The teachings of Vatican II were Modernist to the core. However, they also agree with the Masonic slogan of the damnable French Revolution: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." One of the greatest (and, in my opinion, most underrated) popes of the Roman Catholic Church was His Holiness Pope Leo XIII (reigned 1878-1903). On April 20, 1884, Pope Leo penned Humanum Genus, and declared the Masonic sect founded in 1717 the "kingdom of Satan:"
The race of man, after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of heavenly gifts, "through the envy of the devil," separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth. The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation, must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God. (para. #1; Emphasis mine).
Never one to mince his words against the sworn enemies of the Church, the brave Vicar of Christ exposed their nefarious slogan/ideology for what it was in the following words:
Wherefore, not without cause do We use this occasion to state again what We have stated elsewhere, namely, that the Third Order of St. Francis, whose discipline We a little while ago prudently mitigated, should be studiously promoted and sustained; for the whole object of this Order, as constituted by its founder, is to invite men to an imitation of Jesus Christ, to a love of the Church, and to the observance of all Christian virtues; and therefore it ought to be of great influence in suppressing the contagion of wicked societies. Let, therefore, this holy sodality be strengthened by a daily increase. Amongst the many benefits to be expected from it will be the great benefit of drawing the minds of men to liberty, fraternity, and equality of right; not such as the Freemasons absurdly imagine, but such as Jesus Christ obtained for the human race and St. Francis aspired to: the liberty, We mean, of sons of God, through which we may be free from slavery to Satan or to our passions, both of them most wicked masters; the fraternity whose origin is in God, the common Creator and Father of all; the equality which, founded on justice and charity, does not take away all distinctions among men, but, out of the varieties of life, of duties, and of pursuits, forms that union and that harmony which naturally tend to the benefit and dignity of society. (para. #34; Emphasis mine).
Pope Leo XIII clearly taught that "liberty, equality, and fraternity" have two distinct and opposite meanings: the true meaning as understood by the Church, and the Satanic, twisted, Masonic meaning imposed on those words by the Lodge.
At the Robber Council, the Modernists gave the Masonic-compatible meanings of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity in the damnable documents from Hell. In this post, I will demonstrate how that was accomplished, and compare it to the true teaching of the Church.
The False Idea of Liberty:" Religious Liberty
In the declaration Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II replaced religious tolerance with religious liberty.
The teaching of Dignitatis Humanae summarized:
- All individuals and groups must be allowed to practice any religion publicly, and openly proselytize. It is a right that cannot be infringed upon.
- The State must respect all religions and only impose limits on their activities where public order demands such.
- The State must not discriminate on the basis of religion.
Vatican II Sect on Religious Liberty:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (Dignitatis Humanae, para. #2; Emphasis mine).
The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. (para. #9; Emphasis mine).
In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. (para. #3; Emphasis mine).
The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church summarized:
- Religious liberty for false religions is never a right. It should never be enshrined in law. False religions may be tolerated to keep the peace if necessary.
- The One True Church must be the State religion, and all false religions suppressed insofar as possible without causing civil unrest endangering Catholics.
The Roman Catholic Church on Religious Liberty:
The Syllabus of Errors (1864) CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #15:
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus para. #15:
Also perverse is the shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory which is greatly at variance even with reason.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, para. #3:
From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” (Emphasis mine).
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, para. #14:
This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. (Emphasis mine).
Is anyone surprised that Bergoglio stated: If in the past, our differences set us at odds, nowadays we see in them [false religions] the richness of different ways of coming to God and of educating young people for peaceful coexistence in mutual respect. For this reason, education commits us never to use God’s name to justify violence and hatred towards other religious traditions, to condemn all forms of fanaticism and fundamentalism, and to defend the right of each individual to choose and act in accordance with his or her conscience.
(See vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2021/october/documents/20211005-pattoeducativo-globale.html; Emphasis mine). Even now, Vatican II sect apologist try to walk back Bergoglio's statement “All religions are paths to God. I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine.” Yet, we can see that Bergoglio is a true product of Vatican II. He believes the first clause with all his might; All religions are paths to God.
The False Idea of Equality: "Collegiality"
Lumen Gentium, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, gave the heretical ecclesiology that the Church of Christ subsists in (not is) the Roman Catholic Church. It also gave the world the heretical teaching of collegiality. This is the idea that the bishops, taken as a whole, also are the supreme head of the Catholic Church. As my spiritual father, Fr. DePauw, once told me, "Before Vatican II, there were 2,500 bishops and one pope. Now, we have 2,501 little popes."
The Roman Catholic Church on Church Governance:
From the Vatican Council of 1870, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus:
We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.
For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said, "You shall be called Cephas" (John 1:42), that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", addressed these solemn words: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven." (Mt 16:16-19).
And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His Resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold, by the words: "Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep." (St. John 21:15-17).
At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.
Christ established the papacy Himself. The pope alone holds the Supreme Power. The Vatican Council continues:
Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation. (Emphasis mine).
The pope has immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church of whatever dignity. You must submit to the Roman Pontiff in all matters, not only in faith and morals, but in discipline and government. This obedience is due to the pope and no one can refuse it without loss of faith and salvation (are you listening "recognize and resistors"?). Finally, the Vatican Council of 1870 teaches:
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.(Emphasis mine).
