I don't get to comment in the depth I would like to recently, with my life being extraordinarily busy as of late. I learn from my readers and love reading their comments. Recently there have been comments about the truth of approved apparitions (e.g., Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Fatima) and other private revelations. The purpose of my post this week is three-fold: (1) give some general principles to apply; (2) apply said principles to approved and unapproved private revelations; (3) demonstrate that private revelations must not replace Church teaching or be given undue emphasis. I have dubbed those who exalt private revelations to the detriment of the Faith as "Apparitionists."
(N.B. I have used numerous online and print resources in the making of this post. Of special note: Foley, Understanding Medjugorje: Heavenly Visions or Religious Illusion? (2006), Laurentin & Ljudevit, Is the Virgin Mary Appearing at Medjugorje (1988), and The Mystery of Garabandal [2015] by L.R. Walker. ---Introibo).
In this age of the Great Apostasy, many Traditionalists will (unfortunately) abandon the approved theologians of the Church for private revelations. It is imperative that we learn the Faith, and not what passes for the "Faith" in some quarters. Certain people don't even understand basic terminology. "Public" and "private" revelation do not refer to how many people the revelation was given, but rather whether or not it is part of the Deposit of Faith to which we must assent. The Deposit of Faith, given by Jesus Christ to His One True Church, ended with the death of the last Apostle (St. John) in 100 A.D. That marks the end of public revelation. The Church has authority to make solemn pronouncements on what is contained in this revelation, and the faithful must give assent under pain of mortal sin and expulsion from the Mystical Body by heresy (e.g. It is part of the Deposit of Faith that Christ gave exactly seven (7) sacraments to His Church).
Private revelation is given by God after the close of public revelation to certain individuals (usually saints or people considered to be such). If a private revelation is approved by the Church, it means that it does not contradict matters of Faith and/or morals. It is worthy of belief, but you can deny it outright and not be a heretic. You also commit no sin of disbelief, provided your lack of faith in a particular approved revelation does not stem from disdain of ecclesiastical authority.
Private revelation is given by God after the close of public revelation to certain individuals (usually saints or people considered to be such). If a private revelation is approved by the Church, it means that it does not contradict matters of Faith and/or morals. It is worthy of belief, but you can deny it outright and not be a heretic. You also commit no sin of disbelief, provided your lack of faith in a particular approved revelation does not stem from disdain of ecclesiastical authority.
This does not mean that private revelations are "useless." Obviously, if the Church approves something as worthy of belief, we can believe it without fear of sinning against faith or morals. God communicates to us for a reason. However, I refuse to get drawn into arguments over what a particular apparition or a particular revelation "really means." Moreover, it is by studying the approved theologians that we can learn the One True Faith and make our Catholic way the best we can through these most difficult times. To be certain, I believe in approved apparitions without making them the focus point of faith. I have devotion to Our Lady of Hope and Our Lady of Fatima. I wear the Five-fold Scapular, pray the Rosary daily, insert the "Fatima Prayer" at the end of each Rosary decade, have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and try to attend Mass every First Saturday of the month. These are great Catholic devotions all Traditionalists should try to maintain. I do not view "Consecrating Russia" as some panacea to the Great Apostasy. Nor will I quibble over specific sayings Our Lady is supposed to have said.
While non-approved revelations should be avoided like the plague, even those which are approved can be misunderstood or have the message corrupted since Church approval does not entail any kind of infallible (or even authoritative) teaching. An example is the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. The late "Fr" Gruner made a business out of peddling dire predictions for the world. I have material of his dating back to the late 1980s claiming "we only have a couple of years left" unless the "pope" (John Paul II) consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That never happened and more than 20 years have passed since Wojtyla went to Judgement without any calamity taking place. Of course this never prevented Mr. Gruner from asking for the largest donation you could give as he shamelessly continued to predict the sky would fall "very shortly."
According to another prediction of Fatima, "Portugal will never lose the Faith." One need only take a look at the present day European country to see that it has rejected the Faith for Vatican II, and has promulgated many evil "laws" such as murdering babies by abortion. There are no more Traditionalists there (in sheer number or proportionately) than in any other neo-pagan State. I do believe Our Lady appeared in Fatima to three children, but I refuse to try and discern "true" from "false" messages, or listen to all the conspiracy theories involved. Holding on to the Faith will save us, not private revelations--especially ones laced with fearful consequences for those who refuse to propagate those messages.
According to another prediction of Fatima, "Portugal will never lose the Faith." One need only take a look at the present day European country to see that it has rejected the Faith for Vatican II, and has promulgated many evil "laws" such as murdering babies by abortion. There are no more Traditionalists there (in sheer number or proportionately) than in any other neo-pagan State. I do believe Our Lady appeared in Fatima to three children, but I refuse to try and discern "true" from "false" messages, or listen to all the conspiracy theories involved. Holding on to the Faith will save us, not private revelations--especially ones laced with fearful consequences for those who refuse to propagate those messages.
Some General Principles About Private Revelations
As explained by theologian Volksen in detail, and reproduced by me in outline form, some of the pertinent criteria in discerning private revelations are:
1. Every revelation must be rejected a priori if its context is opposed to Church teaching. In places where the Scripture speaks most explicitly of the discernment of spirits and where it urges Christians to "try the spirits if they be of God," it gives only one criterion which is of a doctrinal nature. "By this the spirit of God is known: every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God." (1 John 4: 2-3). That must be understood as teaching that every private revelation which does not confess Christ as God, and in anyway derogates ("dissolveth") Him by rejecting the teaching of His One True Church, is not of God and must be rejected.
2. A medical examination of all seers should be had to determine physical and psychological soundness. If the seers are healthy in mind and body, this constitutes support for a favorable judgement. If it can be established that the seer(s) showed all the symptoms of hysteria or other mental illness when receiving the revelations, a favorable judgement cannot be reached.
3. The seers should have deep humility (not seeking self-glorification), be obedient to proper ecclesiastical authority, and have fortitude. Fortitude is necessary, as the seer(s) will be pressured to recant and in many cases persecuted/threatened (e.g., St. Bernadette and the three children of Fatima). While they need not be saints, they should display innocence and piety.
4. The revelations must be of a serious nature and not frivolous or overly concerned with mundane things.
5. Any indication of natural explanations and/or fraud must be ruled out to allow for a supernatural character.
(See Visions, Revelations, and the Church [1961] by theologian Volken).
N.B. While an approved private revelation may be disbelieved, it is not contrary to Faith and Morals, and may not be attributed to demonic activities or Satanic origin.
If there is a true pope, when he approves an apparition as "worthy of belief," we cannot declare it the work of Satan. You can choose not to believe at all, but that's foolish. The pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from giving error and evil to the Church. Error and evil is all the devil works for, so that nothing that comes from the devil can ever have papal approval; the Holy Ghost would prohibit it.
The Meaning and Role of Private Revelations
Definition of Private Revelation and Its Usefulness
According to theologian Volken, a private revelations are heavenly and verbal manifestations of the Divine Will made to man in an extraordinary way in order to direct human activity in a particular situation of life of private persons or of humanity in general. Theologian Volken goes on to explain what this definition means in detail. Heavenly refers to the agent(s) which must be either an intermediary of God such as angels, saints, the Blessed Mother, or God Himself, as was the case with Christ's revelations regarding His Most Sacred Heart.
Verbal manifestations means that it cannot be purely visual; something audible either to the human ear or directly to the brain must be heard. Divine Will designates the object of the revelations. The subject of the revelation is Man whether that is a singular person, several people, children, adults, clerics, laymen, etc. The manifestation is made in an extraordinary way to the recipient, not through the Magisterium. Direct human activity in a particular situation of life means that God intervenes to help either a private person(s) or humanity in general to do something beneficial to eternal salvation given the current situation in the world. Hence, Christ sent His Mother to the children at Fatima to warn humanity about the reality of Hell (the belief in which had begun to wane substantially) and introduce devotion to Mary's Immaculate Heart as a special spiritual remedy. (See Visions, Revelations, and the Church [1961], pgs. 231-233).
Volken reminds us that private revelations "cannot commit the Church or the Divine and Catholic Faith which has for its object the unaltered mysteries, revealed once for all time." (Ibid, pgs. 232-233). In other words, they are not part of the Deposit of Faith, and no private revelation, including those deemed "worthy of belief" by the Church, need to be accepted by Catholics.
How Private Revelations are Abused
Volken hits the nail on the head, I believe, as to why Catholics become obsessive over private revelations. The more precious a good thing is, the more dangerous is its abuse. And revelations are a very precious things for they help us to conform our lives to the plan which God has for us in a particular situation. They are equally precious because of the way in which they act upon men. They come as a surprise and engage Man's feelings and his attention in such a way that they are effective in cases where other methods would not be.
It is chiefly here that abuses creep in. Normally speaking, Man loves change (varietas delectat). He flees from the boredom that comes from the monotony of the actions of ordinary life. He feels the need for some new experience, some event, some sensation. In the spiritual life especially, in those periods of dryness when it becomes necessary to live by pure faith, the danger of abusing revelations is great. There are Christians who have an irresistible need to feel, to see, if possible, something staggering. (Ibid, pgs. 257-258; Emphasis in original). This love of change and drive to experience something unique often will cause people to believe anyone who claims to have a private revelation, and it makes it equally interesting for them to try and "discern the true meanings" of approved private revelations, e.g., what did the Blessed Mother really mean when she said Portugal will always keep the Faith during her appearance at Fatima, etc.
Another lure of private revelations is the idea of "get holy fast" spirituality that is wrongly attributed to devotions that emanate from such revelations. As I stated above, I believe in the apparitions at Fatima. I wear the Five-Fold Scapular, have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray the Rosary daily (adding the Fatima prayer at the end of each decade), and attend the First Saturday Mass whenever I can. These devotions are meant to be things that will bring us closer to God and His Mother, and I recommend them all to Traditionalists. However, there are those who treat these devotions incorrectly and in a superstitious manner. Some think that as long as they wear the Scapular and go to the Five First Saturdays, they can live like heathens, commit mortal sin with impunity, and they will go to Heaven because they have turned the devotion into some "license to sin."
Principles Applied to False Private Revelations
Garabandal. An alleged apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to four young girls from 1961-1965. The girls were Mari Loli Mazon (b. 1949 – d. 2009), Jacinta Gonzalez (b.1949), Mari Cruz Gonzalez (b.1950) and Maria "Conchita" Concepción Gonzalez (b.1949).
The main message from "Mary" was this:
We must make many sacrifices, perform much penance, and visit the Blessed Sacrament frequently. But first, we must lead good lives. If we do not, a chastisement will befall us. The cup is already filling up, and if we do not change, a very great chastisement will come upon us.
There are predicted three great events that will befall humanity:
- The Great Warning, when all living people will see their sins, as if reflected in a mirror, and will understand what they must do to repent
- The Great Miracle, which will take place within one year of the Great Warning. It will leave a permanent sign in Garabandal, which can be seen and photographed, but not touched or explained by science
- The Great Chastisement, which is something horrible that will befall the world if humanity does not properly respond to the Warning and Miracle.
Nothing overtly heretical, but upon examination, much is wrong with both the events that surrounded said messages, and the so-called "seers" themselves.
Disturbing Events:
- When they went into "ecstasy" and had visions, they were bent over backwards and walked that way so quickly, many of the villagers had a hard time keeping up by running forwards.
- The “Virgin” asked that the girls not bring blessed sacramentals [rosaries, crucifixes, etc.], because she wanted to bless these objects herself. The vision is reported to have blessed and kissed hundreds of objects, such as pebbles, which were treated as "sacramentals." This is troubling for two reasons: first, because only blessed sacramentals affect the devil and fallen angels; second, the Blessed Virgin Mary is not a priest and therefore she cannot confer a priestly blessing--especially upon mundane objects like pebbles.
- At the death of Roncalli (John XXIII), many people wished the Council to end. Conchita said that she knew that the next "pope" would continue the Council, and she was happy about it.
- Conchita reportedly said the Blessed Mother "played hide and seek" with her.
- All four children signed a document with the Vatican II bishop agreeing with the findings of the Vatican II sect and promising never to promote the apparitions again. Does that sound like something real seers would do? The children at Fatima refused to retract what they had seen and heard even when an evil man threatened to kill them unless they did so. The girls at Garabandal later retracted their retraction.
- Two of the seers, Mari-Loli and Jacinta went into the woods on the edge of town. They went into ecstasy on their knees and they shouted to "Mary," --"Don't tell us these things!" They then screamed all night in such a terrifying manner that the whole village was up and afraid to approach them. The other two seers remained in the village. This went on the following night. Consider this: What could be more frightening than seeing Hell? Yet when the three children at Fatima were shown Hell by the Blessed Mother, there was no screaming. And why would the Blessed Mother inflict such fear for two whole nights? I can only imagine how frightening seeing little girls bent backwards in the woods at night screaming at the sky with unearthly sounds for hours must be.
- The Garabandal messages acknowledge the validity of Vatican II, the false religion it created, and its false popes.
Serious Problems with the "Seers:"
- The apparitions began when the girls were committing mortal sin by stealing apples
- The children would often open their mouths and stick out their tongues while St. Michael the Archangel would give them "invisible Holy Communion." To end the incredulity of some, Conchita claimed God would prove this was true. On July 18, 1962, during a nighttime ecstasy, there is film footage of what appears to be a Communion Host appearing on Conchita's tongue which she then consumes. Conchita reportedly admitted to Father J. Pelletier that she herself had stolen the Host from the tabernacle of the Church and placed It on the roof of her mouth, letting It drop down on her tongue for the so-called "mystical Communion."
- In 1966 Conchita wanted to enter the Carmelite Convent in Pamplona. "Jesus" told her to go back to the world (!)
- Two of the "seers" admitted to hiding a statue of the Blessed Mother in the woods so they could claim Mary told them where to go and find it. They did this (allegedly) because they were jealous that "Mary" talked to Conchita the most.
- Where are the seers today? Mari Loli Mazon came to the United States and lived in New Hampshire until her death in 2009, just before turning 60 years old. Jacinta González became Jacinta Moynihan and lives with her husband and daughter in California. Mari Cruz González lives in Aviles, Spain with her husband and four children. Conchita made a museum of her house in Garabandal. She has since sold that house and owns a house in New York with her husband and a flat in Fatima as well. Compare that with St. Bernadette in Lourdes. Conchita (like the others) all attend the Vatican II sect. Sadly, Conchita lives within an hour of the SSPV, SSPX, and Fr. DePauw's Ave Maria Chapel, none of which she will attend, because she fully accepts Vatican II.
Medjugorje. The alleged apparitions began on June 24, 1981 in the small town of Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The "seers" were four boys and two girls; to wit: Mirjana Dragicevic, Marija Pavlovic, Vicka Ivankovic, Ivan Dragicevic, Ivanka Ivankovic and Jakov Colo. Three were born in 1965, one in 1964, one in 1966, and one in 1971. According to the official website medjugorje.org: The BVM has come there "In Her own words She tells us, 'I have come to tell the world that God exists. He is the fullness of life, and to enjoy this fullness and peace, you must return to God'"
Problems with the "Gospa" ("Our Lady") and the Messages
- Ivan claimed that the hands of the Gospa "trembled." This is clearly out of character for the serene Queen of Heaven, and she was not making a point about something; e.g., how people will tremble with horror for their sins, etc. That was simply how he perceived her.
- The Gospa said nothing at the beginning of her appearances. Then she would merely answer questions from the visionaries. This is a complete departure from all approved apparitions whereby Mary had a mission and was never there for a "question and answer" session.
- The visionaries claimed to be able to "kiss and touch" the Gospa, while she "laughed." In approved apparitions, Mary has occasionally been said to smile, but not laugh, nor was she "kissed and touched." (reminiscent of Garabandal above where the phony seers said Mary "played hide and go seek.")
- It is asserted that one of the visionaries sprinkled the Gospa with Holy Water to make sure she wasn't a demon in disguise. Later, Vicka claimed it was only ordinary water but "contained some blessed salt."
- Unlike all approved apparitions, the Gospa of Medjugorje appeared only gradually out of some orbs of light (sometimes a "blue mist"), as if she were composed of it. By contrast, in approved apparitions, Mary appears immediately with any light being totally distinct from her.
- The Gospa would "bless" the religious objects from pilgrims (as the visionaries collected donations), and impart to the six a "special grace" they could then give unto others. Only priests can bless religious objects, and Mary is not a priest. Imparting "special grace" (whatever that means) to have the six visionaries impose hands and pass it on sounds like an imitation sacrament from ersatz "priests" and "priestesses"
- The Gospa would "burst into spontaneous laughter"
- The Gospa would recite the Our Father with the visionaries. This is heretical and blasphemous to suggest. How could Mary ask God to "forgive us our trespasses" when she is without stain of sin?
- Why is it taking more than 40 years--with no end in sight--for the Gospa to reveal her message to the world? Mary always gave a message in a short time in all approved apparitions. Whereas Fatima had three secrets given in less than a year, the Gospa has sixty (60) to give, and most of the content is virtually unknown to this day.
No Saintly Seers Here
- Unlike the seers of approved apparitions, the visions began with disobedient and sinful teenagers. Only one (Jakov Colo) was a true child at the time, being ten years of age. The average age of an approved seer is eleven, and those who were older led virtuous lives like St. Catherine Laboure, who was a holy nun of 24 when the Immaculate Virgin started appearing to her. These false "visionaries" (as they called themselves) were materialistic, disinterested in religion, and corrupted by the influences of the world in the 1980s
- The first vision was allegedly seen by Mirjana (age 16) and Ivanka (age 17) when they saw a light which Ivanka claimed to be the Gospa. What were these two young teenage girls doing prior to this event? They had each stolen cigarettes from their father and went to smoke and listen to evil rock music. (Similar to the false apparition of Garabandal where the seers had stolen apples prior to the first "vision")
- It was claimed, on reliable testimony, that Mirjana both used drugs and gave them to others
- The visionaries were caught in numerous discrepancies ("lies") about various aspects of their experiences. They also claimed they were oblivious to anything when in "ecstasy" watching the Gospa
- When in an "ecstasy" staring at the ceiling of the church where the Gospa was present (1985), a pilgrim named Jean-Louis Martin, was able to get near and went close to Vicka's eye with his finger as if to poke her. She jerked her head back and ran out of the room. She came back to explain that it wasn't the finger of Martin that made her move her head and run away, it was the impression she got that the Gospa was about to drop the Infant Jesus she was holding. God can't "fall," and Mary can't "drop the Divine Child." The very idea is manifestly absurd. In addition, none of the other visionaries thought this was happening. The discrepancy was never explained. Their "spiritual director" had the "apparition room" of the church closed to the public after that day
- Threats: Ivan said in a letter to the Vatican II sect "bishop" who was refusing to approve the apparitions, that the Gospa demanded his "immediate conversion" and that he should stop emphasizing the "negative side" of Medjugorje (how could a visitation of Mary have anything "negative"?), otherwise she and her Son would punish him.
- Vicka had frequent headaches and blackouts. In the opinion of the medical authorities who examined her, it was the result of an "hysterical stupor" and a psychologically unhealthy need of attention. Not only was she deemed psychologically unstable, she was ignorant of basic religious truths, such as the significance of the Annunciation. Yet we are to believe Mary appeared to her on a daily basis.
- When their "spiritual director," the invalidly ordained "Fr." Vlasic, wanted to start a "mixed-sex religious community" in 1987, Mirija said the Gospa approved of such an abomination. The V2 priest started it with a woman named Agnes Heupel. When the Vatican II sect "bishop" ordered it closed, Marija retracted her statement in a writing in which she stated, "My first statement (about approval from the Gospa)...does not correspond to the truth" (Letter of July 11, 1988; Emphasis mine). Her change of heart might be explained by the fact that Vlasic and Heupel shared a room together which was locked at night. It is rumored that Mirija caught the couple having sex and didn't want the Medjugorje events damaged by such a revelation. Hence, her prior and clearly articulated approval (which came from Mary) was somehow "misunderstood" and not a lie
- Unlike the seers of approved apparitions, none of the six visionaries became nuns, priests, or brothers. They were worldly and made huge sums of money off those with a dangerous desire for the miraculous. All kinds of "relics," religious articles, books, and even tours of Medjugorje made them opulent. The promoters of Medjugorje stated on the official website, "I know Marija, Vicka, and Ivan all seriously considered a religious vocation, but after much prayer, they discerned that their vocation was married life. We should not consider the decision to be parents and to bring life into the world a less important or holy vocation than a religious vocation." (Emphasis mine) Compare the infallible decree of Trent: On Matrimony: CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema. It was also stated on the official website: "Ivanka was the first to decide that her calling was married life, and asked for Our Lady's blessing. Our Lady joyfully gave Ivanka her blessing, and added that she had chosen the harder path for her life." (Emphasis mine).
- Today, the visionaries live in mansions with double garages and security gates, and one even has a private tennis court. They drive fancy cars (BMWs) go on frequent and expensive foreign trips, and all have married. Ivan married a former Miss Massachusetts, Loreen Murphy, a beauty queen who dresses immodestly. He is obese (so much for frequent fasting); and this, by the way, is "the harder path for [their] life."
Principles Applied to an Approved Private Revelation
Fatima. Lucia dos Santos, Jacinta and Francisco Marto were the three young Portuguese shepherds Our Lady of Fatima appeared to in 1917. Our Lady emphasized prayer, penance, the Rosary, Scapular, and the devotion of the First Five Saturdays. There was nothing contrary to Faith or Morals.
There were no problems with the messages or seers, all three of whom gave evidence of great sanctity. Both Francisco and Jacinta predicted their early deaths. They accepted much suffering and an early death to make sacrifices for sinners and to appease God. Lucia became a very holy nun.
You need not believe in Fatima, but there is great evidence that something supernatural happened, and it was given papal approval in 1940 by Pope Pius XII. There are those who attack it as "of the devil" which is blasphemous and impossible, since the Holy Ghost would protect the Holy Father from approving as "worthy of belief" anything that comes from Hell. To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church--i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members. If, ad arguendo, the apparition at Fatima didn't happen, it didn't produce anything contrary to Faith and Morals. Yet, it if came from Satan, there would have to be things contrary to Faith and/or morals, because the adversary of mankind does not do anything for our benefit.
One of the most disturbing and reprehensible attacks I've heard was that occultists predicted the apparitions at Fatima. A commenter repeated that contention in a recent post (he claimed he heard about it, not that he claimed it was true). The source of the occult claim originates with a blasphemous article entitled "Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima?" (See https://www.cogwriter.com/FatimaShock2Chapters.pdf).
The source of the article is the website cogwriter.com, by Dr. Bob Thiel. Thiel was originally part of the "Worldwide Church of God"(WCG) sect, run by Herbert W. Armstrong (d. 1986). "Armstrongism" was an eclectic mix of mainline Protestantism and Seventh Day Adventist teachings, along with what Armstrong himself would say as the self-declared "Prophet of God on Earth." WCG teachings included the necessity of observing Mosaic dietary laws to be saved, denial of the Most Holy Trinity, avoidance of doctors and medicine, observing Saturday as the Sabbath, and denial of divorce (of course, when Armstrong wanted a divorce, that teaching changed, and he also went to doctors and took medicine while prohibiting his followers from doing it, living to the age of 93).
After Armstrong's death, many new sects came from dissatisfaction among his high-ranking members, one such being the aforementioned Bob Thiel. Thiel founded the "Continuing Church of God" or "CCG." His sect rejects the Holy Ghost as God, and has many strange teachings similar to Armstrong.
(See ccog.org/statement-of-beliefs-of-the-continuing-church-of-god/).
The article, Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima? (hereinafter WPATF), doesn't list an author. It appears to be a chapter of a book, but I could not locate it. The fact that it appears on a website run by Thiel means either (a) he is the author, or (b) he approves the content as it is on his site. He appears to be the author since you will find a short bio and picture of him on the last page. There is no mention of his religious affiliation. I knew something was off prior to finding out this information. For example, the article claims that the apparition could not be "the Mary of the Bible." Also used to describe her are the phrases "Mother of Jesus," and once "Mother of Christ" but never the Mother of GOD, Our Blessed Mother, and other distinct Catholic titles. The article informs us:
Learning the truth about the shocking messages of Fatima could save you and your loved ones from making horrible mistakes.
What, exactly, would those "mistakes" be? Praying the Rosary? Wearing the Scapular? Making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? It never tells us, but wants us to believe Our Lady of Fatima was a demonic deception.
WPATF states:
A group of occult psychics in Portu, Portugal claimed that “something transcendental” would occur on May 13,1917. And this was published in the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Notícias. There was another prediction claimed to have been written on February 7, 1917 in Furtado de Mendonça, Portugal by way of “automatic writing” that moved the psychic’s hand and wrote the following backwards (and in Portuguese):
The day of May 13th will be one of great happiness for the good souls of the world…Always at your side shall ye have your friends, who will guide your steps and who will assist ye in your
work…The brilliant light of the Morning Star will illuminate the path.
~ Stella Matutina
So the above occult prophecy claimed that a lightbringer would illuminate a path on May 13, 1917. Stella is Latin for star. Matutina is associated with the morning. It may be relevant to note that the name Lucifer means lightbringer, and he is associated in sacred scripture with both the morning and stars (Isaiah 14:12-13), as well as becoming known as Satan the devil (Revelation 12:9). Although Jesus is also called the “Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16), using the type of automatic backward writing to reveal His mother does not seem to be biblically appropriate (cf. Isaiah 8:19-20), hence it should not be concluded that this Stella Matutina was Jesus. (See WPATF, pg. 33).
What is the source of this information? I referenced the book in the endnotes, Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident (2007) by Joaquim Fernandes and Fina D'Armada. The authors believe that Our Lady was actually an alien sent by a UFO. There is a trio of books (this one and two others) attempting to prove this whacky thesis. Moreover, the books are promoted by Andrew D. Basiago, a "UFOlogist." Besides an attempted run for President of the U.S. in 2016, Basiago claims he:
- Can teleport himself through time and space
- Has made contact with Bigfoot
- Went to Mars in 1981 and converses with Martians who live there
These are the people we are supposed to believe over Church authority regarding Fatima. The trilogy is itself occult (talking to "beings from other worlds"--more than likely demons if not delusions of mental illness) and used by Thiel to make Fatima look "demonic." Moreover, occultists will often use the superior knowledge of demons to make something true appear false and vice-versa--if such an occult prediction even happened. No less than 20 of Thiel's 96 endnotes reference this occult book.
The only thing "occult" about Fatima is that occultists have attacked it.
Conclusion
The scandals that can come from distorting the importance of private revelations should be manifest. First are those who exalt private revelations/apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of Lourdes) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses or Garabandal) over the teaching of the Church. It should be painfully apparent how placing these apparitions over doctrine will inevitably lead people into error (usually by being trapped in the falsehood of the Vatican II sect). People also fail to learn the Faith because they want to know the "true meaning" of the "Third Secret," or how some alleged saying of the Blessed Mother squares with the Bible.
Second, there are those claiming that approved revelations/apparitions are the work of the devil. If there is a true pope, when he approves an apparition as "worthy of belief," we cannot declare it the work of Satan. You can choose not to believe at all, but that's foolish. The pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from giving error and evil to the Church. Error and evil is all the devil works for, so that nothing that comes from the devil can ever have papal approval; the Holy Ghost would prohibit it.
In my opinion, private revelations should be seen as helps to get to Heaven. Take away the good general message, e.g., praying the Rosary, wearing the Scapular, making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary through the first Five Saturdays devotion, etc. Don't worry about "the true meaning" of such and such that the Blessed Mother was supposed to have said. On the other hand, don't give scandal by declaring an approved apparition as "evil" or "of the devil" and tacitly deny the Indefectibility of the Church. Spend your time on Earth wisely by learning and practicing the Faith. In this time of Great Apostasy, with no pope to guide us, private revelations can be very dangerous.

Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeletePlease help me refute this article by Eastern Schismatics regarding Traditionalists. I have been tempted to go Eastern Schismatic for at least two years. http://orthochristian.com/105123.html
Ryan,
DeleteThe article critiques R&R theology, not Catholic theology. As to the Filioque, see Lee's guest post:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/10/filioque-error-of-eastern-schismatics.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
What is a prayer blanket? Where does it come from?
ReplyDelete@anon7:21
DeleteThe modern "prayer cloth" or "prayer blanket" originated in 1997 with two Protestant women in the U.S. It has its origin in the Jewish tallit, and (allegedly) the hem of Jesus' garment that cured a woman who touched it as recorded in the Gospel.
The Vatican II sect has some parishes that use/sell them, but it has no official recognition by the Modernist Vatican. Some Protestants sell them for considerable money by ascribing supernatural power to it (ironically what they claim Catholics do with statues, etc.)
Some turn it into a real superstition and tell people to sleep with it under the pillow and put it over the Bible for special favors. My advice: stay away.
God Bless,
---Introibo
This may be off topic, Introibo, but I am wondering what are your thoughts and those of your readers about the Biblical series "The Chosen"?
ReplyDelete@anon8:00
DeleteI have not watched it. I don't have time for TV which is probably a good thing! If any of my readers know this show, please comment here.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I know The Chosen and my overall assessment of the show is negative.
Delete"Jesus" behaves like a clownish politician. From making farting noises to make children laugh, to saying "funny" quips like "There are some things that even I cannot do", the show treats Jesus with little consideration.
The "Apostles" are childish and cringe. The parable of the Evil Vine keepers is told by them in the style of a Primary school play, and often crimes and sins are attributed to them that are not mentioned in Scripture. The treatment given to Mary is equally disgraceful or worse.
To be fair I have not watched it in totality, but I believe this is bad enough to be avoided entirely.
In conclusion: The Chosen is a blasphemously irreverent show and an insult to Jesus Christ and the people who knew Him. You might as well watch SpongeBob.
The Chosen should be avoided. Protestant or worse. Blasphemous. A few NO clergy have even written about how horrible. Giggle "fr" Dave Nix blog. NO people I know continue to watch despite the warnings bc the feel good Jesus depicted is so comforting to them, just like the NO religion. Sad stuff day in and out. JESUS, HAVE MERCY ON US. THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO...? But they should?
DeleteThanks Introibo for the post today!
ReplyDeleteSince Bigfoot is mentioned today, maybe you can do a post about this assertion that Catholic Church has known about Bigfoot for centuries, that it is depicted in Sistine Chapel, and St Augustine and other Church Fathers wrote about it...???
https://youtu.be/83F99rh96QI?si=ZkClhlzDulwctLM-
@anon9:07
DeleteLOL!!! I laughed out loud (literally). Thanks for brightening my day (if that's what you intended, it worked).
The depictions of demons by Michelangelo is "proof of Bigfoot." The rest was just as absurd. I wonder if it was produced/funded by Fred and Bobby Dimond. This is now my favorite conspiracy theory of all time! Send it to Most Heretical Fraudulent Monastery and see if the Dimwit brothers will run with it LOL
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteI love approved apparitions and I detest any that are not approved. I understand that Catholics are not obliged to believe in approved apparitions but I do not think Catholics should go out of there way to disprove them because it appears to the public that an individual knows better than the Church. It also can cause (not that it always causes) a distrust in the Church which then could lead to other dangerous conclusions of not believing in the Church on more important subjects such as morals/doctrine.
I also believe it as equally problematic when clergy or laymen try to use theologians to their advantage because not all theologians agree on every point. What happens next is an individual who agrees more with one theologian over another can lead them into error. For example, John of St. Thomas. Robert Siscoe and John Salza love to use him to justify their position as to how they view sedevacantism. The Thesis holders also use him to justify why they believe the Thesis is the only correct belief. Yet we have St. Robert Bellarmine who says his opinion along with Suarez and Cajetan was indefensible (they're wrong) when they say a "Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy."
Therefore, I think the same can be said of those who use theologians for distorting the importance of their own opinions when those opinions are not held as correct by opposing theologians.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteWhat you are really against is the misuse of theologians by those who don't know how they teach us as an organ of the Magisterium.
For example, Siscoe and Salza are using theologians prior to the Vatican Council of 1870. The full doctrine on the papacy was not completely developed until then. There was unanimous approval among the theologians after 1870, which is the UOM at work.
Even then, the theologians prior (when read in context) were claiming God would prevent the fall of a true pope into heresy. I believe they were correct. I don't believe Roncalli and those after his "papacy" fell from office--rather they never attained to it\. This is upheld by the 1917 Code of Canon Law which is infallible.
There are also times when disputed questions must be treated as resolved without the Church deciding it. For example, whether or not a man who is not a priest (layman or deacon) can be consecrated a bishop validly without first being a priest is not settled. IN PRACTICE, the Church always acts as if they CANNOT be validly be consecrated and conditionally ordain and consecrate because it is the safer path to protect the continuance of the hierarchy.
As to other matters, a Catholic is free to decided. It is not decided whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary ever died. The majority of theologians teach that she did, but a significant minority taught she did not. Pope Pius XII specifically avoided deciding the issue when he infallibly declared the dogma of the Assumption. Catholics may therefore believe she did die, or (like me) she never tasted death.
God Bless, my friend
---Introibo
Maybe Introibo or anyone can explain why all is so confusing? Is the Catholic Faith supposed to be so difficult? If a billion self identifying Catholics cannot even see the new mass waived in a new faith after V2...what is the average Joe supposed to do? I have asked sede priests directly about deceased family who never discovered new mass/new religion. If we can't be saved without holding to the True Faith...how are any saved? Sede priests will not answer me directly. They will say things like...some perhaps were invincibly ignorant. Then you can study that subject and find a zillion different "opinions." It is never ending trying to learn the True Faith and hope for the best we find accurate information. All is very scary!
ReplyDelete@anon2:28
DeleteIn normal times, no, the Catholic Faith is not difficult. In the Great Apostasy it is. "I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (St. Luke 18:8).
A rhetorical question, meaning there would be very little.
God will not let a soul perish but through his own fault. Anyone who fell for the Vatican II sect, may be invincibly ignorant or not. God judges that, not us.
God Bless,
---Introibo
What about souls who know that the Vatican Two sect is wrong but still go? What about these so called conservative "priests" in the sect who know there is something very wrong but do nothing and mislead the folk?
Delete@anon10:31
DeleteThose who know it to be wrong and still go are heading for Hell if they do not repent before death. Those who do not sincerely seek the truth are not in good faith and travel the road to perdition unless they repent.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo
ReplyDeleteLast Sunday at our SSPX church, the priest gave a question and answer talk at the coffee hour about the meeting of the Superior General and that rotten pervert about new SSPX bishops. A number of good people asked simple questions and the priest would either skip it or twist his reply. Our family are starting to see more and more people in the Society becoming uneasy and know there is something very wrong. The True Faith has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo. In our view , bishop Fellay did so much damage leading the Society down a new road. It is so sad !!!!!!!!!
@anon9:43
DeleteVery sad, my friend. One can only hope the new bishops might see the light of sedevacantism.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I was delighted to recently hear a CMRI priest tell his congregation during a sermon that all unbaptized adults go to Hell. He never even mentioned the ridiculous false theory of BOD. No exceptions mentioned. He says the unbaptized are like devils incarnate. Some months earlier he said in a sermon that an unbaptized person who commits suicide with a firearm would have no time to make a perfect act of contrition after the person committed the act of pulling the trigger, and obviously beforehand it was deliberate and willful sin. The person goes to Hell. This was refreshing to hear. This is a CMRI priest who has been around for awhile too. I will only go to CMRI priests who don’t impose or talk about the BOD modernist nonsense. I won’t give this priest’s name since the modernists on this blog might try to attack him. Perhaps he believes in BOD, but his words certainly suggest otherwise.
ReplyDelete@Dimondite8:50
DeleteThe next full moon isn't until March 3rd, yet the Dimondites are out with their lunacy early! Have you been practicing to be like your cult masters, Fred and Bobby Dimwit? "YoU ArE a LiAr!!" etc. The probably have you write it in crayon. I usually don't publish drivel from Dimondites, but this one caught my eye.
Notice how this post has nothing to do with BOD or BOB yet here they are in full crazy mode! My readers can see this along with your claptrap.
Bp. Pivarunas would never keep a Feeneyite in the CMRI. I don't believe this happened. Or as Fred and Bobby would say, "YoU ArE a LiAr!!"
You give no direct quotes just a personal summation of what this CMRI priest allegedly said. Nevertheless, I will treat this, ad arguendo, as having happened as you claim.
You claim he said, "all unbaptized adults go to Hell."
This is a true statement, just as "The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all to be saved" is equally true.
Yet, the sacrament of baptism can be substituted by BOD or BOB. The Council of Trent infallibly defined :
From the Decree on Justification:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, OR THE DESIRE THEREOF, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. (Emphasis mine),
ALL APPROVED THEOLOGIANS and the Catechism of the Council of Trent, taught this defined BOD, including Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori.
Therefore, what he said could be totally orthodox.
You claim he said, "He says the unbaptized are like devils incarnate."
If he meant that the unbaptized are under the dominion of Satan, he's correct. Yet, many are good willed. If it were the case that they are NOT good willed, we would never have any converts who get baptized. We do have such converts, so they are good willed and not "totally evil" like "devils incarnate."
You claim he declared in a sermon: "...an unbaptized person who commits suicide with a firearm would have no time to make a perfect act of contrition after the person committed the act of pulling the trigger, and obviously beforehand it was deliberate and willful sin."
Um..no! First, if the man had a mental breakdown and was suffering from severe psychosis, the act of suicide would not be with full knowledge and consent of the will, and God would not impute the moral sin of suicide to him.
Second, no one knows exactly when the soul leaves the body. The soul operates through the brain, but does not "reside" there. The Church permits priests to give Extreme Unction even hours after apparent death. Therefore, the soul , while not yet separated from the body, could be enlightened by God and capable of an Act of Perfect Contrition, thereby being saved.
The only "Modernist nonsense" comes from non-Catholic Dimondites like you who reject the dogma of BOD for the rantings of the Dimwit brothers.
Praying for your conversion (Diamondite response anticipated: "God DoEsN't HeAr YoUr PrAyErS")
---Introibo
What a outstanding reply to this goof Introibo. When someone writes garbage on your blog, you reply with a great response. Blessings on you.
Deletehttps://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-02/cardinal-parolin-organ-donation-act-of-love-that-trascends-death.html
ReplyDeleteOrgan donation is an act of love, just like covid death shot!
You said early on:
ReplyDelete' According to another prediction of Fatima, "Portugal will never lose the Faith." '
Our Lady said "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc."
For a long time I thought this meant "as if in a museum".
In context of Apocalypse, what does this mean ?
It's rhetorical for me.
cairsahr__stjoseph
DeleteIt's all confusing. Was it even said? Private revelations must never be a focal point of the Faith.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Dear Introibo,
DeleteCairsahr_stjoseph is correct. The phrase "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved", is what Our Lady is understood to have said, as opposed to "Portugal will never lose the Faith". The two are not synonymous. Which "dogma" was specifically referred to? I have no idea. Does anyone else out there know?
I made mention, in the comments of your previous article, of occultists having apparently predicted something out of the ordinary to occur (at Fatima?) and taken out advertisements in major Portuguese newspapers to that effect. That did happen. I cannot think of a rational explanation for this, and I hasten to add that I do not think Satan was involved at Fatima itself. If the Church tells me that one can hold that God's Blessed Mother came to Fatima, that's good enough for me - but the mystery (and other anomalies that I don't understand) remains. My source of information about the occultist connection did not come from the website you quoted (I had not heard of that one before), but was provided by a sedevacantist years ago.
On another matter concerning Fatima, the religious community associated with the late Abbé Georges de Nantes holds that the Third Secret released by the heretics occupying the Vatican is indeed genuine - and that it refers to JP1 (whom they have virtually canonised). Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, who wrote the three-volume set "The Whole Truth About Fatima", was a member of that group.
The most interesting part of your article, for me, was the evidence you presented showing that the apparitions at Garabandal and Medjugorje were/are not of Heaven. Thank you for your most informative piece!
God bless you,
Leo
Leo,
DeleteThank you for commenting. Two points:
1. Do we really know the exact verbiage employed by the Blessed Mother? I have seen BOTH alleged sayings in pre-Vatican II sources. Perhaps nothing about Portugal was said at all. Simply put: We do not know.
2. Yes, Occultists did say something would happen in Portugal. I cite that above. Pagan astrologers could have declared something supernatural would happen in Bethlehem, yet the birth of Our Lord was not occultic. How could it happen? The devil knows more than humans and with his superior intelligence, surmise something God may do. Theologian Dellaporte has writtn on that point.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Dear Introibo,
DeleteAnd thank you for replying!
We cannot be certain of exactly what Our Lady said at Fatima; case in point - dogma of the Faith or just the Faith being kept in Portugal. The same goes with the private revelations Sister Lucy claimed to have received after the Fatima events. Is it any wonder some Catholics have problems with Church-approved apparitions?
Serious question: can the devil predict the outcome of Lotto draws? Occultists and psychics can't.
In the Faith (that Portugal has not kept),
Leo
Leo,
DeleteAccording to theologian Dellaporte, there are three ways the devil can (in some sense) know the future. To be certain Satan does not know future events that come from free will. Only God knows such. Also, Satan's knowledge is subject to error while God's knowledge is of apodictic certainty.
How the devil can know events of the future:
1. Since he is pure spirit he can know more things, and know them better and with more certainty than humans. Hence, a minion of Satan may "predict" what is happening in a far off land because Satan gets his information globally (and from demons all over).
2. Due to his long existence and super-intelligence, his conjectures of the future are far more likely to be true.
3. He may announce things he plans on doing himself, and perceives God will probably permit it.
(See "The Devil: Does He Exist and What Does He Do?" [1871], esp. pgs. 69-75).
Lottery numbers are far from guaranteed!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thanks for the replies, and to Lee for the clarification.
DeleteHere I would only add that point #3 above is how I perceive Garabandal to be:
"3. He may announce things he plans on doing himself, and perceives God will probably permit it."
May all have a grace filled Lent. God bless
ReplyDelete@anon12:42
DeleteI echo the sentiment to you and all my readers!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hi Introibo
ReplyDeleteIs it correct the SSPX call into doubt many post Vatican Two "Saints" by the men they claim are "Popes" What a mockery of the Papacy. Never in the history of the Church have we had priests,bishops ever calling doubt on the Saints that were declared by the Roman Pontiff. Are the SSPX above the man they claim is their "Pope"
Blessings,a recent convert to sedevacantism
@anon4:06
DeleteYes, the SSPX wants to be Catholic while being in good standing with the Vatican II sect; and it is a mockery!
Congratulations on finding the One True Church! I'll be praying for you that your faith may not fail, but continually increase.
God Bless,
---Introibo
In case anyone is interested, I responded to Steve Speray on the previous post.
ReplyDeleteWhich article is that
DeleteJohn,
DeleteHe responded back to you. You are both great men. Please remain on good terms with each other (as I'm sure you will).
God Bless,
---Introibo
John Gregory,
DeleteI read your reply to Steve. I thought that you explained your reasons very well. When I mentioned those three groups from Steve’s article, it was only #1 that was not Catholic, the Feeneyites (taking this from Steve’s article), not #’s 2 or 3 – Catholics in bad standing. Hopefully, that became clear after you saw Steve’s article. I certainly hope I wasn’t the cause of further confusion which escalated the debate between you two. Obviously, that certainly was not my intention. He wasn’t saying that #’s 2 and 3 were not Catholic, only #1 (Feeneyites).
There are a few things that I wanted to ask you (and anyone else who wants to respond here).
You mentioned in your reply to Steve the story of Bishop Romalla. I have not been a traditionalist as long as many others on this blog here but I have heard stories personally, and read some things online, about Bishops Romalla and that he was treated very poorly. What exactly transpired here with him? You mention Fr. Cekada, Bishop Sanborn, and Bishop Dolan doing nothing about the school issue. Can you also explain what that was regarding? I have heard negative things about these clerics with these different stories, but I would like to know more, especially about the Bishop Romalla story. I heard that he was treated very poorly by some Sede clerics and I would just like to know the whole story here.
Speaking of children in school (and I will pose this question to anyone on here who has children), how do you keep them Catholic in today’s world when there are so many forces attacking them from all sides, the number of traditionalists are few and far between, many people are home aloners (though absolutely no fault of their own) with no churches to bring up their children in, etc.? I am referring to millennials, Gen Z, and obviously younger here. These last several generations have been hit VERY hard with the secular culture and I would love to get anyone’s input, John Gregory or otherwise, on how you keep your children Catholic. I am hearing more and more in recent years by people everywhere that they could not imagine bringing up children in today’s world, let alone even having children anymore due to them being extremely corrupted, and it is very saddening.
I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
Dear TradWarrior,
DeleteIn addition to doing all that God makes possible to give children a strong foundation in the Faith, both spiritually and practically, it is very helpful to seek to fulfill the traditional roles of husband/wife and father/mother within the home. This requires a man to behave as a man (lead, protect, provide etc.) and a woman to behave as a woman (submit to her husband, help, nurture etc.). "And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them" [Genesis 1:27]. You undoubtedly notice the vicious, relentless attacks on these roles in our secular society.
In many cases, the formation to behave this way was not provided to one or both parties of the marriage, and the familial and/or social support necessary to raise a family with a strong, Catholic culture is lacking or even nonexistent. Not to mention that being raised in the Faith themselves is not a gift all Catholic parents today possess. Thus, formation and wisdom are missing and must be learned "on the job", when the couple is sleep deprived and has many tasks and responsibilities that make the time and energy available to study and practice new concepts and skills more scant.
God must fill the gaps that He allows, and He does, according to His Providence, if trusting recourse is had to Him. The greatness that theoretically would have been possible had He not allowed the gaps is precluded, but His ways are not our ways; and in our times He seems to permit to have His glory be largely veiled and to allow His faithful to take up their cross daily and follow Him in lowliness.
I am a mother and wife myself but I have spoken in general terms above for privacy for myself and my family. I am in the thick of it!
Trad Warrior,
DeleteI remember Bp. Dolan lamented in an interview the carelessness of Tradtional Catholics with regards to pre-marital training. He said no one of those young trads cared to read a pre-Vatican 2 book or a pamhlet on how to prepare for mariage (and there's a ton of such literature available on the Internet now so there's no excuse for not reading).
If they did, they would realize that it's not just about the man being the head of the family and the woman submitting to him. It's more about two mature individuals who are willing to sacrifice their own individual freedom for the sake of something greater - a Catholic family where each family member is loves and is loved with a sacrificial kind of love; where every one goes out of his way to make life better on a natural and supernatural level for others in the family. If a man loves a woman, he won't boss her around but rather make her every (reasonable) wish his own goal to achieve . If a woman loves a man, she won't talk back to him as if she was in a competition against him but rather anticipate his every (reasonable) need and make him feel she's proud of him. To make that dream come true, you have to have an ambitious and hard-working man and a smart, self-respecting woman.
The traits and skills that all of us have to learn in our (early or not so early) adulthood to make marriage work can only be done today by researching, reading, studying pre-Vatican 2 literature on our own. Sadly, most don't and won't and that's way broken, unhappy marriages abound.
God Bless,
Joanna
Joanna,
DeleteMy research has shown literature supporting sacrificial love to be available from both pre and post-Vatican 2 sources while finding the literature supporting distinct roles between man and woman to be more specific to pre-Vatican 2. I expect Bishop Dolan's concern to have been for young trads missing out on descriptions of the distinct roles between man and woman. The Church has beautiful descriptions on the complimentary roles between husband and wife.
Your comment appears to disagree with where emphasis was placed in the Anonymous comment preceding yours and I have to agree with the comments from Anonymous. While sacrificial love is important, the traditional roles of husband/wife and father/mother are more what has been under attack by modernists and secular society. Teachings on the traditional roles is more where pre-Vatican 2 sources are needed. Post-Vatican 2 sources are more likely to suggest no real differences between roles played by men and women in families.
God Bless,
Mike
cairsahr_stjosephFebruary 18, 2026 at 2:13 PM
DeleteThe post before this one. Monday before last.
John Gregory
Trad Warrior,
DeleteThank you for the thoughtful comment. You were the cause of confusion, but through my fault, not yours. What you wrote was 100% accurate, I just did a surficial glance and saw what appeared to lump together the feeneyites with the incredibly large number of SVs, including numerous, studied, good clergy, with Feeneyites, merely because after what I imagine was a thorough study, since they have to answer much more rigorously to God than laypeople, that they concluded definitively that they could go, with what the Church went with, for intents and purposes apart from slight changes here and there, from Gregory the Great through 1954.
I'm not sure how a layperson can definitively correct them all. But we try.
I try to give my opinion when "correcting" SV clergy who know far more than I.
Making an issue of it can calling those who go with the novelties dissident may do more harm than good.
Some who only have the liturgy in place for over 1300 years might stop going to Mass altogether. Wanting to die pure without the Mass than dissident with it.
I also don't think it is absurd to believe that there is more to the picture with what went on with Pius XII than any of us know or see.
Weird, unprecedented stuff. A valid pope can give us what is less good without giving us that which is harmful. He can do it without intending the continuation of what his changes fit so neatly into as it continued on, abolishing more prayers, octaves, fasts, ember days, vulgar language, facing the people, dialogue mass, where the people do most of the work.
I'm sorry, I can't pretend there isn't something there. He was pope, what he did was not in itself harmful, perfectly in line with what a valid pope could as is what John 23 did and even Paul 6 through 1964. And they may have been valid popes until Lumen Gentium.
To call people that go with what cannot be questioned, with the force of 1300 year tradition compared with a custom or trial of 3 years, should not be considered dissident in my opinion.
I repeat that I think we should be trying to convert novus ordos and r and r's rather than having knock down drag out fights with our fellow-Catholics over this or the una cum apostate issue.
You can have your opinion and share it, a general "you", but don't tell the good studied learned, qualified clergy (along with the apparently not so good), they are definitively dissident. You can say you think they are and give your opinions as to why at most, but I am not even sure that is the best thing to do in regard to unity and wasting time back and forthing on blogs during time which can be used for prayer or trying to convert non-SVs. I'm not sure how that point can be so off the mark.
Your Friend in Christ and
His Most Holy Mother,
John Gregory
Trad Warrior,
DeleteThere were huge abuses going on at SSG. Primarily as a result of the principle and his boys. Physical violence, pornography, cussing, scandal to children left and right. It was so bad that half the parishioners left, some without children, merely on principle. They settled for some makeshift setup for Mass at a hotel thanks to the CMRI, rather than the beautiful change and great liturgy at SSG on principle. I mean it was bad.
