Monday, January 9, 2023

Bad Medicine For Body And Soul: The Errors Of Homeopathy

 


Homeopathic medicine has seen a resurgence in popularity in the past few decades. Many homeopathic remedies are on the shelves at numerous drug stores, as they are typically over-the-counter treatments that customers can purchase without a prescription. Over six million people in the United States, and 200 to 300 million people worldwide, use homeopathy. According to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), homeopathy is practiced and is available in 40 out of 42 European nations. In France, 95% of all GPs, pediatricians and dermatologists use homeopathic remedies in their practices. The Swiss government recently concluded that homeopathy is “effective, cost-effective and safe.” The Swiss government now recognizes homeopathy as having a status equal to that of ordinary medicine.
  
(See timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/despite-all-odds-homeopathy-continues-to-gain-popularity; See also World Health Report, WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine).

So what difference does the use of an alternative medical treatment have to do with the Faith? In the case of homeopathy, quite a lot. Not only is homeopathy capable of harming your body, it is based on occult ideas from its founder, who was a Freemason. It can lead to the acceptance of spiritual ideas antithetical to the One True Church. This post will outline the origin and purpose of homeopathy, as well as expose its physical and spiritual dangers. (In addition to the sources listed below, I have drawn heavily upon many other papers and books on homeopathy, most notably Samuel Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine, 6th edition, reprint [1978]; and Martin Gumpert, Hahnemann: The Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel [1945]. My post is my compilation and condensation of the pertinent sources. All credit I give to the appropriate authors, and I take credit only for putting their works into a concise and thorough post.---Introibo). 

Origin and Purpose of Homeopathy
The word “homeopathy” comes from two Greek words which reflect this basic idea; Homoios, meaning like or similar and pathos meaning pain or suffering. Homeopathic medicine, then, is that substance which produces similar pain or suffering in a healthy person to that experienced by a sick person. According to the British National Health Service (NHS):

Homeopathy is a complementary or alternative medicine. This means that homeopathy is different from treatments that are part of conventional Western medicine in important ways.

It's based on a series of ideas developed in the 1790s by a German doctor called Samuel Hahnemann.

A central principle of the "treatment" is that "like cures like" – that a substance that causes certain symptoms can also help to remove those symptoms.

A second central principle is based around a process of dilution and shaking called succession.

Practitioners believe that the more a substance is diluted in this way, the greater its power to treat symptoms.

Many homeopathic remedies consist of substances that have been diluted many times in water until there's none, or almost none, of the original substance left.

Homeopathy is used to "treat" an extremely wide range of conditions, including physical conditions such as asthma and psychological conditions such as depression.(See nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/#:~:text=Homeopathy%20is%20a%20%22treatment%22%20based,than%20placebos%20(dummy%20treatments; Emphasis mine).

Discovering how homeopathy began is crucial to understanding why it is a false method of diagnosis and treatment. Homeopathy was developed by Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). In 1810 Hahnemann published his Organon of the Rational Art of Healing, the “Bible” of classical homeopathy. Editions today are frequently titled Organon of Medicine.

Dr. Hahnemann was translating a book which had described the effects of quinine or Peruvian bark on malaria. Out of curiosity, Hahnemann took the drug himself and discovered that it ap­peared to cause symptoms similar to malaria: general malaise, chills, fever, etc. Hahnemann was struck with a revolutionary thought: The possibility that a substance which causes symp­toms in a healthy person might cure those symptoms in a sick person. He therefore continued testing this idea on other substances using himself, his friends, and his family as subjects. Believing the results confirmed his theory, he developed the basic theory of homeopathy: “like cures like.” In other words, any substance producing symptoms in a healthy person similar to those symptoms in a sick person will cure the sick person. The idea was born from this experience and Hahnemann's occult ideas he received from Freemasonry. 

In 1774, Samuel Hahnemann, a 19-year-old with very little money, left his home, in Meissen, Germany, for Leipzig University to study medicine. Although he tried to earn money as a translator, making ends meet was very difficult for him. On the brink of starvation, he was introduced to an opulent Transylvanian baron, Samuel Brukenthal, the head of the Madgeburg Freemasons' Lodge. Hahnemann was initiated into the Lodge in Hermannstadt, Transylvania, in October 1777 (one of the first Lodges). He quickly came to esteem the many itinerant "teachers of mysteries" who were indoctrinating the Lodges in such matters as alchemy and spiritism. The next section deals with the dangers to your Faith inherent in homeopathy.

Occult "Energy"
 Hahnemann never even attempted to explain scientifically how "medicine," diluted to a point in some cases where there's almost nothing left of the substance, makes it "stronger." This is one of the two key points of homeopathy:

  • “Like cures like”—the notion that a disease can be cured by a substance that produces similar symptoms in healthy people.
  • “Law of minimum dose”—the notion that the lower the dose of the medication, the greater its effectiveness. Many homeopathic products are so diluted that no molecules of the original substance remain.
(See nccih.nih.gov/health/homeopathy; Emphasis mine). 

How can a substance that, in some cases, is literally no longer present be stronger than when it's present? How can a dilute substance be stronger than the same substance less diluted? Hahnemann has formulated a whole doctrine explaining this logical impossibility. First, he considers man as a tripartite being composed of:
  • will and thought (the inward man)
  • vital energy, spirit substance or immaterial essence (the ethereal body of the occult anthroposophists, the god Prana of the Hindus)
  • the body which is material
Here is Hahnemann in his own words taken from Organon of Medicine:
  • In the state of health, the dynamistic, immaterial, vital energy, animating the material part of the human body, reigns absolutely
  • A person becomes ill when a diseased agent infiltrates the body and disturbs the vital energy by dynamistic influence
  • It’s only when the vital principle is troubled by a diseased element (that is to say by the intrinsic nature of a virus in the form of incorporeal substance) that it emits reactions and symptoms of disease (Emphasis in all these quotes mine).
Here's the really disturbing part. To find the cure for a malady, that’s to say, the herb for the original tincture of the preparation, the researchers often have recourse to occult practices such as the pendulum. Dr. A. Voegeli, a famous homeopathic doctor, has confirmed that a very high percentage of homeopaths work with the pendulum. There are groups whose research is carried out during seances, through mediums who seek information from spirits. (See alopsis.gr/afieroma/af-homeopathy-examined-h-j-bopp-m-d-neuchatel-switzerland). Moreover, Hahnemann, like many homeopaths today utilize Masonic and occult mixing-and-shaking rituals with pendulums and invocations of spirits. 

Hahnemann held to many and varied occult teachings in addition to those in the Masonic Temples. He rejected Christianity, identified with Eastern religions, and took Confucius as his model. One biographer says, “The reverence for Eastern thought was not just Hahnemann’s personal hobby, but rather the fundamental philosophy behind the preparation of homeopathic remedies” (See Samuel Pfeifer, Healing at Any Price, [1988], p. 68). He was a follower of Emanuel Swedenborg, who taught his followers to enter an alternative state of consciousness in order to commune with spirits. Hahnemann called the occultic practices of Franz Mesmer “a marvelous, priceless gift of God” by which “the vital energy of the healthy mesmerizer endowed with this power [can be brought] into another person dynamically” (See Organon of Medicine, 6th edition, pp. 309, 311). Hahnemann held to the panentheist view that God is in all things, like the soul is in the body.

Maleficium
While the homeopathic "medicine" may contain none of the substance because it was diluted into nothing, it may contain maleficium, a Latin term for any magickal act intended to cause harm. According to theologian Szymanski, "Maleficium (occult potions, powders, and other substances) placed in food or drink can cause possession. The devil has his agents who prepare these diabolical substances by which he [Satan or a demon] is able to enter human and animal bodies." (See The Truth About The Devil, [1944], pg. 20). The same would no doubt hold true of "medicine" containing maleficium made during "Masonic and occult mixing-and-shaking rituals with pendulums and invocations of spirits." 

Harmful to the Body
Here is a perfect evaluation of how homeopathy is either ineffective (at best) and harmful (at worst) to your bodily health:

Homeopathy claims to use only “natural” substances. This is an attempt to contrast itself with conventional medicine. For example, homeopathic remedies include raw bovine testicles, crushed honey bees (Apis mellifica), Belladonna (deadly nightshade), cadmium, sulfur, poison nut (Nux vomica), hemlock (Conium), silica (Silicea), monkshood (Aconite), salt (Natrium mur), mountain daisy (Arnica), venom of the Bushmaster snake (Lachesis), arsenic (Arsenicum album), Spanish fly (Cantharis), rattlesnake venom (Crotalus horridus), Ipecac (Ipecacuahna), dog milk (Lac canidum), poison ivy (Rhus toxicodendron), and more. Some of these substances are quite harmless, but others can be toxic (especially at D4 and lower dilutions).

How did Hahnemann know that a remedy was appropriate for a particular disease (actually for a particular symptom)? Hahnemann and his students tested remedies on themselves. They would eat various plant, animal, and mineral substances and carefully observe what symptoms occurred. This is called “proving.” These reactions (or symptoms) were collected together into a book Materia Medica. For example, one of the symptoms of Pulsatilla (windflower) is “An unpleasant message makes him deeply sad and depressed after 20 hours.” During provings, the people knew which substance they were taking. This is a problem because one might anticipate a certain reaction or exaggerate some symptom.

Today, in modern science, we try to prevent this bias by not letting the person know what he or she is taking — a “test-blind” procedure. When evaluating symptoms, it is also important that the researcher does not know which remedy is being tested (a double-blind procedure) because the researcher can also be biased.

One recent German study did compare a remedy (Belladonna C30) to a placebo. Those who received the placebo reported even more symptoms than those who received the remedy. The symptoms reported included minor aches and pains in various parts of the body. Did the patient mistakenly assume that a normal ache or pain must be related to the remedy? It is possible that the ache or pain was the result of a confounding factor such as not enough sleep.