The pope alone is infallible, and his infallibility is not contingent on consent from anyone. The bishops in an Ecumenical Council share in this infallibility if and only if the Council's decisions are approved and promulgated by the pope. Without papal approval, conciliar decrees have no binding force and cannot be infallible.
The Vatican II Sect on Church Governance:
Lumen Gentium para. #22:
The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. (Emphasis mine).
It seems orthodox except that it now declares that there are two sources of supreme power. How can the supreme power be vested in the pope and with the bishops together with the pope? It is not only illogical and heretical, it was placed there by the Modernists so there could be a "synodal Church (sic)"
Here is the result of that teaching:
Encouraging greater "synodal" practices in the Catholic Church should help the church find a greater balance between the power of the pope and the power of local bishops in their dioceses, said theologians participating in the Synod of Bishops...
An adjustment in the balance would recognize that the bishops are successors of the apostles and vicars of Christ, not vicars of the pope, said Father José San Jose Prisco, dean of the faculty of canon law at the Pontifical University of Salamanca, Spain, and a theological expert at the synod...
Catherine Clifford, a theologian and member of the synod from Canada, told the forum that "recent developments in the practice of synodality in the global Catholic Church reflect a shift in Catholic ecclesiology and practice away from an almost exclusive emphasis on the personal or primatial dimension of the bishop of Rome's office and toward a restoration of greater balance with the collegial and communal dimensions in the exercise of that office." (From Catholic News Service and reported in thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=198404; Emphasis mine).
The False Idea of Fraternity: "Ecumenism"
Ecumenism, the attempt to make a One World Religion, comes as a result of the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II that teaches there is a Church of Christ distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is present in its "fullness" in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is present in various degrees in false sects according to how many "elements of truth" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but just having some is good too, and leads to salvation; this was discussed above. All of the other heresies of Vatican II can be traced to the false ecclesiology as their root cause.
Many will be surprised that there is a truly Catholic ecumenism! Here then is:
The Roman Catholic Church on Ecumenism:
1. Unity. The Church was not only numerically one from the Will and intention of Christ, but She also has ever been one and shall be one until the end of time, as it is one of the Four Marks of the Church. Pope Pius XI taught:
This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations." In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?" It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it. (See Mortalium Animos, para. #6).
The Church is incapable of being divided. Those who leave are not "other churches" because Christ founded only one Church. Nor are those sects "part" of the Church. They are groups of heretics and/or schismatics that have no right to exist and are a means of damnation. The True Church is not "divided" or "less unified" because some leave and call themselves "churches." As Pope Leo XIII taught:
The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ....He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation" [S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6]. (See Satis Cognitum, para. #5).
2. The proper approach of ecumenism. Catholic ecumenism looks from a position of unity in possession, whereas false ecumenism looks for unity as not yet possessed. The false view looks for theories and means of obtaining unity, while true ecumenism aims to share a divinely-given unity which already exists. The primary question should not, therefore, be "How can unity be achieved?"--but rather "How did Christ will His Church to be one?" The answer is to be found in the words of Pope Leo XIII:
Wherefore Jesus Christ bade all men, present and future, follow Him as their leader and Saviour; and this, not merely as individuals, but as forming a society, organized and united in mind. In this way a duly constituted society should exist, formed out of the divided multitude of peoples, one in faith, one in end, one in the participation of the means adapted to the attainment of the end, and one as subject to one and the same authority. To this end He established in the Church all principles which necessarily tend to make organized human societies, and through which they attain the perfection proper to each. That is, in it (the Church), all who wished to be the sons of God by adoption might attain to the perfection demanded by their high calling, and might obtain salvation. The Church, therefore, as we have said, is man's guide to whatever pertains to Heaven. (See Satis Cognitum, para. #10). Therefore, unity is to be had by converting to the One True Church. This conversion must be individual, as corporate reunion is impossible on several grounds.
3. What is "corporate reunion"? Formal corporate reunion may be defined as that act whereby a society of baptized persons, professing the Integral Catholic Faith, enter the Church through a judicially authorized action of legitimate representatives (e.g. Eastern Schismatics who are allowed to retain the Byzantine Rite of Mass, and certain ecclesiastical customs). Material corporate reunion is the return to the Church by a group of people who receive no status like the Easterns. It's just like-minded people professing the Integral Catholic Faith. It is not "a Church joining the Catholic Church" in either case.
Wherefore Jesus Christ bade all men, present and future, follow Him as their leader and Saviour; and this, not merely as individuals, but as forming a society, organized and united in mind. In this way a duly constituted society should exist, formed out of the divided multitude of peoples, one in faith, one in end, one in the participation of the means adapted to the attainment of the end, and one as subject to one and the same authority. To this end He established in the Church all principles which necessarily tend to make organized human societies, and through which they attain the perfection proper to each. That is, in it (the Church), all who wished to be the sons of God by adoption might attain to the perfection demanded by their high calling, and might obtain salvation. The Church, therefore, as we have said, is man's guide to whatever pertains to Heaven. (See Satis Cognitum, para. #10). Therefore, unity is to be had by converting to the One True Church. This conversion must be individual, as corporate reunion is impossible on several grounds.
