Monday, May 13, 2024

Vatican II Homo-Revisionists

 

A couple of weeks ago, a person on "X" (formerly "Twitter") responded to one of my posts that "There is no Vatican II sect." He goes by the moniker "Leo the Great" and is an apologist for Bergoglio's man-made sect. I explained that the dogma of Indefectibility means that the Church cannot give that which is evil and/or heretical to Her members. Yet, Vatican II and the Conciliar "popes" have given error and evil. Therefore, appearances to the contrary, these errors and evils did not come from the Church, but from those clerics who defected from the Church and created a de facto sect of counterfeit Catholicism. One of the examples I gave of evil being given to Vatican II sect members, was the decree Fiducia Supplicans (FS), which allows sodomite "couples" to be "blessed." 

To this, he replied, "Homosexuality has never been condemned." I shook my head in utter disbelief. He also stated the old canard that "the sin of Sodom was inhospitality." I really wonder if he was that badly informed, or was willfully distorting reality to make Bergoglio "pope." He is not alone, unfortunately, in his detachment from reality. There is a movement afoot in both liberal Protestant sects and now the Vatican II sect (in the wake of FS), to "normalize" sexual perversion. To give but one example, more and more Lutheran parishes are joining the "Reconciling in Christ" program, aka "Reconciling Works." Started in 1974, and having really taken off in the last ten years, its mission is to advocate " for the acceptance, full participation, and liberation of all sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions within the Lutheran Church.(sic)" 
(See reconcilingworks.org/about/). 

Here's but one prayer suggested to be used during a Lutheran worship service:
God of all mercy and consolation, come to the help of your people, and in particular your LGBTQIA+ children whom for too long the church was a harmful place. Turn those of us who have actively participated in the sins of homophobia, transphobia, and fear to live for you alone. Give us the power of your Holy Spirit that we may confess our sins, receive your forgiveness, and grow into the fullness of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Liberator. Amen. (Ibid). 

Notice the topsy-turvy morality: No longer are the perverts commiting sin, rather those who don't condone and celebrate that sin are the sinners. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." (Isaiah 5:20). 

They even have  LGBTQIA  Stations of the Cross for Lent. Here's the "reflection" for the Crucifixion:
Reflection
The epidemic of violence against the transgender community, and BIPOC transgender people in particular, should be a call to action for us all. We may never know the true number of transgender people who are victims of violence due to deadnaming, misgendering, and other factors that seek to erase their existence from our society. We all can and must do better for our transgender siblings because they deserve to live fully into the people they know themselves to be. What are ways you can live out your values of love, justice, and welcome for LGBTQIA+ people in your life? We extend an invitation to learn about the lives of transgender victims of violence, to say their names, and share with friends and family how you stand in solidarity with the most vulnerable in the LGBTQIA+ community.
(Ibid). [N.B. "BIPOC" means  Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. The reflection is therefore in particular about a non-White person who thinks they belong to the opposite gender.). 

If you are as sickened as I am by this blasphemous perversion, the purpose of this post is to answer the three new arguments of the "gay is Ok" movement, state clearly the teaching of the Church, and explain why "inhospitality" was NOT the "sin of Sodom" for which God destroyed the city. 

The New "Gay is OK" Arguments
Here is a summary of some new arguments to legitimize sexual perverts, and my response. N.B. The responses are not mine, but rather information compiled from multiple theological sources, and to whom I give full credit.  

Argument #1: Celibacy cannot be mandated, so it is wrong to require homosexuals to live celibate lives.
Celibacy is a gift that should not be forced on anyone. Genesis 2:18 says that it is not good for man to be alone, and in the New Testament, Jesus says celibacy can be accepted only by those to whom it is given (St. Matthew 19:11–12). Paul says he prefers all to be celibate, but recognizes that people have different gifts (1 Corinthians 7:7). Thus, requiring celibacy for all Catholics with homosexual desires violates this teaching, which the Catholic tradition has affirmed for two thousand years.

Reply: While no one should not minimize the genuine struggle those with unnatural desires have to remain chaste, this argument fails on two fronts. First, while celibacy may be a gift in some cases, it is mandated in others. For example, a married man whose wife leaves him may not remarry (St. Matthew 19:9).  Let's not forget the single Traditionalist Catholic man who never finds a wife, and single Traditionalist woman who never finds a husband. The single vocation is called to do the same as priests and religious. Sex is only permitted within marriage. Even if we do not have the “gift,” each of us is called to be sexually pure in such circumstances, and God will always give us the necessary grace to resist temptation and keep His Commandments. 

Second, this point equivocates on “lonely” and “alone.” Nowhere in the creation account are humans told that the man is lonely and in need of companionship. Rather, God’s verdict is that he is alone and in need of a helper. For what does he need a helper? To “fill and form” the entire planet.

Genesis is making an objective point about the man’s incompleteness, that is, his inability to populate the Earth, not about his subjective experience of loneliness, which requires a companion. In the state of Original Justice, Adam was perfectly happy and could not feel lonely.

Argument #2: Marriage is about "keeping covenant" with your spouse as a reflection of Christ’s love for His Church.
Ephesians 5:21–33 is a foundational biblical text on marriage. As this text portrays, marriage is essentially about commitment, which involves keeping our covenant with our spouse as a reflection of God’s covenant with His own people. Vatican II did away with the idea of marriage as a contract. Same-sex couples can do this just as effectively as heterosexual couples who are sterile or who are in old age and are married in Church. 

Reply:  Commitment is not the primary point of this passage, although it is important. Marriage is specifically portrayed as a gendered institution with husbands and wives, not merely “spouses.” In Ephesians 5:31, St. Paul refers back to the creation account as the Divinely decreed institution for humanity, which is specifically about Christ as the Groom and the Church as the Bride. To ignore the gender component of marriage is to violate God's design of marriage. While it is true the Church has always allowed those who are sterile (through no fault of their own) and the elderly to marry, the fact they cannot procreate does not change the gender component of what a marriage must be like. They still reflect God's design and some can adopt children providing them a father and mother; something sodomites cannot do. 

