Monday, November 25, 2024

A Tale Of Two Parishes

 


To My Readers: This week my guest poster, Dominic Caggeso, explores how we should conduct ourselves at sedevacantist churches/chapels for the good of all.  Feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

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


A Tale of Two Parishes
By Dominic Caggeso

Once upon a time, there were two Sedevacantist parishes, each a part of a different Sede group. Both were faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Both parishes were founded in the wake of the Second Vatican Council by devout Catholics who rejected the modernist heresies, the Novus Ordo rites, and the anti-popes. The founding families of each became the pillars of their parish communities, contributing sons and daughters to the priesthood and religious life. These families served as parish secretaries and ushers, cleaned the church, established choirs, donated the bulk of the funds needed for the parish to function, and filled the ranks of altar boys. Despite these many similarities, these parishes had one fundamental and important difference. One parish was narrow-minded, only aspiring to maintain the status quo. It was generally inward-looking and petty. The other parish exuded magnanimity, with a desire to grow; possessing a strong sense of hospitality. The contrasting orientations of these two parishes are highlighted all the more in light of the current state of the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council.

In the current landscape of the Catholic Church, traditional parishes have become a rare and precious resource. There are relatively few places to attend Mass. Fewer still are the dedicated buildings that serve as permanent parishes or mission chapels. Among those, even fewer parishes exist today that match the size and activity level of pre-Conciliar parishes. This rarity can be likened to oases in the desert, each one of immeasurable importance. This scarcity automatically spotlights the importance of this handful of truly Catholic parishes, raising them up as icons and examples by which the concept of Sedevacantism will be formed in the minds of outsiders.

Beyond just being standard bearers, Sede parishes/chapels also serve as first points of real-life contact for those searching for true Catholicism. For these souls, the shock of seeing the true state of the Catholic Church can be intense. Often, in embracing the true Faith, they are faced with changes to their employment, dress, beliefs, speech, and/or family relationships. The stakes are high for them, and they appreciate and need support and encouragement.

Given the challenges they face, it is crucial for Sede parishes to help make their transitions as easy and smooth as possible. We should be prepared to think and act beyond our comfort zones, keeping the bigger picture in mind and expanding our horizons past our personal concerns. We must remember that the parish environments we help create will often be the first encounter with a Catholic community for those coming out of the Novus Ordo. It is already very challenging to be a true Catholic today; we should not compound this difficulty by unforced errors and difficulties. The rarity of true Catholic parishes places a responsibility on our shoulders that is qualitatively different from pre-Conciliar parishes. Having received much from God, much is expected of us in return.
Thus, the difference between our two hypothetical parishes can mean the difference between newcomers sticking their landing or bouncing off, back to the Indult, Novus Ordo, or indifference. Charity towards our neighbor should compel us to stretch ourselves into new orbits of virtue and self-sacrifice in order to form a loving Catholic family ready to accept new members.


A Catholic Parish is like a Catholic Family
In many ways, a Catholic parish resembles a family: with traditions, communication styles, shared outlooks, and cultures contributing to their distinctive character. Just as each family has unique traits, so too do Catholic parishes. In a family, the tone is generally set by the parents. If the father is engaging, selfless, sacrificial, pious, joyful, firm, confident, loving, and easy-going, the children will thrive in an environment that fosters outward growth. The mother, complementing the tone set by her husband, creates a nurturing environment with her feminine touch. Conversely, a family struggles when led by a father who views family life as a duty rather than a joy and religion as mere rules instead of a loving relationship with God. A materialistic, grumpy, disinterested, and stingy father hinders his children's growth. With such a father, a virtuous mother can only do so much to influence the family’s tone. Without heroic virtue, she may even become embittered, further worsening the situation. 

From my experience as a Sedevacantist who has come out of the Novus Ordo and has made my way through a half dozen Traditional Catholic parishes, I’ve noticed differences between them that resemble the spectrum of familial characteristics noted above. Just as a father of a natural family is a tone-setter, so to is the bishop and/or the priest likewise. And just as the wife can complement the husband or work against him, so too can the religious (if the parish has any) or the lay helpers aid the mission of the priest or frustrate his plans.

No matter where our personal families or our Catholic parishes fall on this spectrum, it is never too late to improve. With this sincere desire, a great place to begin in this worthwhile endeavor is with the heart.

The Core of the Issue
The Latin word for “heart” is “cor”. This Latin word is at the root of the English word “courage”. The core difference between magnanimity and pusillanimity is the amount of fire in the heart. If we truly want our hearts inflamed with charity, we must have them lit on fire by Our Lord’s Sacred Heart. We must give ourselves totally to God in prayer and frequent the Sacraments as much as possible. In loving God, we will learn to love our neighbors, as St. John the Evangelist tells us.

“Let us therefore love God, because God first hath loved us. If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?” - 1 John 4: 19-20

We must enlarge our hearts, and let them serve as the engines that propel us to action and interaction inside our parishes. 

The Power of Our Ears
Having swelled our hearts with a love of God and a desire to do His will, one is faced with deciding how to practically live out this love. Inevitably, it will manifest in our interactions with others. In the realm of interpersonal relationships, there is one tactic, one “trick” or perhaps, one method that I have learned and practiced with great success. This is the art of listening.

I cannot express how much happiness and harmony can be generated in a parish by having a couple good listeners on hand. Listening doesn’t always mean just passively sitting still while someone is talking. Instead, to truly listen to someone, one must create a space in your mind for the other person to dwell. To listen to someone means to actively think in between the lines of their words, putting yourself in their shoes, asking pertinent questions and remembering the answers. To master this art, one has to be almost more interested in what the speaker is saying than he is himself. 

The amount of fulfillment and satisfaction that the speaker experiences when someone truly listens, at length, will win for you a new friend. Refrain from too much direct negativity, instead offering any necessary rebukes or corrections softly and gently, as you might imagine St. Francis De Sales doing. 

Visit Each Other
One of the most basic activities that binds a parish together in Christian charity is simply visiting others in their homes and inviting them into yours. This practice fosters a sense of belonging and mutual support, crucial for a vibrant parish. A picture says a thousand words, and likewise, you will be known by others and will get to know others so much better by seeing each others dwellings. Sharing personal stories at home strengthens bonds that extend beyond the parish setting. Meaningful and personal conversations take place in living and dining rooms. These interactions create a foundation for a more unified parish. 

Back to Our Two Parishes
Lets now return to our hypothetical tale of two parishes. Though they appear similar on paper, they create two different and distinct experiences for those who are part of them. Lets take a closer look at these two parishes and hopefully we can extract some insights. We can compare the two by placing them each in two real-life situations and observe how they respond differently.

Scenario 1 – A new family walks through the parish’s doors for the first time.

A new family, by God’s grace, has just rejected the errors of the Second Vatican Council and has seen the logic and Catholicity of the Sede position. They are still a bit rough around the edges, not yet dressing as modest as they should. Their children are somewhat unruly and worldly. However, the father and mother are humble and sincere. They have just left a booming Indult parish and are somewhat shocked at the meager means of the Sede world. Yet, they are driven by a genuine search for Catholic Truth.

The Petty Parish – The bickering cliques of the petty parish have created a cold and unwelcoming environment. As a consequence, only one or two parishioners approach the new family, and the few that do offer a canned greeting. They try to point out, with a matter of fact smile and with no apparent personal discomfort, that the dress code for women is to cover their upper arms and the children should wear dress shoes and a nice shirt, at the bare minimum. They inquire as to what church they are coming from, and then let them know about the parish picnic that is two months away before saying good-bye. The other, less friendly parishioners walk past them without making eye contact, instead heading straight to their comfort zone of friends whom they talk to each and every Sunday after Mass.

The Magnanimous Parish – Each of the various cliques of the parish has a good relationship with the others. Friendly comments, questions about others’ family members, or the offering of prayers for each other's crosses are frequent occurrences. As a consequence, the environment of the parish is lively and joyful, as the parishioners are actively trying to lift each other up, despite their differences. The new family is approached by at least three or four parishioners, often getting interrupted by others who are too shy to make first contact but still want to meet them. The new family’s children are given special attention by parish adults, who ask their names and ages and try to get them to smile, even introducing them to some of the parish children. The problem of immodest dress is not immediately addressed by the parishioners as it is too much of an abrasive subject to bring up right away. Instead, the parishioners tactfully conspire with each other about the best way to raise the subject before next Sunday. In such a parish, the new family is invited back to at least two parishioners' homes for dinner or a brief get-together, time permitting. In the social hall, the new family is brought into the heart of any number of groups of friends, and the entire group pays special attention to them, working together to make them feel welcome and comfortable. 

Scenario 2 – The parish pastor has just received an inspiration while praying. He announces a new parish festival, occurring each year, on the parish patron saint’s feast day. However good intentioned the pastor’s idea, he has some unrealistic notions for the festival, nonetheless.

The Petty Parish – Upon reading the pastor’s announcement for the new parish festival and learning of the unrealistic expectations he has, the parishioners vent their disapproval on their drives home from church. “That will never work,” “Who is he going to get to do that,” “That’s only one week away from the parish picnic,” are common complaints. By that Monday or Tuesday, the pastor begins to receive emails or text messages, some one or two paragraphs long, expressing the problems with his idea. Suggestions are given about what to do instead. By next Sunday, the two or three families that do the bulk of the work around the parish have dug in their heels against the notion of taking on any additional responsibilities, citing the lack of involvement of so many other parish families. The other parishioners have prepared excuses, ready to apologetically demur from any request to help out. Almost everyone who responds to the pastor does so with negativity, followed by a suggestion. 