As we can see, homeopathy is not concerned with the disease. It concentrates on the symptoms reported by the patient. Homeopathy then matches these symptoms to those symptoms that a remedy causes in a healthy person. By contrast, scientific bio-medicine uses symptoms to identify the disease and then treats the disease itself.

Research

There are two points of view about homeopathy that are in conflict. One viewpoint says that homeopathy should not attempt to meet the rigorous requirements of scientific medicine. It is sufficient that there have been millions of satisfied patients during the last 200 years. Science is not relevant anyway because it rejects the concept of the energy of the “vital force” which is essential to homeopathy. This vital force is identical to the concept of vitalism — a primitive concept used to explain health and disease. And, besides, scientific medicine is unfairly prejudiced and biased against homeopathy. Dana Ullman, a leading spokesman for American homeopathy, says that personal experience is much more convincing than any experiments. The emphasis on experience shows that most people simply do not understand that good science, based upon experiments, is essential to the development of knowledge.

The second viewpoint is that scientific research is necessary if homeopathy is to be accepted by medicine and society. In the past 15 years many experimental studies have been done to examine homeopathic remedies. Two reviews of homeopathy are perhaps the best known.

J. Kleinjen, P. Knipschild, and G. ter Riet examined 107 controlled clinical trials of homeopathy. They concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to support the claims of homeopathy. C. Hill and F. Doyon examined 40 other clinical studies. They also concluded that there was no acceptable evidence that homeopathy is effective. Since the above reviews were written, four more research studies have appeared.

In 1992 the homeopathic treatment of plantar warts (on the feet) was examined. The homeopathic treatment was no more effective than a placebo.

A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05). However, critics pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5. This suggests that the conclusion was not valid. Further, there was no assurance that the homeopathic remedy was not adulterated (contaminated). Finally, standard remedies which halt diarrhea were not used for comparison purposes...

Sometimes we can learn much about a topic by examining who or what it associates with. In the first 100 years, homeopathy was closely associated with many pseudosciences including Mesmerism and phrenology. In the United States, many early homeopaths were members of the mystical cult of Swedenborgianism. Unfortunately, this has not changed today... Many homeopaths use iridology, reflexology, dowsing, and electrodiagnosis. None of these methods has scientific validity. In America, if you want to learn more about homeopathy, the best place to go is to any New Age bookstore or meeting place. 

(See quackwatch.org/homeopathy/articles/wagner).

Conclusion
Homeopathy is bad "medicine" that can harm both your body and (more importantly) your soul. Do not seek the services of some homeopath and warn anyone who does go of the inherent peril. None of the claimed evidences offered in support of homeopathy, theoretical or practical, proves that homeopathy is an effective medical procedure. Not only does homeopathy fail to operate under the principles of scientific medicine, it may cause bodily harm and involve one, unwittingly, in the occult that can lead to demonic possession. 

Addendum: Did True Popes Give Approval To Homeopathy?
A reader/commenter wrote an often used story of homeopaths, namely, that several true popes used homeopathy and gave honor to homeopathic doctors. I said it was false and calumnious--not on the part of the commenter, but of the homeopaths that spread these stories. There are several major problems. It is alleged that different popes used homeopathy. All of the sources I've seen are from homeopaths.

Moreover, the popes who allegedly used or approved homeopathy vary. The list of popes includes Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, and false pope Wojtyla. For obvious reasons, I will not count Wojtyla. 

Problems:
1. During this era of history (from Gregory XVI to St. Pius X), doctors employed methods such as bleeding and blistering to cure patients, or they relied upon herbal mixtures of one kind or another because they had not yet developed methods for creating effective medicines. Many put any herbal remedy under the umbrella term "homeopathy," although it wasn't actually such. There is still confusion about the two today. (See fullcirclewomenshealth.com/blog/mind-body-spirit/2013/12/29/hello-world-2/). 

2. Homeopaths cite...each other! In this particular homeopathic website sueyounghistories.com, gives the follow "proof" of approval from Pope Pius IX:

(a) Ferdinand de Lesseps was a negotiator for Pope Pius IX. It links to a Wikipedia page on de Lesseps, and it does not state that he was a homeopathic practitioner, or that he used homeopathy. Note that he was a negotiator for Pope Pius IX, not an ersatz doctor or medical consultant. Even if, ad arguendo, he used/practiced homeopathy on the side, how would we know the Pontiff was even aware of such? He was doing negotiations in the diplomatic realm.  

(b) Pope Pius IX also granted Alexandre Charge the Order of St. Gregory the Great for travelling to the South of Frace (sic) to treat a major cholera epidemic with homeopathy, and for the exceptional care he provided at this time. The information is taken from a book, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy, written in 2007 by Dana Ullman, who is one of the biggest promoters and apologists for homeopathy. In turn, The Homeopathic Revolution cites to an 1863 writing by W.F. Hunt, The Condition of Homeopathy in Europe, Transactions of the New York State Homeopathic Medical Society, [1863], pgs. 118–123---another homeopath. In no case is there proof of such an honor bestowed for practicing homeopathy except the ipse dixit of the homeopaths themselves. Even if I stipulate that the event occurred, was the honor for actual homeopathy, or herbal remedies? This is not the kind of "proof" that gives reassurance as to the truth of the statement asserted. 

(c) In 1847, Francois Perrussel received a special apostolic letter from Pope Pius IX in remembrance of his work The Truth in Medicine Found and Demonstrated by the Laws of Universal Attraction. The proof? This link: homeoint.org/seror/biograph/perrussel.htm, which begins, "A Mexican magazine for February 25, 1873, contains the following :" Really? "A certain Mexican magazine"? The page ends with this whopper: "The above has been condensed from very interesting accounts by Drs. Chauvet and Leboucher in the Biblioth√®que Homoeopathique, vol. 5." Again, a homeopathic source! If such a letter existed, the contents--verbatim--should be published, and now it could be photographed and published. Maybe we should believe Perrussel got rid of such an honor and/or did not allow its publication?

3. The case of Pope Pius XII.
 The pro-homeopathy website:
 homeopath.lt/homeopathy_news_information, states The personal doctor of Pius XII was homeopath Galeazzi-Lisi, succeeded by another homeopath professor Negro, who was also the doctor of Paul VI. I found no mention of Dr. Galeazzi-Lisi to have been a homeopath. According to the New York Times, he used a different method of the embalming process using herbs and spices without draining the body of its fluids, "like Christ." He botched the job of embalming Pope Pius XII so badly, the body literally decomposed before the eyes of the mourners.  The stench was so acrid that the Swiss Guards could not take it, and Pope Pius' body had to be rotated every 15 minutes. 
(See theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/04/catholicism.religion). 

Could he have been a homeopath and occultist unknown to the pope, and used his herbs to desecrate the body? Who knows, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I won't go there. However, one thing is certain--there is no solid evidence that any true pope endorsed occult homeopathy.---Introibo

124 comments:

  1. Thank God, I'm healthy. But if I get sick and it's serious, I won't resort to things that are quackery.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What are examples of homeopathic medicine such as brands or types? Are there any natural medicines which are not homeopathic?

    I'm not against all modern medicines, for example Ondansetron (Zofran) is a wonderful drug for vomiting, Meclizine is great for dizziness etc. but I am against vaccines and in the last two years notice how many young athletes required to take the Covid jab are dropping dead? If you haven't seen this video: https://rumble.com/v1wac7i-world-premier-died-suddenly.html be prepared to see morticians pulling abnormal clots out of people caused from the jab and this being from morticians who have received the jab themselves.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just my theory but as traditional Catholics w live conspiracy fact every day and tend to see conspiracies where they don't exist. We are more than open to believe that powerful people and interests are corrupt, especially that that is proven to be non-theory in the case of big pharma and big medicine. I think it's an imprudent application of the reflex principle to then automatically go to what big medicine eschews as quackery in order to find some hidden truth (gnosis).

      Delete
    2. Lee,
      I'm anti-vaxx. As to homeopathy, Hahnemann Laboratories and the Boiron group are two of the largest makers of homeopathic medicine. See, e.g., https://www.boironusa.com/about-us/our-ingredients/
      There are still non-homeopathic remedies out there. Products labeled as homeopathic generally include the word “Homeopathic”

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. @anon8:10
      You make an excellent point! We are so put off by big Pharma, that some run into the arms of quackery.

      Thank you for commenting, it made me think!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Thank you Introibo for the info.

      Anon 8:10,

      So what do you suggest we should do if big pharma isn't to be trusted and natural medicines are as questionable?

      Delete
    5. @anon6:12
      You can buy herbal remedies that are non-homeopathic. That's fine. Also, there is a reason that despite processed foods, air pollution, more stress than ever before, etc. that people are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. Not all medicines are bad, they have helped numerous people (my mother included) live way longer than they would have otherwise. My mother lived 15 years beyond what was expected due to the remarkable medications available which also gave her a very good quality of life for all but the last of those 15 years.

      Then, as I told a commenter below, research for doctors (recommendations from relatives, friends, etc.) who DON'T push medicine needlessly so you have a physician when needed. In this way you'll get "the best of both worlds," so to speak.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Lee (and/or Introibo),

      A question posted on a previous blogpost regarding lineage, thanks:

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-dangers-of-randonautica.html?showComment=1672286542151#c3672079754935971951

      -S.T.