Argument #3: This argument is more "recycled" from the past than new--but it has come back into vogue. "Both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 tell how a centurion asked Jesus to heal the young man referred to in the original Greek as his “pais." The word was commonly used for the younger partner in a same-sex relationship. It is usually translated into English as boy, servant or slave. In recent years progressive Bible scholars have concluded that the centurion was in a homosexual relationship with the “slave who was dear to him” in the gospel story.  However being gay today implies an egalitarian relationship, while the centurion and his pais were obviously unequal male partners, as was common at the time." (See qspirit.net/gay-centurion/). Therefore, Christ healed the homosexual and did not condemn the behavior so, it is blasphemously asserted, Christ does not condemn homosexuality. 

Reply: There is actually no indication that the centurion had a homosexual relationship with his servant boy just by use of the word “pais.” While these relationships did exist, to assume that this centurion was having sexual relations with the servant, based on the simple fact that he had a servant, would be analogous to asserting that a man had a wife and then assuming that he must have cheated on his wife, because some men do that. In fact, St. Luke uses the word doulos (the general word for servant) to describe this young male ( St. Luke 7:2). Furthermore, of the 24 uses of pais in the Greek New Testament, it is never used of a homosexual relationship. It was something Modernist "scholars" twisted to say something it never asserted. As shall be demonstrated below, Christ actually condemned homosexuality in Sacred Scripture.  

The Church has Unequivocally Condemned Homosexuality
The Third Lateran Ecumenical Council 1179 A.D.
Canon 11: "...Let all who are found guilty of that unnatural vice for which the wrath of God came down upon the sons of disobedience and destroyed the five cities with fire, if they are clerics be expelled from the clergy or confined in monasteries to do penance; if they are laymen they are to incur excommunication and be completely separated from the society of the faithful..." 
(See papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum11.htm).

Pope St Pius V:

Cum Primum  April 1, 1566:

"Having determined to do away with everything that may in some way offend the Divine Majesty, we resolve to punish, above all and without indulgence, those things which, by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures or by most grievous examples, are more repugnant to God than any others and raise His wrath: that is, negligence in divine worship, ruinous simony, the crime of blasphemy, and the execrable libidinous vice against nature. For such faults peoples and nations are scourged by God Who, according to His just condemnation, sends catastrophes, wars, famine, and pestilence ... and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to the same punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees [of ecclesiastical dignity]." (Emphasis mine).

Horrendum Illud Scelus August 30, 1568:

P I U S , B I S H O P

Servant of the Servants of God: For perpetual memory. That horrendous crime, for which polluted and filthy cities were burned by the frightful judgment of God, pains Us most bitterly, and gravely stirs our soul, so that, insofar as it is possible, we might strive to crush it.

I. It is reasonably established in the [Third] Lateran Council that any Clerics who are discovered in that act of incontinence that is against nature, because of which the wrath of God came upon the children of unbelief, should be expelled from the clergy, or be cast into monasteries for the purpose of doing penance.

2. However, lest the contagion of such a disgrace, from the hope of impunity – which is the greatest incentive to sin – strengthen in boldness, we have decided that the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime are to be more gravely punished, so that the avenger of the civil laws, the secular sword, might certainly deter those who do not fear the death of the soul.

3. And therefore, seeking to more completely and forcefully pursue what We already decreed regarding this matter at the beginning of our Pontificate, any and all priests and other secular and regular Clergy of whatever grade and dignity who practice such a dire sin We deprive of every clerical privilege, and of every Ecclesiastical office, dignity, and benefit, by the authority of the present canon. So that, having been degraded by Ecclesiastical Judgment, they may be handed over to the secular power, which may exact from them that same punishment that is received by laity who have fallen into this ruin, which is found to be constituted in legitimate ordinances....

Given at St. Peter’s in Rome, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1568, on the third Kalends of September (August 30), in the third year of Our Pontificate. (Emphasis mine). 

1917 Code of Canon Law:
Canon 2357: section 1:  Lay persons who have been legally found guilty of a crime of sexual immorality committed with a minor under 16 years of age or rape, sodomy, incest, pandering, are ipso facto infamous, besides being subject to other penalties which the Ordinary may deem proper to inflict.(Emphasis mine)

Canon 2359: section 2: Deprives clerics (guilty of the same crimes enumerated above) of "any office, benefice, dignity, or position which they may have and in more serious cases be deposed."
(See Canonist Bouscaren Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (1951), pgs. 931-932).

Homosexuality is infallibly condemned as evil by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). All the Church Fathers and approved theologians unequivocally condemn unnatural vice.  

Approved Theologians:

Prummer: "Sodomy is a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance." (Handbook of Moral Theology, [1957], pg. 236).

Jone: "Sexual paresthesia is had when sex life is not affected by venereal matters, but by objects all together foreign to sex life. The following are forms of this perversion: (a) Sadism...(b) Masochism...(c) Fetishism...(d) Homosexuality..."(Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 151). 

McHugh and Callan: "Worst among the sins of impurity, as such, are crimes of unnatural lust...For procreation requires heterosexual intercourse, a condition disregarded by sodomy, which is the lustful commerce of male with male...or of female with female (tribadism, sapphism, lesbian love)." (Moral Theology, [1930], 2:543). 

Cronin: "The sexual function can only be exercised in a way consonant with the generation of offspring. Any other use of it would be a perversion of the natural order and, therefore, a violation of the natural law." (The Science of Ethics, [1939], 2:63). 

(All emphasis mine).

Church Fathers and Doctors:
St. Augustine: “[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way." 