Father Romalla was trying to do something about it as Cekeda and Dolan kept ignoring the issue. People speculated that the principle had something on them or surely, they would have gotten rid of him, it would have saved them tons of trouble and money.
They had professional bloggers shoot anyone down that dared to speak out on it online. Father Cekeda himself, it is speculated, spent tons of time on the internet doing this himself under a different name. What could have potentially been the most beautiful and the best until now was rent.
So Father Romalla doing the right thing led to him being unceremoniously dumped as the SSPX and those who came from them are won't to do, and had to leave the country because they did not renew his visa.
This is from a weak and dying memory, from someone that was not there, but I heard enough from reliable people, one very reliable person (who does not his name associated with anything to do with it, he was one without children who also left) in addition to Tom Droleskey who was there and was hit in the back of the head by one of the boys during mass. Anyone who can definitively correct anything I just stated based on facts from one who was there I ask to please correct anything I have said that is incorrect.
The SSG also said those who read the Four Marks should not present themselves to the Altar Rail for Communion. They sent me back my money because it was not enough of a stipend. Me and Kathleen Plumb, heard from separate sources other things not so pleasing about Father Cekeda and Bishop Dolan, but there is no proof.
DeletePriests, in this day and age especially, need our prayers. Really need them. The Hell that awaits them will be so much worse than what the typical layperson has to fear.
Father Romalla himself was not the perfect individual, but not in such a hugely scandalous way. He does have very good sermons. Probably best for me not to go into many details, in part, because what I have heard, may not be entirely correct.
We all need prayers, we have super egos, proclivities and habits. The devil hates those with the most truth who do the most good in regard to souls. He makes a fine mess of everything. As soon as you try to get off the schneid he knocks you down lower than you were before. We need to pray more and entertain ourselves less. We need to be detached from worldly good.
Heaven help us all!!!
Mike,
DeleteI don't care whatsoever for post Vatican 2 Modernist literature on marriage. I made it clear that preparing for marriage means much more than just realizing that men and women have different roles to play as husband and wife.
Bp. Dolan's concern was with young people not caring to read anything pre-Vatican 2 before when contemplating marriage (don't have the time to look for the actual quote but it's there somewhere on the Internet). Anyway, it's not about what Bp. Dolan observed; it's what anyone can observe. Young trads are not very willing to do their research. It's mostly about the beautiful Latin Mass.
How many have read Fr. Raoul Plus' "Christ in the Home" (first ed. in 1951), for instance? It's a three-volume set that should be in the hands of all those who think of looking for a spouse in the near future. Fr. Plus writes extensively on what I've only hinted at in my comment.
@anon5:37am,
DeleteThank you very much for your insightful comment. I agree with everything you said. We definitely are living in depressing times and as the younger generations will be forced to one day “take the reins” from the older traditional generations, I greatly fear it will not bode well, as each subsequent generation is getting more and more lost.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Joanna,
DeleteThank you very much for your two comments. I agree with you. Every single day, I work with a very diverse background of people from all different walks of life. The younger generations BY FAR (emphasis added) lack the maturity that older generations had – plain and simple. It just isn’t there. Traditional young Catholics do exude more maturity than their Novus Ordo contemporaries. I have seen this time after time; however, they too do not understand (on many levels) what they are undertaking when they say “I Do.” I have observed them very closely and there is a lot lacking on their parts (and this is not a personal knock on them). Satan and his demons have had their way with the world for far too long now and the amount of devastation that has been allowed to occur in the world, particularly the last few decades, has taken too much of a toll on everybody. Thank you for the Fr. Plus reference. I will certainly keep that in mind if I ever decide to marry one day.
God bless you. I always enjoy your wise comments.
-TradWarrior
Mike,
DeleteThank you for taking the time to write your comment. You raise some good points.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
John Gregory,
DeleteThank you for your comment. You mention that there was a lot of weird, unprecedented stuff that went on with Pope Pius XII. I am familiar with much of this and you do mention many interesting things. Much of the problem is how close things occurred after with Vatican II. The Pian changes in the 1950’s were followed by the revolution in the 1960’s. The line of delineation is when Pius XII died. He was a true pope and was protected by The Holy Ghost. Roncalli was not (I personally do not ever believe he held the pontificate). “Pacem in Terris” is but one example of this. Certainly, the church was heavily infiltrated by its enemies at high levels during the reign of Pius IX. By the time we get to Pius XII in the 1950’s, what could we realistically expect him to do? He certainly, in his poor health, could not police the church, much less the world. Even in perfect health, the institutional church was pretty much gone. Yet, he was still protected by The Holy Ghost in everything he enacted. Those changes that you mention were certainly numerous and you raise many good points.
Introibo,
Perhaps you can reply to this, as this issue has come up time after time on this blog, and it no doubt will not stop here. It will continue in future posts.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
@anon8:41am,
DeleteThank you for sharing all of that. Much of that is what I have read too. All the more reason we need God’s grace!
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
@anon8:51am,
DeleteThank you for your excellent comment. Your last paragraph is so true. The devil will certainly go after the holiest people on this planet with a vengeance. These souls are the most dangerous to him. If he can get them to fall, the church loses its greatest allies who have succumbed to the enemy through sinning and falling farther and farther away from God. And this can happen to ANY of us! Yes, we certainly need Heaven to help us because the assault has never been worse than it is right now.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Dear Joanna,
DeleteI am the anonymous wife and mother who originally wrote 2/20 @5:37am. I was surprised and saddened by your response to my comment, specifically the point about the importance of the different roles, regarding raising Catholic children in these times. This approach (i.e. studying and applying knowledge of these roles) is helping me greatly in my own marriage and and in raising my children.
Having loving intentions, being willing to sacrifice, reading pre-Vatican II literature before (and during, as time allows) marriage, and following the guidance of the priest (if the couple is so fortunate as to have found the Faith before getting married) are all excellent pieces of advice; ultimately, all the resulting graces and wisdom must end in the fulfillment of practical duties and roles, and it is so helpful to know what that should look like. Again, grace builds on nature, and "male and female He created them."
Respectfully, and God bless you!
Anonymous 2/20 @ 5:37am
Dear Anon 5:41,
DeleteFrankly, I don't see why my comment would make you sad. We both responded to Trad Warrior who let us now he appreciates both of our replies.
You highlighted the importance of realizing how husbands and wives must assume different roles in the household according to traditional norms which I obviously agree with as they are the only solid backgroundon which a happy and holy marriage can be built. I implied there's more to a happy and holy marriage than that. Why that would sadden or surprise anyone is quite a surprise to me.
God Bless You,
Joanna
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing this article. It was excellent! Somehow, I feel like all of my comments last week were the inspiration for this week’s article (Lol).
I am curious, among apparitions that were never approved by the Magisterium (for whatever reason) by 1958, are there any apparitions that you personally believed were authentic or any that you thought were fraudulent and would have been declared such (either way), had we had a pope in these times? I am not referring to Garabandal or Medjugorje here which you obviously demonstrated are fraudulent. I am referring to apparitions that took place long ago that you felt strongly one way or the other on, but no pronouncement ever came by the church after a long time period, and with us being pope-less since 1958, no ruling may ever come indefinitely.
Regarding the falseness of Medjugorje, much more can be added. I will add the following points:
*Nearly all of the bishops opposed it and said nothing miraculous was occurring there.
*A demon appeared in a light and scared the children. A few minutes later, the “virgin” appeared and said, “I’m sorry about that.” (LOL!)
*The “virgin” said all religions were equal to her son. So much for “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.” I guess the “virgin” forgot that one!
*Her feet are covered in this apparition. In the other authentic ones, her feet are crushing the serpent. It has been said that she cannot hide her feet from crushing the head of the serpent.
*Medjugorje is infested with the demonic. There are all kinds of bizarre and crazy stories. One such story was of a man in his hotel room. The door was closed. A naked woman walked through the door, walked across his room, and then walked through the wall. People also attested to their hotel rooms there being ice cold and being choked by their rosary beads.
*The “virgin” said most people go to Purgatory at death. According to the overwhelming testimony of the saints, most people go to Hell. Read “The Fewness of the Saved” in a simple online search.
*The “virgin” said that she does not dispense graces but prefers people to go to her son Jesus directly (she is the Mediatrix of all Graces!)
*By 1993, there were roughly 26,000 messages given by the “virgin” since these apparitions began in 1981. Yet, there was not one message by her to warn of the future Yugoslavian wars between the Croatians and the Serbians??? Perhaps she forgot to mention that one because she was still so frazzled after she almost dropped the baby Jesus (LOL!!!!!!!)
False apparition from the start!
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior,
DeleteI don't believe Our Lady of Champion in the U.S. Although it took place in the 1800s, it wasn't "approved" until the Vatican II sect acted in 2010! The apparition came to the woman "seer" when she was 28. She was not a nun, nor was she known for exemplary holiness. The apparition caused her to be terrified and she "prayed until she 9"Mary") disappeared." God and his Mother don't come in total fear, nor would praying make them go away.
My opinion.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteVery interesting! I never knew that about her. I used to know someone who was fond of that Marian apparition because it was “approved” and I think he said I should go there sometime. No thanks (Lol)!
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThere is something that has puzzled me. We know that the development of doctrine exists. I am referring to the correct interpretation of the development of doctrine, not the way the modernists use it. Over time, things become clearer than they did to previous generations. The UOM and EOM are what the Magisterium has used many times to define dogmatic teachings. Some ecumenical councils reiterated the past dogmatic teachings of earlier councils when they issued their various decrees e.g. Florence, Trent, Vatican I. Solemn papal proclamations are rare. The Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to error when speaking on matters of faith and/or morals and the indefectibility of the church extends to the general discipline of the church.
When Pope Pius IX issued “Ineffabilis Deus” in 1854 on the Immaculate Conception and Pope Pius XII issued “Munificentissimus Deus” in 1950 on the Assumption, they were proclaiming a dogmatic truth that these issues had been settled once and for all, for all of time. But how did they know 100% that Our Lady was immaculately conceived and assumed into Heaven?
In the prior centuries, there were great theologians on both sides of these issues and no one could declare the other side wrong (doctrinally) since the issue had not yet been settled by the Magisterium. Even several popes throughout the centuries if I am not mistaken said that both sides should not attack each other over the Immaculate Conception issue, since the church had not yet settled the issue. These popes didn’t even know which side was correct, otherwise they could have issued a dogmatic definition much earlier than when we got them. In other words, the Catholic Church did not have enough “data” it seemed to give a proper definition on which side possessed the Truth. Now, what if over time, Pius IX and Pius XII went “the other way” and were convinced that the preponderance of evidence SUPPORTED (emphasis added) the other position – Mary was not immaculately conceived and she was not assumed into Heaven? The Holy Ghost would never allow a pope from giving a wrong definition for The Holy Ghost protects the pope through the gifts of infallibility and indefectibility. Would they have had a change of heart and mind or would they have died a quick death to prevent a true pope from issuing a heretical definition, even though he was innocently convinced that the true position was the wrong position? I think there may have even been a pope who did die before proclaiming a false definition, but I could be wrong here (I’m trying to remember at the moment). How did Pius IX and Pius XII know beyond a shadow of a doubt in 1854 and 1950 respectively, that Our Lady was immaculately conceived and assumed into Heaven and that “X” theologians throughout the centuries were right and “Y” theologians throughout the centuries were wrong on both of these issues? This is puzzling to me. There were men like St. Thomas Aquinas and other theological giants that were on the wrong side of these issues (through no fault of their own). How did these popes know by this time that there was ample evidence to declare and impose each of these dogmas on the Universal Church???
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior,
DeleteYou describe the true development of dogma correctly. The crux of you query is:
"How did Pius IX and Pius XII know beyond a shadow of a doubt in 1854 and 1950 respectively, that Our Lady was immaculately conceived and assumed into Heaven and that “X” theologians throughout the centuries were right and “Y” theologians throughout the centuries were wrong on both of these issues? "
Answer: An ex cathedra pronouncement comes only after the truth of the matter has been guaranteed by the UOM. The pope doesn't simply come out and end a dispute without much having gone before. They react to attacks on that which was already considered true by the Church, to remove anyone from the Church who dares to deny it.
As you referenced the Immaculate Conception, let me outline all that had gone on PRIOR to 1854.
* The Scotists and Thomists go toe to toe over the doctrine, with the Thomists taking sides with Aquinas against the IC
*Pope Sixtus IV, having acknowledged the Scotists arguments being more persuasive and consulting various bishops, institutes the Feast of the Immaculate Conception
*At the request of numerous bishops, Pope Innocent VIII gives approval to invoke Mary under the title "The Immaculate Conception."
*At the Council of Trent, the Council Fathers voted unanimously to exempt the Blessed Virgin Mary from the "Decree on Original Sin" --this was a huge development in favor of the IC
*In 1567, Pope St. Pius V condemned as Error the proposition of De Bay: "No one except Christ was without Original Sin. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin died because of sin contracted from Adam;..."
* Pope St. Pius V approved and added the Office of the Immaculate Conception into the Breviary
*Pope Paul V forbade all Catholics from publicly saying anything against the IC of Mary
*In 1622, Pope Gregory forbade any statements against the IC in private, except for theologians writing on the topic
*Pope Clement XI made the Feast of the IC a Holy Day of Obligation
*From the end of Pope Clement's reign in 1721, ALL approved theologians taught that the IC was "of Faith"
That's a lot of development! Therefore, Pope Pius IX did not wake up on December 8, 1854 and decide "the theologians are divided on the IC. I think I'll settle it in favor!"
Can you imagine him going against what was already decided by the UOM? As long as this is about apparitions (my post above), Our Lady of Lourdes, appearing in 1858, confirmed the dogma by declaring "I am the Immaculate Conception."
There is a history much like this behind the Assumption. Fr. DePauw told me that the only reason Pope Pius XII decided to consult the episcopacy of the world and make the definition was do to certain clerics (crypto-Modernists) who, while not directly denying the Assumption started to write things in theological journals that would indirectly cast doubt on the Assumption.
However, the only part of the doctrine not universally agreed to by the theologians was the question as to whether or not Mary died prior to her Assumption. Pope Pius XII actually had the proposed verbiage changed to "having completed the course of her earthly life" and does not of necessity mean she died as the original draft stated. Fr. DePauw held the minority opinion (as do I) that she never died.
Would the Holy Ghost prevent the pope from signing off on heresy? Absolutely. HOW (e.g., by death, private revelation, etc.) is not defined.
Hope this helped!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteYes, your answers helped greatly. Thank you!
This reminds me of something you wrote 1-2 years ago to someone. You mentioned that you may one day write a post on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas (dogmatic theology) and St. Alphonsus Liguori (moral theology). I think you said you may write on if their teachings were infallible (or something to that effect). Those two guys carry a LOT of theological weight in everything they wrote. That would be a great post.
I wish you a Blessed Lent.
-TradWarrior
Introibo
ReplyDeleteI don't think the SSPX will cave in and do a deal with Apostate Rome. Do you agree?God bless
@anon5:09
DeleteI'm cautiously in agreement, but caving in remains a real (and horrible) possibility.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Please pray for this young man and others who are being scandalized on what's occurring in Rome and elsewhere in the Novus Ordo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udm9u8g7_Ks
ReplyDeleteThe video is "private" and won't open fyi.
DeleteYes, it turns out he made it private because people told him he was creating a scandal by pointing out the truth of the NO.
DeleteOk. So it was an NOer who seems to be on the verge of escape?
DeleteI'm hoping so. That's why I asked readers of this blog to pray for him that he finally comes to the sedevacantist position. His YouTube channel is The Traditional Thomist. He just posted another video as a response to the one I shared.
DeleteOk will look up.and watch!
DeleteCyrus,
DeleteWill be praying for him, and ask all my readers to do the same.
God Bless,
---Introibo
https://youtu.be/UH7GmOA98Yo?si=2gDoww2gvLSOkZWO
DeleteI am watching this video of the young man...and he has all the good questions which should lead him away, eventually, of the NO. He sees the many contradictions. Good for him!
“It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three reasons. First, because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself. Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity. Secondly, because every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 11). Thirdly, because life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power, Who kills and makes to live. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God, even as he who kills another's slave, sins against that slave's master, and as he who usurps to himself judgment of a matter not entrusted to him. For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life, according to Deuteronomy 32:39, "I will kill and I will make to live."
ReplyDeleteSuicide is always a mortal sin according to The Summa and The Council of Braga.
BOD never defined dogmatically anywhere and is why you scramble for your modernist handbooks to try and support your pseudo magisterium. You think because you write “approved theologians” in all caps that makes your point true. You are a very lost and troubled man who projects his own contempt for John 3:5 and The Catholic Faith onto others who actually know the dogmatic teachings regarding the strict necessity for water baptism. You modernists make up caveats and exceptions that don’t exist to support your sentimental theory that BOD is a “dogma”.
Suicide is always a mortal sin, that CMRI priest was right about what he said in his sermon. Take down your pictures of Richard Cushing and stop making Fr. DePauw, a fallible man, into the magisterium. Stop using pseudo psychology and made up mental illnesses to excuse murder and suicide. You’re the dope who believes that society is responsible in many cases for people being sodomites, perverts, and abortionists. You believe society can make them invincibly ignorant. You are very ill indeed. The NYC liberals have infected your mind. Your echo chamber cult of John 3:5 mockers can’t debate anyone. That’s why you all mostly remain anonymous, and argue amongst yourselves about your nutty ideas and errors. Be a man and stop being a cowardly keyboard titan who hides behind a moniker that he thinks will sound credible because of the story behind it. You have no credibility. Bro. Peter Dimond already schooled you twice on your own antichrist blog. Your apostate friend Speray was speaking in demonic tongues about his possible unity in faith with the vile atheist Christopher Hitchens some years back and was embarrassed into total irrelevancy.
Please convert before it’s too late.
@Dimondite10:05
DeleteHow interesting! You cite St. Thomas Aquinas!
Didn't you learn anything from your cult masters? "it'S NoT InFaLlIbLe!"
The very Summa from which you cite clearly teaches BOD. Why do you accept his teaching on suicide but not BOD? Moreover, Fred and Bobby claim Aquinas "was wrong about the Immaculate Conception" so he can be wrong about other things. Suicide could be one of them!!
Foiled by your own cult!
You write: "Suicide is always a mortal sin according to The Summa and The Council of Braga."
Reply: Yes it is always a mortal sin if committed with full knowledge and consent of the will. That is the definition of mortal sin. It must be (a) serious matter, (b) done with full knowledge that it is wrong, and (c) has been fully consented to by the will of the person.
Stealing large sums of money is a grave matter that would usually constitute mortal sin. However, what if someone kidnaps the young child of a banker, and tells him to steal a large sum of money or he will kill the child? The banker complies to save the life of the child. Has the banker committed mortal sin? Answer: NO! There was no full/free consent of the will. He only did the sin out of fear for his child being killed. Hence, it would be (at most) venial sin.
There are many drugs out now that list suicidal thoughts and tendencies as possible side effects. If someone were taking that medication, and they experienced a strong reaction, it is entirely possible they would not be in their right mind should they kill themselves. There are many well-researched and documented mental disorders in the DSM-V that can make someone not have full mental capacity. What about someone with dementia who has an hallucination and kills themselves in total fear? Mortal sin? No!
You write: "BOD never defined dogmatically anywhere..."
Reply: Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?
From my reply to you above:
"The Council of Trent infallibly defined :
From the Decree on Justification:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, OR THE DESIRE THEREOF, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. (Emphasis mine).
All popes, theologians and the Catechism of Trent, accepted that it taught BOD. No one questioned BOD until a very wicked Jesuit named Leonard Feeney started a cult of Married "nuns" and "brothers" who raised their children communally (in defiance of both Divine Positive and Natural Law) and abused them on Feeney's orders.
Feeney was excommunicated for HERESY (not disobedience) by Pope Pius XII in 1953. It is in his wicked steps the Dimwit brothers follow.
CONTINUED BELOW
You write: "You are a very lost and troubled man who projects his own contempt for John 3:5 and The Catholic Faith onto others who actually know the dogmatic teachings regarding the strict necessity for water baptism."
DeleteReply: I'm in good company with "JoHn 3:5 MoCkEr" St. Alphonsus Liguori, and all the other great saints who both accepted and taught BOD! I guess poor St. Alphonsus and those stupid popes who canonized him and made him a Doctor of the Church just didn't have the same erudition and protection of the Holy Ghost as Fred and Bobby!! (I knew I couldn't type that without laughing out loud!).
You write: "You’re the dope who believes that society is responsible in many cases for people being sodomites, perverts, and abortionists. You believe society can make them invincibly ignorant."
Reply: Nope. I never claimed such. You twisted my reply from a comment on a prior post. "yOu ArE A LiAr"
You write: "Be a man and stop being a cowardly keyboard titan who hides behind a moniker that he thinks will sound credible because of the story behind it. You have no credibility. Bro. Peter Dimond already schooled you twice on your own antichrist blog."
Reply: I ready, willing and able to have an online debate on a neutral forum.
Bobby "Schooled" me? Hahahahaha!!! Wouldn't he have to GO TO SCHOOL first??
Fun fact: Did you know if Bobby's IQ were only ten points higher he'd qualify as an idiot?
I would LOVE to debate both Fred and Bobby against me on a written neutral forum. Tell your cult masters I stand ready. If they don't accept you know who the real cowards are--and it's not me!
Finally, I don't need conversion, YOU do. By denying BOD you are Extra Ecclesiam, where we all know there is Nulla Salus
---Introibo
P.S.
DeleteHere is where Bobby Dimwit and I got into an exchange. Please feel free to publish it FAR and WIDE. People who do not belong to your cult will see who won (spoiler alert: It wasn't Bobby!!)
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-dimonds-ensoulment-and-baptism-of.html
and here:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/03/contending-for-faith-part-25.html
---Introibo
Introibo, since you mentioned IQ above...how does that factor, if at all, into salvation? If one who was given or born with low IQ...ignorant or retarded? And can possibly gain Heaven due to such state?
Delete@anon4:20
DeleteThose with an IQ that places them below the mentality of a seven year old are considered as infants. Therefore, if they are baptized, they will attain Heaven as they are incapable of committing mortal sin. If they have enough wits about them it may be possible for them to commit venial sin. They will go to Heaven after Purgatory. Those mentally retarded who died unbaptized will go to Limbo.
They are capable of being martyred and achieving Heaven by Baptism of Blood.
What of those who are retarded but function at a higher level?
They are capable of committing mortal sin, but many sins may be mitigated to venial sins if they cannot fully understand and/or consent. Only God knows their fate.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Thank you!
DeleteTo keep on topic here regarding Introibo's above post:
ReplyDeletehttps://grokipedia.com/page/Private_revelation
https://grokipedia.com/page/Juan_Diego
https://grokipedia.com/page/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe
https://grokipedia.com/page/image_of_the_virgin_mary_mother_of_god_of_guadalupe
6 months ago, Grok didn't even exist online. Now, it seems, Grok "knows" much of what there is to know. But Grok hasn't yet figured out everything. It still fails to see the connection between the Guadalupe tilma image and the naval battle of Lepanto. But it seems to me that Grok HAS totally figured out why Steve Speray thinks the way he does about Guadalupe.
Caveat emptor though. AI-Grok -- once in a great while -- can exhibit even much more dementia than Joe Biden recently did in the White House. A case in point is:
https://grokipedia.com/page/the_book_of_truth
This is just one of out perhaps 100+ Grok webpages which tell us about people who think they receive private revelations. The page here pertains to the delusional quack "Maria Divine Mercy" who combined Garabandal with her own ideas, and became Internet famous. The first 75% (or so) of that Grok page has a rather bad circular repetitive editing issue, that any human editor would rewrite and smooth out. In the final 25%, a section titled "Track listing and credits", AI runs amok on an Ozzy Osbourne "Going off the rails on a crazy train" tangent, by telling us that the Irish ex-Anon individual who told us she was "Maria Divine Mercy", was a Swedish R&R (Rock & Roll) band! At any rate, actually, yes, I think Grok can be trusted 99% of the time, but one needs to always keep in mind the title of a Wiki article = "Trust, but verify."
In regard to doubts about the existence of Juan Diego, in the context of Guadalupe, we should keep in mind what a lawyer like Introibo might know well, that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That subject is dealt with in the Wikipedia articles "Evidence of absence", "Argument from ignorance", and "Argument from silence". And obviously, the Wiki article "Juan Diego" is of interest to us.
DeleteIn a nutshell, the main issue here is how to understand "gaps" from the reported time of the apparitions (= Dec. 1531), until the time of the "Nican Mopohua" related print materials of 1556 (= a 24-25 year gap) and 1649 (= a 117-118 year gap). What little we learn from the Codex Escalada of 1548 involves a circa 17 year gap. In and of themselves, such gaps prove nothing. These gaps can be understood as riddles, to which various explanations as solutions, can be proposed. For whatever reason(s), it seems that Juan Diego has become an elusively hermetic "mystery man". Is that because of "The Woman" with whom he is associated? In the famous 1939 words of Winston Churchill, some people are claiming that JD has become "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma".
In regard to Guadalupe, a big hubbub or brouhaha erupted like a volcano in Dec. 11-12, 2025 comments made under the Dec. 8 "The Sufferings..." post of this blog. Introibo shut down that comment string to further Guadalupe comments, and the rest of the string was about "The Mystical City of God". There is no sense in merely repeating what was noted in those Dec. 11-12 comments. There is no reason for further "emotional outbursts" about Guadalupe, that make Steve Speray into a punching bag for our comment "punches". We can use insightful comments that move the discussion forward, backed up by citations and documentation.
DeleteIn addition to the Codex Escalada noted above, there is another MS known as the Codex Seville (or 'Seville Codex') which has no text about Guadalupe, but it does have an obvious reproduction of the tilma image. On account of certain reasons, some people date it to 1531 or 1532. If so, there would be no gap to explain! One can read about that online, or in "The Guadalupan Apparitions: Historical Fact?" by Janet Barber, found on pp. 184-191 of the fairly well known book "A Handbook on Guadalupe" (1990s editions by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate). On p. 184, Janet gives her opinion about why we lack written records from Bp. Zumarraga and other written records of an early date. Printing presses were not readily available back then, and paper or parchment for manuscripts was very expensive, and subject to theft, etc.
DeleteIt is commonly thought by New Testament scholars that the synoptic Gospels in our Bibles may have been first composed perhaps about 20 years or so after Jesus was crucified. Does that "prove" anything about these Gospels containing errors in what they narrate, because of the "gap"? Some people are eager to jump to that conclusion, but the Catholic Church has always firmly rejected such assertions... As this pertains to Guadalupe, even if (which it isn't!) our earliest literary record was the AD 1649 Nican Mopohua, what would that prove? Or what arguments are so compelling to make us conclude that the N.M. contains any significant error(s) in respect of what it narrates about Juan Diego and the 1531 apparitions?
https://grokipedia.com/page/Acheiropoieta
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheiropoieta
In my mind at least, there is no good reason to doubt that the Guadalupe tilma is an acheiropoietos artifact. (The Wiki article noted makes the mistake of referring to the Turin shroud as a "hoax". The famous 1988 C-14 tests were what was hoaxed). On account of a number of scientific reasons, there is, in my opinion, not a chance in a zillion that any human forger could have created that tilma image. There is evidence galore for that on the Internet, viewable in both print text and youtube formats. Perhaps the best book presentation of the various types of scientific information about the tilma, is found on pp. 201-273 of "Guadalupe Mysteries: Deciphering the Code", by Grzegorz Gorny and Janusz Rosikon (2016; Ignatius Press; San Francisco, USA), translated from the Polish original "Sekrety Guadalupe" (2015; Rosikon Press; Warsaw, Poland). In particular, the accuracy and sophistication of the celestial cartography of the tilma, is simply mind blowing. That cartography, in conjunction with musical encodes, have apparently even enabled scientists to deduce 6:45AM (Mexican time) on 12 Dec. 1531. The time point at which the tilma image was apparently instantly created, or the apparition occurred, was encoded right into the tilma itself (pp. 221 & 228). Game over, in this and apparently in a number of other ways as well. After reviewing the historical and scientific evidence with an open mind, I don't know how anyone can conclude that Juan Diego had nothing to do the Guadalupe image. If it wasn't Juan Diego, who was it? Is the evidence for "anyone else other than Juan", even a fraction of 1% as good as what already exists in favor of Juan Diego?
To Anonymous February 21, 2026 at 1:15 AM and Anonymous February 20, 2026 at 10:06 PM and anyone else making the same arguments. Please read my 2 articles before making comments like these.
Delete1. We have tons of historical records from that period and absolutely none speak about an apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
2. The historians (mostly priests) tell how millions converted to the Faith but absolutely no apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe was involved in those conversions. They even mention other apparitions.
3. In addition to that, we have an actual Church document that tells us that Marcos painted the image and not a single person disputed it in any fashion. Not one person including the Bishop that promoted the imaged.
4. That bishop (Bp Montufar) acknowledge that it was painted by Marcos and his painting also included miracles which was given his approval for devotion. But NO apparition was known by the historical record and that is an historical FACT!
5.I go through all of the "miracles" of the image in part 2 and prove that real miracles of the image don't prove an apparition story. Most of the so-called miracles are not miracles at all anyway.
6. Juan Diego never existed! He is a myth from a story created by the Indians and rejected by all the Spanish until over a hundred years after the story was penned.
7. In part 2, I present a respected Mexican Catholic historian of the 19th century telling why the story is not credible in the least bit. The story is really quite silly when you break it down as he did.
I spent many hours researching and writing about it and there's no point in rehashing what I wrote. If you people would actually do your research rather reading just pro-apparition nonsense, you would see the problem. Below are the links to my articles. Read them carefully and with an open mind (without bias.) I did so and I truly believed in the apparition story until I saw the whole picture.
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2025/01/26/getting-real-with-our-lady-of-guadalupe-part-i/
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2025/02/03/getting-real-with-our-lady-of-guadalupe-part-ii/
There is one evident tiny typo error in the 1:15 comment, in the fourth line from the bottom. Corrected, it would be "... to do WITH the Guadalupe...". The next subject might best be the Wiki and Grok articles "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". The "dirty bathwater" in this case, would be Juan Diego. If one proceeds with an assumption that JD did not exist, or only doubtfully existed, because the author of the Nican Mopohua supposedly conjured up his existence by inventing him as a character to populate his narrative plot, then what becomes of the baby (= the tilma and the entire apparition narrative)??
DeleteMention is made in a comment below about the 2023 book "Guadalupe and the Flower World Prophecy". You can actually read fairly substantial segments of it online! Google search "Amazon Books". Then, in the top search box of Amazon, type in words like " Guadalupe Flower Prophecy " to get the desired result. "Read Sample" is right below the photo of the book cover at the upper left. We are supplied a very big sample of it! Customer reviews for that book can be seen on the bottom of the page. It is rated 4.9 out of 5. Top notch.
DeleteThe same can be done with the "Guadalupe Mysteries" book of Gorny and Rosikon, noted above. Below the book cover image at the upper left seen via the Amazon Books page, if you click on "Read Sample", the icon you see just to the left of the search "magnifying glass" shows you a little bit about the contents, but not much. Repeatedly clicking on "Surprise Me!" shows a variety of pages. Customer reviews rank it 4.8 out of 5.
As a follow up to TradWarrior's Feb. 18 comment above about Medjugorje, I happen to have a 2011 paperback copy of "Medjugorje Revisited: 30 Years of Visions or Religious Fraud?" in my possession. The author is Donal Anthony Foley, and the publisher is Theotokos Books of Nottingham, England. The 693 endnotes on pp. 378-411 show that the book has significant scholarly heft, but the author writes in a down-to-earth literary style that someone who knows basic English, can understand without difficulty. This book is summarized on the back cover by noting that the point of view of the author DAF is that Medjugorje "bears all the hallmarks of a vast religious fraud." A charade. Indeed, what could be more obvious? And so why say anything about that in a comment here? How many people who read Introibo's readers' comments "believe" in Medjugorje? Nobody. Or next to nobody. So why should anyone waste time "preaching to the choir" of the already convinced?
ReplyDeleteThe back cover of the book also states that Medjugorje is "the most popular unapproved private revelation in Church history." Highly likely it is, yes. There is a Pacific Ocean of information about it online, including a Sept. 25, 2024 Internet piece with the title "Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez: The Holy Spirit is at work in the spiritual experience of Medjugorje". (!) Will we one day be able to read from an official Vatican document from Fernandez himself, wherein he states that "The Holy Spirit is at work in the SSPX" (?!)
Is anything really official coming from the false church?
DeleteIn answer to you, 4:18, "The Vatican" or "Vatican City" is a 121 acre territorial enclave, an independent country or nation, formed in 1929 by the Lateran Treaty with Italy. Whoever is the white-robe there, is de facto (and possibly de jure too??) the President or Prime Minister or King, of that nation. As concerns the religious entity in contrast to the civil one, control over that territory, was hijacked away from the true RCC, by the pseudo-Catholic V2.org . If you read 2:40 carefully, you'll notice that no claim is being made that Fernandez -- almost certainly an official employee of the Vatican City State -- is either a Catholic or a Cardinal. The conclusion, with exclamation points, rather obviously is intended to highlight certain ironies. Are you and / or others, too dim-witted, to spot them? That said, yes, "Vatican" can be used as a metonym for "the Holy See". Mario Derksen refers to it, post V2, as being "the Unholy See". With him, I agree.
DeleteThanks for all the clarifications and definitions. Not sure why I am dim witted when I at least figured out the Novus Disordo scam, which a billion plus have yet to do so. Mario publishes so much good. But aren't the sspx the followers of a man too? God says trust no man.
DeleteIntroibo I love your auto demolition of the followers of the Dimwits. You do an outstanding job. Why do they bother coming on your blog to write garbage. You seem to have a more of problem with folk in the States who don't accept BOD and BOB. No one here in the UK holds to this . Keep up your great defense of the Faith. God bless
ReplyDelete@anon2:53
DeleteThank you, my friend!
The Feeneyite heresy originated here in the U.S. It was compounded by the errors of the Dimwit brothers, right here in my home state of New York.
There are even two “Slaves of the Immaculate Heart and Mary” here; one approved by the Vatican II sect, where it’s ok to believe in anything but the truth.
The Dimondites have spread their disease worldwide, with their website and videos, yet it is still strongest where it started—-America.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
We have often wondered why too there are so many rejecters of BOB and BOD in the USA .
ReplyDelete@anon6:55
DeleteSee my response directly above. The heresy originated here and has the Dimwits here as well.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
I saw a video last year of the dimwitted so called monastery...how in the world did they attain such a magnificent property? Is it just them two? Who offers Mass for them? Or are they inheritors of their parents large estate or something?
Delete@anon7:55
DeleteThe monastery's founder was Joseph Natale (1933-1995), a Benedictine lay postulant. To the best of my knowledge and belief, it was a wealthy patron that helped Natale buy the place. Fred and Bobby joined in the late 1980s, and Fred took over after Natale went to Judgement.
Who offers Mass for them? I have no idea if they even have Mass. Fred and Bobby are there--and I don't know of any others currently there, but I could be wrong. One of the former people there was Richard Ibranyi, who now runs his own cult in New Mexico called "Mary's Little Remnant." He and his followers believe there has been no pope since 1130 AD (I wish I was joking, but I'm not).
God Bless,
---Introibo
Ok thanks. Seems very strange they could upkeep such a massive property. No Mass either? Such a weird existence. But they interview priests etc.
DeleteI'm purposely detaching this comment from the Guadalupe thread above. The following is a quotation from pp. 18 and 187 of the 2023 book "Guadalupe and the Flower World Prophecy", by Joseph Julian Gonzalez and Monique Gonzalez (Sophia Institute Press, New Hampshire):
ReplyDelete"But if it were true that the Guadalupan narrative was a fabrication, another question then arises: Who did it? Although at first glance the obvious similarities breed suspicion, scholars are far from arriving to a consensus of the "fraud's" official perpetrator, though some have speculated on this myth-maker's identity, pointing to different historical candidates such as the seventeenth-century priest Miguel Sanchez or the sixteenth-century Mexican governor Antonio Valeriano. Yet as tempting as it may be, the purpose of this book is not to delve into Guadalupe apologetics by defending Our Lady against her many critics, for they are legion. To explore and dismantle the many objections scholars have brought up over the centuries on every aspect of the Guadalupe Event -- the validity of the tilma, the existence or nonexistence of Juan Diego, the alleged conversion of millions, as well as many other objections notwithstanding -- however worthy these matters might be, would nevertheless lead us into tangents that are outside the scope of this book. Instead, we want to argue here that despite the objections and criticisms of secular scholars, especially the one outlined above, there is an alternative contextual way to look at the similarities found in the "Cuicapeuhcayotl" and the Nican Mopohua..."
I'll tack on an additional comment to this one, as soon as I see that Introibo has published this one. Some additional quotation from that highly scholarly 2023 book will be provided, but I'm mindful of keeping it within the boundaries of "fair use". It's a great book. I endorse it.
To continue the 5:57 comment, by quotation:
Delete"Indeed, accounting for Guadalupe's historical and cultural context reveals more depth and sophistication than critical scholars have considered. We cannot jump to the conclusion that Guadalupe is a hoax simply because it resembles an ancient Nahua poem. On the contrary, if the similarities come instead from a unified cultural background and a continuity of themes between the two stories, the suspicions behind the Guadalupe account can be laid to rest... The story you just read converted nine to ten million Mesoamerican indigenous, the largest conversion event in the history of Christianity. While it is the general belief that the tilma alone caused all the conversions throughout the land, we would like to approach it within its larger context, understanding that belief in the tilma is predicated on belief in the story... Yet how would that work for a non-believer who has no frame of reference?... And why would he believe secondhand and thirdhand sources?... the Nahua had no reason to entrust their belief in something to the priests... What would convince massive numbers of indigenous to believe the tilma is miraculous and the story is true despite being hundreds of miles away from Tepeyac and never seeing it, as supported by the historical record?... Can we separate the tilma from the story or are they too integrally intertwined?"
*******
There are lots of deep mysteries involved here. That 2023 book sheds quite a bit of light upon them. If you read it, you'll learn an awful lot about Guadalupe, that you were never aware of before.
To Anonymous February 21, 2026 at 5:57 PM: All this is addressed in my 2 articles. The entire premise is that 9 million Indians converted because of the image. This is simply not true. Even that number began at 7 million, then later 8 million, and now 9 million. Give it a few more years and it will be 10 million Indians converted because of the image. These pro-apparition books and articles ignore the facts of history, which is necessary to promote a myth. Not only do they ignore and reject Church documents and history, but they also completely fabricate it. That's how it all began.
DeleteHere's a fact of history to ponder: One year before he died, Bishop Zumarraga (the bishop of the apparition story of Juan Diego) wrote in 1547 Regla Christiana Breve, “The Redeemer of the world no longer wants miracles to be performed, because miracles are not necessary for our holy faith so well founded by so many thousands of miracles as we have in the Old and New Testaments.” What a strange thing to say from the bishop who supposedly witness one of the greatest miracles in the history of Christendom. I believe he made this statement because the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe is an Indian mythical story.
To prove it was intended to be myth by the Indians, the “1548” document Codex Escalada (earliest document and earlier document than the Nican Mopohua that was used to help secure the canonization process of Juan Diego) had the signature of Father Bernardino de Sahagún O.F.M. (1499 – 5 February 1590) who gave us the Florentine Codex (The General History of the Things of New Spain.) He worked on it from 1545 until his death. Father Sahagún was at odds with the veneration of the image Our Lady of Guadalupe because of real idolatry taking place. He never mentioned the apparition story in his history and if his signature is genuine (as they claim confirmation), it would work against the Apparition story because it would mean that it was only a story, because it was not recognized as a historical event by Father Sahagún himself. His signature would be an “imprimatur” to a story of fiction, which had so little significance that he doesn't mention it in his entire history.
Again, if the story were true, it would be at least mentioned in the numerous histories by the priests and historians in that area, but alas, not a single mention. The image did not convert millions as not even that was mentioned.
For those who haven't read my articles, pro-apparitionists lie about the science, too. Scientific examination shows that it was painted and painted over many times, a Catholic artist explained how it was done, and the fibers were proven to be hemp, not cactus only. Hemp is a strong material that can last for centuries.
The whole point of my going on about this is to show that although apparitionists are permitted to believe in approved apparitions, it's not right to peddle lies to prove them. If you want to believe that the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe is true, fine. Just be factual about it.
Thanks for this comment Mr.Speray! So many lies.
DeleteI always wondered how they counted conversions? Baptism certificates? No proof of anything? My brother in law was supposedly baptized in small village in Peru in 1968. No certificates. Modern day bishop claims he was but no proof. My sis went thru this trying to get married properly. Who knows! Apparently priest only visited once per year in that village...and he and his family were taught to walk with God in your heart. No catechism or church teachings.
Our current Fatima scene has an Impostor Lucy.
DeleteGuadalupe has an Impostor Juan to match that?
It makes perfect sense to me (snarky sarcasm?)
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous February 18, 2026 at 10:05 PM: There's a better chance Christopher Hitchens will make to heaven than you Feeneyites. He was at least a gentleman, which Feeneyites are not! As for the Dimond phone call, I was not embarrassed at all because I spoke the truth and tried to be a gentleman. Peter Dimond refused to debate me on paper or in a formal setting at that time. I have the emails to prove it. I refused to speak to Dimond after his dishonesty and the terrible recording, which he published despite the obvious. Now, I would gladly do so. On paper is the best way but you won't find them going there because they will be crushed and exposed for the frauds and dimwits they truly are. If they would like to go in on air and debate whether Baptism of desire and blood is heretical, I'm game. Of course, they would be arguing against the Catholic Church and not so much against me.
Introibo,
ReplyDeletethat was a much-needed post, thank you very much for the information taken from theologian Volken!
You illustrated your article with the picture of the insufferable and condemned "revelations" of Sr. Faustina Kowalska. They're still probably the most profitable money-making enterprise in the Novus Ordo. Some may feel these alleged revelations of Divine Mercy have already been debunked and there's no need to revisit the arguments against them but I believe there's still room to present some original new arguments against them. How many are aware of the striking Mariavite connection? Roughly thirty years before Faustina started to hear voices in the city of Plotsk in central Poland demanding her to proclaim Divine Mercy, a certain nun by the name of Maria Franciszka Kozlowska had claimed that she had been given revelations of Divine Mercy (proclaiming her the mother of mercy for all men and made holy by God) in that very same town!
The abomibale sect of Mariavite priests originated with the mercy-messenger Kozlowska who was joined by dissident priests, forming an illicit and immoral religious congregation, causing tremendous scandal in Poland up until World War 2 even though condemned by St. Pius X in 1906.
God Bless,
Joanna
Joanna,
DeleteThank you! This would make a good topic for a future post!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Joanna, did you or others notice how the Irish woman "Maria Divine Mercy" mentioned in the Feb. 19 @ 12:11 comment above, took her nom de plume (= pen or publication name) using the Polish nun's "mission and message" as a sort of namesake identifier to promote her own brand persona? As the saying goes, "birds of a feather, flock together."
Deletehttps://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm = "Church Reasons to Condemn the Divine Mercy Devotion" (Oct. 15, 2013).
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B945_Logic.html = "Divine Mercy Spreads Feminized Jesus" (Feb. 21, 2017). He is a female (or is he a transgender ?) Jesus (!!!) That TIA post is 9 years old now, but still lodged well enough in my memory, that I could quickly locate it online, in order to cite it here. So the "Jesus" Introibo is showing us at the top of this blog post, is quite appropriate to pair up with the title of the post!
Anon 10:45,
DeleteYes, the "divine mercy" catchprase works like a clickbait for Novus Ordo conservatives, and even in semi-trad circles, at least to some extent. I've seen a photo of an SSPX chapel in Poland that sported a large framed Divine Mercy image right next to the altar!. The chapel is no longer functioning.
The official prayer book published by the SSPX in Poland for the use in their chapels includes the Divine Mercy chaplet as it is prayed in the Novus Ordo.
Words fail.
God Bless,
Joanna
Introibo,
DeleteI was hoping you'd say that! I'll be working on it!
God Bless,
Joanna
Joanna,
DeleteThank you so much! It would be my pleasure to publish it!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Thank you so much for this Joanna. I am well aware of the Polish Devotion, it's nefarious history and ostensible insidiousity, though had never heard of Maria Franciszka Kozlowska and that wretched affair, in which can perhaps be seen the genus of the 'DM' deception. Thank you.
DeleteJust doing a very simple google search like:
Deletemariavites pope adam
resulted for me in seeing a Google AI Overview, and quite a bit of other Internet information, including about "Pope" J.M.M. Kowalski, and also the Polish-American "Pope" Adam II (= Adam Oraczewski). One need only peruse the "papal" website of Magnus Lundberg, to learn whatever you want to learn, about non-Vatican, or non-Rome, "popes". There is also a wealth of online information, and in English too, about the so-called "Mariavites". But I wasn't aware of this, until I did that google search, as I am not of Polish ethnicity, nor am I the least bit well-versed, in the somewhat esoteric subject, of "the history of Polish apparitionism".
Concerning TIA's exposure of a "Divine Mercy" depiction of what some would call a gender fluid or androgynous (or tranny or queer?) "Jesus" (in the 10:45PM comment above), what was perhaps the most "gender fluid" "Catholic" wedding ever, was described in a Mario D. NOW post in just the past couple of weeks = "Diabolical Inversion: Male 'Bride' and Female 'Groom' Celebrate Transgender Wedding in 'Catholic' Church" (Feb. 10, 2026).
DeleteAbout 12-15 hours after the 11:30PM comment above, Mario came out with his newest blog post "Meet the 'Queer-Sensitive' New Head of German Novus Ordo Bishops" (Feb. 24, 2026). His name is Heiner Wilmer, who no doubt knows all about "Divine Mercy" for Queers = the Q of LGBTQ.
DeleteAs it so happens, Mario's post previous to that was "Interreligious Jubilee at Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica..." (Feb. 20, 2026). Guadalupe. Guadalupe. In other words, was Mario borrowing words from out of this particular comment section, for his blog titles? Or are these things just queer coincidences? You decide.
Cześć Joanna!
DeleteI look forward to anything you may care to submit about the Mariavites and the "Divine Mercy" hokum. You referred to a town in central Poland as Plotsk. Should that have been Płock?
I wasn't surprised to learn that the SSPX in Poland pushes DM. After all, that outfit is part of the Novus Bogus cult.
Bóg zapłać!
Leo
Introibo: Thank you for this post; I'm 'week behind' and have just seen it and am looking very much forward to reading it. Such a great topic, thank you in advance.
ReplyDeleteI HAVE A QUESTION: you have oft remarked that Sedeprivationism is possible, that the V2S 'popes' may be material popes, though not formal popes - 'pope place-holders'. If such were so, for argument's sake (and only for argument's sake), would the term 'false' pope still be applicable?
Thank you in advance.
Good question...so much is confusing. False but could be real if converts? Doesn't make sense...
Delete@anon3:29
DeleteYes, the term "false pope" would apply. He has not received the papacy until he removes the heresy. The term "antipope" applies only to one who reigns in opposition to a true pope. As there is no true pope there can be no opposition and no antipope.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you very much, good answer. That makes sense.
DeleteBy way of follow-up, if I may:
* So would Bp. Sandbourn, for example, though if not hom, SPs in general, refer to Mr. Prevost as a false pope, or would they stop short of employing that term, given that they regard him, presumably, as 'materially' the pope?
* What of curious & complicated case of Fr. Ratzinger & Bergoglio the Abominable? If Fr. Ratzinger was a false pope who never properly resigned his position, what did that render the Argentinian apostate? An anti-false pope?
@anon12:14
Delete1. I don’t know if they would use that term. Probably “material pope” which is a false pope capable of becoming a true pope.
2. No. Had Ratzinger not properly resigned he would be a “False pope who is a material pope” and Bergoglio just “false pope.”
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Thank you very much. Thank you!
DeleteIntroibo:
ReplyDeleteIn point number 2 in the main article above it says:
"A medical examination of all seers should be had to determine physical and psychological soundness".
Do you think that somebody with normal MENTAL health, but with physical health problems, could be a seer?
@anon4:02
DeleteYes. Physical health problems can sometimes impact a person's mental health, hence the need to check. For example, I knew a boy when I was growing up who would frequently get high grade fevers. He would hallucinate when he had them. I'm sure you can see why that would give pause if he claimed "I saw the Blessed Virgin Mary."
Someone who has e.g., a limp from an underdeveloped leg, would have no bearing on him/her being a seer.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Off topic...does the Church teach what they ate on Noah's Ark? Besides eggs from chickens? Maybe a dumb question...but are the eggs of chickens...which would hatch into new chickens if we didn't eat them...well, it kinda seems wrong? Since God only saved 8 on the Ark, are all the rest damned? Some are questions from my godson....thank you!
ReplyDelete@anon5:17
DeleteNo. The Church is silent as to the minutia regarding most Biblical events. Is the eating of chicken eggs wrong. No. We eat the chicken after we kill it, so why not the eggs? Finally, outside the Ark (a prototype of the Church) all were lost. They were wicked and hardened in their sin.
Good questions from your godson!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you very much!
DeleteBombogenesis or "explosive cyclogenesis", with around 2 feet of snow and hurricane winds, are now targeting NYC and neighboring areas, according to online news reports. Who knows if this will affect Introibo's Internet connectivity?
ReplyDelete@anon5:49
DeleteLet's hope not! So far, I'm good, but outside is a disaster!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo! It appears that you have survived! Although you might have had quite a bit of "digging out" to do, for yourself and others, the Hurricane Hernando blizzard did not do quite as much damage to NYC as Hurricane Sandy did. A flashback in time to that is:
Deletehttps://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B570_Sandy.html = "Our Lady of the Hurricane" , as a part of "Hurricane Sandy, Valtorta & Williamson" (Nov. 1, 2012).
https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_042_Valtorta.htm = "Valtorta's Poem of the Man-God", by Marian T. Horvat (Oct. 29, 2012).
There is a hypertext link in the first TIA post noted, to the second one. This should fit perfectly among the comments here about the "private revelations" topic of this post. Valtorta never gained as much notoriety as Medjugorje or the "Divine Mercy" (= DM) stuff, but it garnered some support, and even ensnared the late SSPX Bp. Williamson. Horvat debunks Valtorta well enough, that we don't need to waste any further time with that. I do look forward to seeing what Joanna might be able to produce about the "Made in Poland and "canonized" by a Polish Pseudo-Pope" DM private revelations. It might be that half (or more) of what is published on the Internet nowadays, is in English, but it would help in evaluating DM to have someone do it, who knows Polish too. May God bless you and all of your readers.