Last week, I promised all my readers a unique post, one that would be historic. Indeed, it is a snippet of Traditionalist history, one that has never been made public until today. Two giants in the nascent Traditionalist movement would meet in person for the first (and only) time. Let me set forth the background first:
It was February 2, 1983, and I did something I had never done before in my life; I skipped school. I was a model student, and unlike most teens, however, I was not out causing trouble that day, nor committing sin in the name of "fun." I had become a Traditionalist on November 1st of 1981, and the priest who converted me, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, was going to be live on the radio, WOR-AM, New York! That past Sunday, Father announced from the pulpit that he had been invited to appear on the Sherry Henry Show at 10AM on February 2nd. Ms. Henry would interview interesting people from all walks of life concerning topics of current interest. She invited Fr. DePauw to be her guest to discuss the so-called "New Code of Canon Law" that would take effect in November of that year under Wojtyla (John Paul II).
Fr. DePauw was the perfect man for the interview since he was a canon lawyer, a peritus (i.e., theological expert) at Vatican II, and in 1964 was the founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. He was the first Catholic priest to publicly warn of the disaster of Vatican II while the Robber Council was still going on. He fought against the Modernists at Vatican II, and told all Catholics to stay out of the new sect and fight for "Truth and Tradition." God had used Fr. DePauw to keep His One True Church alive and going during a Great Apostasy.
Ms. Henry was no Traditionalist, but a flaming Modernist and Socialist. She claimed to want a balanced view on the topic, so she invited Fr. DePauw and told him that she had also invited someone who would strongly support the New Code and debate with him; Malachi Martin. Father DePauw replied that he knew of the former Jesuit and current best-selling author from Vatican II, but they had never met during the Council, and he would have no problem defending the truth against him.
In days before computers and the Internet, I begged my parents to let me stay home and use my little rusted tape recorder to tape the show off the hand-held radio I had. To my great surprise and joy, they agreed to let me be "sick" that day! I waited with baited breath in my room at 9:55, all set to record the show. At 10 AM, Ms. Henry introduced Fr. DePauw. She asked Father why he thought the New Code would be bad, and he wasted no time launching into the evil canons and the devastating effects they would carry--all while Sherry Henry kept interrupting Father. Ms. Henry blindsided Fr. DePauw by having as a phone-in guest an apostate nun who was lauded as some ersatz "expert" and was Modernist to the core. Modernists, never ones to fight fairly and honestly, wanted to make this a "two against one" attack on the True Faith and Father DePauw.
In days before computers and the Internet, I begged my parents to let me stay home and use my little rusted tape recorder to tape the show off the hand-held radio I had. To my great surprise and joy, they agreed to let me be "sick" that day! I waited with baited breath in my room at 9:55, all set to record the show. At 10 AM, Ms. Henry introduced Fr. DePauw. She asked Father why he thought the New Code would be bad, and he wasted no time launching into the evil canons and the devastating effects they would carry--all while Sherry Henry kept interrupting Father. Ms. Henry blindsided Fr. DePauw by having as a phone-in guest an apostate nun who was lauded as some ersatz "expert" and was Modernist to the core. Modernists, never ones to fight fairly and honestly, wanted to make this a "two against one" attack on the True Faith and Father DePauw.
Then, she introduced Malachi Martin, and asked him about why he thought the New Code was good. To the shock of Ms. Henry, Fr. DePauw, and the listening audience (who heard Martin billed as a proponent of the New Code), Martin stated he was in agreement with Fr. DePauw!
The rest of the show (which included taking calls from listeners) had Fr. DePauw and Malachi Martin bashing the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Ms. Henry was beside herself., and said she was not properly informed about the views of Martin. Henry wished she had on "Bishop" Mugavero. ("Bishop" Mugavero was the invalidly consecrated Vatican II sect "bishop" of the Diocese of Brooklyn, and a notorious Modernist. He was one of the very first priests to be invalidly consecrated in 1968, after the death of Abp. Bryan McEntegart.). Henry's producers, and everyone involved, were under the impression that Martin was "progressive" and would defend the new Code. Malachi Martin made no attempt to explain why he would allow himself to be billed as a "theological liberal" leading up to the show, only to agree with Fr. DePauw during the show.
The rest of the show (which included taking calls from listeners) had Fr. DePauw and Malachi Martin bashing the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Ms. Henry was beside herself., and said she was not properly informed about the views of Martin. Henry wished she had on "Bishop" Mugavero. ("Bishop" Mugavero was the invalidly consecrated Vatican II sect "bishop" of the Diocese of Brooklyn, and a notorious Modernist. He was one of the very first priests to be invalidly consecrated in 1968, after the death of Abp. Bryan McEntegart.). Henry's producers, and everyone involved, were under the impression that Martin was "progressive" and would defend the new Code. Malachi Martin made no attempt to explain why he would allow himself to be billed as a "theological liberal" leading up to the show, only to agree with Fr. DePauw during the show.
During the broadcast, Fr. DePauw said he was told he would meet an intelligent priest in Malachi Martin who would disagree with him, and instead he turned out to be an intelligent priest who "reached the same intelligent conclusions" that he did.
The show ended abruptly, with Henry giving a Modernist final word. Father would not tell me what happened the following Sunday, but he was not happy. He and Malachi Martin would discuss things after the show, and it really changed how he initially viewed him that day when he thought he had seen the light. Fr. went into the show remembering the bad things he had heard about him while they both were at Vatican II. Although he never told me exactly what transpired, he was not fooled as to Malachi Martin. Martin was a theological chameleon, changing views to accommodate whatever cleric he was with at the time. He was not a friend of the Church.
The show ended abruptly, with Henry giving a Modernist final word. Father would not tell me what happened the following Sunday, but he was not happy. He and Malachi Martin would discuss things after the show, and it really changed how he initially viewed him that day when he thought he had seen the light. Fr. went into the show remembering the bad things he had heard about him while they both were at Vatican II. Although he never told me exactly what transpired, he was not fooled as to Malachi Martin. Martin was a theological chameleon, changing views to accommodate whatever cleric he was with at the time. He was not a friend of the Church.
Fast forward forty-one (41) years. I saw the old tape I kept in my personal library and contacted a friend of mine to see if he could take the old audio and upload it to YouTube. He did so, editing out the commercials as best he could, and he removed Sheri Henry's closing monologue at my request. Below is the link to that show recorded live, by me, on February 2, 1983. At the time, Father was R&R, trying his best to navigate through the early years of the Great Apostasy; Vatican II having ended only slightly over 15 years earlier. I hope you enjoy the step-back in time, and please let me know what you think in the comments below in this post. The show begins at the one minute mark.
Link: https://youtu.be/UxoMRIv1JJ0
I was very impressed with the recording quality. Good job Introibo! In God's Providence, you were His instrument to record this radio broadcast, and all these years later share this invaluable resource. Thank you so much!
ReplyDeleteGrace,
DeleteThank you for the kind words! The recording quality was pretty good for a kid using a handheld tape recorder in 1983!
God Bless,
---Introibo
This interview was a setup to confuse and disable Fr. DePauw,
ReplyDeleteand that is the devil's calling card.
@anon10:33
DeleteI agree. Father was under continual assault from the enemies of the Church since he publicly rose up to try and stop Vatican II in 1964. The worst of the worst came from the Vatican II sect's clergy.
To give but one minor example:
That same year, the invalidly consecrated "bishop" of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, NY (comprising all of Long Island, where Father's Chapel was located) denounced the "illicit Masses" by Fr. DePauw. As Fr. DePauw would tell me, "Look at what he did. Scare people away with talk of 'illicit' Masses, while simultaneously referring to the Chapel as 'Our Lady's Chapel' so no one can find it"
In those days, things were not so easy to look up. The Chapel was called the AVE MARIA CHAPEL, not "OUR LADY'S CHAPEL" and "Bishop" John McGann knew that.
This way, no one could find the Chapel who was curious and discover the Truth by going there.
As Fr. DePauw said, "McGann is just jealous that I have the only place in his diocese that has overflow crowds and no debt!"
God Bless,
---Introibo
Wow! what a great post!
ReplyDelete@anon10:34
DeleteI'm glad you enjoyed the historic interview!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Wow!
ReplyDelete@anon11:09
DeleteGlad you enjoyed it! It brought back a lot of memories for me.
God Bless,
---Introibo
God Bless Fr. DePauw- he was a courageous priest. Thank you for this recording.
ReplyDelete@anon11:14
DeleteThank you, my friend! It was a God-given privilege to have have known him and learn the Faith from him. He made me the man I am today, and he is the reason this blog exists.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo, you are a wealth of information we need to hear.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless you!
@anon11;56
DeleteThank you, my friend! Sharing all I learned from Father DePauw since he brought me to the Faith is why I'm writing today!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Even with the interference and constant interruptions Fr. DePauw was able to make a good defense.
ReplyDelete@anon12:24
DeleteI though so as well. He new he was walking into a Modernist's radio show, but handled himself well and with dignity.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteDo you have any other Fr. DePauw recordings?
@anon12:49
DeleteI have a video of him from the late 1980s debating an apostate priest of the V2 sect on a NY TV station. There are some issues with the old VHS tape. If I can get it straightened out, I will publish it on YouTube.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Malachi Martin made no attempt to explain why he would allow himself to be billed as a "theological liberal" leading up to the show, only to agree with Fr. DePauw during the show. "
I think the reason was, that he realized he was no match for Fr.
DePauw, and by not taking the opposing side, he was able to
avoid embarrassment, get more exposure, and plug his book.
Grace,
DeleteYou have a good theory. Martin knew of Fr. DePauw from Vatican II and wasn't sure what Fr. knew about HIM. By agreeing with him, he prevented himself from being exposed on those grounds too. Fr thought he "saw the light," only to find out differently soon after!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Did Fr.DePauw ever warn the faithful or talk about Martin again?
ReplyDelete@anon2:22
DeleteFr was very upset at what transpired between himself and Martin after the show. He would not talk with me about it. He never again spoke of Martin, and never wanted him to come up in conversation. Something bad went down, and I'll never know exactly what that was.
The look on his face at the mention of his name said it all; and it wasn't good.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Perhaps Martin told him he knew Cdl. Siri had been elected pope and that he, Martin, had translated the externally received threat to be given to him (a claim Martin made elsewhere).
DeleteWhen did Fr. Depauw turn Sede? Was it long after this?
@anon7:22
DeleteHe stopped using the name of Wojtyla at least since 1999, and around that time called him simply "John Paul II" (no title) or "the man in white at the Vatican."
God Bless,
---Introibo
I enjoyed this very much! Definitely a step-back in time.
ReplyDelete@anon5:41
DeleteIt was indeed! I reflected on the early years after my conversion to the Truth and all I learned from this incredible priest. I still miss him very much.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Do you know whether tertiaries may wear the habit of their order? Specifically conventual/chapter or priestly. (But not talking about private secular tertiaries)
ReplyDelete@anon6:43
DeleteGood question. I almost never have questions about tertiaries, and in this Great Apostasy the rules probably no longer apply anyway. I'll see what, if anything, I can find. If any of my readers has a source, please cite it here.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Is it a sin to not wear a seatbelt on a school bus if the teacher tells you to wear it but the driver tells you that you don’t have to
ReplyDelete@anon6:44
DeleteI presume this is a school trip? If it is a school bus or field trip, you should obey your teacher because he/she acts "in loco parentis"---"in place of your parents." The bus driver does not, so you should wear the seatbelt the same as if your mother or father told you to do it. When I was a teacher in NYC, I always had my students buckle up on a field trip.
God Bless,
---Introibo
There is no teacher on the bus, the school has buses to and from school for the start and end of the day
Delete@anon8:36
DeleteIf it is a school bus, you are under school authority and your teacher should be obeyed.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
At least we won't have to hear about the "yellow school buses" from the laughing hyena
DeleteAnd Father DePauw had no priest at his funeral because he wouldn't invite many other priests to Ave Maria Chapel.
ReplyDelete@anon7:10
DeleteSadly, yes. However, Father Tremonti, a Traditionalist priest from Chicago (ord. in 1940s) was to come to the Chapel to offer the Requiem Mass. Fr. T was too old and frail to come so he offered the Mass in his own Chapel.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hello Introibo,
ReplyDeleteI am a huge fan of your work (more than you could possibly know!) Your blog is absolutely top notch! I hope to listen to this video clip real soon. Your take on Fr. Martin could be correct. I do not deny this. However, there are many people who would argue and play devil's advocate here and paint Malachi Martin in a much more favorable light. I am not saying that they are right or that you are right. It could be a combination of both sides. Some points for consideration (and feel free to respond):
*Malachi spoke against the satanic/demonic element deep in the church and world level WAY before many others even dared to do so. He went where others feared to go.
*Kaiser was a deluded, paranoid schizophrenic, whose rantings about Malachi having an affair with his wife have no truth to them.
*Kakia Livanos could have simply been his house keeper. He was buried BEFORE her. She chose to be buried next to him AFTER his death.
*He tried to help people decipher the 3rd Secret, without breaking his vow.
*He could have been dispensed from 2 of his 3 vows. That is not out of the question.
*Malachi helped MANY people not only turn to the Traditional faith, but he was extremely charitable and went so far out of his way to help souls when they needed it. He gave out his personal address on the radio, mailed rosaries, Chaplets of St. Michael, etc.
*He may have been a liberal during Vatican II, but he got more orthodox as the years went on. This showed in the way he wrote and spoke.
*The Vatican released the 3rd Secret (not the actual one) AFTER he died because they knew that Malachi would contest it.
*Fr. Vincent O'Keefe stated after Malachi's death that he died a priest in good standing.
*His vacillating between R & R and sede cannot completely be faulted because this is the greatest and most confusing crisis the church has ever gone through in 2,000 years! Seriously, give the man a break! Look how the different sede camps argue all the time over issues. We have no pope. Naturally, there is not going to be unity without a vicar.
*Pius XII ordained many other men secret bishops, behind the Iron Curtain. Why would this be such a stretch in Malachi's case? The man was very learned.
*He believed in werewolves. This is actually not that far of a stretch. There have been true stories of people that actually were vampires. One such case was a person in a hospital who literally jumped through a hospital window and fell several stories. The man didn't die. His body wasn't found. The point is - demonic infestation can take on such grisly and grotesque appearances that things that seem like this (too farfetched) are actually more possible than people realize. Are they rare? Yes. But the demons have incredible power and the werewolf story does NOT seem to be such a stretch.
*He had the guts to confirm that a satanic ceremony took place in the Vatican in 1963. Other people through the years spoke about demonic activity within the walls of the Vatican. This only further corroborates what Martin said. And he had the guts to do this before ANY others. He also spoke out against the homosexual/pedophilia/lesbian nuns issues WAY BEFORE anyone else dared to touch such subjects. These stories would not break until decades later.
*He was spoken very highly about by many people who knew him personally e.g. Rob Morro, Ralph Sarchie, Suzanne Pearson, etc.
*He could have been murdered. Other priest friends of his were. He knew about the elite cabal that runs everything and he had to be careful. The man was very well informed in so many ways.
Again, thank you for all that you do. It is because of men like yourself, Steven Speray, Mario Derksen, and others that many people have been brought into the Traditional Catholic Faith.
God Bless.
@anon9:23
DeleteThank you for the kind words, my friend! I have no problem when people disagree with me on something that is not of Faith. No one has to believe my opinion on Malachi Martin. However, it is an opinion which is more than substantiated by the weight of the credible evidence.
Here's my response to the pro-MM points
1. "Malachi spoke against the satanic/demonic element deep in the church and world level WAY before many others even dared to do so. He went where others feared to go."
Reply: He was assisting the Modernist snake in the grass Cardinal Bea, who was giving bad advice to Pope Pius XII and did a good job of pretending to be orthodox until Roncalli took over.
When Fr. DePauw spoke out against the evils of Vatican II in 1964 Martin was nowhere to be found. He did not join the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. He spoke out on "evils" when it was convenient for him to do so and never attempted to distance himself from the role he played at the Council.
2. "Kaiser was a deluded, paranoid schizophrenic, whose rantings about Malachi having an affair with his wife have no truth to them."
Reply: There are two very damaging pieces of evidence that weigh against that. Mr.John Grasmeier put together documentation of Martin's affair.
One piece of evidence is a letter to Robert B. Kaiser from heretic Fr. John Courtney Murray (a friend to both Martin and Kaiser) written July 10, 1964. According to Grasmeier, "The letter touches on a few items relevant to the Malachi Martin saga. One being that although Father John Murray stands fast in his (non-qualified) assessment of Kaiser’s pyscological state, he apologizes to Kaiser and admits that it has been made clear to him that Martin and Mrs. Kaiser were indeed having an affair. He talks about the now infamous love letters from Martin to Kaiser’s wife, 'Martin’s apostasy from the Society' and the fact that he doesn’t know where Martin and Kaiser’s wife are."
The second piece of evidence is a six-page letter from Fr. William Van Etten Casey dated November 1, 1965 to Archbishop H. E. Cardinale, the Vatican Apostolic Delegate to the United Kingdom. Its purpose was to advocate for an annulment of the Kaisers' marriage.
3. "Kakia Livanos could have simply been his house keeper. He was buried BEFORE her. She chose to be buried next to him AFTER his death."
Reply: Two disturbing facts: Mrs. Livanos was always desribed by Martin supporters as "elderly." Reality check: She was only two years older than Martin. It's not like he was 45 and she was 75. Secondly, WHY would a wealthy widow NOT want to be buried next to her husband, but next to Martin?
4. "He tried to help people decipher the 3rd Secret, without breaking his vow."
I don't believe he was ever privy to the Third Secret of Fatima, and he had no evidence to the contrary other than "take my word for it."
Continued Below
5. "He could have been dispensed from 2 of his 3 vows. That is not out of the question."
DeleteReply: He absolutely was so dispensed (insofar as Montini was thought to be pope). However, that is done in the hopes the cleric will return to full active ministry status and not remain like that for life.
6. "Malachi helped MANY people not only turn to the Traditional faith, but he was extremely charitable and went so far out of his way to help souls when they needed it. He gave out his personal address on the radio, mailed rosaries, Chaplets of St. Michael, etc."
Reply: Many evil and/or heretical people will hide behind a veneer of orthodoxy and sanctity. Heretic Karl Rahner would frequently be seen with a statue of the Sacred Heart and his devotion to It. God can bring good out of evil, and if Martin's pretense of orthodoxy converted people, all glory to God.
7. "He may have been a liberal during Vatican II, but he got more orthodox as the years went on. This showed in the way he wrote and spoke."
Reply: False. Martin was a friend of arch-heretic John Courtney Murray and was (like Murray) a defender of soul-destroying religious liberty.
8. "The Vatican released the 3rd Secret (not the actual one) AFTER he died because they knew that Malachi would contest it."
Reply: And the evidence is...what?
9. "Fr. Vincent O'Keefe stated after Malachi's death that he died a priest in good standing."
Reply: In good standing with the Vatican II sect. That doesn't say anything good.
10. "His vacillating between R & R and sede cannot completely be faulted because this is the greatest and most confusing crisis the church has ever gone through in 2,000 years!"
Reply: On this point, I agree, and if it were Martin's ONLY questionable action, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
11. "Pius XII ordained many other men secret bishops, behind the Iron Curtain. Why would this be such a stretch in Malachi's case? The man was very learned."
Reply: Martin "ordained" Dr. C. If Dr. C lied, Martin had a duty to publicly deny he was a bishop and Dr. C had valid orders through him. Martin never produced one shed of evidence, such as papers from the Vatican which are given to such bishops to prove their consecration. Dr. C never claimed to have seen papers, nor did Martin claim to have any proof.
12. "He believed in werewolves. This is actually not that far of a stretch. There have been true stories of people that actually were vampires. One such case was a person in a hospital who literally jumped through a hospital window and fell several stories. The man didn't die. His body wasn't found. The point is - demonic infestation can take on such grisly and grotesque appearances that things that seem like this (too farfetched) are actually more possible than people realize. Are they rare? Yes. But the demons have incredible power and the werewolf story does NOT seem to be such a stretch."
Reply: There's a huge problem with the "demonic" defense; Martin claimed on Art Bell, "Yes. It [being a werewolf] can be. Like everything else, it can have a good purpose or an evil purpose."
Please explain how demonic infestation can be a "gift" that can "have a good purpose' OR an "evil purpose."
Continued Below
13. "He had the guts to confirm that a satanic ceremony took place in the Vatican in 1963. Other people through the years spoke about demonic activity within the walls of the Vatican. This only further corroborates what Martin said. And he had the guts to do this before ANY others. He also spoke out against the homosexual/pedophilia/lesbian nuns issues WAY BEFORE anyone else dared to touch such subjects. These stories would not break until decades later."
DeleteReply: As to the Black "Mass" CONCEDED; as to the rest DENIED. Fr. DePauw was speaking out about such years before Martin--as early as 1965!
14. "He was spoken very highly about by many people who knew him personally e.g. Rob Morro, Ralph Sarchie, Suzanne Pearson, etc."
Reply: I would not consider those people the most reliable, and there are many who didn't feel that way. Fr. Cekada among them, and Fr. DePauw.
15. "He could have been murdered. Other priest friends of his were. He knew about the elite cabal that runs everything and he had to be careful. The man was very well informed in so many ways."
Reply: Pure speculation.
When you put together and weigh the evidence--including some damning evidence I started to read/watch as provided by Grace in the comments here and last week's post--the scales come down hard against Malachi Martin.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,do you know the background of bp Jose Gaston Lopez?Where did he obtain his orders and who made him a bishop?Where was he based and had he ordained many priests?
ReplyDeleteGod bless
I think it was Bishop George Musey (RIP) who ordained him to the priesthood if I recall something that Father William Jenkins said years ago . Perhaps other folk may know more
Delete@anon9:55
DeleteWhile I fully accept the Thuc consecrations as valid, certain lines of succession I reject. For example, I reject all orders of the Palmar de Troya cult. The men Abp. Thuc ordained and consecrated were true bishops, but as they tampered with the Rites of ordination and consecration, and none understood Latin, I reject all those they ordain/consecrate. Clemente Dominguez ("Pope" Gregory XVII) was an illiterate yet approved the "Spanish translation" of the Roman Pontifical.
I have reservations about Gaston Lopez--another married man like Rama Coomaraswarmy. Gaston-Lopez was consecrated on June 29, 1992 by Bp. Mamistra Olivares; a bishop of whom little is known for sure--hence, my concerns.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Bp Lopez Gastón was consecrated by Bp Mamistra, who was in turn consecrated by Bp Sallé, who was in turn consecrated by Bp Datessen, who was on turn consecrated by Bp Thuc. This line is well-attested to, and continues onto today by those consecrated by Bp Lopez Gastón.
DeleteAbout him being married, iirc canon law can permit married clerics, insofar as they have left the nuptial bed, with permission by their superior (in this case sede bishops)
Noucvnt,
DeleteThe background of Bp. Mamistra Olivares is unclear. I do not believe sede bishops have the authority to dispense the requirement of clerical celibacy. That was also Fr. DePauw's opinion--only the pope can dispense. It cannot cease to bind, even in a state of sedevacante.
This is my opinion. I have reservations about the line, but I'm not claiming others cannot go to clerics in this line.
God Bless,
---Introibo
The Thuc-Datessen line of sede bishops and clerics is well known and documented, just not so much in the Anglosphere, specially as some bishops later in the line (such as Lopez-Gaston and some later down his line) have expressed the unpopular opinion about the conclave, which gets suppressed by the more popular gueradist or totalist or opinionist proponents.
DeletePlus there is what you mention about clerical celibacy - but again, these bishops follow the canonical procedure of leaving cohabitation. Even if papal dispensation would be needed, don't sedes use epikeia for several other things that the pope should ordinarily be the authority of, including consecrating bishops to begin with? (specially if lacking territorial jurisdiction)
I respectfully disagree, the Thuc-Datessen line of succession is well known and documented, just not so much in the Anglosphere.
DeleteAs for clerical celibacy, iirc the clerics in mention would abide by the canonical procedure and leave cohabitation/marriage bed. If papal dispensation is indeed needed, it wouldnt be so different from several other things sede clergy does without ordinarily needed papal mandate.
But anyway, God bless, thank you as always for the insights.
Do you know when was the last time Fr. DePauw saw a priest before he died?
ReplyDelete@anon12:19
DeleteVery close to his death. I know the priest but will not reveal his name for personal reasons. I will only say that he was ordained in 1958.
God Bless,
---Introibo
He gave Fr. DePauw the Last Rites while he was fully awake and aware.
Delete---Introibo
This question from a couple of days ago hasn't been answered yet:
ReplyDeleteAbout the person who is trying to get the sacraments:
What if the person had somebody give them conditional Baptism(they can't think of ANYBODY to do that for them)and then went to a chapel where nobody had seen them before, and did a general confession, and went to Mass and received Communion?
@anon12:50
DeleteI really don't know what else to say. If no one will do it, why are you speculating? I find it difficult to believe no one can baptize this person. Why don't you go and do it? A great act of charity to take before you on the Day of Judgement.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I love listening to old recordings. That was a real gem. I was actually impressed with both Fr. De Pauw and Malachi Martin because it was like they were being attacked by all women who questioned them in such a way as to make them feel guilty for wanting what's best for souls in the Church. Fr. De Pauw's answer to the last question was perfect.
ReplyDeleteNotice how every single caller with a question was a woman. Why was that? It reminded me of my Novus Ordo days when a sister gave a sermon, women pranced around giving out "Holy Communion," being a lector, or serving on the altar.
What was most nauseating was when Sr. Margaret came on and gave her two cents because it wasn't worth even one. She was the perfect example of what went wrong after Vatican II. Vatican II not only gave an inch so the people could take it a mile but it gave more than a mile and the people have taken into outer space. I believe that Vatican II has affected me because I am constantly finding out what I was previously wrong about even to this day because of lack of instruction on what I need to do to save my soul.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteSherry Henry wanted to do a hit job on Fr. DePauw. It blew up in her face (at least partially) when Martin shifted sides.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Ditto to what Lee said. Except I can't stand hearing slanted liberal women barfing all over the place, showing no respect to the priest, but interrupting, ignoring and never granting a single point.
DeleteInteresting bit of history.
ReplyDeleteSomeone told me long ago that M. Martin’s job was to keep people within the Vatican 2 construct and the antipapacy by not publicly coming to the correct sedevacantist conclusion despite knowing about Siri. (The subversion of 1958-1965 is in Apoc. Ch. 12 anyway).
cairsahr__stjoseph,
DeleteMaybe. All I know is that Martin was an enemy, not a friend, of the Church.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Do you know whether the office heads are (as an example Matins) a credo and 28 paternosters, and the 28 aves are for the little office of the BVM or if (for matins as an example) it is 1 credo, 28 paters, 28 aves and the little office is 28 aves again?
ReplyDeleteOffice beads*
Delete@anon12:36
DeleteI'm not familiar. If any of my readers knows, please comment here.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Greetings, Introibo. Thank you for the article and for sharing with your readers the recording of the interview with this great priest. I am completely ignorant and I would like to ask you something, although it has no relation to the article. If that doesn't seem right to you, ignore my question. I don't know if you know this, but I'm interested in topics related to the hierarchy of the Church. I frequently visit the "Catholic hierarchy" site, I don't know if you know it. Reviewing the list of older bishops, as I admire people who have served Christ for so long and who were ordained in years when the Church was not in the sad situation it is in today, I was reminded of a bishop who for many years was listed as alive and then not.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hong_Yong-ho
My questions -after reading the article, if you want to do so-:
- Do you think this bishop knew about VII? It is certain that he did not participate. Would a sedevacantist consider him a Catholic bishop if we don't know if he apostatized or not?
- Do you think he could have been a martyr?
- Why do you think Roncalli/John XXIII appointed him bishop of Pyongyang if his whereabouts were not known?
- What if a Sedevacantist honored his memory without knowing whether he apostatized or not?
Thank you.
Young reader from Spain
Roncalli never appointed him bishop of Pyongyang only a pope can do that.
DeleteYoung Reader from Spain,
DeleteMost of what you ask is hypothetical.
*I have no idea if he knew of V2. We must presume he was Catholic unless the opposite is shown true.
*Sure, he **MAY** have been a martyr; we simply don't know.
*Roncalli was not a true pope, but it might have been a symbolic gesture in hopes he was alive. We'll probably never know the real reason.
*You can honor his memory, just don't pray to him or honor him as a martyr. Pray for the repose of his soul, is the best way to honor him.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you very much!
DeleteYoung reader from Spain
Good idea to start a youtube channel Introibo! What do you think of posting your interviews with Kevin Davis there?
ReplyDelete@anon11:22
DeleteI really just started it for the interview with Fr. DePauw and Martin, but now you've got me thinking! Not a bad idea.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I second that suggestion! You have 2 interviews with Kevin Davis on Fr. DePauw, and 12 others that are really excellent.
DeleteGrace,
DeleteI'm considering it!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Yes please upload! So hard to find these online! Thank you!
DeleteDefinitely would like to see that happen also!
DeleteAbout the person wanting the sacraments: I can't do it.
ReplyDelete@anon5:03
DeleteOk, I try to be helpful, but this is getting ridiculous.
You've sent numerous comments now, and what would you like me to tell you?
FIRST, call every Traditionalist priest and let them know her soul is in peril. Use the Traditio Mass Directory. It's hard to believe NOT ONE PRIEST WILL RESPOND OR TRY TO HELP.
Second, where does this person live? Gilligan's Island? (I'm dating myself with that reference, I know). There's not one single human being of the age of reason who can pour water over her head and recite the form and have the intention to baptize? They need not be Catholic. They need not be trained. They need not even believe that baptism is a sacrament. WHY CAN NO HUMAN BEING DO THIS? It sounds very whacky. You can't do it either. Why not? You're very concerned; you can't make a one time trip or ask a family member/friend to do it for you?
I really don't know what you want me to say or do. My readers and I have given solid advice, yet you keep harping on the same thing.
---Introibo
I am the person. There is really nobody to give conditional baptism. Nobody at all. The Traditio Mass directory is extremely unreliable. And why would I want to get the sacraments from somebody that I disagree with?
Delete@anon5:16
DeleteThen why were you writing as if you were someone else? Silly, to say the least. You have no friends, no family, no neighbors at all? Hard to believe. The Tradition Directory is correct with MANY of its listings.
Why would you want to get Sacraments from someone with whom you disagree? Answer: To get graces to save your soul.
I attend Mass many times with priests with whom I disagree. I love the SSPV, but I believe they are wrong about "Thuc bishops" and their refusal to use the Pain Rite of Holy Week. To deprive myself of so many graces on that account would be just plain dumb.
---Introibo
Anon
DeleteSo you are saying that there is not A SINGLE PERSON
does this person live in the Sahara desert or something?
I can't think of a specific person to ask.
DeleteAsk anybody on the street and keep asking more until you get a yes
DeleteI have read fr desposito’s catechism on the the thesis. Here he talks about coloured titles, and how if the election of roncalli through Bergoglio is invalid, they would still be able to appoint cardinals anyway because of a coloured title, which causes them to have supplied jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteThis means one can hold the thesis and at the same time follow Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio
It solves the objection that totalists bring up of cum ex Apostolatus Officio, and the objection against totalism that Pius xii said cardinals are nessecary to elect a pope (which totalises have to prove ceases to bind, but if there is supplied jurisdiction to appoint material cardinals then the declaration of Pius xii would not cease to bind since God could convert any of the cardinals whenever he wants a pope for his church)
@anon6:33
DeleteOk. You're entitled to that opinion. Not sure what that has to do with this post, even remotely.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Only as irrelevant as the opinions held by the RCI
Delete1. That Bergoglio was validly elected - irrelevant - since Bergoglio has a coloured title this opinion does nothing but ruin credibility. Their whole (irrelevant) argument forgets that there is such thing as notoriety of fact as regards the canonical delict.
2. That the fourth opinion is true. Thus is irrelevant to the extreme and all one needs to do is look at the innumerable theologians and canonists cited in traditionalists infallibility and the pope
3. That the novus ordo antichurch is part of the Catholic Church - irrelevant. I have absolutely no clue why they keep mentioning this, since whether or not this is the case has no bearing on the thesis
4. That sedevacantist clergy don’t have ordinary jurisdiction- this is irrelevant and wrong as per canon 199
Agreed on all points except #4. Sede bishops only have general jurisdiction. However, that in itself enables them, as the last Catholic authorities remaining, to elect a Pope who would then assign jurisdictions as he ordinarily would.
DeleteThe subject of Cdl. Siri keeps coming up.
ReplyDeleteThe theory is more involved than most would understand, even those familiar with the topic, and there is no better coverage of it than a 4+ hour interview series with Gary Giuffre which can be found here:
https://www.garygiuffre.net/interviews
This is a must to listen to, not only for what it says about the Red Pope theory, but other fascinating insights and information regarding the last years of the occupied Chair. For example, it is claimed Pius XII made contingency plans to move the Holy See to Canada should threats he was made aware of come to pass (the destruction of Rome).
As pertains to Malachi Martin, Giuffre who met the man, is quick to identify him as a double agent; in fact, he claims that Siri passed a mere week after he elucidated his theory (and supporting sources) to Martin, who, it is claimed, personally rang Giuffre to break the news.
An engrossing listen.
JR
JR,
DeleteThank you so much for the information! I will listen to it as soon as I get some down time!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Not really a good idea to follow Giuffre.
DeletePlans to move the Holy See to Canada? Whether or not it’s true You seem to be wasting your time on such a useless topic. So what if it is true?
DeleteAs for Cdl. Siri, he died fully inside the novus Ordo antichurch, as proven by his signing of the heretical documents and his celebration of the abomination of desolation. We have no way to prove that he renounced these things ever. There is no way that one can be a member of the whore of Babylon, and celebrate the abomination of desolation, una cum the false prophet (or his precursor) and be at the same time the pope of the Catholic Church.
Okay, firstly: if PXII had indeed made some manner of contingency to move the Holy See to Canada, it is in itself significant. The reason he is said to have done so is because he (it is said) took seriously threats that Rome might 'accidentally' be destroyed by a stray atomic bomb during the inveterate testing of such which took place at this time. This was the cold war era when there was a lot of such testing in the region. Indeed - and this may relate to an alleged menace given Siri in the '58 conclave - there were more nuclear bombs launched between the death of Pius XII and the subsequent conclave than at any other time in history.
DeleteWho is going to populate the top level military communities at that time and since? Catholics? No: Masons.
Secondly, if Siri was elected pope and cowered out, it is hardly to his credit. Look at what has happened to the visible Church since. How many souls have been stolen by the Robber Council? Siri himself made some remark, towards the end of his life, saying he trusted in the mercy of God and hoped he would be forgiven. This was said, seemingly, with a specific pertinence rather than as some vague, common, manner of supplication.
Thirdly, Malachi Martin is recorded as saying (whatever that is worth) that he personally translated a note of threat to be given Siri after he had been elected and had accepted.
The Mason cardinals VOTED FOR SIRI. They specifically wanted him to be elected pope. Why? Because they were going to force him to (invalidly) resign so that their compromise candidate (Roncali) would be merely a bishop in a white cassock, rather than the authentic Vicar of Christ.
Why? Because they saw what happened to Pius IX; how he went from liberal to staunch orthodox under the graces of the office.
You are all Sedes. Why? Because something happened at the '58 conclave which let in a line of anti-popes.
How did that happen? How could it possibly ever have happened? One plausible explanation is via a 'patsy', hidden pope: the Pope in Red.
JR
Were are sedes because
Delete1. The church is indefectible
2. The church is infallible
3. The pope cannot be a heretic
4. The pope cannot issue invalid sacraments
5. The pope cannot be a Freemason
6. Ecumenical councils cannot teach heresy
Not because of an unverifiable legend about what happened at the 58 conclave. In the most likely case the election of Cdl. Siri was invalid of itself since he was a modernist.
As for the moving of the Holy See to Canada it is useless information to us now as his holiness is dead and hopefully in heaven.
Prayer for his holiness Pope Pius XII
Requiem aeternam dona eis Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis
Requiescat in pace.
Also Rome will be destroyed after the defeat of the antichrist and antichurch (Babylon has fallen, )
God bless
Come on, seriously; yes, obviously, or in modern parlance 'derrrrr'.
DeleteSomething happened in '58 to keep a valid pope from the Chair of Truth, for the light of the world; for, when the pastor has been struck, the sheep shall be scattered.
What was that thing which happened? It didn't happen by mere happen-stance.
Siri a Modernist? So was Giovanni Ferretti before - BEFORE - he became Pius IX. And that, or at least the 'rubrics' of the grace of the office (and how to circumvent it) is what all of this is ultimately all about. The Siri theory, whether valid or otherwise, gives plausible explanation as to how the visible Church was subjected and entered into Her passion.
Except Pius IX was only a liberal cardinal on political issues, he didn't adhere to doctrinal heresy. More importantly, regarding Siri, he gave absolutely no hints about the supposed theory, other than feeling some vague regret about nothing specific. Even if he was validly elected, if he absconded the office and/or didnt exercise it in any knowable capacity (not just forced, for if he was forced, God would forgive him, and he wouldnt need to feel regret) then the See is vacant regardless. We cant know a Pope merely by hearsay, at the very least we should be able to know clerics in communion with him, and there are none. May a real, public Pope be elected soon.
DeleteSiri was PXII's last appointed cardinal and also his favoured successor; whatever the man did or did not do in later years, he was no Modernist in 1958. Period and full stop.
DeleteFurther, he did give some recorded indication of significant personal sadness and vexation over events of past conclaves, however this is all wholly moot: moot in the sense that it does not matter and is irrelevant.
I am not trying to champion Siri the man. Any commentary suggesting or rejecting such is neither here nor there and is beside the point.
The point at hand is that there is plausible argument that via nefarious conspiracy he was (1) validly elected supreme pontiff; (2) coerced to invalidly resign such; and (3) that as a function of this, the man (or men) who emerged on the balcony in white cassocks were simply bishops dressed in white cassocks and not pontiffs.
Siri's character and etcetera then and hence is immaterial.
JR
Pius XII was a freaking disaster and he also appointed a major portion of Cardinals at V2.
DeleteGod bless,
Andrew
People seem to be taking Benedict XV’s quote about geocentrism way further than it needs to be taken
ReplyDelete1. He never affirmed that the earth possibly moves
2. He never denied that all things rotate around the earth
3. He merely gave the possibility that the earth is not the physical centre of the universe, not that it is not the object which all things orbit around. And his “may” sounds very skeptical anyway.
@anon3:10
DeleteAre you commenting on the right blog? What "people" are discussing geocentrism here and a quote from Pope Benedict XV???
---Introibo
According to thethesis.us coronata says it is no longer in force. I checked the source and they are right.
DeleteDoes this mean that a heretic can be elected pope?
Oops I think I replied to the wrong comment
DeletePerhaps, but regardless, neither the theory of heliocentrism nor the theory of natural selection disprove our Faith.
DeleteDoes Joseph Hergenrother and Theologian Coronata prove that Cum Ex is no longer in effect?
ReplyDelete@anon3:20
DeleteCum Ex is disciplinary but embodies Divine Law. I've written about this before in response to a query.
God Bless,
---Introibo
According to the thesis.us coronata did say it was no longer in effect, I checked and he did in fact say this.
DeleteThe thesis.us claims to not know of any canonists who say to the contrary.
I’m guessing that the bull is no longer in effect but the part about heretics not being able to be elected can never be abrogated. How do we prove it is found in divine law
@anon7:00
DeleteIt is embodied in Canon Law and cannot be false as a Universal Disciplinary Law is protected as a secondary object of the Church's infallibility.
God Bless,
---Introibo
They argue that it was not in the original footnotes but added by gasparii
Delete@anon1:22
DeleteIt was promulgated as written by Pope Benedict XV, therefore infallible. All canonists interpret it that way, making it infallible by UOM as well.
---Introibo
They say that the reference to cum ex in the footnotes was not found in the original version promulgated by His Holiness Benedict XV
DeleteSo what if it wasn't in the original version's footnotes, I am pretty sure the subsequent version was also approved by the Pope and therefore part of the UOM, an infallible part at that because it is a universal disciplinary law that touches on faith and morals (because, a Vicar of Christ that pertinaciously and publicly teaches heresy as part of his doctrine goes against Christ's promises, therefore it is an issue of faith and morals). The Catechism of Saint Pius X was revised too and such revision was also approved by him, does that mean we still stick to the original? These sort of excuses are silly, in line with feeneyites claiming the Holy Office condemnation of Feeney didn't count because it didn't say "I, Pius XII, wrote this condemnation personally by my my own pen and hand".
DeleteI still can't think of anybody to ask to give conditional Baptism. I can't get a traditional priest to come.
ReplyDelete@anon2:58
DeleteOk.
1. Do you have ANY RELATIVES?
2. Do you have ANY FRIEND?
3. Do you have ANY NEIGHBORS?
Any of the above would do and it only takes a couple of minutes to conditionally baptize someone.
Finally, WHY will no priest come to you? I feel there's something not being told. I can't imagine the following scenario:
You on phone: "Hello, Fr. X? I'm a person who wants to be a Traditionalist Catholic. I need conditional baptism and would like to receive the Sacraments at least once to obtain graces to save my soul. Can you please help me?"
Traditionalist Fr. X: "Get lost." Hangs up.
That doesn't seem real to me, sorry.
---Introibo
Apparently traditionalist fathers a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u ,v, w, x, y, z all refuse to give sacraments. The chances of that are astronomically miniscule. Then the fact that not A SINGLE PERSON can help.
DeleteI don't have contact with relatives. I have friends, but they wouldn't do it. I have neighbors, but they wouldn't do it.
DeleteDo your neighbours have neigbours? Just go door knocking
Delete@anon8:25
DeleteHave you asked them all? How do you know they wouldn't do it?
---Introibo
If your neighbours say no GO THE NEXT HOUSE DOWN
DeleteThere is nobody.
Delete@anon1:45
DeleteSorry, I don't believe you. There's something you're not disclosing. You want me to believe you asked EVERY SINGLE NEIGHBOR, ALL YOUR FRIENDS REFUSE TO CONDITIONALLY BAPTIZE YOU (WHY?), and NO PRIEST WILL HELP.
Call the local Novus Bogus parish and ask one of the so-called "deacons" to baptize you conditionally. They will come. Don't say you are a Traditionalist, just say "Catholic" (truth--they assume it means their sect), and you will get conditional baptism.
---Introibo
I can't think of anybody to ask.
Delete@anon1:58
DeleteDid you even READ what I just wrote above????
Ask every neighbor. Ask every friend. Ask every Traditionalist priest. Get a V2 sect "deacon"---he WILL COME!
---Introibo
I had Protestant baptism years ago. After that I had conditional Baptism by a NO ordained priest. So I am looking for somebody who could do a traditional conditional Baptism.
DeleteA summary of Fr. DePauw's discussion:
ReplyDelete1) No one has seen the full text of the new code. He saw a draft. The official text has not been made public. JPII was crossing out words and lines in the text right before he was to sign it. This will cause unbelievable confusion later on. They did the same thing with the decree by which PVI allegedly eliminated the Old Mass.
2) On excommunication:
Hard to understand how Nov 26 you are excommunicated for not sending your child to Catholic school, and on Nov 27 you are not.
3) The big loser in this new code of canon law is the priest.
At Vatican 2 the bishops all became "little popes" and the Pope moved down. He is now the first among equals. Vocations suffer because the priest has become a two bit functionary among others.
4) Will the changes bring people back to the Church?
No, this is going to aid in the exit from the Church of more people. The Church is become faceless and nameless. It won't help entry into the priesthood. He expects a push to ordain women, and knows a bishop who is willing to do this.
5) The salvation of souls is the basic law of all Church laws.
Directives must be aimed at saving souls, not making money,
bingo, the Vatican bank, or politics.
6) About changes:
There is nothing more archaic than God, and human nature cannot change. Are the changes going to bring people closer to God? Is sending your child to a non-Catholic school or getting a marriage annulment going to bring people closer to God?
7) Married priests?
This is not a Divine law, but the Church over the centuries has wisely concluded the priest be an example of Our Lord, but mainly to remain independent and available.
8) Changes and updates to attract people:
You have to make a distinction between basic things. He gives the example of a bank with the latest computers and machines, however 2+2=4, not 4, 5, or 395.
9) Are you going to follow what the pope says?
I will obey any law which is not contradicting the laws of the Church, of God's law. By the virtue of my baptism, and ordination power, I can distinguish poison from healthy food.
Grace,
DeleteExcellent summation! You must've been a great student!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI found it helpful to go back and listen a second time. The interview was very fast paced, and there were so many interruptions, and change of subject and speakers, that it was easy to lose the train of thought, and details, of what Fr. DePauw was actually saying. This was only possible because you had recorded it.
Grace,
DeleteGlad I saved that tape as a digital file! A little longer and it might have been lost forever.
God Bless,
---Introibo
More and more traditional minded people are calling out Jewish subversion, Zionist terror, and the Holohoax. It’s only a matter of time before The Jewish fables traditional Catholics are told to believe are totally dismantled and dismissed and we can end Jewish control over our lives and institutions.
ReplyDelete@anon8:19
DeleteSomeone I knew became an atheist before finding his way back to the Faith by the grace of God. The reason he lost his faith? He thought Jesus was a myth devised by wicked Jews to weaken the Roman Empire by emasculating the with "turn the other cheek" morality.
The Jews are the Deicide Race, that is of Faith. Many are evil and plot against the Church. All of them do not.
Yes, Hitler murdered the Jews in WW2 and attempted genocide. Was the number 6 million? No, it could be more or less--some treat that as a "sacred number."
Even the conspiratorial JBS doesn't spout your kind of nonsense. Oh, let me guess, the JBS is "controlled opposition" run by crypto-Jews. Makes sense.
Bigfoot is Jewish too. You forgot about him. If you look closely at the Patterson photo, you'll see him wearing a yarmulke.
---Introibo
Yes, there are other evildoers apart from the deiciders, but the latter are at the forefront. And yes, not all the deiciders engage in evil and plotting, but still that doesn't mean they are automatically saved by BOD (which is extremely rare), nor does it even mean they should live among Catholics, for at this point it's been proven that even the "nice" ones enable the sins of the more wicked ones. Of course, extermination of a people on basis of ethnicity or faith is wrong, and the Church has never sanctioned that nor done that - and there have been from the Apostles onwards some legit good converts (who btw should colonize the Holy Christian Land of Palestine; and given that other converts havent been as good, some healthy separation might be needed). But idk, there are still some empty parts of the world the ones who stubbornly refuse conversion could be sent to. Of course, other heathens should also be cleared from majority-Catholic lands - if and when majority-Catholic lands return, as for now there are no Catholic confessional states in the midst of this great apostasy.
DeleteThe lying Jew, fake Catholic, Trent Horn was just exposed by EMJ for using the Holocaust Narrative to try and guilt and intimidate Catholics, many which are Catholics in name only, since they follow Akin, Horn and other V2 sect apostates. But many false traditionalists fall for The Jewish fables too! Traditional Catholics must tell the Truth about Zionist terror and World Jewry, enemies of The Catholic Church!
ReplyDelete@anon8:26
DeleteTrent Horn is Jewish? Yes, his father was Jewish, not his mother. He belongs to the Vatican II sect. Ratinger was a Nazi and a member of the V2 sect. Your point is..every Jew is evil. None can convert, none can be sincere in what they do when they convert.
Moreover, even being related to a Jew makes you evil. Hitler Fanboys accuse me of being Jewish as well. I'm a NYC lawyer and every single one is Jewish--no exceptions. My wife is Jewish too, poor lady.
Does that version of "reality" help you sleep better? I'm glad.
---Introibo
I don’t think he is a Hitler fanboy.
DeleteThere is a very obvious cabal of at least religious Jews. There is nothing fake about that. He’s not a gnostic for pointing it out anymore than you are for pointing out that the whore of Babylon (Novus bogus) is not the Catholic Church
The unfortunate home aloner female “theologian” Theresa benns has actually made a good point about roncalli
ReplyDeleteHe was declared suspect of heresy, and did not prove his orthodoxy within six months or even try, but rather persisted in his suspect activities, meaning that he is according to canon law to be considered as a pertinacious HERETIC. So according to the popes themselves roncalli was a heretic.
And a Freemason as has been aptly proved time and time again
But John Salza and his bunch still want to pretend he is the pope.
“But the eyes of the wicked shall decay, and the way to escape shall fail them, and their hope the abomination of the soul.“ - Job 11:20 Douay Rheims Version
Trent Horn is definitely a Jew. There is a dark spiritual element, as well as, a bio-cultural (genetic) element in being Jewish. Beware of Jewish converts, i.e. conversos. Many Jews were false converts and also changed their names so they could continue their subversive activity without detection. There have been Saints who were Jewish who converted to Catholicism, namely Saint Paul, and Saint Theresa of Avila’s paternal grandfather was Jewish. You are missing the entire point though. There is no group in existence or in history that Satan uses more as the vector to conduct and spread his evil than The Jews. There is no way of getting around that no matter how much you don’t like to hear the truth. But the truth will set you free.
ReplyDeletePlease don’t tell me you believe in shrunken heads pulled out of museums and displayed at the phony Nuremberg trials too, as a way to further slander the Germans after they were already falsely accused of perpetrating the holohoax which is a historical lie so absurd that it’s illegal to even question it in many places. There have been about 400 propaganda movies made about this myth of WW2 to guilt White Christian Civilization. You have obviously been guilted and conditioned to believe this lie as well. There were no death camps. There were internment/labor camps. The inmates died from starvation and disease due to the Allied bombings of supply chains. Some were unjustly killed by rogue guards. Many were executed for being Communists. Zyclon B was a delousing agent used to kill the lice carrying the deadly typhus disease, the delousing chambers had Prussian blue on the walls, a by product of the delousing chemical, the areas that were called the “gas chambers” had no Prussian blue markings on the wall. There is no way crematoriums could be so close to “gas chambers” without exploding the entire facility. Read Fred Leuchter’s scientific findings on the myth of gas chambers. How long does it take to cremate one body? How long does it take to cremate over six million? Way more than three or four years. Do the math. Your mathematical logic is wrong. U.S. intercepted many messages from Germans, gained access to all their records, not one mention of systemic plan to genocide a people. Auschwitz changed there plaque outside from 4 million deaths to one million at the camp. It’s lower than that, and most of the deaths were not murders by the Germans. We have all of these “survivors” telling their fake testimonies too. Many of their stories have been disproven too, some are just outlandish. How did they so many survive, and a World Almanac a few years after WW2 had the Jewish population decreasing by only a few hundred thousand. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more facts that totally bury this myth. That’s why it’s illegal to question it. They want to make words like “cabal”, “globalist” etc ILLEGAL. It’s time to wake up and stop believing in Jewish fables.
There’s no such thing as Bigfoot, but there is such a thing as World Jewry and the useful idiots who believe their diabolical stories.
Exactly.
DeleteThe Nuremberg trails were done under torture Anyone will confess to something while their privates are being crushed.
That doesn’t mean the Nazis were good. Far from it. The Nazis were themselves Zionists. And pagans.
They signed the havaara agreement, minted coins with the start of David on one side and the (pagan) swastika on the other. And funnily Aryanism is strikingly close to (Gentiles-are-inferior-ism) almost as if they are two sides of the same coin. And he was a promoter of Protestantism, well at least his version of it. Protestantism which was born out of Kabbalistic antinomianism.
Introibo. Try to understand this. Denying the holocaust is not even close to supporting Hitler (the pagan sodomite Protestant druggie, that Hitler)
If anything the holocaust was likely invented as a mockery of Christ’s Crucifixion. And if it really did happen and really did produce 6 million deaths (which is very ahistorical when you see the evidence), then that was probably the reason it was orchestrated- to make a mockery of the Crucifixion and establish a victim status.
God bless
Please see my policy comment below.
Delete---Introibo
Have you ever heard of The Roman Catholic Periodical written by Jesuits called La Civilta Cattolica? This publication pointed out the deicide, ritual murder, and octopus like control of World Jewry in many of its articles published before V2. I hope you wouldn’t slander Catholics and start calling them “Nazis”.
ReplyDeleteHere’s some Scripture for you: Thessalonians Chap. 2- 12 We testified to every one of you, that you would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed. 14 For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;
This was Saint Paul stating that the Jews were enemies of all mankind. Here translated as “adversaries to all men”. This will always be The Truth revealed by God. So the Hitler card doesn’t work anymore.
Please see my policy comment below.
Delete---Introibo
Sure, there are wicked WASPs and other very evil people who aren’t Jewish by blood or by religious conviction. However, most subversive movements have been orchestrated and controlled by Jews throughout the centuries. Freemasonry was a Jewish creation. The infiltration of modernists into the Church has heavy Jewish influence and involvement. So to point to WASPS or modernists who are ethnically/racially European is not a good argument. The movements and wicked beliefs these people have, mostly come from Jews. You might think Margaret Sanger, a Non Jew came up with her ideas that started The American abortion movement and Planned Parenthood without any outside influence. Wrong. Although she was a wicked woman who started these baby killing factories, she was influenced by the Anarchist Jew Emma Goldman who was vehemently pro abortion.
ReplyDeleteSee my policy comment below.
Delete---Introibo
What are The Errors of Russia that Our Lady prophesied and warned us about? It was the spread of not just Communism, a Jewish revolutionary movement, but other errors that mostly stem from radical Jewish insurrectionist movements. Perhaps even all these errors stem from this group that is in full revolt against The Divine Order! Who came up with Communism? Karl Marx (Jew), Bolsheviks (mostly Jews), Mensheviks (mostly Jews), led by Trotsky (Jew) real name Lev Davidovich Bronstein, funded by Jacob Schiff (Jew) banker. On and on we can go…..
ReplyDeletePlease see my policy comment below.
Delete---Introibo
You missed the point above about Jews being called out for their vicious treatment of humanity, so you revert to straw man arguments, as usual, and don’t make any meaningful points. All Jews, by the very nature of being Jews, reject Christ. This is evil. It’s an abomination. This is the starting point. Not only do they reject Christ, they have waged a war in every horrific way one can imagine to destroy The Catholic Church, commit genocide, spread moral depravity, bankrupt nations, start fratricidal wars etc. etc. Jews can convert, and then they are no longer Jews. The point that you’re missing is that many Jews falsely converted to The Catholic Faith so they could continue their corrupt behavior, spread debauchery, and rob countries of their wealth and inheritance. Read about The Conversos. Why were Jews expelled from many dozens of countries? The word “antisemitism” was created so that people couldn’t criticize criminal Jewish behavior. Period. Exclamation point!!!!!
ReplyDeletePlease see my policy comment below.
Delete---Introibo
AS some have seen fit to publish tirades against Jews, I will set forth the policy of this blog, in line with Catholic teaching. The comments here are not the usual Hitler Fanboys (Deo gratias!), and there are some valid points with which I agree. Therefore, I will publish this policy so everyone will know where I stand.
ReplyDelete1. It was through the Jews that God brought forth the greatest human being ever, The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Savior of the world, her Divine Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. The first Catholics were Jewish converts. Catholicism is the fulfilment of Judaism, “Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.” (St. Matthew 5:17).
2. The Jews since the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ are rightfully called the Deicide Race and are cursed. “Let His Blood be on us and our children!" (St. Matthew 27:25).
3. There are Jews that have (and continue to) plot against the Church.
4. Not every Jew is part of a plot against the Church. Not all are bad willed. We should pray for their conversion that they may become members of the One True Church. Not all converts are subversives with hidden agendas.
5. Being Jewish is not “genetic” and does not make one evil, anymore than Original Sin is “genetic.” Original Sin consists in the deprivation of the preternatural gifts of Adam and Eve and being conceived without sanctifying grace. There is no gene for Original Sin, nor a gene for being Jewish.
6. To viciously malign people as “being Jewish” (and therefore evil) because a parent, spouse or relative is Jewish, is outlandish and just plain stupid. I’ve been called “Jewish” and my wife as well when e.g., Feeneyites claim I “deny EENS.” That is calumny. I don’t know Trent Horn, yet he has been defamed as a “Jew” because his father is Jewish. If someone’s father went to jail, does that automatically condemn his son as a criminal?
7. Adolph Hitler was an evil, pagan/occultist and mass murderer. He was not a “good guy” who got bad press. Yes, he attempted genocide against the Jews. Were exactly 6 million killed? I think it is stupid to enforce that number. It is also wrong to have “Holocaust denial” crimes as in Germany. I think the number was far less, but many Jews were murdered nevertheless. It doesn’t make Hitler any less evil.
8. In his first encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (1914), Pope Benedict XV declares that the relations between people should be one of brothers and sisters, i.e., of those who are one in nature because they are of the same family created by God. Discussing the ravages of the First World War (1914-1918), His Holiness writes, "Who would imagine as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock, all of the same nature, all members of the same human family?" (para. #3) This applies to Jews as to everyone else.
That is my policy, one that is in line with Church teaching. If someone’s SOLE PURPOSE in commenting here is to decry everyone with whom they disagree as a “Jew,” and blame all evils on Jews, please take it somewhere else.
---Introibo
Points 1,2,3,5,6,8 need no reply and I don’t think any commenters are disputing seven but I will still add that
DeleteHitler was very likely a Zionist. Whether or not the holocaust happened any more than a few hundred thousand Hitler was still probably on the side of the religious talmudists.
As for 4 every religious Jew pretty much contributes to it by believing those lies about Our Lord
Introibo:
ReplyDelete1. Have you ever met any of your guest posters or commenters in person? I don't need to know who, I am just wondering generally.
2. What do you think of dispensationalism?(John Nelson Darby)
@anon7:36
Delete1. I keep in contact with my guest posters and some long time commenters; but I have never met any in person. My need for anonymity precludes it.
2. It is heretical. https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/01/chiliasm-will-christ-rule-1000-years-on.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Forgive my ignorance, didnt the Council of Trent stipulate that any person writing on matters of Religion must publish their name and that of their publisher?
Delete(This is not submitted in any manner if provocation.)
@anon1:28
DeleteThat is ecclesiastical law not Divine Positive Law or Natural Law, and it does not apply in sedevacante.
I would not be writing and maintaining this blog if the Church had a pope and hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction.
The purpose of that rule was to ensure Protestants didn't propagate heresy anonymously and those who spread heresy could be censured. Who has the authority to censure me? The Traditionalist clergy have no Ordinary Jurisdiction, and they can't write against errors as they have much to do giving the Faithful the Mass and Sacraments.
No bishop is to be consecrated without a papal mandate. If that was still binding, you can see the problems it would cause--the destruction of the hierarchy. When ecclesiastical laws become harmful they cease to bind. Someone has to offer opinions, based on Church teaching, on how to make their best Catholic way through the Great Apostasy.
The entire reason for demanding published names has been eliminated.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you; very helpful answer. Yes, of course, that makes perfect sense.
DeleteIntroibo did you just deny the formal Apostolicity of the church. Yes our bishops do have ordinary jurisdiction as. Per canon 199. The church can never lose formal Apostolicity
Delete@anon11:40
DeleteBetter tell that to the bishops themselves. I don’t know of any claiming Ordinary Jurisdiction. Certainly not SSPV or CMRI.
Bishop Santay of SSPV says not to use Pian Holy Week. Bp. Pivarunas says you must use Pian Holy Week. To whom do you submit? Who is correct?
Just as theologian Dorsch teaches that in sedevacante the Church retains all Her attributes yet they function in a different way, so to with Apostolicity. Whatever is required exists, even if we don’t know exactly how in this unprecedented state.
—-Introibo
Formal apostolicity in the form of general jurisdiction is still in the (rightfully consecrated) Catholic bishops who recognize sedevacante and teach/sanctify/govern as the Church's bishops do. Just because the ordinary jurisdictional sees are empty does not mean apostolicity is lost, for they can be filled by a real (public) Pope. May he be elected soon.
Delete
DeleteThe Thuc bishops are ordinaries insofar as they are subdelegates of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII and delegated of Abp Thuc
Here is what Pius XI said, and this was renewed by Pius XII, and never rescinded.
"By virtue of the Plenitude of the powers of the Holy Apostolic See, we appoint as our Legate Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, titular bishop of Saigon, whom we invest with all the necessary powers, for purposes known to us."
Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on 15 March 1938, the seventeenth year of our pontificate. Pope Pius XI,
Explanation of these powers
What does this document mean ? Let us examine a parallel case in which Pius XI conceded identical powers to another prelate. On 10 March 1920, the same pope Pius XI dictated the same motu proprio for Mgr d'Herbigny (S.J.). The account is recorded in the book of Father Paul Lesourd, published by Lethielleux Editions under the title "Le Jesuite clandestine"
Here is the translation
Motu Proprio By virtue of the plenitude of the Apostolic power, we appoint as our Delegate Michel d'Herbigngy (S.J.), titular bishop of Troie, whom we invest with all the appropriate and necessary powers, for purposes known to us.
Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on 10 March 1926, the fifth year of our pontificate. Pius XI, Pope
The two cases are analogous. With this Act of the Holy See, the two bishops received pontifical powers, similar to those of Patriarchs. The details of these powers are explained by Pius XI himself, as reported by Father Lesourd in the following terms:
"Orally, the Holy Father first enumerated in detail all the powers which he conferred, including the selection of priests to be ordained and to confer on them the episcopate without the need for them to have pontifical bulls, nor therefore to give their signatures inviting them to act accordingly on the strength of the oath."
"Then, after having at length set out in detail by word of mouth all the powers which were really extraordinary, the Pope resumed them most solemnly as follows"
"In one word, we grant to you all the pontifical powers of the Pope himself, which are not incommunicable by divine right."(translation from the French)
ABP. Thuc at least tacitly delegated to the bishops he consecrated by his intention to preserve the hierarchy. And canon 199.5 is subject to Epikeia.
Anon 4:07 whether or not this is true the fact still is that our bishops are in fact 1. Formal successors of the apostles 2. In possession of ordinary delegated jurisdiction 3. Therefore ordinaries
Abp. Thuc didn’t need the mandatum, not that he would have needed it anyway due to epikeia (so bishop Mendez didn’t need it either)
There is an error above. It says:"On 10 March 1920, the same Pope Pius XI"... Benedict XV was Pope in 1920. Maybe the person meant to say "On 10 March 1926"?
ReplyDeleteThis was most interesting. The problem with radio shows, or at least this one, is the show host always interrupts the guest(s). As I experienced the changes with Vatican II and can testify to how horrific they were (and so much worse now) and I believe purposefully written to undermine not only the priesthood and eventually destroy the papacy, but specifically, the true faith, a short program such as this barely touches the surface of how the Modernists succeeded in deceiving most Catholics into believing the council was faithful to Catholic teaching when it clearly invented a new, diabolically inspired religion.
ReplyDeleteI believe God had a hand in encouraging you to record this interview so long ago and thank you for sharing it with us.
It doesn't matter now if +Siri was elected and resigned. He fully embraced the novus ordo new age sect and died on 1989.
ReplyDeleteChasing his ghost does no one any good and is a waste of time.
Merry Christmas.
God bless,
Andrew