You're all ridiculous. Old Catholicism is the only thing that actually makes sense. Pius IX was a Freemason, on the books as such in their ledgers, and could not be Pope. The robber council of Vatican I forced things in such a way that Pastor Aeternus could never be denied by the gathering of bishops. Pius IX is even recorded as saying that if the Council didn't agree to the "dogma" that he would "clarify" it himself as he did the Immaculate Conception!
The first rupture was Vatican I. Holding the council in a place where the older, more infirm bishops could not stay or participate for the entire length of the event was a calculated move to make sure only Ultramontanists could get in, then they with their Masonic collaborators could create the chimeric abomination that is the Vatican II pseudo-church we see today.
Taking the statements and actions of the Pian Popes in-line, it's obvious to see that they were all for the reform, and establishing an ever firmer Papal power structure that nobody could resist and still call themselves Catholic. Pius X taught very clearly that if you are not in complete agreement with the rites and teachings of the Pope, you are no longer Catholic.
Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, Paragraph 58:
"It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, which involve the religious life of Christian society, the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; nor may they be allowed to set up customs that may lead to the introduction of theological errors, or a tendency to a separate sect, or any other deviation highly harmful to the faith."
Pope Leo XIII says as much, in his Sapientiae Christianae:
"In settling how far the limits of obedience extend, let no one imagine that the belief that the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops must be obeyed only in those matters which the Church has decreed by solemn definition...
"For, in the making of a Christian, after the necessity of believing, there comes next the obligation of being in complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.
"...Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect... and must be such as no one can even call in question."
As does Pius XII, in Humani Generis:
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me'; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.
"But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question free for discussion among theologians."
Since the "Popes" defined these matters as to leave zero room for calling them heretics, and those who proclaim their Catholicism in light of Vatican I agree to all the above at least tacitly — if not explicitly, as shown in your article — all Sedevacantists are Protestants by their own judgment.
Therefore, Old Catholicism "makes sense" and sedevacantists are "Protestants."
In this post, I will refute the contentions as expressed by the commenter. (N.B. The material herein was taken from many sources, both online and in print. I take no credit for the information. All I did was condense it into a terse and readable post. I also wish to credit Mr. Mario Derksen of the amazing Traditionalist website Novus Ordo Watch for having done top-notch research on the topic of Pope Pius IX and his alleged Masonic membership. I was able to find and use some of the excellent works he cited.---Introibo).
Was Pope Pius IX a Freemason?
In a word: NO! This calumny has been around way before certain people decided to revive the evil accusations against a good and holy pope. I will examine three aspects: (a) the cause of the accusation; (b) who started the accusations; (c) the demonstrated falsity of the accusations.
(a) Why was Pope Pius IX accused of Freemasonry?
Pope Pius IX was frequently called a "liberal," and the following incident earned him that appellation by some, as cited in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:
In 1831 when 4000 Italian revolutionists fled before the Austrian army and threatened to throw themselves upon Spoleto, the archbishop [Mastai-Ferretti] persuaded them to lay down their arms and disband, induced the Austrian commander to pardon them for their treason, and gave them sufficient money to reach their homes…. His great charity and amiability had made him beloved by the people, while his friendship with some of the revolutionists had gained for him the name of liberal. (See entry "Pope Pius IX").
According to journalist and historian Yves Chiron:
[There were] three different currents of thought. 1) The ‘Austrian’ party, which favored the extension of Austrian rule over all the Legations. 2) The ‘papal’ or ‘sanfedist’ party (which defended the pope and the ‘holy faith’), which not only sought to preserve the pope’s temporal authority in these territories, but also favored the domination of the clergy in social and political areas. 3) The ‘liberal’ party, which wanted to see the end of the pope’s temporal power or, at least, wide reforms in all areas. At that time the term ‘liberal’ included a great diversity of political doctrines and programs…. Msgr. Mastai did not support any of these three parties, in spite of what has been said by some of his contemporaries who, when he was elected to the Sovereign Pontificate, presented him as a "liberal." Some months after he arrived in Imola, in a letter to his friend and neighbor Cardinal Falconieri, Archbishop of Ravenna, he gave a very description of his ‘golden mean’ approach: ‘I detest and abominate, in the very marrow of my bones, the liberals’ ideas and actions; but I have no sympathy, either, for the fanaticism of the so-called ‘papalist’ party. The golden mean, the Christian golden mean — and not the diabolical golden mean which is fashionable today — is the path I would like to follow, with the Lord’s help. But shall I succeed in this?’ [Letter of June 3, 1833]” (See Pope Pius IX: The Man and the Myth, [2005], pgs. 558-59; Emphasis mine).
The accusation is clearly inaccurate and false. "Liberal" did not signify "Freemason." Rather, it was a calumny leveled at him by his enemies.
(b) Freemasons started the accusations:
Pius IX had given an allocution on September 25, 1865, entitled Multiplices Inter Machinationes, in which he severely condemned Masonry and the Masons’ wicked secret scheming. It reads in part:
In this situation, fearing that imprudent men, and especially the youth, allow themselves to be misled, and that Our silence occasion anyone to protect error, We have resolved, Venerable Brethren, to raise Our apostolic voice; and, confirming here, before you, the constitutions of Our predecessors, by Our apostolic authority, We reprove and condemn this Masonic society and the others of the same kind, which, while differing in appearance, gather every day for the same goal, and conspire either openly or clandestinely against the Church and the legitimate authorities; and We order under the same penalties as those specified in the preceding constitutions of Our predecessors all Christians of every condition, every rank, every dignity, and every country, to regard these same societies as proscribed and condemned by Us. Now there only remains for Us, in order to satisfy the desires and solicitude of Our paternal heart, to warn and exhort the faithful who would associate themselves with sects of this kind of the necessity to obey wiser inspirations and to abandon these baneful secret meetings, so that they not be led into the abyss of eternal ruin.