3. What is "corporate reunion"? Formal corporate reunion may be defined as that act whereby a society of baptized persons, professing the Integral Catholic Faith, enter the Church through a judicially authorized action of legitimate representatives (e.g. Eastern Schismatics who are allowed to retain the Byzantine Rite of Mass, and certain ecclesiastical customs). Material corporate reunion is the return to the Church by a group of people who receive no status like the Easterns. It's just like-minded people professing the Integral Catholic Faith. It is not "a Church joining the Catholic Church" in either case.
The Vatican II Sect on Ecumenism:
1. The Church of Christ is made up of a bunch of sects. The Church of Christ subsists fully in the Roman Catholic Church which has all the "elements" of the Church of Christ, and it subsists partially in false religions according to how many elements they have. The elements "impel towards unity" because the Church is not unified. Catholic unity is not perfect but "wounded."
Lumen Gentium, para. #8: This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. (Emphasis mine).
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), section 817: In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church — for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body — here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism — do not occur without human sin:...(Emphasis mine).
2. As a result of the "partial communion" of having "some elements" of the Church of Christ, false religions are used by Christ as a "means of salvation."
Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #3: It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (Emphasis mine).
Catechesi Tradendae ("Encyclical" of Wojtyla), para. #32: The great movement, one certainly inspired by the Spirit of Jesus, that has for some years been causing the Catholic Church to seek with other Christian Churches or confessions the restoration of the perfect unity willed by the Lord, brings me to the question of the ecumenical character of catechesis. This movement reached its full prominence in the Second Vatican Council and since then has taken on a new extension within the Church, as is shown concretely by the impressive series of events and initiatives with which everyone is now familiar...In this context, it is extremely important to give a correct and fair presentation of the other Churches and ecclesial communities that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using as means of salvation... (Emphasis mine).
3. As false religions are a means of salvation, there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. There is no reason you can't pray in common with members of false religions.
Ut Unum Sint ("Encyclical" of Wojtyla), para. #22: Along the ecumenical path to unity, pride of place certainly belongs to common prayer, the prayerful union of those who gather together around Christ himself. If Christians, despite their divisions, can grow ever more united in common prayer around Christ, they will grow in the awareness of how little divides them in comparison to what unites them.
(Emphasis mine).
Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #8: In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers "for unity," and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. (Emphasis mine).
4. Indeed, reunion with the Roman Catholic Church is not necessary to be saved, and we must esteem and venerated false religions. Hence:
(a) The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. (Nostra Aetate, para. #3; Emphasis mine).
(b) The Jews are not guilty of Deicide and accursed: Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. (Ibid, para. #4; Emphasis mine).
(c) Pagan Hindus and Buddhists, and all other religions are found admirable because of the "elements of truth" they possess, regardless of their demonic teachings, and the Catholic Church rejects none of the "truth in them."
Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. (Ibid, para. #2; Emphasis mine).
Proselytism is solemn nonsense; it makes no sense.
(Jorge Bergoglio, brainyquote.com/quotes/pope_francis_571227; Emphasis mine).
Conclusion
The Robber Council of Vatican II was the "French Revolution" within the Catholic Church, producing a man-made sect of Counterfeit Catholicism. The Modernists, echoing the Masons, chanted for "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." Their "Religious Liberty" destroyed Catholic Europe. Their equality of collegiality led to a "Synodal Church," no longer constituted as the Divine Founder intended. Their fraternity led to universalism, and now leads to a One World Church.
Query for the R&R and Vatican II sect apologists: "Can you explain, one more time, how Bergoglio is pope and the Catholic Church is ever the same in doctrine and government?"
I love the last sentence above.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
DeleteI would love for an R&R to attempt a coherent answer!
God Bless, my friend,
---Introibo
Thank you for another excellent article showing that the V2 sect is the exact opposite of the Catholic Church. It's a creation of Satan and his Freemason and modernist minions ! Bergoglio said the state must be secular because denominational states end badly. Some news for Bergie: in a Catholic state, there is no right to abortion, no "same-sex marriage", no euthanasia, no sex education. Since the world is no longer Catholic, it's been chaos. Everyone is their own god and invents their own truths and "dogmas", like human rights, "reproductive rights", women's rights. The only thing missing is the rights of the unborn, but the world doesn't recognize them as human beings. We are certainly in the last days !
ReplyDeleteSimon,
DeleteEven if were are not in the last days (we may be), I must admit we must be very, very close!!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Before Vatican 2, Freemasonry conspired to destroy the Church. It has almost succeeded, but there remains a small remnant of true Catholic faithful. Before V2, Freemasons would never have praised the true Popes, but since the Robber Council, they have praised the false Popes who succeeded each other and implemented Freemasonry's ideas in what the world believes to be the Catholic Church. God has allowed this to happen for reasons known only to Him.
DeleteGreat article. In addition to the article, all of the NO sacraments are infected with modernistic mumbo jumbo and protestant phraseology.