St. John Chrysostom: "But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present. For such is the burning of Sodom, and that conflagration!…Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time!… For that rain was unwonted, for the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. Wherefore also the rain was the opposite of the customary rain. Now not only did it fail to stir up the womb of the earth to the production of fruits, but made it even useless for the reception of seed. For such was also the intercourse of the men, making a body of this sort more worthless than the very land of Sodom. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable?"

Pope St. Gregory the Great: "Sacred Scripture itself confirms that sulfur evokes the stench of the flesh, as it speaks of the rain of fire and sulfur poured upon Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish Sodom for the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment he chose emphasized the shame of that crime. For sulfur stinks, and fire burns. So it was just that Sodomites, burning with perverse desires arising from the flesh like stench, should perish by fire and sulfur so that through this just punishment they would realize the evil they had committed, led by a perverse desire."

St. Peter Damien: "Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices.… It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth.…"

(As cited in the pamphlet The Sin of Homosexuality, [1949], Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, no author given). 

Sacred Scripture:
Old Testament
Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."
(Emphasis mine).

New Testament
1 Corinthians 6:9: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

1 Timothy 1:10: "... law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly ... the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching."

Romans 1:26-27: "Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

St. Jude 1:7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

(All emphasis mine).

It should be clear that homosexuality stands condemned by Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as contrary to both Natural Law and Divine Positive Law. Moreover, the Church considers it one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance. 

Was the Sin of Sodom Really "Inhospitality"?
The story of Sodom, told in Genesis 19, explains how Lot (Abraham's nephew) was met by two strangers at the gate of the city. These men were actually angels in disguise. Lot brings them to his house and, after a meal but before going to bed, the men of Sodom (young and old) surround the house and demand to have sex with them. Lot refuses to allow the gang rape of his guests and (tragically) offers them his virgin daughters instead. The men of Sodom are not interested in the women, only wanting sex with the men. The mob is about to break down the door of the house, when the "men" reveal themselves and save Lot by striking the mob with blindness. Revisionists tell us this is a case of attempted gang rape and  being "inhospitable" to guests, it is not "loving and consensual relations" that God would not condemn.

That Sodom was condemned for unnatural vice (later to be named after the city itself--"sodomy") is made clear by the New Testament, specifically, the epistle of St. Jude 1: 7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Emphasis mine). Doesn't leave much room for declaring "the sin of Sodom" as being a lack of hospitality.

N.B. Some wonder how Lot could be considered a good man when he offered his daughters to be raped. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) answers: "Lot interceded in behalf of his guests in accordance with his duties as host, which are most sacred in the East, but made the mistake of placing them above his duties as a father by offering his two daughters to the wicked designs of the Sodomites..." Lot tried to spare his guests (which he did not realize were angels disguised as men) from being sodomized and failing his duties as a host. The evil of sodomy was known even then, and duties of hosts were considered sacred. In his zeal to prevent this dual evil, he committed a sin in offering his daughters to be raped. However, even in this, his sin did not even come close to the savage brutality and iniquity of the Sodomites. (Emphasis mine).

Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself Condemns Homosexuality
Homo-revisionists will claim that "Jesus never condemns or even mentions homosexuality. If it were really evil, He wouldn't have remained silent on the matter." 

Actually, Christ refers to the city of Sodom no less than four times. Each time Our Lord refers to that immoral city, He refers to its sinfulness and agrees that it stands condemned:

  • St. Matthew 10:15, "Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Clearly implying that on Judgement Day, Sodom and Gomorrah will stand condemned)
  • St. Matthew 11:23-24, "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hell. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."
  • St. Luke 10:12, "I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day."
  • St. Luke 17:30, "But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from Heaven and destroyed them all."
The Inescapable Logic
First, Sodom was destroyed by God for it's "sexual immorality and perversion." (St. Jude 1:7)

Second, this perversion is homosexuality, because Genesis 19 clearly states it was men wanting sex with two angels who appeared as men, and they had no (sexual) use for women.

Third, Our Lord Jesus Christ is recorded referring to Sodom no less than four (4) times, and each time He agrees the city stands condemned for this sin ("sodomy") and calls Sodom "wicked." 

Therefore, Jesus Christ condemned homosexuality. True, He never uses the word "homosexuality," but He never specifically condemned "rape" by name, so are we thereby to blasphemously assume He didn't condemn it? 

Conclusion
Bergoglio and his homo-revisionist allies have both a strategy and a specialized message to persuade this new generation that God "blesses same-sex relationships." When someone asks, "What harm is there to blessing same-sex relationships," here is the answer:

1. It makes a mockery of the Sacrament of Matrimony which is meant for the procreation and education of children. It builds up the Mystical Body of Christ. 

2. Marriage is no longer seen as being about procreation, but about hooking-up.

3. It makes the unnatural and perverted seem acceptable and normal.

4. Children will be more likely to experiment with perversions and become perverts themselves. 

5. Children raised via adoption (or conceived by surrogate mothers for same-sex "marriages") will be heavily influenced by the perverts. Many will be molested. Of parents who commit incest: Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6% (See Freund K, Watson RJ (1992) "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study." Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 18:34-43).  

Moreover, with women willing to sell their bodies as surrogates for different men, don't be surprised if unintended incest spikes when half-siblings marry, not knowing their background, and an increase in special needs children spawned by them, will result.

Of special mention: my X account was restricted temporarily after my condemnation of sodomites in my exchange with "Leo the Great;" so much for "free speech." As I've stated before, I believe that the two greatest dangers facing us in the Great Apostasy are occultists and sodomites. Big Sibling is watching--and uses they/them pronouns. May the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary save us. 

63 comments:

  1. To the person who said there is no Vatican 2 sect, I say: yes, there is the Vatican 2 sect and there is also the Church of Sodom and Gomorrah, with its sodomite and pedophile "priests" and its "pope" who authorizes blessings for sodomite "couples". And although the sect affirms that marriage remains the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, there will surely be "gay weddings" in church one day. We know that modernists like to "evolve" dogmas, so why not this one too ? Jesus recalled the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah and He also recalled that marriage is the indissoluble union of a man and a woman, so this is a condemnation of "gay marriages".