The Freemasons were enraged:
In the months that followed this public condemnation of Freemasonry, several Masonic publications in France and Italy, intent on revenge, propagated the story that Pius IX himself, in his youth, had been a Freemason. Apparently it was the Lodge of Palermo that first put out the accusation… In France, the journal Le Monde Maçonnique immediately went into print with this information (See Chiron, Ibid, pgs. 217-218).
(c) Falsity of the Masonic claims against His Holiness Pope Pius IX:
From the book A Study in American Freemasonry, edited by Arthur Preuss, [1908], pgs. 267-272, it describes in detail how the enemies of the pope began the calumny against him:
“It started in Germany,” says John Gilmary Shea, in his Life of Pope Pius IX, pp. 291, 292, “and they thought that by putting the scene in America, they would escape detection. They declared positively that Pius IX had been received into a Masonic lodge in Philadelphia, cited his discourses, and declared that a number of his autographs were preserved in the lodge. Unfortunately for the story, Philadelphia is in the civilized world. People there could read and write. They examined and found that there was no Masonic lodge in that city by the name given; they found that no lodge in Philadelphia had ever received John Mary Mastai [Pius IX’s baptismal name]; they could find no trace of his ever having been there, as he never was; no lodge had any of his autograph letters; Masons themselves attested that the whole was a pure invention. The slander thus refuted has been revived from time to time, but in later versions, care is taken not to specify the lodge or city too distinctly.”
Did the 1870 Vatican Council Teach Heresy?
Once more, the answer is a resounding NO! The "Ultramontanists" (i.e., those who believed in the supremacy of the pope on matters of faith, morals, and governance. The term originates from "beyond the mountains" [referring to the Alps], as Rome was viewed from northern Europe) were just Catholics while the Gallicans (who denigrated papal authority) were heretics.
The idea that the definition of papal supremacy and infallibility were "invented," or not the dogmatic view of the Church, is simply wrong. It was taught from the beginning of the Church. The commenter is a Vacancy Pusher, claiming that all popes since at least Pope Pius IX were false popes. So what of these pontiffs below?
1302 Pope Boniface VIII: Unam Sanctam (ex cathedra):
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
If submission to the pope is necessary for salvation, then the pope must be the standard of faith whereby we can be safely guided to Heaven. If he could teach heresy, there's no difference between a sect (e.g., Lutherans) that lead people to Hell, and the Catholic Church with a "heretical pope."
There are numerous actions taken by the popes far prior to the 1800s that show the development of the doctrine:
- Therefore, we ask first: if you believed, do you believe, or are you prepared to believe with the Armenian Church that obeys you, that blessed Peter received the most complete power of jurisdiction over all faithful Christians from the Lord Jesus Christ, and that all the power of jurisdiction that Jude Thaddeus and the other Apostles had in certain lands and provinces and different parts of the world in a special and particular way was subject to the most complete authority and power that blessed Peter received from the Lord Jesus Christ himself over all believers in Christ in all parts of the world, and that no apostle or anyone else received the most complete power over all Christians except Peter alone? (Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, 1351)
- Secondly : if you have believed, have held, or are you prepared to believe and hold, with the Armenians subject to you, that all the Roman Pontiffs who have canonically entered and will canonically enter succeeding Blessed Peter, have succeeded and will succeed Blessed Peter the Roman Pontiff in the same fullness of jurisdiction and power that Blessed Peter himself received from the Lord Jesus Christ over the whole and entire body of the Church Militant? (Ibid)
- Third: if you and the Armenians subject to you believed and still believe that the Roman Pontiffs who were and We who are the Roman Pontiff and those who will be successively in the future, as legitimate and most powerful Vicars of Christ, received all the potentative jurisdiction that Christ as the conformed Head had in human life, immediately from Christ Himself over the whole and entire Body of the Church Militant? (Ibid)
- That blessed Peter the Apostle had no more authority than the other Apostles had nor was he the head of the other apostles. Likewise that God did not send forth any head of the Church, nor did He make anyone His vicar. (Pope John XXII condemning the errors of Marsilius of Padua, 1327)
- We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons. (Council of Florence, 1439)
Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions. (Emphasis mine).
- Ordain women as "priests" and consecrate them as "bishops"
- Accept sodomites as "normal" and not being sinful
- Have optional celibacy
- All but eliminated Confession
- Are ecumenists
Don’t give Prof K any new ideas. He is already on the fence about the first and only Vatican Council.
ReplyDeleteTom,
DeleteGood to see you commenting again, my friend! Is "Professor K" the "Kwas"? Is he really considering the Vatican Council of 1870 to be false?
God Bless,
---Introibo
Yes. He has publicly “questioned” Vatican I. See Novus Ordo Watch, Jan 21, 2023. In order for these R&R types to keep their heretical pope on the throne, they need to destroy the Catholic understanding of the Papacy. While the Indultarians destroy the faith by popesplaining away the heresies of the Vatican 2 Robber Council. Either way, Indult or R&R, something has to go. They really are so blind.
DeleteDear Tom A.,
DeleteCatholics unhesitatingly and without question accept the teachings of the Vatican Council of 1870 and all of the General Councils of the Church. If Peter Kwaśniewski has "problems" with any Council, then the problem is his own faith. He is a slippery Modernist. Why doesn't he do the logical thing and join, say, the "Polish National Catholic Church"? Then again, he might become too much of a hot potato even for them!