      Delete
  3. Pope Gregory XVI awarded the Grand Cross (the highest order he could bestow on a layperson at the time) to the famous Italian doctor Settimio Centamori after his homeopathic treatment triumphantly restored health to those in the Vatican and Italy who suffered from that horrible disease.
    When doctors were not available, both Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Pius IX permitted the clergy to administer homeopathic remedies to the people of Italy and beyond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:25
      This is typical homeopathic claptrap to “prove” it is not occult. During this era of history, doctors employed methods such as bleeding and blistering to cure patients, or they relied upon herbal mixtures of one kind or another because they had not yet developed methods for creating effective medicines. This was referred to as “homeopathy; anything herbal used to treat maladies. It was not the practitioners of Hahnemann.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Actually, no. You’re incorrect. The medicinal efficaciousness of homeopathy has been lauded by 2 real Popes. Anything associated with homeopathy regarding the occult has nothing to do with the medicinal properties, as these Popes have proven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon10:17
      No popes have lauded homeopathy properly called. The medicinal properties were of herbal remedies used at the time. These popes used “homeopathic drugs” unrelated to homeopathy properly called because of the times they were living in and the state of medicine at the time. To cite their use as being in support of homeopathy more than 100 years later is not just false but calumnious.

      —-Introibo

      Delete

  5. It appears you’re unwilling to be objective on the subject matter & that you fall in the conventional medicinal category. That said, if I’m wrong about anything here, I’ll gladly retract it.

    Yet, since you believe my comments are calumnious, I’m bowing out.
    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, in all charity, I humbly request you delete my comments. I want nothing further to do with this conversation.

      Delete
    2. @anon11:26
      I don’t believe you, personally, are a calumniator. I apologize if you thought I was labeling you as such. The statements made, as I have seen them used by homeopaths, are calumnious because they leave out pertinent information that makes it seem as though papal approval was given to homeopathic medicine. I will add an addendum later today explaining myself.

      With my apologies,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. @anon11:26
      Please read my apology. Then let me know if you still want them removed.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. Hello Introibo:

    Have you been up to Round Top? What do you think of it?

    Thank you. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:08
      Yes. The seminary is beautiful and sits on many acres of land (about 62 acres, if memory serves me correctly). A great place to study for the priesthood.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Thank you Introibo for another great writing on a subject long over due.It is frighting to see how many folk are into this,Rekei,and other new age garbage.

    On the subject of the occult,I believe many people today are either under oppression or obsession of demonic attacks.Your thoughts.Look at the way people are.Men have become so effeminate,etc,etc.The list could go on and on.

    God bless

    Thomas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas,
      I would agree with you that a great number of people are under oppression or diabolic obsession. The Occult Explosion and diminishing of the One True Church has made it such. We must pray much, Thomas!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Hi Introibo.A blessed new year to you and your family.

    A good question about Round Top.Reading the sisters website they are in the process of a major building program to help with the influx of vocations.This is amazing.

    Have a question on a different subject please.The divorce rates in the States for second marriages is 60%Why is it so high.If you were looking for a woman to court would you be suspicious of a woman who had gone through a 1st or 2nd divorce(secular I am meaning)Is this true over 70% of divorces are initiated by women.This is frighting.Perhaps in the future you could do a writing on this important subject.

    I don't like to say this but it is true.Do you think the modern woman is only interested in money and a great lifestyle.She only wants maybe one child,etc,etc,etc.

    Thank you and God bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:52
      The divorce rates are high because people have forgotten God, and marriage is not seen as a vocation, but as self-fulfillment. Child-bearing is a nuisance and not a gift from God. Men and women think that "divorce won't happen to me" or "won't happen again" because you're "more experienced." Many women marry adulterers; so if he cheated before why won't he cheat again? "Because I'm special." I refuse to even be friends with a man who was an adulterer. If he can betray his wife to whom he made vows, what could he do to me?

      As Fr. DePauw once told me, "The world is so selfish, it's no longer 'Me first,' but quite bluntly, "Only I count."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Sometimes I tell myself that I'd rather stay single than get married, start a family, and see it all shattered by separation or divorce. The individual has replaced the family as the foundation of society and people say to themselves, "If this doesn't work, I'll start again somewhere else." And children suffer the consequences of being tossed around between parents and new spouses. And above all, society invented "gay marriage" with the right to adopt children by sodomites ! Dark times !

      Delete
    3. Simon,
      I may be wrong but it seems to me that most people have this false notion that you HAVE TO get married (family pressure, media, etc.) because they feel they have the safety valve of divorce anyway. This is both sick and tragic.

      I've seen too much effeminacy in men, the inability to make firm decisions in religious maters and in life, and I can't see myself as a wife subject to a husband who falters in these matters. Better stay single, at least for the time being, than force oneself into a life of family strife.

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    4. Hello Joanna

      How true.I am man in my late 40's and still single.Maybe this is God's will for me.I have a very deep prayer and spiritual life.I have been hurt and misled by so many woman including several Traditional Catholics.Most are only want to know how much money you have,etc,etc and don't want children or just one.What does one do.Trust in God and our Blessed Mother.

      God bless

      Delete
    5. Joanna,
      You write words of wisdom! How unfortunate also, that people forget that being single is one of the four vocations sent from God.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. You had published a post on this subject, I think. Being single is an easy choice for people who want to consecrate themselves to God in the priesthood or religious life, but for those who do not have this vocation, it is more complicated. But I think that one can have a spiritual life while being secular celibate or married, as is your case Introibo.

      Delete
    7. Simon,
      Absolutely. In ANY of the four vocations (priesthood, religious life, married life, single life) you can achieve sanctity and become a saint!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Okay but there are many women who are also adulterers.I know of many in my work.They go out to bars,etc looking for hook ups for the night.Just sick.I agree I also refuse to be friends with a man or woman who is an adulterer.

    What is worse is when they have children.Imagine what is going through their poor minds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:38
      I agree there are many female adulterers also. I do indeed feel sorry for children born to such people. A big cross to bear.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your answer.
      So one should be very discerning when courting.You don't want to make a BIG mistake.
      We are in very bad times.It's only going to get worse.

      Delete
  10. The comments about legitimate popes awarding researchers for their work in the field makes me think of work build on the findings by ethno-botanists: scientists trained in botany and chemistry who shadow witch doctors to see what they use to assemble cures and potions and then reverse engineer the chemical process that the witch doctor used (which was possibly revealed to him by preternatural sources). I don't discount that the origins of homeopathy are essentially witchcraft, shamanry, and witchdoctor magik but if the chemical and scientific process can be repeated without reference to the demonic is it still evil?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:20
      In my opinion, it would not be evil under those circumstances. However, there is a second (and very serious) problem. There is no scientific evidence it works, and lots of evidence that it can do harm in certain circumstances. Moreover, it is really "magick thinking" that to have a substance diluted until it no longer exists is "more potent" than when the substance is present. It defies logic.

      So while your statement is correct, it does not apply to homeopathy.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. I don’t believe you have proven homeopathy to be of satanic origin or not to be trusted in any way. What does doctors bleeding patients with leeches have to do with homeopathy? You say that there is no evidence that homeopathy works , but there is plenty of evidence that it doesn’t work. Where is that evidence? I am a sedevacantist, I read your blog every week, and I use homeopathy pretty much every day. As a matter of fact, I had a very large tumor/ growth on my ear from sun damage, and I have been using homeopathy for it, and it has almost disappeared in one month. Mozart was a Freemason. Should I throw away my Mozart music?

    The world of mainstream medicine relies heavily on aborted fetal tissue and even humanized mice for product testing and development? And you don’t think that is satanic? I’ve been using homeopathic Belladonna, Pulsatilla and many other remedies on my seven children for the past decade and, thanks be to God, they are in excellent health.

    Every once in a while I see scrupulous Catholics try to convince people that homeopathy is evil, but, like you, they never have any solid evidence. They just think it sounds weird. Well, that’s not evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes homeopathy "worked" best simply because it did the least damage (vs bleeding for example) and bodies typically heal on their own.

      Next time you get a cold if you were to add blue food coloring to your water and if 2 days later the cold goes away that doesn't mean it was the blue coloring that did it.

      No double blind trial has shown (or could show) that homeopathy works. This makes sense when looking how it is supposed to work as by the practitioners own admission there is essentially no substance left so you are left to taking nothing or believing the water has memory and knows what thing to remember in order to cure. Once you realize there is no original substance left in order to think it is doing anything more than nothing you need to be more into the occult side. Also there have been cases due to that lack of regulation of “homeopathic” drugs being mixed with real drugs to boost their effect. This has its own potential negative consequences.

      Delete
    2. Oh, btw, my name is Faith but I am not able to log in. There is actually quite a lot of of research on homeopathy. And the well known homeopathic labs have zero history of mixing homeopathic remedies with other medicines. It is a very careful procedure, the making of remedies, that involves no such nonsense.

      There is nothing weird or ritualistic about the process whatsoever. Scientists 100 years ago didn’t have powerful microscopes like we have today. And there is much they couldn’t see back then. Likewise, just because we can’t detect the remedy under a microscope doesn’t mean it’s not there. We perhaps just don’t have the technology to see it yet.

      I have seen too many, many cures in myself, my friends and my family to agree with your “blue water” comment. The medical world is against homeopathy because it cannot be patented because it is made from natural substances. Therefore there is very little money to be made in homeopathy. The “big” homeopathic pharmacies are invisible and nothing (in dollar value) compared to the pharmaceutical companies that bring in more money than the oil industry. And the homeopathic pharmacies don’t rely on dead babies even just for testing an aspirin. No demonic activity is used in the making of homeopathic medicines, as opposed to the pharmaceutical companies. Hundreds of thousands of people die annually from properly prescribed pharmaceuticals — that’s a simple well known fact, while none (as in zero) die from homeopathic medicine. Furthermore, good popes were alive and well during the “hay day” of homeopathic use (late 1800s to early 1900s), but no pope ever condemned them. Again, I really don’t think this article or the reply to my previous comment shows that there is any danger — physically or spiritually — in the use of homeopathic medicines. Simply said, it works. And it works without the side affects (or the carnage) used by the pharmaceutical industry. God bless!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,
      You hit the nail on the head!

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    4. anon8:35
      Well-stated! You see through homeopathy quite clearly.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. Introibo,

    Interesting article. Wasn't aware of the demonic nature of the practice.