The Magnanimous Parish – Just like the petty parish, the magnanimous parish also has a core group of people who do the lion’s share of the work. When the news of the new parish festival is announced, these committed families immediately begin to make mental notes about how to make the pastor’s idea work. They know he has some unrealistic expectations, but their immediate answer is “yes, great” instead of “no, I’m sorry, it won’t work.” Others are brought into the planning, making sure to keep the pastor’s vision in the forefront, and involving him as much as he wishes to be. By creating a sense of synergy and positivity, the group of parish volunteers brings joy to the pastor’s heart, just as a mother or father feels joy seeing their children playing lovingly with each other. In this mood, the pastor is much more inclined to receive suggestions about the festival plans and perhaps come to realize that some of his initial expectations were unrealistic. The environment is not combative, but collaborative and enjoyable.
Conclusion
There are many more examples that would draw out these differences. However, it is late and this article is already long enough. Therefore, to close, I would like to share this quote from St. Augustine that a friend recently shared with me. It highlights the need to maintain unity in matters of Faith and morals but compels us to be easygoing and amicable in matters of lesser importance. Permeating all thoughts and actions, however, is the great virtue of charity.

"In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity." -St. Augustine 

101 comments:

  1. And what about the the single adult who:
    1. Comes alone.
    2. Observes the dress code from day one.
    3. Has a (little) bit of knowledge already about traditional Catholicism.
    4. Has little money.
    5. Is physically unwell sometimes.
    6. Is well behaved.
    7. Travels hours to attend.
    8. Is willing to help if they are allowed and able to.
    9. Is still rejected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This person who is constantly being rejected must pray, and we will all pray for him until he can find a parish and receive the sacraments. Remember God gives everyone sufficient grace.

      Are you able to get him a catechism? I would recommend the catechism of St. Pius X it should cost around 20 bucks, or the Baltimore catechism 3 if you are in America (I wouldn’t recommend it for everyone because it talks about American customs and dispensations from fasts). I would avoid the Baltimore catechism 4 as it is for teachers and can be interpreted wrongly in the area where it talks about invincibly ignorant Protestants (if you want to learn more about this situation read bishop George hays “the sincire Christian” catechism or fr Michael Müllers “the catholic dogma”)

      Is this the same person who has nobody to baptise them, if so why can’t you baptise him yourself? Can a family member baptise him? Surely he could ask somebody on the street to baptise him? If he is in danger of death.

      Which church is he being rejected by, what group does it belong to, have you considered contacting the bishop about this

      Delete
    2. @anon7:01
      An abomination to be treated like that. I agree with anon@11:40 and urge that person to find a good Traditionalist parish.

      You are in my prayers.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Hello! I was reading through your list and number 9 is a heart breaker :( I'm very sorry you feel rejected. Sometimes, the impression of being "rejected" can be experienced but, in reality, its not the case. Instead, its a result of insular and shy parishioners (often you are struggling with their own personal problems), who don't reach out in a friendly way. Of course, I don't know the details of your situation. Another thing to consider is that often, even welcoming and outgoing parishioners can't make all newcomers feel welcome just because they have limited capacity (time constraints, mental constraints, etc).

    Anyway, I would be very happy to listen to your story and talk about it with you. I would love if you could email me personally! maccabeanuprising@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean the person is rejected by the priests AND the bishop. Not just to help at the chapel, but the person, even though as mentioned above they are well behaved, has been asked to not come back. Some of the lay people have been kind, but they can't make any decisions about receiving the sacraments. So I don't mean shy people, who are fine. I mean ACTUAL rejection.

      Delete
    2. Oh boy, I am very sorry to hear this! Its one thing for the parishioners to not be very open and welcoming, but it is quite another for the priest to tell someone not to return! I wonder what his reasoning was?

      Delete
  3. Was this ai. You use signposting and words like “synergy” and positivity. You keep switching which perspective you are talking from and talk very descriptively. These are all telltale signs of an ai written text,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it is not AI. I did run it through a grammar and spelling check, but I did write it. I am not a great writer, and I wrote it over the course of several days... after losing my train of thought from one to the next. :(

      Delete
    2. Dominic,
      Your posts are awesome and keep this blog going!

      God Bless you, my friend!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Thank you Introibo :) I fully intend to keep it going, and I very much appreciate this opportunity!

      Delete
  4. Hello Dominic

    I am October 28 2:16 anonymous from your detachment post

    First of all I would like to apologise for the foul language I used on that post and the insults

    Secondly you never replied to my second set of questions here is what I said

    “I would rather not give my mailing address

    It’s all good and true that the novus ordo is antichrist at least as an institution but I cannot bring myself to say the person of the antichrist is already come and gone, firstly wouldn’t THE Man of sin be the LAST leader of the antichrist antichurch as opposed to someone like wojtyla or Ratzinger? Secondly this seems to forget the distinction between the antichrist and the false prophet. I am all in for saying that the novus ordo antipopes are THE false prophet of revelation, but the person of the antichrist? You said how could one impersonate Christ more than by impersonating his vicar, but what if said person claimed to be the messiah that the Jews have awaited, and that the false prophet claimed to be his pope. That seems to be much more coherent.

    You also claim that the Holy Week liturgy of Pius xii coincides with the Last Supper but how do we reconcile that with the infallibility of universal disciplinary laws?

    and no matter how coherent bit seems it just seems wrong to name Pius xi and Pius xii among the heads of the beast.

    And it’s not even that coherent because roncalli through Bergoglio aren’t even valid kings of the Vatican anyway

    anyway it can’t have been the last week in 2013 because the world hasn’t ended

    Maybe the last week is full of longer weeks?

    Also if we are living in the parallel of Maccabees, that the antichrist wouldn’t have come yet, because Christ came 160 years later, that would make sense, we are not living under the person of antichrist but rather the parallel of antiochus epiphanes who is paving the way for this person, while the Novus ordo maybe is the abomination of desolation Montini certainly was not THE antichrist, maybe he was THE false prophet but then so would his sucessors be and the novus ordo is still in rome so THE person of the antichrist may still come with the abomination even if he didn’t set it up. Montini most likely is the parallel person of antiochus epiphanes, and that means his successor will be the parallel of Peter, further confirming teh persons of antichrist and false prophet have not yet come

    And the mass never ended correct me if I’m wrong, were there not always faithful clergy saying at least 1 valid mass somewhere in the world? A priest in the woods? Under the person of the antichrist will the mass not END, as in not just leave rome but END for a period of time.

    It makes sense if the institution of the Novus bogus was the passion of the church but it seems more to be a prefigurement of an even worse passion, surely the cruxifiction was worse than the abomination of antiochus epiphanes, even if the New Testament parallel fits perfectly with our Lords Passion, something worse must be on the horizon”

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ AnonymousNovember 25, 2024 at 11:47 AM I will definitely address your comment/question. But its a big topic. Before I do, can I ask if you read my book "Vatican II & Antichrist"? If not, then I would be so happy to send you a free copy, b/c obviously you are interested. Most of your comments are address in that book. I can send you the PDF version via email so you don't have to give me your physical address.

      But if that isn't an option, I can address your points above here in the comments section.

      Delete
    2. I don’t want to make my email public as it belongs to my organisation, so could you please address my points here thank you very much

      God bless

      Delete
    3. I would love a pdf to your book if you are so inclined.😉 🙏OLGTLM@yahoo.com

      Delete
    4. disclaimer

      i am anon 1:32 - anon 2:41 is somebody else

      God bless

      Delete
  5. Introibo:

    Was there ever talk about Father DePauw being consecrated as a bishop?

    And if Father DePauw had been a bishop, would he have been public about it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:11
      In 1967 Fr. DePauw was offered a valid consecration by an Old Catholic bishop in Utrecht--those orders are recognized by the Church as valid. He refused, saying he will die as a Catholic priest and not a bishop consecrated by a heretic. Father never sought the episcopacy. He wanted to be a priest, and not a bishop in such uncertain times. A decision one must respect. Yes, he would have said something had he been a bishop, but there was nothing to say as it never happened.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Very nice article. Thank you Dominic. I appreciate your insights and encouragement. Continue to fight the good fight of faith. Many blessings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you :) I truly appreciate it. There is so much work to do!

      Delete
  7. Are there priests or groups of priests that Introibo or a reader of the blog could recommend that could send somebody to make a journey to the person mentioned above so that they can receive sacraments at least once?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:20
      I would recommend SSPV and CMRI. Even SSPX if it's for Baptism.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I would recommend sgg or icr too

      Delete
    3. I’ve attended a Sedevacantist church for over four years now, and sadly, there are a substantial number of people who attend there who are just looking for a Latin Mass to go to on Sunday and then they go back to being worldlings during the week. After spending some time with parishioners and their families, it became quite obvious that a substantial number of them thought practicing the TRUE Catholic Faith in every facet of their lives came secondary to externals, coffee and donuts after mass, and human respect. The dress code is not strictly enforced and it went beyond having some patience with newcomers. There is a big sign outside that outlines the dress code, yet people that were attending mass there for awhile would show up during the week with jeans, sneakers, sandals, and polo shirts. There are people who wear sneakers and other inappropriate attire on Sunday. It doesn’t matter if it’s during the work week or Sunday, or All Saint’s Day. When visiting the Blessed Sacrament people should be dressed modestly and in their nicest clothes. At a bare minimum dress shirt and ties and dress pants for men, with suits being the preferable way to come to church. And women should have on long, loose fitting dresses, fully covered, along with head coverings. This should be obvious. The comportment of people outside of Church should also reflect their Catholic Faith. When people don’t care about how they dress and make excuses it’s an indication of their interior disposition and what is important to them. There are many issues in the “traditionalist” movement as a whole. Too many to list here. There seems to be lack of proper catechetical instruction in many areas and I came across many parishioners who held all sorts of erroneous beliefs on Faith and Morals. The American Traditionalist movement has been influenced in some regards by Modernism and, more so, Americanism. The Traditional movement in many ways exists as a throwback to circa 1958 with powerful externals that draw people in but who lack The True Faith, or who practice a watered down form. Not all, but many. If a book has an imprimatur, or a Saint said it, or a Pope fallibly taught something, then it’s safe and true according to many who attend these churches. There are others who do strive to hold the true positions, and who care about gaining a deeper understanding of Faith and morals without compromise. As far as political viewpoints. It’s mostly a mixed bag. There are constitutionalists (classical liberals), your mainstream Republicans, and thankfully, a decent amount who reject The false WW2 narrative, Americanism, and who also openly discuss the JQ and the international clique of revolutionary subversives who have been wreaking havoc for centuries on The Catholic Church, Indigenous Europeans and people of European descent all over the world. These Judeo-Masonic monsters are enemies to humanity as a whole. There are upstanding Catholics who know that the official WW2 story as told by the victors and the Jews, who punch you and scream ouch, is a giant pack of lies. I’m glad I met these people and others who try to practice The True Catholic Faith. I attend this Church for the valid sacraments and to help people where I can see the whole Truth without compromise.

