_(cropped).jpg)
It is not the purpose of this post to analyze Mr. Kirk's political ideas. In the wake of his death, many people (even a Vatican II sect "bishop") referred to Mr. Kirk as a "martyr." Other members of the sect, and Dimondites, claim Kirk was most certainly damned as he was not Catholic and had made anti-Catholic statements (Kirk was Protestant). This post will focus on two queries: (1) What is a martyr, and does Kirk qualify as a martyr? (2) Could Charlie Kirk have been saved?
Martyrdom as Defined by the Church
The following points I condensed from Fr. Ronald Knox's wonderful treatise The Theology of Martyrdom [1929]).
1. The word "martyr" means "witness." It means you give witness to the True Faith by your death. Martyrdom implies, not simply losing your life, but giving up your life. Your life is prematurely cut short in the interests of something greater than yourself. Neither suffering by itself, nor suffering followed by death is martyrdom properly so called.
2. The Church does not bestow the title of martyr upon those heroic priests, nuns, and layman who have persistently attended to the suffering in times of pestilence. St. Aloysius, whose death was brought on by such a labor was not canonized a martyr. These deaths were not the result of the assertion of religious truth against the enemies of religious truth. They laid down their lives for Christ's sake, but not for Christ's quarrel.
3. The faith one dies for can only be the unadulterated, Integral Catholic Faith; the One True Religion. To those who object that non-Catholics can receive Baptism of Desire, and it is therefore hypocritical to deny Protestants who, in good faith, die for a false belief the title of martyrs, it can be demonstrated their argument is without merit. Baptism of Desire does not deny the objectivity of Truth, as this argument presupposes. The world tells us "Be good and you will go to Heaven, if such a place exists." A martyr is not someone who dies for what they believe, it is someone who dies for the Truth. Thomas Crammer died because he disbelieved in the papacy. St. Thomas More died because he believed in the papacy. Both cannot be true, so to make martyrs of both means either objective truth doesn't matter or doesn't exist.
4. As an adult, you must have the intention to die as a witness for the Truth. If a Traditionalist is killed in his sleep (unaware he was in any danger) by someone who is an enemy of the Faith, he does not qualify as a martyr. The Church means, by martyrdom, death undergone at the hands of those who hate the True Catholic Faith, for the sake of the True Catholic Faith; and undergone, in the case of adults, deliberately. Infants, killed for the sake of the True Faith, by those who hate the True Faith, die as martyrs without any intention necessary. They receive Baptism of Blood (if unbaptized) and their salvation is assured. (e.g. The Holy Innocents).
5. On the part of the enemies of Christ, a certain odium fidei ("hatred of the Faith") is necessary. A wholesale abandonment of the Faith, or hatred of all beliefs, is not necessary. To hate any article of True Faith/Morals because it is taught by the Church will suffice. Therefore, Henry VIII did not have to abandon every belief of the Church. Denying divorce and remarriage is adultery and hating that belief because the Church teaches it as true, was sufficient without more, to establish an odium fidei.
6. A soldier who takes up arms to fight a just war is not to be considered a martyr if he dies. Hence, the one who dies must not be guilty of provocation---that he died because he didn't kill the other man first. The exception is with captured soldiers who, now unarmed, are given the option of death or apostasy.
7. Notice how different this is from the Moslem conception of committing suicide while killing others (e.g. 9/11 attacks) as "martyrdom"!
Kirk was killed because of a heretical theology and his political activity. Therefore, he did not die for the One True Church and--on that basis alone--cannot be a martyr. His murderer(s) did not truly have the "hatred of the faith"--only hatred for Kirk's politics and false theology which supported his politics. Kirk is neither a saint nor a martyr, unless you jettison all Catholic teaching on martyrdom by replacing it with an "ecumenism of blood" as first professed by false pope Bergoglio.
Although Not a Martyr or Candidate for Canonization, Could Kirk Have Been Saved?
It is beyond dispute that Charlie Kirk made many anti-Catholic statements. It is also true that his stance towards (what he considered) the Catholic Church had softened, due to the influence of his wife, Erika, a former member of the Vatican II sect (which poses as "Catholicism"). In the external forum, Kirk died outside the Church, but could have he been brought within the Church in the internal forum?
According to the 1910 New Catholic Dictionary, In canon law, internal forum, the realm of conscience, is contrasted with the external or outward forum; thus, a marriage might be null and void in the internal forum, but binding outwardly, i.e. In the external forum, for want of judicial proof to the contrary. (See studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ncd/f/forum.html). The external forum considers matters that concern the public and social good of the Church, stemming from an individual’s outward, observable actions and behaviors. The internal forum deals with an individual's private relationship with God within their mind and soul--and cannot be seen but by God.
In the example above, a marriage can be invalid in the forum of conscience (one or both parties knew of an impediment to the marriage but kept it secret). However, the marriage is binding in the external forum because of the lack of judicial proof to show that the marriage is invalid.
Another example is a priest offering Mass can look very holy and good. However, the priest can have a positive contrary intention in the internal forum, and make the Mass invalid by defect of intention. That's why we can never know for certain if any particular sacrament is valid; we have moral certainty---not absolute certainty. The Church sets a presumption of validity every time a Catholic cleric seriously undertakes to perform a sacrament, and said presumption can only be overcome by an external manifestation of the internal forum (e.g., the priest admits he withheld his intention).
Objection: How could someone be doing something evil, like worshipping false gods, in the external forum, and be Catholic in the internal forum?
Answer: They can't. This is a huge misunderstanding and mischaracterization. The dichotomy exists when e.g., a lifelong notorious sinner is on his deathbed and is unconscious or unable to communicate. In his mind, known but to God, he might make a sincere act of contrition and be saved. Such repentance can't be seen. Another example: If you see someone attacking a person with a knife, such an act is evil in the external forum. However, if he has been habitually insane since birth, he has no control over his actions, and God would not hold him accountable in the internal forum. That doesn't mean he can't be executed by the State to protect others or at the very least committed to a mental institution for life. Anyone with full mental capacity who commits an evil act with consent of his will is evil--like knowingly worshipping idols.
Therefore, a person who outwardly (in the external forum) appears to have died outside the Church could have been enlightened by having faith and sanctifying grace infused by God (in the internal forum) prior to the moment of death and been brought within the Church; thereby attaining salvation.
Outside the Church There is No Salvation
It is important to remember that the thrice defined truth of the Church is that "outside the Church" there is no salvation--not "without Church membership" there is no salvation.
Cantate Domino (1441--Council of Florence; Pope Eugene IV): The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pours out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remains within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Emphasis mine).