ReplyDelete@anon7:20
DeleteCorrect! All the V2 sect sacraments are invalid except some baptisms and some marriages.
God Bless,
---Introibo
That is simply not true, go read about discarded hosts from the NO Mass that have been found to be (bleeding) human heart tissue; in these (presumably) last times, such Eucharistic Miracles abound. One of particular interest is from the late '90s, where Bergoglio was ABp. Such miracles are a mercy, though not necessarily a blessing.
DeleteWhat you make a habit of referring to as the 'NO Cracker' is the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Saviour and you would be well advised to drop such a haughty appellation.
VII is a punishment of the worst class: bad priests. 'I will send them priests after my own heart' (i.e. what they deserve); Not I will send them non-priests.
That the Sacraments remain valid can be reasoned alone: they are necessary for salvation. God will punish, though not condemn, a faithless generation, neither for their own sins nor those of their fathers.
And, leading from that, 'I will punish up to the third or even fourth generation '. A generation is c. 25 years and that wretched Council was but 62 years ago. It has some time to run yet.
JR
JR,
Deletethe Novus Ordo have a curious way of disposing of hosts that, for instance, were dropped on the floor through carelessness. The procedure is as follows: put the unwanted host into a container filled with water, and leave therein until dissolved (usually they'll keep the unwanted host immersed in water in a bowl or something like this and lock it away someplace).
What could happen if you put away for days a wafer made of wheat to store it in a locked and dark place in a bowl of water? My inner chemist says chances are it's going to get mouldy.
No need to believe me. Here's what the Novus Ordo heresiarchs admit themselves:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/33173/utah-diocese-miracles-happen-the-bleeding-host-wasnt-one
https://www.twincities.com/2011/12/13/archdiocese-communion-host-turned-blood-red-due-to-fungus-not-miracle/
***
"And I will give you pastors according to my own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine" (Jeremiah 3:15). Haydock says this verse applies more particularly to Christ and his apostles so your "interpretation" falls flat on its face and steers in a dangerous direction.
Your 'inner chemist' is mistaken Joanna.
DeleteSadly there are numerous instances of discarded Hosts in - as Fr DePauw used to refer to it - the 'Conciliar Church', and, without wading into their dreadful treatment of the most Blessed Sacrament in any and all instances, there are indeed numerous incidents of such Hosts developing bacteria, etc.; however this is not always the case and the Host to which I refer is one of particular interest. Mr. RON TESORIERO conducted much research on this Host, which was examined by numerous universities around the globe and found to be heart tissue, of the right ventricle, and - inexplicably - to possess a type of white blood cells that, apart from indicating a most tortuous death, exist for only 20 minutes after death. The scientists, many of them renowned professors in their respective fields, were left dumbfounded by what was before their eyes.
The famous Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano (the town from whence came the soldier who pierced our Lord's side, hence its name) occurred, if I'm not mistaken, on account of a priest doubting the Real Presence. Would one suspect Bergoglio doubts?
Obviously I don't scrutinise the words of Haydock; however Scripture works upon more than one level. God speaks via it, and He will send priests to both persons and to populations that they merit. The logic of the punishment of bad priests rests upon this very precept - He would hardly send good priests to the wicked, nor bad priests to the virtuous, in the normal flux of affairs.
I find the outlook of some in this community, in a word and without wishing to be offensive, parochial. One of the marks of Holy Church is 'universal'. Take that away and it could be convincingly argued that She has been overcome, which of course is impossible. I reside in Australia where, until very recently, 25% of the population identified as 'Catholic', yet we have no SSPV or similar, no stand alone Traditional Chapels, just a modest presence (in the major cities only) of SSPX & FSSP. So what does that mean? God deigned to abandon, entirely, this nation and its denizens? Doubtful.
As horrid as the Conciliar Church is, the Sacraments (which means by default Holy Orders and thus ordinations) remain - mysteriously, and ‘mysteriously’ really is the word - valid. And despite the Chair being vacant. For decades.
'Remnant' doesn't necessarily mean a handful of faithful clusters splattered around the globe; rather, it can be regarded it as the handful who remain faithful to and with what they've been given, betwixt the broader structure of the Church. Almighty God hath promised “mercy unto thousands that love Me, and keep My commandments” and, in both accord and ‘engineering’ of such, there is sufficient grace, even within the gruel of the wretched NO Conciliar Church, to find the Salvation that was wrought for all upon the Cross and at a most terrible price.
JR,
DeleteJoanna is correct. Like apparitions, so-called miracles must not form the basis of our Faith. Fr. DePauw himself called the host from the Nous Bogus bread and wine service a "more or less blessed cracker." He would tell us that "the statues don't cry here, the walls don't bleed, and the white bird you see around the Chapel is not the Holy Ghost--just a lost seagull from Jones Beach."
The Anti-Modernist Oath makes clear:
"Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially MIRACLES AND PROPHESIES as the surest SIGNS OF THE DIVINE ORIGIN of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time." (Emphasis mine).
Miracles prove the origin of the Church, but are no longer needed today. The so-called "Charismatic Catholic" movement is predicated upon miracles becoming commonplace and hence ceasing to be miracles in the true sense.