      Delete
    4. @anon6:04
      That has not been my experience, and it is very sad your chapel is like that. I agree that proper dress is very important and people should know the faith better.

      To be fair, I've know a few Traditionalists who placed heavy emphasis on dress and not on personal conduct, like the proverbial whitewashed tomb.

      You make some statements that I need to address. If a book has an Imprimatur, it is safe to believe and act upon it without sinning. If the pope teaches something to the Church, even if not ex cathedra, it cannot be heretical. A saying of a saint (who is not a pope), need not be believed.

      As far as the WW2 "narrative," I hope this isn't indicative that you are a Hitler fanboy. I have no more toleration of them than I do for Feeneyites. My father, my uncle and my spiritual father (Fr. DePauw) all fought in WW2--Fr. DePauw having barely escaped with his life after being taken prisoner at a Nazi concentration camp. Both he and my uncle saw first-hand the atrocities of Herr Hitler and his goose-stepping thugs.

      Do I believe everything the government says? No, and neither should any other intelligent person. That doesn't mean everything is a massive conspiracy and we live as in the movie "The Matrix." I knew a person who attended a Chapel I would occasionally visit. He had fallen away for several years and became an atheist before returing to the Faith. Stunned, I asked him what caused his atheism. He came to think that Jesus Christ didn't exist. He was a more or less fictitious character, invented by the Jews to overthrow the Roman Empire by making them weak with "turn the other cheek" morality, Luckily, he found his way out of nutty conspiratorial thinking.

      Perhaps this is not at all what you meant. My apologies in advance if that is the case, and perhaps you can talk to your priest about enforcement of the dress code and preaching on living the Faith outside of Sundays.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Pope Pius X issued a warning in the encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis which explained that there were so many books written by Modernists who had already infiltrated The Church with imprimaturs containing heresy, that banning them all was not possible. So, is it a sin to unknowingly read a book written by a modernist containing errors? No, but to obstinately defend the error after it is refuted by infallible Church teaching. That is a sin. And these books that I speak of are not safe, but dangerous to one’s Faith. And this is why it’s so important to know the Faith. It’s our most important obligation as Catholics. To know and live The Faith and not be so quick to use the excuse of inculpable ignorance when sins are committed that one must know are sins. Many people avoid seeking The Truth out of fear of having to obey God’s laws. Also read Hellstorm, The Plot Against The Church, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. It’s certainly fine to have serious criticisms of The Third Reich, and to be against racial idolatry. I would politely say it’s also naive to totally disregard the countless tens millions of lives lost to Jewish plots against humanity in order to satiate their lust for power and world dominance. Holodomor, Zionism, The Civil Rights Movement, Sodomite Pride, Hollywood depravity, The Pornography Industry, Fractional Reserve Banking, The War in Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Dresden bombings, Morgenthau Plan, The Sackler Family, Modern Psychiatry, The Frankfurt School, Mass Immigration of The Third World into The West, Abortion, Feminism, expunging the culpability of The Jews for Deicide, Communism, Capitalism, etc. etc. etc. Who do you think is behind all of these actual conspiracies, murderous plots, and soul destroying revolutions? Many are terrified to say it because they know about lawfare, The Mossad, being doxxed or being murdered themselves by the inventors of terrorism. Please read about the history of Bolshevism and Zionism. Two sides of the same coin.

      Delete
    6. To be fair the priest has addressed the dress code issue on a number of occasions to the whole church. At least once it was addressed in a charitable but stern way to the whole church. I just think the enforcement should be stricter. The priest has helped me as my spiritual director in many ways. He has given good sermons on living The Catholic Faith outside of Sunday. I just want people to take these matters more seriously and for traditional clergy to start doing more to give sermons like Saint John Marie Vianney and Saint Alphonsus and not hold anything back. It doesn’t matter if people become uncomfortable. There are certain things that must be said in order to save souls. I know some priests have different ways of delivering their sermons but we live in a time where moral guidance should be given with zeal. Sin must be completely detested and it’s not good enough for laity who call themselves “traditionalists” to just go through the motions and settle for a place to go to Sunday Mass.

      Delete
    7. Lastly, Pope Innocent III taught circumcision remitted the stain of Original Sin. And although this is not an example of manifest heresy since it was later on that this idea was dogmatically condemned at The Council of Trent, it is in fact an error that was made in this Pope’s fallible capacity. That was the point I was making earlier. Thank you.

      Delete
    8. hitler was most probably controlled opposition, read about the havaara agreement

      Delete
    9. To anon9:51 on down (probably the same person)
      You sound like a Feeneyite. They too appeal to "infallible teaching" to (allegedly) overcome theologians. You write:
      "No, but to obstinately defend the error after it is refuted by infallible Church teaching. That is a sin. And these books that I speak of are not safe, but dangerous to one’s Faith." Ok please give me one such example with citation.

      Are unconverted Jews the Deicide race? Yes. Are many of them evil? Yes. Do many of them plot against the Church? Yes. Is every single Jewish person actively plotting against the Church? NO! Who is behind the evil in the world? One word answer: SATAN and his legions of demons. Do the Jews help Satan? Yes, many do.

      Ratzinger did Satan's work and he was not Jewish. Leonard Feeney hated Jews and also did the work of Satan. Doing evil and working against the Church is not the exclusive domain of Jews.

      I did a podcast with Mr. Kevin Davis on The Real Leonard Feeney. There were over 500 comments and the Feeneyites accused me of "being a Jew" or "being married to one." That kind of thinking is sick, and your reading material leaves much to be desired.

      Pope Innocent III did NOT make a mistake, nor was his teaching condemned at Trent.

      According to theologian Pohle (1923):
      ""At the time of Abraham, long before the promulgation of the Mosaic Law, circumcision became the ordinary means of spiritual regeneration...The rite of circumcision was truly sacramental: an external sign, accompanied by internal grace, instituted by God for the remission of sin." (See Dogmatic Theology, 8:22 & 23).


      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. You are a Modernist who has shown over and over again your malicious contempt and horrific mockery of John 3:5 which has been dogmatically defined as it is literally written with NO exceptions since there are none. The label “Feeneyite” is an AntiCatholic slur made up by Modernists in order to attack EENS and the necessity to have explicit Faith in Christ, and to be a visible member inside The Catholic Church in order to attain salvation. The Modernists conspired against an innocent man, who was mistaken on justification, but right on most of what he preached, in order to get the result they ultimately wanted, which was to attack the infallible magisterium which dogmatically teaches the necessity of water baptism and that you have be IN the Catholic religion as a visible member to be saved. They got the letter they wanted, Suprema Haec Sacra, which was written by the hand of the devil and is not infallible. The defamatory label “Feeneyite” means nothing to a True Catholic who defends the Gospel and The infallible Papal teachings on EENS. It’s the same thing when a Protestant calls a true Catholic a “Papist” or a Muslim calls a true Catholic an “infidel”. It means nothing, since these people are living in darkness and are on the road to perdition, the same way when a modernist like yourself calls someone a “Feeneyite”. These are words used by the ministers of Lucifer to attack real Traditional Catholics. I did see that a video was posted on The “Catholic” Family Podcast related to this subject. I did not watch it since I did not want to be scandalized by listening to the contumely, calumny, false accusations, disparaging remarks and vitriolic hatred against an innocent man and against others that you are known for spewing on this modernist blog and elsewhere. I did read the comments section though, and was filled with joy to see many fervent Catholics call out your slander and deceptions and astutely defend the true positions with great theological arguments and dogmatic citations. You also have a disordered preoccupation and hyperfixation with The Dimonds. I was glad to see that they destroyed your arguments on Delayed Ensoulment/BOD/1917 Code of Canon Law on your little known modernist blog. Even though your blog is small, true Catholics still have to stand up to modernists like yourself who are staunch defenders of birth control and religious indifferentism, under the guise of NFP and BoD. To be continued……

      Delete
    11. You mentioned that not everything is a conspiracy. The statement was never made that everything is a conspiracy. That’s just another one of your straw man arguments that could fill a book. The point is that conspiracies are real and are carried about by wicked men. Most of them Jews. We have to be able to ask questions and research historical events without being called names. We want the Truth. Not false narratives told by the victors and Jewish academics which are used to control people and to victimize them and to bludgeon them with guilt over ahistorical garbage. We have a right to question and know the truth about 9/11, The USS Liberty, COVID, MKUktra, Operation Mockingbird, The JFK/RFK assassinations, CHAOS, The Iraq War, The Holocaust Narrative, The Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Dresden bombings, Zionist Terror, etc etc. I think most of our time should be devoted to pious exercises, evangelizing, prayer, spiritual reading, and participating in the sacrifice of The Mass. But we can also ask questions about historical events and call out the many anomalies and lies told to us about these events which have been carried out for nefarious ends. There is a confirmation bias on your part and that could be a reason why you won’t read the book recommendations. There were just three recommendations but I could give you dozens and you might say the same thing, that there’s is much to be desired in these books you haven’t even read. Why not read what David Irving wrote about WW2? Why not get the perspective of the vanquished and look further into what the official story is not telling us and be able to confront the lies. Many historians can’t speak the Truth about WW2 since they would lose their tenure and be defamed by the Jewish Lobby, Jewish academia, and The ADL. That should tell you something right there. If you are defamed or jailed for asking questions or writing revisionist historical accounts with ironclad proof backing your positions,, this is certainly a red flag. To be continued…