May God bless you,
Leo
1 Luther 5 publicly deplore Vatican Council I. It's one of their (listed) 3 governing principles. One of the others, of course, is complete acceptance on the Robber Council.
DeletePope Pius IX was “beatified” by Wojtyla at the same time as Roncalli. Isn't it ironic that the Pope who condemned religious freedom was “honored” at the same time as the usurper who claimed it was a right ? Pius IX will certainly be beatified and canonized one day by a true Pope, but Roncalli is neither Pope nor saint.
ReplyDeleteSimon,
DeleteWojtyla did that to show "continuity" pre and post V2. Worse, the false pope got "sainthood" but the true pope only was "beatified"!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Two related items to this post:
ReplyDelete1. The Old Catholics apparently also have a traditionalist wing, known as the "Old Roman Catholics" who retain all of the rites, practices, and disciplines prior to Vatican 2, but originate from the Dutch Jansenists that gave us the original Old Catholics. They claim valid episcopal lineage, and don't really deny or reject much of anything. I couldn't even find an explicit claim of rejection of the Primacy and are anti-sedevacantist in very strong terms. A very odd group.
2. The newest delusion from the Eastern Schismatics comes courtesy of the Peter Dimond of the Orthodox, Jay Dyer, who has recently gone down a Fabian Socialist rabbit hole. Not that the Fabians were in any sense good people, but the Orthodox don't need any any more fuel for their anti-Rome fever dreams. Apparently, the Vatican was "captured" in the early 19th century when the Holy See took out a loan from the Rothchild Bank. The significance of this act, done likely to help defend against the Carbonari and Freemasons who were agitating all throughout the Italian peninsula, is unclear. But this is all at the time of Pius IX ascendancy to the Throne of Peter and really it's all been downhill from there in the Modern age.
1. The "trad wing" of the veterocaths is not dissimilar to "high church" Anglicans, "old believers" among the photians, the "Bible only" conservative prots. They may hold onto more shards of the truth, but the drops of poison they inevitably imbibe due to their rejection of papal primacy eventually create the slip down ever larger heresies from members of their sects - from which at best they can stand apart, but still commune with, and inevitably cause. The trad veteros in particular are a sort of western photians, holding onto a primus inter pares sort of deal. Funny enough, lefebvrism isn't that different from them, they have a putative Pope they freely disobey. Granted, without a conclave, sedes may end up similarly, only potentially having a visible Head.
Delete2. Dyer is a Russian Duginist op. His photian sect has not been wiped off the map thanks not only thru usurers (who were strong during Soviet and post-Soviet times, and even in Tsarist times they had varying degrees of influence), but also thanks to prots (English helping Greece, US helping USSR), and mohamedans (ottoman sultan and golden horde). And lest we forget, unlike Catholics who admit that the clerics and the temporal rulers can err in secular political matters (such as attempting to buy time thru emergency loans from usurers or participating in freemasonic dumbocracy to try to end it, both of which were completely out of need as the Church post 1789 was running out of options in ak increasingly pagan world, and did not compromise doctrine this way), photians believe that both their clerics are always right in politics no matter how contradictory and split up into national sects, and that their national rulers are always defenders of the faith no matter how wrong - which is how you get calvinist or otherwise ecumenist ecumenical patriarchs alongside nationalist eparchs that both commune and excommunicate because mere political reasons, and icons/sympathy for both Nicholas II and Stalin, for Codreanu and for Tito. Dyer has said philosophy is mostly useless, so of course he cannot grasp this.
Furthermore, his fabianism/nazbolism is just yet another flawed secular attempt to have a Social Kingship of Christ, without Christ and His Catholic Church. No wonder that at best he does funny yet ultimately shallow content with "based" comedians and platforms the groypers, who pretend to be white ethnonationalists and Catholics while being multiracial and novusordo-ecumenist in composition. Nevermind that Catholic concepts of annuities and/or compensatory payments could replace interest usury quite easily, but the gibs usury that fabianists/nazbols want is pretty much the road to communism (and usurious because, usury means money for nothing, whether that means thru interest or thru gibs).
Delete(PS. Reminder that not all interest is usurious and money can justly accumulate value as savings, insofar as such interest is not excessive nor non-compensatory nor unjust [just like not all gibs are usurious but can be rightfully called charity, btw], which happened in the flourishing Catholic middle ages of mutual funds and annuities; unlike most interest nowadays, which has inflated currencies commodities resources and products to oblivion to get everyone to consoom and owe more, and thus establish vast anti-Catholic cosmopolitan elites above many unfairly treated peoples; peoples who are bamboozled with fake material plenty at best in exchange for their souls, and at worst they only get leftovers while ever more bodily and spiritually exploited, to the point of whole peoples being sterilized into nihilist bugmen worse off than what any anti-Catholic fake propaganda says about medieval peasants).
DeleteAnon: Yes, most excellent. I like that nickname, "Veterocaths."
DeleteI don't want to make Introibo's article about the fringes of the Orthodox mind, but I like and agree with all you've noted above. They know not subtlety or nuance. History for them is a cruel and stark place. There is never any context.
Fun fact: per +Fr. Fortescue, the Great Synod of Moscow, which operates in the stead of some kind of "patriarch" is wholly Lutheran in construction, because of a stream of Protestant infiltration into Russia around the time of its assembly.
Gjergj Kastrioti,
DeleteThank you for commenting! It started a very interesting thread!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Dear Gjergj Kastrioti,
DeleteThe "Fr. Fortescue" whom you mention wouldn't be the same Father Adrian Fortescue who called Pope SAINT Pius X "an Italian lunatic...this deplorable person", would it? I note -surprise, surprise! - that Peter Kwaśniewski used this quote approvingly. PK sure has problems!
