Monday, January 16, 2023

Catholic Identity In Modern Times

 

To My Readers: I hope you enjoy this insightful post by my guest poster, Lee. Please feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific query or comment for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

SPECIAL NOTE: Beginning this week, Lee will be doing as I do; if you want to ask him a question privately, please send a message to the comments below with an email by which you can be contacted. Ask that it not be published and you want the information forwarded to Lee. It will not be published and I will give Lee the contact info. Then, Lee will make contact with a private email which protects his anonymity. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

DISCLAIMER: Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy is cited by Lee in his post. There are many problems with him. First, he was dubiously ordinated a priest by Bp. Gaston-Lopez who apparently botched the ceremony. Coomaraswamy was married at the time, but claimed to be living with his wife while both renounced use of marital relations. The doctor was also friends with Malachi Martin, a snake-in-the grass, who had many problems of his own. It has been brought to my attention that Coomaraswamy was an occultist. His book cited, The Destruction of Christian Tradition, is a work of historical significance, and the passage referenced by Lee contains no errors--it is factual regarding Freemasons and accurately reflects Catholic teaching in all ways. 

Nevertheless, to avoid giving scandal, and to uphold this blog's goal of exposing occultists, Coomaraswamy WILL NEVER BE CITED HERE AGAIN. Furthermore, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend any of his writings, even if orthodox. Occultists are not welcome here. My sincerest thanks to the reader who sent me proof about Coomaraswamy and his occult connection.---Introibo 

Catholic Identity In Modern Times
By Lee

One of the most confusing issues of our time is identity. I'm not going to be talking about somebody who claims to be cisgender, a demigirl, or a hermaphrodite which might be taught at your local library or public/private school. Nor am I going to be talking about the difference between a RINO (Republican In Name Only) compared to a non-RINO. Those things have no doubt received much attention from social media and the news. Something far greater is at stake for 1.2 billion who claim it, so much so that their salvation depends on it. It's Catholic identity.

I grew up thinking I was Catholic and believed I was in the Church knowing a bare minimum of what was required of me to say that made me Catholic. To say I'm a Catholic in a time after Vatican II could mean a variety of things depending on who is asked. Protestants generally understand that a Catholic is somebody who puts too much emphasis on devotion to Mary and who belongs to a bunch of rich and corrupt men connected to the Vatican. A liberal Jew or agnostic would say they wouldn't agree with certain beliefs of a Catholic such as in Christ's teachings and such, but might say they love "Pope" Francis and are more willing to co-exist with them since Francis accepts them as "people of God." Others who generally hate religion altogether will just call Catholics part of a pedophile cabal. The sad reality is the word Catholic among non-Catholics has lost it's good name, due to the effects of a new religion (more on that below).

What about those who claim to be Catholics today? How would they describe what a Catholic is? In the early 50's if you said you were a Catholic it was universally understood that you believed as all Catholics believed outside of local customs and rites in the church. In the 70's it split into two factions, "Liberal" versus "Conservative."

Today there are all sorts of different shades of Catholic grays. If a "priest" at a local diocesan church were asked what is or defines a Catholic, instead of answering it he might revert the question back to you. Whatever the answer you give, he will say something like, "I hope your faith grows in whatever path you choose so as to encounter God's mercy and love." If you ask a cafeteria "Catholic" the question, they might say that it is the religion they were born into and leave it at that. 

A more traditional-minded "priest" who is associated with the FSSP (Latin "Mass" group), or a lay person from that apostolate, might give you a more concrete answer : a Catholic is somebody who is baptized, submits to the Pope as head of the Church, believes all dogmas/doctrines it teaches, and lives out his life with faith, hope, and charity. Nevertheless, when they are pressed with further objections on submitting to the Roman Pontiff by being asked, "If I must submit to Francis as the Roman Pontiff, would it be okay to believe what he believes such as Martin Luther not erring on justification, or that God does not exist but the Three Persons exist, or that God would not be God without man etc.," they might reply by saying the pope can err when not speaking on behalf of the whole Church, or he is only submitted to when he speaks infallibly. However, if you ask any of them if it's okay to believe and practice as "Pope" Francis, some will say "no" as if submission means just merely calling him "pope" while closing their eyes and ears to everything he says and does. Others are afraid to say "no" while not personally agreeing with him on much of anything and remain silent. A contradiction indeed. So what is a Catholic and who is a true Catholic today? 

A Vision from the Enemy

​Taken from his book Destruction of Christian Tradition, Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, this except shows how the enemy (the Freemasons) planned out how there would come a day when people will think they are marching under the banner of Catholicism, when in fact they are marching under the banner of Freemasonic beliefs. Dr. Coomaraswamy writes:

UNHOLY "OBEDIENCE" - AN EXAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE FREEMASONS.

In concluding this chapter, it is of great interest to consider some of the statements of the Freemasons on obedience. According to the Permanent Instruction drawn up by the Grand Masters of Freemasonry (Alta Vendita) in 1819-20, which fell in to the hands of the Church and were published by Pope Pius IX, "we must turn our attention to an ideal that has always been of great concern to man aspiring to the regeneration of all mankind. This ideal is the liberation of Italy, whence is to come the liberation of the entire world and the establishment of a republic of brotherhood and world peace." The document continues:

 "Among the many remedies that have been suggested by the more energetic members of our organization, there is one which we must never forget....The Papacy has always exerted a decisive influence on Italian destinies. Everywhere with the arms, voice, pen and heart of its countless bishops, monks, nuns and the faithful, the Papacy as always found people enthusiastically ready for sacrifice and martyrdom... At the present time we do not intend to rebuild, even for our advantage, this power which has been temporarily weakened [due to the overthrow of the papal states]. Our ultimate purpose is identical with that of Voltaire and the French Revolution: that is, the total annihilation of Catholicism and even of Christianity....

For seventeen hundred years the Papacy has been an essential part of Italian history... We cannot endure such a state of affairs; we must find a remedy for this situation. And here it is! Whoever he may be, the pope will never join the secret societies: therefore, the secret societies must take the first step toward the Church and the pope, for the purpose of vanquishing them both."...

The task we undertake will not be completed in a day, a month, or a year. It may require many years, perhaps even a century... We do not intend to win the pope over to our cause by converting him to our principles or making him their propagator... WHAT WE MUST DO IS WAIT FOR, like the Jews awaiting the Messiah, A POPE SUITABLE FOR OUR PURPOSES. Such a pope alone, will be of greater help to us in our assault on the Church than the little pamphlets of our French brothers or even the gold of England. And why? Because with such a pope we could effectively crush the rock upon which God built His Church... The little finger of Peter's successor would be caught in the plot, and this little finger would be more effective in this crusade than all the Urbans II and all the St. Bernards of Christianity....We have no doubt that we shall achieve this ultimate goal of our efforts... Before we can produce a pope according to our desires, we must produce an entire generation worthy of the kingdom we hope for. 

We must ignore old men and those of middle age. We must seek the young, and if possible, even the very young... Once your good reputation has been established in boarding schools, high schools, universities and seminaries, once you have won the trust of teachers and pupils alike, foster especially in those who are embracing the ecclesiastical state, a desire to associate with you... This reputation of yours will make the younger secular clergy and even the religious receptive to our doctrines. Within a few years, this same younger clergy will, of necessity occupy responsible positions. They will govern, administrate, judge and form the council of the Sovereign Pontiff; some will be called upon to elect a future pope. This pope, like most of his contemporaries, will be to a greater or lesser degree influenced by those Italian and humanitarian principles which we are now circulating. It is a small grain of mustard seed which we entrust to the soil...

Along this path which we now outline for our brethren there are major obstacles to surmount and difficulties of all kinds to overcome. With experience and wisdom, we shall triumph over them. The objective is so glorious that, to reach it, all sails must be unfurled. Do you want to revolutionize Italy? Seek a pope fitting our description. Do you want to establish the kingdom of the elect [i.e., the Masons] on the throne of the Babylonian whore? then INDUCE THE CLERGY TO MARCH UNDER YOUR BANNER, IN THE BELIEF THAT THEY ARE MARCHING UNDER THE PAPAL BANNER. Do you want to make the last trace of tyranny and oppression disappear? Lower your nets like Simon bar Jona; lower them into the sacristies, the seminaries and the monasteries, instead of into the sea. If you do not precipitate events, we promise you a catch of fish even greater than St. Peter's. The fisher of fish became a fisher of men; you will fish for friends at the very feet of St. Peter's Chair. BY SO DOING YOU WILL NET A REVOLUTION CLOTHED IN TIARA AND MANTLE, PRECEDED BY THE CROSS AND PAPAL ENSIGN; A REVOLUTION THAT WILL REQUIRE BUT LITTLE HELP TO SET FIRE TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD...IN A HUNDRED YEARS TIME... THE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS WILL THINK THEY ARE MARCHING BEHIND THE BANNER OF THE KEYS OF PETER WHEN IN FACT THEY WILL BE FOLLOWING OUR FLAG... THE REFORMS WILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE NAME OF OBEDIENCE."


Where is the Church?

To identify as a Catholic one must be a member of Christ's Mystical Body, the Church. Where is it? I can certainly say where it is not. It's not among those who teach and subscribe to the doctrines of Vatican II, which is what the majority of those who call themselves "Catholic" believe.

There are those who say Vatican II can be seen in light of tradition as if it doesn't contradict previous Catholic beliefs. If that is so, why are there many among the hierarchy (and laity), who believe in heretical teachings because of their modern understanding of Vatican II? Where is the unity of faith? Either the Church before Vatican II is the True Church, and the Church after Vatican II is a false one, or vice versa. With that said, if the Church after Vatican II is a false one, where is the One True Church?

Cardinal Manning quoting St. Hippolytus says in his lecture IV "The Churches shall lament with a great lamentation, for there shall be offered no more oblation, nor incense, nor worship acceptable to God. The sacred buildings of the churches shall be as hovels; and the precious body and blood of Christ shall not be manifest in those days; the Liturgy shall be extinct; the chanting of psalms shall cease; the reading of Holy Scripture shall be heard no more. But there shall be upon men darkness, and mourning upon mourning, and woe upon woe.” Then, the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible, hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking-places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were, from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early centuries…."