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Emphasis mine).
Unam Sanctam (Pope Boniface VIII--1302): We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
The distinction between being a member of the Church and within (united) to the Church is important. The greatest and most comprehensive exposition of traditional ecclesiology was put forth in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of His Holiness Pope Pius XII in 1943. The first sentence of said encyclical begins with the following affirmation: The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Hence, the doctrine is from Christ and is therefore true. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The One True Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and co-extensive with it.
In order to be a member of the Church, four conditions must obtain: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.(para. #22; Emphasis mine). A member of the Catholic Church must therefore be (1) baptized, (2) profess the true Faith (not heretics), (3) not separated from unity (not schismatics) and (4) not excluded by legitimate authority (not excommunicated).
Those are the members of the Church. As the encyclical explains, a person can be united to the Church by a desire to belong:
As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. (para. #103).
These are not members of the Church, but they are within the Church by desire, but cannot be assured of remaining within the Church unto salvation for they are deprived of "those many heavenly gifts and helps" only available to members of the Church. Once again: the dogma is "Outside the Church, No Salvation," and not "Without Church Membership, No Salvation."
This is summarized perfectly by theologian Hanahoe:
...in order to be saved, a person must in fact (in re) be visibly conjoined to the Church, i.e., be a member, or, he must, at least intend (in voto) to become a member of the Church. This intention to become a member of the Church may be explicit or implicit. The intention is explicit when a person is actually under instruction preparing to enter Catholic unity [i.e., catechumen]. On the other hand the intention is implicit if a person, while invincibly ignorant of the Church, possesses sanctifying grace. The fact that he is in the state of grace indicates that he has a sincere will of using all the means which God has established; even though he does not know explicitly single means, he implicitly receives all. This person is then unknowingly participating in the life of the Church---he is saved through the Church.
Pius IX indicates what may well be considered an implicit intention of entering the Catholic Church:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. 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. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, para. #7).
(See Catholic Ecumenism, [1953], pg. 108; Emphasis in original).
It must be noted that what matters is what state the soul is in at the moment of death. "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13). God can infuse anything lacking in such a person (Divine light of faith and grace) prior to the moment of death, ensuring salvation. Theologian Hanahoe goes on to explain exactly how hard it is for those within the Church, and not members, to be saved:
However, the position of such a person is not completely secure, because once his initial ignorance is no longer invincible and his conscience, under grace, moves him to enter the Church, or at least, study its claims, then the issue is formally presented to him. If he refuses to examine further or does not seek to enter the Church, his implicit intention is dissolved, because he has withdrawn himself from the sincere will of using all the means which God wills; his condition is changed because his will towards God is changed. If he perseveres in this condition he cannot be saved. (Ibid; Emphasis in original).
Here is an exemplary summation of Mystici Corporis by theologian King:
Thus the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are identical; the importance of the visible aspect of the Church is not to be minimized; all salvation is caused by the visible Church; there is a sharp distinction between membership and being related to [within] the Church by desire, though in a given case either can suffice for salvation. (The Necessity of the Church for Salvation in Selected Theological Writings of the Past Century, [1960], pg. 286; Emphasis mine).
Could Charlie Kirk have been brought within the One True Church and saved? Yes, it is possible. However, without a special revelation from God, we cannot know with certainty his fate.
The Church has Always Permitted Private Prayers for Those Who Died as Non-Catholics in the External Forum
Let's see what the Church has to say:
1. 1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 1240 speaks to the types of persons to be denied ecclesiastical burial. They include Masons, excommunicates, those who committed suicide, those who live as public and notorious sinners, etc. However, Canon 1241 says a person deprived of Christian burial "shall also be denied any funeral Mass, even an anniversary Mass, as well as all other public funeral services. Priests may say Mass privately for him and the faithful may pray for him." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 495-497; Emphasis mine). These top-tier canonists convey the meaning of Canon 1241, and they are authors whose manual was used to train priests after being vetted by the Magisterium, ensuring it contains no heresy.
Canon 1239, section 2: Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.
Canonists Abbo and Hannon comment, "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire." (See The Sacred Canons, [1951], pg. 493). Catechumens, by definition, are unbaptized. The Church sets up a presumption that they received Baptism of Desire. However, this is only possible if (a) Baptism of Desire is true and (b) there is a real distinction between the external and internal forum.
2. Theologian O'Connell
"So far as the dead are concerned, the Exequial Mass and Anniversary Mass (or other public funeral offices)may not be offered for a person to whom ecclesiastical burial had been denied...It is not, however, forbidden to offer a Mass privately for such persons." (See The Celebration of Mass, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee [1941], pg. 45; Emphasis mine).
3. Theologian Szal
"But if he [a schismatic] gave no signs of repentance, then Mass can still be said for him, but only privately and in the absence of scandal." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 181; Emphasis mine).
4. Theologian Jone
"Mass may not be applied publicly for those to whom the Church denies ecclesiastical burial (Canon 1241). Private application in this case is not forbidden." (See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 371; Emphasis mine).
5. Theologian Slater
"According to the new Code, Mass may be offered for anybody, living or dead, but only privately, and with precautions to avoid scandal for excommunicates..." (See A Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], 2:108; Emphasis mine).
6. Theologians McHugh and Callan
"Thus, Mass may be said only privately (that is, without publicity or special liturgical solemnity) and prudently (that is, with avoidance of scandal, for example, by the declaration that Mass is said for the faithful departed with the purpose of aiding also a departed unbeliever, if this is pleasing to God) for the living and the dead outside the Church, such as infidels, heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicated." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:673; Emphasis mine).
7. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia
"There is no restriction by Divine or ecclesiastical law as to those of the dead for whom private prayer may be offered – except that they may not be offered formally either for the blessed in Heaven or for the damned. Not only for the faithful who have died in external communion with the Church, but for deceased non-Catholics, even the unbaptized, who may have died in the state of grace, one is free to offer his personal prayers and good works; nor does the Church’s prohibition of her public offices for those who have died out of external communion with her affect the strictly personal element in her minister’s acts. For all such she prohibits the public offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass (and of other liturgical offices); but theologians commonly teach that a priest is not forbidden to offer the Mass in private for the repose of the soul of any one who, judging by probable evidence, may be presumed to have died in faith and grace, provided, at least, he does not say the special requiem Mass with the special prayer in which the deceased is named, since this would give the offering a public and official character." (Emphasis mine)
**N.B.** This was written prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The common teaching of the theologians became universally taught post-1917. It is also infallibly taught, as the Code is a universal disciplinary law, and as such is protected by the Holy Ghost from evil and error.
