Monday, June 17, 2024

Dungeons & Dragons & Vatican II


Other than to place the link to my post here each week, I rarely go on "X" (formerly called "Twitter"). When I do look to see what people are saying, it never fails to reinforce what horrible shape the world is in. The last time I went on, the passage from Hosea 4:6 immediately came to mind: "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge..." The members of the Vatican II sect are woefully ignorant of theology, and not just as concerns the papacy. This culpable ignorance bleeds into how they live every aspect of their lives and has devastating consequences.  This is true even among the so-called "conservative" members of the sect. 

I saw an X post from a young mother of three children (pregnant with her fourth child) and goes by the moniker Daughter of Wolves. The name seemed odd. She describes herself as a "Catholic" (Vatican II sect) homeschooling mom. She presents as being in her late twenties. The next part made it clear as to the reason for the strange name: she is a Dungeons & Dragons (aka "D&D") enthusiast, who was taking a poll as to what she should name her "human Circle of the Moon Druid" character in the game. 

For those of you who are unaware, D&D is one of several fantasy role playing games (FRP). It was introduced in 1974 by Gary Gygax (d. 2008), and became a sensation in the 1980s. Gygax was a member of the Jehovah's Witness sect; it is rumored that he became a "born-again" Protestant just prior to his death. D&D, as I will demonstrate, is thoroughly occult. When I informed this woman, she laughed and said I was "really dumb.” I challenged her to debate me on an online neutral debating platform, and I would prove my contention. She refused, ostensibly because she's too busy with her kids. Interesting, since she has hours at her disposal to frequently post on X and play D&D. 

The reason I challenge Feeneyites and other enemies of the Faith to debate is three-fold. First, once they see the arguments, with God's grace, they may be persuaded to leave falsehood for truth. Second, it would give others exposure to the arguments and possibly make converts. Finally, it shows that most people (esp. those against the Faith) can't defend their beliefs and would rather be with a comforting lie than the upsetting truth which would demand they make changes in their beliefs and lives. No one has ever taken me up on my challenge. Earlier this year, Bobby Dimond ("Brother Peter") came to challenge me in the comments to a post. Needless to say, I enjoyed giving Bobby an intellectual beat-down so others could see just how false the Feeneyite position is against the dogma of Baptism of Desire. 

For this reason, the first Monday of each month is my "Contending For The Faith" series of apologetics so we may, as our first pope tells us, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1Peter 3:16). Therefore, I was hoping to take "Daughter of Wolves" and her family away from occult danger, and perhaps to the One True Church as well. 

Another person jumped into the thread, another Vatican II sect member going by the name "Darthjimscott." As soon as I saw "Darth" I knew he was into the occult with the Star Wars franchise. He claimed D&D was harmless and not at all like the Ouija board, to which I compared it. He further used a citation to Wojtyla's Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church, which defines superstition, and said he is not involved with superstition by playing D&D. Finally, he said D&D was no different than Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I challenged him to debate and (no surprise) he wouldn't. 

Lastly, some persons have posted, now and in the past, that my blog has good material, but when I claim that many things (like D&D) are occult, it seems like I see Satan everywhere. I usually just  politely reply that the problem is not that I see Satan everywhere, but that most people refuse to see him anywhere. We are living in the Great Apostasy, with a false sect claiming to be the Catholic Church. Is it really a surprise that Satan is having the best time ensnaring souls with an occult revival/explosion in the wake of Vatican II? 

This post will explain the occult danger of FRP games like D&D, and how they continue unabated in popularity. The abysmal failure of the Vatican II sect to protect its members will also be demonstrated. 

 (I would like to credit the various sources of information culled for the writing of this post. Besides the cited sources, I also wish to acknowledge Gary Gygax, "The Dungeons and Dragons Magic System," The Best of the Dragon,  [1980]; Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players' Handbook, [1978]; Gary Gygax, Dungeons and Dragons Players' Handbook, [1975] as among my primary sources. Special acknowledgement as well to the "Spiritual Counterfeits Project's" numerous pamphlets which were highly informative. I also browsed numerous book and online resources about FRP games which were incorporated herein. I take no credit other than putting it all together in a readable post.---Introibo). 

FRP Games: The Facts from the Beginning
Dungeons and Dragons began as an offshoot of the war games of the late 1950s and 1960s, such as Bismarck and Gettysburg. These games involved the use of strategy and the playing out of historical battles with miniature soldiers and landscapes. Thus, war-gaming of the recent past was extended into the ancient past along a "swords and sorcery" theme, where the life and battles of various heroes or wizards could be played out. 

D&D is an elaborate fantasy game played out primarily in one's mind using creative imagination. There are dice, although no cards or boards; there are no strict rules, only guidelines. There are also no absolutes, no boundaries, and no time limitations, since FRP games are not single experience contests but ongoing adventures or campaigns traversing from one episode to another. In theory, a single game could last a lifetime. The "dungeon master," or referee, is someone who is very experienced in D & D. He shapes the fantasy milieu with the aid of maps, monster lists, combat tables, and the psychological and geographical terrain the players will travel. This may involve multilevel dungeons, various occult planes of existence, towns, and other worlds or time periods. All of this is mapped out on graph paper, complete with wizards, treasures, monsters, magical objects, traps, potions, demons, and the gods who reside throughout the various regions.

Each player selects a character whose role he assumes, such as a fighter, assassin, monk, druid, magic user, or thief. The thief, apparently, is one of the best characters to emulate according to the players' handbook. Characters are assigned strengths or weaknesses on a scale of 3 to 18 and six principle attributes, including intelligence, strength, and wisdom—all determined by a toss of the dice. A racial stock is also selected from among gnomes, humans, dwarfs, and elves. Each player must decide his or her character's alignment, whether good, neutral, or evil.

Little has changed in the 50 years since D&D was introduced. There is a renewed interest in these D&D-type FRP games (and D&D itself) among "conservative" Vatican II sect members and (sadly) even some Traditionalists. According to one source, as of 2023:
  • More than 50 million people play Dungeons & Dragons.
  • Dungeons & Dragons is most popular in Canada.
  • D&D grew 65% in just one year in Europe.
  • D&D fans watch 4.3 billion minutes of D&D-related media yearly.
  • Dungeons & Dragons has been steadily growing since 2014.
  • It’s been the leading tabletop game since it came out.

The Many Problems with FRP and D&D
A major problem with FRP is that the worldview in which most of these games are conducted is either not Catholic or anti-Catholic, and although played out in fantasy, it can still have an impact on young or impressionable minds. In the past, similar games at least had a concrete historical setting, often with a moral basis underlying the conflict. Today the games comprise a mixture of fantasy, mythology, and often the occult. Most players participate without ever considering the worldview in which they are role playing. This means that they do not consider how this might be contrary to their own philosophy and beliefs.

FRP games are addictive, and many people will play for hours on end. After such exposure, players may not notice subtle negative changes that may be occurring in their lives as a result of playing the game. If they do notice, they may not attribute the changes to the games. If you contrast the general perspective of D&D and related FRP games with a Traditionalist Catholic worldview, you can see the possible impact such games may have. The issue is to what extent a "crossover" effect may occur, such that aspects of the role being played in an extended fantasy game are gradually adopted in real life.

For example, most FRP games present no system of absolute morality; morality is for the individual to choose or reject as the player sees fit. Thieves, assassins, sorcerers, and witches may all be role-played and even developed into a kind of "alter ego." In general, FRP games perceive the universe as amoral. Good and evil are presented as equal, opposite poles, and both the characters and the "gods" are expected to align themselves with one pole or the other.

Although each player brings his own innate moral standards, the game itself provides the player with the potential for laying aside those standards. Thus, in many of these games, an immoral use of power, sex, or violence is acceptable. Even activities such as stealing, mutilation, human sacrifice, murder, and rape can be incorporated into the games. Only the pragmatism of the overriding situation and the good or evil characters involved determine the best course of action, or what is "right" or "wrong." Obviously, this contrasts with the Traditionalist Catholic worldview, in which morality is absolute and grounded in the character and nature of a holy God.

The theology of most FRP games is not Catholic. Probably because of the diversity they offer, FRP games generally present a polytheistic rather than monotheistic worldview; that is, they present the belief in many gods rather than the One True God. As the D&D manual, Deities and Demigods, asserts, "No fantasy world would be complete without the gods, mighty deities who influence the fate of men and move mortals about like chess pieces ..." (pg. 37). This contrasts with the Catholic teaching that there is only One True God and that this God is moral, not amoral. Most FRP games also have un-Christian or even anti-Christian views of the creation, man, and life after death. 

To summarize: The first major problem with FRPs is that they are played within a polytheistic and amoral worldview which is in stark contrast to reality. This overarching worldview can begin to influence the players, especially those who play the most often. The specific dangers of FRPs (in general) and D&D (in particular) will be examined.

The Four Dangers of FRPs
1. Fantasy. There is a good use of fantasy but also an evil use. Fantasy role playing games in general seem to promote the wrong use of fantasy by presenting character roles that assume an amoral use of power, violence, immorality, and sorcery—all things God hates. "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." (Philippians 4:8).

Furthermore, such role playing could affect the lives of players, especially preadolescent and adolescent players, who are still in the formative stages of developing their personal philosophy, worldview, moral system, and self-image.

2. Morality. FRP games in general promote an amoral universe. In fact, the games contain many activities and practices that God forbids and condemns. Thus FRP games have the potential to undermine or negate the influence of Christian morality in a player's life. In D&D you are allowed to murder, rape. steal, and offer sacrifice to false "gods." 

3. Escape. Escape, like fantasy, can be used in a wholesome and healthy way or it can be misused. The complexity and ego-involvement in fantasy role playing games in general appears to provide the potential for an unhealthy use of escape, or at the least a wasting of valuable time.

4, The Occult. By far, the occult is the worst and most dangerous part of FRPs and D&D. Dungeons and Dragons was a forerunner of a greater acceptance of the occult in America. It became a socially accepted means of dwelling on pagan, mythological, and occult practices. 

The main characteristic of  D&D is the element of sorcery, also called magick. This fantasy game uses terms common to the occult, such as: conjure, spell casting, divination, channeling, invocation, evocation, and summon. One form of sorcery allows the character to practice a spell called the death spell or finger of death. Some characters are required to perform rituals that call upon evil spirits

An article in the February 1999 issue of  Dragon, a D&D magazine, lists a series of spells with names like “Chant of Dark Summons,” “Chorus of Wrath,” “Danse Macabre,” “Melody of Madness,” and “Nightmare Lullaby.” The description of one spell concludes that “[U]se of this spell is unequivocally evil” (pp. 84-88).

Characters who make mistakes can suffer punishments such as insanity, which includes being possessed by an outside entity or being seized by the desire to kill those closest to you. This role-playing by the emotionally immature or unstable can lead to mental problems.

This game’s scenarios and occult terms desensitize players to that which is bizarre and morbid, creating an acceptance of the deviant as the norm. At the very least, D&D and related FRPs expose players to occult terms and concepts. Players may want to further study the occult and engage in such occult activity. 

Even some occultists have utilized these games, either as a means to introduce occult ideas through entertainment, or as a way to encourage people to accept genuine necromancy. In 1980, Philip Bonewitz published Authentic Thaumaturgy: A Professional Occultist on Improving the Realism of Magic Systems in Fantasy Simulating Games for just this purpose.

The problem is that this is not merely an "innocent" introduction to the occult, but as stated, what is played out in the imagination as a game can also be pursued in a serious manner in real life. Moreover,  the individual player has no guarantee that just because he is "merely" engaged in use of the imagination, demons will not respond when beckoned. In fact, many psychics and mediums (such as Erika Gabriel) recommend the use of the fantasy imagination to help foster psychic development and actual spirit contact.

The playing of the game could, therefore, engage demonic activity. In D&D there is also a preponderance of spells for different characters, levels, categories, and expectations. Some spells are bestowed by the gods; others are not. Most spells have a verbal component, which means they must be spoken to be effective and the player finds himself reciting an actual Wiccan spell.

The "magic circle, pentagram, and thaumaturgic triangle" have all been incorporated into Dungeons and Dragons. Players are taught how to use these symbols as forms of protective inscriptions in a fashion similar to the way they are actually used in Wicca and Satanism. The occult practice of "astral projection," or "soul travel," can be found in a few FRP games, including D&D. In astral projection, it is believed that the soul can depart from the body and travel to other dimensions and planes. According to Dungeons and Dragons, this practice is possible by various means, including specific magic spells and "psionic" disciplines.

In Dungeons and Dragons, necromantic spells not only heal wounds, restore strength, limbs, and life, and resurrect the dead, but they also bring forth the dead for divinational and other purposes, in a manner similar to that in spiritism. If a cleric, for example, needs information, he knows that he may summon the dead with a spell. "Upon casting a speak with the dead spell the cleric is able to ask several questions of a dead creature in a set period of time and receive answers according to the knowledge of the creature" (See Dungeons and Dragons Players' Handbook, pg. 48; Emphasis mine).

The D&D Monster Manual has a detailed section devoted solely to demons. They are named, described (complete with an artist's sketch), and categorized according to their varying abilities and powers. Players are encouraged to use this information in conjunction with certain spells to summon these beings. Thus, a cleric, for example, using a seventh level gate spell, knows that he "must name the demon, devil, demigod, god, or similar being he or she desires to make use of the gate and come to the cleric's aid." He is also told that there is "a 100% certainty that something will step through the gate"(pg. 53). Occult alignment with supernatural powers or deities can be found in some of the FRP games. Players must worship a false, pagan "god."

D&D manuals suggest research into the occult. One bibliography recommends E. A. Wallis Budge's The Egyptian Book of the Dead and Sr. James Frazier's The Golden Bough. The former is a potent occult volume chronicling ritualistic preparations and instructions for the dead in their postmortem state; the latter, an anthropological compendium on occult practices in primitive societies. Is this game not, in effect, encouraging its participants to concentrate their investigation on the supernatural and even occult aspects of pagan cultures?

Objections Answered
Objection: These games are mere fantasy. You are not actually engaging in any proscribed activity such as necromancy. To compare D&D to the Ouija board, which is actual necromancy, is absurd.

Response: That the Ouija board is more dangerous than D&D, CONCEDED. That D&D is not occult like the Ouija board, DENIED.  The very nature of D&D, and FRP in general, is such that the imagination is being guided into encounters with nonmaterial entities, forces, or spirits. Those entities, we are told, are mere fantasies with no basis in reality. If, however, those entities do actually exist in the real world, then the line of demarcation between what is pure fantasy and what is actual contact with spiritual, demonic forces becomes extremely abstruse if not entirely nonexistent. This is hardly to infer that there is no difference between actual participation in occult activities and imagining the same, or that every time someone participates in imaginative occult activity one will come in contact with occult forces. I'm simply pointing out that relegating "occult contact" to mere imagination does not guarantee one freedom from demonic influence. Actual mediums have used the imagination to effectuate contact with demons.

Today, classes in psychic and spiritual development use imagination and visualization techniques in their methodology to achieve out-of-body experiences, develop occult powers, and foster contact with spirits. Many of the most popular books on various occult themes allude to these same techniques. Whether one accepts it or not, simple imagination has been used to establish spirit contact (e.g., when an imaginary "inner adviser" suddenly becomes a real being). There are numerous cases in occult literature where demons have actively sought out human contacts under the guise of an "imagined" patron god, ascended master, inner counselor, or spirit helper.

Is it sinful (like actual necromancy) to fantasize about it? I have no Magisterial authority to declare anything a sin. However, consider the following:
  • it has the real potential to open a gate to the demonic
  • Our Lord said in St. Matthew 5:28, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." We commit sins in word, deed, and thoughts
  • If Jesus considered one's lusting after a woman in his heart (i.e., fantasy) tantamount to adultery, what would He say about someone's pursuing the occult in his mind (i.e., fantasy)? Would He approve, or would He say it was wrong? If one's mind is centered upon the "imaginative" use of occult power, is he not at least tolerating the idea of its use? Furthermore, what about thoughts concerning murder, rape, theft, and worshipping false gods? Ask yourself, "Is this something a Traditionalist Catholic should be doing?" 

Objection: You're not opposed to The Lord of the Rings which has a wizard and casts spells. It's no different from D&D.

Response: Lord of the Rings (LOTR) is not at all like D&D. The "wizard" Gandolf, gets his power from the "One" (God) in a Christian allegory. Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and said as much. The worldview of LOTR is decidedly monotheistic with strict and objective moral values. Incorrect use of power corrupts. The Ring is not to be had (like sin) and if you keep it, your sin will become "precious" to you and totally corrupt you. 

To compare that to a worldview that is polytheistic, amoral, and sanctions fantasy about murder, rape, and sacrificing to false gods, is sheer lunacy.

Objection: Can't you have an FRP without all the occult elements?

Response: Perhaps, but then we are not talking about D&D. There are no "Christian FRPs" as far as I'm aware. I would need to thoroughly investigate any such FRP, to see if it really avoids the serious problems of all FRPs of which I am aware. 

If you take away the occult from D&D, nothing would be left. It's analogous to saying, "Let's play Monopoly without any money, without any buying of real estate, and without trying to get rich." You no longer have Monopoly. (Maybe "Bernie Sanders' Socialism"?). 

Objection: You're a fundamentalist Protestant now. They were the ones condemning D&D back during the "Satanic Panic" of the 1980s.

Reply: The Satanic infestation was real in the 1980s. It was what I call the real take-off of the Occult revival/invasion. There were some exaggerations, but it was very real. I liken it to Senator Joe McCarthy whose only fault was overestimating the number of Communist infiltrators by about 10%. Yes, Protestants sounded the alarm, which shows how inept the Vatican II sect is in protecting its members. It doesn't even try, as it leads them to perdition. Fundamentalist Protestants were also the most vociferous in fighting abortion in the 1980s. They certainly weren't wrong about that either.

Vatican II was Originally Set to Condemn the Occult
 When false pope Roncalli (John XXIII) called Vatican II in 1959, the most eminent and approved theologians drew up the original schemas (drafts) of the documents to be debated and voted upon. These schemas were Catholic to the core. In 1962, the Modernists, with Roncalli helping them, got them scrapped, and new schemas were drawn up by Modernist theologians rehabilitated by "good Pope John." They became the heretical teachings of the Robber Council.

One of the orthodox schemas scrapped was entitled, "The Dogmatic Constitution Defending Intact the Deposit of Faith." The name alone sent chills down the spines of Modernists. For those who think I see Satan everywhere, it was the most Catholic theologians who saw the occult raising its ugly head and wanted to combat it. This was circa 1960--64 years ago when there was still a hierarchy with Magisterial authority and the True Mass and sacraments. After Vatican II sent the One True Church underground, the floodgates were opened, and Satan wasted no time dragging as many souls as possible to Hell. Thus began the Occult Invasion. Here is what para. nos. 33, 34, and 35 of that beautiful schema had to say about the occult:

Para. #33: Such curiosity becomes truly pernicious when it moves believers to give themselves over to the superstition of divination of any form, but especially to that spiritualism that attempts by human effort to evoke sensible communication with spirits or with separated souls in order to attain various information or various helps. "There shall not be found among you anyone who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer.. For the Lord abominates all these things" (Dt 18:10-12). The Apostolic See has not neglected in various of its documents to oppose evil spiritualism with appropriate remedies.

Para. #34: In many regions superstition is creeping widely and is being spread more every day, sometimes also deceitfully under the false title of parapsychology, the discipline whose task it is to explain facts that appear to contradict the ordinary laws of psychology. The Sacred Council declares that the divine law prohibits as a very serious sin against religion both to want to call out the souls of the dead and to wish to establish perceptible communications with them or with any other spirits, however it may be done, publicly or privately, even if the intention is to address only good spirits and the whole exhibition has the appearance of propriety, piety and religion. It forbids all Christians even out of mere curiosity to attend or to promote in any way spiritualist sessions or other meetings of this sort.

Para. #35: The Holy Synod does, however, exhort all the faithful to imitate the example of holy Mother Church by praying for the faithful departed that they may attain the vision of God and intercede with Him for us; it also exhorts them to commend themselves to the holy Angels who in God's fatherly providence guard the human race and are ready by direction, assistance, and enlightenment to help individuals not to succumb to their malicious enemies.

FRP games, including D&D, are seeped in an occult worldview. This worldview can have an adverse affect on participants by desensitizing them to all things occult, and even making a player interested enough to get involved in the occult. Moreover, thinking repeatedly and deeply about the occult can actually open the door to demons. Finally, do you want to subject yourself or others to a worldview that is decidedly polytheistic and amoral? Is perseverating over fantasy acts of murder, rape, and theft something that is mentally healthy or morally acceptable for a member of Christ's One True Church? I must pray for that woman's eyes to be opened that her homeschooled children will not be exposed to such evil.

It's no surprise that when people lack even basic discernment and fail to see the evil present in D&D and FRP games that they are mostly members of the Vatican II sect. After all, they fail to see the phony in the Modernist Vatican who role plays the part of "pope" and leads as many as he can to Hell. 

Addendum: Are Sedevacantists "Protestants"?
To My Readers: "Darth" from "X" came into the comments claiming that Traditionalists (i.e., true Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position) are "Protestants."  Such massive theological ignorance explains why this man plays and defends D&D. This Addendum will expose the culpable ignorance of the charge.---Introibo

Protestants are, by definition, heretics. Heresy is defined as "A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church." (See theologian Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, [1951], pg. 123). It is up to "Darth" to explain what dogma we sedes (Traditionalists) deny. 

No Traditionalist denies the office of the papacy and its prerogatives, like Protestants do. Nor does claiming that a particular claimant (or claimants) to the papacy is (are) illegitimate constitute a heresy. So the most he could claim, is that Traditionalists are schismatic. However, that charge won't stick either. 

According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).  We have many good reasons to outright deny, not just suspect, the validity of Bergoglio's election. (Not to mention Roncalli to Ratzinger). 

Private Interpretation?

The most common reason Traditionalists are wrongfully called "Protestants" is because we use "private judgement" with the papacy like Protestants use private judgement with the Bible. A notorious "recognize and resist" (R&R) bugbear states: Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter the R&R is correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. 'The First See is judged by no one.' (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) 

However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta).  Sedevacantists depose no one, we just recognize a fact that has already happened.

Who are you to judge something heretical?
Another objection frequently advanced is that no matter what the alleged "pope" does, it's not really heresy. For example, JP II kissed the Koran, and Bergoglio was praying with Jews to show respect and try and convert them. Ah, no. Vatican II to which Montini (Paul VI) to Bergoglio (Francis) adhere, is full of heresy. What does Vatican II really teach about false non-Christian religions? In Nostra Aetate, para. #2, we read:

Thus, in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God. Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.

Both of these false, pagan religions are based on the HERESY of pantheism, i.e., the false doctrine that the universe and God are one and the same substance. This contradicts the INFALLIBLE teaching of the Vatican Council of 1870:

CANON 3. If anyone says that God and all things possess one and the same substance and essence: let him be anathema.

There is no "loving, trusting flight towards" the True God which is denied by pantheism. 

However, the root of all the Modernist heresy in Vatican II--from which all the others derive, directly or indirectly--is the false ecclesiology. Lumen Gentium para. #8:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Always, from 33AD until November 21, 1964, it was dogma that the Church of Christ was identical to the Roman Catholic Church. The new ecclesiology teaches there is a "Church of Christ" not identical to the RC Church, but "subsists" there in its fulness because She has all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, the Church of Christ can subsist in other sects (more or less) according to how many "elements of truth" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is OK too and leads to salvation. Hence, Nostra Aetate can praise the "elements of truth" in Buddhism and Hinduism.  The end result: universalism--all are saved regardless of religion. 

More proof--and drawing necessary conclusions
Vatican II and its "popes" teach contrary to everything before:

Wojtyla (JPII):
All the baptized are in Christ's Church. (Ut Unum Sint, para. #42).

Pope Pius XII:
Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not had the misfortune of withdrawing from the body or for grave faults been cut off by legitimate authority. (Mystici Corporis, para. #22). 

Note to "Darth:" Which one is the truth?

Vatican II:
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Lumen Gentium, #15).

Pope Leo XIII:
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
(Satis Cognitum, para. #9).

Note to "Darth:" Which one is the truth? 

I could literally multiply these examples much more, but this suffices to show that Traditional and Modernist (Vatican II) understanding of the nature of the Church are contradictory. Both can be false but both cannot be true. 

Therefore, we can draw one of three conclusions:
1. Post-Vatican II and Pre-Vatican II are both FALSE.
This is the position of the Eastern Heterodox. The Church is not Indefectible. You are now the heretic and unable to defend the Faith.

2. Post-Vatican II is correct and Pre-Vatican II was wrong and/or the "meanings of things changed over time"
This is the position of the Modernists. Christ allowed His Church be be wrong or not possess "the fullness of truth" until Vatican II.

3. Pre-Vatican II is correct and Post-Vatican II is false.
 Despite appearances to the contrary, Vatican II was not a legitimate Ecumenical Council, nor were Roncalli through Francis real popes. They either fell from office or never attained the papacy by the profession of heresy as a private theologian. Result? The Church did not defect and the Gates of Hell have not prevailed. The Vatican II sect is a heretical, man-made religion, and the One True Church continues with Traditionalists.  Welcome to sedevacantism.

Does it sound farfetched? Not if you know the teaching of the Church.  

According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119; Emphasis in original). It should also be noted that the Vatican II "popes" are not "antipopes." An antipope is one whom is elected in opposition to a true pope as a rival claimant (See A Concise Catholic Dictionary, [1943], pg. 36). Roncalli to Bergoglio are "false popes."

Ergo, sedevacantists are not Protestant.

Addendum II: Real Problems with Make-Believe
To My Readers: Never did I even remotely suspect the vituperation I would receive as a result of this post. I have received an incredible number of comments, most of which I cannot publish due to the use of profanity directed at me. When I was growing up here in New York City, there was a saying; "He was so angry, you would think I killed his mother." That expression was used when someone got very upset over something trivial. 

If FRPs are "only games" you would think those who disagree would say something along the lines of "This is silly. It's only a game. Write on other topics, not games." (or words similar). Instead, there has been a non-stop onslaught unlike anything I had before. Even Feeneyites seem level-headed and calm by comparison. If these are mostly the kind of people who play D&D, there is indeed something seriously wrong. Those claiming to be "Catholic" should be able to express themselves without profanity and without ad hominem invectives.  

One less  histrionic objector (no profanity but boorish nevertheless), going by the moniker "Physiologus" (hereinafter "P"), has a "blog" of sorts (he only has three posts for all of 2024 so far), and made his recent post to attempt a refutation of mine. You would think of all the issues upon which one could write, he chooses to defend D&D. This Addendum shall be my last word on the matter, as I respond to P.  

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

P's post may be read here:

1. Are FRPs addictive?

P writes:
Of the many problem I see with Introibo’s critique the first is the claim that “FRP games are addictive, and many people will play for hours on end.” They’re not addictive. You will not suffer from withdrawal, you will not get the shakes, you will not risk death if you stop engaging with them. There’s no FRP addiction, there’s no porn addiction, there’s no gambling addiction, there’s no social media addiction – those are habits. Every habit, good or bad, causes discomfort when broken. It is a modern fad to view every undesired attachment as an addiction. D&D is not heroin.

Reply: P doesn't understand what an addiction is or thinks he knows better than those trained in studies of the brain. If P means to suggest that people are responsible for their addictions and the actions that emanate from same, he is correct. If he is suggesting that you need to suffer from withdrawal like a heroin addict, P is sadly mistaken. He clearly states there is no porn addiction

First, an addiction is defined as follows: "A person with an addiction uses a substance, or engages in a behavior, for which the rewarding effects provide a compelling incentive to repeat the activity, despite detrimental consequences. Addiction may involve the use of substances such as alcohol, inhalants, opioids, cocaine, and nicotine, or behaviors such as gambling." 

A study by Simone Kuhn and Jurgen Gallinat, "Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated with Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn," JAMA Psychiatry 71, no.7 (July 2014) came up with incredible findings concerning porn's effects on the brain. Other studies show porn's effects on emotional health, sexual violence, and marriage (there were other factors as well). For the full article on the brain, 
See .

Various studies show:
  • When researchers compared the brain scans of porn users to non-users, those who used porn had a dulled reward center.
  • When the reward center is dulled, the person doesn't feel dopamine's effects like they used to do. This means that in order to get the same excitement as before, porn users must resort to more hard-core material.
  • Since porn addiction goes hand in glove with Internet addiction, such people have less gray matter in several important areas of the brain, such as the frontal lobes, the striatum, and the insula. These areas help people with self-control, prioritizing, and feeling empathy; when gray matter lessens, so do these important functions.
The work I cited above states, " A representative Swedish study on adolescent boys has shown that boys with daily consumption showed more interest in deviant and illegal types of pornography and more frequently reported the wish to actualize what was seen in real life." However, P knows better. There's no addiction to porn or anything else but drugs, and no one would ever act on a fantasy, right?

2. Possibility and Probability.
P writes:
Whilst the previous problem is only peripherally related to the subject of discussion the next point is my main problem with Introibo’s argument. ‘The issue is to what extent a “crossover” effect may occur…’ “May” occur. The whole essay is in this style: “it may occur”; “it can be incorporated”; “can begin to influence…”; “could affect the lives…”; “…have the potential…”; “Players may want to further study the occult…” It’s not that it will affect you, but it may. Of course if you get into a car it may cause an accident. What is the actual level of risk? Without showing a serious danger this is just pointless fearmongering.

Reply: Let me put it another way. P states on his X account that he uses tobacco. Here's the statistics on smoking and dangers to health:

Estimates show smoking increases the risk:
  • For coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times
  • For stroke by 2 to 4 times
  • Of men developing lung cancer by 25 times

Does this mean P will (God forbid) get one of these horrible diseases/conditions if he smokes? NO! I grew up near a lady who smoked 3 packs of cigarettes everyday from age 21 until her death at age 82. How did she die? She tripped and split her head open on concrete, dying from blood loss. 

However, is it probable that smoking will give you a serious health issue? Yes. Is that probability enough that someone should not smoke? Yes. It is possible to be in a car accident, it is probable to have one or more health issues from smoking. Prudent people act on that which is more probable than not. In D&D we are dealing with the occult and pagan worldview and themes. The occult explosion is deadly to the soul. Due to the deadly nature of such, one should stay away. After all, the life of the soul is more important than the life of the body. 

Our Lord said, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in Hell." (St. Matthew 10:28).  If P considers this "fearmongering" there should be more of it.

3. Does D&D promote worship of false gods, rape and worse?
P writes, "That being said, D&D evolved from wargaming and has specific written rules for fighting or stealth. I know nothing about it having specific rules for rape. I looked up the Player’s Handbook and see rules for how long a torch burns and how much space it illuminates, the same for a lantern, how fast characters can run in different conditions, a chapter on negotiation, how much damage falling down a pit does, the monetary system, etc. I don’t see a chapter on rape or other perversions imagination can conjure. I would like Introibo to show where exactly does D&D “sanction fantasy about murder, rape, and sacrificing to false gods.”

Reply:  Both dungeon masters and players are told, "No fantasy world is complete without the gods, mighty deities who influence the fates of men and move mortals about like chesspieces in their obscure games of power.... They [the gods] are one of the Dungeon Master's most important tools in his or her shaping of events. The gods serve an important purpose for the players as well. Serving a deity is a significant part of AD & D [Advanced Dungeons & Dragons], and all player characters should have a patron god. Alignment assumes its full importance when tied to the worship of a deity" (See James M. Ward and Robert J. Kuntz, Deities and Demigods: Cyclopedia of Gods and Heroes From Myth and Legion, ed., Lawrence Chica, Lake Geneva, WI: TSR Games, [1980], pg. 37). 

Got that, P? As to rape, I was very much surrounded by the D&D craze in the 1980s. I knew several players who couldn't get girlfriends and would rape in the game. They bragged about how "fun it was" to imagine rape. Lest P complain this is mere anecdotal evidence, a simple perusal of the Internet would have produced the following results:

WARNING! The link is disturbing. Reader discretion advised.

How about the D&D book, The Book of Vile Darkness?

"The Book of Vile Darkness was named after a powerful artifact players could find in Dungeons & Dragons. The real-life version of the book gave rules for things like alcohol and drug addiction, cannibalism, mutilation, sacrifice, and sexual fetishes. The intention was for the DM to be able to go to extremes with their villains, rather than relying on the cookie-cutter definition of evil present in the Player's Handbook. The book also gave advice on running games with evil characters, though this generally won't be to everyone's' tastes, as it can lead to some nasty and selfish behavior on the part of the players." (See; Emphasis mine). 

How's that P? Remember, you claim to be the "expert" and said I'm talking complete nonsense.

Finally, P discusses scenarios and asks, can a Catholic play Satan, or kids play cops and robbers? 

In cops and robbers there are firm rules of good and evil. You could play the devil in The Passion of the Christ, because he is defeated by Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, but not in the TV show Lucifer, where he is a "charming good guy who got a bad rep." 

Summary and Conclusion
  • P's contention that porn and other addictions don't exist only "habits"--proven wrong by science. D&D like the Internet itself, can be addictive
  • Having contact with occult, amoral D&D creates a probability of interaction with the occult--a matter so deadly you should avoid it at all costs
  • I have cited where worship of false gods and even rules for alcohol and drug addiction, cannibalism, mutilation, sacrifice, and sexual fetishes are intended 
  • Role playing good vs. evil can be good if in proper context, evil if not
P obviously is clueless as to the real danger of D&D and other FPRs I am open to the possibility of  a genuine Christian FRP, but I know of none. I hope for his own mental, physical and spiritual health, he quits D&D as well as tobacco. 


I will not add another Addendum, but I just wanted to show the continued cluelessness of P who attempted another "rebuttal" on his "blog"--meaning he used 50% of all his posts this year on D&D! See the citation to his blog above.---Introibo

1. Habitual nonsense about addiction.

P disagrees with the scientific consensus on addiction. There is almost no unanimity on anything in science, only consensus. Accordingly, " Behavioral science experts believe that all entities capable of stimulating a person can be addictive; and whenever a habit changes into an obligation, it can be considered as an addiction. Researchers also believe that there are a number of similarities as well as some differences between drug addiction and behavioral addiction diagnostic symptoms." (See; Emphasis mine).

Furthermore, many FRPs are moving online. This makes it worse. Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) has passed scientific scrutiny to the point of being included in the DSM. Can the tabletop version become addictive? There is not enough evidence at this time, hence no brain studies, as in the case of porn, which is a much bigger problem. Why risk it? 

"Addiction to gaming is described in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR), which is used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental disorders. In the DSM-5-TR, the condition is referred to as Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD)"

(See,Disorder%20(IGD)(1): Emphasis mine).

You can therefore have an addiction that has no physiological withdrawal problems, unlike heroin. It is treated in a different way.  

The fact that P disagrees is no more relevant than the "science" of the Flat Earth Society on the shape of our planet.

2. Quantifying the Spiritual?

There are books in D&D on demons, books containing spell casting, and more. It makes the player aware of occult phrases, rituals, and encourages people to investigate the occult with actual occult books recommended. This increases the chance that people (especially the young) will investigate the occult and become involved with it. When it comes to your soul, any increase in its exposure to evil is unacceptable. There is also the real possibility of opening the door to the demonic. In fact, many psychics and mediums (such as Erika Gabriel) recommend the use of the fantasy imagination to help foster psychic development and actual spirit contact--a point I already made in this post.

Moreover, P's attempt to vindicate the evil in various D&D books is without merit. He quotes The Book of Vile Darkness: "The darker the shadow of evil, the brighter the light of good. The more horrible the villain, the greater the hero. If you are interested in adding the truly horrific to your game as something for the player characters (PCs) to vanquish, then this book is for you."(Emphasis mine) OK, so you can have murder, cannibalism, and sexual fetishes, as long as the hero wins. Thinking about these things is healthy and moral? 

P's citations prove my point--such things are so vile and occult they must be avoided.  

The "reasoning" of the D&D book for horrid evil to be employed is the same claptrap used to defend horror movies. A colleague of mine walked out on a screening of an small independent horror movie when the villain forced a teenage boy to rape his own mother at gun point. Yet, since the good guy wins, it justifies that perversion to be seen and/or thought about? 

3. I didn't have impure thoughts, it was my character!

P thinks there's a distinction between the player and the character. So if someone were to imagine adultery with the woman next door, but his fantasy is about someone else having relations with her, that's not sinful? If during the game someone says, "I call up demon X" who really said that? News flash: The character is an extension of the player. The demon may just take you up on the offer.

P's protest that D&D could be played morally fails miserably. I'm open to the possibility of an acceptable FRP, but D&D will not be one. The Book of Vile Darkness, has people hearing and imagining great evils and it was intended for such. The Book of Demons describes no less than 85 specific demons. How is perseverating on such evil made good? The "good guy wins"? Please.

By the logical extension, we could make The Satanic Bible good by taking out the bad stuff and replacing it with things that are good. Is that still  The Satanic Bible ?

4. Moralizing with the Daughter of Darkness.

P thinks I deserved the invectives people heaped upon me for this post. I wonder if he realizes that these were comments I could not publish because of the multiple obscenities. I was called four letter words and some even cursed out my family as well as me.  Do you think that's an overreaction, P? I'm more convinced than ever that those who play such games and display such behavior (while claiming to be "Catholic") proves something is seriously wrong with those who play FRPs.

Out of Christian charity, I told "Daughter of Wolves" on X that D&D was occult and she should not expose her children to such. I also told her that the Vatican II sect was just that; a sect. P thinks this is wrong. If P is Traditionalist as he claims, then he too agrees she belongs to a sect--The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. 

I did not mention how evil this woman is in calling herself a "conservative Catholic." On her timeline she:

  • admits to using marijuana (as a homeschooling mom of three kids)
  • brags about her "hourglass figure" of "36, 27, 38" and how her husband loves her going out in public showing off her "bare arms" and "bare legs"
Do you see anything wrong with this, P? Do you think that's setting a bad example or being a "good Catholic mother"? Do you think maybe she could use someone trying to convert her and (at least) get her away from occult influences that can also afflict her children?

5. The Danger of Even the Possibility of Occult Involvement.
I have shown evil and occult elements pervade the D&D books. It is there. It also encourages people, with citations to actual books, to investigate the occult.

According to theologian Slater: "It is well to bear in mind a remark which St. Thomas Aquinas makes after St. Augustine, that the devil wishes to excite among men a greater curiosity about occult matters 'so that being implicated in these observances, they may become more curious and get themselves more entangled in the manifold snares of pernicious error." (See A Manual of Moral Theology, 1:144 [1925]; Emphasis mine).  That alone condemns FRPs and D&D. 

Here is what is proven:
1. D&D has books that expose people (the young and impressionable among them) to occult rituals, themes, and verbiage. The books even cite occult books for the DM and players to investigate.

2. The occult is mortally sinful (necromancy, divination, etc.) 

3. Players are more likely by virtue of facts 1 &2 to investigate the occult by curiosity, if nothing else. D&D also uses fantasy imagination that could open a doorway for demons to enter a person's life.

4. As theologian Slater teaches, this is exactly what Satan wants to get people entangled in "pernicious error."

5. Therefore, D&D is to be avoided. 

P will have to prove that #s 1-4 are incorrect or that #5 does not logically follow from 1-4.

I find it odd that P claims he doesn't play D&D yet devotes so much time and energy to defending it. After all, if it is a harmless game, and people stop playing it to do something else, what real harm ensues? If P wants to make a third post (a majority of all he wrote this year) go ahead. His blog blather is just that. I'll heed the words of Scripture: "Talk not much with a fool, and go not with him that hath no sense." (Sirach 22:14). 


  1. I've never played D&D, but when I was young I used to play Mario Bros with a friend. I remember that at the end of the game, you had to fight a fire-throwing dragon and throw it into a pool of fire. It's reminiscent of the Apocalypse.

    I read a book by the late Fr. François Brune (ordained a Catholic priest and converted to Eastern schismatism at the end of his life) on NDEs. He speaks of them with approval, and I think he had Montini's encouragement in his research. Is this any wonder when we see the V2 sect not condemning occultism, or even denying the existence of Satan ? That's what he likes: to be ignored, so he can lure unsuspecting souls into perdition. Praying the Rosary is a good way of preserving us from the darkness that has fallen over the world since Vatican 2.

    1. The game you are talking about is not Mario Bros, but the. classic platformer Super Mario Bros and its multple sequels and remakes. Mario Bros was released in 1983, Super Mario Bros in 1985.

      Most Mario games are ok, but is better to check the online play-troughs just in case you find pagan or occult stuff. Check out for the RPG's who often have complex lore and might be easy to miss.

      Some people have mentioned the mushrooms are a reference to hallucinogenics (ie., you eat mushrooms, get "powers' through hallucination. Shigeru Miyamoto has denied this, which is fair enough. However, we have heard got the inspiration of a japanese folk tale about magic mushrooms. I'll let the reader decide whether it is good or bad, because I feel undecided.

    2. Simon,
      "Praying the Rosary is a good way of preserving us from the darkness that has fallen over the world since Vatican 2."
      Your words ring more true than ever!

      God Bless,


    3. @anon9:22
      Thank you for the information. I don't know enough about those games to make an informed decision. However, you give wise advice.

      God Bless,


    4. Against the forces of hell, we must also invoke Saint Michael the Archangel. I always end the Rosary with this prayer. Many of us, like me, do not have access to the Mass and the sacraments, but we are not helpless during the Great Apostasy.

    5. Thank you!

      I would like to add further information about the series' power- ups. They are not always mushrooms, sometimes a penguin suit, a turtle shell, a feather or leaf are also including, thus reducing the similarity with drugs.

      It really depends on individual games.

    6. Reply to Anonymous who mentioned the role of mushrooms in Super Mario Brothers:

      Perhaps the mushrooms are lunch to the 'Toadstool people' (whatever they are) and that they simply have a different effect on humans; they have no effect on the enemies because they don't like mushrooms. Depends on the interpretation, if none is given.

      There, I fixed it. : )

    7. I like your commemts

  2. Great post Introibo!

  3. Saying you are a protestant because you hate D&D is stupid. No offense to the "daughter of wolves" and "darthjim", but the reason you associate the condemnation of D&D with protestantism is likely caused by the simple fact that they live in America, where the majorities are protestant.

    1. Darth Jim Scott here. He is a Protestant for rejecting Vatican II and for being a Sede heretic. If one excepts Vatican II and that Francis is the true Pope (such as he is) then such a person is my brother Catholic even if he thinks playing D&D is problematic or imprudent or wicked.
      A pro-D&D playing persons who professes to be a Sedes and rejects Vatican II are Protestants and or schismatics.

      Don't be simple. It's boring.

    2. “Darth,”
      Thank you for visiting! I sincerely hope you have a chance here to understand the sedevacantist position, become a true Catholic and leave the V2 sect.

      The old “sedevacantists are Protestants” argument is so fallacious and ridiculous! Using Catholic theology, we see that pre- and post-V2 teachings cannot be reconciled. Bergoglio is a notorious and manifest heretic. As such he could not even attain to the papacy in the first place.

      Don’t be blind to the truth. It leads to Hell.

      I renew my challenge to debate me on a neutral online forum. It can be about sedevacantism or D&D. I will pray for your conversion and I ask all my readers to do the same.

      Praying for you,


    3. Fine, all right. my bad, mr darth Jim Scott

    4. “Darth,”
      If that’s an acceptance of my challenge, please be specific and we can set up the details.

      If it was an apology for calling sedevacantism “Protestant,” apology accepted.

      God Bless,


    5. No Sedes are Protestants and I don't apologize for that I double down.

      Darth Jim Scott

    6. no, that comment was made by me, apologizing to djs for miswriting his name. Anon 10:52 & Anon 8:57 are different people

    7. Darth,
      I shot down your falsehood on which you "double downed" in the Addendum to this post.

      Praying for you,

    8. Darth Jim Scott here. Yer a lying bastard so you are Introible/

      QUOTE"Wojtyla (JPII):
      All the baptized are in Christ's Church. (Ut Unum Sint, para. #42).

      Pope Pius XII:
      Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not had the misfortune of withdrawing from the body or for grave faults been cut off by legitimate authority. (Mystici Corporis, para. #22). END QUOTE

      Nowhere does Ut Unum Sint say all the Baptized are in Christ's Church.

      Lying wee Bastard. Here is what #42 says"

      "42. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of "other Christians", "others who have received Baptism", and "Christians of other Communities". The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as "Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church".69 This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The "universal brotherhood" of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out; scholarships are offered for the training of ministers in the Communities most lacking in resources; approaches are made to civil authorities on behalf of other Christians who are unjustly persecuted; and the slander to which certain groups are subjected is shown to be unfounded.

      In a word, Christians have been converted to a fraternal charity which embraces all Christ's disciples. If it happens that, as a result of violent political disturbances, a certain aggressiveness or a spirit of vengeance appears, the leaders of the parties in question generally work to make the "New Law" of the spirit of charity prevail. Unfortunately, this spirit has not been able to transform every situation where brutal conflict rages. In such circumstances those committed to ecumenism are often required to make choices which are truly heroic.

      It needs be reaffirmed in this regard that acknowledging our brotherhood is not the consequence of a large-hearted philanthropy or a vague family spirit. It is rooted in recognition of the oneness of Baptism and the subsequent duty to glorify God in his work. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism expresses the hope that Baptisms will be mutually and officially recognized.70 This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement.

      It is fitting to recall that the fundamental role of Baptism in building up the Church has been clearly brought out thanks also to multilateral dialogues."END

      So where does it say that? Nowhere.
      Ye cannae read the King's English.

      Darth Jim Scott.

      Do you have the guts to post I wonder?
      One of my responses has already been "eaten" by yer blog.

    9. "Darth"
      Nice language. Usually, I won't post anything with profanity, but I made the exception to prove you wrong. Ut Unam Sint does indeed teach what I wrote shorthand.

      Direct quote from UUS: "There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ." Really? Baptized Lutherans belong to Christ as do Catholics, Methodists, etc?

      Direct quote UUS, "The "universal brotherhood" of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction."

      Universal brotherhood? Direct quote from Pope Pius XII:
      "Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not had the misfortune of withdrawing from the body or for grave faults been cut off by legitimate authority." (Mystici Corporis, para. #22).

      Direct quote UUS: "The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism expresses the hope that Baptisms will be mutually and officially recognized. This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement."

      Yes, because of the new and irreconcilable ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium whereby the Church of Christ (which is NOT the same as the Roman Catholic Church" subsists in false sects and leads to salvation. So yes, UUS teaches that all the baptized are in Christ's Church because the Church of Christ is bigger than the Roman Catholic Church, distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, and subsits elsewhere.

      Objection overruled.

      You write: "Ye cannae read the King's English."
      Reply: Oh, yes I can, and thank you for vetting my citations. It proves my contention. I can also WRITE in good English. You are of Scottish background. That's nice. However, you may not "fantasy role play" being Scottish by writing in execrable English to "sound" Scottish. It makes you sound unstable. Also, no profanity or blasphemy. Such remarks will not get published.

      Anything else gets published.

    10. To My Readers:
      "Darth" has sent me comments so riddled with profanity, I will not publish them. If you cannot express yourself without profanity, it says a lot about a person--and none of it is good. I gave him three simple rules, no profanity, no blasphemy (this he did not do, just a regular rule I have), and write in correct English not "role playing a Scottish person." Sadly, he refuses. If/when he complies with those very reasonable rules, I'll publish his comments.


    11. Does not "Darth" understand "Indefectibility of the Church"? Does he not understand that the Church cannot contradict herself?

    12. One cannot be protestant in regards to the antipapacy. Sedes merely recognize the true one instead. Protestants recognize no papacy.

  4. Remind parents not to show pictures of theur children online. Its stupid, narcissistic and imprudent, and people need to be reminded of this.

    1. @anon9:13
      Very true. No parent should EVER post pictures of children online--we live in an ever increasingly dangerous world.

      God Bless,


  5. Hopefully I can clarify a few things as someone who accepts the sedevacantist position and who played a fair amount of table top role playing games in my youth before becoming Catholic.

    There is a distinction between the setting of the game and the rules as to how it functions. D&D as a ruleset does not inherently need to have magic, occultism, or anything you might consider immoral or potentially harmful to impressionable people who might have difficulty separating fantasy from reality.

    However if you choose to play D&D in any of the settings prewritten by authors that don't have a Catholic moral framework then difficulties will arise depending on how far they are deviated from truth.

    So one could play with the ruleset of D&D and for the setting say there is only one God and similar to lord of the rings all magic and miracles performed by clerics, wizards, etc are miracles through the power of that God. You could also play in a setting where its purely mundane. No magic at all, God seldom if ever performs miracles, and its just man and steel against monster in a pseudo medieval fantasy world.

