This is the second of some posts I will publish on occult symbolism. I've written much on occult practices and how it influences things like music and movies, but not so much on occult symbols. Sometimes my friends will ask, "I want to buy [certain item they show me] but a writing or a picture on it looks strange. Is it occult?" Good question. Sometimes someone will know something is occult, but they don't know exactly why it's bad, other than the general condemnation of the occult by the Church and found in the Bible.
This post will continue to expose occult symbolism. While many things today are occult, not every symbol or writing we don't understand is automatically "occult." We must learn to discern. You may be better equipped to help a family member or friend who has some occult symbol in his/her possession and may not realize it, thinking it harmless. My first post in this series was published on 4/27/26. It is well worth reading first if you have not already done so--it gives some background on symbolism which I will not repeat here.
I claim no credit for any of the material in this post. All I did was compile the research on the occult into a terse and reader-friendly installment on this blog. The material comes from many online and print resources. I hope you find it useful. Please comment and let me know if you got something out of it.
God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo
Ritualistic and Divinatory Occult Symbols
These systems promise guidance and control over the future, replacing trust in God's sovereignty with confidence in alleged "hidden forces."
The Tarot
Meaning: The Tarot is more than a card game; it is a system that invites us to project our anxieties onto archetypal images. It divides life into the “Major Arcana” (22 cards representing the fool’s journey of spiritual evolution) and the “Minor Arcana” (56 cards for daily life). It promises that if we just shuffle the deck right, we can peek behind the curtain of time and find certainty in a chaotic world.
Origin: Originally created in 15th-century Italy as a card game called Tarocchi. It was not until the late 18th century that occultists adopted the imagery for divination. Later groups combined the cards with Hebrew letters, linking the 22 Major Arcana to the 22 paths of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life.
Uses Today: Modern usage ranges from fortune-telling to psychological self reflection. Cards are arranged in specific "spreads" to interpret life events. Advanced practitioners use "pathworking"—a form of guided visualization to mentally enter and interact with the card’s symbolic landscape.
Why it should not be used: All forms of divination are condemned by the Church without exception. Tarot appeals to those desperate for certainty about an uncertain future, promising control through a "destiny" dealt in the cards. Not only the cards themselves, but any symbol used in the Tarot must be shunned.
The Zodiac
Meaning: Cosmic fatalism. It divides the sky into twelve sections, telling us that our temperaments and destinies are dictated by the position of the sun, moon, and planets at our birth. It offers the comfort of believing our flaws are “written in the stars” rather than issues of the heart, replacing personal responsibility with celestial programming.
Origin: The concept began in ancient Babylon (c. 2000 BC), but the Greeks developed the specific horoscope system used today. In the 2nd century AD, Ptolemy organized these beliefs into his book Tetrabiblos, effectively framing astrology as a serious science rather than just superstition.
Uses Today: Beyond daily horoscopes, modern astrology has shifted from predicting the future to analyzing personality. People use detailed “birth charts” to define their identity, understand their emotions, and determine romantic compatibility.
Why it should not be used: All forms of divination are condemned by the Church without exception. Astrology offers a ready-made identity, reducing the complexity of your soul to a “cookie-cutter” profile based on a timestamp. The Church offers something far richer: you are not a product of planetary alignment, but the “masterpiece” of a personal Creator.
Saturn
N. B. Besides this symbol, the planet with the ring is sometimes used as well.
Meaning: Represented by the scythe and the heavy metal lead, Saturn is the taskmaster of the zodiac. It symbolizes limitation, hardship, and “karmic debt.” Wearing it is an acknowledgement of life’s heavy burdens, often in an attempt to appease the forces that cause suffering or to master the “Saturn Return”—the astrological crisis point of mid-life maturity.
Origin: Saturn was identified with the Greek god Cronos (Time), who devoured his own children. In alchemy, it represented the “blackening”—the death, restriction, and putrefaction necessary before spiritual transformation.
Uses Today: Prominent in pop culture as a symbol of “adulting” and hard lessons, appearing in songs by artists like Adele, SZA, and Ariana Grande referencing the “Saturn Return.” It is a popular motif in jewelry and tattoos representing resilience. In the occult, it remains essential for talismanic magic, where practitioners use magic squares (kamea) and sigils to bind enemies, curse, or seek protection from the “evil eye” and bad luck.
Why it should not be used: Any use of "magic charms" is pagan/occult sand has no place in the life of a Traditionalist. Saturn is the taskmaster of the zodiac, enforcing a worldview of cosmic debt (karma) where every mistake must be paid; this is more paganism/occultism. The whole idea of "karma" is also attached to the false and heretical idea of reincarnation.
The Triple Moon
Meaning: The rhythm of the goddess. It offers women an identity rooted in biology rather than theology. By linking the waxing, full, and waning moon to the Maiden (youth), Mother (fertility), and Crone (wisdom/death), it divinizes the aging process. It suggests that our power comes from the shifting tides of nature rather than the unchangeable nature of God.
Origin: A 20th-century Wiccan (the religion of witches) and neopagan symbol influenced by Robert Graves's The White Goddess (1948), which popularized the Maiden‑Mother-Crone lunar archetype from earlier goddess themes. In his book, Graves asserts that European poetic inspiration stems from the worship of a single, ancient moon goddess who embodies birth, love, and death.
Uses Today: Prominent in contemporary witchcraft, it appears on altars, common jewelry, and ritual tools to honor the divine feminine and the sacred rhythms of nature’s cycles. It is mostly (although not exclusively) used by women.
Why it should not be used: The Triple Moon is pure paganism, and seeks the "divine feminine" within nature's cycles, offering identity through the Maiden-Mother-Crone archetype. It is also used frequently among modern day Wiccans (witches). Christ offers women (and men) something better: permanent identity as God's beloved image-bearers and adopted children (Galatians 3:26-28).
Conclusion
As I wrote in my last post on this topic:
Symbols have deep meaning and are important. They link things tangible to realities that are intangible. We can't see love, but when a man brings red roses to his wife, love is symbolized. The ultimate symbol of love is the crucifix, God died so we may live forever. Those are wonderful symbols. However, when the symbol is linked to intangible evils by symbolizing heresies, immoralities and calling upon (evil) spirits for "protection" they become an invitation (wittingly or not) for evil to enter your life. Invite evil in and it will take you up on your request.
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get the sources for Pre Vatican II theologians on your posts?
I want to read their books so that I can have time reading true Catholic books.
Ryan,
DeleteOriginally, from Fr. DePauw, and then from various bookstores. The best place now is "Preserving Christian Publications" at https://www.pcpbooks.net/prestashop
All the titles are pre-V2 and the selection is incredible! Also on Amazon you can purchase theologian Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma"--- that was the first theological manual I ever read.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Great post, once again ! No one speaks out against the occult anymore, especially not the V2 sect, which itself comes from the world of the occult and darkness. I sometimes see occult-related items at newsstands, and I occasionally get unsolicited calls from astrology firms, but I hang up immediately. We must remain vigilant, for the devil is lurking !