God bless you,
Leo
I am not GK, but almost certainly it is the same Fortescue. The "late great" (as Michael Matt would have it) Brit known as Michael Davies, repeatedly endorsed the liturgical writings of Fr. F. And Pelican Plus Pete appears to be an R&R disciple of MD.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:31 PM,
DeleteThanks for confirming what I suspected to be the case. What a tragic individual Fr. Fortescue was to have expressed such outrageous sentiments - hardly those of a loyal son of the Church! Was he a Modernist? As for poor PPP, I read (but I can"t remember where) that he is an occultist. When the R&R folk, like the Feeneyites, go to such extraordinary lengths to defend the indefensible, it is no wonder that they fall for the occult. A salutary lesson for all of us.
God bless you,
Leo
A great writing as always Introibo. Learning many new things.
ReplyDeleteCorrect Gjrergj I have much material on this group of Old Catholics called Old Roman Catholics. Yes , they claim to have valid orders and use the Traditional Latin Mass . One group is here in the UK with their leader "Bishop" Jerome Lloyd who calls himself the titular Archbishop of Selsey. There is a group over in the USA in Florida whose bishop is "Archbishop" John Humphreys of the See of Caer Glow.
God bless
@anon12:18
DeleteThank you, my friend! Interesting about "Old Roman Catholics"---I thought it was an appellation for old guys like me!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I had no idea Old Catholics were that wacky so thanks for informing Introibo. I am always frustrated by novus ordites who refuse the facts and think all is an opinion. No wonder, as the madhouse NO church spoonfeeds them all poison. Most I know lined up for those insane covid shots and over 400 are dead and all still comatose. I am still on some NO prayer lines and many of them are so shocked by all the illnesses, turbo cancers in just their families etc and still cannot connect any dots. The NO truly makes one stupid but even worse, one risks damnation by being in a false religion. There must be strength in numbers they conclude.
ReplyDeleteWas Hell created in the beginning or when angels fell?
@anon12:48
DeleteThe majority of theologians teach Hell was created after the fall of the rebellious angels and not before.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you Introibo! I just read part of Fr Faber's A Picture of Jesus. In it he says likely that the Incarnation made hell 7 times less hot. Do many theologians surmise that hell in Earth's core?
Delete@anon12:37
DeleteThe Church has defined nothing as to the location of Hell. The theologians unanimously teach it is a real place, but nothing is binding as to the location. There ia an impressive list of theologians who taught it was in "the lower parts of the Earth." Such names include St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, Suarez and Lessius. However, it is not settled but up for theological debate, so a Traditionalist Catholic is not bound to this teaching. There is nothing from theology or science that requires or makes impossible the idea that Hell is (or is not) in the lower parts of the Earth.
(See, e.g., theologian Sagues, "Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IVB" [1956], pg. 418).
God Bless,
---Introibo
Ok thank you very much!
DeleteDear Introibo and other readers
ReplyDeleteI found your website last week and enjoy the vast amount of info. I have only come back to the practice of the True Faith the last few months. I converted from the Methodist sect to the Faith with the SSPX. After a few months I started to see there were major problems with the said group. I discovered a sedevacantist mission and started to attend there. Within time I was treated very poorly by the priest and his double standards(i.e morals , money , etc) I left and basically gave the whole thing away. I was very shaken, hurt and sad. The priest said I was a troublemaker (to cover his double standards)Some years later I started to attend a so called conservative Novus Ordo parish. In the beginning things were okay as I was only going on weekdays. After attending on a S
Sunday for some months and joining several groups, it all started to come apart and deep down I knew I had to get out. I was starting to question things at the groups meetings and they basically told me to keep my mouth shut. They said you are so full of pride. Who do you think you are trying to be. From what I have read here and elsewhere you have to be very discerning where to attend Mass and which priests to trust. From by experience the last few years I now know that the sedevacantist position is the only true way. I would ask you all to please pray for me.
A.M
A.M.
DeleteWhat a great tale of heroic perseverance to find the truth on your part! How equally shameful for those Traditionalist clerics who treated you poorly. They will have mush for which to make an accounting before God in Judgement. Be assured of my prayers, and I ask all my readers to pray for you as well!
God Bless you, my friend in Christ,
---Introibo
Prayers for you A.M.
DeleteDon't let any bad cleric make you lose the Faith. Many will have much to answer for. God bless you our friend
The original commenter remarking that "Old Catholicism" makes sense appears to be ignorant of his sect's ecumenical outreach to the religion he simultaneously deplores as "the Vatican II pseudo-church": https://www.utrechter-union.org/en/2025/05/old-catholic-delegation-present-at-the-inauguration-of-pope-leo-xiv/
ReplyDelete@anon7:27
DeleteVery true! Thank you for the link.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Dear Anonymous at 7:27 PM,
DeleteVery telling, but hardly surprising:
Doesn't the original commenter realise that "Old Catholicism" = "New Protestantism"? It's as plain as the nose on your face!
Yours,
Leo
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteTo quote a passage from your article:
"Slavic Old Catholic Churches, mainly Polish, Croat, and Yugoslav, came into existence in America and elsewhere because of alleged discrimination by Anglo-Saxon bishops, but also because of clerical celibacy."