For many Catholics, this saying is very hard to believe because it speaks in such a way that makes it look as though the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church. It's a guarantee that such a thing shall never happen, as promised by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Below I will again post an article written by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy titled as such:
 
The Gates Of Hell Shall Not Prevail

 In his great work Coomaraswamy writes:

One of the most frequent arguments in favor of the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar establishment is God's promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail." Implicit in this brief is that is neither possible nor likely that God has abandoned His own. How is one to respond to such an argument.

Let us start with indisputable facts. Whether we believe it or not, and whether it seems possible to us or not, what is abundantly clear is, that after a scandalous Council lacking both regularity and dignity, the Catholic religion has been changed. In the practical order, it has been replaced by another religion, an evolving religion, a religion greatly influenced by Freemasonry and Marxism and inspired throughout by what Popes Pius IX and X clearly rejected under the designation of "Modernism." Having created a "robber" Council that raised a host of errors such as the denial of the Church's "Unity" and Religious Liberty to the level of an infallible teaching, the post-Conciliar "Church" proceeded to abolish the Oath against Modernism and the Holy Office. What other purpose could such measures have than to deprive the Traditional Church - the Church of All Times - of all her defenses? And what followed? The turning of altars into tables, the changing of priests into "presidents," the invalidating of all the sacraments not acceptable to Protestants, the mistranslating of the Scriptures, and above all, the downgrading of Tabernacles and the destruction of the Mass - "humanist" and demagogic changes of the most serious nature. Cardinal Suenens was correct when he described this as "the French Revolution in the Catholic Church."

Consider the principle that "by their fruits you shall know them." Now what are the fruits of the new religion? Priests by the thousands have abandoned their calling - of those remaining over 25% requested and were refused permission to marry. Monks and nuns laicized by the thousands. The seminaries are virtually deserted. The median age for priests in the United States being the late fifties, with an anticipated drop to 40% of the present level by the end of the decade. Far more tragic: despite the wide range of "liturgies" offered - conservative to radical chic - Catholics by the millions have turned away from the Church and for all practical purposes the youth is no longer interested in what she has to offer. Only 15% of the erstwhile faithful still attend Sunday Mass and among these communions are up while confessions are down, suggesting that even sin is dwindling away. Over 80% of married Catholics use birth control and do so in the belief that such violates no divine principle, divorce statistics show no difference between Catholics and others;  and in the practical realm complete chaos exists with regard to sexual behavior.

Along with all this is the corruption, nay destruction of doctrine and theology. The acceptance of evolution as a fact in every realm - be it biology, theology, sociology - even the Teilhardian thesis that God Himself evolves! The abrogation of canons 1399 and 2318, the refusal of the Church to condemn out and out heretics and the blatant indulgence extended to those who like Hans Kung - their name is legion - would poison the thinking of the faithful are symptomatic of the wide-spread modernist malignancy. The self proclaimed "desacralization" and "demytholization" of the Church combined with the misrepresentation of everything traditional has resulted in an all-pervasive familiarity and vulgarity. Recent attempts to cover this over by dressing the presidents (clergy) and nuns in traditional garb has in no way changed the situation.

Let those who have ears hear. The writing was on the wall from the very opening of the Council. But who of us wished to listen. It's leitmotiv was Aggiornamento, a concept inimical to any religion based on eternal verities and Revelation. Roncalli, alias John XXIII, then declared his intention "to safeguard the sacred deposit of the faith more effectively." It does not take much imagination to understand what he meant - and he did not hesitate to declare that "...the substance of the ancient doctrine contained in the deposit of the faith is one thing, the manner in which it is expressed in another..." This claim is false and in fact satanic, for it opened the door to all the betrayals and falsifications that followed. The traditional formulations were not superficial luxuries, they were guarantees of the truth and efficacy; they more then adequately expressed what they wished to say - their adequacy was in fact their raison d'etre. Is not the truth inseparable from its expression? Was it not the strength of the Church that the old expressions were always valid? They only displeased those who wished to make modernism, scientism, evolutionism and socialism part of the "Deposit of the Faith."

One must take a phenomena for what it is. If one sees a tiger in the streets of New York one does not require a news broadcast to know that what one sees is a reality. One can deny its existence only at the risk of one's life.

Despite the obvious, there are those who, desiring to have the "best of both worlds," would exculpate the post-Conciliar Church; and who seek to explain why is it that the "smoke of Satan" has all but obscured "the dome of St. Peter's"? Some claim that it is because the Council and the subsequent innovations were "badly interpreted." But, by whom? Others, loudly proclaiming their loyalty to those usurping the Chair of Peter, claim it is the fault of the bishops and cardinals around him. But who appointed them? Since when has the principle of respondeat superior been abandoned? (Even hell has a hierarchical structure.) Despite the fact that such claims are often motivated by the desire "to cover Noah's drunkenness," they remain a combination of improbabilities and hypocrisy.

Whether we like it or not, this blame must fall primarily upon the post-conciliar "popes." Even though none of us are without an element of culpability, it is they who must bear the burden. It is they who approved the Council and the Reforms, and without their approval neither the Council nor the Reforms would have any meaning or authority. It is they who have misapplied the principles of obedience in order to bring the erstwhile faithful into line. It is they who tolerate every conceivable deviation while condemning out of hand whatever is traditional. They are not individuals who have "fallen into heresy," or who are, as Lefebvre would say, "tainted with Modernism." (Can one have a touch of pregnancy?) They are much worse, for they are heretics who have been elected precisely because they are heretics; men who, by the laws of the traditional Church have long since excommunicated themselves. And this condemnation applies to virtually the entire "electoral body" responsible for the implementation of what can only be described as a modernist conspiracy. It further applies to the sycophant hierarchy which declares itself una cum those in power.

"And Caiaphas was, in his own mind, a benefactor of mankind" (Blake). To speak of a conspiracy is not to deny the sincerity of those involved. But what heretic has ever lacked sincerity? Nor is it to claim that every individual who lent and lends his support is a conscious subversive. (Thou our Lord did said that he who is not with Him was  against Him - not to condemn error is to condone it.) The net result is clear. The Council and its aftermath was achieved by a conspiracy of individuals who Pope Saint Pius X clearly condemned, and against whom he desired to protect the Church. He went so far as to state, in his capacity as Pope and hence ex cathedra, that any individual who even defended a single modernist proposition condemned by his Encyclicals and Lamentabili was ipso facto and latae sententiae excommunicated - that is, by that very fact and without any need for any one to publicly so declare (Praestantia Scripturae, Nov. 18, 1907). No father signing the Council documents and no member of the hierarchy accepting and teaching them, can claim to fall outside this condemnation. Everyone who considers himself "in obedience" to the new Church implicitly accepts its Modernist principles.

Consider Religious Liberty - the idea that every man is free to decide for himself what is true and false, what is right and wrong, and that his very human dignity resides in just this license. Imagine Christ upon the Cross telling us that he came to establish a visible Church - "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic," and to confide to it those truths necessary for our salvation. He continues however to assure us that we have no obligation to listen to Him. - that we are free to choose for ourselves what we shall believe, and that our real human dignity resides, not in conforming to His image, but in making just such choices! Incredible!  And now, some two thousand years later, we find Christ's representative whose function it is to teach us what Christ taught us, assuring us that, as a result of Christ's incarnation, all men, even those who reject the very idea of God, are saved, that Christ's Church, through her own fault, has lost her "unity," and that the Crucifixion is but a "witness to man's human dignity" - his ability to determine for himself what is true and false. Madness reigns supreme!

It will be argued that these false popes have said some nice things. Such however is of no importance or interest in the present situation when we must decide whether or not they are truly Christ's representatives on earth. If they are truly "one hierarchical person" with our Lord, we must obey them. But Catholics must understand that the Pope's infallibility is totally dependent upon his being himself in obedience to Christ, and that when he rejects Christ and falsifies Christ's teaching, we must reject his authority. As Peter said, "one must obey God rather than man." A modernist pope is an impossibility. Either he is a modernist and then he isn't a pope, or he is a pope and then he isn't a modernist. All this is not a matter of picking or choosing what we shall believe. It is a matter of being Catholic. To deny this principle is to declare Christ a liar! St. Catherine of Sienna told us that a Pope who falsifies his function will go to hell, and further, that those of us who obey him will go there with him. Let us be done with those who claim that John Paul II is trying to bring the "Church" back to tradition. The lie is easily exposed. All he has to do is reject Vatican II and restore the traditional sacraments. Short of this he is but a wolf in sheep's clothing pulling the wool over our eyes.

Have the "gates of hell" prevailed?. Certainly not. Catholics know that Christ cannot lie. Let us then examine the meaning of this promise. What it proclaims is that the truth will ultimately win out - though not necessarily so in the "short run." That such is "true" is an intellectual certainty, for error can only be defined in terms of the denial of truth. Now the Catholic Church is true, and hence it can no more be totally destroyed than can the truth itself. But this Church resides, not in numbers, not in buildings, and not even of necessity in the hierarchy. The truth functions ex opere operatio. It resides in the faithful (the hierarchy must be "of the faithful," before they can be "of the hierarchy." Or as the theologians put it, members of the "teaching Church" (the Magisterium) must be first of all members of the "learning Church.") Every baptized infant, according to the traditional rite, becomes a "member of the body of Christ." And what is the Church if not the Body of Christ, the presence of Christ in this world? It follows then that, as Catherine Emerick points out, if there were but one person alive who was truly Catholic, the Church would reside in him.

Visibility is a quality of the Church. Does visibility require a hierarchy. The matter is open to debate, but time has not yet run its course. In any event traditional bishops are available, and if but one traditional bishop survives, the hierarchy would reside in him. What has to be remembered however is that the Church does not exist for the sake of the hierarchy, it is the hierarchy that exists for the sake of the Church. And history has shown that Catholics can live and retain the faith for centuries without any hierarchy. God knows his own and will not abandon them. If a bishop is necessary for the visibility of the Church, He will certainly provide one. Ultimately, it is we who abandon God, his truth and his Church, and never the other way around.