While we must believe in miracles (especially those contained in the Holy Bible), we are not bound to believe in every specific event claimed to be miraculous. We should only give credence to those events considered miracles by the authority of the Church. With no pope no such events--like Eucharistic Miracles--- can now be declared true miracles.
Miracles cannot be used to help give credibility to that which is false. Any "miracle" that does so is either (a) naturally explained, and therefore not a miracle, or (b) of demonic origin.
Proof: A miracle is a deed that is sensible, extraordinary, and of divine origin. Hence, since transubstantiation is not sensible, it cannot be considered a miracle in the strict sense. Miracles can only be used to support that which is true and good. It is impossible for God to deceive. Moreover, God would equivalently be producing falsehood if He were performing some miracles in order to demonstrate that some false doctrines or a doctrine that is altogether human has been revealed by Himself. We should recognize that God allows extraordinary things to be performed by the devil. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:40-45)
Continued Below
In Exodus 7: 8-13, we read:
DeleteThe Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said."
What you claim is impossible and heretical, i.e., that God would lend credence to a false religion by way of miracles.
The Vatican II sect has false miracles to complement its false worship, false sacraments and false beliefs/morals. This should not surprise us. It was taught by the theologians of the Church that this would happen. According to theologian Berry: "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of the Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be LYING WONDERS in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church. " (See "The Church of Christ," pgs. 65-66; Emphasis mine).
You would have us discard the truths revealed by God and taught in Dogmatic Theology to believe that Transubstantiation can occur based on alleged miracles--and that the validity of Vatican II sect "sacraments" is "mysteriously" assured. That's not Catholic. Why stop there? Let's discard the teaching on the papacy and declare Bergoglio is "mysteriously pope."
Whatever draws people away from the truth of the One True Church, do not believe it. No one is required to believe any particular miracle not approved by the Church; therefore in these times I suggest staying away from any "miraculous claims." Remember well the words of Our Lord, "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (St. Matthew 24:24).
God Bless,
---Introibo
JR,
DeleteI must respond to a couple of more of your assertions.
1. The sacraments are necessary to be saved in fact OR BY DESIRE. Certain sacraments are not (strictly speaking) necessary to salvation, such as Confirmation. Only Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist can be deemed necessary, and all three can be supplied in desire.
2. I love my Australian readers and lament your lack of Traditionalist priests. Yet for approx. 200 years, Japan had no priests and no sacraments. It happened. (This is not an endorsement of Home Aloners).
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you kindly for your replies.
DeleteI appreciate why you say "God would [not] lend credence to a false religion by way of miracles", however I think that's the wrong prism through which to view these matters; thou, as I say, I do grasp your point.
Tell me, please, why it is that you know, categorically and beyond any manner of doubt - why it is that you are 100% and incontestibly certain that the Sacraments of the Conciliar Church are invalid. Why do you know this to be concrete fact?
I disagree with much of what you've said (or at least the context or application in which you've offered it), though it pivots on the above: why do you know, point-blank, that the Sacraments are no longer valid.
For my own part, I don't think there is man born of woman who has done more harm to the Church than Montini, and so I'm hardly likely to defend his works
JR
The changes made by Montini are a manifestation of the spiritual changes which had occurred, namely, the departure of the Holy Spirit. If we had a series of antipopes but no changes to the matter and form, etc. then it really would be impossible to tell if they are true Sacraments still.
DeleteBy the nature of the spirit of Vatican 2, they -must- change the matter and form. The Holy Spirit, by not being there in these corrupted sacraments (and allowing these changes to be made) thus guards the sanctity of the true ones.
@anon1:34
DeleteWhile I have no authority to DECLARE a sacrament invalid, just as no one can DECLARE Bergoglio a non-pope, the FACT in both cases is evident. Except for some baptisms and marriages, the other Sacraments are null and void.
I know this based on the Dogmatic Theology of the RC Church. In order for a sacrament to be valid FIVE CONDITIONS must obtain:
1. There must be a valid minister of the Sacrament (i.e., one having the power to administer it)
2. Said minister must use the Correct MATTER (material things)
3. The Matter must be used with the correct FORM (words to say) while putting it together with the matter to effectuate the sacramental sign
4. While doing this the minister must intend to do what the Church does.
5. There must be no OBEX (invalidating impediment) on the part of the recipient.
To illustrate, let me use the sacrament of Baptism as an example:
1. Any human being who has reached the age of reason can validly baptize (although illicit if done outside the danger of death and without sufficient cause)
2. Plain natural water must be used as the remote matter (milk would make the sacrament invalid). The proximate matter is the pouring the water over the head (not just hair but skin contact). Dipping fingers in the water and flicking it on the person is invalid.
3. The form is specific and MUST be "I baptize thee [you] in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]" "I baptize you in the Name of God" is an invalid form.
The form must be said while pouring the water. (To pour the water and then recite the form 5 minutes later is invalid)
4. The person must intend to administer Baptism (If it was done as an acting role in a movie, intention is lacking, and it would be invalid)
5. The recipient adult must intend to receive the sacrament and know the basic truths of Faith. (To force a baptism on an adult who doesn't want it is invalid)
The Sacrament of Holy Orders has a serious (substantial) defect in form and intention. Either is enough to invalidate the sacrament. Five sacraments depend on priests/bishops for valid administration. Moreover, each of those five have substantial changes in matter and or form. Ergo, all V2 sacraments are invalid except some marriages and baptisms.
Just as I know that a person who baptizes with milk does so invalidly (even though I cannot officially declare it such), so too, do I know the other Sacraments to be as phony as Bergoglio's "papacy."
God Bless,
---Introibo
JR,
DeleteIntroibo's answers are sufficient. A couple years ago he let me post an article on his website about Holy Orders. I try to show the reasons why they are no longer valid by going through the different rubrics between the old rite and the new rite. Much of the information came from Michael Davie's book The Order of the order of Melchizedek and he wasn't sedevacantist. You can read that here: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-underrated-sacrament.html
Feel free to criticize it if you like.
Lee
Thank you very much, I will look into it. Thank you.
DeleteI'm aware of the nature of the changes, however not the finer points. Thank you again.
JR,
DeleteI know it's not much but a CMRI priest visits Australia:
https://cmri.org/cmri-directory-of-traditional-latin-masses/cmri-traditional-latin-mass-directory-outside-the-usa/#AUSTRALASIA
Bp. Sanborn has his priests in Australia too:
https://romancatholicinstitute.org/mass-centers/
I hope this may be of help to you.
God Bless You,
Joanna
Thank you Joanna, I will look into that.
DeleteJR
The person who was mentioned from November 7-8, who has been having trouble getting sacraments, has been in contact with a traditional Catholic priest at the chapel that they want to attend.
ReplyDeleteThe best that this priest can say is that they might come if the person is in danger of death.
@anon2:40
DeleteHow far away is this person from the Chapel in question? (Approximate miles)
God Bless,
---Introibo
Less than 50.
Delete@anon7:41
DeleteDeplorable. Did the priest give an explanation why he can't come at least once per month?
---Introibo
He probably thinks that the person is not sincere enough. Who knows for sure?
Delete@anon8:45
DeleteIf this priest has a bishop, I would report him. Keep reaching out to any Traditionalist priest you can (if she will let you) until you hopefully find one who takes his vocation to save souls seriously.
God Bless,
---Introibo
The priest and his bishop work together. The bishop will likely agree with the priest. In fact the person has met the priest's bishop, who has not done anything for the person.
DeleteJR if I said whoopdedoo to a host then discarded it and it started bleeding, we can assume it is a fake miracle. Once you read about the novus Ordo canon you will see that it is essentially whoopdedoo and invalid. Even if a valid priest bishop or even pope said it
DeleteAlso the devil can Fake EMs but the devil can’t fake resurrections
Therefore st Vincent ferrer still proves Catholicism
This article was FANTASTIC!
ReplyDeleteLee
Lee,
DeleteThank you, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you so much Introibo for another great writing on such an important subject . Do you suggest any good pre Vatican Two books on freemasonic sect.
ReplyDeleteCan the person above give the State where they are having trouble with this priest . How sad . Why don't they contact the SSPV or CMRI.
God bless
@anon12:27
DeleteGlad you found my post informative! As to freemasonry, the best and most concise writing is "Catholics and Freemasonry" by Dr. Rumble published in the 1950s. Also read the Alta Vendita to see what the Masons planned to do. Originally in Italian, I have a hard to find copy in English; I cannot vouch for the booklet by John Vennari.
The encyclical Humanum Genus by Pope Leo XIII is a masterpiece.
God Bless,
---Introibo
It's odd that they worship various states of being (for they make them their gods), namely, "liberty, equality, fraternity". For example, the ability to move at will, liberty, is not a worthy object of adoration; it is not even an object, though it remains an idol. It makes 'sense', if you may, if one considers where these ideas reside: in those who profess to 'keep' them. Thus it is that they worship these things in themselves, which means they worship themselves; and the Vatican '2' NewChurch is the 'religious' embodiment of this.
ReplyDeletecairsahr__stjoseph
DeleteExcellent observation! Thanks for commenting.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Now they have attempted (bergoglio is just a layman) to add a nestorian heretic to the martyrology.
ReplyDeleteFrancis the fake strikes again
@anon3:46
DeleteI wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not, alas.
God Bless,
---Introibo
First it was palamas (The Council of Zamość forbade his veneration yet it runs rampant in the novus ordo church) then it was the Copts now this!
Delete“ No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” - Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence
apparently smith wigglesworth the protestant raise 14 dead people. Does this refute the claim that st vincent ferrers miracles prove catholicism
ReplyDelete@anon4:17
DeleteNot in the least. Compare the evidence and Protestant "miracles" never hold up.
God Bless,
---Introibo
You are right! It turns out that Wigglesworth’s resurrections are unverifiable. St Vincent Ferrier has been given testimony to by men sworn under oath. Who would have no reason to lie.
DeleteCan the above person give the name of the state please of where they are having trouble with a priest who will not visit them .
ReplyDeleteWe had a problem with certain priest years ago who caused a very grave and sad situation .He also destroyed the vocation of a young man after he exposed him and other folk saw his double standards . We left and went over to support another priest .
The person lives near the priest. They are having trouble with the priest. The state is going to be anonymous for the person's safety.
DeleteThat sounds terrible, having a problem with your former priest.
The priest even sometimes goes to another chapel. The person lives close to the driving route between these chapels.
DeleteOn the topic of masonry do you think John Salza has his 33rd degree yet
ReplyDelete@anon12:19
DeleteDo I believe he's still a Mason? Most probably. Is he high ranking if he is a Mason? Yes--perhaps even 33 degree. However, I cannot make any definitive claim other than Salza does all he can to keep people in the V2 sect.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I remember him saying he “used to be” a 32 degree in a video from back when he was r&r
DeleteDoes apostolic succession require ordinary jurisdiction if so how do we have it
ReplyDeleteand was abp thuc given power to subdelegate
Delete@anon1:00&3:48
DeleteMy answer: If it is necessary, it is preserved somehow, even if we don't know exactly how in these unique times. As to Abp. Thuc, I don't know for certain. I've heard the claim but never saw a solid citation. I'm open to any evidence.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Because I remember reading in the CIC (canon 198 or 199) that delegated jurisdiction (not the same as supplied jurisdiction) can be given either by the law or an ordinary, if guessing that our situation would be a time when the law gives delegated jurisdiction, but it also said that an ordinary with delegated jurisdiction from the pope could subdelegate jurisdiction, but that the power to subdelegate would not pass on unless explicitly given.
DeletePlease do fact check me because I could be talking nonsense
The person still hasn't heard any more from the chapel that they want to attend. They have been trying for a long time.
ReplyDeleteVery sad.
Delete---Introibo
The person is probably going to just give up and hope that they can get a priest if they are immediate danger of death. And hope that their NO baptism is valid and try to say an Act of Contrition. There is literally nobody available who is willing to do conditional baptism. SSPX think that their NO sacraments are valid.
DeleteIf they are in danger of death anybody can do a conditional baptism
DeleteTo have a mark of the church, is it necessary to have everything that pertains to the mark.
ReplyDeleteBy this I mean for example is it necessary that there be unity of government, unity of faith and unity of worship for the mark of unity to be present.
If so then obviously the church always has these, because it always has the four marks, that seems to be the correct one but I don’t know.
But if not, then how can we argue against a charismatic Protestant, who while not having causative sanctity claims to have miracles, which prove they have the mark of holiness, or a novus Ordo who while not having unity of faith or worship claims to have unity of government? All the dogmatic/apologetic manuals on de ecclesia seem to have been written before the creation of or before the expansion of the Pentecostal movement, so they do not give any answers to such groups.
God bless
novus ordos dont have unity of doctrine
DeleteYes it’s true that they don’t have unity of faith. Hence the question, to have for example the mark of unity , must one have unity of government, faith AND worship or only one/two of them
DeleteIntroibo
ReplyDeleteI was just listening to a sermon by a SSPX priest preached several weeks ago about when the society decides to have some new bishops. He said they would have to seek first the permission of Francis and Rome .Is this priest mad .What is wrong with these society priests .Most of the folk who sit in their pews are blind too.
@anon4:57
DeleteThe R&R error is persistent. Let's hope Bp. Fellay finds his spine--and his theological sanity.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Why does the RCI keep lying to us about the five opinions. They want us to believe that the fourth opinion is Dominican and the fifth opinion is Jesuit
ReplyDeleteThey lie about Suarez, claiming he held the fifth opinion when he held the fourth.
They ignore St Antoninous of Florence. They make the unfounded claim that “Dominicans in general” hold the fourth opinion. They haven’t stopped to consider that st Vincent Ferrer didn’t find it necessary for a deposition to be made when he rejected antipope Benedict xiii, they ignore turrecremata who held that even an occult heretic ipso facto falls from the office. They ignore the Dominicans post 1917, despite the fact that all the canonists teach that canon 188.4 is based in divine law, meaning that the Dominicans will submit. They quote journet, the novus Ordo “cardinal” to support them.
Then they make the same R&R claim about “warnings” misrepresenting St Robert Bellarmine.
I don’t see why they can’t hold the thesis without attacking the catholic teaching on loss of office for heretics, none of them believe these men were ever popes anyway so what is their issue. The same goes for their attacks on cum ex apostolatus officio, but I guess they attack it because it says even the election would be invalid and could not ever be made valid.
St Antoninus of Florence OP (1459) (yes a Dominican and a saint)
“In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.
A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.”
Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond, publisher.
Dominic Prummer (1927) (hmm another Dominican)
“The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost:….
(c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. And this at least probably….
The authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.
Based on the supposition, however, that a pope could fall into heresy, as a private person (for as pope he could not err in faith, because he would be infallible), various authors have worked out different answers as to how he could then be deprived of his power. None of the answers, nevertheless, exceed the limits of probability.”
Manuale Iuris Canonici. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. 95. His emphasis.
I have only cited Dominican theologians to get my point across.
The fourth opinion IS NOT the opinion of the Dominican order.
Nice post.
ReplyDeleteAccording to bouscaren and Elis when jurisdiction is delegated by the law itself it is not ordinary because it is not tied to the office. Then how do we have apostolic succession? I could only think of three options
ReplyDelete1. Archbishop Thuc had ordinary delegated jurisdiction to ordain and consecrate bishops. He subdelegated to his ordinands and gave them the power of subdelegation, which he expressedly gave to his ordinands
2. Pope Pius XII delegated ordinary jurisdiction by his intention to preserve the church
3. Christ delegates ordinary jurisdiction to the lawful bishops as the Invisible head of the church
Are any of these possible or viable? I hope none of them are heretical and if any are I repent immediately.
This is very important or novus ordos will accuse us of missing the mark of apostolicity (even though they don’t have any of the marks!)
God bless
@anon6:37
DeleteNone sound heretical or farfetched. As to which (if any) is the answer, I honestly don't know. I'm certain Jurisdiction there even if the exact manner is not presently known.
God Bless,
---Introibo
More of the person mentioned on November 15:
ReplyDeleteHow close to death does a person need to be to get a priest to come to them? This person's situation is getting worse.
And the person mentioned above really has NOBODY to give conditional baptism.
@anon7:52
DeleteFirst, as to Extreme Unction: According to theologian Halligan, the danger must be at least probable in the estimation of the priest who must weigh the information obtained from the recipient's doctor, family, and the sick or aged person himself/herself. The danger of the illness is morally probable when the sick person may survive or die. If not able to decide if death is probable, the priest may confer the sacrament conditionally. Any disease that is serious by its nature is sufficient to confer the sacrament. (See "The Administration of the Sacraments" [1962], pg. 348).
If baptism is needed a "well founded fear" suffices (Ibid, pg. 39).
As to giving baptism, can you drive to where she is and perform it? How about asking someone who lives nearby? First try the priest if the fear of the probability of death is well founded on the facts of her case (age, illness, etc.).
God Bless,
---Introibo
Dear Introibo, what do you mean by “some novus ordo baptisms are valid”?
ReplyDeleteIf the proper matter and form are used, the minister is presumed for that very reason to have the intention to do what the Church does, so taught Pope Leo XIII.
The form and matter for Baptism were given by our Lord in specie, so unless the novus minister expressly says “this won’t wash away original sin or infuse sanctifying grace into the soul”, then I don’t see how the intention is anything other than to do what the Church does. The novus rite of Baptism was created to make it acceptable to “high church” protestants - Lutherans and Anglicans - who do believe that Baptism actually causes the regeneration of the soul.
Thanks for your time. God bless you.
@anon9:18
DeleteThat's why I said "some" are invalid.
First, I never mentioned intention as the reason, but it certainly can play a major role. That being said, there are V2 sect clergy that dip their fingers in the water and flick it twice on the hair and it precludes contact with the skin--INVALID. Some pour the water and start coughing. They go to the sacristy to get a drink of water and repeat the form several minutes after the pouring of the water---INVALID.
One V2 "priest" in (where else?) Boston baptized a baby in the politically correct and invalid form of "I baptize you in the Name of God the Creator, and of Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit"---INVALID
Another V2 clergyman baptized "as a community" by saying "WE baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." ---INVALID.
Hence only SOME V2 sect baptisms are invalid. Many more may be invalid due to lack of intention as I discussed in my post:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-laver-of-regeneration-no-more.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo
DeleteThe novus ordo “popes” said we baptise is inv as our. Have any real popes spoken on this because I don’t believe Wojtyla ratzinger and Bergoglio on this any more than I believe them on transignification or all religions leading to God.
@anon1:04
DeleteI can't make out some of your words and I'm not sure what you're saying.
---Introibo
autocorrect
Delete“Inv as our” was meant to be invalid
“transignification” is a modernist Heresy regarding The Holy Eucharist
There is no way people are saying sedevacantism has no miracles ignoring the incorrupt body of bishop Carmona
ReplyDeleteAlso to all protestants, the fact that the novus ordo takes EM’s is proof that there are real EM’s in the Catholic Church. And in this time of apostasy why did the devil set up a counterfeit Catholic “church” instead of a counterfeit “invisible body of christ”. I’ll tell you why because he knows that the Catholic Church is the true church of Christ outside of which there is no salvation and he wants to keep as many out of it as he can!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ8Ds9HUPDM
ReplyDeleteA fun song about vatican 2
@anon1:10
DeleteVery funny!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Why do people still use my catholic faith by bishop morrow. He later apostatised and became a modernist, writing a new catechism about ecumenism and that sorta junk. And in my Catholic faith he Denys that all non Catholics will be damned
ReplyDelete@anon3:58
DeleteOrigen was an apostate, yet his works when a Catholic are invaluable. My Catholic Faith was published in 1954. It contains no heresy.
God Bless,
---Introibo
why does he put the following in the "catholics dont believe" section
Delete"all non catholics will be damned"
he definitely meant it in an orthodox way (some have implcicit desire, one can be in the church merely in voto and be saved) but this is extremely scandalous. Even those with implcicit desire should not be called non catholics. This gives off the impression that bishop morrow was teaching indifferentism (even though he obviously wasnt, what if a protestant picked up that book read it and thought "well strictly speaking i dont have to be catholic anyway" )