      Delete
    12. You mentioned how not all plots to attack the Church involve The Jews. That was never the contention. I never asserted that all Jews are involved in conspiratorial plots to take down The Church, but at the very least all Jews reject The Word Incarnate, and most Jews are either sympathetic, actively support, or are directly involved in moral corruption and subversive activity. They represent about two percent of The American population but have seized control of almost every powerful and influential institution in America. They’ve been doing this for centuries as is why they have been kicked out of over an hundred countries over the years. And your weak argument, goes something like, “there are wicked people from all groups”. Why is it that two percent of the population has an immense influence on the culture, the economy, and the foreign policy of America and other western nations? It’s not because they are ambitious and smart, it’s because of nepotism, an insatiable thirst for power, and an insurrectionist spirit since they reject Christ, and a vehement hatred for White Christians. They chose Barabas over Christ. Who was Barabas? A murderer and a seditionist. AIPAC controls congress and The ADL has power of whether or not people can speak The Truth. And yet your pathetic response is to call people Hitler who question The Holocaust Narrative and Jewish Hegemony. This is right out of the Ben Shapiro playbook. You said people call you a Jew. It’s because you use the same tactics as the most hateful Jews on the planet. The Hitler Scapegoat card!!! Many call you a Jew or a Crypto Jew because you exhibit many of their wicked traits. Namely, spite, arrogance, and deceptive argumentation. The Hitler fanboy name calling doesn’t work anymore. Many Catholics and people seeking the Truth aren’t being intimidated by the “Nazi” calumny anymore. You should be ashamed of yourself. European nations and majority white homelands have a right to preserve their identity and cultural roots without being called “Nazi”. Why should Indigenous European nations allow hostile moral corrupters and vicious rejectors of Christ who are foreign interlopers into their lands to destroy it? Weimar Germany, the effects of The Treaty of Versailles, and the Jewish Moral Depravity and greed had to be dealt with in Germany. The Red Terror campaign had to be dealt with in Europe. Was everything that Hitler did right? No. The Third Reich should be criticized in many ways, however, I can name dozens of Jews of the 20th century and many western politicians and leaders of the 20th century that are far worse than Hitler. More to come on Dunkirk, Pope Innocent III, and Jewish revolutionary movements….

      Delete
    13. AnonymousDecember 2, 2024 at 2:01 AM

      Some of what you wrote seemed interesting and plausible until I saw the above post, which proves you are [fill in the blank] [in over your head] [unable to make the proper distinctions that trained theologians make rather easily] [thoroughly brainwashed] unlearned in ecclesiology.

      In other words, Introibo is not a modernist, but you are a heretic.

      Perhaps you can spread that "supernatural charity" of yours somewhere else.

      Delete
    14. @anon2:01
      Yep! A Feeneyite and a Hitler Fanboy rolled into one! Both are looney so they go together. I get a kick out of how easy it is to spot either one.

      1. You write: "You are a Modernist who has shown over and over again your malicious contempt and horrific mockery of John 3:5 which has been dogmatically defined as it is literally written with NO exceptions since there are none."

      Reply: I'm in good company with the "Modernist" St. Alphonsus Liguori and all approved theologians since the Council of Trent (yes, even St. Peter Canisius).

      Oh, but wait! St. Alphonsus made an "innocent mistake" but I'm bad-willed!! The Church never realized the "innocent mistake" until the excommunicated, child-abusing cult leader Leonard Feeney figured it out and had his teaching "improved upon" by Fred and Bobby Dimwit, two men who like to LARP and have no ecclesiastical training or education beyond high school.
      Makes sense (if you're mentally impaired).

      2. You write: "The label “Feeneyite” is an AntiCatholic slur made up by Modernists in order to attack EENS and the necessity to have explicit Faith in Christ, and to be a visible member inside The Catholic Church in order to attain salvation."

      Reply: Just as "Lutheran" designates those who follow the Protestant heretic, "Feeneyite" refers to those who follow Leonard Feeney in opposition to Church teaching on BOD and BOB.

      3. You write: "The Modernists conspired against an innocent man [Feeney]..."

      Reply: If you think starting a "religious order" without papal approval, and turning it into a cult of "married nuns and brothers" (raising children communally against the Divine and Natural Law) is the mark of an "innocent man" you're even more seriously out of touch with reality than I anticipated.

      4. You write: "I did see that a video was posted on The “Catholic” Family Podcast related to this subject. I did not watch it since I did not want to be scandalized by listening to the contumely, calumny, false accusations, disparaging remarks and vitriolic hatred against an innocent man and against others that you are known for spewing on this modernist blog and elsewhere."

      Reply: If you didn't listen, you're willfully ignorant and passing judgement on what you don't know. Cult members do that--block out anything that disturbs their worldview rather than engage with it and get to the truth. I read many things against the faith to (a) refute them and (b) understand the truth better.

      5. You write: "You also have a disordered preoccupation and hyperfixation with The Dimonds. I was glad to see that they destroyed your arguments on Delayed Ensoulment/BOD/1917 Code of Canon Law on your little known modernist blog. Even though your blog is small, true Catholics still have to stand up to modernists like yourself who are staunch defenders of birth control and religious indifferentism, under the guise of NFP and BoD"

      Reply: *The Dimwit brothers have deceived innumerable souls. Luckily my writing has brought several people who contacted me out of Feeneyism and into the One True Church. That's called "proselytizing."

      *Bobby Dimwit got his butt kicked in my post! At least two people left Feeneyism as a result! PLEASE spread it far and wide!! Fred is probably still trying to wipe away Bobby's tears from getting owned!

      *BOD and Periodic Continence are Church teaching. **YOU** are a heretic.

      6. You write: "There is a confirmation bias on your part and that could be a reason why you won’t read the book recommendations."

      Reply: If anyone suffers from confirmation bias, it's YOU. Who refused to listen to the podcast? Who said I wouldn't (didn't) read those books. I read the "Protocols" and was not impressed.

      Continued Below:



      Delete
    15. Here is what a Feenyite must believe to maintain his denial of BOD/BOB:

      1. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by catechisms for centuries. The Catechism of the Council of Trent has been the official catechism of the Church, teaching heresy, unnoticed or uncorrected by all the popes, from the 16th century until 1958.

      2. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by Canon Law since 1917.

      3. The Catholic Church allows heresy to be taught throughout the whole Church for hundreds of years, and no pope stopped it.

      4. Protestant and Eastern Schismatic sects are false religions because they teach heresy, but the Catholic Church remains the True Religion when it teaches heresy by law and catechism.

      5. All the popes and approved theologians that taught Baptism of Desire/Blood after Trent were ignorant of that same Council's "dogma" that there is only baptism by water.

      6. Pope Pius IX was ignorant of the Council of Trent's teaching on Baptism, and promulgated heresy about invincible ignorance. When approved theologians during his life explained what he meant, he did not stop them or censure them. [How could he promulgate heresy and still be a true pope? This would make it morally certain that he had fallen from office prior to that time by espousing heresy as a private theologian].

      7. Pope St. Pius X allowed a heretical catechism to be promulgated in Italy bearing his name. He never knew it contained teaching on BOD/BOB--or else he knew it and didn't stop the heresy pushed in his name.

      8. St. and Doctor of the Church Alphonsus Liguori didn’t understand the Council of Trent's teaching on Baptism and interpreted Trent to mean exactly opposite to its true meaning. In spite of that, Pope Pius IX in 1871 declared him a Doctor of the Church for his orthodoxy in teaching the faith.

      9. Every layman that believes in Baptism of Desire/Blood is a heretic and a liar, but all the popes, saints, and Doctors of the Church that professed the same are not heretics or liars, but they simply "made a mistake."

      10. Defenders of Baptism of Desire/Blood who use the teachings of popes, catechisms, Canon Law, and Doctors of the Church are bad-willed and cannot be sincere.

      Does that version of "reality" make you feel better?

      You believe that. Explain again about "the truth" concerning Hitler, the Jews, etc--it's as realistic as the beliefs above.

      My blog reaches approx. 40,000 readers in 6 continents each month. That's small, but I've made at least two dozen converts that have contacted me. Saving even one soul is invaluable. I'm so glad God has used me as His unworthy instrument.

      You might be a heretic, but at least you have great taste in blogs, and the truth might even sink in.

      I'm praying for your conversion (even though you think my "heretical prayers" are inefficacious, God knows otherwise).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    16. 1). You are a worshipper of fallible men and have turned a blind eye to the heinous crimes of World Jewry, we don’t know who you are, since you hide your identity as you spread your demonic errors. A coward indeed, who cares more about his career as a lawyer than showing his face as he spreads what he falsely believes. It’s fine to protect one’s identity in certain situations, but your reasons for doing so have the characteristic thinking of a wordling. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that you hide your identity because your appearance resembles someone like Woody Allen or someone like Alan Dershowitz or perhaps because you’re a modern day converso. That’s unlikely. Whatever the case may be, mouthpieces of Satan like yourself need to be pointed out. It’s worth noting that even bumbling fools like Steve Speray who think Christopher Hitchens might have been saved, or false converts like Griff Ruby who believe Martin Luther might have been of good will, show their faces. But at the very least, you are clearly a self deprecating white normie who is a scandal to his people and The Catholic Faith along with being a modernist, and having the Jewish revolutionary spirit within. It needs to be cleansed away with a sincere conversion on your part so that you can have any hope in attaining salvation. You exhibit quite a combination of evil that probably even astonishes the demons in Hell. But that’s what we are dealing with here.

      Definitions:

      “Feeneyite” made up word used to slander Catholics which comes right out of the Judeo-Masonic playbook inspired by Satan.

      My positions come from the dogmatic teachings of Pope Siricius, Pope Leo I, Pope Eugene IV, Pope Boniface VIII, Pope Clement IV. Apostates like yourself are insinuating these holy men are “Feeeneyites” for explicitly teaching the literal meaning of John 3:5 and the necessity to be saved IN the Catholic Faith not IN false demonic religions but BY the Catholic Faith. Heresy! The ex cathedra teachings of The Popes, Councils back up my arguments. In other words, The Holy Ghost. The Saints were not given that protection. They could make mistakes. The ordinal universal magisterium has to be constant and universal, not common among a few saints during a period or two.

      Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

      Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”





      Delete
    17. 2). Saint Alphonsus: This a great Saint who is in Heaven and who we should all revere, yet he was not infallible. Saint Alphonsus clearly states that BoD doesn’t give the the grace of the sacrament of baptism. It doesn’t give the grace of spiritual rebirth and The Council of Trent dogmatically says that everyone must have this grace to be justified.

      Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven."

      It’s also de fide definita that unless a person receives the grace of spiritual rebirth, which is the sacrament of baptism, they can NEVER be justified.

      Saint Alphonsus was not in grave error since BoD was never condemned as notoriously heretical by name. It was a false theory that was circulated by some doctors and theologians but it went against the positive teaching of The Extraordinary Magisterium but even great doctors of The Church can be wrong on certain theological opinions. The problem is that when all the proof is presented and it’s obstinately rejected after that, then it becomes a heretical position. And not all people who support BoD today are heretics. They could be of good will but be in error. Not difficult to grasp. How could this be you might wonder?
      The bull Cantate Domino, which made dogmatic statements about the list of inspired books of Holy Scripture at Florence was later disputed by many respected theologians. That’s why we read dogmas as they are declared. We don’t go by interpretations of approved theologians and then interpretations of their interpretations.


      Delete
    18. 3). Over the course of about two centuries at least four well known Saints denied The Immaculate Conception. Namely, Saint Bernard, Saint Albert The Great, Saint Bonaventure, and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Again, all very holy men who are in Heaven. Saints who I revere very much for their pious and holy lives. They were not infallible.

      The Council of Carthage under Saint Cyprian taught that heretics could not confer baptism validly. So there is quite a bit of confusion out there about infallibility and fallibility. Also BoD heretics who obstinately reject John 3:5, believe that Jews, Pagans, and Animists can be saved IN their false religions. You don’t even believe what Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus taught which said a person needed explicit Faith in Christ and that the desire of baptism was implied after they believed in The Trinity and Incarnation. Which is still wrong and a false theory of man, but you believe that a Zoroastrian can be saved. You believe David Berkowitz (The Son of Sam), a former Jew/Satanist, now a Protestant heretic, and serial killer might actually be Catholic, “we don’t know” “we can’t judge”. This is what heretics like you say. The “we can’t judge” heresy. You believe Meyer Lansky, a Jewish mobster, might have been saved at or after death by some mysterious internal forum revelation. The Saved at Death Heresy!

      Delete
    19. 4). The Catechism of The Council of Trent:

      It’s not infallible in all of its pages. The Catechism is not the same as The Council of Trent. The Catechism teaches delayed ensoulment. The catechism was given to parish priests and there were things that were to be taught and other things that were not to be taught as infallible. The Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854, yet the error concerning The Immaculate Conception was not removed from the Summa. The Summa was approved by Popes and used by seminaries all over. How can this be? It meant that the Summa was sound for theological study but not dogmatic on every single point. That was an easy one. Are you following along yet?…..

      Delete
    20. 5). Oh, I see you provided a list that you think buttresses your false position on BoD. This is known as The House of Cards list. Each item can be picked apart one by one and your whole modernist theory gets washed away by the waters of TRUTH like a sand castle. The atheists do the same thing when they make lists of points in order to attack the existence of God, but each point can be dismantled individually and the whole premise collapses. Just like you Modernist ideas.

      “Approved Theologians” from the late 50s that you quote. What a joke! Another prime example of the pseudo magisterium you adhere to in error.

      Saint Peter Canisius’s Catechism never mentions BoD, and he references John 3:5 and Session 6, Chapter 4 to support the necessity of water baptism. NO EXCEPTIONS! He was also at Trent and wasn’t commenting on it 200 years later.

      No matter how much a catechumen advances, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he has come to baptism.”

      –St. Augustine, Tractate 13 on the Gospel

      Problems for BoD supporters
      1). John 3:5 dogmatically defined, No Exceptions.
      2). Church infallibly teaches every human creature must be subject to The Roman Pontiff. A human creature cannot be subject to The Church and The Roman Pontiff without receiving the sacrament of Baptism. (Pope Boniface VIII).
      3). There is indeed one universal Church of THE FAITHFUL, outside of which no one at all is saved. Pope Innocent III
      4). False to say one can be inside The Church without being a member, enter Church through water baptism.
      5). Pope Eugene IV (Exultate Deo)

      Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

      I didn’t watch the video since I know you are a disseminator of modernism and calumny. A snake in the grass. It’s like asking a True Catholic to watch Kenneth Copeland to give a talk about Christianity and have an open mind . We know what he says is evil, no need to listen and watch what we already know, unless we are using it as refutation. But I decided to pass on that video and read the comments where True Catholics destroyed your vitriolic hatred and heretical beliefs.

      Your website numbers are paltry. There are 8 billion people in the world. It’s not hard to get readers on six different continents that can be done within a year. You didn’t convert anyone. You led them astray. Let’s hope your material did turn people away and they went to MHFM for answers.

      You’ll find out on Judgement Day that your apostasy and calumny will condemn you for eternity. I sincerely hope you convert but I know that you are an obstinate heretic and that most will not be saved. It’s the time of The Great Apostasy and you are either in the ark of salvation or out, there is no hanging on to the sides as you utter heretical ideas. If the whole earth was made of tiny seeds the size of sand granules that you find on a beach, and every thousand years a bird came to gather one seed until they were all gone, this won’t even be the beginning of how long you will have to endure the pains of Hell for leading souls astray, your scandalous activity, apostasy, and calumny, and your seditious behavior against The Church.

      You can pray for me when you become Catholic, as for now, I’ll be praying for you and all those you have sadly scandalized and misled.

      Delete
    21. Introibo, what is the best thing to do when you encounter a person who clings to and promotes their heresy as if the salvation of their soul depends on it? At some point it becomes obvious that they won't be convinced, and some readers can become convinced of what they write.

      I would love your thoughts. I have encountered so many of this type and from a human perspective they seem hopeless after a couple of exchanges. They don't acknowledge any undeniable point you make, dig in and resort to name calling.

      But it could be an opportunity, as you well know to refute the publicly and help save some from that trap. And you are just the man to do it. God bless you and your work!!!

      Delete
    22. @Feeneyite2:24 and continuing
      I wasn’t planning on a “mini-post” in the comments, but you “Fred and Bobby Dimwit sycophants” regurgitate the same false premises and demonstrate your lack of knowledge both of theology and the inability to think critically. You parrot the same nonsense over and over. That’s why I permit you to comment, so my readers can see how hopelessly clueless Feeneyites are and, by the grace of God, make more converts!

      You write: “You are a worshipper of fallible men and have turned a blind eye to the heinous crimes of World Jewry, we don’t know who you are, since you hide your identity as you spread your demonic errors. A coward indeed, who cares more about his career as a lawyer than showing his face as he spreads what he falsely believes. It’s fine to protect one’s identity in certain situations, but your reasons for doing so have the characteristic thinking of a wordling. Please correct me if I’m wrong.”
      Reply: Ok, you’re wrong. I have close friends, relatives, and my wife to consider. Who I am is unimportant for two reasons: (a) my positions stand or fall on their own merit. Who I am doesn’t matter. (b) All glory be to God for whatever good I do. In St. Matthew 6:3-4 we read, “But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.” This blog is a work of charity as I try to help people find their best Catholic way through the Great Apostasy, with the knowledge I gained from my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, an approved theologian from before V2 who was at the Council and fought the Modernists. He founded the Catholic Traditionalist Movement while the Council was still going on in 1964. This blog puts a great strain on my time for work, my family, my friends, and my other endeavors, yet I feel it necessary as a work of charity and to let God help others through his unworthy servant.
      Your anti-Jewish rant just exposes your hateful bigotry for all to see. You are like Feeney himself who hated Jews and called Pope Pius XII a “dirty WOP” (ethnic slur against Italians).
      Feeneyites all suffer from a real willful ignorance regarding the Magisterium. You will only adhere to ex cathedra decisions and then only YOUR interpretation of them. The Vatican Council of 1870 infallibly defined that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) is EQUALLY infallible to the extraordinary Magisterium.

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    23. You write: “The ex cathedra teachings of The Popes, Councils back up my arguments. In other words, The Holy Ghost. The Saints were not given that protection. They could make mistakes. The ordinal universal magisterium has to be constant and universal, not common among a few saints during a period or two.”
      Reply: If you inform a Feeneyite that there was unanimous consent of the theologians and Fathers regarding the reception of the effects/grace of Baptism apart from the sacrament (BOD/BOB) making it also a teaching of the infallible Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, you will get two standard responses from Fred and Bobby's script:

      (1) Not ALL the Fathers agreed, and (2) theologians are not infallible. They usually throw in Aquinas not accepting the Immaculate Conception as further "proof" that theologians and Doctors of the Church can be wrong.

      First, they don't understand that it's not NUMERICAL unanimity but MORAL unanimity that counts. According to the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (1957):

      When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.