One would have thought that the changes were more than enough to induce the faithful to revolt. The great surprise, truly apocalyptic, was that the Catholic people did not do so. That they did not only goes to show what "sincere, pious, fervent and well intentioned" Catholics really valued. One is tempted to feel sorry for them, but as always, even in such a situation "God knows his own." One must insist upon this, for the truly innocent are far less numerous than one is inclined to believe. The argument that it is not possible or likely that God would abandon his own presumes that "his own" did not deserve to be abandoned, when in fact they did deserve it precisely to the degree that they are in fact abandoned.

 Why did Catholics not revolt?. Well, first of all, many did, but their stand was undermined by poor leadership. Psychologically dependent upon the hierarchy and the clergy, they looked for guidance that was not provided. The Modernists, working for decades, had prepared the ground, and even those who were not out and out subversives had their faith corrupted and hence weakened. At the Council there were perhaps 70 individuals who - towards the end - began to understand what was happening. No more! And among them not one was willing to take a clear cut stand on solid doctrinal grounds. Even Lefebvre based his opposition on false theological premises, arguing for example that one can disobey a valid pope. Secondly, for decades the faithful were both inadequately trained in their faith and discouraged from leading active spiritual lives. Educated in secularized colleges, taught by "liberal" priests, they were by in large modernists without knowing it. And finally, both clergy and laity found the modern world seductively attractive. 

They found the rejection and scorn of the modern world - a world which had repudiated the Church and like the Prodigal Son, had walked away from the bosom of the Father - increasingly intolerable. They could not accept the disapproval of this world in which they believed more strongly than in Christ. The Council declared the Church would henceforth not only be "open to the world," but that it would "embrace" it! Its avowed aim and promise was aggiornamento to bring the Church "into the twentieth century" and make it part of, and acceptable to that world. No longer did she proclaim that it was necessary for the Prodigal son to return to the bosom of the Father. Rather, abandoning both her function and her identity, she proclaimed that the Father was obliged to eat the swill fit only for pigs!. Both clergy and laity - exceptions apart - rushed headlong into to the sea to spend their patrimony as if there was no tomorrow. It is this that is at the heart of the conspiracy. It is this that is the crux of the problem. It is this that created the smoke swirling around St. Peter's Basilica. This spark of rebellion, present in the soul of every man, needed only the "winds of change" to create an inferno.

However, as has always been the case throughout the history of the Church, a remnant persisted in retaining the fullness of the faith. The true Church is to be found among those who believe and continue to believe in the manner of their ancestors. It is they who bear witness to the truth of Christ's promise. It is they who provide the proof that "the gates of hell have not prevailed." Not all are profound theologians. Not all are sinless. But they can be recognized by their insistence on true priests, true doctrine, and the true Mass - the Mass of All Times.

Some would accuse traditional Catholics - those that insist on retaining the fullness of the Catholic faith intact and who therefore refuse the new religion of the post-Conciliar Church, of being in "schism." The accusation is a lie. In reality, the schismatic is one who removes himself from the truth, and not one who insists upon it. And if it is necessary to separate oneself from something in order to save the truth, long live Schism! But in reality, it is not the traditional Catholic who is in Schism, but those who are responsible for changing the Catholic faith. But let is be both clear and honest. The new Church is not schismatic. It is heretical. In similar manner traditional Catholics are accused of being Protestants because they disobey the pope. Such accusations are false. Traditional Catholics do not "pick and choose" what they wish to believe; they are adhering with all their hearts to what the Church has always taught and always done. 

Nor are they disobeying the pope. They believe that the pope, being Christ's vicar on earth and "one hierarchical person" with our Lord, is to be obeyed. They know that when Peter speaks he is infallible because it is Christ who speaks through him. They are the out and out papists and are doing nothing less than refusing to disobey Peter. In such a situation they are obliged to disobey those who falsely speak in Peter's name. To obey modernist and heretical "popes" is to declare that they are "one hierarchical person" with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely - quod absit!

It is an unfortunate fact that too many of the traditionalists do not wish to be labeled "integrists." or "sedevacantists." And why not? Why should they stop mid way? Such only leads to wrangling about the most absurd positions, or to timidity of language combined with conventional and infantile sentimentalities. If the post-Conciliar "popes" are true popes, let us obey them. If not, let us obey Peter and through him Christ. People claim to be "confused" or "troubled." Why? The ancient catechisms are always there and modern innovations are no different in principle than those of a prior era. Sin can change its style, but not its nature. "There is no greater right than that of truth," and despite the teaching of Vatican II, "error has no rights whatsoever."

Traditional Catholics often give scandal by arguing among themselves. The new Church in comparison seems more united. In point of fact it is, for it accepts within its aegis every conceivable deviation. But if traditional Catholics seem divided it is because, in the absence of clear leadership, each individual group seeks to determine just what is truly Catholic for itself. What is required is a deeper study and commitment to what is truly Catholic on the part of all. Paraphrasing Lenin, let us have no enemies on the right - none more orthodox and none more traditional than ourselves. Let us be united in the truth manifested in the constant teaching and practice of the Church throughout the ages. So help us God.

It is extraordinary that modern churchman should claim to be reading "the signs of the times." Christ depicted the "last times" in very somber colors. Scripture warns of an unparalleled outbreak of evil, called by St. Paul an Apostasy, in the midst of which a terrible Man of Sin and child of perdition, the special singular enemy of Christ, or Antichrist will appear; that this will be when revolutions prevail and the present framework of society breaks to pieces. We are told that they "shall defile the sanctuary of strength and shall take away the continual sacrifice and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation." Does not Jeremias speak in God's Name when he says "My Tabernacle is laid waste, all My cords are broken: My children are gone out from Me, and they are not... Because the pastors have done foolishly, and have not sought the Lord." And are we not told that "many false Christs will arise," that false doctrines will be preached and that even the seeming elect will be deceived? 

Finally, is not Christ specific when He tells us that at the final coming only a "remnant" will be left - a remnant persecuted by the Antichrist? Despite such warnings the modern Sanhedrin in Rome insist on supporting and fostering the forces of revolution. They proclaim their intention to create a better world, in which the principles of the French Revolution are brought to fruition - where all men will be free, equal, and live in brotherly peace. And with this in view they have committed themselves to the creation of a one world religion in which all men - even atheists - will be gathered together as "the people of God," and salvation will be as Vatican II preaches, "a communitarian process." Fortunately traditional Catholics can also read the signs of the times. They see in all this the fulfillment of the Scriptural prophecies. This is why they insist on being a traditional Remnant. May God give them the gift of perseverance.

"It is necessary that scandals should occur..." And this is not because of some arbitrary decision on the part of a personal God - quod absit - but because of the necessary ontological "play" that results from All Possibility, and which relates inevitably to the contradictions and privations without which the world would not be in existence. God does not desire "a given evil," but He tolerates 'evil as such" in view of a still greater good that results from it. Ad majorem Dei gloriam.

Conclusion
Despite the Church suffering immensely, not only from the lack of a Head, but most of it's Body, the hierarchy, She will always be in those who are baptized, profess it's dogmatic and doctrinal teachings, and obey lawful authority. Today, lawful authority has been reduced to tradition and those bishops and priests who, without papal appointment (because there has not been a pope for many years), substitute not as intruders, but as the last crumbs left on the table who have remained Catholic. The true intruders are masquerading throughout the whole world as imposters of the new Counterfeit Catholicism. 

Just as "the Grinch stole Christmas," heretics, apostates, and schismatics have stolen the Catholic name. The difference lies in the fact that they will not grow a heart big enough to give it back to those who are Catholic, unless a great miracle happens and they convert from the poison of Modernism. For the sake of informing the misinformed, when we say "I'm Catholic," we must explain what it always has meant and what it doesn't mean, as some might think. No matter what, I will still say gladly with St. Athanasius, "Christian my name, Catholic my surname."

98 comments:

  1. Lee says "Today, lawful authority has been reduced to tradition and those bishops and priests...who have remained Catholic." Hilarious Lee. You must not know that these same bishops outright deny that they possess a shred of authority. Therefore, per your own bishops, there is no authority in your church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon. 7:17

      Authority in so far as over a diocese because that comes by appointment. This is what they mean when they say I have no jurisdiction. They still possess some authority otherwise they wouldn't be absolving penitents, giving sermons, running seminaries, and being pastoral.

      If they aren't the lawful authority, who else would it be in order to fulfill Vatican I's teaching that there must be shepherds and teachers until the end of time?

      It ain't in lay people, nor is it in the novus ordo hierarchy. Recently I found out a home aloner became a full blown Novus Ordoite. You know why? Because he believes there must bishops with jurisdiction in order to for them to be Apostolic. So what is his logical conclusion? Go back to the Novus Ordo because he doesn't believe the sedes are it. So for him it's better to follow apostates and just deny they are apostates. How foolish.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Lee,

      I agree, Hoyle's move was foolish, and that is because his principles were false to begin with. If people just stand back and look at the teaching of the Vatican Council (the only Vatican Council, since the hierarchy was defected at the time of the opening of the so-called Second Vatican Council), and critique it from a philosophical/theological analysis, while keeping fresh in the mind the fact that there is a world-wide apostasy of the the Apostolic college, then one forms the view that God so willed that there be Shepherds and Teachers until the end of time, not absolutely but conditionally, that is, conditioned upon the consent of the will of men--as He always will in the moral order, since men are free to choice good or evil. What is not possible is to change the very meaning of apostolic authority, and try to twist the idea of ordinary jurisdiction to fit one's own preference of religious worship, e.g., sacerdotal and sacramental worship of God, instead of worshiping Him in the Spirit and in the desert, deprived of such spiritual comforts as priest and sacrament.

      Eric Hoyle's folly--and I would posit that of all Sedevacantists's as well--is assuming a particular interpretation of doctrine over and above a fact of existence. We must begin in facts, and move from these to corroborate our own interpretation of doctrine, since we are left ourselves to sort out the mess in the absence of a hierarchy and teaching Church, which you must admit as fact.

      Robert Robbins of CatholicEclipsed.com

      Delete
    3. Robert,

      Vatican I doesn't teach that under a conditional basis shepherds and teachers will remain in the Church until the end of time.

      None of the sede bishops changed the meaning of Apostolic authority to fit their own preference.