    What do you think of pharmaceuticals though? Many of them are approved by the FDA and they are known to have ingredients in them that forbidden to be used in other countries due to the risks Iike yellow and red dyes or ractopamine for example.

    If we want to to use natural non-homeopathic products how would we know they are not homeopathic? I believe God made natural medicines to heal us over time so would certain herbs, spices, and other things like bee pollen be okay to use? If that isn't homeopathic what is it called?

    Martin S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin,
      I am no fan of "Big Pharma." Doctors are too ready to hand out medicine like candy. We must be cautious and use doctors who do not push medications. Homeopathic products almost always proudly announce themselves as such on the label. There is nothing wrong with using herbs and such apart from homeopathy. These are called simple non-homeopathic herbal remedies.

      Two points of caution:
      1. Do not use and herbal remedies if you are taking medicine unless/until a pharmacist or medical doctor tells you it will not interact with your medicine.

      2. Do not stop going to a doctor if you experience symptoms of an illness because "herbal remedies will cure me." Early detection and prevention of illness is key to a healthy life.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo


      Delete
    2. Introibo,

      Thank you for the response. I'm more into taking non synthetic supplements such as a recommended amounts of zinc, magnezium, etc.

      Admittedly, I have used homeopathic supplements although rarely, not knowing their history. I wasn't aware they were diluted or the history of the person who came up with it.

      I will say as a side note that my daughter suffers from getting hives usually when she has a meltdown and gets stressed out or if she has virus. She can look pretty scary and so we were told by the doctor to give her benadryl. The problem is you are not suppose to give that to them on a regular basis (more than a week) as described on the label because it can cause damage the liver. While it worked for a couple days it seemed to come back later on and be worse throughout the day. Not knowing what to do, we resorted to something more natural since she has a chronic problem and since she cannot live on benadryl. So we went to a local health food store and bought hives medicine (homeopathic) and as soon as we gave it to her, it went away within 10 minutes) and didn't come back for a longer time. Now it could have been a fluke or a coincidence but it's hard for me to believe that. We also gave her a natural calming medicine instead of ritalin (which has severe side effects such as depression, suicidal thoughts etc.) and while it didn't work as fast did seem to be helpful.

      My point is, I understand your article and am disturbed by the truth of the Masonic, witchcraft origins, and the fact that it is diluted to almost nothing but what else are we suppose to do if over the counter and prescription drugs don't do the trick? It seemed like the homeopathic medicine we gave my daughter worked but I don't know. I don't believe myself to be a quack but rather somebody who is trying to prudently do the right thing.

      I don't believe in taking nothing and I'm skeptical about doctors because all they want to do is as you said give you drugs like candy or pressure you to vaccinate (which is annoying). I'd rather just go to a doctor if it's last resort.

      Sincerely,
      Martin S.

      Delete
    3. Martin,
      You can go to a health store and buy non-homeopathic brands. Nothing wrong with that. I don't think you are a quack in the least, you're trying to do the best you can using your God-given intelligence. Then research for doctors (recommendations from relatives, friends, etc.) who DON'T push medicine needlessly so you have a physician when needed. In this way you'll get "the best of both worlds," so to speak.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. Hello Intro,
    I have not commented for awhile but still read your posts regularly.
    Just wanted to wish you and your readers a very happy new year, and to say thank you for another year of good Catholic material.
    I also want to thank Lee for his fine contributions and Joanna as well.
    Joanna, I thought your posts on Lamennais were especially good. I never knew about the man and I was shaking my head, almost in tears by the end of the article.
    Joanna and Lee, you knock it out of the park!
    Intro, may you and all the guests and readers here find health and contentment this year, and above all - stay strong in the faith of Jesus Christ.
    God bless, and thank you again!

    -Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      how wonderful to hear from you again!
      Thank you for your kind words - feedback from Readers like You is invaluable, makes Introibo's blog the very speacial place that it truly is, and I can't tell you enough how much we appreciate your input!

      God Bless You and Yours,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    2. I agree Joanna.Introibo's blog is a very special place that it truly is.The high light of my week is to read the new writings.It is a life-line in this very sick and evil world.God bless

      D

      Delete
    3. Jannie,
      So glad to see you comment again! I echo Joanna's sentiments.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. D,
      Thank you my friend! Comments like yours really do keep me going at this blog.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Jannie,

      Glad to see you comment again. Thank you for the compliment as well.

      Lee

      Delete
  14. Introibo,

    thank you for this article! Although I'm no chemist/biologist, I've had an interest in phytotherapy, or herbal treatments, carefully scrutinized by science. Phytochemistry, or the study of plant-derived chemicals indeed is genuine science. After all, modern aspirin has been developed from the salicylic acid found in the bark of the willow tree (Salix alba). What modern science did was extract the acid and purify it of other biologically-active substances found in willow bark, giving as pure aspirin.

    Homeopathy fails to scientifically prove what it claims to offer - auto-suggestion has fooled many, and the link to the occult is the definite reason to stay away from that "diluted" quackery.

    God Bless,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanna,
      Yes, it really is incredible how so many people get involved with something unscientific, and even attempt to show "papal approval" for occult quackery.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Introibo.Have you ever visited Mount St Michaels(CMRI) in Spokane,WA?What were your thoughts?Do you have any idea how many attend their parish?

    Do you or your readers have suggestions where are the best places here in the States to move to where one can have daily Mass and have good contact with other Traditional Catholics.Help needed.Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:13
      I have never had the pleasure of going there. Long Island is blessed with four Traditionalist chapels, and has a high number of Traditionalists. If any of my readers know of other places, please pass them on to me for publication in the comments!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. post falls idaho, spokane area is a hotbed of traditionalism.

      Delete
    3. Yes, North Idaho and Spokane are a hotbed of Traditional Catholics. Beautiful place and wonderful people. We lived there for years. Unfortunately, it is very expensive to live in Idaho at this current moment.
      http://www.traditio.com/
      Has a master list of all traditional mass sites across the the USA and all of north America. Possibly more? There are some great places across the USA, but Mass sites may not be the only factor in moving to a place. Homeschool laws, job availability, if the priest is independent and his age.... Etc. Hope this helps.

      Delete
  16. Hello Introibo.We have been to Mt St Michaels and it is a special place.It would have between 800-900 people in the parish.

    What numbers attend the SSPV in NY State?

    We agree with the above comments from Joanna,etc.This is truly a very special website where one can access much info in these dark and evil times.Thank you so much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:18
      The SSPV on Long Island has similar numbers--I "guesstimate" 750-1,000.

      Thank you for the information and kind words, my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  17. Hello Introibo:

    These are general questions. #1 DOES NOT apply to me.

    1. Let's say that there is a single person who has same sex attraction. The person is chaste, and understands the traditional Catholic teaching of not having same sex romantic relationships. How would you say such a person should approach joining traditional Catholicism?

    2. What advice would you give to people IN GENERAL about approaching traditional Catholicism(specifically SSPV, that's where you go), and introducing themselves and indicating their interest in converting? Especially somebody who will be joining traditional Catholicism who does not know anybody at their traditional Catholic church before they start attending, and who is joining alone, without any family or friends that they have known before.

    2a. How would you suggest such a person find a baptism godparent and confirmation sponsor?

    3. What do you think about the George Pell story?

    4. Do you think that the SSPV on Long Island has more people than the SSPX on Long Island?

    5. If an unbaptized adult approaches the SSPV, about how long does it take before they can receive instruction and get baptized?

    6. I have heard that there have been a lot of converts to the SSPV on Long Island recently. Is there anything that you can mention about these people while obviously respecting their privacy(for example, are they all from SSPX?)?
    Thank you. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:56
      1. The person you describe is very brave and is of good will. They should not be afraid to approach a Traditionalist priest. The person NEEDS as much grace as possible to live a life-long celibate life. He can make friends at the Chapel afterwards.

      2. Just be honest and let them know you want to join the One True Church. It's not difficult. The priest will help you.

      2a. The Church will introduce you to someone who can be godparent/sponsor. Good way to develop a life-long friendship and spiritual connection!

      3. Pell was a V2 sect heretic. Do I think he is guilty of doing something gravely immoral. In my opinion, yes, even if not the particular crimes on which he was accused.

      4. Definitely. Many SSPXers joined SSPV after Bergoglio's "election."

      5. It depends on how well they know the faith. Each person is evaluated.

      6. Many are SSPXers who left as I stated above.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hello Introibo:

      1. Do you think that such a person, if they are chaste, does not need to "advertise" that they have same sex attraction? Meaning, they can let their acquaintances think that they are just single?

      2. Do you think that the SSPV is good at welcoming newcomers in general?

      2a. Does it happen often that traditionalist Catholics are, or become, friends with their godparents?

      3. I have no actual knowledge of whether or not George Pell was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged, I didn't know him, but from what I heard about the case, it's POSSIBLE that it happened. Abuse often takes place in private, with only the victim and the perpetrator there. I am an abuse victim(not sexual abuse by Catholic priests), and basically the only evidence is my memory of what happened. My abusers were often very good in public. So was Pell. Some people apparently think that he was a "martyr". Some people think that my abusers were great people.

      4. I wonder what the SSPX tells their people now about SSPV?

      5. Is a financial stipend offered for an adult convert baptism?

      6. Do converts to SSPV from someplace like SSPX have sacraments "redone"? What about from other places?

      Thank you. Anonymous

      Delete
    3. @anon9:42
      1. Absolutely. It should only be revealed in the confessional when there's a transgression of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, as it changes the analysis, gravity, and advice given.

      2a. Not really sure. I've attended SSPX only rarely, and not for some years now. Perhaps some of my readers who have been to SSPX recently can comment.

      2b. Yes. I know several such instances.