Objection: Canon Law is not infallible unless it applies to the whole Church. Since the Canons in question don't apply to the Eastern Rites, it is not "universal" or infallible.
Answer: False. Canon Law is infallible and those Canons need not apply to the Eastern Rites to be universal.
Proof:
According to theologian Van Noort:
PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.
One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church’s rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.
When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints. (See Dogmatic Theology, 2:110; Emphasis mine).
Furthermore, Canon 1 does state that the Code as a general rule does not affect the Oriental Church (i.e., Eastern Rites). However, as Buscaren explains, there are some matters in which it [the 1917 Code] affects also the Oriental Church and Oriental Catholics. He enumerates three categories that apply to all Rites: (1) Canons which express dogmatic truths; (2) Canons which declare Divine Law; and (3) Canons which expressly and explicitly mention the Oriental Rites. (See Ibid, pg. 16).
I appreciate Charlie Kirk a lot, and I especially think of him as someone who fought against tyranny like Qasem Soleimani or Yahya Sinwar. Since I am now 19 years old, what is the proper way of meeting young women and dating. Of course I want to avoid immorality, and secondly, is it wrong to listen to a rock song about an 18th century revolutionary? I am no fan of rock music. I only listen to it rarely when I watch videos on backmasking.
ReplyDeleteDo you admire a terrorist like Sinwar, who organized the massacre on October 7 ? Come back to your senses ! It's because of madmen like him that there is this war in Gaza, which has caused all this destruction and death.
DeleteI am sorry. I did not mean to promote things like that. All though I knew Hamas did crimes, the one that did worse is the Christ denying Zionist Israel. I am soon releasing a novel called "1899" set during the Philippine American War in which the Protagonist declares a "holy war" against the Americans inspired by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. Towards the end of my story, He massacres American general his wife and soldiers because he learned from Saint Bernard that "it is better to kill them rather than the righteous bow to them." As a result he is executed by the Americans. He used Catholicism to justify his holy war.
DeleteRyan
Delete1. "What is the proper way of meeting young women and dating."
Reply: This would take a whole post! Please talk about this with your priest, or give me time to write enough to give a proper response.
2. "Is it wrong to listen to a rock song about an 18th century revolutionary."
Without knowing all the pertinent facts, I don't want to rush to judgement. However, 99.9% of secular rock is garbage and the most probable answer is that you should NOT listen to it.
God Bless,
---Introibo
If Charlie Kirk followed you on X, he may have been planning to convert to the true Catholic faith. Only God knows. In any case, the Church's teaching on this subject differs from that of the V2 sect, which believes that everyone will go to Heaven and that Hell is either empty or does not exist, and which confirms unbelievers and public sinners in their errors instead of converting them. This is neither charity nor mercy ! Christ died for all men and He does not want anyone to go to hell.
ReplyDeleteSimon
DeleteI agree with everything you wrote!
God Bless, my friend!
---Introibo
I knew of Charlie Kirk, but not much about him. But it seems to me he was opposing the 'operation of error' which is in his favour, as it shows a preference for demonstrable and logical truth. As for the truth of the Faith, in my opinion since the papacy was 'taken out of way' (2 Thess 2:7) in 1958 the lack of adherence to the papacy can't be held against him, as it isn't here to adhere to. I call this 'sede remota' (the chair is removed).
ReplyDeletecairsahr_stjoseph
DeleteYou make an excellent point! The papacy is difficult for ANYONE to find these days--not impossible, of course, but more difficult than ever before.
Kirk thought the V2 sect was the Church. He is correct that e.g., sodomites are in horrible sin. Then he sees James Martin ("Hellboy as NOW calls him) saying that sodomy should be accepted and he is in good standing with Prevost. Who would want to convert to that mockery of Catholicism?
God Bless,
---Introibo
I was shocked that a Traditionalist would call Charlie Kirk "a man of Faith" (in the box below his youtube video he made on Kirk). There are limits to showing one's admiration for a man who sure had the guts to go out in the public and speak some basic natural law truths. But this is not "the Faith".
ReplyDeleteThank you and God Bless You!
@anon12:42
DeleteI agree with you, my friend! His death was tragic. Who wouldn't grieve when a young married man with children gets murdered? Yet those appellations of "martyr" and "man of Faith" should NOT be used by Traditionalists to describe Mr. Kirk.
God Bless,
---Introibo
This a well researched article. Thank you for clearing up the distinction of praying for non-Catholics in private as opposed to in public by citing the theologians and Catholic Encyclopedia. Also it is clear that the 4 popes the Dimond Bros quote in their video on Charlie Kirk do not contradict what you cited. Thanks for mentioning Fr. Michael Muller at the end as well because I have used him against them with that very same catechism and it drives their followers crazy.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, I personally do not believe Charlie made it, but this is my mere opinion. Do I hope he was a granted some miraculous grace to have final penitence and thereby be conjoined as a member of the one true (Catholic) Church? Absolutely but the likelihood seems very slim based on what we know from externals.
From the Raccolta
"O most merciful Lord Jesus, by Thine agony and sweat of Blood, by Thy precious death, deliver us, we beseech Thee, from a SUDDEN AND UNPROVIDED DEATH. O most kind Lord Jesus, by Thy most sharp and ignominious scourging and crowning with thorns, by Thy holy Cross and bitter Passion, by Thy loving-kindness, we humbly pray that Thou wouldst not suffer us to die unprovided with Thy holy Sacraments. O dearly beloved Lord Jesus, by all Thy labors and sorrows, by Thy Precious Blood and sacred Wounds, by those Thy last words on the Cross: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" and those others: "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit," we most earnestly beseech Thee to deliver us from a sudden death. Grant us, we pray, room for repentance; grant us a happy passing in Thy grace, that so we may be able to love Thee, praise Thee and bless Thee forever. Amen." Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory be to the Father.
Lee
Lee
DeleteThank you, my friend! Beautiful and timely prayer from the Raccolta.
God Bless,
---Introibo
"The Economic Collapse Blog" post of today (= Oct. 20), by the blogger Michael Snyder, is titled: "Millions of America's Teens are being seduced by AI Chatbots". Among other things that are noted therein, is that more than half of U.S. jobs are at risk of getting wiped out by "AI" over the next decade. And that an estimated 50% of Internet articles nowadays, are "written" by AI. And that the "sacrament" of confession is reportedly undergoing a substantial renaissance or resurgence, as millions of people now confess their sins to AI chatbots, and receive some sort of (?) virtual "absolution".
ReplyDeleteMaybe the U.S. Supreme Court judges will be all AI bots ten years from now? Will AI bots assume command and control over nuclear weapons? Prevost said he took the name "Leo" in connection with the Catholic social doctrine of Pope Leo XIII, and making it applicable to AI and the AI sorts of concerns just noted.
C.O.V.I.D. 1.9. = CERTIFICATE OF VACCINATION IDENTIFICATION . A.I.
DeleteA is 1; I is 9...alphabet...freemason symbols and codes.
This is all part of new world order and transhumanism end goal.
Many here do not seem to appreciate Peggy Hall who is exposing freemasonry and all that doesn't add up with Charlie Kirk scam.
Her latest fyi:
https://www.youtube.com/live/VSU3XwFQovo?si=8YcrmiOwxrMVT4eE
@anon5:15
DeleteYou're right. AI is a real and present danger. It is scary to think of what the future holds. Pray hard and often!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thanks Introibo. So many NOers are saying he a martyr. Sad. I can't get NOers to read more than a few sentences or listen to a sermon more than 3 minutes.
ReplyDeleteSomeone said to me today...in a few years you will say Vat I false too. I asked if they knew anything about it...crickets. I searched your site looking for a good V1 post but couldn't find. I did see a sweet poem you published by a convert, which I really liked and sent to many. Most don't seem to have eyes to see or ears to hear. If you have a good succinct resource on why V1 helps expose V2 please let me know...and it would have to be something novus ordites can understand.
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2013/12/where-have-all-catholics-gone.html
Ps. This my favorite sermon re NO by NO escapee priest.
https://youtu.be/AllGyUpukVo?si=6m10lJfcCgCKdDcL
God bless all!
@anon5:28
DeletePlease give me until the end of this week to get some good reference for you.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you! You said a while back you'd answer my question about God supposedly loving us infinitely? Did you find an answer?
DeleteThere is this answer from ex sspx.
https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/god-does-not-infinitely-love-any-creature
@anon7:39
DeleteYes. I responded directly to that comment on that post and answered you. Go check it out.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
I searched but cannot find...can you link?
Delete@anon8:49
DeleteDo you remember the post on which you asked?
—-Introibo
No, I only recall last few months. I searched many and could not find.
Delete@anon9:06
DeleteHere's what I had written to you:
The Sacred Heart has Infinite Love for us in the sense as He will never fail to desire our salvation--He "infinitely" seeks us out to draw us to Himself--in colloquial terms. He can't love us infinitely IN THE SENSE THAT HE LOVES HIMSELF since He alone is infinitely Good because He is God--and therefore infinitely lovable.
God Bless,
---Introibo
"Ann Barnhardt Goes Gloves Off: Trad-Inc, Sedevacantism, and 'Anti-Pope' Leo", is the title of a "Stephen Kokx" youtube channel, 17 Oct. 2025 video, of one hour and 58 minutes in length. Starring Ann, as the "Hat Lady Interregnumist". See also, the Wikipedia article "Saint Gallen Group".
ReplyDeleteIn a 10 minute segment of this video, from 29:55 to 40:00, you will hear Ann B. mention Charlie Kirk, and how she has spent the last 15 years of her life making serious attempts to get herself assassinated. So far without success. Ann still seems utterly convinced (?), that Ratzinger, who once upon a time gloriously reigned, was forced to resign against his will, and was thus un-poped and in some sense martyred (!), by the St. Gallen Mafia and their allies. And so Ann continues to "wage literary and verbal Internet jihad" against all the enemies of Ratzinger and Catholicism, until she herself is more gloriously martyred, than Charlie Kirk was. That appears to be a St. Joan of Arc ideal (or is it a "fantasy"?) that underlies her personality. Martyrdom would gain her immediate entry into heaven (bypassing purgatory) where she would be able to engage in lengthy delightful conversations with her fellow martyr, St. Joseph Ratzinger. She even tells us how Ratzinger daringly risked military martyrdom in 1945 = one of her areas of expertise, being that she is obviously very anti-feminazi (e.g., her comment that "women ruin everything" at 13:01).
There is obviously much, much, much much more than could be said about what Ann said, over the course of that 2 hour video, but given that Introibo has decided that "Martyrdom, Salvation and Charlie Kirk" is the title of this blog post, the above should give us quite a few morsels of spot-on-topic food for thought.
https://www.barnhardtmemes.com
DeleteCheck them out! Ann often has a wicked (= fabulous!) sense of humor, doesn't she?! One of her memes for Oct. 22 = today, is: "Intelligence isn't about being right. It's about being able to change your mind when you get better evidence." - "Amen" to that, Ann! Bravo!!! Yet, much more than enough Internet evidence exists, with regard to Ratzinger, to form correct conclusions about him.
An Oct. 19 barnhardt.biz blog post, is devoted to the "women ruin everything" theme, noted in the 10:45 comment above. Also, in an Oct. 17 blog post, Ann notes that V2 "was hijacked by the modernists, led by the Germans... Vatican II is therefore a failed council, and should be declared null and void." - Once again, "Amen" to that too! BUT, the word "Ratzinger" NEEDS to be mentioned in relation to these themes!!! Even a superficial glance at the Wiki article for B16, would inform anyone, that Ratzinger was among the most influential (modernists) at V2. But Ann somehow seems so blindfolded, that she hasn't yet been able to draw (the logical obvious) Catholic conclusion(s) from that. (Probably her attachment to Ratzinger's "TLM", still seduces her. She was probably fully "Una Cum" Bergoglio, and probably still is nowadays with Leo Bergogliovost, despite her firm rejection of both as being antipopes!) At about the 52 to 57 minute marks of the video, she reveals that she was granted two lengthy private audiences with none other than top Vatican canon lawyer Raymond "Dubia" Burke. As even she admits, Burke had to say something to her, about her level of sanity! Ann, it is out of my love for you, that I tell you, that you would probably look much more sane, if you composed a postscript to your Oct. 17 blog post, wherein you repeatedly mention the word "Ratzinger".
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/10/21/cardinal-burke-makes-public-profession-of-submission-to-leo-xiv/
Deletehttps://x.com/cardinalrburke/status/1980602384364491196
The top link is a Bro. Bugnolo webpage, and the second link is embedded in the first one. It seems that AI is (or numerous AI bots are?) stirring up trouble, by making Burke appear to be, as either externally manifested, or insinuating that "in his heart of hearts", that he is perhaps (?) a sedevacantist, or a Luddite, or maybe even a Barnhardt-ite. So in a several minute "X" video, with a transcribed text appended, the one and only real Burke exposes the AI deep-fake Impostor Burke's (or whoever the (presumably anon) troublemakers are).
One thing of note is how this Oct. 21 story dovetails so well with the Oct. 20 at 5:15 comment above, about AI. This also lets us all know exactly what "Cardinal" Burke must think about Ann Barnhardt. Ann is quite well aware of that too. As she stated in her video (56:45 to 57:00), "I doubt that I would be his [= Burke's] favorite person in the world right now." - In other words, now that she has gone so very public about her "intimate canon lawyerly relationship" with him, Burke would no doubt view Ann as a huge liability or nuisance. And so I see as a secondary reason for Burke releasing that short video, his attempt to publicly distance himself from the pontificating and erratic blabbermouth Ann.
I am the Anon of 10:45PM at the top of this string, and I wish to add some clarification details to the second of my 3 paragraphs there, lest any of it be perceived as misrepresenting Ann. What I'd noted, inter alia, was that Ratzinger "was thus un-poped and in some sense martyred (!) by the St. Gallen mafia and their allies". In the eyes of Ann, he became a non-pope de facto, but NOT de jure. And stubbornly, she still thinks that! To put all this into overall perspective, the video snippet from 1:04:45 to 1:05:45 should suffice. Ann refers to "Pope Benedict" as being "the worst pope in the 2000 year history of the Church". Why? Because he was a weakling wimp "quitter" who caved in to the mafias (= Gay Mafia, Gallen M., and liberals in general) by quitting. Whether after his quit, Ratzinger was afflicted by any sort of (VERY broadly or elastically defined, of course), "martyrdom" or "purgatory on earth", while he watched in silent agony while Bergo mismanaged the V2 Org, is something that Ann does NOT clearly state or imply. Also, Ann does NOT (clearly) state anything, about whether she thinks Ratzinger will spend his eternity in heaven or hell. She might also think that his "legally botched" quit, might have been more freely tendered, than forced. In summary, my second paragraph is totally devoted to the C. Kirk martyrdom theme, and trying to situate Ann within THAT context. My use of the words "martyr" and "saint" in front of J.R., at the end of that paragraph, is something Ann might possibly object to, as misrepresenting her. (If so, I would apologize. Mea culpa, if my wording was not precise enough, or too embellished, or in any which way misleading.) Despite my criticisms of Ann, in certain ways, I very much admire her "feisty and combative Joan of Arc" personality.
DeleteHi Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThis was a very well written article. Everything you write is great! I pray that Charlie Kirk was saved and died a Traditional Catholic in the internal forum.
I wanted to ask you a few things. For the last several years, many people in the United States feel that the U.S. is very quickly heading for a civil war. This past weekend saw a lot of protests all over the U.S. with the “No Kings” marches everywhere. What made this particularly troublesome was seeing very young children in these marches (completely brainwashed by their parents) saying that we need to keep abortion “rights” in this country and that we have to protect LGBTQ+ “rights”. Do you think that this is the spark that could lead to a civil war in the U.S.? I will take this a few steps farther. It isn’t just the polarization that we are seeing in the West as a whole that is a problem. Islam continues to spread over the West in massive numbers. North America and Europe are in serious trouble. Africa is already having multiple problems with this issue. Add to this the situation in the Middle East and the Ukraine/Russia situation and it gets that much worse. We also have cyber and nuclear threats that remain a huge issue for the entire world, and China looms very dangerously with the threat that they pose to the world. On a spiritual level, the Traditional Catholic Church is a very small remnant. The conciliar church eclipses the True Church and most of the “Catholic” world is in confusion over so many things. Within the next 10-20 years, the traditional landscape will drastically change as many of the “old guard” traditional clergy will be dying off and the younger generations will be forced to “take the reins”. What do you foresee happening to the U.S., the world, and the situation in the church in the next generation? Things are not getting better across the board, only worse. Do you see this getting worse, persecutions increasing, bloodshed in the streets, and the numbers of traditionalists dwindling even more? Do you see a papal restoration (which seems like it would only occur through supernatural means)? Do you see the General Judgement in the near horizon occurring? I am curious as to your thoughts on all of this.
Thank you,
-TradWarrior
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteOne of your replies last week regarding Pope Pius XII got me thinking about several things. I will try and tie this together as best I can.
Many Novus Ordo’s and R & R’s confuse heresy as a sin (peccatum) vs. heresy as a crime (delictum). You have written about this before several times. The first is the moral issue against divine law and the second is the canonical issue against ecclesiastical law. Many Novus Ordo’s and R & R’s wrongly think that a council is needed to depose a heretical pope, which is not true because if a pope were to profess heresy, he would depose himself.
We know that Van Noort, Cardinal Billot, Cajetan, and several other theologians theorized that a long papal interregnum was very much a feasible situation. The popes of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries saw the Freemasonic, Communist, Modernist infiltration occurring. A removal of a pope from the throne for a long duration of time was certainly a possibility and very much on the horizon.
There have been times in history when there was a lack of ordinary jurisdiction but supplied jurisdiction took effect (as it always does because the supreme law of the church is the salvation of souls). One such example is when 21 bishops were consecrated between 1268-1271 until Gregory X was finally elected after an almost 3 year interregnum. Once elected, Gregory X recognized these 21 bishops and they were supplied with ordinary jurisdiction, as there was now a reigning pope. Pope Gregory X realized during this interregnum that bishops still had to be consecrated for the church to continue and souls to be saved. Today in our own situation, the traditional clergy continue (in these decades without a pope) to ordain priests and consecrate bishops because the church must go on until the end of time. Vatican I taught that it is by Divine right (divine law) that Peter has perpetual successors even if the laws of the Church (ecclesiastical law) under normal conditions cannot be applied. Both you and Steve Speray have written many wonderful articles about this. For example, pretend it was the early 1950’s and a Hydrogen bomb wiped out all of the cardinals in Rome who were gathered for a conclave and there were no more cardinal electors on Earth. Does this mean that we could never have another pope? No, the mechanism to elect them would be there because again Vatican I taught this infallibly. It is a dogma that Peter have successors until the end of the world, EVEN IF we go many, many years without a pope. There will always be a way (somehow) to get another pope, if God desires another pope to one day take the throne. According to many theologians throughout the years, if the cardinals went extinct, this would then default to the bishops, then to the roman clergy, etc. I use the Hydrogen bomb example. Steve used a Muslim terrorist example bombing the Sistine Chapel, but there are several scenarios here that could apply. This was during normal times. We now are in abnormal times when the small Traditional remnant is all that is left of the church. Could the Sedevacantist bishops get together and elect a pope? Theoretically, yes; realistically, no. I do not see this happening.
Q. What would happen if any motley crew ensemble of sedevacantist bishops (or sede laity for that matter) tried to elect someone to be a pope?
DeleteA. Yet another useless antipope would emerge.
Q. And why so?
A. Because they have no canonical mission.
Q. Has any pope existed in the world recently?
A. In my (very longstanding) opinion, "no".
Q. Does Jesus Christ teach us with the infallibility of His ordinary and universal magisterium, via V1 of AD 1870, that "there will always be a way (somehow) to get [= for the RCC to have] another pope" as you = TW, indicate above at 8:39?
A. Yes, what God teaches, He guarantees!
Q. Will there be another genuine pope then?
A. Indeed yes, despite how difficult it seems.
Q. But just when and just how??
A. Relatively soon, and... in the usual manner.
Q. How will we confirm that, as being true?
A. Evaluate what is heard using Judges 13-16.
A. And Hebrews 11:32-34 & related scriptures.
Q. Just how does 13-16 relate to 11:32-34?
A. I'll defer to you TW, and let you answer that.
We'll soon see if these A's be correct. 777333.
CONTINUED…Last week, you addressed Pope Pius XII’s 1945 document “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”. You cited paragraph #34. This is a common document that often gets brought up in the Sede debate. I have seen it cited for several years now in discussions. Pope Pius XII in this document suspended the censures that were in place for excommunicated cardinals so that they could elect the next pope. Now this goes back to the start of my post here about divine vs. ecclesiastical law or peccatum vs. delictum. Isn’t it true that there are major and minor excommunications? Major excommunications deal with heresy and schism. This separates one from membership in the church. Minor excommunications did not sever one from membership in the church, but forbade someone from participating in the Catholic Church’s sacramental life. A minor excommunication would be incurred for example if someone violated a secret of the Holy office, falsified relics, etc. So what Pope Pius XII was removing from excommunicated cardinals was a censure in place for a minor excommunication (ecclesiastical law), not a major excommunication (divine law), from which the pope cannot dispense from. Am I correct? I think I see what Pope Pius XII was doing here and it made sense and was very prudent because by removing the obstacle from these cardinals (thereby allowing them to vote), it allowed any cardinal in a potential conclave to be elected. For example, if Pope Pius XII died in 1947, having removed all of the obstacles from the cardinals 2 years prior in VAS, any cardinal could come out of the conclave as the new pope. But what if Pius had not written this in VAS in 1945 and an excommunicated cardinal DID come out of the conclave as the new pope? With VAS never on the books, what would this have meant for the church? Again, we are dealing with minor excommunication, not major excommunication, the same way you responded to that commenter last week where you said that it is divine law (heresy) that prevented Roncalli from becoming pope, not his freemasonic status, where (if true) that alone would not remove him from being elected pope, and a true pope could have dispensed him from such an offense. Again, divine law always trumps ecclesiastical law, but they both go hand-in-hand obviously. But what if Pope Pius XII had never written VAS? With that never on the books, an excommunicated cardinal could have come out had one been elected (again for example) 2 years later. The other scenario of a hydrogen bomb in the early 1950’s where the entire College of Cardinals gets wiped out is an entirely different scenario and analogous to our current situation of Sedevacantist clergy who has supplied jurisdiction (not ordinary jurisdiction) and the fact that there are no more cardinals anywhere in the world.
ReplyDeleteI realize that I am touching upon MANY different theological points here but if you can provide answers to the various scenarios that I have raised in this lengthy post, I would greatly appreciate it. The VAS scenario is of special interest because had Pius never written that document, an excommunicated cardinal could have come out as pope before The Great Apostasy, if such a situation had occurred. What would that have meant?
I am not a theologian or canonist but the more and more things that I have seen that Pope Pius XII did, including implementing the revised Holy Week, the more respect I have gained for him. People have differing opinions on some of the things he did, but we have to remember that he was surrounded by many enemies (who had already HEAVILY infiltrated Rome at the time of Pope Pius IX, who had to flee for his life in 1848). Pius XII saw the deluge coming and he did what he could before Satan and his minions completely took over Rome.
Hopefully you can provide a lengthy response to everything that I have written here. I realize that I am touching upon several different theological matters here, but it all ties together.
Thank you again for everything Introibo!
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior
DeleteLet me try and address the VAS scenario. Minor excommunications were abolished by Pope Pius IX in 1869--and this was confirmed by the Holy Office in response to a query in 1883. According to the 1917 Code, there must be made many distinctions.
There is excommunication latae sententiae---meaning automatically inflicted by the commission of the act, i.e., obtaining an abortion.
Then there are those ferendae sententiae ---meaning imposed after being found guilty by competent Magisterial authority.
The SINS of APOSTASY, HERESY, and SCHISM separate one from the Church by DIVINE LAW--as Our Lord so constituted His Church so that anyone who does not believe ALL ONE MUST BELIEVE and FOLLOW ALL LAWFUL PASTORS cannot remain as members.
Other penalties are of ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. For example, abortion is the murder of an innocent child, and the Church sanctions it with automatic excommunication--it is not of Divine law.
There are also excommunications VITANDI and TOLERATI. One excommunicated by name by the pope or Holy Office (approved by the pope) are to be avoided by all the faithful, and if a cleric, to be stripped of all dignity, prerogatives, titles, and no one may go to them except in absolute necessity for danger of death. (Martin Luther and Leonard Feeney--to give two examples; and they lose the right to be called "Father.").
You ask: "The VAS scenario is of special interest because had Pius never written that document, an excommunicated cardinal could have come out as pope before The Great Apostasy, if such a situation had occurred. What would that have meant?"
Reply: It would have meant that a cardinal, automatically excommunicated for e.g., being a Freemason, could not obtain the papacy, nor could he have the right to vote in the conclave.
Two problems: as secret membership is not known but to God, he could not become pope, and if he had voted for the cardinal who was elected--and his vote was necessary for 2/3 plus one--that Cardinal would not be elected either. However, there was disagreement about this among theologians. I believe Pope Pius acted on this to remove all doubt by removing any ecclesiastical censures.
No pope can remove an excommunication of Divine Law. Cum Ex of Pope Pius IV was DECLATORY: he was pronouncing that a heretic could not become pope--already decided by Divine Law. He was no "legislating" it, only reiterating what would happen--a heretic cannot become pope. He did this to remind all of that Divine prohibition when it was rumored that a certain Cardinal may secretly be a Lutheran.