    The whole world is awash with sin against nature, and the modernist entity occupying the Vatican is giving the devil a helping hand in the name of mercy and inclusion. And all this is happening because the V2 sect is reconciled with the world while the Catholic Church is in opposition to the world. "What fellowship is there between light and darkness ? What agreement between Christ and Belial ?" asked St. Paul. When you teach people that hell doesn't exist, that we're all going to heaven, that sin isn't so bad because God is love, you have the present situation. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      I couldn't have said it any better!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. "Notice the topsy-turvy morality: No longer are the perverts commiting sin, rather those who don't condone and celebrate that sin are the sinners."

    It's as if the only bad thing to do is saying that something is bad. Perfectly in line with Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. cairsahr__stjoseph,
      Absolutely. Crowley was a Satanist, and the so-called "new morality" --where the the only thing condemned is the condemnation of sin---is also Satanic.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. The modernist simply claims that truth changes so now anything goes. You cannot argue with them. The R&Rer will agree with us on objective truth but claims that Popes can err so you cannot argue with them either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. The Modernist is so blind, he cannot see the inherent self-refutation of his claim. Isn't he stating that it is an unchanging truth that "truth changes"?

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. They/Them (the Vatican II sect) have the LGBTQIA. We/Us (Mushroom Sedevacantists; watch out for the Dimond types among others) have the faith.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't get the memo on the definition of 'Mushroom Sedevacantist'.

      Delete
    2. https://novusordowatch.org/2024/03/francis-feels-sorry-for-sede-mushrooms/

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Lee,
      Well stated, my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Great article Intriobo! Can you please tell which translation you use. For 1 Corinthians 6:9 and f. I have Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liars with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Gregory,
      I used the NIV because it doesn't require commentary in this matter. Homo-revisionists claim homosexuals are not condemned. There are two unique Greek words involved with this passage: arsenokoitai and malakoi. They claim that malakoi is ambiguous and could mean simply “weak” or “soft,” while arsenokoitai refers to pedophiles. If St. Paul meant this, the Greek word "paiderastes" for pederast would have been used. We have the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition to guide us.

      The word arsenokoitai means "arseno" (or “male”) and "koite" (or “bed”). It literally means “man-bedder.” That is the "active sodomite," while malakoi is the passive and more effeminate sodomite. They "go together." If we had a pope, a Translation of the Bible more suited to point out these facts in view of the heresies spouted would, in my opinion, be drawn up and promulgated. Therefore, "men who have sex with men" is blunt and to the point--no commentary from theologians necessary to further explain.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the awesome and knowledgeable response Introibo! I had no doubt that it was a good interpretation. The act is so reprehensible that they avoided talking about it as much as possible if I'm not mistaken. They do not even want to put the thought into the readers minds. Plus all the other verses make it blatantly obvious. They are really shoving this nonsense down our throats, and the useful idiots that go along with it so as to not offend. Heaven help us all.

      Delete
    3. John Gregory,
      My sentiments exactly, my friend! They are (literally) HELL-bent on making people accept (and even celebrate) unnatural vice.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. I have no doubt Introibo that we are in the endtimes . I left the Vatican Two Sect two months ago and came to a sedevacantist chapel.Most of people in the world today are blind but the Church Fathers ,etc and our Lady warned us. God have mercy on us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:57
      Congratulations on your conversion my friend! These are very scary times, indeed. However, let us not despair and stay close to the True Mass and Sacraments, while praying the Rosary for Our Heavenly Mother's protection. Let us fight the good fight of the One True Faith, trust in the Sacred Heart, and we will be prepared for whatever may come.

      Keeping you, as a new convert, in my prayers, that God may grant you perseverance and growth in the Faith.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much for your kind words and prayers. I am very blessed . I came across several youtube video's of Bishop Pivarunas giving clear instructions how the Vatican Two Sect is not the Catholic Church. I was shocked as I had been blind and never knew. I did a online search for a CMRI priest to contact and the rest is history.

      I am in the process of sending a letter to my former Novus Ordo "priest" to explain why I left. He is a absolute hypocrite with a forked mouth misleading good people. He "says" a early Latin Mass(1962) and then the Novus Ordo meal on a Sunday which he dresses up with nice vestments and incense. He preaches about certain errors but never condemns the local "Bishop" or Frankie. There is no way round it he is in full communion with these fakes.

      Are you and your good readers able to give me some advice on what I should put in my letter. Thank you

      I am a middle aged single man who is basically out on my own . I am in a good professional job but it is hard . I have asked the CMRI and SSPV Sisters to pray for me.

      May I ask something else . Do you hold that Bishop Markus Ramolla has a valid Episcopal Consecration?

      God bless

      Delete
    3. @anon2:33
      1. In your letter, remember these points:
      * Do NOT attack him personally, or he will not be open to anything you have to say

      * Do NOT mention the pedophile scandal. The V2 sect is false, but not because of that reason.

      * Point out the fact that the Church cannot give error or evil to Her members (dogma of Indefectibility), BUT Francis and V2 have given error and evil. Therefore, appearances to the contrary, the V2 sect is NOT the Roman Catholic Church.

      I published a post "A Sedevacantist Primer" that you can copy in parts to show exactly why the V2 sect is not the Church, using citations to Church authority. Pre and post-V2 ecclesiology is mutually exclusive. EITHER the Church was wrong from 33AD until V2, OR something went seriously wrong, and a sect was created about 60 years ago which is wrong. The Church survives through Traditionalists.

      See https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/02/a-sedevacantist-primer.html

      2. I believe Bp. Ramolla to be a valid bishop.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Thank you for your kind advice and help again. No , I will not attack this "priest"

      Several more questions :

      1, Before I left the Novus Ordo I said to him that there was quite alot of material online that called into question the Post Vatican Two Ordination rite. His answer was the Church can't give invalid orders.