      3. I agree with your point. Some abusers keep up a good "double life."

      4. They are sedevacantist and you should stay away. That's the only message I ever heard from SSPX priests I knew and the SSPV.

      5.Usually, but if the person is financially burdened it can (and will) be lessened or eliminated.

      6. If the orders of the SSPX cleric are unquestionably valid, e.g., Bishop Fellay performing Confirmation) it does not require conditional administration.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Hello Introibo:

      2. I meant to say the Society of St. Pius the Fifth, SSPV, where you go. Are THEY good at welcoming newcomers in general? I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before.

      Thank you. Anonymous

      Delete
    5. The SSPV and their attendees are excellent at welcoming newcomers in NY. People come from all over because of the school and in search of (and finding there) The One True Faith. There are converts who are coming from wherever. No one cares, just come. You will work out the details with a priest. That’s your business.
      Let’s clarify one thing. When you attend, assist at mass and receive sacraments at SSPV (or SSPX, CMRI, Roman Catholic Institute or whomever) you are not a member of any of those priestly societies. The priests are. Not you or me or anyone else. You are just a Catholic attending, assisting at mass and receiving sacraments from an order of Catholic priests.
      We all have our stories of how we ended up here and are happy to share with you and listen to yours. I tell my VII Novus Ordo family members that those who attend SSPV chapels are just ordinary people with the same ordinary lives and problems as everyone else with one exception. They actually believe in God. They are imperfect and not above you. If anyone were to make you uncomfortable there, it would be a personal problem of that individual and not the group as a whole. I have commented previously of being afraid to go to SSPV. I am extremely comfortable with my decision to go to them for my spiritual needs. Deo Gratias!
      I hope I have been clear. Let me know.

      Delete
    6. @anon6:21
      The SSPV, in my opinion, is excellent in welcoming newcomers.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  18. Introibo.Why are not more sermons,etc made on the subject of the single vocation.Why is it always on marriage or the priesthood.

    Are there any traditional books on the single vocation.

    I do agree with your above comment that most in the world don't view marriage as a vocation.Once they get sick of each other they move on to someone else.I have seen it many times.A few have ended it only after 5-6 years with one child and then move on to someone else.If a woman wants a child,it's usually only one.They are only after money,their career,etc.

    Life is very short.We never know when we will die.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:14
      I think the reason for that is because of the Great Apostasy, the clergy want to fill the their ranks and those of the laity. The priesthood does that (and they want restoration of the religious life too) for the clergy, Holy Matrimony builds up the laity. Unfortunately, the world also [wrongly] sees singles as "incomplete" at best or having "something wrong with them" at worst.

      Fr. DePauw preached about the single vocation, but he was doing that from before Vatican II. A different mindset.
      See my post:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/12/single-minded-devotion.html

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  19. Do you introibo what age Fathers William Jenkins and Joseph Greenwell are?Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:15
      Fr William Jenkins was born in 1950 and turns 73 this year. Fr Joseph Greenwell was born in 1964 and turns 59 this year.

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
  20. Introibo,

    Very interesting! I had no idea. I just had a somewhat vague notion of what “homeopathic” meant – alternative, natural, complimentary, etc. I started reading this post thinking of supplements, vitamins, and herbs, as well as various alternative therapies and treatments. I went to the Boiron website you posted. Just to be clear, if a product is labeled “homeopathic”, then we can assume it has the same characteristics and occult associations as written here? Boiron certainly doesn’t get into specifics on that, unless I missed something.

    Sadly, I think we need to be wary of modern medicine as well. Many large companies and special interests’ lobbying dollars go a long way in the food and drug industries. Often, medical advice doesn’t reflect what the studies actually conclude. Numbers and statistics can be manipulated. Most mainstream doctors don’t have time to research and rely on (or need to follow) what their hospital admin and third party research evaluators say. There are also legal concerns. Ask three doctors something and you may get three different answers. Utilize help from healthcare, but be your own best advocate. We’re in strange days when major medical publications are forced to make retractions. Whenever possible, improve your diet and lifestyle where able. With proper guidance, seek to be on less rather than more medications, as they all have side effects. Consider risk/reward ratios - e.g. is a 50% reduction in developing a condition worth the side effects if your particular risk is 1 in a million? Pray, do the best you can in making decisions, and trust in God. There are MDs and DOs out there that do seem to think more for themselves, but they are in the minority and may not take your insurance. Like suggested, try and find doctors that share your views when it comes to autonomy and medications. I think most mean well, but the industry makes it difficult for them. There’s not as much money in prevention than cures, typically. Of course, I realize medicine can be very beneficial for some people.

    Thanks for the post! God bless,
    -Seeking Truth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seeking Truth,
      If a company goes out of its way to cater to homeopaths, and cater to them, I don't trust them. Such is the case with Boiron. There are many herbal remedies not specifically homeopathic. I suggest going to a health store and asking for brands that are not "homeopathic." If the person there says "there is no difference" or "they are all homeopathic" leave. I can look up specifics for you.

      I fully agree with your sagacious advice. It is in basic agreement with what I said to other commenters in this post.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Seeking Truth,

      I saw your lineage question regarding Fr. Anton Trinh from the other post in the link you provided in the above comment.

      He came out of the Novus Ordo priesthood, was conditionally ordained a traditional Catholic priest by SSPX bishop Bernard Fellay and is now a bishop consecrated by Bp. Slupski. Not sure where he resides.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Lee, thank you. I'm trying to find options for people in central Texas. It looks like SGG has monthly mission Masses, so that is definitely something. -S.T.

      Delete
    4. Introibo,

      Thank you kindly for the advice. I will be sure to be wary of anything with the label – it seems like it’s everywhere! -S.T.

      Delete
    5. Seeking Truth,

      If you need some more help finding a priest here is a helpful: link http://www.ecclesia.luxvera.org/Directory-USA.html

      Lee

      Delete
    6. Lee, thank you, that is my "go-to" website. I also check order-specific websites. There used to be a site supported by google maps that pinned traditional chapels all over the world, but for some curious reason, it disappeared within the past year or so. -S.T.

      Delete
  21. Wow!Over 50 comments so far this week and over 100 last week.You are off to a good start this new year(smile)God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:29
      Yes, it's always good to hear from my readers! I learn much from them; they make me think. The people who comment improve the quality of this blog.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  22. My major problem with the SSPX is they say the Traditional Church and the Vatican Two Church are somehow one and joined together.

    Do you know Introibo if the SSPV is growing anywhere else besides Long Island?They have not opened any new missions for a long time unlike the CMRI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:43
      A conversation I had with an SSPV priest suggests growth elsewhere besides NY. Two more priests will be ordained in September of this year. Deo gratias!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  23. Anonymous Jan 13th 8.43AM

    Correct about the SSPX.I listened to a talk by Fr Pagliarani and he talked this somewhat garbage.To be honest,it is blasphemy.

    Wow,did not know Fr Jenkins was that age.I really can't see the SSPV changing it's views on the Thuc Bishops till he and Bp Kelly depart this world.If Bp Santay changed their views,what do you think Fr Jenkins would do Intriobo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:15
      Bp. Santay is a good and holy bishop, but I can't see him changing his stance as long as Bp. Kelly remains unmoved. If the SSPV changed its stance on the Thuc line, I could see Fr. Jenkins going independent.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  24. We have an idea the SSPV is growing in the State of MN.They have a large parish and school in White Bear LakeNot sure about other places.Introibo might know or readers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Intro,
    Have you heard about the movie "The Chosen"? If so, what do you think of it? I have not watched it but my relatives are commenting on how good it is. However, I have heard from more trad Catholic sources that it is not very edifying. If any of your readers have seen it, please share your thoughts. Thank you.

    -Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      Yes, I have heard of it, but have not watched the series. It is written from a decidedly Protestant point of view. The producer consults with V2 sect priests, Orthodox Jewish rabbis, and Protestant ministers in writing the script.

      Overall, I have not heard anything overtly wrong with the series, but errors are certain to creep in. For example, according to some viewers, one episode showed Jesus rehearsing before giving a sermon. It implies limited knowledge in Christ which is impossible.

      In my opinion, the series is not blasphemous per se, but it should be watched with caution.

      If any of my readers would like to add their thoughts, please do so!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hi Jannie and Introibo,

      I am trying to catch up with some comments. Here is a link to a youtube video from CatholicCrusaderFilms I watch several months ago:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6EJW60Ob2U

      Someone wrote that The Chosen's self-described "heretical" director got this video deleted, but youtube restored the video after the channel challenged the deletion.

      We watched the show for a few seasons in the past (all that was available), but it's been quite a while. It started to seem more... strange, woke? I'm not sure what words to use. Again, it's been a while. We haven't watched it since the watching the critique video. I most certainly did not care for the actor playing St. John the Baptist (involved in some pseudo-satatic filmmaking), nor the portrayal of him. I have a high regard for St. John, as Jesus said "no man born of woman is greater than he" (forgive any errors here), and I think they took protestant angles with him. I did not care for other character portrayals as well, especially Our Holy Mother. The director stated most of the show is not scripturally accurate (again, by my recollection). I am wary of the show's increasing popularity. My take is that it is dangerous as there are so many liberties taken. If I were to watch it now, I would probably have to constantly critique it (which I have no doubt my wife would love...). I was warned in the past of Bp. Sheen's sermons since I was new to the true faith, as supposedly they contain some modernist elements.

      From what I remember, I thought the critique video was pretty good (for what my opinion is worth ;-) ). After all, we are relatively new converts, and thus we are learning a lot quickly. It's an hour, but if you are not opposed to 2x speed, I think one could still follow along.

      I could write more, but hopefully this is of benefit. Just providing my thoughts. As always, I am open to correction.