I hope this helps! Been under the weather--let me know if there's anything I didn't answer, and I'll get to it by Sunday.
God Bless,
---Introibo
So does this mean people who had or assisted in abortion but repented, have no hope? Since no pope to lift automatic excommunication?
Delete@anon6:20
DeleteNo. Just as Traditionalist priests receive jurisdiction to absolve in need, so to in lifting excommunications. (This is the short answer!).
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hi Introibo,
DeleteThank you for the detailed response.
First, I hope that you feel better. I will pray that you return to good health. Being sick is no fun.
Second, I think I understand everything that you wrote (at least I hope I do). Just one minor correction – ‘Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio’ was written by Pope Paul IV, not Pius IV, but I know what you meant. The part of your response where you mention the “Two Problems” seems like a nightmare situation! A freemasonic cardinal could be voting in a conclave. His vote doesn’t count. If enough freemasonic cardinals (all of whom are secretly excommunicated, if I am understanding you correctly?) vote for a candidate and that candidate gets elected, then he is not the pope either. This is really bad because the Catholic Church had been getting heavily infiltrated by its enemies in the immediate preceding centuries up to the time of Pius XII. None of the pre-conciliar popes certainly seemed like their elections were invalid, but based on what you responded to me with, how can we know, since secret membership would not have been known? This presents a lot of scary possible situations. It seems like Pius XII removing the censures was a very good thing, but I would like to hear more about this if you can explain it a bit more (if time allows you). I am also curious to hear about the differing opinions of theologians on this issue that you referenced too. This sounds very interesting and could probably be an entire post.
Third, if you can respond to my first post I wrote about where you see the U.S., the world, and Catholic Church headed in the next generation (I referenced the “No Kings” marches), I would love to hear your thoughts in great detail.
Wishing you a healthy and speedy recovery!
In my prayers,
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior
DeleteThank you, my friend! You understand me correctly.
You write: None of the pre-conciliar popes certainly seemed like their elections were invalid, but based on what you responded to me with, how can we know, since secret membership would not have been known?
Reply: There were disagreements about whether or not excommunications of ecclesiastical law would prevent an excommunicated Cardinal from validly voting and/or validly getting elected pope. Theologians were not in agreement. Just as an occult heretic would remain pope according to the majority teaching of the theologians--(otherwise one could never be sure if we had a pope)---so too would an excommunicated cardinal remain capable of full participation in a conclave, it was asserted.
Cum Ex was there to ensure that if a "pope" emerged and after the conclave embraced the heresy of Protestantism, "by their fruits you will know them." (St. Matthew 7:16). It would prove the majority teaching of the theologians as true.
Without settling the question in terms of excommunications of ecclesiastical law, Pope Pius XII removed those excommunications when a conclave begins, thereby removing all doubt without settling the underlying theological question.
I'll reply further this weekend.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I posted this at the end of last week's posting by Introibo, and thought I would share it here since another reader/poster already mentioned the Stepehn Kokx's interview of Ann Barnhardt. Here's the link: https://youtu.be/EOXMGlTKKjE?si=a09ZxA3wuGxEcCbE
ReplyDeletePay attention to the timestamp at 1:15:40
where she explains how the post-conciliar popes didn't explicitly deny and Catholic dogmas or doctrine, whereas Francis said Leo XIV have.
Cyrus (and others), your 2:03 comment here, just reiterates (with a few minor changes of words) your Oct. 19 at 11:01AM comment made to the previous post. I was the one who was responding to you at 4:47PM, and I followed through on what I said I was going to do, as you see it dated Oct. 20 at 10:45PM above. I haven't forgotten about you. Please be patient. Priorities are priorities. The first priority is giving accurate source citations, which you see me do in the first of those 3 paragraphs of 10:45. Your link is (potentially) subpar or defective as a source citation. I do not see a " //youtu.be/EO (etc.) " but instead " //www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO (etc.) ".
DeleteIt is on my agenda to respond to your "1:15:40" issue, but as an adjunct or add-on string comment to the 10:45 comment above. Probably numerous people who comment here, know theology well enough, to address your issue, which Introibo probably would (and I would) find most welcome, that they do, as it would free up Introibo's time (and my time too), to tackle the more urgent or challenging concerns. Ann is an animated or colorful character to watch, if nothing else. Let lots of us "chip in" and "snow her under" with a blizzard of our comments here, about her Kokx video. Ann LOVES being showered with such attention! Let us show her some love, along with our constructive criticism.
Cyrus & anon8:25
DeleteI'll try to take a look and comment later this week.
God Bless,
---Introibo
This is the kind of thing my compromised priest said...said they didn't teach ex cathedra etc. This had me stuck for 5 years in RR. But I could not shake the pro vaxx position which sent over 500 now I know to their death. That alone convinced me their evil ways are too beyond what anyone who claims to represent the church of Christ...but I let the blind still lead me for 5 years. I thought they were so much smarter so I just didn't understand. Ann B had some good posts along the way but she obsessed with B16 who is clearly a modernist, which makes zero sense. Too many I know just like her.
ReplyDeleteNovus Ordo Watch put tremendous amount of research into all of the fake Vatican 2 "nopes" and has a portfolio exposing each of them, Ratzinger included:
Deletehttps://novusordowatch.org/benedict-xvi/
Has Ann Barnhardt looked into it?
It's all there for free; all it takes is good will to read it.
Ann Barnhardt is aware of Novus Ordo Watch and Mario Dirksen. She mentions Mario in this latest interview. Plus, she has made references to the NOW in her podcasts. I've been following her website and podcasts for a very long time, and I've never seen her explain in fullness why she isn't, as she puts it, a 1958 Sedevacantist. Perhaps I've missed her explanation.
DeleteIntroibo, right before your bold black subtitle above "Although not a martyr or candidate..." you state that "ecumenism of blood" was "first professed by false pope Bergoglio". That precise 3 word expression maybe, but NOT the doctrine of it. As Mario D. pointed out in his May 17, 2023 NOW post "Non-Catholic Martyrs" : "The [precise] term 'ecumenism of blood' seems to have been introduced by Francis, but [it, as a doctrine] was already brought up [and taught] by [V2 in 1964, and JP2 in 1995, with source citations given there]". So, the Frankster only faithfully developed just a little bit, what already was the heretical doctrine of V2 & JP2. (The Bennyvacantist / Interregnumist people (like A. Barnhardt) would benefit from knowing that. "Brainwashed-just-like-Bergoglio 'Bishops' " (= including the non-Catholic-enough Ratzinger too) are a more or less inevitable logical outcome of the 1960s Bar-Abbas / Judas Council. Ratzinger was a full believer in, and full accomplice of, the heretical doctrines of V2 and JP2.)
ReplyDeleteAs an additional note, the theme of Introibo's post above, closely relates to the theme of two other of his posts, "Playing the Role of Martyr (May 4, 2015), and "That All may be Ecumenists" (Oct. 11, 2021).
@anon6:40
DeleteYou are correct. "Ecumenism of blood" was the phrase used by Bergoglio but it has its inception in heretical theology prior.
God Bless,
---Introibo
https://akacatholic.com/vatican-ii-revisited-unitatis-redintegratio/ = 10-15-25 Louie V. post/vid
DeleteU.R., in its paragraph 4, IS the V2 text that contains the "ecumenism of blood" heresy, in embryo = in embryonic form... About 25 years ago, the Dimwit Duo put out a publication titled "202 Heresies of Vatican II".
*******
This might seem like lots of hair-splitting, but it is worth drawing attention to terminology and spelling, in light of the 6:40 comment above. There is a Wiki article "Benevacantism". One can find therein 'contra' arguments of R. Burke and others, opposing the 'pro' points of view of A. Barnhardt, et al. And take note that "Bene-" can be spelled "Benny-" too. The most prolific online critic of A. Barnhardt & her B16 Associates, is Steven O'Reilly, who for some reason decided to utilize the word "Benepapist". The word "Interregnumist" has also been spelled "Interregnist". If you google one, you might not see the other in the results! A. Barnhardt could be called a "ARSH 2022 Sedebenediceplenist". SSPX Bishop Williamson (1940-2025) was labelled as being a "Mentevacantist". There is a Wiki article "Sedeprivationism". What was Raymond Burke at the conclusion of the May 2025 conclave? A Sedeoccupationist, once again. But Google AI seems to have no idea what sedeoccupationism is. Has it got anything to do with the cathedra of Matthew 23:2?
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteSome people don't believe Charlie is dead and are passionate about it. Some say (Candace Owens being one of them) Trump's administration along with Trump is behind it. Others believe Mossad is behind it and that Robinson is a patsy. I will admit that it doesn't appear that he was hit with a .30-06 as announced because according to many in the gun community the way it hit him doesn't match the terminal ballistics. Even though your article covered a different subject matter regarding his death what do you make of these opinions?
Lee
Lee
DeleteI am tired of the "Matrix Conspiracy Theory" that none of what we see is real. Newtown shooting? Fake--no one died. Trump shot in the ear? Faked by the president. Moon landing? Fake. Atomic bombing of Japan? Fake.
Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I believe (more or less) what has happened. For example, I believe 9/11 happened, but not everything reported about it is true. Do I think Charlie Kirk is dead? Yes.
You can't help but notice that as soon as something is reported on the news 1,000 different conspiracy theories all come out claiming to be the "true story." Scary.
Here's my post about conspiracy theories (which you probably read):
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2025/08/conspiracies-traditionalists-and.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Apparently, Erika Kirk is not Novus Ordo but a Protestant "Christian". She was raised Novus Ordo but turned to Protestantism as a young adult.
DeleteHere is an interview given by the Kirks' mutual friend. The pertinent part starts at 7:40 time stamp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkt6SAqkdSQ
Here Erika Kirk speaks about a Protestant chapel run by one Pastor James Kaddis as their family's "Sunday church" (starts at 4:50):
https://www.mrserikakirk.com/listen/episode/1d82a45c/s0409-summer-in-the-psalms-speech-at-calvary-chapel-signal-hill-womens-conference
Here she talks about her "desire to go straight to Jesus":
https://www.facebook.com/isaiahrobinn/videos/erika-kirk-who-grew-up-catholic-said-i-wanted-to-go-straight-to-jesus/1847802202800398
From her official website:
"Join every Wednesday.
A devotional series by Erika Kirk released every Wednesday to provide you that deep breath of, “God’s got this”. Each episode is intentionally and prayerfully crafted with words of encouragement to push you, Biblical leadership to challenge you, and God-breathed Scripture to posture your heart for the best that’s yet to come.
You are loved. You are chosen. You are enough.
Welcome to Midweek Rise up; stay awhile."
"Erika Kirk is a driven social entrepreneur, passionate ministry leader, and woman of deep faith whose life has been shaped by her global experiences and unwavering commitment to purpose. From New York City to China, Erika has worked in the entertainment industry as a model, actress, and casting director, all while remaining grounded in her Christian faith. Her bold spirit and belief in God's guidance have propelled her to pursue various impactful ventures."
***
Does it get any more Protestant than that?
Turns out the Kirks were both church-shopping "Christians".
God Bless You,
Joanna
Joanna
DeleteYou are correct. I added the word "former" before the description of her as a member of the Vatican II sect. I should have done so from the beginning; an oversight on my part.
According to a Vatican II sect publication:
"On a recent episode of his podcast, Kirk, an evangelical Christian who recently spoke about the Blessed Mother, mentioned how he was close to Father Don Kline, pastor of St. Bernadette Catholic Church in Scottsdale, Arizona, and how his wife was baptized Catholic. Erika attended Notre Dame Preparatory High School in Scottsdale."
Erika was baptized in the sect and went to a V2 sect high school. There are also pictures of Erika and Charlie Kirk attending the Novus Bogus "mass."
The fact they would do this shows no animosity towards what they think is "Catholicism." Kirk had a "priest" friend.
See https://www.ncregister.com/blog/who-is-charlie-kirk-s-wife-catholic-faith
Another source states: "A week before he was assassinated, Kirk told Bishop Joseph Brennan he'd been attending Mass regularly with his family, saying, “I love my Catholic pastor” and “I'm this close to entering the Catholic Church.”
(See https://medium.com/catholic-way-home/sobbing-at-their-first-catholic-mass-i-knew-i-was-home-d2ac3a6e1cb7)
Let me be clear that I am not defending Charlie or Erika Kirk and claiming Charlie was saved or that Erika is a "good Catholic." members of the V2 sect are just Protestants as well (actually worse in many ways).
These are also V2 sect sources so take it for what it is worth. All I'm saying is that both Kirk's were not "Jack Chick" rabid Catholic-haters, like many Protestants--and the fact that Erika was raised in the sect made her husband less opposed as he probably would have been otherwise.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo
ReplyDeleteDo you know much about a subject called Guenonian Traditionalism or Perennialism?
God bless