One is reminded of the tragic case where thousands of Slavic Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics went over to Heterodoxy ("Orthodoxy") because of the leading Americanist prelate, Archbishop John Ireland of Saint Paul, and his opposition to the Eastern Catholic Rites. Ironically, Abp. Ireland is known as "The Father of the Orthodox Church in America" in consequence. A frequent commenter at Novus Ordo Watch, Burning Eagle, had this to say about the matter, following the article "Introducing ‘Pope’ Leo XIV:
Who is Robert Francis Prevost?":
"IMO, Abp. John Ireland single-handedly was responsible for a large swath of Ruthenian Catholics re-joining the “Orthodox” churches.
He was a bigoted, ignorant monster.
He treated Father Toth, when Fr. Toth was Catholic (now a “saint” in the “Orthodox” church), like a criminal, and was very much the reason for his schism and his joining the Russian “Orthodox.”
After all the work of Catholics to return Eastern Schismatics to the true fold of Christ, after the Council of Florence, and the Union of Brest, Abp. John Ireland nearly ruined all of it. He was horrible."
If Slavic Catholics, of whatever Rite, went into schism, it wasn't because of "alleged discrimination by Anglo-Saxon bishops" as Hardon so infelicitously puts it. The discrimination was real, and the bishops in question were mostly Irish, not Anglo-Saxon, as per the "horrible" John Ireland.
Yours in the Holy Family,
Leo
Leo,
DeleteThank you for sharing this story.
God Bless,
---Introibo
A blessed new year to you Introibo and all readers of this fine blog.
ReplyDeleteWe were somewhat sad to read the story of A.M. Yes, please don't lose your trust in God and the true Faith.
On the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul, Leo XVI speaking on Christian unity stated WE ARE ALL ONE. Present were many "clerics" etc from different sects. Let that be known to every SSPX member and the deluded bishop Fellay that they are so far from reality. Do they still think that Leo XVI is going to support new SSPX bishops. Time they woke up along with these semi trads in the Novus Ordo. Leo XVI is paving the way for a one world church of the AntiChrist.
@anon2:35
DeleteIndeed, Prevost is bad news!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Is this correct that Montini (Paul VI) was a active sodomite?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 3:17 PM,
DeleteVarious people have claimed that Nope Paul 6 was that way inclined, but it has, to the best of my knowledge, not been proved. Of course Montini himself denied it. I think that the bogus pope was disordered in that respect, but that is just my opinion.
Leo
@anon3:17
DeleteThere is much evidence that Montini was a sodomite. I believe it is morally certain that he was committing acts against nature. I wrote a post on that very topic in 2016:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-queer-thing-happened.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
I have also read at TIA that Card Newman was sodomite who was buried with his lover. Many traditionalists seem to love and defend him but he always seemed to remain Protestant to me in what I read of him.
DeleteOn another note...does anyone know this priest named Tetherow?
Deletehttps://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2020/02/warning-fr-tetherow-is-back-at-an-independent-latin-mass-chapel/
I have come to know another priest who used to be associated with him who is now sede independent, Fr. Lefort. Some of his sermons are great and others he seems to still have one foot in NO. I have asked him in his video comments and he answers back vaguely or in a way that makes me not trust him.
He says Bp Macek conditionally ordained him in 2000 from Thuc line. His icon on YouTube is an unapproved image of Our Lady of America apparition. If anyone knows more about him, please advise. So many doubts about so many who SEEM good.
@anon4:12
DeleteCardinal Newman was defended by no less than Pope St. Pius X himself. See https://newmanreader.org/canonization/popes/acta10mar08.html
He was a true Catholic in both Faith and Morals. Unfortunately, we cannot call him "St." as Bergoglio had no power to "canonize" anyone.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon4:21
DeleteI have no knowledge of him. If any of my readers know him, please comment here.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Dear Anonymous at 4:12 PM,
DeleteFurther to Introibo's reply at 6:03 PM, the following website has several articles defending Cardinal Newman:
https://www.wmreview.org/
Leo
Oddly, read today somewhere that Paul6 sodomite lover was an actor named Paolo and that is why he chose name Paul. So gross!
DeleteHi Introibo
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of Old Catholics , do you have the book by Peter Anson called Bishops at Large printed back in 1964 ? It goes into much depth about the various groups including a large chapter of the succession of bishops from bishop Arnold Harris Matthews which bishop Daniel Q Brown descended from. Father Cekada wrote paper years ago about the Old Catholics . It contained much good info.
Great to read such amazing subjects. May you have a blessed and grace filled 2026
@anon4:29
DeleteI do have Anson's book; very informative! Thank you for your kind words, my friend. May God and His Blessed Mother watch over your family, friends, and you.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I always got the impression Jay Dyer was really effeminate. I don’t like labeling, but one video of him and a quick look at his thumbnails on the vast majority of his videos gave me this immediate impression.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention how many self proclaimed trads are pro Russian and pro Putin. Not that Zelenskyy is any better, given he is willing to sell his country out to the EU.
I think I see why “Orthodoxy” is growing, it’s a deception of anti-christ. It gives this impression of a conservative atmosphere and I agree a lot of the Slavic and Eastern European countries have a more moral conservative compass versus the west. But that to me is part of Satan’s deception as I said.
If I might make a suggestion to everyone here? Instead of praying five decade’s everyday… we should make an effort if not everyday more often to pray 15 decades of the rosary.
We need to keep our faith in these days of apostasy, and I think staying close to God and his Mother through the rosary is the answer.
The church will always be against the world, that’s why we should die to ourselves and conform our hearts to God.
Jeremy Van Auker
Jeremy,
DeleteAn excellent comment containing an excellent suggestion. For those who have time for the full 15 decade Rosary, it can only win you more graces!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteNot all so-called Old Catholic Churches
ordain women as "priests" and consecrate them as "bishops". The Polish National Catholic Church, for instance, does not, nor does that sect bless same-sex unions.