      -Seeking Truth

      Delete
  26. Introibo.I would like to know why Father William Jenkins is so opposed those Bishops and Priests that descend from the Thuc-line.Why can't he refute page by page of Mr Derksons open letter to Bishop Kelly.My family are from the SSPX so we don't know the history of the SSPV regarding this.We are sure there must of been much pain among famlies.We are sure some of those who attend the SSPV do go to Thuc Clerics for the Sacraments.Your view please.Thank you and God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:28
      I know he is opposed to the Thuc line, but why Fr. Jenkins remains so opposed, I have no idea. No one has been able to refute Mr. Derksen, and no one holds the Thuc line dubious except for SSPV--specifically Bp. Kelly and Fr. Jenkins. It is very sad, and I hope it changes.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  27. Hello Introibo:

    1. Thanks for answering the questions about the convert with same sex attraction.

    Here is something else about a potential convert(None of these people are me.):

    "Jane Doe" and "Mary Smith" are adult same sex romantic partners(which is of course against traditional Catholic teaching), so obviously THEY both have same sex attraction. Together they have raised "Helen Doe -Smith". Jane and Mary are Helen's legal parents. Jane and Mary's relationship is consensual. Neither Jane nor Mary has abused Helen.

    Helen herself DOES NOT have same sex attraction, and she knows about the traditional Catholic teaching against same sex romantic relationships.

    Helen is interested in converting to traditional Catholicism.

    How would somebody like Helen go about approaching traditional Catholicism, for example SSPV?

    How would Helen's conversion depend on any of the following?:

    A. Are Jane and Mary legally married according to the civil law?

    B. Is Helen at least age 18, and thus a legal adult?

    C. Does Helen still live with Jane and Mary, and if so should she move out as soon as possible?

    D. Whose name or names as parents would go on Helen's sacramental records, and would the answer to the above depend on whether Jane or Mary or neither is Helen's biological mother, and whether or not the name of Helen's biological father and/or mother is known?

    E. Would Helen have to change her name, or would that be her choice?

    F. Should Helen get "un adopted" from whoever is not her biological parent?

    G. Would somebody like Helen be eligible for the religious life or marriage?

    2. If somebody wants to email you privately, off of this blog, I have seen in the past you have told people to send a posting to this blog with their email address, and you WILL NOT publish that posting, and you will respond with an email address that preserves your own anonymity. Can each person who wants to email you privately do this, or does each person who wants to email you privately have to make a public post without their email address, and then you give permission to make a "private" posting with their email address?

    3. If an older Novus Ordo priest decided that he wanted to convert to traditional Catholicism, would the SSPV ordain him traditionally, or would they have him live as a layman?

    Thank you. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:44
      1. This involves a novel situation which canonists and theologians pre-V2 could not possibly have even imagined in their worst nightmares.

      In my opinion, consulting the works of theologians:
      a) No, because they cannot be married before God. It is a fiction of the State.

      b)Yes, that would make her conversion easier, but if mature and under 18, she could keep her conversion a secret

      c) Easier to convert if she is not there, and yes, get out as soon as possible if you are there.

      d) Biological mother's name.

      e) Her choice

      f) Not necessary.

      g) I'm unsure.

      2. Anyone who wants to contact me privately can simply leave a comment with their private email and ask me not to publish it. I will then contact them via an email address that protects my anonymity.

      3) If he was validly ordained they would take him after necessary training. If invalid, he would need proper training and get conditionally ordained in the Traditional Rite.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Pray for ALL validily Ordained Priests Consecrated Bishops in Novus Ordo to revert to traditional Catholicism. Still quite a few who received valid Holy Orders 1965-1969.
      I understand some Bishops/Priests received traditional Holy Orders from valid Bishops until 1974,though it was extremely rare.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
  28. Introibo,

    what would you say if a sede priest uttered the following words in a sermon (I quote):

    "God became men in order to suffer for us - and His suffering was from the very beginning, starting in THE WOMB OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, right until the end of Our Lord's passion."

    The priest is Polish and the sermon can be viewed on youtube.

    God Bless,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanna,
      The statement CAN be heretical, but it can be construed in an orthodox manner. If by "suffer" the priest was referring to the fact that the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity was now burdened with a human nature, and in that sense "suffered" in a way the Father and Holy Ghost do not, it would not be heresy, even though the priest expressed himself very poorly. If he meant Christ suffered physical pain or mental anguish in His Mother's womb, that would be both blasphemous and heretical.

      The priest should be asked to clarify what he meant.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,

      thank you for your reply. It didn't occur to me that the priest's statement could be understood in a way consistent with the Catholic Magisterium. Quite frankly, I was flabbergasted - to say the least - at hearing his words.

      I don't frequent that priest's Masses as I was treated like a leper in one of his chapels. Nonetheless, he is the face of sedevacantism in Poland

      God Bless You,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
  29. Unrelated question. Does the Ave Maria Chapel in Westbury offer non una cum or una cum Masses?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Fr DePauw was non-Una Cum; Fr. Evangelista was Una Cum. There is currently no priest there, as they search for another.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  30. Thanks for info. Someone I know in Queens is looking for a non una cum. I told them Oyster Bay for sure was non una cum. I did not know for sure about Westbury.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm disappointed that Lee would cite a website as discredited as quackwatch. Its founder Dr Stephen Barrett literally had defamation cases he brought against others thrown out of court because they were telling the truth about how he was targeting specific doctors and trying to destroy their careers because they were successful and helping people but threatened the medical establishment. He had to leave his own home town because he was so loathed. He has lost defamation case after defamation case because he is in reality off ill will and spends his life destroying the careers and professions of others.
    https://www.anhinternational.org/2008/01/18/quackbuster-stephen-barrett-md-loses-appeal-and-leaves-home-town/
    https://garynull.com/stephen-barrett-ama-wikipedias-assault-chiropractic/

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Catholic Church had over 150 years tp condemn homeopathics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:16
      There has been no formal condemnation by the Church of homeopathy. There are many reasons I could give for that. Yet, it suffices to say that if homeopathy is based on occult principles (which I have shown in the writings of Hahnemann himself), and the Church HAS condemned occultism--then homeopathy has been condemned, albeit indirectly.

      In like manner, the Church has no decree explicitly condemning "grand theft of automobiles," yet it is a form of stealing and that HAS been condemned by the Church.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  33. Michelle F LandsgaardJanuary 21, 2023 at 7:23 PM

    Your research is biased. This entire blog post is your objective opinion. You don't regard sources about the popes from homeopaths, because you believe they are biased. Why should I put any credence into your sources, which are also....biased? The Church is my moral compass and it has never said anything negative whatsoever about the use of homeopathy, so why should I take your opinion as anything but that...opinion.

    I will continue the use of homeopathy, as it has cured myself and my family of chronic and acute illnesses time and time again! And it is NOT occultism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michelle F. Landsgaard,
      For certain, there is a small amount of bias that creeps into almost every source; that's the human condition. That is why multiple lines of evidence are needed. I cite to the World Health Organization, the British National Health Service, and even from the works of Hahnemann himself.

      I presume that you will claim that all modern medicine is unduly biased against homeopathy. All you need to do is show research, capable of repetition, that demonstrates the efficacy of homeopathy. That has never been done. There is only anecdotal evidence. Dana Ullman, a leading spokesman for American homeopathy, says that personal experience is much more convincing than any experiments. Seriously? Ever hear of the placebo effect?

      Homeopaths could also shows flaws in the experiments of those such as J. Kleinjen, P. Knipschild, and G. ter Riet. No such refutation under laboratory conditions has even been attempted. Then again, how does one measure a "vital force" in which occultist Hahnemann believed?

      The idea that NONE of a substance can be more effective than when it is present flies in the face of logic itself.

      There has been no formal condemnation by the Church of homeopathy. Yet if it is based on occult principles (which I have shown in the writings of Hahnemann himself), and the Church HAS condemned occultism--then homeopathy has been condemned, albeit indirectly.
      In like manner, the Church has no decree explicitly condemning "grand theft of automobiles," yet it is a form of stealing and that HAS been condemned by the Church.

      I have no Magisterial authority, so you can certainly do as you like. I just state facts, draw a conclusion, and give a warning. If you disagree with my conclusion and/or warning, you have that right, as does each of my readers.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete

  34. In regards to Hahnemann being a freemason, I do not deny that he was. However, it is also possible that you have misinterpreted the meaning of the term 'vital force' and are taking his organon out of context. You are not an expert in the field of homeopathy, and because you don't understand the terminology and the real science that goes into it, you jump to the conclusion that it comes from the devil...

    You state that the WHO is one of your sources. I am curious if you agree with their stance on Covid 19 and their vaccine advice? https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice

    It is clear to me that some "science" can not always be trusted...You probably won't find "anecdotal evidence" supporting homeopathy from mainstream media because homeopathy is in direct competition with them.

    That being said, there is real science behind it. In 1986, Dr. David Tyler Reily conducted a double-blind study entitled "Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response?" In which he found no evidence to support the idea that placebo action can fully explain the response to a homeopathic drug. There were further studies done, which I can also link to, if you would like.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673686926929

    You also might be unaware of the Doctors Banerji. They are a mult-generational family of homeopaths that run the "Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Facility and Clinic," in Kolkata India. It just happens to be the busiest medical clinic in the world. It is staffed with medical doctors who are also homeopaths and they see, on average, 6,000 cases per week. That is a lot of data...https://www.pbhrfindia.org/the-free-clinic/2-about-us.html

    Aside from that, I know from experience that homeopathy is not placebo, as I have personally seen it work on babies under a year old and also on animals.

    In regards to the popes using or not using homeopathy, we may not know the true answer. However, they had 150 years to condemn it, and it was never condemned. It also seems convenient that you think the word "homeopathy" can mean home remedy when it serves a purpose for your argument.