ReplyDeleteSimon,
DeleteOnce I was driving to work when I received a call from a number I didn't recognize. I answered using my Bluetooth. A female voice said, "Who is this?" I said, "You're calling me. Who are you?" She said, "I'm Christina the Psychic." I replied, "Then wouldn't you already know who I am?" She yelled an expletive and hung up! Lol
God Bless,
---Introibo
One benefit -- the only one -- to a zodiac system is that the Chinese zodiac contains the dragon. And why? Because dragons (dinosaurs of a sort) and humans lived at the same eras, and maybe still today. Marco Polo described a dragon on his journey through western China. This wreaks havoc with evolutionary dating, and evolution as whole.
ReplyDelete@anon7:59
DeleteWell, Darwinian evolution is wrong, but evolution itself has not been condemned by the Church. You are allowed to believe in an Old Earth and non-Darwinian evolution. I subscribe to both. (You can also believe in a young Earth and reject evolution completely).
God Bless,
---Introibo
We were looking forward to part two Introibo and here it is. Just great. You are amazing source of info.
ReplyDeleteSomeone made the comment last week about a certain priest wanting to know about a persons health before receiving the Sacraments. You said there must be something wrong about the mental health of this priest. He should be banned from confecting the Sacraments. Well said.
How about a priest turning a blind eye to someone committing adultery in exchange for funds and a roof over his head and giving them the Sacraments. Researching this we were given this info from a source.
1, A Traditional priest would view this priest as deeply scandalous and a sign of spiritual corruption and a dereliction of priestly duty
2, The actions of the priest would be seen as abhorrent. Turning a blind eye to immorality while accepting money and housing constitutes simony. Priests are bound to correct public sinners and protect the flock from scandal. Ignoring it for personal gain makes the priest complicit in the sin.
God bless you, J and S
I've read this blog for 8 years and the people who accuse sede clerics of very serious things never reveal their identity. In my opinion, that makes the accusations redundant.
DeleteThe accusers don't want to reveal the names of the accused priests, because it might reveal the identities of the accusers.
DeleteJ&S,
DeleteIf that priest did those things, then I agree with what the Traditionalist priest said in response.
God Bless,
---Introibo
"The accusers don't want to reveal the names of the accused priests, because it might reveal the identities of the accusers."
DeleteYes, this is precisely why those priest's names should be revealed. Simony isn't a small sin. They should be exposed so that people know to avoid them at all costs.
You don't understand. If the identities of the ACCUSERS are revealed, that could compromise their safety.
DeleteIn this day and age when so few priests exist and those of us who find them must know the truth. I have wasted so much time trying to find a true priest only to find more corruption, scandal etc. I will no longer ever consider moving or searching. God does not have any priests or Mass for me so I must accept. However, the criminal and scandalous should be named in my opinion to save us all much resources, heartbreak etc. And from danger!
DeleteLet's suppose that the accusers go public. What real good would it do anyway? There's no legitimate authority to discipline the rouge priest and hopefully get him on the right track again (if he's fit for the priesthood anyway), which would include severe penance and restitution for the scandal he caused.
DeleteThose people have a right not to be harassed and stay anonymous if they fear for their safety. Most of us here are perfectly anonymous, aren't we?
I know of a man who had his life ruined because he'd gone public and attempted to bring a change to an ill-functioning sede community. No good whatsoever resulted from that.
J and S,
this is indeed tragic. I've seen serious neglect of priestly duties among Traditionalist priests who should've (and would've) never been ordained in the first place but this is worse.
God Bless You,
Joanna
Ok but then why should they comment about it? If I don't know who they are, how can I help you to get rid of them?
DeleteThank you Joanna for your support and understanding what happened to us. We went through trauma, unbelief and other troubles seeing this dangerous and evil priest turn a blind eye to sin. He had no pastoral heart and also destroyed the Faith of many. Thank God he departed and our chapel was taken over by another group.
DeleteYou are so right, there are a number of sede clerics out there who should have never been ordained in the first place. To be honest , we have doubts if they could confect the Sacraments.
God bless you, J and S
The SSPX has announced the names of the new bishops. Introibo and his readers, what do you think?
ReplyDelete@anon11:23
DeleteA four bishop repeat of 1988. One American, one Swiss, and two French. This will give the SSPX 6 bishops in total. I wonder how Prevost will react after the "excommunications." I know little about these four soon-to-be consecrated bishops. If anyone knows about them (or knows them personally) Please comment here.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I know many who love Fr Hannipier, when I was still pals with Sspxers. It is sad bc the sspx priests see zero issues with indult priests. They are all pals and don't look into to anything more seriously. It seems to be all about comfort and good ole feelings.
DeleteI only know about Father Goldade among the four priests chosen. He's the rector of the USA seminary, and has only been the rector since 2023. I've personally yet briefly spoken with him on two occasions and went to a talk he gave on the crisis in the Church after a Mass. From those occasions, he seemed pretty level-headed and humble. His selection as a candidate seems like a safe choice for the SSPX. He will probably be like Bishop de Galarreta in being quiet and doing his duty as an auxiliary bishop without controversy.
DeleteI pray that the consecrations will result in Prevost issuing a blanket excommunication for all involved with the SSPX so that they might follow the footsteps of the Transalpine Redemptorists in rejecting the legitimacy of Prevost and his heretical predecessors. If this happens, I hope they will also join Bishop Roy's movement for a General Council.
@anon5:15 and Sneedevacantist,
DeleteThank you for your insights into this important development! Much appreciated!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I second Sneedevacantist’s motion.
DeleteThis notion of setting up an Imperfect Council it is a complete waste of time. When will people realize we are in The End Times? There will not be another Pope. This is the Great Apostasy that Saint Paul prophesied about in Holy Scripture . Even if these bishops thought they could elect a “Pope”, they don’t have the jurisdiction or authority to do so, and not many would accept the new Antipope. The group and the groups that support The Antipope that they chose would just be called cults and schismatics, which would be true. The differences among the RCI, CMRI, SGG, independent priests, and SSPV/CSPV are irreconcilable. Traditionalists have to accept that there is no Pope, and there likely won’t be one. King David’s seat/throne was vacant for 500 years before Christ came, and the seat of the Papacy could be vacant for many years before the second coming. This papal vacancy is a punishment from God due to infidelity, Catholics not being true Catholics and compromising their Faith for the world , worldliness in general, idolatry, unnatural vice, murder of the innocent, and more. People just have to accept it. There will be no good fruits from this absurd imperfect council nonsense. Be Catholic and pray your Rosary. That’s what Catholics need to do.