      2,I found in my years most folk did not know even basic answers on the catechism or dogma. Most said don't worry about those things which I could not believe .

      3,Everything was John Paul 2 and Medjugorje. Have you written anything on this fake apparition?

      4,Last year when the fake Novus Ordo bishop came to do a parish visit , the "priest' advised no one was to kneel and receive on the tongue which was the custom every time which shocked me . We had to listen to garbage preached.

      5,Did you find it hard when you were single. What did you find helped beside a good prayer and spiritual life. I have no friends . Most Women have no problem sleeping round with men which disgusted me . I have had no luck finding a decent woman and been hurt many times . I did not know how bad women could treat you .

      6, Beside's english ,do you speak any other lanuage?Did you learn latin at school?

      God bless you and all your readers .

      P.S. I would find it very interesting if your other reader's could comment on their experience on leaving the Novus Ordo after finding the Truth .Thank you

      Delete
    5. My experience with the Vatican 2 sect was really bad. What finally did it for me was when the “priest” put the “communion” in a bowl and a big cup next to it. He the parishioners to “help yourselves to the bread and wine.” I walked out and never came back. I read a pamphlet by Fr Cekada and started doing research on the Internet. One year later (2013) I started attending a Traditionalist Chapel. Been happy ever since!

      Delete
    6. Thank you for comment about leaving the Novus Ordo. It would be good if more could come forward and tell their story.

      Delete
    7. @anon9:16
      1. Yes, the Church cannot give invalid Orders (or any invalid sacrament). He must first realize that the Vatican II sect is NOT the Catholic Church, and there has been no pope since 1958. The V2 sect CAN give invalid sacraments precisely because it is not the Church.

      2. The state of religious ignorance has never been greater. That's why we got to--and remain in---the Great Apostasy.

      3. Yes. See my post on Medjugorje:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-phony-apparition-of-false-sect.html

      4. Fake "bishop" of a man-made sect.

      5. I'm surprised you have no friends. You seem like an intelligent, sincere person of good will. Try talking to the men at Church. Join a charitable cause (e.g., raise funds to find a cure for cancer, etc.). Good people volunteer for such things. Having very close male friends (who are like brothers to me) is what made being single OK. I made these friends from law school, Church, charitable causes, etc. You will be hurt many times is a sad truth. So was I until I met the woman who would become my wife in my 40s. The way I look at it, the result of being hurt makes you learn what you want in a relationship so you'll recognize the right one when you meet her. Also consider it may be God's Will for you to be in the single vocation. See my post: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/12/single-minded-devotion.html

      6. I did take 2 yrs of Latin, and learned some from Fr. DePauw. I do not speak any other languages. My wife is fluent in several languages, but I've never had time to sit down and learn from her!

      @anon3:49
      Wish I could say I'm surprised by that abomination, but I'm not. I'm glad you found the truth by God's grace!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. I left the Novus Ordo almost five years ago. I didn't tell anyone about my conversion, except one woman who didn't seem to agree with the sedevacantist position. I've had no contact with other Novus Ordo people since. Day after day, it becomes more obvious that the entity occupying the Vatican is not the Catholic Church and that its leader is not a true Pope. How can R&R people believe otherwise ? A true Pope cannot teach error, and the true Church cannot send people to hell with false doctrines and evil rites.

      Delete
    9. Congratulations on your finding the true Catholic Faith!

      Writing a letter to that Novus Ordo priest is a very good idea, given that he seems to be the "conservative" type. If he's of good will, then at least you can give him much food for thought that he would probably never read otherwise on the Internet (it's crazy how viciously anti-sedevacantist most of the semi-trads are, so much that they won't go near a site like Novus Ordo Watch).

      Fr. Frederick Faber, the famous convert from Anglicanism wrote to his own friend who insisted that he should stay in the Anglican Church and fight from within (isn't it the most favorite argument of the R&R people?):
      "We are surely to have our doubts and perplexities but our Church is not to be the very source of these doubts. Yet you [that is, Fr. Faber's friend] admit that your Church is a very heavy cross for you bear. It should not be so."
      This isn't the exact quote, if you're interested I can look for the source, it's somewhere in Fr. Faber's memories I believe.

      Take a look at what Fr. Michael Oswalt wrote in a letter to his former Novus Ordo diocese when he realized he had not been ordained a true priest by the Novus Ordo and decided to leave the sect:

      https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/rejecting-the-imposter-church-letter-to-the-clergy-of-the-diocese-of-rockford/

      As Introibo said, be as polite and calm as possible. He should be aware that it is not your whim, some passing emotion, or a personal opinion you have about the Latin Mass being more beautiful or Bergoglio's antics too outrageous to be endured any longer. It is, first and foremost, a theological matter.

      God Bless You,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    10. Joanna S.:

      Great suggestions!

      Fr. Faber: “…the Visible Church, the Bride of Christ, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth… We are to have doubts and perplexities; but surely the Church is to support us under them, not to be the very fountain of them. We are to be cross-bearers; but where are we ever led to be prepared for anything so terrible as that our Church is to be our cross? Yet you acknowledge your Church to be itself a very realizable cross to you: your light is darkness; alas! that it should be so. ”
      “…Nowhere do we read that the cross of the Church would be our cross… and the loss for you, sad for you, what should be your sure guide in life, is your darkness and your cross.”

      That’s what I have handy, I think it is from his “Examination of the Grounds for Remaining in the Anglican Communion”.

      @anon2:57
      God Bless, and congrats on your conversion! Once I found out the truth, I just stopped going to the NO. We asked the parish office to take our names off the mailing list, and they said “Ok”.

      -Seeking Truth

      Delete
    11. Seeking Truth

      The folk at the parish office, did they ask where you were going now?