    I know at least one valid priest who uses homeopathy and who recommends it to fellow Catholics, and I find it to hard to believe that anyone would take your word over a priest's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michelle,
      1. You write: "In regards to Hahnemann being a freemason, I do not deny that he was. However, it is also possible that you have misinterpreted the meaning of the term 'vital force' and are taking his organon out of context. You are not an expert in the field of homeopathy, and because you don't understand the terminology and the real science that goes into it, you jump to the conclusion that it comes from the devil..."

      Reply: I do understand real science, and that's why I can say there is no real science that goes into homeopathy. I do hold a Masters in Science Education and know the basics of the scientific method. As a lawyer, I know how to cite references IN CONTEXT.

      Read Hahnemann and check my cites. He claims homeopathic substances release their vital force, power, or cos­mic energy and become increasingly powerful as they are diluted and shaken. They are most powerful when the original substance (the medicine) has completely disappeared. Hahnemann remarked, “Modern wiseacres have even sneered at the thirtieth po­tency… [but] we obtain, even in the fiftieth potency, medicines of the most penetrating efficacy. (See Samuel Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure—Theoretical Part, trans., Louis H. Tafel [1976], p. 19). How powerful are homeopathic medicines that do not have even a single molecule of the remedy in them? Incredibly, Hahnemann referred to the “infallibility” of homeopathy “laid before the eyes of the world through facts… [e.g.,] typhous contagious epidemics must now allow themselves to be speedily turned into health by a few small doses of rightly-selected homeo­pathic medicine.” (See Ibid., p. 26). Unfortunately, typhous and other contagious epidemics are still with us. All diseases that have been eradicated were not defeated by homeopathy, but by scientific medicine. Hahnemann’s prediction failed to materialize because homeopathic substances are not medicines and they have no curing powers. Outside of homeopathic circles, no evidence exists that substances become more powerful by dilution and shaking. The sciences of chemis­try and pharmacology (as well as basic logic) teach the exact opposite—that the more diluted a substance, the weaker it becomes.

      2. You write, "You state that the WHO is one of your sources. I am curious if you agree with their stance on Covid 19 and their vaccine advice? https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice"

      Reply: I don't agree with them on that point. I made it clear that I don't trust Big Pharma as they push pills. That conventional medicine gets some things wrong, CONCEDED; that they get everything wrong, DENIED. I would trust Big Pharma over occult mumbo jumbo telling us a substance is more powerful when it no longer exists.

      People are living longer, healthier lives despite garbage for food and pollutants around us. This is not due to homeopathy but conventional modern science.

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    2. You write, "That being said, there is real science behind it. In 1986, Dr. David Tyler Reily conducted a double-blind study entitled "Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response?" In which he found no evidence to support the idea that placebo action can fully explain the response to a homeopathic drug. There were further studies done, which I can also link to, if you would like.

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673686926929

      You also might be unaware of the Doctors Banerji. They are a mult-generational family of homeopaths that run the "Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Facility and Clinic," in Kolkata India. It just happens to be the busiest medical clinic in the world. It is staffed with medical doctors who are also homeopaths and they see, on average, 6,000 cases per week. That is a lot of data...https://www.pbhrfindia.org/the-free-clinic/2-about-us.html

      Reply: About 200 clinical studies of homeopathic remedies are available to date. With that sort of number, one cannot be surprised that the results are not entirely uniform. It would be easy to cherry pick and select those findings that one happens to like (and some homeopaths do exactly that). Yet, if we want to know the truth, we need to consider the totality of this evidence and weigh it according to its scientific rigor. This approach is called a systematic review. Over a dozen systematic reviews of homeopathy have been published. Almost uniformly, they come to the conclusion that homeopathic remedies are not different from placebo. As one study puts it:
      "Through the laws of physics, homeopathic medicines appear to have zero chance of containing any biologically active component. Evidence from physical chemistry also rules out the plausibility of mechanisms such as water memory."
      (See onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2042-7166.2012.01162.x).

      You write, "Aside from that, I know from experience that homeopathy is not placebo, as I have personally seen it work on babies under a year old and also on animals."

      Response: Homeopaths frequently claim their magic potions work on infants and animals. This allegedly proves homeopathy is effective, because placebos would not work on babies or dogs. But if such an effect had really been proven, I think everyone would know it. It would have spurred a multi-billion-dollar research program, and homeopathy would have been accepted long ago. For Americans, the discovery of a dramatic new healing power for their infants and pets would hardly go unnoticed. Furthermore, BIG PHARMA and CORPORATE INTEREST would have been secured by the promise of vast profits in the neo-natal industry and veterinarian care. Such a discovery would have caused a public sensation from the implications alone. That's why the claim to work on babies and animals is unproven anecdotal evidence.

      You write, "In regards to the popes using or not using homeopathy, we may not know the true answer. However, they had 150 years to condemn it, and it was never condemned. It also seems convenient that you think the word "homeopathy" can mean home remedy when it serves a purpose for your argument."

      Reply: The Church had more than 150 years to explicitly condemn Astrological Medicine, and never did. Maybe that's because astrology is occult and therefore it stands condemned already? Would you really want this person trying to cure you:
      https://www.astrologyofhealth.com/

      Finally, you write, "I know at least one valid priest who uses homeopathy and who recommends it to fellow Catholics, and I find it to hard to believe that anyone would take your word over a priest's."

      Reply: Arius was a priest. Martin Luther was a priest. Do you think priests can't/don't make mistakes? Can't be evil?

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  35. Clearly we will never change each other's mind on the subject, so it is futile discussing it further. However, it horrifies me that you think you know more than a traditional Catholic priest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michelle,
      I'm friends with a Traditionalist priest who agrees with me. Does "your priest" know more than "my priest"? The days of approved theologians and canonists is sadly over. Priests have enough education to confect the sacraments and do what is necessary.

      Clearly, priests do not, and never have, possessed Magisterial authority. The notion that priests "can do no wrong and know everything" is what got us where we are today in the Great Apostasy.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  36. This is the last thing I will say on the subject... But, I just want to get this straight...What you're saying is that instead of asking my priest for advice on occultism, I should either ask you or go to some source such the World Health
    Organization for my answers? It sounds like you have made yourself your own moral authority.

    In general, validly ordained, traditional, sedevacantist priests can and should be trusted. They have the moral authority to advise others about subjects such as occultism.

    If anyone is reading this, I beg you to go to your priest. If you have any doubts about homeopathy and occultism, do not seek advice from me or "introibo." Your priest can help you. He is the expert on things such as occultism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michelle,
      No, that's not what I'm saying. I have shown by the manifest weight of the credible evidence that homeopathy is both (a) occult and (b) quackery.

      The occult is condemned by the Church, and therefore anything based on it, such as "Astrological medicine" and homeopathy.

      If you read this please DO go to a sede priest and ask him his opinion. I'm not my own moral authority, I follow the Church which condemns both occultism and phony "medicine" based on such (or anything else based on such.

      Priests can be experts on occultism, but to say ONLY priests can be such experts is false.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  37. To find studies of the efficacy of homeopathy, you should research the Bannerji Protocols, the largest collection of scientific case studies of patients using homeopathy.

    I'm also not entirely sure you've researched the methods of homeopathy. For example, digitalis purpurea (foxglove flower), is deadly if you chomp it off the plant and eat it. But in homeopathy it stops a heart attack when take under 30c, 200 or 6x dilution. Digitalis purpurea is the main ingredient in the medicines they'll give you at the ER to restart your heart. Many medicines use similar base ingredients, as someone above said with aspirin and willow bark. Now as to occult practices while making the homeopathy -- where did you find this? Please cite a source. I advise anyone using herbal remedies, homeopathy, essential oils OR allopathic medicine to bless their medicine with holy water first. As Saint Augustine says, we are not culpable for using items used in pagan ceremonies if our will does not assent (ie not knowing that it was), and with the use of Sacramentals to rid them of evil influence, what's the problem? We simply can't know what each company does when making it, just as we can't know if a chef sprinkled a curse item in our food at the local restaurant.

    Ben Franklin was a Freemason, does that mean I can't turn on the light switch in my house, or I'll get possessed?

    You seem to scoff at anecdotals, but you mention your mom's use of allopathic drugs. Did that keep her alive, or God's grace? Was it diet? How do you *know*?

    Lastly, if you get bit by a snake, you'll be given its own trace venom as antidote. That is how homeopathy works. That's what you'd be praying for at the jungle hospital if you got bit on vacation.

    Lastly, give me homeopathy I've blessed with holy water over abortion derived Big Pharma which more and more is using its fetal cell tests in everything from vaccines to eczema medication.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:57

      1. As I wrote above:
      About 200 clinical studies of homeopathic remedies are available to date. With that sort of number, one cannot be surprised that the results are not entirely uniform. It would be easy to cherry pick and select those findings that one happens to like (and some homeopaths do exactly that). Yet, if we want to know the truth, we need to consider the totality of this evidence and weigh it according to its scientific rigor. This approach is called a systematic review. Over a dozen systematic reviews of homeopathy have been published. Almost uniformly, they come to the conclusion that homeopathic remedies are not different from placebo. As one study puts it:
      "Through the laws of physics, homeopathic medicines appear to have zero chance of containing any biologically active component. Evidence from physical chemistry also rules out the plausibility of mechanisms such as water memory."
      (See onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2042-7166.2012.01162.x).

      2. The methods of homeopathy are based on absurd ideas. Read Hahnemann and check my cites. He claims homeopathic substances release their vital force, power, or cos­mic energy and become increasingly powerful as they are diluted and shaken. They are most powerful when the original substance (the medicine) has completely disappeared. Hahnemann remarked, “Modern wiseacres have even sneered at the thirtieth po­tency… [but] we obtain, even in the fiftieth potency, medicines of the most penetrating efficacy. (See Samuel Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure—Theoretical Part, trans., Louis H. Tafel [1976], p. 19). How powerful are homeopathic medicines that do not have even a single molecule of the remedy in them? Incredibly, Hahnemann referred to the “infallibility” of homeopathy “laid before the eyes of the world through facts… [e.g.,] typhous contagious epidemics must now allow themselves to be speedily turned into health by a few small doses of rightly-selected homeo­pathic medicine.” (See Ibid., p. 26). Unfortunately, typhous and other contagious epidemics are still with us. All diseases that have been eradicated were not defeated by homeopathy, but by scientific medicine. Hahnemann’s prediction failed to materialize because homeopathic substances are not medicines and they have no curing powers. Outside of homeopathic circles, no evidence exists that substances become more powerful by dilution and shaking. The sciences of chemis­try and pharmacology (as well as basic logic) teach the exact opposite—that the more diluted a substance, the weaker it becomes.

      3. As to Ben Franklin there's a difference between being a Mason and making something based on true scientific principles (light bulb) and that which itself is based on occult principles ("vital force") As Hannemann himself wrote, "It’s only when the vital principle is troubled by a diseased element (that is to say by the intrinsic nature of a virus in the form of incorporeal substance) that it emits reactions and symptoms of disease" A virus with an "incorporeal substance"?

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    2. 4. The citations as to the occult use of homeopathy is in
      my post above:
      alopsis.gr/afieroma/af-homeopathy-examined-h-j-bopp-m-d-neuchatel-switzerland

      One biographer says, “The reverence for Eastern thought was not just Hahnemann’s personal hobby, but rather the fundamental philosophy behind the preparation of homeopathic remedies” (See Samuel Pfeifer, Healing at Any Price, [1988], p. 68). He was a follower of Emanuel Swedenborg, who taught his followers to enter an alternative state of consciousness in order to commune with spirits. Hahnemann called the occultic practices of Franz Mesmer “a marvelous, priceless gift of God” by which “the vital energy of the healthy mesmerizer endowed with this power [can be brought] into another person dynamically” (See Organon of Medicine, 6th edition, pp. 309, 311). Hahnemann held to the panentheist view that God is in all things, like the soul is in the body.

      5. How do I know that medicine helped my mother? When I eliminate variables, it makes sense, and more importantly science supports the medicine with double blind studies, clinical trials, etc. All the literature has a scientific consensus. Food is worse than ever before, the air is more polluted, there is more overall stress, yet people are living longer, healthier lives than before. It's not due to everyone using homeopathy. I can therefore attribute it to the advances made by modern medicine.

      6. Not everything is using fetal cells. You cannot make something BASED ON OCCULT IDEAS holy or "neutral" by the use of Holy Water or having it blessed. That's an exercise in futility, akin to putting Holy Water on the Satanic Bible before you read it and thinking you will be protected from what you read.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  38. I agree with Michelle and Anonymous...For me, you have lost some credibility with this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon10:54
      You're entitled to your opinion.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  39. Introibo - you are 100% on the mark with this. I cannot argue with any points your raise; as for the naysayers: your unrelenting clinging to this illogical rubbish is pretty indicative of a cult mentality that has take hold of you. It would be wise for much prayer and discernment. You all have an unhealthy attachment to nonsense

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:47
      Thank you my friend! I will publish a second post during February answering my critics. That will be my final word on the subject.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  40. Hi! I hope you're still reading comments here. I've just come over from listening to your podcast with Kevin on Make-Believe Friends. It was very good and informative. I've had to stop listening to some of the other ones like music because I'm a bit sensitive I suppose, and those things scare me. But your research seems to be very well done and I appreciate all that you present on the podcast. Thank you for doing them!

    With that said, I have to admit that I'm kind of heartbroken about this topic because I recently had to transition to a different doctor for my children because All of my local doctors force vaccines. I have absolutely loved this doctor. She has been very common sense and practical in her medical advice, and has never acted cooky or spiritually weird in any way. One of the things that she does suggest though, is the use of homeopathic medicines. I actually have seen Belladonna bring my child's fever down in about 20 minutes many times. I don't claim that all homeopathics work, but I have found a handful of a few that have helped symptoms in my family. I had no idea about the origin of them in the first place. I actually just thought that they kind of activated the body into a sort of immune response to help the body to heal faster. I have been able to eliminate using acetaminophen and ibuprofen which I have some concerns about their side effects, so now I feel kind of stuck because I'm going to have to research what to do instead now again. I guess because the ones that I have been using came from plants, I really felt like they would be included in what God gave us to heal our bodies with. I'm a little bit confused still and frustrated, because of course I don't want to harm my children's souls in any way, but I also don't have alternatives right now that I feel comfortable with using for bodily healing... I am looking into collecting herbs and such but I haven't gotten too far with that yet. In your writing above you mentioned the Materia Medica. To my understanding that was just a book explaining what different plants do. Are you suggesting that it too is evil? I'd just like some clarity here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon12:20
      I'm sorry to hear of your plight, my friend.
      1. The book is not per se evil, but it is based on mere observation, not done under strict scientific scrutiny. There are many books that can give you information on the medicinal use of plants that are not homeopathic.

      2. In the U.S. NO DOCTOR can force you to get vaxxed. You can refuse on moral grounds and/or religious grounds. If the doctor refuses treatment, report his license to the State in which you live.

      3. Herbal remedies are not homeopathic. Please look into both that and finding a good ethical doctor.

      Your family and you are in my prayers.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the response! I find it increasingly hard to sort out what is good and bad these days in regard to health. I just keep asking Our Lady to guide me to the truths that I need. We converted from Novus Ordo almost 3 years ago now, and I'm still constantly trying to learn. I sort of hated to find out something might be wrong with what I thought I had found to be good medically, especially because it means more research, again! As Traditional Catholics, I guess we have to get good at constant research.
      As to your points,
      1. I recently tuned into a training on using herbal remedies for the family and the suggestion was to use something like Rosemary Gladstar's books but to pair them with the Materia Medica so that you always do your due diligence with a recipe to make sure the items in the mixes are safe for your needs. My plan was to buy both of those books and start to grow herbs and prepare some simple remedies this year to keep on hand. I would love to know if you have come across more trustworthy sources in your own research. It's so hard to figure it out in the world of endless publishing! I also know some people who push Dr. Christopher's work as being good, but others question it.
      I remember reading sometime a year or so ago that St. Hildegard of Bingen had written books about medicine and was curious to read them, though haven't yet. Have you looked into that work at all? I know it's hard to figure out what is scientifically good or not sometimes with the older writings. I also have concerns with some modern medicine practices, especially after learning about the smear campaigns doctors did to try to eradicate midwives. I thought I remembered reading that they did the same with the older style doctors and herbalists as well, but it has been a while so I may have that wrong.

      2. That's really interesting to know. Our old Dr. told me specifically that she could not have me take my children to her any longer when I wanted to delay and stop some vaccines. She told me she could lose her license for it if she continued to see my children. I had another Dr. strongly push vaccines and corner me about my choice to stop every time we went in, which became exhausting. They treat you a lot differently if you mess with the way they do things. I wonder if it would do any good to report them? Would it be worth telling them first that you will if they refuse treatment? I live in Indiana. As a lawyer, you might know better than I.
      3. I think the doctor we have now would be sensible enough to give me alternatives to the homeopathics if I chose not to use them. She is very good at working with what I can do, but is technically a Naturopathic Dr... She is in a practice with some Chiropractors (any ideas on if they're safe morally?) and only recommends the homeopathics as part of the treatments. She is common sense about everything that I've seen (homemade bone broths, vitamins, probiotics, rest, monitoring sickness and not over-reacting, etc.). She is confident that she can help me treat any illnesses that I've chosen not to vaccinate against, so I have had peace of mind with that.
      I am starting to read the book by Steven Ransom mentioned by another commenter. I understand that even the idea of a Naturopathic Dr might not be great, but I struggle with the fact that she claims to be a Christian (although Protestant, so I know that isn't worth much) and is not someone to shun modern day medicine. She has never told me that it's bad or anything like that, in fact, she has repeatedly told me that it has it's place and to not be afraid to use Doctors. She has friends who are modern doctors and doesn't seem bothered by it. She doesn't give any of the creepy mumbo jumbo that you often hear of these people. I have always had a natural disgust for anything that seemed cooky or iffy spiritually (yoga, reiki etc) so I thought I was doing alright here. I'd love anything you might have for further reading as I research more.
      Thank you for your prayers, I will be praying for you as well.

      Delete
    3. @anon8:31
      1. I'll look into some possible books for you re: use of herbs.

      2. I perused Indiana law at work today, and found nothing that mandates a doctor refusing to see an unvaccinated patient or who refuse such vaccination. As a matter of fact your state passed a law prohibiting PRIVATE employers from having a vaxx mandate !! Way to go Hoosiers! In denying a patient services for being unvaccinated, the doctor must be VERY careful or face a breech of medical ethics---See https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/can-physicians-decline-unvaccinated-patients#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20no%2C%20a%20physician,or%20declines%20to%20be%20vaccinated.

      I would report that doctor if you're never going back. That will make him think twice before doing it again.

      3. I will keep you abreast of anything I find!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. That's an interesting article on medical ethics. It was a couple years ago that we left the first doctor, but she might have brought up that my kids would be a risk to other kids in the practice... However it does make me more confident that I may be able to push forward and expect decent care despite our statuses. I found myself really intimidated at a recent ER visit with one of my children because they were really pushing questions about vaccines in general. It always feels somewhat unsafe these days to answer questions about it. But my children are generally healthy and I only really need the doctors if they get really sick or injured.

      Thank you for looking into the herbal books... It is such a relief to have a second, solid opinion on good ones!

      Delete
    5. Hello!
      Here is a non-homeopathic book. Protestant, but not occult and good info!

      Title: The Christian's Guide to Natural Products & Remedies (2005).


      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  41. Please do your own research on alternative medicine!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michelle,
      Yes, everyone should do their own research. Look into what I wrote in the process. Make up your own minds. I'm confident you'll see the truth is as I wrote.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete