- The existence and attributes of God
- The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all
- The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
- The truth of Catholic moral teaching
- The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II
The Problem of Many Religions
(The content of this post comes from many different sources, both in print and online. I take no credit for this post, except for condensing the material into a readable post and adding some light commentary. ---Introibo).
There exists a multiplicity of religions in the world. If there is only One True God, how could this be? Wouldn't God want His Revelation made know easily? There are three false conclusions that have arisen out of the fact that there is a multiplicity of religions: (1) positive indifferentism---the belief that all religions are equally good and lead to Heaven; (2) negative indifferentism---the belief that all religions are equally bad, and is subdivided into two divisions, (a) stay away from religion and be "spiritual," and (b) it is proof that God does not exist (argument used by atheists). It is this contention, negative indifferentism, that will be dealt with in this post, and how to respond to an atheist who uses said argument. There will also be a brief section against positive indifferentism.
Here is an extended elaboration of the argument from atheist philosopher Ben Watkins. He writes:
Our concept of a perfect being implies a concern for the religious content of our beliefs and the moral value of our characters and acts. But if we assume theism is true, then it seems as if God has inconsistently or inaccurately revealed what He wants us to believe and how He expects us to act. By contrast, if atheism is true, then there is no disembodied mind who cares about the content of our religious beliefs nor the moral worth of characters and acts. Widespread disagreement about the nature and significance of experiences which do not correspond to a shared objective reality is not surprising if atheism is true. I concluded facts about widespread religious disagreement count in favor of atheism and against theism. (See Ben Watkins, “Why I Am an Atheist,” https://capturingchristianity.com/ben-watkins-why-i-am-an-atheist).
Not only does this argument not disprove Christianity—the argument is fully accounted for by Christianity. In particular, the Traditionalist Catholic worldview provides resources to account for religious disagreement without abandoning theism. Here's how:
1. Multiple claims to truth do not imply that there is no truth. We can see this throughout history, for example in the history of science. Over the centuries, people had all sorts of theories to account for natural phenomena, but that variety of views did not mean there was no correct view in any case. You can introduce this point with an analogy and a question: “Does the existence of counterfeit money show there is no real money?” Your atheist discussion partner may answer “no” and then add something to press the objection further. That’s a good thing, and it allows you to see more of what he has in mind. He may argue something like this: “Yes, but if God reveals only one religion, he should do so clearly so that there would not be any other ones. The fact that there are so many religions shows that God did not adequately reveal Himself. So He probably doesn’t exist."
You can respond with further points enumerated below.
2. Widespread religious disagreement may be due in part to a widespread religious impulse within a fallible human race. Most human beings throughout history have believed in God in some sense. Since they believed in God, it’s not surprising that they attempted to find God and draw conclusions about him on their own. Being fallible, these conclusions were prone to error. Add to this that human beings are not only fallible (prone to error) but also vicious (prone to doing evil), and we can see how some would falsely claim divine revelation for their own gain. The objector might press that a good God should intervene to stop people from committing such hoaxes. This is a form of the Argument from Evil used by atheists, and I will do a separate post on it at a later date.
3. The fall of Adam and Eve, through which sin entered the world, is the root cause of our living in an imperfect world—complete with pain, suffering, disease, disasters, and yes, religious disagreement. Nonetheless, God has a rescue plan, according to Christianity, and the created order is in a state of “journeying” toward perfection. Religious disagreement in our world, then, can be explained by the choice of our first parents to turn away from God. It doesn’t disprove God’s existence or the truth of Christianity. Also, according to Christianity, it’s temporary. In heaven there will be no more religious disagreement.
4. According to the Catholic Church, God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved, but some freely choose to reject that grace. I think the biggest concern behind this argument is that some people won’t get a fair shake in life. Objectors may worry that, according to Christianity, those born into other religious traditions or those born at the wrong time and place will automatically be damned. Despite God’s permitting religious disagreement, he provides enough light to all men, such that if they respond to his grace, they can find salvation. This does not imply that all religions are equally salvific or that there is a plurality of paths to God. Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by me” (St. John 14:6).
The Church has thrice infallibly defined:
Pope Innocent III Fourth Lateran Council (1215): There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302): Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
However, God gives to all men, even those born into different religions, the chance to be saved. Some will follow grace to convert. Also, insofar as they may be saved by Baptism of Desire, they are saved through the grace of Jesus Christ and within His One True Church.
5. Willful and culpable ignorance also accounts for some measure of religious disagreement. Just as God allows us a great deal of latitude with respect to errors in what we do—even to the extent of moral breakdown at the level of entire societies, genocide and other atrocities, and so forth—so too does He allow us great leeway with respect to errors in what we think. According to the Catholic tradition, God has revealed himself through his creation and in ways that can be known by the natural light of human reason. Suppose someone learns this and comes across some evidence for God. For example, suppose a friend buys him a book on Catholic apologetics from the 1950s. If the person refuses even to look at the book and to consider any of the reasons to believe in God, then he chooses to remain ignorant about the topic.
Again, suppose the person is offered evidence for the resurrection of Jesus or some other miracle but refuses to consider it or investigate it. Once more, by his choice he remains ignorant of these motives for faith. Therefore, the wide latitude for error can include the free decisions of men who culpably refuse to examine the evidence honestly. To the extent that ignorance is culpable, only God knows for sure, but one cannot deny that willful ignorance accounts for some religious disagreement.
A Note about dealing with "All Religions are Equally Good"
I would be remiss if I didn't address the "I'm not religious just spiritual" nonsense, which gains adherents more and more. Someone will find out you're a Traditionalist and will say "That's nice. I'm spiritual, not religious. All religions are equally good." (This is positive indifferentism). If you ask this person why they believe that, the usual answer is that all religions teach the same things at their core, and as long as your religion "works for you" (i.e., makes you happy, a better person, etc.) then that's "your road to eternal bliss." For you, it's Traditionalist Catholicism, for others it's Hinduism, for others it's being "spiritual." In the end everyone is happy after this life regardless of what they believe as long as they were "good" (however they define that term).
So, what do you do if engaged in a conversation with such a person? Here are some suggestions:
1. Acknowledge that many religions teach similar things, but stress the fact that this does not mean that they teach the same things. God and Allah may be similar, but they are not identical.
2. Along the same line, explain that similarity in function does not imply sameness in nature. Two things may fulfill the same purpose, but they may still be different. You may play the French horn, while I play the banjo, and we may get similar satisfaction out of making music on our respective instruments, but that does not mean that we are both playing the same instrument or even two versions of one fundamental instrument.
3. Try to learn as much as you can about other religions. The contemporary mantra is that the more you learn about what other people believe, the more you will recognize that we all believe the same things. This is patently false, but you need to know what other religions believe before you can make that judgment with credibility. Please see my series on false religions entitled "When Strangers Come Knocking."
