comes from the teaching of the Catholic Church. See, e.g., Cum Ex Apostolatus by Pope Paul IV in 1559.

      You write: Word is coming about that Bishop Daniel Dolan is getting ready to declare himself the True Pope. Writing has been on the wall for sometime.

      Reply: That is sheer calumny. Mortally sinful. That will never happen, and you cite no proof other than your own ipse dixit.

      You write: We will keep LOL.

      Ans. Of course you will! That's what the mentally challenged often do!

      You write: Introibo,why do you hide behind a phony name.

      Ans. I do not hide, I seek to remain anonymous. I do so for two reasons: (1) to protect my family and friends from repercussions in their careers and personal lives, as I live (and work) as an attorney in NYC--the hotbed of de facto Communists. They should not suffer for my beliefs.
      (2) Who I am is unimportant. Let people judge the arguments. All glory to God, as I am His unworthy instrument.

      If you wish to debate me online in a neutral forum, I'd be happy to oblige! You can present your reason-challenged "arguments" and I can demolish them for all to see! Otherwise, please "bravely run away."

      Praying for your conversion and mental health,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. I noticed that this anon writes the same way as the anon last week who gave unsubstantiated claims that there is an active homosexual bishop. (No space between a period or comma and the letter after it.) Perhaps this is the same person who's now upset that no one was buying his/her unsubstantiated claims anymore?

      The comment "Pope Francis is the pope.You folk make us laugh.God is the judge.Take that sedes,hahahaha" is such a dumb comment that I don't think that the average anti-sede thinks that it could refute sedevacantism or lower the spirits of sedevacantists. But it makes sense to me if it was made out of anger.

      Also, anon thinks that we can easily be persuaded that Bp. Dolan will declare himself pope, just by claiming that. Same like last week's anon who thinks everyone here is too credelous that all he/she needs is to claim something.

      Delete
  13. Excellent post, Lee!

    Indeed, Catholics scattered around the world necessarily need the Pope to maintain unity in the One True Church, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches.
    All of our current problems stem from the lack of the visible head in the Church.
    Meanwhile, we remain faithful to the divinely-instituted Papacy, ever sure of the promises of Christ towards His Spotless Bride, Our Holy Roman Catholic Church.

    God Bless,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Introibo, don’t even answer the people who obviously come here with bad intentions to disturb the peace. You know people get paid for sitting in a big room with a ton of computers and are given a list of websites to enter into and just disturb the peace. This is a full time job for many. (Similar to the same activists who show up at every violent protest). There is honest debate and then there is this. I would not answer anyone who insults or ridicules or says LOL. That is neither sincere, honest nor polite. Do not feed these pathetic BEASTS! Do they even know how far they are straying from the path of Eternal Life? St. John the Evangelist exhorted us to love one another, but he had a very firm hand with the heretics and wouldn’t even engage with them. Should we do no less than St. John? I would also add that while you are free to publish all comments, I would filter these losers out because it is very upsetting to read their purposely destructive comments. I am all for debate, but honest debate, not cyber terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:27
      Your point is an excellent one. Going forward, I will not publish any comments that are not sincere in disagreement. "Cyber-terrorist" is a good term for these characters who serve no useful purpose.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Hello, I was just reminded by a sedevacantist priest that the Novus Ordo has retained the Feast of St. Peter at Antioch on February 22 in their calendar (as stated at the beginning of article). Just so we aren't accused of misrepresenting the facts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charleybrown,
      I checked, and you are correct. An unintentional oversight by Lee (and myself). This blog will never misrepresent the facts, and the post has been revised accordingly.

      Thank you for bringing this to my attention!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. You're welcome! God bless you and thank you for your helpful articles.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Charleybrown for catching that.

      Lee

      Delete
  16. "or say that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not born a saint,"

    W H A T ? ? ?

    I had heard someone (forget if it was "PF" or "cardinal" Casper or dito Marx) had denied the physical nature of the Resurrection, but this?

    ReplyDelete