DeleteSneedevacantist,
DeleteYour comment is very good. I agree with what you wrote. There is one issue that some people have brought up that could be problematic. What if these SSPX consecrations are done in the new rite? Then they are null and void. Modernist Rome sees what is going on and with the devil and his fellow demons always on the prowl for souls, a smoke and mirrors consecration would be dangerously deceptive. These new bishops would not be bishops and all of their episcopal actions after the fact would be null and void. While it seems hopeful that they would be done in the traditional rite, there is a large diversity of people under the umbrella of the SSPX. At one end of the spectrum, there are several crypto sedevacantists among their ranks. At the other end of the spectrum are those extremely sympathetic to the Novus Ordo. They just simply want the Latin Mass and so they attend the SSPX. Others are very cozy with the FSSP and ICK and other indult groups. Many fall in the middle and are typical R & R’s. Still, something will give here. If done in the traditional rite, then that is great and yes, perhaps they would join Bishop Roy’s proposition of an imperfect council. That is certainly possible. If they were done in the new rite, Rome could still “excommunicate” them, even though in reality, they are not bishops anyway. There are many within the SSPX that have been grafted in from the Novus Ordo, FSSP, ICK, and others and there were no conditional ordinations that were done. Others were conditionally ordained, but in the new rite, so they are still lay people wearing clerics. Others were conditionally ordained in the traditional rite, so they are valid priests. But even among many of these valid priests, the R & R mentality permeates so much of their thinking. There are layers and layers of problems under the very large umbrella of the SSPX. There are good men among their ranks. Your comment touches upon that. We will see what will happen in time.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
@anon12:27pm,
DeleteYou wrote that comment last week and I almost responded to it, but since you wrote it again, I will give a response.
You write, “This notion of setting up an Imperfect Council is a complete waste of time.”
Reply: How do you know unless you try?
You write: “When will people realize that we are in The End Times? There will not be another Pope.”
Reply: How can you be 100% sure? You could very well be correct that there is never again another pope. That could prove true, but we do not know. Many saints and mystics foresaw a pope in the future elected by supernatural means. Can we say definitively that they are all wrong? We do not know the future. If supernatural means are possible, why not natural means?
You write: “The differences among the RCI, CMRI, SGG, independent priests, and SSPV/CSPV are irreconcilable.”
Reply: This could very well be true and I have often said the same thing myself. Your example of King David’s seat/throne being vacant for 500 years before Christ could well be analogous to an empty papal chair for a very long time. It has already been nearly 7 decades. I do not deny that this is punishment from God due to all of the sins that you mentioned. Praying the rosary and living the Catholic life is definitely what we need to do.
You could be correct on everything that you stated and I don’t really disagree with you.
A few things for consideration though:
There are already many sedevacantist clergy that do NOT think that an Imperfect Council is a “complete waste of time.” They have thrown their names into the hat and are willing to try to work out a way to bring this about. Now, I listed a variety of reasons last week why attempting this could be very good. Even if no pope was elected or they came to any agreements on the issues that divide them (which I could very well see happening – I am a realist), then there are still positives that could come out of holding such meetings, as I already listed in last week’s posts.
There are many sede clergy that ARE willing to come to the table. I agree with you that many will not join their brother clergy. I think we can all guess who some of these men are. Some of them have too much pride, egos, and sheer stubbornness. They are perfectly content being their own popes and have been like this for quite some time. Why change now?
CONTINUED…
DeleteHolding an Imperfect Council does not have a high probability of success in electing a pope; however, I listed a few examples last week that are statistically less likely to occur than this. Why not attempt it? There really is nothing to lose. If they all meet up and hold a few meetings and it is a complete disaster (which I don’t think it would be among the men who are serious about trying this), then everyone remains right where they are. The laity around the world will continue to suffer more by the lack of unity, which will always exist without a pope to guide us. But the mechanism to elect a pope is always possible as Vatican I clearly taught. Why not take the council up on the very words that the council fathers wrote in 1870. The Holy Ghost is with the church. These men are all that is left of the hierarchy. Yes, there is no ordinary jurisdiction, but there is supplied jurisdiction and these men still provide much needed sacraments to their lay faithful around the globe. If they do this on a daily basis, because the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the church, then why not attempt something that should have been attempted long ago?
I made a comment last week about how I have been heavily tasked over the course of my life to bring people to the table as a negotiator during EXTREMELY difficult and trying scenarios. I have done this time after time after time and these situations were extremely serious matters and they were very far reaching in many circumstances. I have been able to do this more times than I can count. I look at what I have done over the course of my life and then I see some clergy being unwilling to come to the table because of their differences and I cannot help but shake my head. To me, that is a tremendous embarrassment against those clergy and an embarrassment that is seen by all of the lay faithful around the world who want greater unity among the factions. They are not going to agree on many issues. This goes without saying. But they have the ability to bear good fruit if they stay humble, pray hard, have hard work and determination, and use some creativity to reach a solution to a humongous problem.
I don’t know if an Imperfect Council would work in the way that many are hoping for it to elect a pope. But you don’t know unless you try. For those clergy who find it absurd and not worth trying, then let them stay home. They like being their own popes and they already have a history of “not playing nice with the others” so to speak. What else is new???
“Let nothing perturb you, nothing frighten you. All things pass. God does not change. Patience achieves everything.” – St. Teresa of Avila
“Start by doing what’s necessary, then what’s possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible.” – St. Francis of Assisi
“Unfurl the sails, and let God steer us where He will.” – St. Bede the Venerable
“An ounce of charity is better than a hundred loads of reason.” – St. Robert Bellarmine
-TradWarrior
12:27 = only copy & paste of May 24 at 1:09.
Delete@anon12:27pm
DeleteIt's not a conclavist council. Some people jump the gun, say to the effect that it is conclavist, and then take the defeatist attitude of "it's foolish, why bother, etc". No, it's a general meeting which may lead to something later on. Or even during; who knows.
TradWarrior rightly points out that there is no harm in trying, though quite a few clergy seem to be locked in certain beliefs.
Personally I do not think the papacy can return until what it restrained (the antichrist and his precursors - 2 Thess. ch. 2) is dealt with; but -that- is not up to us either, except to bear witness to the truth versus the false church.
Finally, I might also add that some, or many, I do not know, seem to resist taking conclusions (like the one above) as though it were wrong to do so. If that were the case, no one would get anywhere or find anything. God bless.
Speaking of Saint quotes:
Delete"As long as the Coliseum stands, Rome shall stand; when the Coliseum falls, Rome will fall; when Rome falls, the whole world will fall."
St Bede the Venerable
One more from St Bede on the abomination of desolation:
Deletehttps://youtube.com/shorts/pj1jt-AFYaM?si=KK7AUvx584K-yn21
If I was a Traditional Priest and was committing the serious sin of simony, Introibo I would fear for my Soul on Judgement day. Even worse if I had devout faithful who found out and as the result gave the True Faith away. I would question this mans vocation, seminary training (if he had any) and his ordaining Bishop. This is indeed very serious.
ReplyDelete@anon2:57
DeleteI'm in full agreement with you.
God Bless,
---Introibo
You might consider looking at corporate logos with occult origins. e.g. the google play logo being a stylised sigil of Satan.
ReplyDelete@anon9:02
DeleteInteresting suggestion! I will do that but I can't promise a firm date.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above comment. If I was a cleric and overlooking serious sin I would be trembling and fear the wrath of God. A layman has a hard enough job of saving his soul , think about a priest. Just frighting.