4. Avoid going out on a limb with what you say about other religions. Stick to those items of which you are certain, so that the conversation will not get side-tracked unnecessarily.
5. Keep in mind that the question of whether all religions teach the same things is different from the question of whether Christianity is uniquely true. In other words, to show that other religions are different from Christianity, you don’t have to show that other religions are false. The exclusive truth of Christianity is another important issue, but a different one.
Conclusion
We must be prepared for the challenge of indifferentism (used by both atheists and the "spiritual but not religious types) spurred on by unrestrained religious pluralism, in the age of "religious liberty" ushered in by Vatican II. If someone believes all religions lead to salvation, then he believes he has the correct perspective to the exclusion of all who think otherwise, whom he would consider wrong and (ironically) be intolerant of their belief. If someone thinks we can't know the truth about religion, he has made a truth claim. Ask, "how do you know that"?
Objective truth and objective morality exist, and it carries with it great implications for us. We must strive to live in accordance with them and defend our Holy Mother the Church whenever She is attacked.
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteI want to ask you three questions,
Is it appropriate to venerate Orthodox saints as a Catholic? I love Russian Christian spirituality. I am sure they were saved in the internal forum.
The second question is what is your advice to trads in the Philippines since most Filipino trads like me only read issues relevant to US.
And lastly you can check my latest article on Fray Agustin de San Pedro, a military priest from Cagayan: https://tradmasscebu.blogspot.com/2026/05/crusader-of-cagayan-story-of-fray.html
Heretic
DeleteRyan,
DeleteEastern Orthodoxy is a false religion that has spawned myriad schismatic and heretical sects.
It's not "almost as good as Catholicism" (as the Novus Ordo would have us believe) and its alluring mysticism is a dangerous trap and cover for its false teachings that ultimately lead to hell. Some of its pernicious heresies are:
rejection of the primacy of the Holy See;
rejection of purgatory;
apokatastasis or universal salvation (meaning that ultimately even the devils and the damned souls *will* be saved and go to Heaven!).
Please, don't fall for the eastern schismatic "smells and bells". One cannot be a Catholic (Traditionalist) and dabble in eastern (un)othodox spirituality.
God Bless,
Joanna
Is that correct Introibo that Apokatastasis or universal salvation is taught in the Eastern unOrthodox Churches.
DeleteRyan,
DeleteJoanna is correct.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I also believe that the true Orthodox religion is Catholicism as defended by the sedevacantists. That is why I left the Novus Ordo and why we must distance ourselves from this false church that mimics the Catholic Church.
DeleteFor me, it's simple: there is only one true religion, the Catholic religion, since Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and there is no other name by which we can be saved.
ReplyDeleteSimon,
DeleteIt really is that simple!
God Bless.
---Introibo
Thank you Intriobo!
ReplyDeleteJohn,
DeleteThank you for all you do to make this possible, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
You wrote in a comments section on suicide:
ReplyDelete"Invincible ignorance, even of what pertains to the natural law, makes an act involuntary, since nothing is willed except what is understood. Hence, no matter how wrong an act is in itself, the agent is not guilty of formal sin...”
You do believe that people can be invincibly ignorant regarding sins against the natural law. This is modernist.
You also said when referring to homosexuality:
“Things have changed immensely in the last 44 years; what would be culpable in 1981 is not necessarily so in 2025”.
These statements show you are a modernist. You believe sins that are against the natural law like sodomy, abortion, etc….can excuse the person of guilt if they are somehow not aware of sins written in the heart. Don’t give us the mental illness excuse. Ever hear of criminally insane. Mental illness is used to make excuses for the bad behavior of people who know exactly what they are doing.
@Dimondite_numbskull10:40
DeleteThank you for exposing your cherry-picked citations that show both bad will and culpable ignorance of Church teaching.
What I wrote about invincible ignorance WAS NOT ME BUT A CITATION TO THEOLOGIANS MCHUGH AND CALLAN. Here is the FULL CONTEXT:
"Wrong. According to theologians McHugh and Callan, "Invincible ignorance, even of what pertains to the natural law, makes an act involuntary, since nothing is willed except what is understood. Hence, no matter how wrong an act is in itself, the agent is not guilty of formal sin...
a conscience which is in invincible error, but seems to him who has it to be not only true but certain, must also be followed when it forbids or commands. Examples: If a child were told and believed that he had an obligation to tell a lie to prevent an evil, he would be bound to do this..."
(See "Moral Theology," [1929], 1:13, 199).
Notice that one CAN be invincibly ignorant of the natural law (though not for one's whole life in most cases) and as an example of acting on such a conscience, a minor is used by the eminent theologians McHugh and Callan."
Hence, the citation was by approved theologians and was ABOUT MINORS WITH UNDEVELOPED BRAINS. (Like Fred and Bobby only much younger!).
The quotation regarding homosexuality reads thus:
"I'm not treating a 16 year old as a toddler. As someone who found the One True Church in 1981 in an age without computers, I was ahead of most. Yet if Fr. DePauw hadn't displayed the kindness he had, I wouldn't be typing these words.
Culpable ignorance? I beg to differ. When I was 16 (to give but one example) homosexuality was seen (correctly) as a sin and disorder. When the pro-sodomites are out in schools and society in full force, and James "Hellboy" Martin blessing sodomite "couples" a 16 year old may very well believe in good faith that "there's nothing wrong with it."
Things have changed immensely in the last 44 years; what would be culpable in 1981 is not necessarily so in 2025."
Any one with an ounce of intelligence (thereby excluding your cult masters and you) would see that a MINOR could get caught up in unnatural vice because it is promoted as good by the V2 sect and the modern world.
In 1981, homosexuality was seen as evil and there were still a substantial number of V2 sect clergy condemning it, so a minor would not be confused.
I already know the mentally challenged Dimondite "rebuttal:"
"tHeOlOgIaNs ArE NoT InFaLLiBlE"
Keep showing your dishonesty and stupidity. Maybe Fred and Bobby need a "postulant"?
---Introibo
"
You indeed are a full blown modernist who uses fallible theologians highly influenced by modernist thinking in the 20th century. McHugh/McCallen is your reference? I’m not impressed what they think on the issue. Theologians during this time thought recreational drug use was a venial sin. Modernism was at its height in circa 1930, it has only gotten much worse.
DeleteSaint Thomas Aquinas:
“Now it may happen that a person ignores some circumstance of a sin, the knowledge of which circumstance would prevent him from sinning, whether it belong to the substance of the sin, or not; and nevertheless his knowledge is sufficient for him to be aware that the act is sinful; for instance, if a man strike someone, knowing that it is a man (which suffices for it to be sinful) and yet be ignorant of the fact that it is his father, (which is a circumstance constituting another species of sin); or, suppose that he is unaware that this man will defend himself and strike him back, and that if he had known this, he would not have struck him (which does not affect the sinfulness of the act). Wherefore, though this man sins through ignorance, yet he is not altogether excused, because, not withstanding, he has knowledge of the sin. Secondly, this may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know. Consequently this ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin. If, however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether”.
You are bound to know that hitting someone with unjust force, homosexuality, abortion, watching impurity are mortal sins. You are not bound to know that the person you hit was your father who the person never met which would be another sin. That would be an example of invincible ignorance. It would be impossible to know. If he unjustly hit the man that would be vincible and if it was his father he didn’t know that sin would be invincible. Sins against the natural law that you are bound to know are mortal sins.
“Things have changed immensely in the last 44 years; what would be culpable in 1981 is not necessarily so in 2025."
This is a very evil and modernist statement. The natural law is written on our hearts.
So aside from all your errors and insults, you proved nothing in your last comment except that you need help in dealing with your hatred and diabolical obsession with The Dimonds who you would never have the courage to debate in a recorded exchange . They already destroyed the modernist arguments you made , in your long winded lawyer talk and gibberish on the 1917 code of canon law.
Hi Introibo greetings from Tampa, FL. This afternoon I listened to a hour you did that is posted on YouTube in regards to rock and roll and the occult. I really enjoyed it and came to your website. I'm not Catholic but I am a Christian. Is there a place for me to follow your site and gain knowledge here?
Delete@anon3:13
DeleteOf course, you are welcome here to learn about the Catholic Faith! Hopefully, you will realize it is the One True Faith and convert---let me know if I can help you in your search for the Truth!
God Bless,
---Introibo
@Dimondite2:07
DeleteOk. Here is theologian Slater:
“The natural law then, in itself and objectively is universal and unchanging; it binds all men at all times. However, it does not follow that the natural law is always and everywhere equally well known. In its broad general principles, indeed, it has been taught and known at all times…still there may be, and there is, ignorance of particular details and applications of the laws of nature, EVEN IN MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE AND OF FREQUENT OCCURRENCE…THEOLOGIANS READILY ADMIT THIS. (See “A Manual of Moral Theology,” [1925], pg. 74).
Oh! You quote Aquinas! Gotcha! He’s not Modernist!
Aquinas: “I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for." (See Summa Theologica, III, Q. 68, Art. 2)
He taught Baptism of Desire! Do you believe in BOD? Oh…”He’s not infallible and got the Immaculate Conception wrong.” Well, he could have gotten your citation wrong too! Also, the citation you offer is talking only about one aspect of invincible ignorance, not every aspect.
My statement was not about natural law changing (it can't) but people's knowledge of it, as the approved theologians teach.
It's Fred and Bobby who are cowards! They lead should to Hell--like your soul. I stand ready, willing, and able to debate them in a neutral online forum. Tell your cult masters Introibo is waiting to beat them down---Like I just did to you!
---Introibo
You said:
ReplyDelete“I know from Church teaching that God can save infants via Baptism by water and by Blood. I know infants cannot be saved by Baptism of Desire, as the Church also teaches. Has the Church definitively cut off any other means God can employ? To the best of my knowledge and belief, I don't think so. Whether or not God does so, is known but to Him, unless/until the papacy is restored and a true pope makes that decision”.
You said you believe there can be others means. It is possible. You don’t know. So, it’s possible that unbaptized infants can go to Hell besides water baptism? BoB is not dogma. Just a theory that was never dogmatically defined anywhere. So besides water baptism and the man made theory of BoB, you leave it open. You believe infants can be saved without baptism. You are a modernist.
@Dimondite10:55
DeleteYou correctly quote me in your first paragraph. It falls apart after that.
If the Church cuts off other means of salvation THEN it is only Baptism of Blood and Baptism by water that can save an infant. Has the Church definitively ruled on such? Not that I am aware. There may be another way as some theologians speculated, but the Church did not advance such. Ergo, I do NOT think infants can be saved except by BOB and Baptism by water. That is NOT the same as saying "infants CAN be saved other than by Baptism and BOB." Did Mary die before her Assumption into Heaven?
We don't know as it is still up for theological debate and Pope Pius XII refused to rule on it. So, if someone says "it's possible Mary did not die before her Assumption" that does NOT mean they believe she died, only that they will accept Church teaching on the matter if and when it is decided.
Comprende usted?
You write: "BoB is not dogma. Just a theory that was never dogmatically defined anywhere."
Reply: It has been defined by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) which you and your mentally challenged cult masters DENY.
You are a Dimondite heretic.
---Introibo
Correction: you believe unbaptized infants can go to Heaven, not Hell.
ReplyDeleteYou said has the Church ruled on such, “not that I’m aware of” referring to other ways that unbaptized infants can be saved, leaving it open. You say the Church hasn’t definitely cut off any other means. So you don’t know.
ReplyDeleteCouncil of Trent : if anyone says that unbaptized infants incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life….let him be anathema. You can’t be saved with Original sin still on the soul.
Checkmate. You don’t follow dogma like all modernists. You are a synthesizer of all heresies.
@Dimondite__bad chess player12:35
DeleteYou write: "You said has the Church ruled on such, “not that I’m aware of” referring to other ways that unbaptized infants can be saved, leaving it open. You say the Church hasn’t definitely cut off any other means. So you don’t know."
Reply: Yes! Since I don't know, I don't believe infants can be saved except by Baptism of water and BOB. Saying I believe "infants can be saved without baptism" is FALSE--they need the grace of the Sacrament from the sacrament or from BOB. Can God give them the grace of Baptism another way? Absent an official ruling of the Church, I don't know.
You write: "Council of Trent : if anyone says that unbaptized infants incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life….let him be anathema. You can’t be saved with Original sin still on the soul."
Reply: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion
of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood ] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive"
(See St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Lib.VI, Tract.II, Cap.I, no. 95-97)
So St. Alphonsus taught the EXACT OPPOSITE OF TRENT and yet not only was he canonized by Pope Gregory XVI who examined his works, but was made a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius IX who personally had to review all his works with his appointed theologians for orthodoxy!!
Guess the protection of the Holy Ghost doesn't really work! Oh, and if he spoke non-infallibly he can't be pope;
St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). So either St. Alphonsus was right or Pius IX wasn't the pope---which is it?
You're no better at chess than theology! Have you ever considered taking up knitting?
---Introibo
You wrote:
Delete“Yes! Since I don't know, I don't believe infants can be saved except by Baptism of water and BOB. Saying I believe "infants can be saved without baptism" is FALSE--they need the grace of the Sacrament from the sacrament or from BOB. Can God give them the grace of Baptism another way? Absent an official ruling of the Church, I don't know”.
It’s been dogmatically defined that non baptized infants who die go to Limbo. Period. You don’t know much. You say “you don’t know” often when dealing with dogma. That’s what modernists say. And when you say you don’t know it’s a denial of The Dogma. It’s like saying you don’t know if Mary was Immaculately conceived.
The tired and easily refuted St. Alphonsus argument. It’s already been refuted that Saint Alphnsus’s opinion was not correct. Geocentrism was also taught DE FIDE, and yes Geocentrism deals with matters of Faith. Heliocentrism came along and so you believe all those who believe in the heliocentric model are heretics. Saint Thomas Aquinas taught explicit baptism of desire and it was an opinion, he didn’t teach that. Non-Catholics could be saved IN their false religions. Holy Innocents was before institution of new law on water baptism. Slater was a moral revisionist and a modernist Jesuit. That’s why you mostly quote compromised modernist theologians from the 1930s up until 1960. You are a modernist. Put away your checker board and books written by Patti Mansfield and Robert Barron and learn Catholicism.
@Dimondite5:46
DeleteYou write: "It’s been dogmatically defined that non baptized infants who die go to Limbo. Period."
Reply: Really? "We define, declare, and pronounce that infants can only be saved through baptism by water."
Said no pope ever. Nor did any Council. Only the Dimwits interpretation of decrees that don't say what they allege.
You write: "It’s already been refuted that Saint Alphnsus’s opinion was not correct."
Reply: Really? You meant to say his opinion was refuted, but by whom? Not Pope Pius IX WHO APPROVED HIS WORKS. Fred and Bobby the pseudo-educated dolts of NY? hahahaha!!
You write: "Geocentrism was also taught DE FIDE, and yes Geocentrism deals with matters of Faith"
Reply: Is that what your cult masters teach? Wow! First Geocentrism was NOT dogmatically defined. However, if it was as you claim, then all popes and clergy have professed heresy since the 17th century! Wanna go to New Mexico with Richard Ibranyi? He's the mental patient who lived with Fred and Bobby and now has his own cult that claims there's no pope since 1130AD!
Or are you claiming you can deny dogma and not lose office? You're R&R?
See my post: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/05/heliocentric-heresy.html
You write: "Saint Thomas Aquinas taught explicit baptism of desire and it was an opinion, he didn’t teach that non-Catholic could be saved IN their false religions."
Reply: Neither does any Catholic! They die united to the Church!
You write: "Holy Innocents was before institution of new law on water baptism."
Reply: So St. Alphonsus got it wrong again! If only he had Fred and Bobby to help him! Besides, what your saying is that it is easier to be saved before the Church than after. Christ doesn't save as well as Moses. How's that?
You write: "Slater was a moral revisionist and a modernist Jesuit."
Reply: So that's why his work was praised by Pope Pius XI.
You need to un-learn Dimondism.
---Introibo
You write: "Saint Thomas Aquinas taught explicit baptism of desire and it was an opinion, he didn’t teach that non-Catholic could be saved IN their false religions."
DeleteReply: Neither does any Catholic! They die united to the Church!
Yes, heretics like you believe Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, and Gandhi might have died United to The Church without being within the visible body of The Church, as if the soul of The Church and the body are somehow separated, they are not. You can’t be United to the Church without being a visible member. You believe Jews who reject Christ can be united to the Church as they bob their heads up and down reading Satanic verses out of The Talmud.
How was Saint Alphonsus in error without being a heretic. Simple, he didn’t deny any dogma by name. But this refutes the fallible, yet great, Saint Alphonsus:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Anything else I can help you with? Pope Eugene IV never heard of The Dimonds.
@Dimodite__cult member@9:41
DeleteYou write: "Yes, heretics like you believe Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, and Gandhi might have died United to The Church without being within the visible body of The Church, as if the soul of The Church and the body are somehow separated, they are not. You can’t be United to the Church without being a visible member. You believe Jews who reject Christ can be united to the Church as they bob their heads up and down reading Satanic verses out of The Talmud."
Reply: An outright falsehood. You are either a deliberate liar or too obtuse or willfully ignorant to understand Catholic theology.
The distinction between being a member of the Church and within (united) to the Church is important. The greatest and most comprehensive exposition of traditional ecclesiology was put forth in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of His Holiness Pope Pius XII in 1943. The first sentence of said encyclical begins with the following affirmation: The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Hence, the doctrine is from Christ and is therefore true. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The One True Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and co-extensive with it.
In order to be a member of the Church, four conditions must obtain: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.(para. #22; Emphasis mine). A member of the Catholic Church must therefore be (1) baptized, (2) profess the true Faith (not heretics), (3) not separated from unity (not schismatics) and (4) not excluded by legitimate authority (not excommunicated).
Those are the members of the Church. As the encyclical explains, a person can be united to the Church by a desire to belong:
As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. (para. #103).
These are not members of the Church, but they are within the Church by desire, but cannot be assured of remaining within the Church unto salvation for they are deprived of "those many heavenly gifts and helps" only available to members of the Church. Once again: the dogma is "Outside the Church, No Salvation," and not "Without Church Membership, No Salvation."
CONTINUED BELOW
The Church has always permitted private prayers for those who die as non-Catholics in the external forum.
DeleteProof:
1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 1240 speaks to the types of persons to be denied ecclesiastical burial. They include Masons, excommunicates, those who committed suicide, those who live as public and notorious sinners, etc. However, Canon 1241 says a person deprived of Christian burial "shall also be denied any funeral Mass, even an anniversary Mass, as well as all other public funeral services. Priests may say Mass privately for him and the faithful may pray for him." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 495-497; Emphasis mine). These top-tier canonists convey the meaning of Canon 1241, and they are authors whose manual was used to train priests after being vetted by the Magisterium, ensuring it contains no heresy.
Theologian Szal
"But if he [a schismatic] gave no signs of repentance, then Mass can still be said for him, but only privately and in the absence of scandal." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 181)
Letter of Cardinal Vaughn reminding no Public Mass/Ceremonies upon the death of Queen Victoria (1901)
"At the same time, we may remind you that it is lawful to those who believe that any persons have departed out of this life in union with the Soul of the Church, though not in her external communion, to offer privately prayers and good works for their release from purgatory. The Church herself forms no judgment on the matter, which must remain the secret between God and the individual soul."
Pope Gregory XVI’s 1842 Epistola (Letter) to the Bishop of Augsburg
"Nor does it matter at all to this if the same woman could have been illuminated to repentance in the final moments of life by the hidden mercy of God's grace. For these more secret mysteries of divine grace do not in the least pertain to the external judgement of ecclesiastical authority: and hence by the old as well as the new discipline of the Church it is forbidden that men, who have died in the external and notorious profession of heresies, should be honored with Catholic rites." (Emphasis mine).
Here, Pope Gregory teaches that non-Catholic Queen Dowager of Bavaria may have been brought within the Church in the internal forum, but no public services may be given as she died a heretic in the external forum.
CONTINUED BELOW
You write: "How was Saint Alphonsus in error without being a heretic. Simple, he didn’t deny any dogma by name. But this refutes the fallible, yet great, Saint Alphonsus:"
DeleteReply: So you need to EXPLICITY STATE heresy? It must be NAMED? LOL Fred and Bobby used to say "St. Alphonsus was mistaken." That was stupid. This is even MORE STUPID.
How is heresy made manifest? According to theologian MacKenzie, "Words are the ordinary, but not the only means of communication. Complete externalization of thought may exist in signs, acts, or omissions." (Delict of Heresy, pg.35) Let's break it down:
In Words. A dogma may be denied by a contradictory or contrary statement. For example, it is a dogma that "The Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." The contradictory statement negates it--"The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." A contrary statement is not a direct negation, but it goes against the dogma. Hence, Vatican II was heretical when it stated in Unitatis Redintegratio, para.#3 that Christ uses non-Catholic sects as a "means of salvation." It is heretical because if you can obtain salvation by being a Lutheran, then there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.
So if baptism by water is the exclusive means of salvation the teaching of St. Alphonsus about BOD and BOB goes directly against it making him (a) a heretic and (b) NOT a Doctor of the Church.
St. Alphonsus believed in BOTH Cantate Dominio AND BOD/BOB like every Catholic! They are NOT mutually exclusive.
You write: "Pope Eugene IV never heard of The Dimonds."
Reply: LUCKY MAN!!!
Before you "help" me it would help you to get a clue first.
---Introibo
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: “… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.’”
DeletePope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error... It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church isnot something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”
Pope Clement XIV, Cum Summi (# 3), Dec. 12, 1769: “One is the body of the Church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it.”
This totally takes apart Non-Catholics being mystically united to the soul of The Church without be in the body (visible members).
@Dimondite11:40
DeleteYou just refuted yourself! You cite Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII. … Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.’”
I cited him above. In that SAME ENCYCLICAL he wrote: "As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. "(para. #103).
"For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer..." So Pope Pius XII contradicted himself in his own encyclical? LOL!!
Pope Gregory XVI’s 1842 Epistola (Letter) to the Bishop of Augsburg
"Nor does it matter at all to this if the same woman could have been illuminated to repentance in the final moments of life by the hidden mercy of God's grace. For these more secret mysteries of divine grace do not in the least pertain to the external judgement of ecclesiastical authority: and hence by the old as well as the new discipline of the Church it is forbidden that men, who have died in the external and notorious profession of heresies, should be honored with Catholic rites." (Emphasis mine).
Here, Pope Gregory teaches that non-Catholic Queen Dowager of Bavaria may have been brought within the Church in the internal forum, but no public services may be given as she died a heretic in the external forum.
You write: "This totally takes apart Non-Catholics being mystically united to the soul of The Church without be in the body (visible members)."
Reply: Then Pope Gregory and Pope Pius were heretics and not true popes.
Tell Fred and Bobby to come out of hiding. Beating them (and their followers) in a debate is like beating a quadriplegic in a physical fight; you know you can do it anytime you want but there's no sport to it!
---Introibo
Introibo
ReplyDeleteWhy do these Dimondite heretics bother to come on your blog and spew forth their garbage is beyond us. They come on and you take them to pieces. Well done.
Hopefully you will write in the future about the Eastern Orthodox Churches and their major problems. Some Novus Ordo and Traditional folk are looking at converting thinking they are the True Church. A number have already.
I will pray for Ryan that the scales will be removed from his eyes re Eastern Orthodoxy. I too was moved by them years ago looking for the truth but once I did a major study soon found they are on the wrong road. People can be deluded by beautiful liturgy but don't look at what Faith these churches hold. Sad to say but I even found people attending the SSPX only for the smells and the bells but hold unCatholic ideas. Perhaps you could write on these Orthodox sects one day Introibo. Blessings on you and also many thanks for exposing the latest garbage from a Dimondite heretic(LOL)
ReplyDeleteOne of the false popes mentioned orthodox as the other lung of the church...jp2 maybe? And because priests keep saying their sacraments valid, people think ok. Not sure why people just look for VALID but no cares if pleasing to God. They just want to please themselves and feel good about all their stupid decisions.
ReplyDeleteHi Introibo and others, I have a question off-topic, and quite vague, is Fr. George de Nantes a reliable source? I know very little of him other than that he was a staunch (and early) Sedevacantist.
ReplyDeleteThanks in advance.
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteNice article. Thank you also for the reply to my posts from last week. I figured that we were in agreement on that issue.
This constant assault by the Feeneyites on your blog has gotten absolutely ridiculous. They follow their lead from the Dimond Brothers who completely lack charity. If they were real Benedictines, they would be spending an exorbitant amount of time in prayer. They wouldn’t have time to put out so many videos because they would be immersed in prayer. They would also speak charitably with those they engage with in conversations. That right there shows that there is something seriously wrong with these people.
I mean where does one start and end? McHugh and McCallen are not serious theologians according to the Feeneyite that you are debating. This person quoted St. Thomas Aquinas. You cite St. Thomas Aquinas where he clearly defends Baptism of Desire and even quotes St. Ambrose in support of this teaching. Wait, Aquinas was used by the Feeneyite before? Was he safe to quote before but now he misspoke? Ok that makes sense (Lol). We have to only follow the infallible decisions of the EOM, not the UOM. But wait, the Council of Trent clearly mentioned Baptism of Desire and that is infallible. Shouldn’t that be adhered to because we are only following the EOM according to the Feeneyites? They also tend to quote St. Alphonsus. But wait, he spoke about Baptism of Desire. Oh that’s right, he misspoke and he’s not infallible. But wait, Pope Gregory XVI canonized him and Pope Pius IX declared him a doctor of the church and decreed that his teachings were free from error. Didn’t these men catch this? Apparently not, and they could not have been true popes. But the Feeneyites cite Vatican I in 1870 because again, the EOM is infallible. But wait, this ecumenical council was approved by Pope Pius IX who was the pope. Or was he? He clearly didn’t catch the errors of St. Alphonsus when he said that his teachings were free from error and he was declared a doctor of the church. Pope Pius IX also demonstrated in “Quanta Cura” and “The Syllabus of Errors” that we must give our assent to popes writings in their non-infallible pronouncements. But that is the UOM and we cannot follow that. More reasons why Pius IX wasn’t a true pope. But they follow Pius IX because he oversaw Vatican I which is the EOM. But a few years before that, he taught via the UOM that we have to give our assent to non-infallible papal writings. Oh, what is one to do?! But wait, Popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII also taught the same thing about Catholics giving their assent to non-infallible teachings and how we must adhere to them. I guess these guys weren’t popes either. When it suits the Feeneyites, we have to follow the popes, saints, and theologians. When it doesn’t suit the Feeneyites, these popes, saints, and theologians just simply misspoke. Wow, we are not doing too well. What is a good Catholic to do??? Thankfully, Leonard Feeney and the Dimond Brothers came along when they did. To think that Christ gave us so many incompetent popes, saints, and theologians throughout the years! What kind of a God would do this?
One moment the Feeneyites move the chess pieces according to the rules. The next moment they say the king can move as many squares as he wants to in any direction, the queen can only move one space in any direction, the rooks can only move diagonally, the bishops can only move vertically and horizontally, the knights can move like any other piece on the board they feel like, and the pawns can only move backwards, never forwards. This is how they play chess in the theological arena. When the rules suit them, they follow them. When the rules do not suit them, they make up their own rules and tell you that you are moving your pieces incorrectly. Yes, this makes a lot of sense!
These people should be fitted for straitjackets and put in asylums. They would do less harm.
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior
DeleteYou said it best: "These people should be fitted for straitjackets and put in asylums. They would do less harm."
100% agree!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Over the past few weeks, there has been much talk about an imperfect general council. I wrote much on this and will not go into everything again. All of my many prior posts summarize everything well on this. I wrote at length on many things as it related to this topic. I did want to mention a few things regarding Bishop Sanborn.
ReplyDeleteIn a recent talk with Stephen Heiner, Bishop Sanborn said once again, that the idea of an imperfect general council is absurd. He stated that none of his RCI bishops signed their names to this proposition and that if they had, he would fire them. They would be gone from the RCI if they agreed to attend this event. He also stated that the idea of these traditional clergy getting together to attempt the IGC is idiotic and there are more important things to consider like what the weather will be like tomorrow (REALLY???) I do not think that anyone was surprised that he would be one of the ones not attending (Lol!). Regardless of what someone thinks about the imperfect general council idea, it says a lot about Bishop Sanborn and what he thinks of the many other clergy that are trying to be proactive and are trying to do something for the good of the church.
There were a few other things that he stated. He said the idea that a pope could be elected by supernatural means (e.g. Ss. Peter and Paul appear in the sky and designate a pope) was false because it contradicted Vatican I with the perpetual successors part of “Pastor Aeternus.” This is not true. A pope elected by natural means, a pope elected by supernatural means, and the world never having a true pope again, are all viable options. Any of them could be true. He is in error here with his take on a pope being elected by supernatural means. It does not invalidate Vatican I which mentions perpetual successors. If Christ wants a pope elected supernaturally, He could obviously do it. He is God. Bishop Sanborn seemed to suggest that this would be in violation of Vatican I with the perpetual successors. It would not. There is always a way to elect a pope by natural means. If Christ elected a pope by supernatural means, that doesn’t remove the possibility that one could be elected by natural means AT ANY TIME (emphasis added). One could ALWAYS be elected by natural means, even if one came about by supernatural means. He didn’t make sense when he said that.
It is ironic that the non-una cum position held by Thesis proponents is considered non-negotiable, even though the church has not made a definitive ruling on the Thesis. Yet, the matter of participating in Catholic worship with undeclared heretics is something the church has ruled on. The irony and twisted position of the RCI on various things just makes no sense at all.
One final thing that Bishop Sanborn brought up a few months ago with Stephen Heiner. He mentioned that Fr. DePauw was a pioneer and he was one of the first, if not the first to resist Vatican II. He praised him, but then he said some other things about him. He said that Fr. DePauw had an inconsistent position to go against Vatican II. Bishop Sanborn said to his knowledge, Fr. DePauw did not attack Vatican II for preaching or teaching heresy. This is interesting in light of the fact that he founded the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in response to Vatican II before any other person did! Bishop Sanborn said there were things that Fr. DePauw did that didn’t make sense to him (?). He mentioned it was “a little far-fetched” for Fr. DePauw to do what he did. This is sort of analogous to how so many traditionalists act like Lefebvre, Mendez, and Thuc (minus the SSPV on that one) held the line of tradition against the conciliar church, when in actuality (as Introibo has stated), the baton was PASSED TO THEM (emphasis added) by greater theological giants such as Ottaviani, Bacci, Kurz, and DePauw.
-TradWarrior
Hello TradWarrior. You make excellent points. I agree with your thoughts on the Thesis . It makes no sense either how Bishop Sanborn can claim it is a mortal sin to attend a una cum Mass with a man whom he holds is a Pope elect( i.e. 1/2 Pope and 1/2 not the Pope) who overnight could become a full Pope. I remember years ago in the 80's the then Father Sanborn would never of held this position. He always held the line that Rome was taken over by AntiChrists.
DeleteTradWarrior,
DeleteFr. DePauw was the first to openly fight V2, and continue Christ's Church through the Great Apostasy. Bp. Sanborn would not be a priest or bishop if Father had not been chosen by God to lead "the fight for Truth and Tradition" as he rightly called it!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteIf you go to the “March 2026 Q & A with Bishop Donald Sanborn” video on YouTube, as posted by “Roman Catholic Media,” you will see his comments about Fr. DePauw. The time mark on this segment is between 23:25 and 25:10. You can hear what he said about him.
I agree with what you said. I look forward to any other comments you may want to add after seeing this short video segment.
God bless you my friend,
-TradWarrior
Good grief the Dimond followers posting garbage on your site again. Where does it ever end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteMay I ask you Introibo what would be minimum time frame in your view of courtship , engagement and then marriage in the following ages - 20-30 , 30-40 , 40-50 and over 50 ?
To get married is to help your spouse and children get to Heaven, then why do so many rush and marry such unsuitable men and women who are lazy, addicted to their phone and the world .Many dress in such disgusting fashion and claim they are Traditional Catholics. I as a young woman am speechless.
R,Ohio
@anon10:54
DeleteThe following is merely MY OPINION and nothing more.
Engagement for:
20-30 2 years minimum
30-40 1 year minimum
40-50 6 months minimum
over 50 6 months minimum
I agree with what you say about how most people treat marriage.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Courtship should not last longer than one year. If can’t make a decision by then, move on. It’s already a necessary near occasion of sin to be in a courtship, prolonging it too long becomes an unnecessary near occasion of sin. It doesn’t take more than six months to a year to know if you are called to marriage with a specific person. The two year minimum recommendation above is too long and no traditional priest would recommend it.
ReplyDelete@anon10:36
DeleteI disagree. For those young people (under 30), many are not mature enough to know the person they want to marry well enough in six months. Nevertheless, it's just opinion. Fr. DePauw cautioned those under 30 to make sure the person was right for them to make a holy marriage and don't rush.
---Introibo
God will not be mocked. Bishop Daniel Dolan found that out after being a vicious John 3:5 mocker for years.
ReplyDelete@anon10:55
Delete"jOhN 3:5 MoCkEr" Lol! You mean he died? Yes, well we all do eventually. Fred and Bobby will die someday too. Proves nothing.
---Introibo
He is saying he went to hell.
DeleteThe video on Bishop Dolan by the Dimonds exposes the John 3:5 mockery and his hate against EENS. He died suddenly and was not of the truth. He was not saved. It’s like the faithless who mocked Noah when he was building the Ark before the flood. They found out where mocking God leads to in the end. There was no clinging on to the sides of the Ark , the wicked were washed away. Pay attention.
ReplyDelete@Dimondite1:38
DeleteAh! God avenges his mighty Prophets Fred and Bobby!! Do you realize how seriously mentally ill your contention sounds?
You write: "He died suddenly and was not of the truth. He was not saved."
Reply: Ah again! You ***KNOW*** for a FACT that Bp. Dolan is in Hell! Did you get a private revelation from God, or did He appear to His Glorious Prophets, Fred and Bobby?
Here are some facts for you: Daniel Dolan was a validly baptized Roman Catholic pre-Vatican II. Therefore he was a member of the Church.
I'll concede ad arguendo, that he was professing heresy (he wasn't I'm just playing along). A Catholic can always make a sincere Act of Contrition and be saved. Fred and Bobby still say that, right? (at least they haven't declared it heresy YET).
How do you KNOW Dan Dolan didn't make a sincere Act of Contrition? Were you there? It could have been made mentally, even if too weak to articulate it in his speech.
Dying quickly doesn't mean the soul leaves instantly. The soul may stay for some time AFTER apparent death, for minutes or even longer. There are also cases of people under anesthesia who were conscious of everything going on, even though unable to move or speak
physically.
So even if Bp. Dolan's soul left his body one minute after his apparent death, he could have made an Act of Perfect Contrition and saved his soul.
To claim to KNOW that someone in particular is in Hell (except for Judas or by private revelation) is blasphemous.
God pity you.
---Introibo
We know by the external forum, not your made up internal grace, saved at death heresy. Bp. Dolan was a wicked heretic who attacked John 3:5 without repenting All true Catholics know he was not saved.
DeleteGalatians 6:7-8- “Be not deceived, God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting.”
Matthew 7:13- “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it.”
Luke 13:24- “Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.”
The reason Saints don’t pray for dead Non-Catholics is because they know these people died in their sin. The same way all true Catholics know Christopher Hitchens, Genghis Khan, Bernie Madoff and countless others are in Hell. We know that from the external forum. Also Saint Frances Xavier never spoke about a revelation he had knowing the state of a man’s soul yet he said:
St. Francis Xavier, Nov. 5, 1549: “The corsair who commanded our vessel died here at Cagoxima. He did his work for us, on the whole, as we wished… He himself chose to die in his own superstitions; he did not even leave us the power of rewarding him by that kindness which we can after death do to other friends who die in the profession of the Christian faith, in commending their souls to God, since the poor fellow by his own hand cast his soul into hell, where there is no redemption.”
Never mentions a special revelation knowing this man’s soul. He knows the man was condemned because of his sins of superstition. He knew this man went there strictly from the external forum, and all true Catholics know this. I don’t need to guess about whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Robespierre are in Hell. You don’t know what you are talking about.
@Dimondite7:53
DeleteI want to make sure I'm not misstating what you wrote. Let me break it down:
1. Dan Dolan was a validly baptized Roman Catholic. Agree?
2. A baptized Catholic is capable of saving his soul by an Act of Perfect Contrition any time before death. Agree?
3. Dan Dolan COULD HAVE thus saved his soul. Agree?
If not, why? Were you there? How do you know for certain? St. Francis may have well had a personal revelation and just did not state such; he was a saint and had miraculous things occur.
4. St. Luke 23:43, "And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."
Do you know Who said that? Christ said it. To whom did He say that? It was the Good Thief. And the Good Thief was...(wait for it)...SAVED AT DEATH!!
Now, my readers can see who doesn't know what he's talking about...and it's not me!
God pity you.
---Introibo
Introibo
ReplyDeleteYou say 2 years min for engagement for 20-30 age group. Okay, how long should a man and woman know each other before getting engaged?
Do you agree that most if not all Traditional priests would say it is very unwise to court and marry a Novus Ordo follower?
Thanks for your answers and help
R,Ohio
R,Ohio,
DeleteI will let Introibo answer you since you addressed your questions to him. I just wanted to mention that your questions are very good, especially regarding the different age ranges that you include. While Introibo said that his answer is merely an opinion, I would agree with him on this. I agree with Fr. DePauw about couples 30 years old and younger not rushing. And Fr. DePauw said this years ago! It is even worse now. While traditionalists are usually much more mature than Novus Ordo’s, our secular culture has infected everyone to some degree. Young traditional couples are not exempt from this. I have seen this personally. I am overly cautious with this topic, as I have seen a LOT of dysfunction, separations, divorces, and MUCH worse over the years! When you say, “I Do,” you really need to know what you are going into. Marriage is for life. And people do change over time. There are traditional marriages that do not make it for one reason or another. A problem that I have brought up several times on this blog is the extremely small number of traditionalists as compared to those in the Novus Ordo. It is very slim pickings and not a large pool of people. I am not saying that one should court/date a Novus Ordo because of this, only that there are not a large number of traditionalists out there. A Traditional Catholic is definitely the ideal option here, no question. But, just because someone is a Traditional Catholic does not mean that they are right for YOU (emphasis added). I have met Traditional Catholic females that were not for me and I would never consider going out with them for one reason or another. It is definitely hard out there today. It is not easy in the courting/dating scene. I have shared my own personal stories on here several times. I can share links to some of the previous comments I wrote in past articles if you think they would be helpful to you. I could speak volumes about this topic in person, but this is not a face to face method of communication (Lol). Stay strong in your Faith. Put God first and pray much. Go to Our Lady and St. Joseph often. The rosary will always be your weapon. Rely also on your guardian angel to guide you through these dark days in which we live.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
R, Ohio
DeleteI would say there should be an engagement after one year, followed by marriage at the end of year two. This is not some "rule" just a general "guideline" that is only my personal opinion.
Many (but not all) Traditionalist priests would say not to marry a member of the Vatican II sect. I tend to agree that in MOST cases, it is bad news!
Read what TradWarrior wrote above; he writes truth.
You're in my prayers!! Pray to discern your vocation.
God Bless,
---Introibo
You mistranslated Mystici Corporis like a typical heretic. Pope Pius XII uses the word for ordained when correctly translated so that people desiring The Truth will be given The Truth to become visible members of The Church. You can’t debate, you are lost. A blog needs to be started that takes down all your John 3:5 mocking comments, along with Speray’s wicked apostate views.
ReplyDelete@Dimondite3:41
Delete"Mistranslated"? LOL!! Did the "Latin scholars" Fred and Bobby get that from their high school education? Impressive indeed!
However, I will play along. Let's say it is "mistranslated" (and all of the approved theologians with great knowledge of Latin never caught it and taught it incorrectly).
Explain this:
Pope Gregory XVI’s 1842 Epistola (Letter) to the Bishop of Augsburg
"Nor does it matter at all to this if the same woman could have been illuminated to repentance in the final moments of life by the hidden mercy of God's grace. For these more secret mysteries of divine grace do not in the least pertain to the external judgement of ecclesiastical authority: and hence by the old as well as the new discipline of the Church it is forbidden that men, who have died in the external and notorious profession of heresies, should be honored with Catholic rites." (Emphasis mine).
Here, Pope Gregory teaches that non-Catholic Queen Dowager of Bavaria may have been brought within the Church in the internal forum, but no public services may be given as she died a heretic in the external forum.
Was Pope Gregory "mistranslated" too?
---Introibo
You brought up the deranged loony Richard Ibranyi in an earlier comment trying to play the guilt by association game. Anyone can do that. Ibranyi was kicked out of MHFM. Did you know Bp. Pivarunas had around a dozen nuns who became Novus Ordites. They left CMRI to go be Novus Ordites. If I’m not mistaken, he was going to allow them to stay under certain conditions. The CMRI will always be linked to their cult at The Mount and Schukardt. What’s your point? You never answered the argument that Geocentrism was taught DE FIDE, and then heliocentrism came along and no one was excommunicated for following the heliocentric model.
ReplyDelete@Dimondite5:00
DeleteYes, a few CMRI nuns left for the Vatican II sect. That makes them apostates but not lunatics. Ibranyi is a full on mental case, which is the logical outcome of Dimondite beliefs. The same recycled, idiotic un-Catholic claims used over and over. Actually, Ibranyi is MORE sane than Fred and Bobby. How so? He takes their teaching to the logical conclusion.
He realizes that the popes and theologians taught BOD/BOB and so they couldn't be popes. "Modernism didn't start in the 1960s" so you keep pushing alleged instances of Modernism back and back until you (currently) reach 1130AD. Soon poor Richard Ibranyi will have Pope St. Linus as the last true pope.
The originator of your heresy is also a nutcase. Leonard Feeney, an excommunicated Jesuit who ran a made-up "religious order" consisting of married "nuns" and "brothers" who raised their children "communally" in violation of both Natural and Divine Positive Law.
The 39 children were beaten and tortured under Feeney's direction. Then you have the sycophantism of the Dimondite cult members like you. Whacky to say the least.
That's my point. You have a point too. If you part your hair just right and wear a hat maybe no one will notice :-)
Now as to Geocentrism, you claim it was taught DE FIDE (a dogma). So you believe the sun revolves around the Earth, or it is the center of the universe? (and you wonder why I bring up nutcases!). Therefore, someone can believe heresy and keep their ecclesiastical office? They would be NOTORIOUS heretics--not secret ("occult") heretics. That means (a) sedevacantsim cannot be maintained OR (b) your must become a Vacancy Pusher like Ibranyi (See the association? It's real!) Yes, I have answered it--not here in the comments, but in a separate post dedicated to that topic. You need to know some big words, so brace yourself. Geocentrism iwas not taught de fide, and if ad arguendo, it was, the form of it taught was in perfect alignment with modern science. See:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/05/heliocentric-heresy.html
---Introibo
You missed the point. Geocentrism is not dogmatic, however, Saint Robert Bellarmine said it was de fide, just like Saint Alphonsus said BoD was de fide, but they are both wrong. The point is that The Holy Office and Saints are not infallible
DeleteThere were theologians of the Holy Office , eleven of them, who condemned heliocentrism as heretical with the approval of The Pope, there was no formal declaration from the authority of The Pope
St. Robert Bellarmine, agreed with the declaration of heliocentrism as being heretical
The Congregation of the Index did not allow the publication of heliocentric works
Galileo was investigated as a supporter of heresy, he had to make an abjuration saying he denied the heliocentric model.
Heliocentrism was taught as heresy. According to your logic it is of the faith, so anyone who denies Geocentrism would be a heretic according to your erroneous logic. The same logic you use with Suprema Haec Sacra and BOD and Saint Alphonsus. This period in Church History shows you are wrong.
@Dimondite6:22
DeleteYou never read the post to which I gave you the link. I know why. As a good cult member you won't read anything that challenges the Dimondite worldview. You won't allow reason and Church teaching to get in the way of your devotion to Fred and Bobby. You really don't read what I write. You keep yourself willfully ignorant of the Truth.
How do I know you didn't read my post? BECAUSE I ADDRESS YOUR VERY POINT THEREIN.
The way the condemnation was written, the proposition of Heliocentrism WAS WRONG SCIENTIFFICALLY. Since, the claim was the Bible taught this--it WOULD be heretical! The theologians therefore were NOT wrong that Heliocentrism WOULD BE HERETICAL as it was written in their condemnation. They said it WAS heretical since they considered the condemnation as infallible.
The work of the Holy Ghost!
---Introibo
You didn’t read what I wrote above about how it was considered heretical by fallible offices and Saints. The same way the false theory of BoD was considered de fide by Saint Alphonsus. The offices you consider infallible are not, and that is why Suprema Haec Sacra is modernist trash.
ReplyDeleteI read Bp. Pivarunas explanation of the Geocentrism issue, his take is not quite the same as yours, but you’re both wrong. Heretics think alike. You are a DePauwist not a Catholic. You worship pseudo traditionalists and spread modernism.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
As once declared! He didn’t know The Dimonds but this great Pope still knew the Truth given to him by the Holy Ghost and this ex cathedra statement will be used as long as we are on earth to call out your heresy.
@Dimwit Follower7:15
DeleteI read everything in an exchange, you don't (won't).
It was considered heretical (and it is) AS WRITTEN. Therefore, those giants were mistaken to the circumstances of promulgation, but correct that Heliocentrism as defined by the Decree WOULD BE HERETICAL. He was therefore not wrong that the proposition is heretical as stated. BOD/BOB are totally different. ALL THEOLOGIANS since at least TRENT consider BOD/BOB as teachings Catholics MUST believe.
As to Cantate Domino ALL CATHOLICS believe it, as do I. So did St. Alphonsus and all theologians. BOD/BOB are not mutually exclusive. There are no "DePauwists" as Fr. DePauw was an approved canonist and did not want a cult of personality. He just wanted to keep the Church going. Cults belong to the likes of Feeney, and the Dimwit brothers.
Please repent.
---Introibo