      Lee

      Delete
    4. No, the Vatican Council did not teach what kind of will was involved with God and the establishment of the Church and its duration through all time unto the ending of the world. But, since we are talking about the will of God as it pertains to moral man, who is composed of a soul and body, the latter of which may be determined by force, whereas the former may not, it is no stretch to say that the will of God indicated in this case is referring to a conditional will on the will of man to live up to His expectations and preference for His Church--which, as FACT would have it, men did not. Hence the Great Apostasy.

      "None of the sede bishops..." I never said any did. That is kind of a minor but important point: none of your bishops claim apostolicity in succession of office; hence, no authority--contrary to what you assert in the article; sacramental authority, as in the case of the confessional, is dependent upon apostolic authority and appointment to a particular jurisdiction, without which the priest absolves in vain, and presumes authority which he does not have.

      Rather, it is people like yourself, and to a different but related way, Speray, who insist apostolicity is preserved in Sede bishops.

      I believe that Apostolicity is preserved in its final cause, that for which it exists, namely, the transmission of doctrine and the laws of the Church, preserved in catechisms and disciplinary notes in missals pre-1958. These are sufficient to make men Catholics in faith, if not sacramental worship. I admit fully that this is a shaky idea, but it serves well in the absence of any better. What is simply not possible is to surrender my senses and intellect at the door of some Novus Ordo parish church or Sedevacantist chapel, where neither patently have any apostolic authority to speak of.

      Robert

      Delete
    5. Other than Eric’s post on The Trad Forum (https://www.thetradforum.com/index.php?topic=995.msg10691#msg10691), has he said more elsewhere about his new beliefs? It’s not clear to me from this post what his new conclusion is. Is he saying he thinks bishops don’t lose their office automatically for public heresy, but that a pope would? Or is he saying he thinks bishops, including the pope, don’t lose their office automatically for public heresy, though he acknowledges that Bellarmine and other theologians believed a pope does lose their office automatically?

      Delete
    6. What does it mean that Eric has become a "full blown Novus Ordoite"?

      Delete
    7. Anon. 8:01,

      I never said Eric was a full blown Novus Ordoite. I said I know a home aloner who became one. Robert mentioned Eric presumably because he was thinking I was talking about Eric.

      When I say full blown Novus Ordoite, I mean a person who returns back to the new religion and who rationalizes why they think it must be the Catholic Church while those like myself would not be a member of the Church.

      Lee

      Delete
    8. Ah, thanks Lee.

      Robert, do you know anything more about Eric's current position, beyond what he posted on The Trad Forum?

      Delete
    9. @anon10:42
      I have it from a solid source that Protestant-turned Feeneyite--turned Home Aloner Eric Hoyle is now a member of the Vatican II sect. Pray for Mr. Hoyle that he may finally see the light and become a Traditionalist Catholic.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Does he now attend the Novus Ordo mass?

      Delete
    11. @anon8:50
      According to my source, yes.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Hello Introibo:

    You said that Fr. Evangelists is no longer at Ave Maria Chapel, and that they are looking for a new priest. Do they have a substitute priest come in, or are they without Mass?

    Thank you. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Introibo:

      Sorry, I misspelled his name, I think that it's Father Evangelista.

      Thank you. Anonymous

      Delete
    2. @anon11:28
      They are currently without Mass.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Hello Introibo:
      Do you know if they are encouraging their people to go elsewhere for Mass?

      Thank you. Anonymous

      Delete
    4. @anon4:44
      I have not been there for some time and cannot say for certain.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. You're both deluded. Did you not understand what I wrote above? There's no authority in your church (es). You both belong to different sects but it doesn't matter because neither of you can produce legitimate apostolic authority. As an aside I didn't know Hoyle made a move back to the Novus Ordo but he's always been a fool. Smart guy but a fool. He should have become Orthodox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait a second, are you asserting that the Orthodox do have legitimate apostolic authority? What exactly legitimatizes them? Is communion with Rome not a prerequisite to legitimacy? If not, to what authorities do you refer us poor, hapless sectarians which says the See of Rome is not necessary? (By the way, your tone indicates the state of your soul, which tone I think many would agree is rather unkind and very anti-Pauline. You sound like a resounding gong.)

      Robert

      Delete
    2. Anon. 11:21,

      What makes you think the Orthodox are not a sect when they are really heterodox? They deny the Filioque, Mary's Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and the authority of Peter's legitimate successors. It's you who is delusional and a member of a sect.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Lee, neither you nor Robert can account for the Roman Catholic Church today. You think bishops who deny that they possess authority actually have it anyways. Robert's position is even worse. He thinks the remaining authority in the church is now found in catechisms. And I just noticed that he pointed out that I didn't refute him ha ha ha. He wants someone to refute the idea that the only remaining apostolic authority remaining on earth is found in books. Nope. I'm not going there.

      Delete
    4. Anon. 2:35

      They have supplied jurisdiction and Bp. Pivarunas told me personally that he believed he was a shepherd or teacher as defined by Vatican I through common error.

      They may not have ordinary (delegated) jurisdiction but neither did the bishops consecrated in the Western Schism who were without a pope to mandate that which at a later time was approved by a pope.

      You cannot account for Orthodox bishops being Apostolic because you know they are heretics and schismatics by default.

      I believe that Eastern rite bishops (if they renounced the Novus Ordo religion) could regain their authority but that is just an opinion of mine.

      I agree with you that Robert's position is absurd but I agree with Robert that you shouldn't be Orthodox.

      Lee

      Delete
    5. Lee,

      great to know that Bp. Pivarunas has the courage to say and do what us - laymen - can reasonably expect of our bishops. The teaching of the Vatican Council of 1870 must necessarily apply to our own times as well. A big thank you, Your Excellency, Bp. Pivarunas!

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    6. "Bp. Pivarunas told me personally that he believed he was a shepherd or teacher as defined by Vatican I through common error."

      Well then the question is this Lee: do you believe him?

      Delete
    7. Anon 9:01,

      Yes, I believe him. If he and the other bishops throughout the world such as, Davila, Espinosa, Da Silva, McGuire, Neville, Sanborn, Stuyver, Selway, Fliess, Ramolla, Green, Kelly, Santay, Carrol etc. aren't the shepherds and pastors of the Church during these times of darkness, then where could they be?

      If the Novus Ordo Church is the Catholic Church, then Pope Pius XII was wrong when he said that heresy, schism, and apostasy by its VERY NATURE sever a person from the body of the Church which means my (what would be local bishop) is safe to follow when he says that the LGBT are the "people of God" and that the Traditional Mass is equal to the New Mass in its holiness or that Vatican II supersedes the council of Trent (yes the Novus Ordo bishop in my area said these very words and he was appointed by nope Francis)

      If the Novus Ordo Church is the "Catholic Church" it wouldn't matter if I was sedevacantist (didn't believe Francis is pope) and followed the sedevacantist bishops because as Unitatis Redintigratio teaches in paragraph #3 that we as baptized persons have a "right to be called Christian" even though we're in an "imperfect" union with the Church, but nevertheless are part of her in "some way" and are on our way to "salvation."

      Lee

      Delete
    8. Pius XII lost his office in 1956 by violating Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 13 & the "New Holy Week."
      Either those documents are true or are meaningless. We will never agree on this & responses from laymen is not going to change anything,this is why we rely on the Church.
      Eastern Orthodox still fast after midnight for Holy Communion,and Pius XII took it down to 3 hrs from food 1 hour from liquids and now Fr.McKenna drank water from the pulpit during Bishop McGuire 's Episcopal Consecration. It screamed gluttonous weakling with no respect for the Blessed Sacrament.
      Pius XII was the first Novus Ordo "Pooe from 1956-1958.

      God bless,-Andrew

      Delete
    9. Andrew,

      If we will never agree on this, why do you keep bringing it up every so often?

      Also I thought the mentally unstable Bp. Dymek said Pius XII lost his office in 1952 and now you say 1956. Who cares what the Eastern Orthodox do. They aren't Catholic so what they do has no weight on anybody's conscience whatsoever.

      Please do not disrespect Fr. McKenna. It's always been permissible for a person to drink water at any time before communion.

      Lee

      Delete
    10. Lee,
      Bp. Pivarunas told me personally that he believed he was a shepherd or teacher as defined by Vatican I through common error.

      What does this mean and where is this in Vatican 1 so I can look it up?
      Or anyone else who knows what this means.

      Delete
    11. Ozson,
      Common error is defined in Canon Law "...is error regarding jurisdiction. The person is erroneously believed to have jurisdiction, whereas he has not." (See canonist Bouscaren, "Canon Law" [1951], pg. 141) In case of common error the Church supplies jurisdiction.

      BTW, I think you are correct on the point you brought up elsewhere. I will write a post on it in the near future. Thank you!!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    12. Ozson,

      Session 4 #3 July 18th 1870
      "So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39],even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time."

      Lee

      Delete
    13. Lee,
      Schismatics fast properly and we don't, we're worse than the Orthodox for obeying the faux 1957 Pius XII "3 hour from foods 1 hour from liquids."
      Bishop Robert Dymek has nothing to do w this conversation,rather the Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 13.
      Stick to the issue,stop the projection.

      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
  4. Robert, you're taking offense because I think both of your notions of authority are ridiculous? You think apostolic authority is perpetuated in catechisms and I'm not supposed to laugh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon12:16
      You never state in what YOUR notion of authority consists. Are you a member of Bergoglio's V2 sect, or an Eastern Herterodox? Something else?

      Let me lay it out for you:

      1. The Church continues to function but in a way that is different from times past when we had a legitimate pope. There are novel questions of theology that have no definitive answer, such as, "How do we get a pope back again?" Each possible solution has its problems. Keep in mind that just because sedevacantists don't have all the answers doesn't make our position false, nor does it make Bergoglio the "pope by default." Imagine that someone goes to a doctor, and after examining that person and doing appropriate medical tests, he was told by the physician that he had a rare and progressive disease. The patient asks the doctor, "Can I be cured?" The doctor responds, "I don't know." The lack of knowledge on how to obtain a cure by the doctor does not thereby mean the patient doesn't have the disease.

      2. No respectable sedevacantist, neither Steve Speray, Dr. Thomas Droleskey, Mario Derksen, Lee, Joanna From Poland, nor I (taken individually or as a group) have all the answers to this unique situation. We are trying to make our own Catholic way the best we can.

      3. Is Apostolicity gone? No. Attempting to cite to any approved pre-Vatican II theologian, catechism, etc. to the contrary is useless because they were speaking about Apostolicity in normal times, not extraordinary times. There is a distinction.

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

      5. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…(See de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

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

      7. It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as a "heretical pope"--an oxymoron).

      Ergo, Apostolicity remains now in a different way. Bishops may continue to teach by preserving and handing on the Faith, even though there can be no further deepening (orthodox development).

      Please consider changing your tone. You come across as a self-important, belligerent boor. That certainly does not help you present your case to others--whatever case that may be.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,

      Your comment was better than my article as far as summing it up. Thank you.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Lee,
      Your posts are always great--no help from me is ever required!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Laugh all you want, but do not conflate ridicule with refutation.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello Imtroibo, I am not convinced that Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy was in any way participating with the occult. I will need more evidence to substantiate what you are asserting. Thank you. I know you mean well, but this is very serious, and he is not alive to defend himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:59
      Please see
      https://www.truerestoration.org/what-is-perennialism-and-why-should-we-know-about-it/
      See also Coomaraswarmy defend Perennialism as compatible with Catholicism and defends Rene Guenon, an admitted occultist and Mason. Perennialism was connected to Theosophy and incorporated their doctrines in their works:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvkkJZQw334

      In 1919, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, issued a reply to the following query, which reply was solemnly approved and published by order of Pope Benedict XV:
      "Whether the doctrines, which today are called theosophical, can be in harmony with Catholic doctrine; and thus whether it is permitted to join theosophical societies, attend their meetings, and read their books, books, daily papers, journals and writings?"

      Answer of the Holy Office: "IN THE NEGATIVE"

      There's no getting around this evidence.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. I loved the article. Thank you Lee.

    As for Dr. Coomaraswamy, Theresa from true restoration, accuses him by stating "Coomaraswamy in a clever and nauseating manner link: http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=Philosophia%20Perennis%20and%20the%20Sensus%20Catholicus.pdf, typical of Guénonists and Gnostics in general, sought to convince others that Catholicism is consistent with Perennialism…but Holy Mother Church teaches otherwise."

    It's possible that he was merely in error in supporting the idea that Perennialism can be seen as a Catholic, but I wouldn't call him an occultist. That's a little bit much or possibly slanderous.

    Restoration radio on the other hand supports Bishop Sanborn's aposolate which blatantly rejects Pius XII's changes of holy week. One could argue that is schismatic or disobedient at best which is also a grave scandal. Should we listen to or quote anything that comes from anybody associated with them?

    Sincerely,

    Martin S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin S.,

      I'm glad you liked the article. Very sorry if you or anybody else was scandalized by Rama's Coomaraswamy. I wasn't aware of what Introibo found out, nor is it my intention to have anybody misled. In fact, I had never heard of Perennialism until just recently, so even I learn new things quite often.

      I quoted Coomaraswamy's writings because he was one of the main reasons I became sedevacantist. His book Destruction of Christian Tradition was given approval and high recommendation by Bps. Robert McKenna, Clarence Kelly and Fr. Fouhy, so I thought he was safe to read based on their approbations.

      On the bright side, this goes to show the point of my article, what does it mean to say I'm Catholic and who is truly a Catholic as opposed to those who are not. Everybody claims it but many do so in vain.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Martin,
      I understand your concern, and I had no choice but to accept the FACT Dr. Coomaraswamy publicly defended a man who was an admitted occultist and Freemason. Moreover, he accepted Perennialism as compatible with Catholicism.

      You charitably say that he might have been ignorant. Dr. Coomaraswamy was a genius. A true scholar who was a thoracic surgeon, a psychiatrist, and had a peer reviewed article published on the defects in the Pauline Rite of Holy Orders (among others). I find it incredulous that such a man could not know that Rene Guenon:
      *had been a Freemason, Gnostic, and Occultist
      *Was a Perennialist who believed and taught all existing religions are equally good and valid inheritors of a single primeval faith.--the very Modernist concept taught by Vatican II
      * Denied Christ, and converted to Islam as the "most perfect religion" that exuded "the most truth" and died, unrepentant as an apostate in Egypt

      If I know this, how could the doctor have not?

      Coomaraswamy then defends Perennialism as compatible with Catholicism, which very idea was condemned by The Holy Office in 1919.

      Even if, ad arguendo, Coomaraswamy was not an occultist, he defended them and their ideas. To cite such a person would give scandal and lead others to believe it's ok to read his writings. In turn, they may fall into error.

      Your analogy to Bp. Sanborn is misplaced, because whatever you may think of the Holy Week issue (I support 1955 Holy Week changes), both are arguing for something Catholic, not something occult.

      Mozart was a Freemason, but his music is not leading people to the Lodge, whereas the doctor's defense of occult practitioners might do just that.

      I sincerely hope Dr.Coomaraswamy died as a True Catholic in the state of sanctifying grace.

      Nevertheless, I must heed the words of Pope St. Felix III:
      "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Dear Introibo,

      I never said Dr. Coomaraswamy was ignorant. Just in error. Is it not possible for a Catholic to be in serious error even if he be an intellectual?

      Pope Alexander VI fathered 4 children and practiced Simony. Yet he was still a Catholic and pope. Simony is named after Simon Magus, the first heretic, who was known for being a magician. Does that mean Pope Alexander was an occultist?

      In my mind to be an occultist, one must in some way practice a dark art or support practicing a dark art. I never saw in the video Dr. Coomaraswamy saying with certainty that he supports the lifestyle of Guernot and others. All he did was (at least from my point of view) explain what perenialism was and then he started talking about his father who I assumed must have believed in it.

      I'm not sure if you are aware but Dr. Coomaraswamy had a falling out with Mother Teresa over the theology of Vatican II. If he was such a modernist, why would he part ways with her over one of the #1 errors of Vatican II (ecumenism)?

      I don't agree with Dr. Coomaraswamy in so far as his support for perennialism, but I don't believe for one minute he was an occultist. That is far fetched.

      Lastly, if Dr. Coomaraswamy is such a danger of scandal and will never be quoted on your website again, why not just take this post down instead of letting people possibly get scandalized by knowing about him? Is not the damage already done?

      Sincerely,
      Martin S.

      Delete
    4. Martin,
      Please believe me that I'm trying to be charitable to Dr. Coomaraswamy, but there is no escaping the facts:

      1. You ask: Is it possible for a Catholic to be in error, even if he be an intellectual? Yes, but not in this case. Even a BRIEF perusal of the life of Rene Guenon would show him to be anti-Catholic in the extreme and holding to Perennialism. Moreover, He was a member of the Foundation for Traditional Studies and was a regular contributor to the foundation's journal Sophia. His own FATHER, Ananda Coomaraswamy, held this false and perverse system of Perennialism. I cannot but conclude he knew the problems and refused to renounce them.

      2. As to Pope Alexander, one must realize that Simony is the buying or selling of sacramental power or ecclesiastical privileges. It does not involve the occult, even though Simon Magnus--who first wanted to buy such power--was a magician.

      3. If the doctor was involved in Perennialism and promoted it, he's involved in the occult at least indirectly. If a Catholic openly promotes abortion, and takes a woman to procure one, he is excommunicated just as much as if he did the killing. You are an accessory to sin. If not a practitioner of the occult he--at the very least--promoted it by his words and actions which contradicts other words and actions, leaving you scratching your head.

      4. I'm aware of his battles with Mother Teresa and her confessor. Why would he do such? Please read the following from Novus Ordo Watch:
      https://novusordowatch.org/2021/04/occultists-masquerading-as-traditional-catholics/

      5. Lastly, you ask: "...why not just take this post down instead of letting people possibly get scandalized by knowing about him? Is not the damage already done?"

      I let this stay up because (1) the disclaimer will serve to wake others up to him (even as I was made aware), and 2. it shows how pervasive occultism is, so we must not ignore it but expose it. The V2 sect has enough cover-ups for the world.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Dear Introibo,

      After reading Coomaraswamy’s article and watching the video, I take back what I said. I don’t think he was in error at all. I don’t believe he defended Guenon in his error. He doesn’t do so whatsoever. In his article, he actually rejects perennialism. He defends a type of reasoning (the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts) which is usually described as “perennial or universal philosophy.” He’s very clear about this. This is the idea of “a” sophia perennis, which must be accepted by Catholics. It’s not perennialism. Coomaraswamy states, “The only requirement is that he hold to it as a Catholic who accepts all the teachings of the Church as encompassed in the traditional Magisterium.” You got to read the whole article and see for yourself that he’s no occultist.

      He was not at all involved in the occult and was not into perennialism. He most certainly was not saying theosophy (a false religion founded by Blavatsky) was compatible with Catholicism.

      I hope you will re-consider.

      Sincerely,
      Martin S.

      Delete
    6. Martin,
      You are a very considerate, polite, and intelligent commenter. I understand that you consider Dr. Coomaraswarmy to be fully orthodox. I thought that as well until just recently. We will have to agree to disagree. I will explain what I find wrong in his writing and video.

      First, his article PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS AND THE SENSUS CATHOLICUS found at http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=Philosophia%20Perennis%20and%20the%20Sensus%20Catholicus.pdf

      States the following in the very first paragraph:
      "It is generally assumed that there is no room within Christianity for accepting the concept of Sanatana Dharma, or what in the west has been called philosophia perennis or priscorium. This Sophia perennis, to use a phrase preferred by Wolfgang Smith holds that certain metaphysical truths, and hence access to a knowledge of the divine, have always been available throughout history and are to be found within the framework of every valid religious tradition."

      Problem (a) "philosophia perennis or priscorium." is a perspective in philosophy and spirituality that views all of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown. It is not scholasticism/Thomism which is the ONLY philosophy for a Catholic to praise. This philosophy is in its essence occult and hence cannot be compatible with Catholicism.

      Problem (b) What is a "valid religious tradition"? The only religion that is valid is Catholicism (since the death of Christ and Judaism (prior to the death of Christ).