God bless you,
Leo
Leo,
DeleteTrue, but many do and ALL have serious problems having jettisoned belief in the papacy. They are ecumenists just like the sect, and have placed their orders in doubt.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Leo
ReplyDeleteWhat would you do in a situation that the above sad story of A.M. talks about a bad true priest ?
Dear Anonymous at 6:44 PM,
DeleteI wish you hadn't asked me that! Your question should have been directed to Introibo and the long-standing commenters, as I am rather new here and those others are for more knowledgeable and articulate than yours truly. Anyway, here goes.
I know, and know of, quite a few people who have lost the Faith or have had it severely tested because of scandalous priests. I have, by the grace of God, not been placed in that position because there are no priests anywhere near me whose Masses I can, in conscience, attend. The SSPX can be found not too far from where I live, but I don't want to have anything to do with them. Some years ago, they had a notoriously immoral priest in their ranks who corrupted the faith of some young boys. I don't want to dwell on this matter; suffice it to say, the SSPX handled it very poorly, to put it mildly.
Hypothetically, if I were going to a priest for Mass and Sacraments, and he turned out to be, to quote you, bad [but] true, then I would avoid him like the plague, and warn others about this monster. I think my late father would have handled the situation quite differently. I wouldn't be surprised if Dad approached the miscreant, demanded that he remove his collar, and then proceeded to knock him out cold! My father had great respect for the priesthood, by the way.
What would you do in such a situation?
In the Holy Family,
Leo
Sorry Leo for our question re a bad cleric. You seem to have a strong Faith and always make excellent comments. What you stated was very good. Perhaps others can give their thoughts. We are well aware of the former district superior of the SSPX abusing young boys. How very sad. Word came to us months ago about another bad cleric (sede) who as you put it a monaster. Folk exposed him. Fear for them on their judgement day. For a cleric to drive folk to despair and give the Faith away is beyond words. Thanks Leo
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 4:31 AM,
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome! However, my faith could be much stronger!!
The sad thing, to put it mildly, is that clerical abuse of boys (and girls) has been around for a very long time, and is not confined to the Novus Bogus clergy. The SSPX has been notorious in this regard. We know that some sedevacantist priests are no better. What is scandalous is how these matters are covered up to protect the reputation of the priesthood, with little regard for the victims whose faith is often destroyed. Good old Pope St. Pius V: he dealt with such matters very vigorously. No sweeping under the carpet for him! I won't tell you what he did to the offending priests, but I can tell you that they weren't merely transferred to another parish! Related to this topic, I refer you to the following horrible incident:
https://youtu.be/qiOUtYOwmH4?si=JPnHJ0y7pWcR9ghn .
In my earlier response, I forgot to mention that, in such a situation, after battling nausea, I would pray that the pervert priest meets his Maker in a state of grace.
God bless you,
Leo
Hello Leo
ReplyDeleteYou make outstanding thoughts on this difficult subject in regard to questions of Anonymous 4:31 AM .
Perhaps Introibo and TradWarrior could add their thoughts.
What about a bishop who does nothing when lay people express their grave concerns about a priest he ordained and his scandalous behaviour? How would you feel if you knew grave issues with solid evidence about a man and you and others addressed these to a bishop. He chose to ignore these concerns and goes ahead and ordained him. In canon law is this a very serious issue ?
Leo, you make a excellent point. How these matters are covered up to protect the reputation of the priesthood. Our Lord must not be happy. An old saying , judge the tree by it's fruit. It's a known fact that in the Trad world, news about a bad cleric travels fast.
God bless you
@anon2:01
DeletePriests who break the law must be reported and (God willing) given the harshest punishments under law.
Any Bishop who defends or enabled him, if not subject to legal penalty in the civil law, should be exposed for what he is and all people to shun him and his priests unless he resigns from active ministry and does penance for life in seclusion to try and save his miserable soul.
I have no sympathy for these Judas clerics,
God Bless,
---Introibo
Great to know. Even when still trapped in NO...I went to conservative priests I could find but then most approved of sodomy etc. So disgusting. But the anti sodomy priests still approved of novus disordo so never found and sound teaching, any peace or clarity. So many still trapped in that burning horror!
Delete@anon2:01pm,
DeleteI agree with Leo and Introibo. The job of a priest is to get souls to Heaven. When they cause scandal by their actions, it is a grave travesty. To have a bishop who does nothing to correct this problem, he stands in grave judgment by God Himself. To the one who has much, much more will be demanded of him. Many saints talk about how many priests and bishops are in hell for failing in their clerical duties. It is a frightening thought!
Pope Innocent III, in my opinion, was one of the greatest popes the Catholic Church had in Her history. Yet, it was reported (through private revelation) that he was burning in the flames of Purgatory for 3 specific faults that he committed during his life, and it took the prayers of St. Lutgarda to release him from his fiery prison. Many holy men and women throughout the ages had to undergo severe punishment in Purgatory for faults they committed in their lifetimes. Others were not so fortunate. They were damned to Hell for offenses that they committed. Bishops and priests are held to a much higher standard by God. They will be judged more severely.
This also reminds me of a story of a nun who Christ appeared to where He told her to choose 1 of 3 people that He would release from Purgatory. He would honor her request. 2 were religious and 1 was a secular (lay person). She could not choose and told Our Lord to make the choice. He told her that He would release the secular from Purgatory because the 2 religious had ample amount of time during their lifetimes to expiate the temporal punishment on their souls and they squandered those opportunities. For their punishment, they remained in the flames of Purgatory and the lay person was released and taken to Heaven by Our Lord.