      So moral unanimity is the criteria for Fathers and theologians. As to the fact that theologians and even Doctors of the Church are not infallible, again, I turn to theologian Scheeben:

      Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, "Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it." (Scheeben, A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:83).
      BOD is infallible both from the Council of Trent (“or the desire thereof”) AND by the UOM.
      The teaching of BOD/BOB was morally unanimous among the Fathers and numerically unanimous among theologians since Trent. Your citations to Pope Pius XII and Pope Benedict XIV do not apply to the UOM. Using Feeneyite “logic,” I’ll flip it on you: Those are not infallible decisions, so they made “innocent mistakes”! LOL Why are you citing non-ex cathedra teachings? They could be wrong—correct?

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    24. You write: “Saint Alphonsus: This a great Saint who is in Heaven and who we should all revere, yet he was not infallible. Saint Alphonsus clearly states that BoD doesn’t give the the grace of the sacrament of baptism. It doesn’t give the grace of spiritual rebirth and The Council of Trent dogmatically says that everyone must have this grace to be justified.”
      Reply: When Pope Gregory XVI canonized St. Alphonsus on May 26, 1839, the Bull of Canonization declared his works could be read "without the least fear of finding the smallest error." Yet Fred and Bobby Dimwit have found him in "innocent error." They know better than Pope Gregory. Furthermore, all theologians and canonists since Trent teach that the grace of Baptism can be received outside the actual sacrament. Yes, every single one that wasn't censured.
      The argument you regurgitated from the misfit “monks” of NY is fallacious.
      The Feeneyite argument runs thus:
      BOD gives the grace of baptism, yet temporal punishments remain, unlike in the sacrament of Baptism by water. Therefore, you are not receiving "the grace of Baptism" and BOD does not exist.

      There is confusion on the meaning of the term "grace of Baptism." First, the Feeneyite objection will be set forth in a syllogistic form:

      1. An adult who receives water baptism validly and who dies before committing a sin goes immediately to Heaven because the "grace of baptism" washes away all sin and all punishment due to sin.

      2. An adult who receives baptism of desire does not have all punishment due to sin washed away.

      3. Hence, an adult who receives baptism of desire is receiving something other than the "grace of baptism."

      4. Therefore, an adult who receives baptism of desire, is not actually receiving the "grace of baptism," and will not go to Heaven were he to die before receiving water baptism.


      It seems valid, but the problem lies in the term "grace of baptism" not being properly understood. The term applies to a bundle of gifts that the Sacrament alone gives to the recipient. Those gifts are:

      • The infusion of sanctifying grace (which washes away all sin, both Original and actual [mortal and venial])
      • The infusion of the three theological virtues (these actually never exist in a soul without sanctifying grace, but are distinct from sanctifying grace)
      • The removal of all temporal punishment for sin
      • The communication of the baptismal character on the soul which gives the soul a right to participate in the Church's sacramental life
      • Incorporation into the Church as a member
      BOD does not communicate "the bundle" that is always communicated via the "grace of baptism."

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    25. BOD does communicate the first two items in the bundle, however, and as a consequence puts the recipient within the One True Church. So while it does not communicate "the grace of baptism," it communicates enough of the gifts included in the grace of baptism to justify. This is because justification consists simply in the existence of God's life in the soul and the habituation of the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. While it is true that a man who receives baptism of desire receives something other than the "grace of baptism" technically considered, the person who receives BOD does receive the justifying effects of baptism.

      In revisiting the Feeneyite objection above, #4 does not logically follow from numbers 1-3. They actually beg the question when they assert "BOD does not communicate the grace of baptism," because they are really saying:

      BOD is not the same as being justified by water baptism. Water baptism is the only way to be justified. Therefore, BOD does not justify.

      Yet, the whole point of dispute is whether water baptism (the sacrament) is the only way to be justified, and they gratuitously assume it to be true in making their objection to BOD. Finally, there is the condemned proposition #31 of Michael du Bay (Condemned in the decree Ex omnibus afflicionibus of Pope St. Pius V on October 1, 1567) which states:

      CONDEMNED: Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Timothy 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.

      So a catechumen can have perfect and sincere charity which necessitates the remission of sin. It says nothing about the remission of temporal punishments. BOB, on the other hand, is considered by theologians as removing all temporal punishments. This is most likely because death in the service of Christ is a kind of penance whereby those debts are remitted. Such a penitent type of willful surrender of one's life to Christ is different than a catechumen who has a heart attack or a car accident causing death prior to Baptism.
      The argument is thus refuted.

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    26. You write: “Saint Alphonsus was not in grave error since BoD was never condemned as notoriously heretical by name.”
      Reply: According to you, BOD is condemned as heretical. If you go against a dogma you are a heretic. Why wouldn’t “John 3:5 mockers” be specifically condemned? “If anyone saith that Baptism and its attendant graces can be received by blood or by desire, and not by water only, let him be anathema.” Pretty simple, no? That “Christ is true God and true Man” is dogmatically defined. If someone denies it directly, “Christ is NOT true God and true Man,” or indirectly “Christ is an angel,” he is a heretic. Isn’t it strange that St. Alphonsus was made a DOCTOR of the Church because he was ORTHODOX IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE, yet he published heresy!

      You write: “ That’s why we read dogmas as they are declared. We don’t go by interpretations of approved theologians and then interpretations of their interpretations.”
      Reply: Feeneyites, despise the teachings of the theologians, insisting that anyone can read "the plain meaning" of the words. In a similar fashion, Protestants reject the Magisterium on the grounds that they can "read the Bible for themselves." A Feeneyite will say, "Then we need theologians to interpret those interpretations, and so on," contending an infinite regress. Here's what the Church actually teaches from the Vatican Council (1870):

      3. If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.

      Notice that doctrines must always be understood in the same sense as the Church understood. That doesn't mean "read with plain meaning. The bishops are highly trained and educated men who use scholastic terminology not readily accessible to the average layman. That's why the Church orders catechisms for adults, such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, to explain in layman's terms the technical decisions. If the "plain meaning rule" were true, it would render adult catechisms superfluous, you would just read the Council documents. That’s what Feeneyites believe: Popes can teach HERESY through catechisms. Wojtyla’s “Catechism of the Catholic Church” is offered as proof that he can’t be pope because it teaches heresy, yet Pope St. Pius V and Pope St. Pius X both get a pass for their “heretical” catechisms. How can that be?

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    27. You write: “So there is quite a bit of confusion out there about infallibility and fallibility. Also BoD heretics who obstinately reject John 3:5, believe that Jews, Pagans, and Animists can be saved IN their false religions.”
      Reply: The only confusion is from Feeneyites who are willfully ignorant and proud of it.
      BOD can only save just prior to the moment of death. God can infuse faith and grace so the person dies within the Church as a Catholic. They are NOT saved IN their religion.
      You write: “You believe Meyer Lansky, a Jewish mobster, might have been saved at or after death by some mysterious internal forum revelation. The Saved at Death Heresy!”
      Reply: Interesting you use a JEWISH MOBSTER when most are like John Gotti—you know, “dirty WOPs”! The “saved at death heresy,”—wow. So I guess the Good Thief went to Hell? He was dying at the same time as Christ. Why can’t God save someone prior to death? Were you there when a mobster died to know he was impenitent to the end? Isn’t it possible John Gotti could have cried out to God and made an Act of Perfect Contrition? Why not?
      You write: “The Immaculate Conception was not removed from the Summa. The Summa was approved by Popes and used by seminaries all over. How can this be?”
      Reply: It’s not difficult. Unlike catechisms, The Summa is not meant to teach the Faithful basic truths. My copy of the Summa has as a footnote: “Ineffabilis Deus of 1854 defined the Immaculate Conception as a matter of faith. This teaching of St. Thomas is preserved here TO DEMONSTRATE HIS THEOLOGICAL REASONING AT THAT TIME IN CHURCH HISTORY” (Emphasis mine). That’s how it can be. Advanced students of theology don’t need to be told it’s heresy, they are presumed to know, and it’s done to learn the historical development of the doctrine.

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    28. You write: “Saint Peter Canisius’s Catechism never mentions BoD, and he references John 3:5 and Session 6, Chapter 4 to support the necessity of water baptism. NO EXCEPTIONS! He was also at Trent and wasn’t commenting on it 200 years later.”
      Reply; ALL THEOLOGIANS wrote that! St. Peter merely didn’t add BOD and BOB. That’s not a denial. Here are but two examples:
      Theologian Ott: "Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, NECESSARY FOR ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION for salvation" (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 356; Emphasis mine).
      On the same page: "In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood."

      Theologian Tanquerey: "Baptism of water is necessary for all by necessity of Divine precept." (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 2:226). On pg. 228, "Contrition, or perfect charity, along with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies for the forces of Baptism of water as to remission of sins."

      You write: “Problems for BoD supporters
      1). John 3:5 dogmatically defined, No Exceptions.
      2). Church infallibly teaches every human creature must be subject to The Roman Pontiff. A human creature cannot be subject to The Church and The Roman Pontiff without receiving the sacrament of Baptism. (Pope Boniface VIII).
      3). There is indeed one universal Church of THE FAITHFUL, outside of which no one at all is saved. Pope Innocent III
      4). False to say one can be inside The Church without being a member, enter Church through water baptism.
      5). Pope Eugene IV (Exultate Deo)

      Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
      Reply: Here are the answers to the (non) problems:
      1. BOD and BOB are not exceptions to the necessity of the grace of baptism—they are extraordinary means. Trent defined it’s necessity “or the desire thereof.” The Catechism of the Council of Trent approved by Pope St. Pius V explains it, and you must believe a pope can teach heresy to the whole Church and still be pope.
      2. Yes, and if you are in the state of sanctifying grace, you are subject to the Roman Pontiff in voto.
      3. Yes, OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION. NOT WITHOUT CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. The Church is of the FAITHFUL (baptized) and OUTSIDE of which no one is saved—you must be WITHIN
      4. A heretical statement that is rejected by the Church, as seen by TRENT and the UOM
      5. Yes, and it means the grace of baptism is necessary. BOD and BOB supply that as the equally infallible UOM teaches.