      He writes later that St. Augustine allegedly said: "“The very thing that is now called the Christian religion was not wanting among the ancients from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came in the flesh, after which the
      true religion, which had already existed, began to be called Christian.‟ His source? "This material is taken from an article by Stephen Cross entitled “St. Augustine and the perennial Philosophy” published in Avaloka, Vol VI, Nos 1&2, 1992 (ISBN0890-5541)"---a Perennialist source.

      While it's true that God is the Author of all Truth, outside the One True Church, truth is mixed with lots of errors. It's not like the truth comes with a label on it--we need the Church to lead us. The truth contained in false religions makes them all the more dangerous.

      Coomaraswamy LAUDS his father, Guenon, and other Perennialists in his video. For example he says Guenon was a "mathematician and metaphysician" conveniently omitting his occultism, Masonic membership, and final apostasy into the false religion of the diabolical Mohammed.

      Can you imagine if I put out a post praising Anton LaVey (founder of the Church of Satan), as being "a great author" and praising the truth that can be found in The Satanic Bible, yet I don't believe in Satanism, I'm a Traditionalist Catholic? You would have to believe that I lost my Faith or my marbles (maybe both). It would certainly lead one to think I am connected to Satanism and "it's not so bad."

      If you still believe Dr. C to be orthodox, you are entitled to your opinion, but I (unfortunately) cannot agree with you that the evidence exonerates him; it does the opposite.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Hello Introibo:

    1. Those traditional Catholics that you know who are married, do they get a civil marriage license, and does the civil government usually allow the traditional Catholic priest to witness the wedding?

    2. What are some impediments or barriers to a woman becoming a traditional Catholic religious sister, and the barriers can be overcome?

    Thank you. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Response to 2: Mental unstability

      Delete
    2. @anon2:13
      1. Absolutely. In the United States it would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to refuse a Traditionalist priest the right to marry couples, just as other clergy do. I was married by a Traditionalist priest and it was simultaneously also under the law of the State of New York.

      2. The basic rules (which could be dispensed when there was a pope):
      She must be
      *18-25 years old
      *Unmarried
      *Have no debts
      *Have no mental instability (as Poni rightly said)
      *Have no major medical problems
      *Have no dependents
      *Have no criminal record and no scandalous reputation

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo


      Delete
  9. Hello Introibo:

    What do you think of Charles Couloumbe? Do you think that he is involved with the occult? I think that Couloumbe is definitely involved with Feeneyism, the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire.

    Thank you. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:28
      Unless something changed since the last time I read about him, Couloumbe is a Feeneyite and used Tarot cards. He is bad news.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Hello Introibo:

    1. There was a question asked a while back about if it was okay to go to confession to an elderly priest who says the Novus Ordo, who was ordained by Cardinal Spellman. I believe that you said that if somebody could not get to the Tridentine Mass that a person could go to the priest once a year, but you said that you would look into it further.

    2. When a traditional Catholic goes to Confession, is it required that the priest says the words of absolution WHILE the person is saying the Act of Contrition, and if not, can the person ask the priest to say the words of absolution AFTER the person says the Act of Contrition?

    3. Have you ever met anybody from the Diocese of Peoria? If you have, they might REALLY admire Fulton Sheen.

    4. What do you think of the John Birch Society?

    5. Will the SSPV bishops give Confirmation to a person in the hospital?

    6. How much of children's involvement in church should be their own choice?

    7. What are your thoughts on receiving Communion outside of Mass/going to Confession outside of the posted times?

    9. What do you think of George Santos?

    Thank you. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:12
      1. You could go to such a priest as necessity demands. Since he is validly ordained, and if he uses the correct form, it will be valid. He is an undeclared heretic, from whom the (valid) sacrament can be obtained. You must go in such manner so as not to cause scandal You cannot confess if the priest somehow finds out you are sede and wants you to embrace V2.

      2. It could be during or after. You can make the request, but the priest if free to deny it.

      3. I know no one from Peoria.

      4. See my post: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/05/attempting-naturalistic-solution-to.html

      5. You would have to ask them; I don't know.

      6. Anything more than what the parents do and expect should be up to them. If trained properly, children will become devout.

      7. It is fine under the right conditions as practiced by the Church.

      8. Santos is a sodomite and shows the mental instability they possess. He is a joke.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. Hello Introibo:

    I am the person who submitted the above questions. The last question above should be numbered 8., not 9. There is no missing question between 7. and 9.

    And in number 8 of course I mean George Santos the member of Congress.

    Sorry!

    Thank you. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hello. I have commented several times on this blog. I really like reading it because it is a Catholic blog. I know that this nonsense may seem stupid but I have spent many years reading and visiting sites that claim to be "Catholic" and are not. The sad thing about this is that I have believed that they were for all those years.

    I will tell my experience and if you allow me here I will vent. I grew up in a "Catholic" family and environment. This means that he went to Novus and Ordo mass and that's it. My family and my friends -when I had them- are on the left. That is, for example: they go to mass and support prolgtb left-wing Spanish parties. It's like that, it's crazy but it is what it is. When I was young I was not a believer. I went to mass because they took me away but I didn't want to know anything about the Church. In today's society, in my country, many believe that being "Catholic" is going to mass and that's it. Then you can sin whatever and it doesn't matter because sin doesn't exist. In my case, as a teenager I went to mass because they took me but outside of mass at home and in high school they told me: "the Church is bad", "God does not exist" or at home "God forgives everything", "God is love" . And that is for mine to be "Catholic". I was confused.

    I follow

    ReplyDelete
  13. Then I began to approach the Church in a different way through my great-uncle. He is a priest -ordained in 1951- and thanks to him I began to think differently and to realize that "that" was not being a Catholic. The problem was that for years I accepted the theses of recognizing and resisting. Me, for reading a series of Internet sites and due to my ignorance because I am not a good Catholic nor well educated - I would add that I did not receive any Catholic training, in fact in religion class they showed me movies and on top of that many were not even religious- I swallowed the "the problem is Francisco, with Benedicto we were better." It wasn't until I discovered sites like this that I learned the truth. However, I am currently in a difficult stage due to depression, I am very isolated - for example, I had relationships with followers of Recognize and Resist" and Kwasniewski who obviously ignore me. Also, my great-uncle is sick and I can't be with him either. As is obvious in my environment there are no sedevacantists -I am from Castellón, a city in eastern Spain- and all this isolates me even more.

    I'm sorry to have bothered you with my problems but I needed to express them.

    Manel Bonet

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Manel,

      great to see you comment here - I remember you from the Novus Ordo Watch site as well.
      Feel free to reach out to us at this blog anytime. Loneliness is the lot of many a true Catholic nowadays but God, Who is never outdone in His generosity, lets us have this fine blog so we can help each other. May Our Lady and St. Joseph comfort us and protect us all!

      God Bless You, my friend
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    2. Nicely put, Joanna.

      Loneliness is indeed the lot for many, Manel. We certainly get lonely, too. Remember Jesus said in Luke 12: "Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. [52] For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. [53] The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father..." Hang in there, friend. God bless you and remember there are others out there, like Joanna wrote.

      -S.T.

      Delete
    3. Joanna S. and S.T.,

      Very well said from both of you. I will add that lately I've been reading about early pioneers of the Catholic faith in America that hardly anybody ever talks about and as I'm reading, it's as if the bishops and priests back then were much like the priests and bishops today except the difference was they didn't drive cars and fly in airplanes but on horseback and foot.

      I'm working on an article of one of those characters because I believe his story should be told as reminder of how things used be and how he did it all alone. Amazing story it is.

      Lee

      Delete
    4. Manel,
      You have a special place in my prayers. I will remember you at every Holy Sacrifice I attend. I ask all my readers to pray for you too. God is always with you and He will reward your faithfulness.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. Hi Manel

    Thank you for your comment.I live in Asia and like you experience loneliness.In a sick world that is growing darker each day can be very hard.Thank you for this blog.You are in my prayers.God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:09
      Nice to see readers commenting from Asia!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Manel,
    I am truly sorry for your loneliness. Please know you have friends in spirit here!
    Many of us are going through strained relationships and even the loss of friends due to the politicization of everything, including the Catholic Faith, that has been slowly developing over time, and that has led to the awful situation of alienation of people from one another, even loved ones.
    You seem to have been blessed with the ability to see things clearly from a standpoint of Faith. Take courage!
    The Saints were mocked, persecuted and left to struggle alone, but they had Christ and the truth on their side and that gave them strength.
    I will be praying for you.
    -Jannie

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lee,
    Thank you for your great post!
    -Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Jannie. Good to see you commenting again.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Hi Jannie,

      If you're interested, from last week's post:

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/01/bad-medicine-for-body-and-soul-errors.html?showComment=1674151003496#c2888544734884890569

      -S.T.

      Delete
  17. Lee,

    Thanks for your post and for moderating the comments. God bless.
    -S.T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. S.T.,

      Thank you S.T. Introibo publishes all the comments including my comments but I do try to make as many responses as I can when it's the week where he posts my articles. Sometimes I miss some and Introibo catches them.

      Lee

      Delete
  18. What an absolute tangle of views in this comment section. Truly we are in a wretched state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. some Florida man,

      To say you are Catholic in today's time can mean different things to all sorts of different people. There is only one kind of Catholic.

      When the shepherd is struck the sheep are scattered. This was foretold by Our Lord and proves why the pope plays such an important role in the Church. Jesus is still Head of the Church when a pope is absent.

      As St. Robert Bellarmine says, if the pope were to error, the whole Church errors. Hence a pope cannot be a heretic or apostate, nor can the Church be united to a heretic/apostasy without themselves being guilty of some form of heresy/apostasy. The new religion known by many names (Novus Ordo, Counterfeit Church, Vatican II, religion) manifests itself to have lost the faith of Catholicism despite the fact that it has the church buildings, historical artifacts, and claims the name.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. As Saint Athanasius said about the Arians. Modernists are the Arians of our time.

      Delete
    3. I posted the last message.