-TradWarrior
Has anyone heard Bp Sanborn saying imperfect council is crazy? Some here have said good idea so just passing along. I think this Bishop confuses much on many levels especially the dreaded Thesis in which he constantly contradicts himself. I know priests who say same.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/live/VH6j8GOgwjw?si=TCwb65p55dwYpmQ5
Dear Anonymous at 3:19 PM,
DeleteOf course Bishop Sanborn would say that because he follows The Thesis rigorously. He is pinning his hopes on Nope Leo 14 or one of his successors converting and becoming a Pope just like that...and I can see a pig flying past my window as I type...
[The other] Leo
Sanborn should stop posting himself in YouTube. It's puffing him up with pride. He is a liability and should learn humility.
Delete@anon3:19pm,
DeleteBishop Sanborn stated in this video that he believes the position that Bishop Roy mentioned about having an imperfect council is crazy and absurd, as he put it. But if Prevost renounced his errors (according to the Thesis) and became Catholic, then he is automatically the pope. This sounds absurd. The Sede bishops (the true clergy left on Earth) cannot elect a pope, but a V2 heretic can renounce his errors and automatically become pope. Bishop Sanborn said the Sede clergy have no jurisdiction today and mentioned the mechanism to elect a pope is the cardinals. But if the cardinals go extinct, does this mean we will never again have a pope? According to Vatican I, the answer is “No”. There must always be a way to elect a pope. The dogma of Vatican I made it clear that Peter have successors, even though there may not be a successor at every given time. This interregnum has now carried on for decades. Why is it impossible to have a pope 68 years later, but not 1 year later in 1959, for example? It shouldn’t matter if the year is 1959, 2026, 2082, etc. Using the Hydrogen bomb example in the 1950’s and using our own situation today (where there are no more cardinals in both scenarios), should not matter. Vatican I made it clear that there would always be a way to have a pope, even if we do not know how that would come about. There is certainly mystery involved, but we cannot have contradiction, otherwise Vatican I was wrong and the Holy Ghost did not protect the Church, which is impossible. If we truly believe that Vatican I was protected from error, then there must always be a way to have another pope elected. This does not mean that we WILL have another pope. It just means that there must be a WAY to have another pope. The mechanism for one to come about must be there, as Vatican I stated.
Again, I go back to what I said recently in a previous post. Bishop Sanborn (for all the good he has done) would be the least likely to have a sit down with the other Sede bishops/priests to try and find a way to work things out. This goes beyond the potential election of a pope issue. This encompasses just trying to work out some of the differences with the different Sede camps and having a “friendly sit-down” with the fellow bishops. That would be a good starting point. This most likely will never happen.
I agree with Lee. Some Sede clergy have become too comfortable not having to answer to anyone for so long now. In a way, some of them act as if they were pope (though they would probably disagree with this) and if a true pope was elected, I agree with Lee, that not all of them would submit to him, sad as that would be.
-TradWarrior
"Vatican I made it clear that there would always be a way..." You are absolutely correct about that, TW. There IS a way !! And by the way, that way is NOT by means of the "Sanborn Thesis" or the "Roy Thesis". It's something different than both of these "Theses". The problem is of huge (= "biblical") proportions. 777333.
DeleteDear "777333" at 12:29 AM,
DeleteThe implication is that you know what the way is to obtain a Vicar of Christ, in keeping with the the teaching of the Vatican Council (1870). I, for one, am all ears to be apprised of the solution; in fact, I'm dying (well, not quite) to be made aware of the answer to a problem that has vexed Catholics for years. Over to you...and no riddles please.
In eager anticipation,
Leo
P.S. The Sanborn Thesis (= an amplification and permutation (?) of the Guerardian Thesis) is close to the true solution. The "Roy Thesis" won't work. But the Sanborn Thesis still has some shortcomings. The Bugnolo Theses (results), are simply bonkers. 777333.
DeleteDear "777333" at 3:13 PM,
DeleteSo the actual "true solution" is...? If it means that the Nope can become the Pope, at the click of a finger, by professing the Faith, I can't see it, but I'm known to be somewhat obtuse. (It is true that sedeprivationism in its present form is Sanbornian, rather than Guérardian.)
Still waiting...
Leo
I thought priests were executed by the Church who did these wicked deeds!?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 4:08 PM,
DeleteThat is precisely what St. Pius V did!
If only that could happen now!!
Leo
St. Pius V is buried in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. One wonders what he might now think about being entombed right next to the fag-friendly Bergoglio?!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:55 PM,
DeleteSo the glorious Pontiff is entombed next to the "fag-friendly" Nope...but are their souls in the same place?
Leo
Leo, Nope. Or, we can ASSUME that the answer is "No."
DeleteI thought about writing a future article on Introibo’s blog in defense of Pope Pius IX and how great of a pontiff he was. I was also going to dispel the ridiculous notion that he was a freemason. After reading this article, which referenced much of Mario Derksen’s previous writing defending Pope Pius IX against the ridiculous claims that he was a freemason, there is no need to write any further. Mario and Introibo handled this topic excellently (far better than I ever could).