    The other issue at hand is who is running the game. While the majority of the players are acting as one individual character the Dungeon Master (in the case of D&D, other rulesets might call him the storyteller or something similar) is the one who acts as everyone else in the world, makes up the story the players interact with, makes up the combat encounters, and is generally in charge of making sure the game is fun for everyone.

    To keep the game moral you would obviously need a good DM. Just like in any social environment sometimes someone takes something a little too far or says something that upsets someone and the DM is the one who has to resolve that.

    As an example lets say the players are staying in a town and are falsely accused of stealing from the local ruler. If while exploring options to clear their name one character suggests murdering the jailor and making a run for it the DM could handle it in various ways. First he could try suggest that being a wanted outlaw would be a major impediment to whatever the groups greater goals are. Second he could say that the guards were monitoring their discussions and have the character roughed up for conspiring to commit further crime and make their attempts at clearing their name harder. If the player is really set about wanting to disrupt the story by doing something grossly immoral then you might have to take them aside and tell them they need to stop and/or remove them from the group if they refuse.

    At the core table top roleplaying like many things has potential for good and evil. At its best it's a social recreational activity that encourages imagination and amateur acting. At the worst it could encourage someone to take magic and occultism seriously and harm them spiritually.

    In my opinion that is largely an issue of the age or immaturity of the player, a poor choice for the DM, or someone whose grasp of reality is very fragile and is going to be at risk from a great many things in life and most more threatening than D&D.

    As I haven't played a tabletop rpg in a good 15 years or so and have little to no interest in starting up again I don't really have a dog in this fight other than to say its a more complicated issue than presented and while practically it may be more prudent to avoid the activity entirely it is also unhelpful, especially when trying to convince someone of traditional Catholicism, to condemn an activity that may be entirely harmless or positive.

    1. @anon3:40
      Thank you for an intelligent and charitable comment. Basically, your saying what I stated with a nuance:

      "Objection: Can't you have an FRP without all the occult elements?

      Response: Perhaps, but then we are not talking about D&D. There are no "Christian FRPs" as far as I'm aware. I would need to thoroughly investigate any such FRP, to see if it really avoids the serious problems of all FRPs of which I am aware.

      If you take away the occult from D&D, nothing would be left. It's analogous to saying, "Let's play Monopoly without any money, without any buying of real estate, and without trying to get rich." You no longer have Monopoly. (Maybe "Bernie Sanders' Socialism"?). "

      What you are now claiming is that there could be such an FRP game that is not harmful or occult. I am definitely open to the idea of such a game.

      Yet what you describe is no longer D&D. You took out, both in theory and in practice, all of what the inventor of the game (Gygax) and all the manuals intend for it to be. Notice that the two people from X, one of whom came into these comments, ARE DEFENDING IT FOR WHAT IT IS, NOT FOR MAKING IT SOMETHING ELSE.

      You are intelligent enough to perhaps make such a good FRP game. If possible, you would do much good. However, I can't agree with your statement that:

      "... it is also unhelpful, especially when trying to convince someone of traditional Catholicism, to condemn an activity that may be entirely harmless or positive."

      If someone gets D&D, it would take massive willpower not to start taking it to a non-Catholic place, as Gygax intended. There may also be hurt feelings and broken friendships when one of the players takes the "Dungeon Master" aside and tells him not to use a certain scenario. After all, "it's in the original." I'm truly glad your friends and you had such great will power and stayed away from evil. Nevertheless, unless/until someone like you invents a totally wholesome FRP from scratch, my criticism in my post will stand.

      God Bless,


    2. Who cares what Gygax intended it to be? I think this is where there is something of a misunderstanding. Fundamentally the game as played is what the players and the person organizing the game choose to allow for. That is where the morality or immorality is concerned.

      A popular setting for D&D is Forgotten Realms that has adaptations in fictional novels and videogames. It contains everything that you rightly criticize. D&D is not any one particular fictional universe.

      I don't think its any great feat of willpower to just say what the author wrote or intended is stupid and wrong and just ignore/remove it.

      "There may also be hurt feelings and broken friendships when one of the players takes the "Dungeon Master" aside and tells him not to use a certain scenario."

      I think there is some confusion here as to how D&D actually plays (assuming you didn't simply make an error). While it is a cooperative social event the DM is the one in charge. It is a silly name that informs more about his role of controlling the monsters in the dungeon of a tactical battle element of the game but some other roleplaying systems use the title of Storyteller and I'd argue is more appropriate if functionally the same.

      Ultimately he is the authority of what is or is not allowed. For a player to take the DM aside and ask him not to continue in a certain story direction would entirely be for the DM to decide to comply with. The DM taking a player aside is different for he is the one telling the story with which the players interact and is in charge.

      That there is someone who has complete authority over the direction of the elements of the fictional world is precisely why Gygax and whoever wrote Forgotten Realms do not matter in particular to a group playing D&D. The DM or the storyteller or whatever name for the leader of the group is the author of that particular roleplaying event. All any Catholic group would have to do is have a DM say "we are removing all immoral elements from the players and no evil aligned characters" and have the players agree to those terms.

      And honestly any social event has the potential for friction and challenges to friendships. There is nothing particular to pen and paper roleplaying that makes it significantly more harmful.

      I think we are in agreement over issues that exist though not in particular distinctions over what D&D is and the intrinsic elements to it.

      D&D aside I'm glad you agree in principle that pen and paper roleplaying doesn't have to be immoral (and calling it FRP isn't wholly encompassing as fantasy is just one genre and even some D&D settings break from that too IIRC).

    3. @anon5:45
      Many people care about Gygax. Back in the 1980s, I knew quite a few D&D players, and they were adamant about following the players' manual.

      I understand that the DM controls the story, but I knew a man in the 1980s who was told by the players to change the story. He refused and they all left, refusing to play with him ever again. So, yes, serious disagreements can ensue. You can say this about virtually any game/competition, but as one who lived through the incredible popularity D&D enjoyed in the 1980s, it seemed especially true.

      It is true, I "agree in principle that pen and paper roleplaying doesn't have to be immoral" but they almost always are such, and I know of no alternatives that are Christian at this point in time. If and when such comes out, I'll be sure to evaluate it.

      God Bless,


  6. These people are nuts - I've seen even a 1980s /90s V2 examen of conscience mentioning D&D as matter for confession.

    1. Mary's Vagabond,
      Yes. These D&D players seem unhinged in their defense of the indefensible.

      God Bless,


  7. As far as games go I once heard a wise sermon by an old priest 20 years ago that went something like this...

    "When I was in the seminary, I was addicted to a game called chesssssss. I breathed chess, I ate chess, I walked chess, I slept chess, I even prayed chesssssss. Then when I went to my confessor and confessed my addiction, he told me something I didn't like. He said no more chesssssss."

    Games can be fun and innocent and there is nothing wrong with playing those types from time to time. Some can be potentially dangerous as the article above describes but also in how much time we spend playing them. There are many more things we can do with our time. Speaking of TIME, maybe some readers here would be interested in what St. Alphonsus Liguori says about the value of time starting on page 98 found here:


    1. Lee,
      Your analysis is spot on, as per usual!

      God Bless,


  8. Intriobo. Awesome article, and the addendum was very informative and interesting.

    There is an issue where I am searching for answers. The whole issue of the hierarchy leads some to think it is with the Novus Ordo invalid heretical bishops, at least in a "legal" sense, I think the formaliter/materialiter theory believes that. But the NO's and R and R also believe that only they consider them to be valid and some consider them orthodox as well. Then there are those who think it is hidden, with very old bishops, or a mystery, and many sedevacantists fall into that category.

    Unless I have misunderstood what I have read, I believe the theologians taught that there must be a hierarchy with "ordinary jurisdiction" until the end of time. But others think you can be in a perpetual state of epikea for decades with no real hierarchy.

    The idea that we have to look to the Novus ordo for the visible and "legal" hierarchy while looking to the Catholic bishops for truth and valid sacraments is perplexing to me.

    It seems like the whole body/soul analogy. The body of the Church is with the invalid heretic "bishops" and the soul is with the Catholic bishops.

    In the early, church, and during persecutions and with religious orders and during long interregnums Catholic bishops have been consecrated with ordinary jurisdiction without the "expressed" mandate, it was "tacit".

    It is my belief that today's Catholic bishops are the hierarchy with the tacit approval of the Apostolic See.

    Your comment "This was circa 1960--64 years ago when there was still a hierarchy with Magisterial authority and the True Mass and sacraments." makes me think you can help me with the issue.

    Is it your contention that you cannot have legal Catholic bishop unless he has the "expressed" approval of a living pope?

    Thank you very much my friend! And please keep up the awesome work!!!

    1. Can laymen hold an office? How can Novus Ordo bishops hold office if they aren't validly ordained and consecrated?

      I wouldn't consider the men sitting in these positions to hold any office because that would mean any lay person could and the implication is that lay persons wouldn't even be required to profess the Catholic Faith as baptized members.

      Exceptions would include some Eastern Rite Patriarchs and very old bishops consecrated before 1968 (if there are any left) but what they all have in common is that they are UNITED to Bergoglio. This means they willfully recognize him as the pope. They willfully do not object to the teachings of Vatican II, nor its laws and canons whether it be 1983 or 1990 (for the Eastern Churches). They (those in the West) willfully say or have said the Novus Ordo Mass either in the their churches or in private (at least once a year) and recognize it as "good" and acceptable as the traditional Mass. They willfully recognize all the new revised sacraments as valid including their own Holy Orders even though they have serious problems. They willfully recognize John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul as saints in the Catholic Church etc.

      The thesis is a nice theory but if it is true then Bp. Sanborn and those who agree with his position would have no right being bishops because once the imposters of the Novus Ordo repented and did all that was necessary to re-obtain their offices (including the pope who has the highest office), where would that leave Bp. Sanborn with no office? It would mean he would have to cease being a bishop until he would be appointed by a repented material pope (now fully the pope) to obtain a legal office like the rest of the bishops with offices. Would Bp. Sanborn do this if such the case were to happen?

    2. John Gregory,
      I agree with your position:
      "It is my belief that today's Catholic bishops are the hierarchy with the tacit approval of the Apostolic See."

      tacit approval, as in the case of the Great Western Schism, is sufficient in my opinion.

      While not a sedeprivationist myself, I don't think they believe bishops are material holders of office. Only the material pope and his material cardinals "hold a place" so to speak. I'm open to correction if someone has a relevant citation.

      God Bless,


    3. Whether they believe that bishops hold office or not does not change the fact that they do believe Francis does in the material sense as well as the Cardinals. If they (Francis and the Cardinals) converted tomorrow and regained the fullness of their formal and spiritual offices how would anybody really know without any real authority telling the public?

      Plus the lay "pope" Francis and the "Cardinals" would have to be restored Holy Orders since none ever received the old valid formula before 1968. Does anybody really think that those in the new religion are going to go seek out any of that from those like Bp. Sanborn? That's like the camel passing through the eye of needle. It isn't going to happen.

      If the thesis came true, I would pay money to see if Bishop Sanborn and the thesis holders do their part by submitting and obeying those they have denounced their whole lives.

    4. Thank you very much Intriobo. It just makes sense in my untrained mind. If the hierarchy is not with bishops with the Catholic faith where else would it be?

    5. Anonymous, thank you very much for your posts which I read carefully a few times. Very interesting. It seems to me that you make good sense.

  9. “Interesting, since she has hours at her disposal to frequently post on X and play D&D.” 🤣

    1. @anon4:54
      Yes, funny in one sense, but very sad!

      God Bless,


  10. I find it interesting that the original schemas of Vatican II seemed to anticipate this sort of thing. Not a coincidence, of course.

    1. cairsahr__stjoseph
      Not in the least!

      God Bless,


  11. Dear Introibo, pls fix the post where the Zirconia brothers' Latinist is said by you (in a lapse or fatigue, no doubt) to have attended Cambridge for 10 years when it was Bob who consulted him for 10 years, lest they call you a bungler or dolt as per usual form.

    1. Mary's Vagabond,
      Done! Yes, I was in a fog no doubt between work and Bobby! Thank you!

      God Bless,


  12. I will give testimony of what you have published and have expounded here.
    I'm a convert of nine almost ten months now straight from non-denominational Protestantism, a deadly error and heresy that is destructive even to the very notion of truth itself, to (true!) Catholicism. Otherwise, I had occasions and habits of grave mortal sin, I did not lead a very good life.
    Listed among those, the fact I spent about five (six?) years playing D&D and for about a year and a half running and planning my own games is included with them. I can testify that without a shadow of a doubt the truths about its awful nature.

    I don't know exactly where to start. What do I even say? Nonetheless, I'll end up rehashing what was shared here in my own way BUT regardless should still shed some light to throw off whatever darkness there still could be.
    The game itself is either a very heavily disguised evil especially if those you play with do not cause scandal on their own, to blantant occultism and imitating in it very grave sins in other areas should you fall with those who do bring grave scandal and wickedness and make no effort to obfuscate whatever sick desire they vicariously commit in their hearts through the game. Both are wicked. I lived it. Since morality is determined largely by who is moderating and running the game, theoretically you can end up with someone who will keep an iron clad grip on just who can do what, you can end up with someone who will allow the "anything goes" phenomenon in theirs, or someone in between, or even someone who just wants to simulate pure vice and nothing else.
    All are wicked for their own reasons. It is impossible to make an intrinsic evil somehow good or in any way permissible, despite whatever the goblin Ratzinger thinks about birth control.
    The game is really good at gaslighting you, players, the person stimulating it, just by itself. It takes a complete lack of spiritual awareness to be involved with it, and not be influenced by it in some way. As for myself, I with a pharisaical hypocrisy always tried to play the "good" character*, which typically involved being a cleric or a knight because it wasn't completely lost to me that having standards does matter. However, without personal experience it is impossible to know just how exactly forced you are to make moral compromises and be put in situations where there is no 'good' answer, the worst example of this being captured or at the mercy of devils or things like them (at the whim of the Dungeon Master or equivalent thereof) and having most of your own group be in favor of wanting to deal with them in great scandal to anyone else who is not in favor of such a thing thus rendering those individuals helpless to avoid being scandalized. To who knows just what kind of detriment to the soul? Only God knows exactly, but it is a grave evil to you and those around you..

  13. .. (extension of my previous comment left here, but viable on its own)
    The "it's just a game" argument is completely ludicrous hands down. People will justify their vices in any way, whatever shape, and in whatever form, if they have no purpose for amendment they will bring those justifications before the Throne of Judgement and will then see how much it will avail before the highest Tribunal. The fear of convicting yourself of a highly detestable crime is a highly effective on the soul, and most will do anything to avoid drawing that conclusion being as the mind was created for the Truth. Because the world, the devil, the game itself, and those around you will only reinforce or rather hammer that argument into you so the truth itself becomes contrary to said person. For modern point of reference just to note how far it has gotten, I refuse to go and give my own personal attention to whatever filth Wizards of the Coast are doing now, nonetheless I can say that I've seen enough filth and blasphemies directly by image and indirectly by concepts and by text that in recent editions (current edition of D&D currently from my knowledge is its fifth edition) it is filled to the brim with modern concepts of liberalism, religious indifferentism, democratized gameplay, equality of even monsters with humans (e.g, that "we all have rights.. even the orcs!" nonsense), and whatnot. All of it serves necessary to gaslight the player that it is O.K to do whatever you want, because its just a game.

    I am mostly using my own personal experience and allegories to reinforce what most of us at least here already know. I can certainly answer questions on my own time! It's impossible to cover such a broad and diabolic subject with whatever my absent-minded brain can give.
    St. Michael, pray for us!

    1. Michael,
      Thank you for your compelling testimony! You have first-hand knowledge of how dangerous FRPs can be!

      God Bless,


  14. Hi! Long time follower here. I have several traditional Catholic sedevacantist friends who play their own version of D&D, using campaigns that they make up to play with. I have told them about this article but they are adamant that what they are playing is ok to do so. They say they are styling it after LotR. Is this still wrong for them to play? Thank you for your time!

    1. @anon5:41
      I am open to the possibility of a Christian FRP. Perhaps your friends have come up with one. I cannot form a knowledgeable opinion without knowing all the details of the game. Therefore, to answer your question: it MIGHT be ok, I don't know.

      See Michael's testimony above. I think FRPs are dangerous things (always a chance someone could introduce bad things) and time could be used much more constructively on other endeavors, even if they have created a useable form.

      God Bless,

    2. Thank you for responding! I appreciate everything you do