      Delete
  19. Hello Introibo:

    1. What sort of recommendations did Father DePauw give to men considering the priesthood?

    2. Do you know if anymen from Ave Maria Chapel became priests?

    3. I think you said previously that Father DePauw's sister was a missionary nun. Do you know what order she was in?

    Thank you. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:05
      1. I only know of one recommendation he made; he told Clarence Kelly (now bishop) to go to Abp. Lefebvre. After the way the Archbishop treated Bishop Kurz, he wouldn't do that again, I'm pretty sure. Fr. never mentioned anyone else who asked his advice on the priesthood. If they did, Fr kept it under strictest confidence.

      2. I don't know of any. That doesn't mean there weren't, only that I am unaware of any men who became priests.

      3. If memory serves me correctly, she was a Franciscan nun. I'd have to check my correspondence with Fr. DePauw to be certain.

      God Bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  20. Hello Lee and Introibo

    Have you had time to watch the video of the talk with Bp Pivarunas on Catholic Family Podcast.Most interesting.Hope there is a follow up talk.

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Kevin wrote there will be 2 more with the bishop.
      -S.T.

      Delete
    2. Thank you S.T.

      A very good talk.We pray that Bps Santay and Carroll and the SSPV/CSPV Clerics watch it.The CMRI has really grown in the last decade.It's a pity most of their work DownUnder in Australia was taken over by Bp Sanborn and his priests.Bp Sanborn is sending another priest there to help with the growing missions.

      Delete
  21. I knew Rama Coomaraswamy; it was through him that my wife converted from Eastern Orthodox Christianity to sedevaccantist Roman Catholicism. Consequently I can confirm, in the presence of God, that Rama WAS NOT AN OCCULTIST. He was, in fact, an exorcist. It is true that he was influenced by the writings of René Guénon, but that doesn’t mean he believed everything Guénon said. Guénon himself (who was born a Catholic and later converted to Islam) was a strong critic of the occultism of his time (mostly the period between the World Wars) which he had personally involved himself with and later ultimately found to be dangerous and subversive; he characterized much of it as “unconscious Satanism.” His first two books were exposés of Spiritualism (THE SPIRITIST IMPOSTURE) and the Theosophical Society (THEOSOPHY: THE HISTORY OF A PSEUDO-RELIGION). Guénon understood that Satan had been attempting to pervert true religion ever since the Garden of Eden (the Tower of Babel, Judas Iscariot etc.), and called the history of this attempt “the Counter-Tradition” and “the Counter-Initiation”. His major error was his failure to realize that Freemasonry, which he involved himself with, perfectly fit his own definition of a Counter-Initiatory organization. Rama, however, condemned Freemasonry, providing evidence that it was one of the factors that contributed to Vatican II, so obviously he was able to criticize Guénon as well as learn from him. And he never wrote as anything but a Roman Apostolic Catholic. And to the degree that Guénon renounced occultism, even if he did so incompletely, and even if we reject his later connection to Islam, we need to applaud him, not condemn him, while still retaining the right to criticize him. Should we reject St. Augustine as a Manichaean because he had once been connected with the Manichaeans? For God’s sake, LET PEOPLE REPENT! And if we try to divide all doctrinal influences into the strictly orthodox vs. the strictly Satanic, if we are unwilling to learn from people we nonetheless disagree with on certain points, then we will never become intellectual adults. Narrow-mindedness must never be confused with faith. ~~ C.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. C,
      I have no ax to grind with Dr. Coomaraswamy. I hope he died as a true Catholic in the state of sanctifying grace.

      Nevertheless, I have already described the problems with his video and what he has written regarding Perennialism. Facts don't cease to be facts because we don't like them. The doctor, at the very least, defended people and ideas that are indefensible.

      I gave the doctor a pass when he was ordained a priest while married. In the Latin Rite, a married man cannot become a priest without papal dispensation, which he obviously could not possess. In the Eastern Rites, married men can become priests, but he was ordained as a Latin Rite priest. A real mess, to say the least.

      He kept company with the snake Malachi Martin, who "conditionally ordained him" after there was fear Bp. Gaston-Lopez did not properly perform the essential part of the Rite necessary for validity. Martin claimed he was "secretly consecrated a bishop" by Pope Pius XII" to do work behind the Iron Curtain, but produced zero evidence of such a consecration. When someone is Consecrated "in pectore" there is a document given which the bishop can use when necessary to prove himself. Martin never proved his assertion.

      As to Guenon, he's no St. Augustine. The Doctor of the Church was a Manichean who died as a True Catholic. Guenon died as an apostate Mohammedan after having been raised in the One True Church. Big difference. I let people repent, but Guenon did no such thing. Orthodox is, by definition, strictly such. Catholicism is an all or nothing Faith. To reject even one dogma is to reject it completely. There is no "partial orthodoxy" or "partial repentance." That's the heretical idea of both Perennialism and the Modernist ecclesiology of Vatican II.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  22. Introibo

    Can you give us a brief list of the errors of the Greek,Russian,etc Orthodox churches and the Oriental such as the Coptic,etc from a Traditional Catholic position.Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:13
      What you're asking would require an entire post!! I can give just a brief list here off the top of my head:
      * Denial of Original Sin (hence, rejection of the Immaculate Conception)
      *Denial of the Papacy
      *Denial of the Filioque
      *Declaring the epiclesis as necessary to confect the Eucharist

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  23. Hello Introibo,

    Thank you very much for all your posts on this blog! It has been so helpful since I came to the traditional Catholic faith. I have enjoyed your talks with Mr. Kevin Davis likewise.

    Also, I have a couple questions about sacred relics. Canon 1289 of the 1917 Code indicates that sacred relics are not to be bought or sold. Presumably, this means selling these online on places like eBay would be quite an abuse and violation of this law. What about an autograph or signature from a pope or holy person (e.g. a signature of Pope St. Pius X on a document or letter)? Would this count as a second-class relic not to be sold?

    Also, since so many authenticated relics are in the hands of the Novus Ordo hierarchy these days, how could traditional Catholics legally obtain relics of saints for their churches? I assume these would need to be donated by someone who has been authorized to possess them in the first place.

    Regards,

    D.B.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. D.B.,
      Thank you for the kind words, my friend.
      I would consider an autograph by a saint to be a third class relic defined as items that a saint touched. Second class relics are something that a saint personally owned, such as a shirt or book. If the saint owned a book an signed it away, then it would be second class. I think a letter would be third class, but I might stand corrected.
      I don't think it should be bought or sold.

      I, too, believe they would need to be donated. A Church which fell to the Vatican II sect was sold off. A layman with connections to the SSPV was able to get the traditional altar donated, and in the altar stone are authentic relics.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. You could always give it away to the Jews like "St." Paul VI did when he gave the papal tiara to them. Oooops, did I say that out loud.

      Lee

      Delete
  24. Hello Introibo:

    Do you or any of the readers of this blog know why Bishop Sanborn's priests took over the CMRI missions in Australia?

    Thank you. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:25
      Do any of my readers know? I don't.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I stopped attending the CMRI in oceania around a year ago due unresolvable problems that had led most persons to abandon the mission. I persisted with it for far too long and only left permanently once it was clear the no Una Cum position was not from the Church.

      Most sedes in this region attend the SSPX as they have been the consistent source of support for locals. The CMRI had a presence in the region with a physical chapel on the North Shore of Auckland, but this was sold after the local priest developed cancer and returned to the USA to die.

      At the time that I left Fr Eldracher had successfully supplanted the CMRI in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane because the local people wanted him. His group was rejected in Perth and Adelaide, but this may have since changed. He has no presence in New Zealand and is unlikely to build one as the faithful who would have had him come here have rejected the No Una Cum position. I have a lot of respect for Fr Eldracher himself, but Bp Sanborn's group have adopted ideas that aren't backed by Church teaching and created new dogmas for their institution. The society is weak or undecided on many issues but they don't deny Catholics the sacraments for rejecting novel ideas.

      Delete
  25. Hello

    We know some things but not in a position to say.

    You may like to know that the two CMRI missions that were in the Fiji islands that a CMRI priest visited one a year(Think his name was Mckee)for well over a decade, the folk there went back to the SSPX.Very sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recently met Fr Pfieffer who runs the mission there. There is nothing sad about it unless you wrongly believe the SSPX to be in schism, which couldn't be further from the truth.

      Delete
    2. Anon. 1:32

      How are the SSPX not in schism? They believe Francis is pope and have a picture of him in the vestibules. They refuse submission to him and do their own thing. Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) even said they have no canonical status in the Church and are in schism.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. They don't meet the requirements for being in schism. It is that simple. https://tinyurl.com/isthessspxinschism

      Delete
    4. Anon. 6:15,

      If the SSPX can lawfully do what they are doing and if John Daly is right, then there is no point in giving assent to the pope, being obedient to the pope, nor having a pope. Therefore, you recognize and obey the authority of the one you call pope or if you don't you simply have a problem. It is clear that the SSPX have a problem with the man they call "pope" and that they therefore have a problem with truly being Catholic since they can't figure it out.

      Lee

      Delete
  26. Just to clarify, which pre-Vatican II theologians does Lee cite to support the following statement?:

    "Despite the Church suffering immensely, not only from the lack of a Head, but most of it's Body, the hierarchy, She will always be in those who are baptized, profess it's dogmatic and doctrinal teachings, and obey lawful authority. Today, lawful authority has been reduced to tradition and those bishops and priests who, without papal appointment, substitute not as intruders, but as the last crumbs left on the table who have remained Catholic."

    Mazella certainly says something quite different.

    "Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 557-62

    books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA557

    722. Now we ask, what is the apostolic succession? It can be described: “public, legitimate, perennial or never interrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles to rule and to shepherd the Church.” It says – 1) substitution, to signify that the successors of the Apostles are not their vicars; but they exercise that very office which the Apostles, insofar as they were rulers and administrators, exercised – 2) It says public; for as it treats of the authority to rule an external and public society, it must be verified by determinate criteria known to all, that these men and not others have truly succeeded to the apostolic office – 3) It says legitimate, evidently on the part of him who gives the power, and of him who receives it, and by the way in which the power is conferred, that the transmission clearly fulfills the legal standard – 4) It says perennial or not interrupted, of course both materially, insofar as persons are never entirely lacking who are continually substituted for the Apostles, and formally, insofar as these very substituted persons are empowered with the authority derived from the Apostles, receiving it from him who now actually possesses it and is able to communicate it.