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    29. You write: “But I decided to pass on that video and read the comments where True Catholics destroyed your vitriolic hatred and heretical beliefs.”
      Reply: How do you know the Feeneyites “destroyed” my alleged vitriolic hated and heretical beliefs” if you never heard what was said? What did you say about “confirmation bias”?

      You write: “You didn’t convert anyone. You led them astray.”
      Reply: Leading one astray from Feeneyism into Traditional Catholicism is indeed converting them. Thanks to you, many more will read this and see the truth with (God Wiling) MORE CONVERTS!

      Like Bobby Dimwit, you came in here over your head. Unfortunately, Feeneyites have a “sickness of soul” as my friend Steve Speray says, so it will most likely not sink in. PLEASE SEND AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN HERE TO READ THIS EXCHANGE. It has been a great refresher course on the errors of Feenyism. I’m sure it will get many thinking, and possibly make more converts---Deo gratias! That’s all the time I have for Feeneyism on this post.

      Pray for me, as I pray for you. By offering prayers for me (even though misguided) it shows you have the DESIRE TO BE CATHOLIC and may save you in the end. I certainly hope so

      Over and out,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    30. John Gregory,
      As you can see, I used this opportunity to publicly demolish the Feeneyite position, like when Bobby Dimond came on one of my posts. I will not engage further, as the Catholic point has been made, and the Feeneyite has seen truth. As you pointed out, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

      This guy is BOTH a Feeneyite and a Hitler Fanboy. I have noticed a cult-like mentality in both. I hit back hard, but I sincerely hope God works a miracle of grace to open their eyes. In the words of my friend, Steve Speray, they suffer a "sickness of soul." Those who do see their way out by the Grace of God, have (in my experience) become fervent Traditionalists.

      God Bless you, my friend!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    31. Introibo. I am the guy who said hitler was controlled opposition. I am not the feeneyite, ( i am 11:37, he is 11:36 it is a mere coincidence. This should have been evidenced by our conflicting opinions. he is a hitler fanboy. Iwas just pointing out the obvious fcat that hitler was a zionist (i dont know how attacking hitler makes me his fanboy) i am the same guy who reccomended sgg and icr.)

      Anon. Fr Feeney was solemnly excommunicated for heresy by a valid pope. You sound exactly like luther. The only possible way BoD could be false is if we were in some mayrys little rememant situation and even then it would only be heresy if the church ended with st ambrose since he is a CANONISED SAINT AND THE CHURCH IS INFALLBLE ON THAT.

      Delete
  8. I encountered a lot of coldness at my parish as well. Made me think that unfriendlynes was a requirement to be an authentic traditionalist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, its a rough reality :( I wonder if all of the splits and strife of the "early" Sede days contributed to this "coldness" phenomena? I know it split up many extended families in groups and parishes across the USA.

      Delete
  9. Sometimes there can be a parish with cultish priests and friendly parishioners and sometimes there is a solid priest with cultish parishioners.

    It is the blatant coldness motivation that I can't figure out. You wave and smile at someone and they completely ignore you. Can be scandalous to those new to tradition. And even those not so new.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I totally agree :) My above article was an over simplification for sure. As for the blatant coldness, I've experienced that one also, and its really baffling. My only thought about that is this behavior is an infection from the world. I could be wrong, but I tend to assume that those who act this way on purpose have the mentality towards strangers that worldlings have. However, if I thought about it, I'm sure there are other reasons as well. For my part, there were times when I was deep in thought and someone waved at me, and I completely ignored them on accident, so that happens also.

      Delete
    2. Your article was great! I try to remind myself that my happiness shouldn't depend on what others do or don't do. And there is a certain pride involved in hurt feelings.

      My concern should be the greater glory of God and the welfare of those who give me an opportunity to have my feelings hurt, inadvertently or not. 😀

      Delete
    3. John and Dominic,
      Speaking as one who attended Ave Maria Chapel back over 40 years ago, it wasn't a warm, fuzzy place. Lots of good people, but they kept to themselves. No one was rejecting of anyone, but it was comprised of people who came far and wide in the early days of the fight for truth and tradition. Traditionalists would attend Mass and go straight home--and to be fair, many of us came from a distance. My travel from NYC to Westbury, Long Island wasn't nearly as long as some others who came from a four hour car ride away. One thoracic surgeon would fly in from his native Hawaii each Christmas week with his family to attend the True Mass and go to Confession once a year as Hawaii had no Traditionalist chapel in the early 1980s.

      Why do so many act disinterested or cold like this? I honestly don't know, but it's real. I never spoke to most of the people at Ave Maria with whom I attended Mass for nearly a quarter century; and many I never even knew their names.

      While your relationship with God is paramount, most Traditionalists could certainly improve interpersonal relationships. Even Fr. DePauw told me "Traditionalists have been called 'clannish' and not without reason." A reason even he couldn't quite grasp.

      Let's pray for more fellowship among Traditionalists. Fr. DePauw would often remind us--falling on mostly deaf ears-- (quoting from Galatians 6:10): "Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith." May it be so in all our Chapels and Churches!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo and John Gregory,

      The disposition of Trads (in general) is an interesting phenomena, and it seems to me that a large part of this stereotypical behavior must be due, in part, to the sacrifices Trads make, as you pointed out.

      I've often thought that the Trad "groups" remind me of the Tribes of Israel, and I projected the behavior of those Old Testament stories onto them. I really can't find fault with individuals, but it seems to be more attributable to a group psychology that sets the tone, and which is inadvertently adopted as "excepted behavior" or something like that.

      For my part, I have never met a Trad Catholic that wasn't friendly, within the bounds of their natural disposition and life-circumstances.

      I would be interested in visiting Sede chapels in Nigeria or Mexico to see what they are like.

      Delete
  10. I agree with you John Gregory! All for the Glory of God. Almighty God is quite offended and few seem to care about this reality.

    I have never encountered any parish where the folks all believe the same Truth. That may be a factor too. Many self described Traditionalists get murdered baby vaxxes and still believe much which was taught in the Novus Ordo or the world. The cognitive dissonance is a real problem. May God bless and convert all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:28
      Of course, John will answer for himself, but I just wanted to comment that you're right about bickering over things--some serious and some not. One man at a Chapel I attended was a Hitler fanboy and asked not to come back if he kept up singing his praises. There is the occasional Feeneyite causing strife, and so on.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Agreed! I would NOT want to be a priest/pastor in these times. There must be cation and healthy skepticism for newcomers while at the same time an atmosphere of welcome and amicability.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousNovember 26, 2024 at 2:28 PM Very well stated!!!

      Delete
  11. do you know if it is possible to "devaccinate" oneself

    i was forced to take the covid gene therapy many years ago

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:38
      I asked a physician I know and the answer was a resounding "No."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Anon3:38
      The covid vaxxes and others alter your DNA so no full detox is possible. Some doctors offer protocols to lessen damage. Here is one doctor with protocols:
      https://drleemerritt.com/articles
      I have not heard of anyone being "forced" to take these poisons. I have heard of many who to chose to end their employment over this issue. I recommend reading the Poisoned Needle from the 1950s. It has been known a long time that all vaxxes are poison but the info is suppressed. I believe this medical industry scam is parallel to the Novus Ordo scam. Look into it. God bless!
      https://archive.org/details/the-poisoned-needle_202205

      Delete
    3. My parents forced me

      Delete
    4. Oh my! May God have mercy on them and all who submitted. So sorry to hear this. Are you a minor? So sad, as many have been poisoned from their day of birth. God bless you!

      Delete
    5. Yes i am a minor, my parents are protestants and my mother is a doctor so she pushed full mask and all “vaccines” as soon as she could. She nearly had me wearing n-95s. I sometimes feel chest pain these days which reminds me of the “vaccine”. But any way God is very merciful. To bring me out of that hellish false religion and from the grasps of false science.

      God bless

      Delete
    6. Oh dear! Protestant conversions always amaze me...and so young! Wow! May your parents convert thanks to your beautiful witness! Did you hear Drew Emman"s testimony from Fatima Conference?
      https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vog6bmAFORg&si=CCLcZ9CFXQYfUoz8
      I also highly recommend his short book too, a letter he wrote to his father.
      Only 99 cents on kindle.
      https://www.amazon.com/Letter-Dad-Conversion-Story-ebook/dp/B0D9927PJC

      Magnesium glycinate may help you.
      The FLCCC also has some good info re vaccine injury etc but I do not recommend taking the aspirin. https://covid19criticalcare.com/protocol/i-prevent-vaccine-injury/
      INTERMITTENT Fasting is very good so your body goes into autophagy. You can find videos online with Dr Merritt, Dr Ardis regarding detox protocols. There are many naturopath doctors with videos re autophagy too, such as Dr Berg.
      https://youtu.be/10jNZleNH9w?si=1ah4jwEeHidzxb_k
      Barbara O'Neill is a good resource too.
      God created our bodies and they are designed to heal themselves and it is so intricate, so expansive, so amazing. I recall reading long ago a priest trying to describe just one cell in our bodies and he was able to paint a parallel akin to a whole city. One cell is so vast...
      God bless you young one! Seeking guidance from Him is most important! 🙏⚜🙏

      Delete
  12. In my opinion, newcomers to sedevacantism should also be a little bit more patient. I am not speaking about people who are still confused, but about people like Kennedy Hall that already know what we are and what we do and should know better.

    Our people have experienced great pain. You do not walk into a room full of veterans and expect to be treated warmly. Some sedes have lost many things just to get into the church and others are traveling long distances. Others will likely struggle with social communication conditions like autism. It is a position held by a minority, and positions like this will likely attract eccentric personalities that would rather disconnect than connect awkwardly with other people.

