Monday, September 29, 2025

Twelve Steps Towards Hell

 

"Hi. My name is Tom, and I'm an alcoholic." The room responds, "We love you, Tom!" This is how someone is introduced in the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program. Their Twelve Steps have become synonymous with recovery from alcoholism. Rather than a moral failure, all addictions are reclassified as "sicknesses." In this way, people can escape moral responsibility. No one who hasn't had alcohol wakes up one day and decides to drink a bottle of whiskey. It starts slowly. Getting drunk is a sin. To do it habitually is to invite problems in; and they will answer your call.

There are Twelve Step programs for a multitude of things now; here's a small sample: CA – Cocaine Anonymous, CMA – Crystal Meth Anonymous, FAA – Food Addicts Anonymous, GA – Gamblers Anonymous, RA – Racists Anonymous, and SA – Sexaholics Anonymous. 

No one is a coke-head, drug fiend, glutton, degenerate high-roller, bigot, or pervert. They "had to do it" because they have an "illness." Twelve Steps are not as effective as people may think. AA gave a green light to sin and tell people to feel no shame/guilt. AA describes itself as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.
(See aa.org/sites/default/files/literature/assets/p-56_ThisisAA_largeprint.pdf). 

Seems benevolent enough until you dig beneath the surface. While AA may have helped some people stop drinking, it does far more harm than good. As a matter of fact, the origins and purpose of AA are quite disturbing. Most people are unaware of the occult origin of AA and its (rather successful) campaign to promote religious indifferentism and eliminate the sense of sin.

The Nefarious Origin of AA

 AA started when businessman William (Bill)Wilson (1895-1971) and colorectal surgeon Dr. Robert (Bob) Smith (1879-1950) met in 1935. Both men were alcoholics who met at the Oxford Group,a non-denominational group allegedly modeled on early Christianity.  The Oxford group literature defines the group as not being a religion, for it had no hierarchy, no Church, and "no plans but God's plan." Their chief aim was "A new world order for Christ, the King." (See F. Buchman, Remaking the World. [1961]). Due to this affiliation, people have tried to paint AA as "Christian," yet the facts speak for themselves. AA denies any religious affiliation, and the Oxford Group denied being a religion, yet claims to build a "new world order" for "Christ the King." They knew "God's plan" through some "personal experience." The Group called it, "Listening for God's guidance, and carrying it out."

 The official AA biography of Bill Wilson, entitled Pass it On, details Wilson and Smith practicing seances and communing with demonic spirits while writing the program of AA and the Twelve Steps. Bill Wilson explains one of their experiences with a Ouija board:

The Ouija board began moving in earnest. What followed was the fairly usual experience-it was a strange mélange of Aristotle, St. Francis, diverse archangels with odd names, deceased friends–some in purgatory and others doing nicely, thank you! There were malign and mischievous ones of all descriptions telling of vices quite beyond my ken, even as former alcoholics. Then, the seemingly virtuous entities would elbow them out with messages of comfort, information, advice—and sometimes just sheer nonsense. (See Pass It On, pg. 278). 

Wilson's wife, Lois, was raised in the Swedenborgian Church, also known as The New Church, the Church of New Jerusalem. Emanuel Swedenborg was born on January 29, 1688 (died 1772) in Stockholm. His father was a Lutheran minister. Emanuel was very bright and had an inquisitive mind. He was particularly interested in science and religion. In the former, he was recognized as an expert in geology and he also studied astronomy, cosmology, and physics. In 1744 he was stricken with a severe delirium which seems to have affected his mind for the rest of his life since many trance states were attributed to him as his life progressed.

In 1745 he had a vision where loathsome creatures seemed to crawl on the walls of his room. Then a man appeared who claimed to be God. This apparition said that Emanuel was to be the one who would communicate the teachings of the unseen realm to the people of the world. He would be the means by which God would further reveal Himself to the world. Swedenborgism denies the Trinity and teaches all religions lead to God, though all are not equally enlightened. One of its goals is to bring the world together under a new religious understanding. (See swedenborg.org).

The New Church was notorious for occult practices, and her husband most probably got his start in the occult from her. Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith were originally introduced to each other in 1935 by a woman named Henrietta Seiberling. In a letter she wrote on July 31 1952, she tells of Bill Wilson’s communion with demonic spirits during the time he was writing the Alcoholics Anonymous Twelve Step program,

He imagines himself all kinds of things. His hand ‘writes’ dictation from a Catholic priest, whose name I forget, from the 1600 period who was in Barcelona, Spain-again, he told Horace Crystal he was completing the works that Christ didn’t finish, and according to Horace he said he was a reincarnation of Christ. Perhaps he got mixed in whose reincarnation he was. It looks more like the works of the devil but I could be wrong. I don’t know what is going on in that poor deluded fellow’s mind.
(See https://web.archive.org/web/20131113235051/http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Henrietta_Seiberling.html). 

Wilson used "automatic writing," an occult practice, to receive instructions from a "Catholic priest,"
and was "completing the works Christ didn't finish." Wilson and Smith also believed in reincarnation.

AA, therefore, has its origin in the demonic. The triangle within a circle (symbol of AA) has its origin in secret societies. The Rosicrucians (a secret society tied to Masonry) uses it to impart and convey its teachings to initiates.  According to Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age (published by AA), Wilson says of the symbol:

That we have chosen this symbol [for A.A.] is perhaps no mere accident. The priests and seers of antiquity regarded the circle enclosing the triangle as a means of warding off spirits of evil, and AA’s circle of Recovery, Unity, and Service has certainly meant all that to us and much more. (pg. 139; Emphasis mine.) 

It is an abomination to attempt to contact the dead. As I've written before, necromancy (attempting to contact the dead) is condemned by both the Bible and Church teaching. "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.) According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology, pg. 100; Emphasis mine). 

Twelve Steps To Losing The Faith

 The Twelve Step Program is little more than an exaltation of positive Indifferentism (the belief that all religions are more or less equally good). 

Step Two states: "[We] Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity."

What "Power" is that? It could mean God, an impersonal "god" of the deists, or the "Great Architect of the Universe" of the Masonic Lodge.

Step Three states: " [We] Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him." 

"...as we understood Him." Any understanding of  "God" as some higher "Power" are all equally good and praiseworthy.

Step Eleven states, [We] Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out."

 To whom do they pray, and how do they meditate? "Conscious contact with God"? What does that mean? Contact by some direct communication as the Oxford Group claimed? 

Step Twelve states, [We] ... had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs."

A "spiritual awakening"? It certainly is not to the One True Church of Christ. They are further instructed to "practice these principles in all our affairs." 

AA even has chapters for atheists and agnostics but will not allow proselytism, or for anyone to pray in the Holy Name of Jesus. They do not "tolerate" the idea that any person's religious beliefs are superior to another's, nor that anyone's "spiritual beliefs" may be wrong. Despite AA's protestations that it is "not allied with any sect, denomination..." the New York State Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) determined that AA is  religious in the broad sense of the term. (See Matter of Griffin v. Coughlin 88 N.Y.2d 674 (1996)). A religion of indifferentism that can tolerate anything except the Truth--much like the Vatican II sect. 

People in these Twelve Step programs will begin to imbibe something worse than alcohol; the idea that any "Higher Power" worshiped by anyone is just as good as any other. It matters not if you are Hindu, Moslem, Protestant, Vatican II sect, or Traditionalist. Any religious belief can help you in life, and (by implication) the afterlife. After enough exposure, you're on the road to believing it and rejecting the idea of a One True Church. 

Scientific Studies Dispute AA's Effectiveness

In 2006, the Cochrane Collaboration, a health-care research group, reviewed studies going back to the 1960s and found that "no experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or [12-step] approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems."

AA claims a 75% success rate, yet in his recent book, The Sober Truth: Debunking the Bad Science Behind 12-Step Programs and the Rehab Industry, Lance Dodes, a retired psychiatry professor from Harvard Medical School, looked at Alcoholics Anonymous’s retention rates along with studies on sobriety and rates of active involvement (attending meetings regularly and working the program) among AA members. Based on these data, he put AA’s actual success rate somewhere between 5 and 8 percent. 

Even more frightening, There is no mandatory national certification exam for addiction counselors. The 2012 Columbia University report on addiction medicine found that only six states required alcohol- and substance-abuse counselors to have at least a bachelor’s degree and that only one state, Vermont, required a master’s degree. Fourteen states had no license requirements whatsoever—not even a GED or an introductory training course was necessary—and yet counselors are often called on by the judicial system and medical boards to give expert opinions on their clients’ prospects for recovery. These same mostly unqualified people will be teaching the occult ideology intrinsic to AA.

 (Information on scientific studies culled from the work of Gabrielle Glasser located at theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irrationality-of-alcoholics-anonymous/386255/).