      What are some of the best Traditional books you like to read?

      Delete
    12. Seeking Truth,

      that's the one! Thank you for the exact quote, my friend!

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    13. Anon5:05,

      No, they didn't say or ask anything else, just said Ok.

      I have not read many traditional books. I enjoy listening to sermons on apologetics.

      -S.T.

      Delete
  7. I was born into novus ordo (they still refuse my requests for excommunication, which I don't need but I want to stick it to them). I'm an auditor. The number of red flags is so massive. Part of hell who accept LIES of novus ordo will be mulling over incredible evidence they so easily discarded. Sspx and novus ordo really despise the truth

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was looking for "traditional" examination of conscience. I found a few, but one was Do you accept lgtbq.... nonsense. Satan is working hard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Raymond,
      It's amazing how all the sexual perversion has crept in everywhere. The V2 sect will soon have "LGBTQIAA++" iniquity as part of everything they do. Maybe "Pope James Martin I" is not too far off. God have mercy.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, surveys at work asked if the person was straight, gay, bisex. etc... Question after question. Then finally about the actual job.
      Is there a mystical body of satan? Would it be freemasonry and communism? When evil comes out, it seems highly coordinated, worldwide... Build back better , vax, same talking points. Do you believe , "In the end My Immaculate Heart will Triumph..." I do, but many heavy hitters in sedevacantists world don't.

      THANK YOU FOR WORK!

      Delete
    3. My understanding is that the word homosexual was invented by a German sodomite activist in the 18th century and didn't exist prior to this. The words homosexual and heterosexual were designed to give the appearance that his activism was based upon science, as was the also the case with pedophile sodomite Alfred Kinsey in the 1950s when he used surveys of prisoners and prostitutes to try and claim that the general US population were engaged in all kinds of perverted behaviours and that these were normal.

      In truth there is nothing scientific backing any of it. All of it is sinful and this much is clear: God punishes those who engage in such behaviours by the blinding of their intellects. They believe that they have contracted sexually transmitted diseases and take all sorts of toxic cures from so-called doctors that are in reality just quacks.

      You can read about how they die young in Bp Tihamer Toth's book "Youth and Chastity" but they die young not because the doctors have failed to save them from sexually transmitted diseases, but because the doctors had treated them with arsenic and mercury-containing compounds that lead to early deaths.

      In reality there is no scientific evidence for sexually transmitted disease, as has been shown by Dr Sam Bailey in her many videos on these topics. The evidence claiming this is the case doesn't prove their claims and rather disproves them for HIV, Gonorrhoea, Herpes and Syphillis. It's just that no-one has been given the grace to go back and read the science.

      Going back to your claim that the Church condemns homosexuality. I would argue that the Church condemns sodomy and this irrespective of who is perpetrating the act and with whom. In truth all forms of sexual activity outside of conjugal act between husband and wife with procreation of the species as the intent are sinful. What the church condemns is sin and all are sinners. There isn't a specific class/community/culture of people. They aren't a group of their own. They are sinners like everyone else and they aren't special. They're just bigger sinners. Removing the idea that they are special and have a unique identity that they should take pride in is a key part of the battle in opposing them. They're no more special than the drug addict, the adulterer, the embezzler, the murderer or the extortionist.

      Delete
    4. John Raymond,
      I'm glad you get something out of this blog! All glory to God, for any good the writing here does!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. There are only two kingdoms on earth. They encompass all the men that have, do and will exist. The Kingdom of God is composed of her members and those within her with an efficacious desire, the rest are in the kingdom of Satan -- No matter how nice, ignorant and good willed they seem.

      Delete
    6. My previous post should read:

      There are only two kingdoms on earth. They encompass all the men that have, do and will exist. The Kingdom of God is composed of her members [of the Catholic Church] and those within her with an efficacious desire, the rest are in the kingdom of Satan -- No matter how nice, ignorant and good willed they seem.

      I guess members of the Catholic Church in the state of mortal sin, and non-members within the Church with a supernatural faith but not charity/supernatural grace are members of the kingdom of God but belong to Satan.

      I would be interested in an anyone's thoughts about that.

      Delete
    7. Good comment John Gregory .I liked your writing . Look forward to more in the near future.

      Paul

      Delete
    8. Thank you very much Paul! My last sentence should read, in order to be precise and avoid the lack of precision that some theologians taught and is found in some catechisms these past couple of centuries:

      //I guess members of the Catholic Church in the state of mortal sin, and non-members within the Church with a supernatural faith but not charity/supernatural grace are [within] of the kingdom of God/Catholic Church but belong to Satan.//

      As we know the Mystical Body of Christ IS the Catholic Church. Its membership does not spread wider than the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is visible and has a visible hierarchy, that in the last days is eclipsed but still exists. We also know that members of the Catholic Church are those who profess the faith, partake of the sacraments and submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. It is visible and can be pointed out, even until the end of time. The protestants after the reformation believed there was no salvation outside the Church as well as Catholics, but they believed the Church was invisible and composed only of the good people going to heaven. The Catholic Church teaches that the Church is visible and is composed of people both good and evil, many of whom will go to heaven, and I believe, many more who will go to Hell.

      The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost. No one can disagree with that. The idea that people can be "members" of the "soul" of the Church is imprecise at best. Even if it is found in catechisms. They teach the right thing, non-members can be saved within the Catholic Church, but in the wrong way, that the non-members are "members" of the "soul" of the Church. "Soul" is used by analogy to represent the Roman Catholic Church's inner bonds of unity. Baptism of desire is an efficacious desire to be member of the Church through baptism. If they were already "members" they wouldn't need to desire it.

      The inner bonds of unity are virtues and gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, charity and the rest. One can be within the Church with a supernatural faith but cannot be saved within the Church, member or not, unless he has supernatural charity i.e. unless he is in a state of sanctifying grace. Actual grace is found in and outside of the Church. Sanctifying grace can only be obtained within the Church.

      Non-members can be saved within the Church. Members can be damned within it. Of course, the reverse is more commonly true. As members we have many aids that non-members do not have such as sure doctrine, efficacious disciplines and most importantly, the Mass and sacraments, especially, Baptism, Penance and the Holy Eucharist, which also makes Holy Orders very important :o)

      The outer bonds of unity, often referred to as the "body" of the Church are what constitutes membership and is visible. The profession of faith, partaking of the sacraments and submission to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

      Saint Robert Bellarmine, considered the greatest doctor on ecclesiology according to Monsignor Fenton, taught the body and soul ANALOGY while fighting against the idea of their being any kind of membership other than what he defined and whose teaching on this topic Pope Pius XII made official and infallible. It was the protestants he was refuting by teaching that the Church is visible (due to visible membership as in any other corporate body). Over the period of centuries theologians began taking his analogy literally and started teaching it [the opposite of what Bellarmine intended to teach] to seminarians and in their manuals. And of course it made it into some catechisms.

      This led to what we found being taught by the v2 anti-Christ Church, that the mystical body of Christ which "subsists" in the Catholic Church is composed of MEMBERS from all types of religions or none at all, even though their "membership" may be imperfect. It led to the teaching that the mystical body of Christ is wider than the Catholic Church. It led to the protestant teaching that Bellarmine was trying to combat.

      Delete
    9. Continued:

      That is why I stress that non-members can be saved within the Church, but not that they are "members" of the "soul" of the Church. Because literally taken, it is false. They are not members at all.

      I guess people may subconsciously think that one cannot be within the Church unless they are members. Think of Noe, and if someone was smart enough to ask him to be allowed on the ark before it was too late. They would be saved within the ark but not as members of his family.

      Delete
    10. Fascinating. I know bare bones of this. In 1974 our freshman high school "Sisters" said we would be doing a project on "5 great religions" . I was horrified. I bet if Father Saenz had talked to me later that day, I would have become sede. I was horrified at so called religion teachers. Like asking what 10th graders thought about abortion or death penalty. I thought- I don't care. The Church had spoken on tjese. Show me where, darn it!!! Of course, they hid those Catholic sources from us.

      Delete
    11. @anon4:07
      I agree with you that "sodomite" is more appropriate than "homosexual." I do not believe sexually transmitted diseases are fake, but that is not a theological issue, so believe as you wish.

      I will address what you said:
      "Going back to your claim that the Church condemns homosexuality. I would argue that the Church condemns sodomy and this irrespective of who is perpetrating the act and with whom. In truth all forms of sexual activity outside of conjugal act between husband and wife with procreation of the species as the intent are sinful. What the church condemns is sin and all are sinners. There isn't a specific class/community/culture of people. They aren't a group of their own. They are sinners like everyone else and they aren't special. "


      They are not a "special group" insofar as they should not be considered a protected class. This I concede. However, they are in a class that is especially destructive of society. In human law, "a criminal is a criminal" but those committing misdemeanors are given a separate status from felons--as well as different prisons.

      Homosexuals are a real and present danger. If you think I'm exaggerating, please read my post:

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-sin-of-pride.html

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    12. Consider list of requests year by year by homosexuals which are now fierce demands, where they can bankrupt you,claim you etc

      Delete
    13. Very interesting John Raymond. The two issues that got me to take the Catholic Faith seriously and have respect for it was the fact that it has definitive teachings on abortion and contraception.

      Delete
  9. What do you think of artificial intelligence? Is it beneficial or not? Have you made a post about it, or will you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:03
      There are real dangers, and yes, I'm working on a post about it!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Hello Introibo

    I was interested to read the above comments of someone who has found the True Church .

    I have a friend who is also single who has not been to the Novus Ordo for several months and praying he does not go back. He told me yesterday that he got a text message from a man at that parish asking what has happened to him. He was active in several groups. He said the message said how are you with a love heart next to it . That man is married . I don't think it is appropriate for a man to send another man a message with a red love heart . I sure Introibo you agree. My friend said he felt sick .

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:42
      I agree that sending a love heart is not something a man (single or married) should be sending to another man. It gives off a sodomite vibe. There are ways to express friendship and care without a heart, or other symbols typically reserved for romantic couples.

      The only exceptions would be a heart sent to (a) your father, (b) your son, (c) your biological brother.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, yrs, A lot of good. Ty. I took many of my Dad's horrific heretical books. I wrote them up with "Poison" "From hell" many places so if I pass no one will not have been warned.
      My intent is to give them to Catholic Clergy or blogger like yourself, as resource to fight Vatican II sect. Roncalli, Dr. Raymond Brown. L
      Free of course. Anytime any Catholic priest or Catholic blogger (ie sede, belief in bod) is in Austin TX I'd be glad to hand off. Hell Section of Seminary Library, sort of idea

      Delete
  11. Introibo

    May I ask have you written anything exposing the how the Novus Ordo "Mass" is not the Mass which i can give to some friends whom I hope can leave the Vatican Two Sect. Thank you and God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:55
      Here is a post:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/04/mass-extinction-what-modernists-removed.html

      Two from my guest poster Dominic Caggeso:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-novus-ordo-abomination-of.html

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-novus-ordo-abomination-of.html

      This post I wrote on "Mass Destruction:"
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/03/mass-destruction.html

      I also recommend the book, "The Ottaviani Intervention."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. Another subject is the world take over of Islam . Look at once Catholic Europe. They are the only ones who are having 7 or more children . Just frighting.

    Does any guess what % of Novus Ordo Catholc couples would be using the pill ,etc to have no children?

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul,
      Please see my post on the evil of the Mohammedan religion:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/11/an-evil-non-prophet-religion.html

      What percent of Vatican II sect contracept for no (or artificially limited) children? As of 2024, based on the last statistics I saw about a year ago, I'd guesstimate over 90%.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. Introibo,

    Thank you for your work on the post. Very informative.

    They certainly do call evil good, and good as evil. I read this recently, “First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legitimize (legalize) evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.” Hmm… where are we at now regarding this topic?!

    Everyone, please pray for my friend and her mother during this time. Thank you.

    Have a blessed upcoming Pentacost!
    -S.T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seeking Truth,
      I will indeed pray for your friend and her mother at Mass tomorrow for the glorious Feast of Pentecost, and in my Rosary thereafter.
      Happy Pentecost Sunday, my friend!

      God Bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. I have a brown Scapular with initials on each corner of a Cross. Does anyone know what the initials 'AVUN" stand for,please?
    God bless,
    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Those scapulars are made by "Mantle of Mary" and sold through the "Apostoli Viae Community." I imagine AP stands for "Apostoli Viae" and probably some Latin signification with "UN" regarding them. They are V2 sect. Doesn't affect the scapular, but not needed for any reason.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I discovered it means,
      "Members of the Apostolic right road or path." Is it OK to wear since it is a Novus Ordo community?
      I've held the Sede opinion for 14 yrs & want absolutely nothing to do Montini's heretical sect.

      God bless and thank you in advance,
      Andrew

      Delete
  15. Greetings to all, dear friends. I read that a man named Miguel Echeverría, a Spanish and Sedevacantist Catholic whom I have as a reference, has published a series of comments about the BOD in his media. I share them translated from Spanish, could you tell me if what you say is correct?:

    "THE DOGMAS OF THE CHURCH MUST BE INTERPRETED ONLY IN THEIR ORIGINAL SENSE

    Especially in our time of general apostasy, it is important to consider that the statements of the Magisterium are not reinterpreted and progress is made in their understanding, as taught by Vatican-2 and modernism in general. They are read, understood, accepted and accepted.

    For example, Trent said: "Whoever says that without baptism someone can be saved, let him be anathema."

    And although all theologians and private doctors until the end of the centuries say that there are other different ways to be saved, such as baptism of desire, the obligation of a Catholic is to accept the words of the infallible Magisterium and send everything else to the trash can.

    And doing the opposite, that is, accepting the contrary word of the “experts”, is what has led the majority of the current baptized to the sect of perdition of Vatican II.

    And in this regard, this ex cathedra declaration of the Magisterium is essential:

    “Hence, we must also perpetually maintain that sense of the sacred dogmas that the Holy Mother Church once declared and we must never deviate from that sense under the pretext and name of a deeper understanding.”
    Pope Pius IX, _Vatican Council I_, session 3, chap. 2 on revelation, 1879, DZ 1800"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Young Reader from Spain,
      I did not publish the second part to this because this person is a Feeneyite heretic, and I have answered many times before. I will give here the links to my posts.

      Let me say this: Feeneyites all read from the same script. That's because they share two fundamental errors:

      1. They interpret ex cathedra decisions not according to how the Church understands and always understood them through Her approved theologians. They reject the theologians (as did Protestants), and privately interpret those dogmatic canons and decrees, just as the Protestants do with the Bible.

      2. They REJECT the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) as equally infallible to the extraordinary Magisterium--as defined at the Vatican Council of 1870.
      They use the Extraordinary Magisterium as a "checklist" against which they will personally assess whether or not the UOM is in accordance with what THEY THINK those ex cathedra decrees and canons mean.

      If it doesn't "match up" decisions of the UOM may be ignored. Like the R&R, Feeneyites believe that any decision not proclaimed by the Extraordinary Magisterium can be ignored and discarded at will; even deeming it "heretical." They are heretical for (among other reasons) rejecting the equal infallibility of the UOM.

      Miguel says as much when he proclaims, "...the obligation of a Catholic is to accept the words of the infallible Magisterium and send everything else to the trash can." That is heretical.

      On the errors of the Feeneyites, see:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/07/feeneyite-follies.html

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/08/more-feeneyite-follies.html

      For an excellent summary of many of my posts, See
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/11/gen-z-feeneyites.html

      Bobby Dimond "Brother Michael" of the Most Heretical Phony Monastery here in NY, made the sorry mistake of coming onto my blog and challenging what I wrote! Read for yourself the beatdown I gave him in two posts:

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-dimonds-ensoulment-and-baptism-of.html

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/03/contending-for-faith-part-25.html

      These posts will answer ALL of Miguel's so-called "arguments."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much, Introibo; The articles have been very useful to me.

      There are two issues related to Sedevacantism that I don't like. I hope my comment doesn't offend anyone.

      The first is that there are people who establish themselves, in the face of the current situation, as bearers of the Truth and pontificate from an apparent lack of knowledge. I came across people who claimed, for example, that Mozart's music could not be heard by a true Catholic because he belonged to Freemasonry. I had to ask if this was true or not on this blog. Others claim that the "Lefebvrist" and "Thucist" bishops and priests are frauds, and that their orders are invalid. This happens with blogs like the Spanish ones "Sursum Corda" or "El integralista mexicano." There is a lot of confusion about this.

      The second is that there are many conclavist groups that believe that a pope can be elected as the one who buys the bread, and there are people who hold these positions and follow "popes" elected in meetings of conclavist bishops or even at home with a group of friends.

      I think these people make many people believe that Sedevacantism is baseless, not serious, or the stuff of dangerous sects. I don't know what you think.

      Young reader from Spain

      Delete
    3. Young Reader from Spain,
      I agree with you! Now, you must continue, by God's grace and with what you know, to continue avoiding those groups.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. The Catholic Church cannot, will not canonized a heretic. St. Alphonsus Liquori taught baptism of desire. Then the church made him a doctor.

    The feeneyites should be honest and declare sedevacante from at least date of canonization of this great saint.ask them why they don't. Or rather, c stay away from these heretics

    ReplyDelete