    Promoting warm and welcoming behavior in a parish is fine but if you are unwilling to understand tradition because some sedes were mean with you once is absurd and must stop

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:05
      You make excellent observations! Thank you for commenting.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. Please remember what was said above. The person was rejected by the priests. The lay people were not rejecting the person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We do not know the particulars of this case above. I have seen many instances of people insisting that their particular public sin, for example, is not a public sin and harass the priest to no end when he fails to affirm them in it. This post and the comments are on topic. In my humble opinion...

      Delete
  14. Introibo:

    If a person(adult) IS ABLE to attend a chapel regularly, and is not in danger of death, and needs Baptism, how long should catechism instruction take? Several weeks? Months?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:56
      According to theologian Davis, "Adults, apart from the danger of death, who wish to be received into the Church, may not be baptized without their knowledge and free consent and only after due and proper instruction..." There is no specific time requirement. The adult must know all the mysteries of the faith as contained in the Apostles' Creed, how to make acts of faith, hope and charity, how to pray the Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be, and Creed; must know the Ten Commandments, the Commandments of the Church, the Mass and the seven sacraments.

      Time will therefore depend on the capacity of the individual to learn the material well. (See Davis, "Moral and Pastoral Theology," [1935], 3:52-53).

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Do you think that a year or more is too long for a mentally normal adult to have to study before Baptism?

      Delete
    3. Sorry! See my reply to you at your comment below)

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Excellent article! It should make each one of question how we relate to one another! When the Apostles shewed the children away, Christ replied, bring the littles ones unto me! Christ is the Father of all, we should all take to heart! ❤️ thank you

    ReplyDelete
  16. Introibo:

    A Hitler fanboy at a chapel?!? How awful! I hope he stopped that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon10:27
      It was so bad he was nicknamed "Adolph." The priest spoke with him. He was never seen at that Chapel again. Let's hope he repented.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. funny how a hitler fanboy (the feeneyite) appeared on your blog in a post where you mention a hitler fanboy

      Delete
  17. Dominic

    A great writing as always.

    Have you met anybody who attends Saint Gertrude the Great who has been there a long time?Have they or anyone else told you about the sad and bitter divisions back in the 1989-1990 era when the anti Thuc/CMRI problems started with Father Jenkins starting his own independent chapel .Do you know any folk who attend SGG who also go to Immaculate Conception church sometimes?

    It would appear that the CSPV have changed their views and don't make the anti Thuc holy Communion notice anymore . It would seem it is only the SSPV priests like Father Jenkins who still say it . How sad

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They might not always say it publicly, but privately talking to a younger CSPV person, the anti Thuc position is still there.

      Delete
  18. That is sad . Let us all pray that this ends soon .

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  19. A simple question to the SSPV/CSPV . If the Thuc consecrations are as dangerous as you claim,why not take the time to respond to the evidence presented by Mario Derkson .It gives them a bad look when they think they don't have to answer to anyone . An utter disgrace . SHAME ON THEM .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon Nov 29 , 3:22

    We could not agree more . 13 years ago was when Mario published his excellent writing . They did not even answer him .That is sad .

    Dominic/Introibo do the CSPV/SSPV think they are above any other cleric and don't have to answer to anyone. It does give them a bad look .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:33 and 3:22
      I agree that the SSPV should drop the "Thuc bishop" stance. It is untenable, and they know it (or SHOULD know it). If you can't answer Mr. Derksen, you have no business holding to such a policy/idea. In my experience, unless you say something, it's not enforced. They are not the "Mass police."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. it is shameful and ridiculous, they are also the only group to hold opinionism

      but shame on Introibo from flipping it onto Fr Cekada because he rightfully recognized that one cannot in good conscience attend an una cum.

      Delete
    3. @anon11:41
      Fr. Cekada (RIP) did much good for sedevacantism. Unfortunately, he became the same "follow me or die" cleric he once abhorred.

      Fr. Cekada has no Magisterial authority to declare anything sinful. Here are three of his invented rules regarding the so-called "Una Cum" Mass:
      1) It's wrong to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in a chapel/church while such a Mass is being offered.

      2) You can't receive Holy Viaticum from a priest who offers Mass Una Cum since the Sacred Host was consecrated during such a Mass.

      3) It's OK to go to Confession to a priest where the Una Cum Mass is offered, provided it would not create a scandal.

      #2 is particularly evil. A dying Traditionalist who only has access to a SSPX priest may forego Holy Viaticum because the Host is somehow "tainted."(That's blasphemous).

      Moreover, real theologians from pre-V2 who never apostatized, like Fr. Martin Stepanich (a friend of Fr. Cekada) and Fr. Gommar A DePauw, both taught attendance at an Una Cum was fine. Both were qualified to give an opinion on a theological matter, Fr. Cekada was not. It also appears that Fr. Cekada twisted a citation to say something it really doesn't to try and make his case.
      (See my post:https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/03/undeclared-heretics.html).

      Having no Magisterial authority myself, I do not tell people to go if they feel in good conscience they cannot or should not go.

      I stand by every word I wrote. The real shame is on a priest making up sins never declared as such in these unique times by the Church for obvious reasons.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. “Real theologians from pre-V2 who never apostatized, like Fr. Martin Stepanich”

      This man was sadly a heretic on The Salvation Dogma. Also, all the priests that I’m aware of who were taught by Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre and who later left the SSPX and started their own Sedevacantist groups are heretical on The Salvation Dogma. This includes the fake Sedevacantist and John 3:5 mocker Bishop Donald Sanborn, who says some traditional things but who contradicts Church teaching in some areas, and probably the worst of them all, Bishop Daniel Dolan who died shortly after trying to pick a fight with The Dimonds and showing his contempt for John 3:5. There are others, could probably dedicate a blog to the heretic Fr. Cekada and others. I think I’ll do that!

      Delete
    5. @anon2:25
      Please do! It would give me unlimited, reason-challenged, heretical material to destroy each week!

      Defeating Bobby Dimwit, er, "Dimond" when he commented on one of my posts was PRICELESS!

      The only downside is that beating a Feeneyite in debate is like beating a quadriplegic in a physical fight. You could do it anytime, but there's no challenge.

      Good luck with your blog and send me the link!

      God Bless,


      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. There’s no such thing as “luck”, only Divine Providence. So you’re a superstitious heretic. All you have to do is keep writing and talking and you will definitely get some converts who will fully reject your John 3:5 contempt and your absurd ideas and opinions on theological matters. The people who read your modernist trash will in many cases reject it, we can only hope and pray, and they will believe the true Church teaching that there is absolutely No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church, and that all Non-Catholics cannot be saved unless they convert before their death. I’ll be exposing your lies, and the lies of others who claim to be “Traditional” Catholics very soon on my blog and perhaps a channel on Rumble/Bitchute. Not Jewtube. God uses evil men like yourself to gain converts to the true Faith which you do not have. Just like the evil of The Roman persecutors against early Christians gave us the glorious martyrs in Heaven!

      Delete
    7. @anon8:04
      Wishing someone "good luck" is just common parlance to indicate you want the best for them. Saying "Divine Providence to you" just wouldn't work. Yet YOU are going to explain theology? it's like having a morbidly obese smoker as you Health and Fitness instructor.

      I absolutely believe there is One True Church OUTSIDE of which no one is saved; every Catholic does. It does not preclude BOD and BOB which are extraordinary ways to be in the Catholic Church.

      "Jewtube"? Another Hitler Fanboy and Feeneyite? Just what the world needs now. (Not).

      Can't wait for you to publish! Good lu, er, "Divine Providence to you"?!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  21. Hey, guys. I've just come into the fold and would like to know what a traditional Catholic can do in Alberta, Canada (I'm near Edmonton). Is there anyone to gather with, and how do I see a priest?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This could help you, http://www.ecclesia.luxvera.org/Directory-World.html#Top

      Delete
    2. Fr. Gabriel Lavery of the CMRI goes to Alberta. If you go to cmri.org and look up Mass centers you can find his e-mail and phone contact info for his next visit to the area. He is on Twitter as well if you search him.

      Delete
    3. (Original commenter here) Yeah, I've been emailing the CMRI and Father Lavery but have got no response. Left him a message too... I guess all I can do is wait.

      Delete
  22. The SSPX will not give conditional Baptism to somebody who needs it.
    Also, the question was asked above, do you think that a year or more is too long for a mentally normal adult to have to study catechism before conversion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:30
      That depends on the adult. As a former teacher myself, there are people who learn at a slow pace and have a hard time recalling things--especially true of some adults with demanding jobs. If the adult in question can't remember the Ten Commandments, with examples of what is commanded and prohibited by each, the priest may want the person to study for over a year. If the person really gets it, and he is still going after six months or so, he may want to ask the priest why he thinks this is necessary.

      As to the SSPX, that's not true. Maybe that particular priest, for some strange reason?

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  23. how does the roman catechism not contradict the council of vienne. on delayed ensoulment

    it is very confusing because it says according to the order of nature, then mentions a lapse of time

    can we interpret it as not meaning the order of time but merely the order of nature (it happens after, but not in time) and not meaning a lapse of time when it says a lapse of time? i was reading greiners thomistic philosohy, written in the early 1900s (written some time before 1946 so under the last true pope) and he defends delayed ensoulment on the grounds that the imperfect must precede the perfect

    wouldnt delayed ensoulment in the order of nature but not time give a sufficient solution to this (which is an argument from fittingness anyway, so it doesn't definitively prove anything) while also answering the feeneyites (they would have no argument since in the order of time it is immediate ensoulment so the protocols of the CIC would make complete sense) and the murderous abortionists (why these idiots even exist baffels me, all anyone has to do is show them Effraenatam. people will doanything to engage on moloch worship)

    God bless

    ReplyDelete