Conclusion
There are many more effective methods of treating alcoholism (or any other problem) than organizations using the occult Twelve Step method. If you or someone you love suffers from a problem considered "an addiction," consult with a doctor you trust, shop around, and find treatment from a person or group unaffiliated with the Twelve Steps. Most important to your recovery, is your spiritual health in the One True Church. Christ and His Mother will help you through your sins.  Otherwise you'll put your soul in peril as the demonic inspired "cure" is worse than the so-called "disease" it purports to fight.

115 comments:

  1. Dear Introibo, thank you for the article about alcohol. I have a question about vegetarianism: Is it alright for Catholics to be vegetarians? It is because I associate it with being pagan like Hinduism. I even compare it to doing yoga.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And also, I forgot, is it wrong to pray the Nicene Creed without Filioque? It is because pseudo-pope Leo XIV in an ecumenical service recited the Creed without Filioque. There are Eastern Catholics that pray the creed without Filioque.

      Delete
    2. Ryan,
      1. There is nothing inherently pagan about being vegetarian or vegan. Many people (and some medical professionals) feel it is a very healthy diet. Some people do it for ethical reasons---not wanting to eat sentient creatures. As longs as they don't condemn those who do eat meat, there's nothing wrong with it.

      2. The Filioque should always be recited unless there is a longstanding liturgical tradition to the contrary which was approved by Rome pre-Vatican II.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Occultism lurks everywhere, even in unexpected places ! I don't drink alcohol; it's the best way to avoid becoming an alcoholic and using seemingly harmless methods that keep us in darkness while thinking we're getting out of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon
      I agree 100% While the Church does not condemn social drinking, it is, in my opinion, better to have none at all. I say this as one who grew up in a neighborhood of drunkards. I don't drink at all, nor does my wife.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. How about the program 'DARE' used by law enforcement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about law enforcement itself? They are legally allowed to lie to you but how "DARE" you if you lie to them. Talk about double standards. How do you back the blue when they don't really back you nor set a good example? Just come on up here to the Sheriffs department and we'll issue you a re-citation, then you can go home tonight and then when you cooperate, BOOM you are under arrest. Why? Because we have a warrant out for you and even though we aren't sure you did anything you'll have to spend time in jail until your court day next week unless somebody come and pay a certain bond in cash to get you out because that's our job.

      Interestingly enough today is St. Michael's feast day and is the patron saint of police officers. May he bring the many bad ones to justice is all I can say.

      Delete
    2. @anon7:12
      DARE is a program with a secular worldview founded in 1983. I'm not sure how much it is still around (if at all). The over -simplistic "Just Say NO" mantra of Nancy Reagan rings hollow. God is banished from the program and there studies showing it to be totally ineffective long-term.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Introibo, I agree that DARE was not effective. I remember my elementary school had us go through that in the mid to late 2000s, and I don't think it swayed any of us. I'm pretty sure at least half, if not more, of the people I went to school with are currently on drugs or dabbled in them at some point (by the grace of God, I was not one of them). No surprise it failed given it never addressed the Epicurean/hedonistic mentality of most of my peers nor the broken families they were being raised in. I dare say that a venn diagram of my peers that are on drugs and my peers that came from single parent or divorced households would just be one circle.

      Delete
    4. Sneedevacantist
      An excellent comment! Thank you for sharing!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Statistics prove those who quit using without the assistance of a rehab or AA have a higher prognosis than those who use those services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Traditional Catholic Sermons
      You are correct! Another reason not to go to AA.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. What evidence supports your point, and how do you distinguish the hypothesis “Non AA ways more effective”, from the alternative: “Those not attending AA are less severe so have better prognosis anyway”?

      Delete
    3. @anon6:57
      From one source citing Scientific American:
      "Scientific American reports that about 40 percent of AA members drop out during the first year.

      The data they examined suggests that AA may be helpful in conjunction with professional treatment. However, it can also be harmful, particularly if an AA group is confrontational. An alcoholic may become resistant to change when attacked by the people he expects to help him.

      Drug courts believe in AA, physicians and counselors routinely recommend it, and the general public believes in it. But how successful is AA in breaking the cycle of addiction?

      First, we have to clarify what we mean when we say “successful.”

      Are we talking about total abstinence?
      Reduced drinking?
      Improved quality of life?
      Depending on the definition, the numbers shift dramatically.

      Alcoholics Anonymous surveys its members every few years. Their survey of 6,500 members in the U.S. and Canada showed that 35 percent of its members stayed sober for more than five years, 34 percent stayed sober for one to five years, and 31 percent were sober for less than one year.

      Studies conducted over the years have placed AA’s long-term success rate somewhere between 5% and 10%—which, if true, is roughly the same as the percentage of people who quit drinking on their own, without any formal intervention."

      Moreover, there are better, scientifically backed treatments for alcohol use disorder. Medications like naltrexone, acamprosate, and disulfiram have been shown to significantly improve outcomes for people struggling with alcohol dependence. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has a strong evidence base.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Introibo:

    Sorry, off-topic though I would be very interested in your response to this brief excerpt of a new book on the liturgy appended on Mr. Z's website, particularly regarding the claim that Roncalli, as 'pope', adhered to the pre-1955 Holy Week. I recall a most lively discussion re the Pian liturgical reforms during Holy Week:

    https://wdtprs.com/2025/09/review-lumen-christi-defending-the-use-of-the-pre-1955-roman-rite/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon10:54
      Mr. Z is a pompous fool. Not surprising he wants to read the Kwas and an unnamed "Benedictine." An R&R, the Kwas picks and chooses post-Conciliar "papal" teaching, and now applies it pre-Vatican II.

      Roncalli was never pope. Pope Pius XII ordered the New Rite of Holy Week and other rubrical changes to the Missal up to 1958. He was a true pope. I don't care who was behind it (Bugnini/Masons)--it could be Satan himself--if the Vicar of Christ gives a liturgical Rite he is protected by the Holy Ghost. The Rite is 100% Catholic and pure. Period.

      While SSPV and Fr. Cekada openly admitted there is nothing un-Catholic, heretical, evil, or an incentive to impiety, they reject it because it (allegedly) "ceased to bind."

      The book's write-up on Amazon declares: "This was no gentle pruning or “restoration” but a momentous rupture, a deliberate reshaping of ancient ceremonies to fit the mind of modern man, an attempt to reimagine and improve upon the past rather than receiving it humbly as the treasure it is. As a result, the 1962 liturgical books bear the wounds of earlier deformations and anticipate wounds yet to come."

      "Bear the Wounds"?? "Deformations"??

      That's blasphemous and, in my opinion, proximate to heresy.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much. Thank you.

      Delete
    3. Introibo,

      Could you please, please, PLEASE! write a succinct response to this (which I would have the intention of forwarding to her):

      https://www.barnhardt.biz/2025/09/26/qa-so-why-is-ftr-prevost-an-antipope-but-john-xxiii-paul-vi-jpi-jpii-and-bxvi-were-valid-popes-in-other-words-why-has-the-petrine-see-been-vacant-only-since-31-december-a/

      Miss Bernhardt is a most worthy & valiant soul and surely close to arriving at the Sede (proper) position.

      Delete
    4. @anon10:45
      Ok.
      1. As to Haec Sancta, it was issued on April 6, 1415. However, a true pope did not convene the Council until Pope Gregory XII on July 4, 1415--almost three months later. The decree was issued prior to papal authority. Additionally, Pope Martin V never subsequently ratified it. It never appears in Denzinger. Ergo, never having been approved by a true pope, heresy was never approved by the Church.

      2. Please see my post "A Sedevacantist Primer"--it shows how the popes from Roncalli forward could not have been popes:

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

      The issue in #1 is VERY complex and would take at least two posts to explain in detail--I tried my best to do it justice when being very terse.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Thank you very much!

      For me, and I'm an idiot, but nevertheless, for me, if the Church is infallible, indefectible in Her infallibility, can do no evil and can not contradict itself, then the only possible explanation is that the See has been vacant since these marks were no longer in operation, i.e. after Pius XII

      Delete
    6. @anon10:56
      Far from being an idiot, you are wiser than most, my friend!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. Hello Introibo

    Thank you for this expose of AA.As Simeon stated above,the occult lurks everywhere.

    A few made some comments to your last writing about their disappointment with courtship and dating.I could write much on this subject.If you don't have concrete compatable factors with someone who believes the True Faith,shares your core values with money,family,etc and has emotional maturity that matches your own you will have major problems.As TradWarrior stated you even have to be very discerning in the Traditional Catholic world.My experience is how worldly men and woman are.I agree the younger generation are glued to their phones and lazy.God help us.

    A good reply quote off a R and R website that was forwarded to me yesterday-Stop beating a dead horse so the saying goes.The Church of Vatican Two or the new Synodal Church is a rotted desiccated corpse.Pointing out that corpses corruption is pointless.No further autopsy needed(LOL)

    Keep up the excellent work my friend.Such a blessing to read your blog every week.Prayers for you from DownUnder

    God bless
    TradSedeCath,NZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TradSedeCath
      Thank you, my friend! Comments like yours keep me writing!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thanks for sharing this !

      Delete
  7. As someone with firsthand experience of twelve step programs, I'd like to give my perspective on this very important topic. My father was a gambler, and it nearly destroyed my parent's marriage. I vividly remember the day my mother came home from work, exasperated and at wits end, giving my father an ultimatum-go to Gamblers Anonymous (GA) or she would divorce him. Needless to say, my father joined GA shortly thereafter, while my mother became a member of Gam-Anon.

    At that time, my brother and sisters had no interest in participating in Gam-Anon meetings, especially asince there were only two of us still living at home at the time, plus, we had our own lives to live as young adults. I didn't know anything about the origins of GA or any twelve step programs until about two, maybe, three years ago.

    I was living with my father after the death of my mother 23 years ago, while he was attending GA meetings twice a week, plus open meetings, and socializing with people in his room. I didn't become involved with Gam-Anon until six years ago, when my father confessed to gambling again. I think I went to one or two Gam-Anon meetings because I had no other supports at the time, with my siblings living in other locales and states.

    We had a family intervention, and my father was given an ultimatum-either work on his recovery, or his children would have nothing to do with him. This was a very embarrassing situation for my father, shaming in into working harder on overcoming his gambling addiction.

    ReplyDelete
  8. About a year went by, and after returning from a trip, my father confessed to gambling yet again. I was furious. He was taking the money that I gave him every month to cover the cost of our apartment (a co-op_ and food to gamble. I said sine very unkind and unhelpful things to my father, things that I regret saying.

    We had another family intervention, and my sisters and brothers were more forgiving, realizing that my father wasn't able to overcome this addiction.

    During this time, I began hosting Gam-Anon meetings during covid, with me being on my computer in one room, and my father attedning GA meetings by phone in the bedroom. It gave me comfort to be able to share with other people my own struggles. in dealing not only with my father's gambling, but with my own shortcomings. When I learned of the occult origins of twelve step programs, I began being more open about my Catholic faith, and that I believe that gambling is a sin. No one shunned me when I did this.

    My father passed away over three years ago without recovery, without overcoming his addiction, his sins. It saddens me greatly that he died unexpectedly, without being able to tell him that I loved him and I forgive hime for what he put both me and my family over the years.

    I ended up telling my room back in April that I would no longer be participating in Gam-Anon meetings since I believe that God has called me to spend my evenings in prayer and meditation, doing penance, and amending my life. I told my Gam-Anon sisters that I wasn't abandoning them, but would be going in a different direction in life-prayer, meditation, contemplation, and penance. This didn't go well with some folks in my room, and to this day, I have little contact with anyone from my room.

    I believe my story is a cautionary tale, that twelve step programs are not a solution to sin, but a false hope, despite the fact that I know many people that have had recovery for many years, even decades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cyrus,
      A very moving story. I can't thank you enough for sharing it with my readers and me!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Introibo
    Have you ever heard of something called the Twelve Rays Practical Appilcations.It is a book containing the writings of the emerald tablets of Thoth the Atlantean a Priest King back 36000BC who founded a colony in Egypt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:45
      No, I have not heard of it, but it sounds very strange to say the least! If anyone knows more, please comment here.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. All I know Introibo is there was some link on a website connected with the followers of the Bahai "Faith"

      I would say it is indeed very strange.

      Delete
  10. Introibo,

    Could you please provide links for your past writings in Roncalli, Montini, Wotylya & Ratzinger, detailing why they were false popes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:13
      A post that brings them all down:

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

      Wojtyla specifically:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/06/judging-book-by-cover.html

      Roncalli specifically:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html

      Bergoglio specifically:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/10/blessing-intrinsic-evil.html

      As to Ratzinger and Montini, I can't remember if I went against them specifically---but the Sedevacantist Primer does the trick. If I can think of more, I'll post them here.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much.

      Delete
    3. For those interested in a deeper dive into the false Popes after the death of Pope Pius XII, here\s a list and links to our friends at Novus Ordo Watch:

      False Popes – Novus Ordo Watch

      • What You Need to Know About the Man who Claimed to be the Pope from 1958-1963
      https://novusordowatch.org/john-xxiii/

      • What You Need to Know About the Man who Claimed to be the Pope from 1963-1978
      https://novusordowatch.org/paul-vi/

      • What You Need to Know About the Man who Claimed to be the Pope from August 26 to September 28, 1978
      https://novusordowatch.org/john-paul-i/

      • What You Need to Know About the Man who Claimed to be the Pope from 1978-2005
      https://novusordowatch.org/john-paul-ii/

      • What You Need to Know About the Man Who Claimed to be the Pope from 2005-2013
      https://novusordowatch.org/benedict-xvi/

      • What You Need to Know About the Man Who Claimed to be the Pope from 2013-2025
      https://novusordowatch.org/francis/

      • What You Need to Know About the Man who Claims to Be the Pope from 2025 to ?
      https://novusordowatch.org/leo-xiv/


      Delete
  11. Introibo

    Would you suggest someone not to read the writings of Peter Kwas.

    As you stated above he says some strange and unCatholic things

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:51
      Other than one strong and knowledgeable in the Faith reading his drivel to refute it--stay away is my advice!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I agree 100% about Peter Kwas.He is a danger to anyone who does not have a solid knowledge of the Faith.Don't waste your money.

      Delete
  12. Nice article, Introibo (as always!) Steve Speray has written a very good article as well over at his blog against the Feeneyites. He quotes his favorite book “Purgatory” and mentions how there are souls saved in the internal forum and how the external forum does not always imitate the internal forum. It is a great piece of writing.

    God Bless,

    -TradWarrior

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank TradWarrior.Both stevens and the website of Introibo are the best on the net.

      God bless

      Delete
    2. TradWarrior-

      The interesting thing is the Dimond Bros. just came out with a video about Charlie Kirk. While it is good at exposing Charlie's past as an anti-Catholic, the problem is the video is an attempt to judge Charlie in the internal forum based on his life as a Protestant. While I admit there is a good chance he didn't make it, the problem is we don't know with absolute certainty how or if God granted him an extraordinary grace to be sorry for his sins and desire (in a a way we cannot see as was the case in Steve's article about the Jewish woman) Catholicism.

      They deceptively quoted 4 popes (Gregory VII, Martin V, Gregory IX, Gregory XVI) as if these popes were against the idea of praying for non-Catholics in private when their statements refer to the external forum and for not praying for them publicly such as Christian Burial.

      I've always thought how ironic it is that if a pope or a great saint disagrees with them, they simply dismiss them as being wrong but if you or I agree with that pope or great saint they would stamp people like us as heretics. St. Alphonsus Ligouri comes to mind when regarding what he said about BOD and Pope Pius XI with regards to what he said about Mary being the Co-Redemptrix are two examples of this.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. I'm confused about this. If people are publicly praying for the repose of Charlie Kirk's soul, are those considered "private" prayers, since no one is offering, to my knowledge, any public Masses.

      Delete
    4. Cyrus
      Prayers for the repose of someone who died a non-Catholic in the external forum should be done in private; not in public.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Cyrus,

      The public are mostly non-Catholics so when they say they are praying for Charlie out in the open such as having a vigil, they are doing it in public, not private. It doesn't matter what non-Catholics are going to do. What matters is what Catholics are permitted to do.

      Lee

      Delete
    6. Hi Lee,

      Great comment. You said it very well. Yes, when popes or saints disagree with them, they just dismiss it. It must be a mistake and they misspoke. But if we agree with those popes and saints, then we are the heretics. Yeah, that makes a LOT of sense (Lol)!

      -TradWarrior

      Delete
  13. It’s false “trad” warrior the worldling who enjoys rock music and an ardent John 3:5 mocker. Start calling yourself ecumenical warrior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's another better than thou anonymous person who thinks himself to be Catholic by following everything the Dimonds say. If Trad Warrior is a John 3:5 mocker are you a Galatians 6:7 mocker?

      Delete
    2. You have the audacity to cite Galatians 6:7? Hypocrisy at its highest level. You believe Talmudic Jews who reject Christ can be saved, and that Charlie Kirk was saved as he was praying with Protestants, denying Catholic Dogma, and praising AntiCatholic Calvinists as heroes. You worship men and don’t believe in divine revelation. That is why you are left in your obstinate darkness as you follow false shepherds of The CMRI, RCI, etc….I pray you receive the grace you need to accept all Catholic Dogmas. It’s hard for many since they care mostly about what their “trad” circles think on these matters, and don’t accept the truth for what it is for fear of human rejection and out of false charity and convenience.

      Delete
    3. How do you know I follow CMRI, RCI etc. when you don't even know who I am any more than many unknown people that comment on this site? I didn't say anything about Talmudic Jews or Charlie Kirk being saved. You seem to worship the Dimonds because you use the same terms they use and you probably believe everything they say because you cannot think for yourself or see how nuances work. Do you believe St. John Vianney is a heretic for implying that the Jewish mother of a Catholic priest was saved?

      Delete
    4. Most all who support or comment on this blog, support/endorse/attend one of those Sedevacantist groups. Tell me you don’t support them. Tell me otherwise. Ask one of their priests if a Jew who rejects Christ can be saved. They’ll tell you “we can’t judge” they don’t rule it out. They believe they can be saved as you do, since you can’t say you don’t support those groups. You hold the same false positions as them. MHFM and other traditional groups spread the truth based on true church teaching. The dogmatic pronouncements of the Church as once declared. People who support MHFM support them because of their their research and scholarly work. They have legitimate orders and they don’t live in trailers. People are free to donate. I definitely don’t donate to false “trad” groups. Saint John Marie Vianney is a Saint. Hagiographical stories, The Roman Martyrology are filled with accounts that are not always accurate. These stories are not necessarily true. The Roman Martyrology and hagiographic stories are not infallible, they are subject to change and inaccuracies. We believe in the infallible magisterium not stories about Saints that are unverifiable. When you say nuance you mean making stuff up. You mean creating metaphors, and useless formulas. There is no nuance in Pope Eugene IV declarative statements on EENS. John 3:5 is literal and dogmatic. You create nuance where there is none, just like true modernists.

      Delete
    5. @Dimondite12:48
      You write: "You believe Talmudic Jews who reject Christ can be saved, and that Charlie Kirk was saved as he was praying with Protestants, denying Catholic Dogma, and praising AntiCatholic Calvinists as heroes."

      Reply: No Catholic believes that. It is a caricature of the dogma of BOD.

      You write: You worship men and don’t believe in divine revelation.

      Reply: No, we don't worship Fred and Bobby Dimwit--YOU do that!!

      You write: I pray you receive the grace you need to accept all Catholic Dogmas

      Reply: Pray for yourself that YOU accept all dogmas--the dogma of BOD and BOB which you and you befuddled cult masters at Most Fraudulent Heretical Monastery deny! You are not Catholic.

      Praying for your conversion.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. @Dimondite6:02
      You write: Ask one of their priests if a Jew who rejects Christ can be saved. They’ll tell you “we can’t judge” they don’t rule it out.

      Reply: They don't rule out they could have been BROUGHT INTO THE CHURCH PRIOR TO DEATH BY BOD. You don't understand the difference---and if some Traditionalist priest or bishop didn't express himself well---that is the teaching of the Church regardless.

      You write: MHFM and other traditional groups spread the truth based on true church teaching.

      Reply: No, Fred and Bobby are Feeneyites--condemned as heresy.

      You write: The dogmatic pronouncements of the Church as once declared.

      Reply: Yes, like BOD declared at Trent...Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
      “In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration OR A DESIRE FOR IT, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”

      Trent is a "John 3:5 MOCKING COUNCIL"!!

      You write: People who support MHFM support them because of their their research and scholarly work.

      Reply: Hahahahahaha!!! Thanks for giving me the best laugh I had all week!! Fred and Bobby--two mentally challenged idiots with no ecclesiastical training and no secular education beyond high school do "scholarly work" BAhahaha!! How about theologian Scheeben who wrote theology manuals so impressive they were singled out to be studied by all seminarians in their formation to the priesthood? Theologian Scheeben taught BOD. If he was a Modernist heretic then Pope Pius XI who read and approved them (encouraging them to be read) he was a heretic and could not be pope--do you believe that? You can't even get past that one.

      You write: They have legitimate orders and they don’t live in trailers.

      Reply: They have no orders as they are not priests and never claimed to be. If they are "Benedictines"--how could this be since they were born in the 1970s? No one could receive them. They simply made it up and LARP.
      The commenter who said they were living in trailers was being sarcastic--yet Fred and Bobby definitely have that "trailer park vibe."

      You write: John 3:5 is literal and dogmatic.

      Reply: Here is a partial list of "John 3:5 Mockers:"

      *Pope St. Pius V
      *The Fathers of the Council of Trent
      *ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI
      *St Thomas Aquinas
      *St Robert Bellarmine
      *Pope Pius IX
      *Pope St. Pius X
      *Pope Pius XII
      *All theologians and canonists since at least Trent
      *1917 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John 3:5 Mocker Pope Benedict XV

      Non-John 3:5 Mockers:
      Fred and Bobby Dimwit

      Enough said!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. I don't go to any of their Masses, although I don't mind if people want to attend their Masses. Funny you are so hard on such groups. The Dimond Bros go to a Byzantine rite Church united to Rome who they reject as non-Catholic. Talk about double standards and hypocrites. I go to an independent mission.

      So you were WRONG on your assumption.

      you say... Hagiographical stories, The Roman Martyrology are filled with accounts that are not always accurate. These stories are not necessarily true.

      They are not necessarily false either and if the Church was so strict as the Dimond Bros they would have not permitted such stories to be believed in the past, but they did. So is the Church heretical for allowing what you believe to be heretical stories to float around?

      When I say nuance, I mean it in the manner in which the Church would mean it because in moral theology, scholasticism, etc. there are many distinction depending on what is being addressed. St. Alphonsus Ligouri is a Doctor of the Church and says BOD is de fide. Is he a heretic? Is the Church heretical for allowing him to be a doctor? Is the Church heretical for saying that everything he wrote is safe? According to your logic he is evil as well as the Church.



      Delete
    8. You write:

      “They don't rule out they could have been BROUGHT INTO THE CHURCH PRIOR TO DEATH BY BOD. You don't understand the difference---and if some Traditionalist priest or bishop didn't express himself well---that is the teaching of the Church regardless”.

      Wrong they claim that they are saved by some internal forum grace AT or AFTER death. This was taught nowhere. You are spewing the “Saved at Death Heresy”. Souls must convert before death in the external forum. Pope Eugene IV.

      You use the “except through” translation from Trent, sine means without, like you can’t have a marriage WITHOUT a bride or groom. BOD never defined anywhere in any infallible document. Keep trying.

      Feeniyite is an AntiCatholic slander that came out of a Jew/B’nai Brith Psyop where one of your heroes participated, Richard Cushing. There is no such thing as “Feeneyism”. It’s a category of your mind.

      Popes can be wrong in their fallible capacity. Learn Vatican I, Scheeben was around during a time of growing modernism, wasn’t right about everything, just like Saint Thomas’s Summa was approved for seminaries all over by Popes but it contained error. Your laughter is just a blasphemy against John 3:5. You ridicule people who have evangelized many and are instrumental in bringing people to traditional Catholicism and who rightly believe in literal and dogmatic meaning of John 3:5. MHFM are well researched and high IQ, and are legitimate Benedictines who brought most traditionalists to Sedevacantism and Traditional Catholicism. Your ridiculous argument that one needs to graduate the cess pool of public schools to be intelligent is ridiculous. You don’t know about their training either. You just accuse and speculate. The secular school system makes you dumber, especially when people like you worked there. Now you lie for a living in the most sleazy profession in existence.

      Why are you calling Saints and Popes John 3:5 mockers. They didn’t teach that Jews who reject Christ could be saved. A few posited the theory of BOD, which resembles nothing of what it has turned into today which is religious indifferentism. You listed those names and then blasphemed them by stating falsehoods about what they actually taught and believe. The ones who did believe in the theory, very few, except all the modernist theologians you cite, in the 1950s, were all fallible. Each one of your fallible sources is built up like a castle of sand that is easily washed away by the dogmatic sources. Your mistranslations, fallible sources, modernist manuals can’t stand up to scrutiny and the divine truth. That’s why you are a modernist.

      Game over! You lose.

      Delete
    9. @Dimondite7:18
      You write: Wrong they claim that they are saved by some internal forum grace AT or AFTER death. This was taught nowhere. You are spewing the “Saved at Death Heresy”. Souls must convert before death in the external forum. Pope Eugene IV.

      Reply:” Saved at Death heresy”— So someone cannot be saved at death by God? Yikes!! Pope Pius IX was a heretic!
      “ Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.”
      Quanto Conficiamur Moerare para.#7.

      Not by Baptism but by Divine Light (infused faith) and (sanctifying) grace. No approved theologian EVER taught salvation AFTER death.

      Please cite where Pope Eugene taught “souls must convert before death in the external forum.” I won’t be holding my breath.

      A pope cannot teach HERESY non-infallibly.
      According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).

      So either BOD is true or Pius IX wasn’t pope; which is it?

      Continued Below

      Delete
    10. You write: You use the “except through” translation from Trent, sine means without, like you can’t have a marriage WITHOUT a bride or groom. BOD never defined anywhere in any infallible document.

      So the Catechism of the Council of Trent APPROVED FOR TEACHING THE FAITH——TAUGHT THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT TRENT DEFINED!! Pope St Pius V APPROVED it with this glaring heresy! “BuT It’s Not InFaLliBLe” comes the Dimondite reply!

      A Pope cannot promulgate heresy non-infallibly and remain pope. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).

      Therefore, Pope St Pius V was neither pope nor saint if BOD is heresy!

      You write: Feeniyite is an AntiCatholic slander that came out of a Jew/B’nai Brith Psyop where one of your heroes participated, Richard Cushing. There is no such thing as “Feeneyism”. It’s a category of your mind.

      Reply: No, it was the heresy of Leonard Feeney who was solemnly excommunicated for HERESY (not disobedience) by the Holy Office and approved by Pope Pius XII in 1953. Funny how your cult masters never expose Feeney who started a cult of married nuns and brothers and abused 39 children.

      Continued Below

      Delete
    11. You write: Popes can be wrong in their fallible capacity. Learn Vatican I, Scheeben was around during a time of growing modernism, wasn’t right about everything, just like Saint Thomas’s Summa was approved for seminaries all over by Popes but it contained error.

      Reply: Nope. A pope cannot teach heresy in their non-infallible capacity and remain pope. That’s why sedevacantism is proven true. The Summa was to show the thinking of St Thomas at the time and many editions contained a note to that effect. Scheeben was a theological giant, and ALL THEOLOGIANS SINCE TRENT TAUGHT BOD. Pope Pius XI gave unqualified approbation!

      You write: You ridicule people who have evangelized many and are instrumental in bringing people to traditional Catholicism and who rightly believe in literal and dogmatic meaning of John 3:5.

      Reply: No, I ridiculed two nuts who LARP as “Benedictines” and don’t have the intellect to work the counter at McDonald’s. They bring people into heresy and danger of damnation.

      You write: MHFM are well researched and high IQ, and are legitimate Benedictines who brought most traditionalists to Sedevacantism and Traditional Catholicism.

      Reply: Hahahahaha!! “Well researched”!! High IQ!! According to WHO?? Fred and Bobby? lol
      Legitimate Benedictines? Since they were born in the 1970s, who accepted them into the order? Who is the General Superior of the Benedictines in 2025??

      You write: You don’t know about their training either. You just accuse and speculate. The secular school system makes you dumber,

      Reply: Ok, where did they receive their ecclesiastical education? They have high school diplomas either from a Vatican II sect school or a public school which makes Fred and Bobby dumber!!

      Continued Below

      Delete
    12. You write: A few posited the theory of BOD, which resembles nothing of what it has turned into today which is religious indifferentism. You listed those names and then blasphemed them by stating falsehoods about what they actually taught and believe. The ones who did believe in the theory, very few, except all the modernist theologians you cite, in the 1950s, were all fallible.

      Reply: No. Every single person I listed believed in BOD. Every. Single. One. Do you want the verbatim citations to be further humiliated as the whacky pseudo educated Dimondite you are?

      The theologians make up the UOM which according to Vatican Council of 1870 is equally infallible as the extraordinary Magisterium. Theologian Scheeben taught this as well, whom was praised by Pope Pius XI. He wouldn’t praise a Modernist, would he?

      You write: Game over! You lose.

      Reply: I was going to say “I lost only in your mind.” Then I realized you would need to actually have a mind first.

      Praying for your conversion.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    13. @anon5:31am

      Feeneyite, what do you hope to gain by posts like this? Shouldn’t all things be done in charity? Shouldn’t we model ourselves after The Sacred Heart of Jesus? If you honestly believe that your position is true, wouldn’t you want to strike up a friendly conversation for starters? Perhaps start by saying, “TradWarrior, you write very well. You seem to have a lot of passion for the faith because you write so much on various topics. Many people have enjoyed reading your writings. I see things a bit differently and in charity I would like to explain why I disagree with you…….Let’s continue to dialogue and keep in each other in prayer. These are tough times in which we live and it’s important to try and help each other in the Faith as best we can. I will keep you in my daily rosaries.”

      I mean isn’t that common sense? HELLO?????

      I have never seen such a complete lack of charity as I have with SO MANY Feeneyites that I have seen over the years. Why do you think that is? Any guess? Do you see it? Do you even have a clue what I mean by this? Care to venture a guess???????

      -TradWarrior

      Delete
    14. @anon4:13pm

      I was wondering the same thing before you even wrote your comment. How does this Feeneyite even know if you follow the CMRI, SSPV, RCI, etc.? Oh wait, dumb question! They know who is in heaven, purgatory, and hell and can read souls. There was nothing you said about the Talmudic Jews, Charlie Kirk, etc. either. But you must have been thinking it because they seem to have this superpower where they can read souls (rolling eyes). Yeah, I was just as perplexed as you!

      -TradWarrior

      Delete
  14. Charlie Kirk wasn’t saved! That’s Church dogma!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Dimondite1:14
      You're correct. It's in Denzinger:
      "If anyone saith that Charlie Kirk was saved, let him be anathama."---Pope Bobby Dimwit I

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. For those not "in the loop" in re recent comments of this blog, the above snide Feeneyite 5:31 comment, is an allusion to the lengthy comment string about music found under the Aug. 25, 2025 "Dimondites" blog post of this site. With that in mind, maybe this would be a superb-teaching-moment point in time, to quote from Pink Floyd (and based upon paraphrasing from biblical verse, no less!), as follow$:

    Money, so they say
    Is the root of all evil today

    One need only call to mind how the D.B. = Dimwit Brothers = Dubiou$ Benedictine$, raked in quite a humongous haul of money from Eric Hoyle, which they used to spread their Feeneyism. They seem to be uncorrectable dimwits when it comes to certain theological matters, but display a high degree of keen intelligence and cunning when it comes to seducing people to give them $$. Also, TW did not endorse Pink Floyd (or anything similar to that).

    I am, AA = Anti-Ecumenical & Anti-Feeneyite Warrior.
    I am spot-on-topic too, as AA is at the top of this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:59
      Spot on, my friend! A Dimondite who thinks Fred and Bobby Dimwit are "the Magisterium"! Pathetic.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. Your incoherent rant makes no sense. Similar to the drug addled lyrics of Pink Floy who are in a nihilistic fog!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. fog? Who uses that word? Oh the Dimond bros. Another example of how you give yourself away as a person who cannot use his own words. You say we mock John 3:5. You mimic your gods who are also known as Freddy and Bobby. Keep up on judging the hearts of men and maybe you will not be judged as you probably see it.

      Delete
  17. I spoke to a SSPV priest recently for an hour. He stated without any hesitation that the Thuc line is not valid and neither is CMRI. He was in Montana. He explained why bit I cannot relay it all properly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:09
      That's sad. It was probably Fr. Skierka. The SSPV has never even attempted a refutation of Mario Derksen's brilliant work in defense of the validity of the Thuc line. As a matter of fact, the SSPV is the ONLY Traditionalist group as of 2025 that thinks the Thuc line is invalid.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Most cannot wade through all this. I didn't understand the Mario defense either. With so many saying different things, I have to distance self from all this. It is too much to handle and try to stay afloat in my state of life, which has suffered tremendously by searching for the truth. And then having to keep telling people...no, this is the truth now...just found out this group no good but this one is but you still in NO so good luck to ya! At least I escaped NO. No priests near me anyway and CMRI that I have had contact with, were not true to their word anyway. So be it. Thanks.

      Delete
    3. I haven't found a priest interested in helping me either. I've been angry and close to falling into indifferentism as a result although I'd been a convinced sedevacantist, having researched my way through the Catholic Magisterium, for a five years priot to that. I live mostly in the past if that makes sense as I enjoy re-reading old Catholic diocesan newspapers as if Vatican 2 had never happened. Does that make sense? Don't call it quits even if it's this hard. I've seen and heard about many people hurt by clueless, ill-trained traditionalist clergy. I've been praying for those poor people who met Judases rather than other Christs in my Rosary to help myself as well.

      Delete
    4. Yes I understand your comments. Not calling it quits at all. I am just going to spend less time on these blogs and all the conflicting sede viewpoints. I cannot figure it all out and neither can anyone else it seems so onward and upward I guess. God bless.

      Delete
    5. @anon7:05pm

      You are definitely correct that most people cannot wade through all of this. I have put in a lot of prayer and research and have waded through this over the years, and I still very much share your sentiments my friend. This situation in the church and world is a VERY depressing one. I almost did not return to writing online, but I decided that perhaps I should because my comments could help others. But I 100% agree with you. This whole situation in the church is extremely frustrating and depressing and it is not easy to go through. I will keep you in prayer. Please keep me in yours because I too need a lot of prayers. We all do.

      @anon6:14am

      I also agree with you my friend. It is easy to get angry and be tempted to fall into indifferentism. I too have had those same thoughts/feelings as you (including a LOT lately with many frustrations over this whole situation and why God just continues to let this go on and on and on, as it is making it harder on everyone). Let’s keep each other in prayer, because we need a LOT of grace in these horrendous times!

      God bless you both,

      -TradWarrior

      Delete
    6. Thanks TW! Your commenting does help! Prayers always! God bless!

      Delete
  18. All theologians since Trent didn’t teach BOD! You just make stuff up. Saint Peter Canisius Doctor of The Church, did not teach BOD at all. He taught the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for Salvation then cites Sess. 6 chap. 4 in his Catechism. Never once teaches BOD. And just b/c theory of BOD was taught during a short period of The Church doesn’t make it infallible. Early Church Fathers didn’t teach it, neither did Saint John Eudes, or Saint Peter Canisius.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Dimondite8:33
      You write: All theologians since Trent didn’t teach BOD! You just make stuff up. Saint Peter Canisius Doctor of The Church, did not teach BOD at all. He taught the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for Salvation then cites Sess. 6 chap. 4 in his Catechism. Never once teaches BOD.

      Reply: I make up nothing. ALL theologians teach the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM as did St. Peter! Not teaching something is not the same as teaching against it! Theologians cannot teach everything; St John Eudes concentrated on the theology of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts. Some theologians don’t teach about the Trinitarian Perichoresis because they focused on other topics. Doesn’t mean they didn’t believe it. Name just ONE approved theologian who taught “Baptism cannot be received in desire or by Blood. Only water baptism saves.”

      Go ahead! Just ONE since Trent!!

      If at ANY POINT IN TIME all approved theologians teach a doctrine to belong to the Deposit of Faith, it is taught by the UOM.

      Praying for your conversion.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. No. It has to be constant and universal. Arian heresy was common teaching, so called morally unanimous, we all know how that turned out. Baptism of Desire never defined in any dogmatic decree anywhere. There is no section anywhere on BoD in Trent or any other Council that says Baptism of Desire and then gives specific dogmatic definitions. You just have fallible sources that you interpret to mean BOD is a Dogma. You can’t appeal to the UOM because not everyone taught it. A substantial number didn’t. There are no exceptions listed for John 3:5. None listed anywhere. The positive teaching is that one CANNOT enter the kingdom of God without water and the spirit. Water Baptism! So you think CANNOT means there are exceptions? You think CANNOT is not absolute. Also, Baptism of blood is another way of saying Catholic martyrdom. It’s a way of saying a 2nd baptism for people who are already Catholic because they go straight to Heaven after martyrdom. BOD is not a sacrament, and it doesn’t do what the sacrament of baptism does as far as indelible mark and temporal punishment go. You are not born again with BOD and it contradicts Trent on Justification. There isn’t one uniform definition of BOD. The Popes never name BOD. Ever. Where is BOD named in a Council and fully defined and explained. Nowhere!

      Delete
    3. @Dimondite
      The UOM never taught Arianism. Citation? None. Fred and Bobby blather.

      “A Substantial number of theologians” didn’t teach BOD? Really? Remember, not mentioning it is not the same as denying it. So I’ll repeat my request: NAME ONE APPROVED THEOLOGIAN who taught “Baptism may only be received by water. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood do not save anyone.” Go ahead. JUST ONE.

      I mean if BOD is heresy certainly you can cite one approved theologian since Trent who knew the truth and wrote about it!!

      Where was BOD defined? In Trent. The Catechism of Trent teaches it. Yet Fred and Bobby think it taught the EXACT OPPOSITE OF TRENT!! Then it was approved to teach the Faith with blatant heresy in it!! If it’s not infallible, and Pope Pius V approved it, he cannot be pope.

      There is where BOD is defined and explained! You also don’t understand the UOM.

      Go ahead. I’ll conced you are correct if you name ONE APPROVED THEOLOGIAN SINCE TRENT who taught “Only Baptism of water can save you. There is no Baptism of Desire or of Blood.”

      Go ahead! It should be easy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. To 9:30PM : "Shine on you Dimwit Dimond" (!!!)

      If for any reason you don't comprehend the meaning of those words, you can consult the wiki article "Shine on you Crazy Diamond". This happens to be the title of a (not obscure but well known) 1975 song by (surprise, surprise?) Pink Floyd, and some of which lyrics can be interpreted to glorify dimwit-ism and insanity, as some of the lyrics of "Dark Side of the Moon" had done to make PF world famous about a year before that. For more info apropos, one can consult Introibo's article about Pink Floyd, titled "Singing for Satan -- Part 21" (dated April Fools Day of 2019). Ah, yes, it's me again! I'm AA of 3:59P above, who twice made mention of Pink Floyd. A mere 22 minutes later, you responded to me, and told the whole world too, that my "incoherent rant[ing] makes no sense." - I'm quite content to let everyone else here make up their own minds, as to who sounds more coherent!!! Also, your 9:30 comment above is yet another "22 minute quick retort" response. Why don't you devote a little more time to composing a more thoughtful and targeted response, instead of just "banging on the keys". Keyboard warriors like you, are a dime a dozen.

      P.S. Are you D.B. 3 ? Do you live at the MHFM?

      Delete
  19. Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

    John 3:5 is absolute and literal. No exceptions. Put away your pseudo magisterium! This quote buttresses and suppers the infallible magisterium. Try and refute this. I’ll wait!! You can’t.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Dimondite5:29
      You make it too easy! Still copy and paste from Fred and Bobby!
      I could get into the nuances of what he said—but I need not even go that far!!

      Fr. JURGENS IS NOT A THEOLOGIAN! In order to be an approved theologian, the cleric must possess EITHER a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD), or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD) from a Pontifical University. JURGENS has a PhD in Church History making him a mere Church historian, not a theologian. Therefore, you have not found ONE SINGLE THEOLOGIAN WHO TEACHES AGAINST BOD. Lastly, what he says is not a denial of BOD; all theologians who teach BOD also teach the absolute necessity of water Baptism. The doctrines complement each other and do not contradict.

      You stand—REFUTED!

      Praying for your conversion.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  20. Name an approved Arian theologian who denied Arianism? I’ll wait.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Dimondite5:44
      Well, Arians CANNOT be approved! Approved theologians are approved by the Magisterium. If a theologian is censured by (1) a bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction; (2) the pope; (3) a Roman Congregation such as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.

      There’s also the distinction between authors and lower ranking theologians. I wrote about that in my post on Dimondites. You won’t read it since it goes against your cult masters at Most Fraudulent Heretical Monastery.

      Praying for your conversion.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Great responses to the person concerning BOD/BOB.Introibo you have taken their views to pieces.Thank you.I like your new name for the operation up in Fillmore,NY.God bless

      Delete
    3. @anon5:26
      Thank you, my friend! Dimondites are truly disturbed.
      One adjustment to make the letters align:
      MHFM=Most Heretical Fraudulent Monastery!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  21. Fr. Curatolo or Fr. Martin might be an option for confession for you. Confess that you support rock bands that have blasphemed Our Lord and that you lie about people who don’t go along with your erroneous views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:11
      I do neither. Yet, you should not go to them for Confession unless you repent of you denial of BOD/BOB Dogma--they will both deny a Feeneyite Holy Communion--like all other heretics.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  22. You are an enemy to The Catholic Church:

    Offenses:

    -John 3:5 mocker and denial of Catholic Dogma
    -Support of sinful birth control practice
    -Endorsement of pseudo scientific cartesian theories, and attack on literal meaning in Genesis, denial of Lateran Council IV
    -Denial and mockery of Church approved apparitions
    -Moral revisionism, citing modernist sources, and using invincible ignorance to excuse sodomy, infanticide, divorce, fornication etc…
    -Worshipper of a pseudo magisterium and fallible men while rejecting the Extraordinary Magisterium
    -Slander, detraction, calumny, contumely, against people you know hardly anything about
    -Posts with graphic lyrics and graphic descriptions of bad music, which can be a proximate occasion of sin for most
    -No permission to start a blog spreading error in the process because you think you are somehow qualified to discuss these serious issues. You are not qualified.
    -Neo-Pelagian, infant baptism, denial of Original Sin
    -Supports worldly amusements, “soft rock”, organized sports


    You are NOT Catholic!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Dimondite11:59
      Wow! A Dimondite Indictment!

      Let's review the charges:

      1. John 3:5 mocker and denial of Catholic Dogma

      Not guilty! If I "mock" John 3:5 by belief in BOD then so does Pope St. Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and all approved theologians since Trent

      2. Support of sinful birth control practice

      Not guilty! I follow Church teaching on periodic abstinence which is not sinful birth control

      3. Endorsement of pseudo scientific cartesian theories, and attack on literal meaning in Genesis, denial of Lateran Council IV

      Not guilty! A universe billions of years old was approved by Pope St. Pius X and the Big Bang Theory was the brain child of a Belgian Roman Catholic priest praised by Pope Pius XII

      4. Denial and mockery of Church approved apparitions

      Not guilty! I have never denied or mocked ANY Church-approved apparition. It is Church teaching that one is free, however, not to believe in Church approved apparitions as no one is bound to believe in private revelations.

      5. Moral revisionism, citing modernist sources, and using invincible ignorance to excuse sodomy, infanticide, divorce, fornication etc…

      Not guilty! I never cite any Modernist sources and some approved theologians have taught that invincible ignorance may sometimes (not always) excuse from certain precepts. Big difference.

      6. Worshipper of a pseudo magisterium and fallible men while rejecting the Extraordinary Magisterium

      Not guilty! The UOM is not a pseudo-Magisterium it is equal to the Extraordinary Magisterium.

      7. Slander, detraction, calumny, contumely, against people you know hardly anything about

      Not guilty! Fred and Bobby are not traditional Benedictines, and have no ecclesiastical training or education above high school. You also are not using those terms correctly--but you wouldn't be a Dimondite if you knew what you were talking about!

      8. Posts with graphic lyrics and graphic descriptions of bad music, which can be a proximate occasion of sin for most

      Not guilty! To expose evil, it sometimes calls for making a clear point. Those posts had clear warnings on them. Read at your own discretion.

      9. No permission to start a blog spreading error in the process because you think you are somehow qualified to discuss these serious issues. You are not qualified.

      Not guilty! Who is supposed to give me permission in sedevacante? Where do Fred and Bobby Dimwit get permission? From their make-believe Benedictine General Superior? Fred and Bobby aren't qualified to clean the bathroom at a gas station, let alone deal with theology!

      10. Neo-Pelagian, infant baptism, denial of Original Sin

      Not guilty! I reject Pelagianism in all its forms, and I believe in both infant baptism and Original Sin as taught by the Church.

      11. Supports worldly amusements, “soft rock”, organized sports

      Not guilty! I think certain songs are permissible and I have never liked, played, or watched sports--but there's nothing wrong if others do so in moderation.

      As a Canon Lawyer might say in my defense--"If the anathema don't sit, you must acquit"!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I can only picture the medusa like head when the Dimondite wrote these accusations. These people's behavior is similar to Antifa. Hateful punks who love starting stuff. One day they will be judged as severely as they judge others.

      Delete
  23. A man usually dies as he lives. He can convert before death but there is no grace that no one sees after the person is dead. Thats not infallibly taught.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Dimondite1:27
      No one teaches that. Strawman argument. BOD takes place PRIOR TO DEATH.

      Praying for your conversion.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  24. Your argument is that BOD was never condemned Post-Trent. That means nothing. It was never ever infallibly defined in a Council or by a Pope by name. The constant teaching was not BOD. Many church fathers didn’t teach BOD, one I know of explicitly rejected the idea. You argue from incredulity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Dimondite4:14
      You write: Your argument is that BOD was never condemned Post-Trent. That means nothing

      Reply: No, that’s a Strawman argument. I stated that if Baptism by water only was defined at Trent, as your cult masters and you think, then BOD is heresy. The Catechism of Trent taught the EXACT OPPOSITE of Trent, thereby teaching heresy. A Catechism is not infallible. Therefore, Pius V promulgated heresy as a private theologian in his non-infallible capacity as pope. This would be proof that Pius V is neither pope nor saint.

      According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). So you must agree that Pope St Pius V was neither a pope nor a saint.

      Furthermore, not one bishop, pope, or theologian taught AGAINST the so-called heresy of BOD since Trent. Remember, not teaching a particular dogma (to focus on other dogmas) means nothing as silence implies consent. Not one pope, bishop, or approved theologian taught AGAINST BOD by writing “only sacramental baptism can save you. The idea of Baptism by Desire or blood is heretical and cannot save anyone.”

      Such an egregious heresy and no one opposed it until an excommunicated Jesuit who was a cult leader and child abuser “discovered” it was “heresy” in the 1940s.

      You write: It was never ever infallibly defined in a Council or by a Pope by name.

      Reply: I can flip that on you; where was BOD specifically condemned by name?? It wasn’t! Furthermore, the Church defined Justification by name at Trent and made it clear that the grace of baptism can effectuate Justification in fact or by desire! Such was taught by The Catechism of Trent and promulgated by Pope St Pius V—who would be neither pope nor saint if he promulgated heresy in his non-infallible capacity.
      According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). So you must agree that Pope St Pius V was neither a pope nor a saint.

      You write: You argue from incredulity.

      Reply: You argue from stupidity, just like your cult masters at Most Fraudulent Heretical Monastery.

      Praying for your conversion.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. If I might add something. Wasn't Peter Abélard condemned by a local council for arguing against St. Benard and BOD? And was the decision of that council not endorsed by the pope at that time? I mean I could be wrong but seems to me the writing is on the wall...
      Keep up the great work as always Introibo, always read your posts!

      Delete
    3. David,
      Thank you, my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  25. A Feeneyite Goes For A Job Interview:

    Employer (Mr. Thompson): Hello Bobby. Thank you for coming in today for this job interview.

    Prospective New Hire (Bobby): [Just stares at Mr. Thompson].

    Mr. Thompson: Um, ok, why don’t we show you where your new office may be. This office here has a beautiful view of the beach and the ocean. I think you would really like it here.

    Bobby: Why would you give me this office? (in a very boring robotic voice) There is a beach down there with scantily clad women in bikinis. Are you trying to make me lose my soul and burn in hell for all eternity?

    Mr. Thompson: Uh…no….I was trying to give you a nice view from your new office window. I’m sorry it offended you (as Mr. Thompson wonders what is wrong with this guy?????).

    Mr. Thompson: Let me show you this other office. Perhaps it will be more to your liking. It has a beautiful view of the entire city which you can see for miles.

    Bobby: I cannot take this office. That church down there is a Lutheran church. I cannot look out my window every day at that church. It was founded by Martin Luther, a heretic who is burning in hell for all eternity. He split from Our Lord’s Catholic Church in 1517 and he was a very evil and wicked man. And furthermore, I do not want to work on this floor. It is the 13th floor and it is an occult number.

    Mr. Thompson: Um…..yeah…..right……ok. I can’t help that there is a church down there that you do not like and I can’t help that all of these offices are on the 13th floor. I can see that this is going to be a problem. Let me call my assistant in here to maybe offer some suggestions. [BUZZ]. Cindy, can you come in here please? [Cindy enters the room]. [Bobby looks away at the floor]. Is something wrong Bobby?

    Bobby: Your assistant Cindy is immodestly dressed. Her dress does not go down to her ankles and it is indecent by a full 2 inches. It must be 2 inches longer. Please change your dress immediately.

    Mr. Thompson: [Looks at Cindy and she looks at him not knowing what to say]. You’ve got to be kidding right??

    Bobby: No, I never joke.

    ReplyDelete
  26. CONTINUED…

    Mr. Thompson: Cindy, let’s show Bobby another office. He seems to be getting very annoyed here by the offices that I have already showed him. How about this office here?

    Bobby: I cannot take this office either. That is a football field down there. All sports are from the devil. I could never look down at that field every day. And furthermore I was very upset when I first entered your office. You had smooth jazz music playing. You should only be listening to classical music. Jazz music is immoral and must never be listened to. And to make matters worse, you have a baseball encased in glass in your office with a signature on it. That is idol worship. You are an idolater.

    Mr. Thompson: WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!! I BROUGHT YOU IN HERE…[Cindy interrupts him].

    Cindy: Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thompson. Please, please, may I have a word with you in private? [They speak in private].

    Mr. Thompson: Well Bobby, thank you very much for coming in today. I will review your job application and will give it all the consideration that it deserves. [Bobby shakes Mr. Thompson’s hand and leaves].

    Mr. Thompson: Cindy, where did you find this clown????!!!!!

    Cindy: Mr. Thompson, he applied a little while back. His application seemed strange but I thought that it was worth a job interview. Come to think of it, his application said that he was from Fillmore, New York and we had that other weirdo a few weeks ago applying for the same job. His name was Fred. He was also from Fillmore, New York.

    Mr. Thompson: Well, have you had any other strange people like this applying for this job???