Do you think a chapel should have a lay board and the building, assets, etc are in a trust. If they felt a priest was doing wrong , they would have the power to have him removed.
@anon@10:10
DeleteYou ask a very interesting question. There are pros and cons for lay Boards. Fr. DePauw had a lay Board--and I think it was unmitigated disaster after he died. Same for Fr Wickens whom I knew personally. The lay Board gave control of his parish to the very Vatican II sect Father despised after he died.
I really have no firm opinion on the matter, but thank you for commenting on an important issue.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI have often thought about lay boards too. It is an interesting scenario. I could see the pros and cons of different situations. Some situations could work out well where they would offer protection for the laity. Others would be problematic for a variety of reasons, one of which you already mentioned.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteCan you give an opinion of Pius XII's 'new' (re-translated) Psalter of (I think) 1945? I understand it was unpopular and eventually dropped. It was the initiative of Fr. Bea I think.
Also, have you ever written on the Palmerarians?
Thank you in advance.
@anon1:15
DeleteIn 1945, Pope Pius XII gave ***permission*** (not mandated) a new psalter composed by the ultimate snake in the grass Bea (a closet Modernist until Vatican 2). The psalter was very difficult to sing and was not a solid translation. The "Bea Psalter" is not a revision of an earlier Latin version, but a new translation made directly from the Hebrew. It was despised even by Roncalli (!).
Again, it was merely permitted, and few made use of the permission. Pope Pius XII showed great wisdom and restraint--no doubt the protection and inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
As to Palmar de Troya, please see my post:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/01/when-strangers-come-knocking-part-17.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you very much for your answers. Thank you.
DeleteThe name of the 4 priests for the SSPX and a short bio of them are here: https://www.gloria.tv/post/sL1SSBGRCwKd1Cyo71si99Czo
ReplyDelete@anon6:33
DeleteThank you so much for the link!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Anyone else attempt to read through Bob's new encyclical? 30,000 words with virtual zero said.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
DeleteWhat you say is very true! It reminded me of what Fr Garrigou-Lagrange once said about Wojtyla, “Writes much. Says little.”
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Just remember that "Robert Prevost" is an anagram of both "Robot Perverts" and "Pervert Robots", as was already pointed out in a comment here a month ago, on April 25 at 11:22PM. How's that for a bit of "bot" humor about Bobby Pervost?
DeleteTo answer your question David, no, I haven't gotten around yet to trying to digest Bob's inaugural encyclical concerning AI. Introibo beat Bob to the publishing punch concerning that theme, by publishing two AI posts over the past year, dated Nov. 3 and Jan. 5. I don't think reference to Introibo's work will be found anywhere in the endnotes of Bob's encyclical.
AI Grok's intro take, in re the Leo 14 doc, is:
Delete"This document presents a coherent, principled framework for navigating technological transformation--especially AI--centered on human dignity, social cohesion, and responsible governance. Stripped of religious dogma, it functions as a robust humanistic and socio-political ethic that aligns with Enlightenment-derived values (dignity, rights, reason) while addressing their modern erosion by concentrated power, efficiency logics, and algorithmic systems."
100% AI Grok "pontificates" (!) in conclusion:
"Outside religious framing, this is a high-quality centrist-humanist contribution to AI ethics and technology governance. It offers a defensible middle path between accelerationism and reactionary rejection: pro-innovation, pro-human, pro-accountability. Its principles are philosophically robust, politically actionable, and culturally resonant for pluralistic societies concerned with preserving liberal democratic values amid technological disruption. It deserves serious consideration in policy, education, and corporate governance discussions."
In the body of the text of the new encyclical, reference is made to "Saint Paul VI" 15 times, and to "Saint John Paul II" 20 times, and to "The Second Vatican Council" 15 times. Hardly surprising, is it? So what else is new? Instead of reading the encyclical, you might want to check out what AKA-Catholic Louie V. came out with on May 27, titled "AI Fraud in the Catholic Media". Not in the Novus Ordo media. In the "TradCat" media.
I have in my personal collection two books, a 2013 paperback edition of "Our Final Invention : Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era", by James Barrat ; and a 2023 paperback edition of "Only Man Bears His Image : The Biblical, Catholic, & Scientific Case Against Aliens, UFO Deceptions, Sentient AI, and Other Sci-Fi Disguised Demons & Psyops Heralding the Antichrist", by Daniel O'Connor. One can read book reviews of both of these books via the Amazon Books webpage. In general, both of them are very good books. Not everything found therein will be to our liking. For example, a subtitle found on p. 700 of O'Connor's book is "What About Pope Sts. John Paul II and Paul VI?" In other words, O'Connor refers to both men as being saints. And all of p. 750 of his book is taken up with an image of the "Divine Mercy" Jesus. Even so, this quote from pp. 586-587 might be of some interest, and is indicative of the contents of the O'Connor book in general:
Delete"Data comes in all shapes and sizes, but what all data has in common is its radical limitation--that is, just how tiny a portion of reality it actually describes (when it accurately describes reality at all). The capabilities of modern technology have not changed this fact, nor will any future technology. Consider what consistently ranks among the world's most powerful supercomputers with the largest datasets: those dedicated to climate modelling. The sheer quantity of data stored and processed therein is difficult to fathom. Yet, we still have no idea what the weather will be like two weeks from now... Blindly submitting to "what the data says" when considering what is right, true, good, just, wise, possible, reasonable, realistic, etc., is only relativism... No one should forget that it was precisely "the data" that was used to justify the draconian 2020-2021 Covid lockdowns, mandates, and other restrictions. Wisdom would have suggested an entirely different approach..."
The SSPX is a false “traditionalist” group if there ever was one. They are Lefrebvreists who want to follow the teachings of a man who was wrong on so much and they can’t come to the very simple conclusion that their position of R&R is schismatic. It’s not Catholic. This is not hard to figure out, yet many people think the Catholic Faith consists in having buildings, cassocks, and saying The TLM. They think it’s about having a community and belonging to a “traditional”’society that claims to be Catholic. These are schismatics without question. Why do people care what The SSPX does? Do they even have valid priests? Many are former Novus Ordites. They use the 1962 missal, and adhere to a whole list of errors.
ReplyDeleteI see some sedevacantists supporting an imperfect council too. I don’t think a majority of them, but enough to notice. This is a very bad idea and will only confuse matters more. Bishop Sanborn says there is nothing left to discuss with other groups. RCI will not be attending this meeting. SSPV/CSPV will definitely not attend these meetings. All these congregations have formed many of their own theological stances and they will firmly hold those views without there being a compromise or discussion. As an example, Una Cum Mass attendance being a mortal sin, is a position that will not be changed by some groups. The Thesis position of The RCI is not going to change. As a side note. I don’t agree at all with the Thesis or Una Cum Mass attendance constituting grave matter as valid positions. I don’t support The RCI or SSPV. The point is, these disagreements are incapable of being brought into harmony of agreement. This idea that Bishop Pierre Roy and others must do something is absurd. It just creates a situation where you might have another Palmar De Troya abomination. These men have no authority to choose another “Pope” and it would just be another AntiPope. This is the Abomination of Desolation referred to in Holy Scripture. “Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate." Matthew 23:38. This is divine retribution for Catholics allowing this to happen in the first place, for infanticide, sodomite Pride, greed, licentiousness, adultery, and many other sins. The punishment is allowing these things for a greater good. Wicked governments, Antipopes in Vatican, persecution etc. are being permitted for a higher good. All we can do is be good Catholics and pray and do God’s will. There will be no new Pope. The seat may be vacant for another 70, 100 of more years. All you can do is prepare for the final judgement that is coming next. The imperfect council is absurd and should be denounced by Catholics.
@anon3:19pm,
DeleteYou state “These men have no authority to choose another “Pope” and it would just be another AntiPope.” We know from Vatican I in 1870 that there will always be a way to elect a pope and that the papacy continues until the end of the world. This does not mean that there will necessarily be a pope elected immediately after a pope dies. We could have a very lengthy interregnum (as we are witnessing now). We could also go without a pope until the General Judgment. That is certainly possible. But there must be a WAY of electing a pope again. That is what Vatican I made clear. If we take your quote seriously about these men having no authority to elect a pope, then we might as well all be home aloners. If the sede clergy have no authority to elect a pope ever again (meaning Vatican I was wrong, an impossibility), then likewise, they don’t have the authority to offer the sacraments in this time of dire need, which they have been doing for many, many years now. No, they have the authority to elect a pope. It doesn’t mean that they will elect one or that we will ever have one again, but the mechanism is there. To deny this is to deny the dogma that Vatican I pronounced.
-TradWarrior
Please provide that section of Vatican I that you are referencing in your comment. Supplied jurisdiction and offering Mass and the true sacraments does not extend to having jurisdiction over other matters like electing a Pope. Do the faithful on earth need a Pope to save their souls without question? No. The sacraments are necessary, but not The Pope. The Japanese didn’t even have access to masses or sacraments as far as I know for centuries, but still remained faithful Catholics. What does this imperfect council accomplish? If bishops want to come together to talk about differences, that’s fine. But who is going to accept a “Pope” that a handful of bishops elect after discussions and a series of meetings? There would be more divisions then there are now. They won’t agree on everything. There will continue to be major disagreements that can’t be reconciled at these meetings. Who has the authority to approve and ratify such a council? Bishop Pierre Roy ? The scriptures don’t talk about two Great Apostasies. Just one. We know that what we are experiencing now, is The Great Apostasy. Even Bp. Pivarunas has said this in his sermons and talks. These bishops/priests have supplied jurisdiction and were consecrated/ordained non canonically. This can happen in a time of crisis, it can be done as we know, but that doesn’t mean they become the official magisterium of The Church. Please provide proof if you believe they are the magisterium and where they can call councils, set up decrees, and then bind the faithful to their decisions. Where is this written? Who is going to follow an Antipope elected by Bp. Pierre Roy and a few bishops? There won’t be acceptance of this Antipope who a few will falsely proclaim is the newly elected “Pope”. It will just be a cult, similar to the Palmarians and The Schukardt madness that surrounded that cultish period at the Mount. No one even knows the full story of what happened at The Mount since it was all very chaotic and bizarre.
DeleteA mechanism to elect a Pope doesn’t mean the one you are suggesting or supporting through this so called “Imperfect Council” by Bp. Pierre Roy is the mechanism discussed in The Vatican I documents. There is indeed a mechanism. I don’t see how these Bishops have that power. Please elucidate and explain with canon law citations, encyclicals, and dogmatic pronouncements. Thanks.
Delete@anon8:06pm,
DeleteChap. 2. The Perpetuity of the Primacy of Blessed Peter among the Roman Pontiffs:
"Moreover, what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the ages. Surely “no one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. “Therefore the disposition of truth remains, and blessed Peter persevering in the accepted fortitude of the rock does not abandon the guidance of the Church which he has received.” For this reason “it has always been necessary because of mightier pre-eminence for every church to come to the Church of Rome, that is those who are the faithful everywhere,” so that in this See, from which the laws of “venerable communion” emanate over all, they as members associated in one head, coalesce into one bodily structure.
If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema."
(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus; Denz. 1821-1825)
I go back to my question to you. You said these men have no authority to elect a pope. According to “Pastor Aeternus,” the papacy exists until the end of time, with perpetual successors. Even if we have a very lengthy interregnum, there must still be a way to elect a pope. Okay, in saying that, if these men do not have the authority to elect a pope, then who does? Because Vatican I makes it clear that Peter can have successors, even if we go a long time without a pope. You say that these men cannot elect a pope. We know the V2 sect is false. So where does that leave us? The College of Cardinals went extinct a long time ago. That was the normative way of electing a pope. So that option is completely off the table. What are we left with? The sede clergy. That’s it. We may never have another pope, but since there is a way to always have another pope, who has that authority? It would have to come from the sede clergy. This is all that God (for reasons known to Him alone) has left us with. It is a horrible situation He is allowing to occur, but nevertheless, this is the reality of the situation. If these sede clergy cannot elect a pope, then who can and where is this authority today?
I completely agree that we do not need a pope to save our souls. Your example of the Japanese is correct. No argument there. There have been other countries that had a long history of not having priests, yet they kept the Faith, so I completely agree with you on this point.
CONTINUED…
DeleteWho has the authority to approve and ratify the council? I don’t know concretely what the answer is. We have never been in this situation before, and it would be speculative. It could be analogous to the Council of Constance electing Martin V. Once he was elected, he ratified the decrees of the Council of Constance in 1418 in his papal bull “Inter Cunctas,” minus the decrees on conciliarism.
You ask where the authority comes from for these men to call councils, set up decrees, and then bind the faithful to their decisions. I would answer from Christ. Why? Because the Catholic Church must go on until the end of the world. There must be a mechanism to elect a pope, even if that mechanism never comes into play. You do not think it will. You could be right. But there must be a way. It doesn’t mean that way will be utilized. It may not be.
A few quotes:
The Catholic Encyclopedia: “Should the college of cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of choosing a supreme pastor would fall… upon the remaining Roman clergy.”
St. Robert Bellarmine: “If there were no papal constitution on the election of the Supreme Pontiff; or if by some chance all the electors designated by law, that is, all the Cardinals, perished simultaneously, the right of election would pertain to the neighbouring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with some dependence on a general council of bishops.”
Cardinal Cajetan: “So long as there are clearly designated electors, namely, the Cardinals as things stand today, the universal Roman Church does not take their place. But if all the Cardinals should die, then the Roman Church itself succeeds immediately: the Church from which Linus was elected before any human electoral laws were known to us. Yet since the part is included within the whole, and within the universal Church the Roman Church is included, if in such a case a general council, with the Roman Church in concord (that is, with her assent), were to elect a Pope, then the man so elected would truly be Pope.”
Many theologians spoke about the possibility of the College of Cardinals going extinct and/or a lengthy interregnum including Dorsch, O’Reilly, Berry, Cardinal Billot, Van Noort, etc. Did they all believe that this extended sede vacante period ended with the General Judgment? Somehow I don’t think so. I could be wrong.
CONTINUED…
DeleteThere are many unknowns. Who would be valid electors? Who has the authority to call the conclave? There may be no natural way to solve this problem. The Jews in Old Testament times could not atone for sins forever. God sent His Son via the Incarnation as the atonement for sins. The Davidic Kingdom had no king for centuries. The solution? God sent His Son to establish the New Covenant. God has left the papal seat vacant for a long time now. Perhaps that solution is that Christ judges the world at His Second Coming and that solves that problem. The visible ruler of the church (the pope) has been removed. The invisible ruler (Christ) may be the one to solve this problem Himself. He puts an end to the madness by putting an end to time itself.
Bishop Roy’s appeal has signatures of support from people in at least 50 countries now around the world and the numbers continue to grow. He has 12 bishops, 53 priests, and 79 religious that are on board with this proposition.
You mentioned a few times that these men would elect an antipope? If that were the case, these men would not seriously be considering calling an imperfect council. No, they are seriously considering it because they know that Vatican I said that there is always a way to elect a pope. The normative way is gone. The College of Cardinals has gone extinct. There must be another way.
***Introibo, I will leave you to add anything else here. If I am wrong on anything that I have written, you are welcome to correct me. I am not a theologian. I am not a canonist. I don’t have all the answers to questions like these. No one does. I am just a guy trying to figure this out as best I can and to follow the Catholic Church to the best of my ability, absent a visible leader to guide us in these times.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
The current situation looks to be a prefiguration . The throne of David was vacant for hundreds of years before Christ was born of The Blessed Virgin Mary and is The Incarnate Word, this looks to be a long Papal vacancy, (although the seat/institution of the papacy is perpetual) before the second coming of Christ which will bring Divine Justice.
ReplyDeleteI read your response about perpetual successors. I agree on some of what you said, especially about the 2nd coming, but don’t agree at all with other things you said about specific mechanisms and perpetual succession.
ReplyDelete“Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne (David), will be established forever”. 2 Samuel 7:16
“For this thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel…” Jeremiah 33:17
However, the throne of David was vacant for hundreds of years as discussed above. So how was the perpetuity of David’s thrown fulfilled? It was with Jesus Christ. Where is the mechanism in Vatican I, except to say that Vatican I says there will be perpetual successors for the Papacy.
“If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema."
As you recognize, this doesn’t mean the Chair of Saint Peter can’t be vacant for a very long period of time. Again where is the mechanism in Vatican I or Canon Law to say that these Sedevacantist clergy can elect a Pope? The perpetuity exists in the right of primacy, not a man sitting in the chair. The perpetuity is the office and the successors when they are legitimately elected and leading The Church. There is a distinction between the seat and the one sitting in it as it pertains to perpetuity. The right of the primacy and the office are perpetual but there can be long vacancies as we know.
The Great Western Schism is very different than the current situation. This is not The Great Western Schism but The Great Apostasy. These prophesies regarding the Vatican II Apostate sect are all being fulfilllrd for us to study and witness. As I said before, this vacancy is a punishment for Catholics not defending The Faith, unnatural vice, murder of the innocent, and many other horrific sins like in the times of Noah before the Flood. The New Testament chosen people of God, Catholics, have rejected Christ for many years now. Not all, there still exists a remnant, but many. This is punishment for the horrible sins of heresy, apostasy, and worship of self and the world.
I do think there is a mechanism that exists, although it’s not explicit in Vatican I or any documents that I have seen on the issue, I just don’t see how the Sedevacantist clergy would have the authority. I don’t see any good fruit coming from it either. The thought is that we are well into The End Times and that there will not be another Pope. Christ will come to bring His Justice and judgment men. That is what I think is happening. It’s very evident. Could I be wrong. Yes. Of course. I’m no one. Just a fallible man. Jesus is the invisible head of The Church and when he returns He will end the vacancy that exists now and become The Visible Head forever. That’s is more likely. I think we agree on some points. The main disagreement is that Bishop Roy and these other Bishops can elect a Pope. I don’t see the evidence for that and I don’t think anything good can come from it. I just want people to be Catholic and accept what they can’t change. It’s Divine Providence and people shouldn’t act rashly or in a way that tempts or provokes God because they want a Pope. I will research this more since I don’t have all the answers either, just trying to make sense of this all based on what has transpired, Church history, dogma, and scripture.
@anon11:25pm,
DeleteYou ask, “Where is the mechanism in Vatican I or Canon Law to say that these Sedevacantist clergy can elect a pope?” In a sense, Vatican I doesn’t mention specifics (nor Canon Law) because the council fathers never envisioned a time like ours where the entire College of Cardinals would go extinct. It’s not that these questions were not theorized. They were theorized by the various theologians that I cited, among others too. They knew the church was being infiltrated in huge numbers and it was only a matter of time until the deluge hit, as Pope Pius XII knew and alluded to. Eventually, the modernists would take over, the rites would be changed, and traditional orders would slowly die out. The normative way of electing the pope was through the College of Cardinals since 1059AD. Before that, it was from the bishops. Granted, these were always in times of ordinary jurisdiction; however, we have to remember that from the death of Clement IV to the election of Gregory X, there was a time period of nearly 3 years that elapsed. The bishops of the church consecrated other bishops because the church had to go on. They did this under supplied jurisdiction. Once Gregory X was elected pope, he commended the bishops for acting so prudently and of course supplied them with their proper powers and faculties with ordinary jurisdiction. This is a microcosm of what has now transpired for the last several decades.
I go back to your point about how you say that the Imperfect Council would bear no fruit but would only elect an antipope. But again, the traditional clergy do not agree. They fully believe that they have the ability to *potentially* elect a pope. I say potentially because one may not be elected. You could be correct and I have stated as much several times now. But they do not believe that it would just give us an antipope. No, they fully believe that a valid pope has the potential of being elected. If they did not, they would not even consider doing this. What would be the point?
Everything that you mention in terms of our sins and this lengthy interregnum being punishment for those sins, I completely agree on.
We will see what happens in time. Either a pope is going to be elected by supernatural or natural means at some point or we will never have one again. Those are our options. The men attempting this Imperfect Council believe that they have the ability to elect one by natural means. This could work or it could fail. We are all going to see in a short time what happens.
You are correct. We need to pray our rosaries and try and be the best Catholics that we can be.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
Posting to get notified when there are new comments. I will add that I am in 100% agreement with everything Trad Warrior has stated on this issue.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory,
DeleteThank you for that! I appreciate your comment.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
What is the mechanism for calling this Imperfect Council? Does Biship Roy, who does not possess ordinary jurisdiction have the authority to do such a thing? I would like to see that evidence. To the contrary, nowhere, does it say that supplied jurisdiction allows Bishops to call a Council, formulate decrees, elect a “Pope” and bind the faithful. The perpetual successors argument was refuted above and there is no mechanism listed in Vatican I for this unprecedented situation. People are acting irrationally and on emotion rather than just following God’s will. Sedevacantists want a Pope, so now we are expected to all support this nonsense without pushing back. A handful of Bishops with no ordinary jurisdiction can’t elect a Pope. Priests certainly can’t, so they would just be there watching, it doesn’t matter if 500 priests signed their name. The religious brothers/sisters will attend too? What does that mean ? They have the power to do nothing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bishop Roy also invited Novus Ordite “priests” from the false and abominable Vatican II religion as if they have something to contribute. We hear about “conservative” Novus Ordites/Catholics. There is no such thing as a “conservative” Catholic just a Catholic or a Non-Catholic. A “conservative” Novus Ordite is just a modernist but to a different degree. So modernists are being invited to discuss matters as well. I would like to know how this won’t be just a waste of time and a total disaster. All you will have is a man in a white cassock calling himself “Pope” that most traditional Catholics won’t accept or obey. Will he start excommunicating people too? What are the answers? Please provide them so we can better understand what your objectives are with this endeavor that many see as absurd.
ReplyDelete@anon2:52pm,
DeleteI agree with much of what you said. When you ask, “What are the answers?” I do not know. I wish I had them, but I do not. Introibo has stated several times that the greatest minds over the last few decades did not have a solution to this huge problem that we are facing. This included great men like Fr. DePauw. Men like that have far greater knowledge than someone like me. If they did not have the answer to the way out of this mess, then certainly I do not either. Much of this is speculative.
Introibo, I would love to hear your thoughts on all of this in great detail. I’m sure you could add much to this discussion.
-TradWarrior
Requiring ordinary jurisdiction to elect a pope is a prevalent fallacy. Electors were delegated by a pope. Ordinary jurisdiction did not give them this privilege. Supplied jurisdiction allows for all that is NECESSARY, which includes electing a pope, again, when necessary.
DeleteThe sedevacantist clergy (although all will not agree and view their authority akin to "garbage men") have a mission through tacit will of popes. The Church (Christ) always provides a way. That said, it probably won't happen because a couple factions have too much ego to get together and disrupt the status quo.
The Sedevacantist bishops are
Deleteobviously not The College of Cardinals, so comparing that system of election, to another framework where bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can elect a Pope in a unified way are two different mechanisms. The point is, the Sedevacantist bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction. They would be operating outside of the defined juridical and ecclesiastical order. Supplied jurisdiction does not give these men the authority to elect a Pope. Please provide Catholic teaching that says supplied jurisdiction allows non canonically consecrated bishops to elect a Pope in a time of crisis. What you are proposing seems to be conjecture, but I am willing to read proofs that show I may very well be wrong. There has to be a distinction made between orders and jurisdiction. The Sedevacantist clergy can provide sacraments but they do not have the authority to rule, or bind, or elect a Pope. I want to see where this power to govern or elect a Pope with non juridical authority exists. Please provide.
Yes, who even is this Bishop Roy? People come from the SSPX and the Novus Ordo, immediately get accepted by naive sede organizations and start acting like they are going to save the church. Who says they aren't trying to infiltrate us again? If they want to stop fighting over stuff from 40 years ago that is fine but I don't trust any of this new converts. Let them prove themselves first.
ReplyDeleteBishop Roy seems sincere and of good will. I do not think much of the council but I have listened to many Bp Roy videos, his conversion out of sspx etc. He suffered much for his position. Many family are religious too and they did not depart sspx. I find him to be a breath of fresh air and on an island alone, like many of us. Contact him. He is someone I think has very good intentions. Actions are needed IMHO...not inaction, which has gotten us nowhere. He is just offering something...and many don't do anything. We must do. .something. what? I don't know.
Delete“We must do something”. I keep hearing this from some sedevacantists. Many sedevacantists have been, and will continue to do something, and that is living an uncompromising Catholic life based on tradition, evangelizing, and receiving the sacraments. People are doing something and they are doing many things to lead a Catholic life, save souls, and defend The Faith. This idea of calling an Imperfect Council, is imprudent at the very least, and will not accomplish anything in the end. There will be likely be no consensus among the Sedevacantist bishops. They have firmly formed for theological stances on certain issues and will not move away from them. Furthermore, they have supplied jurisdiction, not ordinary jurisdiction. These bishops have sacramental powers, that is about it, many don’t even hold all the teachings of the Catholic Faith, and are pseudo-traditionalists. There is a mechanism but not sure how it could work during this unprecedented situation. The Roman populace elected Popes before The College of Cardinals with the clergy. We know there is no clergy, unless one follows the ridiculous Thesis, who believe in so called “Pope elects” and V2 “clergy” who can potentially be legitimate. There is no clear answers and that is why people must not make things worse by coming up with rash actions and Imperfect Councils, so you can have another Schukardt like character walking around, perhaps another AntiPope Michael character, living in a house next to Bishop Roy calling himself “Pope” because a few Sedevacantist bishops came to an agreement and elected this person. It does not matter if hundreds of priests and religious sign this document for a council. They have zero power to do anything. If they want have meetings and talk for 10 years to sort out disagreements. That is fine, but the whole idea about setting up binding documents and electing a Pope is utterly preposterous.
DeleteGood enough. We'll many of us have no sacraments so...it is what it is. Sure, I keep alienating myself by trying to teach people true Church vs false and now sede priests told me not to do that. No warnings to the masses headed to hell...ok and oh well.
DeleteWhen I get anxious I say "I must do something" and in the end I do nothing. Skepticism on this attempted council is fine.
DeleteSome skepticism is fine, outright dismissal is not.
DeleteWhy?
DeleteSomehow I have the impression that some believe that a council of *any* sort cannot be called if there is no pope to call it. That is like putting the road on top of the cart before the horse. If there is no pope to call one because none can normally be elected then it is 'called' by necessity, esp. when it is possible. With the internet, it is possible, even with the 'media' running interference for the overall narrative.
ReplyDeleteIt is not going to be a rush election job. It isn't even going to be an election so much as establishing a consensus. Correct me if I am wrong. At any rate, if there emerges a firm consensus with the majority of those involved then this is very likely to keep growing, at least for a time. No pope as a principle of unity for now but agreeing that those are antipopes will have to do as a 'negative principle of unity', which is already in the direction of trying for actual unity.
In the meantime all can agree on defined Catholic dogma and establish before everyone gathered there which ones are trespassed by which antipopes. All can at least agree on that or one is not Catholic. It's a good baseline to begin with.
cairsahr_stjoseph,
DeleteI like your take. I think you have a well balanced approach to this.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
Thank you. Perhaps not being affiliated gives one to objectivity. God bless you too! +JMJ+
DeleteThey don’t have ordinary jurisdiction. This is an ecclesiastical problem that cannot be overlooked just because people are looking for a solution to this current crisis which is the most serious in Church history. People can’t just make stuff up, or be whimsical, or misapply what a couple of theologians said involving extraordinary scenarios, none which directly apply to this unprecedented situation. The theologians talked about people acting under extraordinary circumstances where those acting had true ecclesiastical authority. The sedevacantist bishops don’t have this authority. If they eventually elected a “Pope”, even if it was after many meetings and a decade from now, it is almost certain this claimant would not be accepted by many, making the election doubtful and thus not a true Pope, but an Antipope. There has to be acceptance of the election. Are these men even competent to run the Catholic Church? These men are not great minds like the Pre Vatican II Popes, who were well versed in theology, ecclesiology, moral theology, juridical law, etc…..This is not a viable solution.
DeleteOrdinary jurisdiction is not required. The sedevacantist clergy DO have the authority. Where is the Church? It is with the valid clergy who profess the true Faith whole and entire, which includes respecting the papacy not ignoring it.
DeleteHowever, most likely nothing will happen as I noted elsewhere since certain bishops would never agree. If by a miracle they did, then very many would in fact accept the results of an IGC.
Yes. Ordinary jurisdiction is required since there is a difference between having sacramental powers and also possessing the authority to govern the Church or do anything in advance that requires proper authority , like calling a council to elect a Pope, while operating outside of the juridical framework established by The Catholic Church. These Sedevacantist bishops have a sacramental powers that is it, and they can’t elect a Pope. If they tried not many would accept the claimant and it would just be a further division added to the traditional movement, with a cultish group following another ridiculous Antipope.
DeleteWe have to admit this so called imperfect council talk is utter garbage. In our view we have over a dozen little "popes" in the sedevacantist world. Pope Pivarunas, Pope Sanborn, Pope McGuire, Pope Santay, the list goes on. Most of these self proclaimed bishops will never sit down together and work things out. They all want their own sects and all act like power hungry imbeciles. Enough is enough.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you suggest should be done or not done Pope Anonymous 7:50?
DeleteWill Introibo crown "His Holiness 7:50" with a tiara?!
DeleteShould Introibo crown "Pope 7:50" with a tiara?!
DeleteStop acting like fools, and take these issues seriously. Going back and forth with infantile jabs and insults just shows your immaturity and lack of discipline when having these discussions.
DeleteWhy don't you give us an answer as to what to do Pope 7:50/7:01. Should we stay home in our pajamas until you say otherwise? You can't even answer a simple question. You are like many immature fools who offer nothing while criticizing everybody.
DeleteIntroibo:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that some priests will not give people the sacraments, even in an emergency? Will they have to answer to God for their actions?
@anon6:43
DeleteSuch priests have no right to deny others the sacraments except under exceptional circumstances. They will have much to account for at Judgement.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
The reason why most refuse to countenance this informal council and indeed that the R&R's continue to be stubborn is that to admit that much is to sign up for martyrdom.
ReplyDeleteI've had decades to get used to the idea. Let's do this at Unam Sanctam as well.
Btw I am working on three things and, as usual, no authority or whatever but I think it's really finished here.
Anon 11.59AM, 4.18PM and 4.20PM- You are a dimwit. Intelligent people could not care about your insults. Correct, a sign of immaturity.
ReplyDeleteThey do not have territorial jurisdiction, but in my opinion, they could have formal Apostolic Succession with the tacit mandate of the Apostolic See and therefore authority.
ReplyDeleteIf formal Apostolic Succession is not with the Catholic bishops then where? It has to be somewhere.
John Gregory
John Gregory, yes it is with the true and valid (sede) clergy.
DeleteDear Mr. Gregory (@ 5:57),
DeleteBack last Feb. 13 (at 6:20 & 7:56), I pointed out that long ago you solved -- even if unwittingly -- Samson's riddle. The answer to your question combines the answer to Samson's riddle (and Judges 13-16 in general) with -- as seems quite likely -- an understanding of how "supplied jurisdiction" on the grounds of "common error" associated with "colored title" actually can -- believe it or not -- operate within the Vatican's (Pseudo Popes) Novus Ordo Organization.
In my opinion, probably the only Catholic bishops in this world who "have formal Apostolic Succession with the tacit mandate of the Apostolic See" might amount to about 2-20 (??) located in unknown-to-us locations in North Korea and mainland China. Maybe a few exist in other countries too, all presumably being isolated and cut off from the normal or desired communications possibilities. But in any case, it doesn't matter who these "unknowns" are, as they almost certainly won't factor into the RECT issue we are discussing. RECT = Roy Ersatz Conclave Thesis.
I do NOT agree with your and 11:07's implication(s), that the motley crew ensemble of self-proclaimed sede bishops (be they regarded to be ordinaries or not) such as Pivarunas et al., have such a tacit mandate. As A. Cekada once put it, there was "a bishop in every garage". There could be hundreds of such Palmar bishops. If they were invited by Roy, or by their "pope", to take part in Roy's pope project, the new "pope" would probably be Palmarian. (Such a result would be similar to the result of the first conclave Bugnolo orchestrated, which "elected" Bergoglio. A farce.) And who has the authority to exclude any real or self-proclaimed bishops from participating by casting their ballots to vote? (Introibo mentions Palmar de Troya in his May 27 at 5:20 comment (above), but this problem is a problem in general, and not confined to Palmar-related people.)
Yours in the Divine & Catholic Faith, 777333.
May 30 , 2026 at 11.05 AM
ReplyDeleteAn excellent comment. That is the same thoughts I have. My view is that I doubt we will have another True Pope till our Lord returns. A number of bishops would not sit down and talk. Just listened yesterday to a recent sermon of bishop Santay rejecting the Thuc line. Interesting that it has taken 15 years for him to say something after Mr Derkson published his open letter. No solid foundation except to say bishop Thuc was a evil man and between 1976 - 1982 had consecrated over 11 non Catholics. A comment please Introibo.
Where is the charity in all these groups like SSPV/CSPV and the RCI.
God bless
We know you don't like the Dimonds views on BOB and BOD but their latest video on youtube is amazing called EWTN : Mother Angelica's network of apostasy. They did do a great job of exposing this evil deluded woman and her demonic work. What is fighting is how so many are blinded by this utter garbage.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe a so called Novus ordo "priest" who makes out to be "conservative" but deep down knows that the sect he is in can no way be the Catholic Church but is prepared to say nothing and mislead his people in his parish will face a terrible judgement by God.We know one so called "priest" who says a Traditional Mass on Sunday which is followed by a Novus Ordo with woman around the altar reading and giving out "Holy Communion" What a travesty.
David M. posted a comment on May 27 (now way up above) about Nope Leo's new encyclical concerning AI. Several May 29-30 comments have been added to that AI comment string.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as a “conservative” Catholic. There are just Catholics that follow all the traditions and dogmas of The Catholic Faith. A “conservative” Novus Ordite is just another flavor of modernism. The Novus Ordo sect and those who participate in its serious sins against God, are not of The Truth. They reject God. The Dimond video on EWTN shows this in a very clear way. It cannot be denied that these people are sick and if the devil. The opening scripture verse of that video says it all!
ReplyDelete