ReplyDeleteI will repost a comment that I wrote last year on this blog that dealt with this very topic. I wrote:
***Pope Pius IX was one of the greatest popes in the history of the Catholic Church. He proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, he condemned modern errors most magnificently in his ‘Syllabus of Errors’, he was forced to flee Rome, he oversaw Vatican I in 1870 which defined papal infallibility, and so many more things. To claim that he was secretly a freemason, is a complete joke with no substantial evidence whatsoever. He condemned freemasonry in ‘Qui Pluribus’, ‘Quibus Quantisque Malis’, ‘Quanta Cura’/The Syllabus of Errors, ‘Multiplices Inter’, ‘Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi’, and ‘Esti multa’. He referred to freemasonry as “the synagogue of Satan”. He had to flee Rome in 1848 to the Castle of Gaeta, disguised as a simplex priest, as the freemasons sought his life. During this attack on the Quirinal Palace, his prime minister was stabbed to death and his papal primate was shot through a window. He barely escaped in time while in disguise. His funeral cortege was attacked by freemasons, who attempted to throw his coffin into the Tiber River. It’s pretty clear that this man was not a freemason. They would not act like this towards one of their own. Pope Pius IX was an amazing pope who did so many wonderful things in his nearly 32 year reign.***
I could also add that Our Lady of Good Success at Quito foretold of Pope Pius IX and what he would do when she prophesied about his life over 200 years in advance on December 8, 1634 (the future Feast of the Immaculate Conception). She foretold of a pope who would declare Her Immaculate Conception a dogma of the faith, who would proclaim the dogma of papal infallibility, and who would be persecuted and imprisoned in the Vatican. This all came to fruition in the 19th century. She also foretold of the masonic infiltration in the church and world, long before the masonic infiltration had taken place.
CONTINUED…The R & R’s reject the one, true position of Sedevacantism, so naturally they are desperate to try and explain how this “house of cards” can all stand together. They have to claim that a pope can be a heretic, an onymoron, and a ridiculous position that contradicts divine revelation on the papacy. Who cares what Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta all say. When you have men like Michael Matt, Taylor Marshall, and Peter Kwasniewski, what more do you need! And if these men disagree with each other, then just pick and choose (like a Protestant) which one you agree with and go with that. After all, they pick and choose whatever they want to believe all the time. Objective Truth is something they could care less about. If one disagrees with Matt in favor of Marshall, why should Matt get upset? He does the same thing all the time, with his R & R position of making up the rules as he goes along.
ReplyDeleteIt’s like a chess player that is losing a game. The checkmate is inevitable because he is on the losing side. So rather than follow the rules that the game supplies, he just makes up his own rules until he wins (in his extremely warped mind). The pawns move backwards, the knights move 1 move horizontally and 3 moves vertically, the bishops move horizontally and vertically, the rooks move diagonally, the queen can only move 1 space in any direction, and the king moves anywhere and how every many squares it wants to in 1 move. The rulebook is thrown out. This is how R & R’s play the game.
Why do we reject the last 7 pretenders in white since 1958? It is because we believe in the papacy. R & R’s should try it sometime. God made the rules. We abide by them. Case closed.
-TradWarrior
Dear TradWarrior,
DeleteThree excellent pieces from your pen! You encapsulated the Catholic (sedevacantist - both are synonymous) position well, as it is the only one compatible with the Church's teaching. We are the staunchest defenders and upholders of the Divinely-instituted Papacy.
Pope Pius IX was indeed one of the greatest Vicars of Christ. I refer to him as "Pope Pius the Great" and (privately) hold him to be in Heaven. Not many Catholics seem to be aware that God worked miracles through him when alive, and after his death. May I be permitted to conclude thus:
Pope Pius IX, pray for us.
Leo
Awesome post Trad Warrior! I have been out of the loop for a while so I would like to take a moment to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and happy new year and to anyone who complimented me on my article and offered prayers for me.
DeleteJohn,
DeleteSo glad you're back! Continued prayers for your health and you family; and I ask my readers to do the same!
God Bless you, my friend,
---Introibo
Hi Leo,
DeleteThank you for the kind words. I had a few typos in what I wrote due to sheer tiredness, but otherwise the writing was good. Yes I agree with you that Pope Pius IX is in Heaven. That is just my own personal belief. He was one of the greatest popes the church had.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
John Gregory,
DeleteThank you for the kind words. I hope that you are feeling better. I am keeping you in prayer!
God Bless,
-TradWarrior
Introibo
ReplyDeleteWell said. Your comment - I have no sympathy for judas clerics.
It's a pity you were not involved in our former sede mission where we had been exposed to such a cleric. As a lawyer you would of known what to do.
A different note , what is your thoughts on country and western music?
@anon11:01
DeleteI hope you are familiar with my series “Singing For Satan” which ran the first Monday of every month from August 2017-August 2019. With all music you must “learn to discern.” Is the music uplifting? Does it promote evil?
Most country and western music promotes alcohol, adultery, and other sinful things. There are few exceptions. The only one that comes to mind is Charlie Daniels who was a devout Protestant with a decent moral compass compared to the rest. His song “The Devil Went Down to Georgia” is a good one. He removed the only vulgarity in it as well. The song tells the tale of a young fiddle player named Johnny who is challenged by Satan to a fiddle-playing contest to see who’s best. If Johnny wins, Satan will give him a fiddle make of pure gold. If Satan wins, he gets Johnny’s soul.
Johnny wins the contest and tells Satan, “I told you once, you son of a bi**h, I’m the best there’s ever been.” Daniels thought the vulgarity was warranted because it referred to the Devil. However, he re-thought his position and changed it to “son of a gun.”
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Samson Chronicles (18A) "Vatican One"
ReplyDeleteJan. 31 = Feast of St. John Bosco
https://franciscan-archive.org/bosco/opera/boscofr.html
It is rather ironic that we see the name of Alexis Bugnolo on the top of that webpage. Three St. John Bosco prophecies are noted therein, only the first of which I will comment upon here. In my opinion, the best title to give that first prophecy is: "Vatican Two as viewed in light of Vatican One". Allusions are made to three or four (!) genuine popes, in that first prophecy! That prophecy is jam-packed with sentences that have clever double meanings! [To be continued] God Bless. 777333.