    Cindy: Well, actually there were a few other strange applications. They came from Massachusetts and several of them listed the St. Benedict Center on them. I’m not sure what that is, but they were very strange too. A few of them listed a Mr. Feeney that they referenced. I don't know who Mr. Feeney is but all of the applications said that he was wonderful with children.

    Mr. Thompson: Cindy, please shred all of these applications and please find me some NORMAL PEOPLE TO INTERVIEW!!!

    Cindy: Yes sir.

    Mr. Thompson: Oh and Cindy, please give me 2 aspirin. I have a killer headache right now!!!

    -TradWarrior

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the laughs, my friend! Imagine Bobby's shock if Mr. Thompson had a Rocky movie poster framed and hung on the wall. That's sports, entertainment, and a scantily clad fellow all in one! Could've give him a heart attack, poor lad!

      God Bless,
      Joanna

      Delete
    2. TradWarrior
      Hahahahaha! Awesome! This should be a skit on a comedy show!!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Trad Warrior forgot to mention the fog when looking out the window.

      Delete
  27. Name the council where BOD was defined by name, give a section with definitions, and explained what the faithful are to believe regarding the so called BOD “dogma”. Nowhere! You selectively post comments to try and control the flow of the discussion and then respond with gibberish and fallible source that are long winded and with the stench of modernism. No serious Catholic cares what your pseudo magisterium purports to be true. We go by the positive teachings off the infallible magisterium and not interpretations of men centuries later, or modernist sources from the 1930s. You use one word in Trent “desire” not “Baptism of Desire” which is defined nowhere, and then use that one word to come up with fallible interpretations and many fallible men did. Doesn’t prove anything. You worship men and other men who have erroneously given fallible men more power than Vatican I and Pope Pius IX said they have. Become Catholic, now you are a modernist with no credible leg to stand on just a pile of fallible sources that can be taken apart one by one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Dimondite1:20
      You write: Name the council where BOD was defined by name, give a section with definitions, and explained what the faithful are to believe regarding the so called BOD “dogma”. Nowhere!

      Reply: Name the council where BOD was CONDEMNED by name, and it was explained that only water baptism can save, not BOD. Nowhere!!


      You write: You selectively post comments to try and control the flow of the discussion and then respond with gibberish and fallible source that are long winded and with the stench of modernism.


      Reply: No need to publish the same comment sent ten or more times (literally). That shows mental instability I have come to expect from Dimondites. The fact you can't understand plain English is clearly on YOU!

      You write: No serious Catholic cares what your pseudo magisterium purports to be true.

      Reply: Who is a "serious Catholic"? Fred and Bobby Dimwit who are their own Feeneyite Magisterium?

      You write: We go by the positive teachings off the infallible magisterium and not interpretations of men centuries later, or modernist sources from the 1930s.

      Reply: You exclude the infallible UOM. You also distort the extraordinary Magisterium. The interpretations of the theologians are the UOM and AUTHORS are carefully checked by the Magisterium.

      You write: You use one word in Trent “desire” not “Baptism of Desire” which is defined nowhere, and then use that one word to come up with fallible interpretations and many fallible men did. Doesn’t prove anything.

      Reply: This answer requires at least some intelligence, so you won't understand it--but here it is!! Trent tells us justification is effectuated by baptism OR (wait for it) THE DESIRE FOR IT. Hence, Baptism can be received per se or BY DESIRE FOR BAPTISM---"Baptism BY (OF) Desire!!

      You write: You worship men and other men who have erroneously given fallible men more power than Vatican I and Pope Pius IX said they have.

      Reply: NO! YOU worship Fred and Bobby Dimwit, remember? I don't!!

      Praying for your conversion.



      ---Introibo

      Delete
  28. Samson Chronicles (# 13) = Abrogation of Satanic V2

    The subject of the above post is AA, not MHFM. We find AA in V2 = vAticAn II, and in sAtAn. We also find AA in the word 'AbrogAtion' noted above. We find "double dose combos" of AA in quite a few expressions too, such as "RAtzing-AriAN Religion" = V2. AnywAy, Samson was definitely not an AA (= Alcohol(ic) Addict), as is indicated in Judges 13:4 & 13:14. To now quote from a certified sede webpage

    https://www.wmreview.org/p/leo-xiv-complete-commitment

    "Vatican II is the problem, and its ABROGATION is an absolutely essential prerequisite for the resolution of the crisis in the Church... The rejection of Vatican II is an absolutely necessary condition [= sine qua non] for an end of the crisis in the Church, and for a man to attain [to] the papacy [in the first place, who then afterwards does the abrogating]."

    Bold assertions. But they seem to me as well, to be dictated by divine and Catholic faith. It has been said that the truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. And third, it is accepted as being self evident, even infallibly so. And "ex cathedra" it will have to be, in this instance. To conclude from Judges 13:16-20 & 16:19-22:

    "And he [= the angelic supplier of the special divinely potent sperm] answered him [= Samson's father] "why askest thou my name, which is WONDERFUL?" Then Manue took a kid of the flocks, and the libations, and put them on a [petra = petros = Petrine representative?] rock, offering [(the equivalent of) a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (?) = Golgotha re-presented] to the Lord, who doth WONDERFUL things. And [at the conclusion of which] he and his wife... fell flat on the ground [in adoration of God's intervention]... And [later on in the story,] she [= Dalila = DAlilA (!) = the vAticAn II org personified] called a barber [= canon 188 of the 1917 CIC] and shaved [off] his [= Samson's] seven locks [= symbolic of jurisdictional authority and power, and of all seven of the Churches of the Apocalypse. But, God so arranged things, that] his [= Samson's] hair began to grow again." [!!!]

    Wonderful it will be! - Anonymous-Golgotha 777333

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A simple Google search:

      bar bar-jonah bar-abbas "vatican ii"

      yields information from Google AI Overview about what were said to be coffee shops or coffee bars set up inside the Vatican basilica while V2 was in session. Three bars are noted, the "Bar-Jonah", the "Bar-Abbas", and the "Bar Nun". I had thought that these referred to places where alcoholic liquor was copiously dispensed, and that perhaps Montini thought that his 1963-1965 shindig would make better progress if the bishops and periti (= Ratzinger, et al.) were drunken Alcohol Addicts (= AA). Perhaps there was some liquor involved, but apparently these bars most dispensed "espresso", "cappuccino", "latte" and other things like that.

      Introibo had to pass one or another "Bar Exam". So the word "bar" can mean various things. It is even embedded in the word "barber" seen in the 5:37 comment above. Simon Bar-Jonah was the name of the apostle, before Jesus renamed him "Rocky" = "Peter". Bar-Abbas = the bandit Barabbas, the famous "Robber" of John's Gospel, verse 18:40. This seems to be highly significant, as perhaps the best way to describe V2, is by calling it the "Robber Council II". In Latin, one would say "Latrocinium Duo".

      Delete
  29. Introibo

    I sense a demonic spirit behind these people who reject BOB/BOD and follow the distorted views of the MHFM.

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:48
      You sense correctly. They have a "sickness of soul" as my good friend Steve Speray has said. They also appear unhinged.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  30. Mister Faustina,

    Your diaries are filled with John 3:5 mockery. You can’t be Catholic until you repent and convert. Don’t pray for anyone since your prayers are inefficacious at this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To My Readers,
      This is the comment of a Dimondite. The more I see of them, the more convinced I am that they are mentally disturbed. Does anyone know what this is even supposed to mean? No reasoned argument, no logic, just pure claptrap.

      There's a reason they follow two Dimwit brothers!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  31. Thanks for this article, it was a very interesting read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:25
      Thank you, my friend! Comments like yours keep me writing.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  32. Your articles are great, you should consider starting a substack. You'd reach a wider audience, could even attract paid subscribers and being a non-google platform (unlike blogger) will have less risk of censorship as has occurred with a number of sede publications on blogspot. There some highly successful real investigative journalists still banned from twitter that publish on substack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:27
      I’ve been told this by other readers. I will look into it. I will never charge a penny however. What I do, is what I feel called to do to share my knowledge of the Faith I received from Fr. DePauw.

      I’m blessed to have a well-paid job and no fiscal needs. I will continue to offer my posts free should I go there.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  33. Introibo

    Have you heard the latest comments of Leo XIV being asked about abortion.His answer-no one has the truth on the matter.

    What a joke.

    I just read the new C of E "Archbishop" of Canterbury is a woman.The vatican sent her a message of congratulations.

    Time the SSPX woke up and consecrate new Bishops.Leo XIV couldn't care less about them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:41
      Prevost is towing the line of Bergoglio’s heretical stance on capital punishment. To equate murdering innocent children with executing convicted felons who can murder others is ludicrous.

      The Vatican II sect is evil to the core. The SSPX will probably not wake up until it’s too late, unfortunately.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  34. Here, Feeney, Feeney, Feeney, Feeney.

    ReplyDelete