    723. To understand this more fully, we must remember that in the successors of the Apostles can be distinguished (1) ordination or consecration, and (2) vocation or mission; and thus a twofold power, of order and of jurisdiction. It is not necessary here to discuss ordination in detail, for – 1) what pertains to it is clear, in part from what was said about the distinction in the divine law between clerics and laics, and also chiefly from what is said in the treatise on Orders – 2) Granted that Apostolic succession necessarily includes ordination, yet in ecclesiastical terminology neither solely nor chiefly does it mean a succession of men, who trace back to the apostles by a linked transmission of the episcopal character; but chiefly it means a succession of men, who by a linked transmission of authority to teach and shepherd the faithful trace back to the Apostles – 3) From the legitimacy of vocation or mission recognized by the other conditions, the validity of ordination is legitimately inferred (if we speak of the [universal] Church and of her certain Head, not indeed of any one individual); for if the Church can never lack the apostolic succession at any time, neither can she lack any condition or element that it necessarily requires.

    724. But indeed as to mission, that is, the bestowal of actual and unhindered jurisdiction in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, we must note – 1) that this power, unlike the power of order, can be lost; and therefore acts of this power exercised illegitimately are not only illicit but also invalid; while, on the other hand, acts of the power of order exercised illegitimately are illicit, but valid. Suppose, for example, a heretical or schismatic Bishop (we speak of one who truly received Episcopal consecration) consecrates another man a Bishop; he would be consecrated validly, and would have the power of order, not indeed of jurisdiction; for otherwise he would receive it from a man who does not have it, which clearly is nonsensical."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mazella continued... 2/5

    "Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 562-63

    books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA562

    727. The errors of innovators on the matter of Apostolicity can be reduced to these – 1) In words they concede the apostolicity of doctrine, but they pervert its true concept: the errors are the same as those we listed against the unity of faith – 2) As to apostolicity of succession, those errors chiefly recur, which we refuted by alleging the distinction in the divine law between laymen and clerics, and excluding the democratic form of government from the Church – 3) Those who belong to the party that they call High Church, are chiefly in error about the necessity of communion with the center of unity – 4) Thus the most characteristic error in this matter is extraordinary mission, which they have crafted in order to cover up the lack of apostolicity of mission and of origin in their sects. For when, they say, the state of the Church is such that either nobody can be appointed by an ordinary vocation to carry out the ecclesiastical functions; or that those who are appointed, are so corrupt in faith and morals that their amendment cannot be hoped for; when an ordinary vocation of better men from elsewhere is impossible; then, they say, nothing forbids those who have no ordinary vocation to take up apostolic functions by an extraordinary vocation: indeed, they add, in such a state of the Church anyone is bound in conscience, by the force of the common vocation of all Christians, to carry out apostolic duties insofar as he is able. Indeed, the Innovators assert that this took place in Luther and Calvin, who moreover were inspired by a hidden divine movement, and thus by an extraordinary vocation, to undertake the reformation of the Church."

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mazella 3/5

    "Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 565-66

    books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA565

    732. III. As to succession – 1) The Church cannot be ruled and governed, except by that authority which Christ instituted: this is evident, because Christ is the author of the Church, and because the power to govern the Church is supernatural, and therefore it cannot come from any source but from God. But Christ willed that the Church be governed by apostolic authority to endure forever in their successors. Therefore the Church must always be Apostolic in succession, or government. – Proof of the minor – a) Christ bestowed upon the Apostles the power to rule the Church, and willed that it be transmitted to their successors (n. 482-84.; 524.) – b) The Apostles preached this power which they had received from Christ. For in order to commend themselves to the faithful, they often reminded them of that distinctive power to rule and to teach, which they had received from Christ. Thus (II. Cor. V. 20.): “For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us;” (I. Cor. IV. 1.): “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God;” (I. Thess. II. 13.): “We also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God.” Indeed, fortified by this persuasion, they demand that the faithful acknowledge and give full obedience to this vicarious power of theirs; thus (II. Cor. II. 9.): “For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things;” (II. Thess. III. 14.): “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him” – c) The Apostles excercised this same power; they communicated it to others to be communicated by them to others.

    2) Christ willed unity of faith, which consists in this: that the faithful dispersed throughout the world believe all those truths that the Apostles preached, and which their successors propose to be believed (nn. 650. seqq.). But clearly such unity cannot be had without the apostolic succession, since it is the principle of unity of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 733. Proof of the 2nd part. I. From Scripture. Thus – 1) the hypothesis of an extraordinary mission must be rejected, if by the institution of Christ the Apostolic succession can never fail [deficere]. But thus it is. For – a) Christ the Lord sent the Apostles into the whole world; to teach all peoples; and to these teachers he made the promise to be with them all days; until the consummation of the world. But these things would be false if the Apostolic succession could defect at any time – b) Christ, according to the Apostle (Ephes. IV.) gave apostles, pastors and doctors “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” By which words it is announced that the ordinary and mediate apostolic mission shall endure until the mystical body of Christ is fully built; thus there can never be pastors and doctors who, by an extraordinary mission, would make up for the failure of those who came first."

    "Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 576-78, 580

    books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA576

    Prop. XXXII. Christ so instituted the Church, that it should be the last economy of salvation, not only in regard to essentials, but also in regard to state, as they say, lasting endlessly and perpetually: and consequently it enjoys indefectibility, by the force of which it shall continue unto the end of the world in that internal and external constitution, and with those same properties and endowments, with which it began to exist.



    748. [This is proved] II. From the New Testament. … 2) From the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Apostolic office [munus], on which the other things depend in the Church, and which, if it alone stands, the dispute with the innovators is finished. For indeed (Matth. 28.) Christ sent the Apostles to teach and baptize, and also promised that he would be with them, insofar as they teach and baptize, until the end of the world. And (John XIV. 16.) Christ the Lord said: “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.” And (Eph. iv.) Paul teaches that Christ gave the Apostles to be shepherds and teachers “for the perfecting of the saints;” “until we all meet into the unity of faith;” “unto a perfect man.” We have often explained this argument already.

    749. III. If we consult the places cited from the Old and New Testaments, we rightly ask: how could all that is said of the Church in these places be true, if the Church, even for a time, could lose one or another of its properties and endowments? For – 1) suppose that unity of faith and government were to fail, so that the Church, divided into two or more parts, would no longer be one: it is obvious that of the Church thus divided one could no longer affirm that she is not scattered, stands forever, breaks down and consumes all other kingdoms; but rather she would be cut apart, broken down and consumed: it is clear that the enemy would have prevailed over her, have driven her out, and that she would have been deserted by Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mazella 5/5

    2) Nor can it be said that the predictions and promises of the Church's perpetual indefectibility were conditional, that is, provided she would remain faithful. For – a) these promises were not only made by Christ to the Church, but to Christ Himself, whose merits have obtained the reward of an everlasting kingdom; thus to him, who purchased the Church by His blood, it was said: “ask of me, and I will give you the nations as thy inheritance.” Is there any condition on the part of Christ, or if there were any, could He fail on His part? – b) the promises made to the Church do not express any condition; indeed, as they were made to the universal Church, they exclude any conditions of faithfulness on the part of the Church herself, for in that case, such promises would have this sense: the Church will not err, if she does not turn aside from the truth; she will give pure doctrine, if she does not corrupt it; etc.: which are ridiculous indeed.



    751. V. [Indefectibility is proved] By theological reason. For – 1) The Church was instituted by Christ, in order to continue His mission on earth for the sanctification and salvation of souls. Therefore she must endure, so long as there are men to be saved by Christ, that is, until the end of ages; so that to all and forever Christ should be the way, the truth, and the life. But unless the Church continued truly indefectible, she could not work toward her end and continue her mission. For this requires that men be able to come to her in order to obtain salvation by her; thus it is necessary that the Church be knowable as the true Church of Christ. But if in even one of her properties or endowments she could fail at any time, the Church would not be knowable. This can be proved in many ways: to signify something, we say that it is clear from the intimate connection, by which the things that constitute the Church or follow from its constitution, are bound together. For example, suppose that visibility is lost; now the apostolic succession, which depends on it, will perish, and also unity. Suppose the apostolic government were to perish; now the principle that causes unity will cease, and the Church will no longer be a society: and if you substitute another government, now it will not be that society which Christ instituted. Suppose that infallibility were to perish; now the extrinsic principle of unity of faith ceases. The Protestants say that the Church can fail as to the faith. But if this be taken away or changed, it radically subverts the seed of the soul of the Church; and what will become of holiness, when that is missing which is called the beginning and root of all justice? Anyone can follow this.

    2) If the Church could defect at any time, then at no time could she effectively exercise her mission and authority. For if it were known beforehand that the mission of the Church could totally fail, or even be interrupted, that would deprive it of all weight, that is to say, it would reduce its practical force to nothing. For every rebel would immediately say that the mission of the Church had failed or become corrupted; and consequently one can no longer have faith in it, nor obey it. This is confirmed by the example of the Innovators, who by that supposition behaved in that way, and invented an extraordinary mission."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon beginning at 6:25
      Mazella:
      4) Thus the most characteristic error in this matter is extraordinary mission, which they have crafted in order to cover up the lack of apostolicity of mission and of origin in their sects. For when, they say, the state of the Church is such that either nobody can be appointed by an ordinary vocation to carry out the ecclesiastical functions; or that those who are appointed, are so corrupt in faith and morals that their amendment cannot be hoped for; when an ordinary vocation of better men from elsewhere is impossible; then, they say, nothing forbids those who have no ordinary vocation to take up apostolic functions by an extraordinary vocation: indeed, they add, in such a state of the Church anyone is bound in conscience, by the force of the common vocation of all Christians, to carry out apostolic duties insofar as he is able. Indeed, the Innovators assert that this took place in Luther and Calvin, who moreover were inspired by a hidden divine movement, and thus by an extraordinary vocation, to undertake the reformation of the Church."

      Your citation needs context. Notice that theologian Mazaella discusses Luther and Calvin. The "extraordinary function" is in ordinary times when we had a pope. This is also not a "reformation" of the Church but a RESTORATION.

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

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

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

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

      Otherwise, one must join the V2 sect, or become "Home Aloners" who deny the Indefectibility of the Church.

      God Bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete