The Anti-Father

If you ever heard the Vatican II sect “priests” talk about the Gospel in their “homily,” you would get the idea that the books of the Bible are more or less a bunch of nice stories that teach us to be kind because “God is good all the time.” They denigrate “born again” Protestant ministers, not for their many and genuine heresies, but because they “falsely” believe the Bible to be the inspired and infallible Word of God. At the same time, (so we are told), in the days pre-Vatican II, Catholics were “not allowed” or “discouraged” from reading the Bible on their own. In this way, they were prevented from seeing that the Bible is a nice collection of myths, stories, and some truths to encourage us to believe in a nice God and His Son Who was “the greatest man (sic) on Earth.”

If you’re wondering how we got to this sorry state of affairs, modern Biblical scholarship was infected by the Modernists in the wake of Vatican II. The seeds were sowed in the late 19th century, and one man in particular did more damage than all the others. Alfred Firmin Loisy was born in France on February 28, 1857, and died June 1, 1940. He was ordained a priest on June 29, 1879, but was off-course in his spiritual life. He obtained his theology degree in 1890. Loisy claimed in his journal that he had a “fever for glory” and wanted to become a “Father of the Church.”(See McKee, The Enemy Within the Gate [1974], pg. 23). His arrogance and diabolical hatred for all things traditional Catholic, led to him becoming one of the “Fathers of Modernism” and of the Vatican II sect, which his influence helped to spawn in 1964.

As we shall see in this post, Loisy was particularly critical of the Bible, and is even called in some circles the “Founder of Biblical Modernism in the Catholic (sic) Church.” It is because of him, and his intellectual/spiritual disciples, that the true teaching regarding the Bible was discarded.

Ridding The Bible of “Myths”
Loisy argued against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the reliability of Genesis’ creation accounts, and against the historical dependability of the Bible in general. As a result, he was removed from his teaching position at the Institut Catholique.  After his dismissal, he was made a chaplain at a girls school at Neuilly. In 1900 Loisy became lecturer at Ecole des hautes Estudes at the Sorbonne, where he was able to continue spreading his ideas as a Modernist. Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Providentissimus Deus in 1893 condemning the errors of Modernist Biblical criticism.
 Undaunted, Loisy continued to write heretical books, using Modernist Biblical criticism. In particular, Loisy:
  • Denied the authority of God, the Scriptures, and Tradition
  • Denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ
  • Denied Christ was omniscient
  • Denied the Redemptive death and Resurrection of Christ
  • Denied the Virgin Birth
  • Denied Transubstantiation
  • Denied the Divine Institution of both the papacy and the Church

In December of 1903, Loisy’s books were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office with the full approval of Pope St. Pius X, who had just been elected pope in August of that year. On January 24, 1904, Loisy wrote to the saintly and thoroughly Anti-Modernist Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val. The Cardinal was the right hand man of Pope St. Pius X, and with good reason. Cardinal Merry del Val was everything Loisy was not: humble and pious. Moreover, the Cardinal was an intellectual giant, having not only a Doctorate in Sacred Theology as an approved theologian, but he also earned a doctorate in philosophy and licentiate in Canon Law. He did not fancy himself a “Father of the Church” but actually penned a “Litany of Humility.” Some ascribed the authorship to another, but the Cardinal recited it daily, nevertheless.  His cause for sainthood was introduced in 1953, and in my opinion, had Vatican II not happened, he would have an “St.” before his name.

Loisy told the Cardinal in his letter that “I accept all the dogmas of the Church.” This was an unabashed lie, because at the same time in his journal he wrote, “I have not been Catholic in the official sense of the word for a long time…Roman Catholicism as such is destined to perish, and it will deserve no regrets.” (Ibid, pgs. 32-33). The wise Cardinal was not satisfied, as he knew all too well how Modernists lie and conceal their true intentions by giving different meanings to dogmas. A Modernist could say, “I believe in the Resurrection of Christ (insofar as he lives on; not materially, but in the minds of His followers).” The part in parentheses is never said aloud. Cardinal Merry del Val continued to advise Pope St. Pius that more stringent measures needed to be taken.
Finally, in 1907, His Holiness Pope St. Pius X condemned 65 Modernist propositions in his famous declaration Lamentabili Sane. Of those 65 propositions, fifty (50) were taken from the works of Loisy. Enraged, Loisy realized that there was no reconciliation possible with the Church and his heresy. He now made plain what he had heretofore keep close to his vest when he wrote publicly, “Christ has even less importance in my religion than he does in that of the liberal Protestants: for I attach little importance to the revelation of God the Father for which they honor Jesus. If I am anything in religion, it is more pantheist-positivist-humanitarian than Christian.” On March 7, 1908, Loisy was solemnly excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X. He became a college professor, forsaking his clerical status, and died unrepentant in 1940.
The Condemnations of Lamentabili Sane
Here are just some of the propositions (all solemnly condemned by St. Pius X) which Loisy propagated in regard to Holy Scripture:
4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s Magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments She issues are to be embraced.

9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.

10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete[interpreter of the Bible] must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

In Defense of God’s Word
The attacks of Loisy and the Modernists on Sacred Scripture lack merit, even apart from a theological perspective. The following is taken and condensed from the work of A. Anderson, a lawyer who attacked the alleged logical basis of the Modernists’ faulty exegesis. Anderson shows that the Modernists cannot maintain their position in regard to Sacred Scripture being “unreliable”— even in the purposeful absence of theological proof. What makes his work, entitled A Lawyer Among the Theologians, (Hodder and Stoughton, [1967]) truly masterful, is how he demonstrates that the Gospels are historically reliable while fighting Modernists “on their own turf” by using the best secular evidence, and not invoking any theological authority.
Reasons for Accepting the Gospels as Historically Reliable
As a form of literature, the Gospels are unique, for they were written by believers to confirm the readers in their faith or to bring to faith those who did not yet believe. Since the Christian faith is rooted in history, the Evangelists were concerned in reporting what actually happened, and therefore the religious aim of the Gospels is not a valid reason for rejecting them as historically inaccurate or unreliable.
1. Two Evangelists explicitly claim they are reporting historical facts. St. Luke begins his Gospel by telling us that he has been at pains to gather reliable information about the events he plans to chronicle in order that Theophilus, for whom he is directly writing, may rest assured that his faith in Christ is based on well-established fact. The order in which he recounts the facts is not strictly chronological, but in its main outlines Luke’s account of the public ministry of Jesus tallies with those of Sts. Matthew and Mark. St. John also presents his Gospel as a record of facts which serve as a warranty for faith in Christ.
2. The Evangelists, even if they wanted to, could not have made up the story, for the central figure is so tremendous and the story of His life so unique as to be beyond the power of human imagination. Even John Stuart Mill, a rationalist philosopher who rejected the supernatural said, “Who among His disciples or among the proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings of Jesus or or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the simple fishermen of Galilee; certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort; still less the early Christian writers.”
3. The Gospels had to pass the scrutiny of men who had witnessed the events that were recorded, and were hostile to the Christian claims.
4. Historical and archaeological research have revealed that the Gospels depict with striking exactitude the very complex social and political order that prevailed in the Middle East in the third decade of the first century, an order that was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. The Evangelists’ reliability in recording these items creates a presumption that their testimony on other matters is true as well.
5. A crucified Messiah was completely out of step with regard to Jewish expectations. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, but not a suffering Messiah, and still less an Incarnate Deity. Even if they thought the Messiah was to be the Son of God, even the most learned rabbis of the day would NOT think Him to be born in a stable, spend thirty years in obscurity as a carpenter, and end His life on the ignominious death of the cross. Christ therefore was, in the words of St. Paul, a “stumbling block” on the path to faith. (1 Corinthians 1:23).
There is non-Christian testimony from pagan historians which corroborate the unique life of Jesus Christ. These writers include:
  • Flavius Josephus
  • Tacitus
  • Suetonius
  • Pliny the Younger
Conclusion
The Modernists have come to destroy all that is good, beautiful, and true. The would be “Church Father” Alfred Loisy was the quintessential Modernist, seeking to destroy the Church and replace Her with a One World Religion. He began attacking the reliability of the Bible, and the Vatican II sect continues with the de-supernaturalized “social Gospel” which reduces the Faith to little more than worldly concerns and advocates for Socialism/Communism. One of Loisy’s most noted sayings was, “Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church,” as if Our Lord never intended to found a Church. Loisy admitted to being a “pantheist-positivist-humanitarian” –a man devoid of the Faith.
Bergoglio and his false hierarchy are Loisy’s successors in heresy and apostasy. They proclaim a mythical Jesus (“There is no Catholic God”) Who founded no Church (“proselytism is solemn nonsense”) and lets you do what you want (“Who am I to judge?”). The only thing our SSPX friends need to recognize is that the Vatican II sect is not the Roman Catholic Church, and then resist the sect by admitting sedevacantism— thereby joining the fight against it.

41 comments:

  1. Admit sedevacantism? The only thing harder than admitting you were wrong is admitting you were fooled. SSPX and the other cottage industry resisters have painted themselves so far in the corner that they have become blinded by their own spin.

    Reply

  2. Tom,
    True. I guess miracles do happen? At least we can hope so—for all our sakes!

    —-Introibo

  3. Thank you, Introibo, for displaying the correct attitude one should take towards the SSPX.

    If one believes that all of the SSPX clergy are engaged in a false opposition designed to ensnare souls, one probably spends a good deal of time slapping their own head (ala Mel Gibson in “Conspiracy Theory”) while breathlessly ranting about various conspiratorial organizations. *Wild look in the eyes is optional.

    If one thinks that the SSPX has been somewhat infiltrated by the enemy, all the MORE reason to fervently pray for all of the good and holy SSPX clergy that aren’t traitors to our Lord.

    As sedevacantists we believe that they’ve concluded wrongly. This doesn’t mean we’re better or are “the chosen ones.” Far from it. Many of us are only right due to favorable circumstances.

    Did St. Monica revile and disown Augustine? It is incumbent on us to pray fervently each day for tne intention that the SSPX and their adherents see the truth. We also have a moral responsibility to see the very best in others until that is no longer possible. So from a starting point of the SSPX being horribly wrong on serious religious matters, tbey are to be pitied rather than be excoriated. Prayed for rather than uncharitably criticized.

    We’re all in this together. We all ultimately want the same thing – Heaven.

    Reply

  4. @anon7:28
    Well stated my friend!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  5. Is their any difference between the SSPX and the Indult?

  6. The title of this article “The Anti-Father” reminds me of a statement by Frankie the Fake stating that “God is Father and also Mother”. Leave it to Frankie the Fake to spread confusion and modernism. Since Frankie is into and a practicing New Ager himself, perhaps he is telling many of the feminists and New Agers that it is ok to pray to God as “Goddess”? I also wonder if he will change the Our Father to “Our Father and Mother” in the Vatican II Sect?
    See link below:

    https://www.lastampa.it/2019/01/16/vaticaninsider/the-pope-god-is-father-and-also-mother-and-always-loves-even-criminals-TDZFfyjpVfPqOD6mpRYprJ/pagina.html

    Reply

  7. Joann,
    No doubt “feminist theology” has taken hold since Vatican II. Bergoglio will lead people into EVERY EVIL. There was a “priest” in Boston when Ratzinger was “pope.” He was baptizing babies “In the name of God the Creator, and of Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.”

    Some parents questioned its validity, and much to that “priest’s “ chagrin, even the Modernist Vatican declared them null and void and to be unconditionally repeated!!

    Be assured that under Francis, he wouldn’t perturb an invalid Sacrament!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  8. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Matthew 7: 21-23

    I hate to say it, but I bet Alfred Firmin Loisy wishes he believed in the bible and in the Church now.

    I’m surprised the Novus ordo hasn’t talked about making him a “Doctor of the Church” like some have in regards to Teilhard de Chardin.

    Reply

  9. @anon5:39
    Oh, give them time! Teilhard shall be their “doctor,” Loisy shall be their “father,” and since its inception the V2 sect has had Satan for their lord and master.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  10. The seeds of Modernism were sown in the 17th century, when many theologians downplayed the condemnation of Galileo by the Holy See, insolently maintaining that the last word had not been had not yet been spoken on the subject of heliocentrism. By the second half of the 19th century, not a single theologian held to the biblical view of cosmology, and all without exception accepted heliocentrism. By the mid-20th century, scarcely a single one held to the Genesis account of creation, and evolutionism was all the rage in theological circles. Small wonder, then, that the Modernists were able to just waltz in and take the fortress unopposed. For the institutional Church had already been gut-shot by the craven capitulation of modern churchmen to the impious ravings of modern science. Therefore, the task of the Modernists couldn’t have been easier. It was like drowning puppies.

    Reply

  11. George,
    Good to hear from you again! It’s been some time since you last commented.

    Are you claiming that geocentrism is “dogma” or Catholic doctrine the denial of which is a mortal sin against the Faith?

    Two responses:
    According to Theologian Salavarri, “…decisions of this kind [regarding Biblical Commissions, condemning Galileo, ] are not absolutely infallible nor irrevocable; therefore the assent due to them, although anyone rightly ascents to them without a prudent fear of being in error (I.e., morally certain) , still it is not absolute nor absolutely irreformable.” (See “Sacrae Theologiae Summa” Volume IB, pg. 701).

    2. Pope St Pius X solemnly approved the following two answers and decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on 6/29/1909 in response to several queries:

    Question # 7: “Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man’s intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?”

    Answer: In the negative.

    Question # 8: “Whether the word yom (‘day’), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?”

    Answer: In the affirmative.

    Therefore, one is free to accept or deny geocentric ideas and the idea that Earth is only 6,000 years old. The decisions of the time referred to in Genesis was approved by The Foe Of Modernism himself—Pope St Pius X.

    That there were Modernists seeking to infiltrate the Church prior to V2, conceded. That the approved theologians all taught error, denied. For this would ascribe error to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which is impossible lest the Church defected. (Heresy)

    Notice how vigilant the Church was in condemning Loisy and his ilk. So were Roncalli and Ratzinger censured. It was only after Roncalli usurped the Throne Of St Peter did we get to this point.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  12. Introibo: “It was only after Roncalli usurped the Throne Of St Peter did we get to this point.”

    Hi Introibo,

    We’ve previously had a conversation about the strict requirement for solid evidence before we can observe that an individual is a papal usurper or pseudo-pope.

    As noted previously, the world hasn’t yet been graced with the exhaustive and definitive article by Fr. Cekada wherein he deals the killer blow to Roncalli’s papacy by demonstrating clear-cut actions and words that would’ve doubtlessly eliminated any possibility of Roncalli attaining or maintaining the office of pope. We know that John Salza demolished a facile argument put forth by Bp. Sanborn. Others have unsuccessfully sought to show heresy in “Pacem in Terris.” There are the persistent rumors of Freemasonry, etc. But nothing presented thus far has any probative value insofar Roncalli being a pseudo-pope. There is plenty demonstrating that Roncalli was a very bad egg, sailing close to wind of heresy (he is on file as being “suspected of Modernism”), but it appears that solid evidence to convict him has not yet surfaced.

    Arising from the preceding are three immediate questions.

    1) Should we or can we refer to a papal claimant as a definite usurper without a standard of evidence that clearly demonstrates this?

    2) Considering all of the mystery (e.g., white smoke appearing at one stage during the 1958 conclave), and confusion wrought by rumors and known, dubious associations Roncalli had with bad actors, is this enough to put John XXIII/Roncalli into a “doubtful pope” category, thus enabling informed Catholics to flee him like one would run from doubtful sacraments?

    3) Do you now have any unimpeachable/solid evidence clearly showing that Roncalli was a definite false pope?

    Please discuss.

  13. Roncalli has many flaws as you rightly pointed out. Let’s first review this general principle from Theologian Szal:
    “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if ONE REFUSES OBEDIENCE INASMUCH AS ONE SUSPECTS THE PERSON OF THE POPE OR THE VALIDITY OF HIS ELECTION, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics” CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).

    Do we have reason to suspect the election of Roncalli? Yes.

    John XXIII
    Was removed from his teaching position at the Lateran University under “suspicion of Modernism.” He was on a list of suspected Modernists as far back as 1925, and which list was kept at the Holy Office.

    Received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli’s insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an “honest socialist.” Pope Pius XI had stated, ” No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”

    Promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism.” He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase “perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews.” He further modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar.

    He made the following statement which is isolated, yet enunciates a heretical idea:
    In his encyclical Pacem In Terris (1963), he stated in paragraph #11, “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”

    I really don’t see how he can escape the charge of heresy and either lost office or never attained it.

    Could the Siri Theory be true ? Possibly. I don’t buy it, but I try to follow the evidence where it leads. US intelligence DID report only an hour or so after the original white smoke that Giuseppe Cardinal Siri was elected as Pope Gregory XVII.

    Finally, According to Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, there was someone deeply into the teachings of Rudolf Steiner; one Angelo Roncalli, who would become “Pope” John XXIII and convoke the Second Vatican (Robber) Council! Coomaraswamy writes, “Then in 1924, after the death of his beloved bishop [Bp. Tedeschi], he [Roncalli] was called back to Rome and given a minor post in the Association for the Propagation of the Faith. At this time he also became a part time Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, only to be relieved of his post within months “on suspicion of Modernism” and for “teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner” (See The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, World Wisdom Press, 2006, pg. 134 & Footnote 17, pg. 154).

    Rudolf Steiner was an open occultist.

    In 1958, would a Catholic have reason to suspect Roncalli? The average Catholic, no. But with over 60 years of hindsight we DO. Hence, a doubtful pope is to be treated as no pope at all.

    —-Introibo

  14. Thanks for all that, Introibo.

    We’ve been through all this before. You’ve said nothing new. I don’t find your reasoning convincing.

    Bottom line: What you’ve listed is not solid evidence for heresy or apostasy.

    Your “cumulative” approach does not magically add up to Roncalli being a heretic/apostate/non-Catholic. What we need is a minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    Rumors of being a Freemason, Freemasons claiming he was one of their own, rumors of being a Communist, hearsay in books, hearsay about what American security agencies thought at time, theories about Cardinal Siri being elected, Steiner being an occultist, your view of a passage out of Pacem in Terris, etc. etc., don’t even begin to approach proof for Roncalli being a false pope. As a lawyer, I think you know what I’m saying is true. And Canonical legal standards are what Roncalli must be judged against, and not, for example, a “preponderance of evidence” based on hearsay.

    What I was seeking was your thoughts on whether a Catholic today can legitimately put Roncalli in the “too hard basket,” DESPITE the FACT that one would be doing so based purely on a wealth of rumor, innuendo, unverified facts, etc. That’s what our “doubt” would be/is based on. Let’s be very clear about that. Based on a complete lack of solid evidence, I hardly think one can go about 100% declaring Roncalli an usurper. That’s not how justice works.

    Heavily in Roncalli’s favor is:

    1) Compelling, is that Roncalli was suspected of Modernism (heresy) as early as 1925 yet was never brought before the courts.

    2) Although the average Catholic layman wasn’t aware of Roncalli’s shenanigans, Church authorities certainly were. Everything you’ve mentioned was seen by the authorities.

    3) Compelling, is that Roncalli sat unchallenged (for years) as Cardinal under Pope Pius XII, right up until Pius’ death in 1958.

    4) None of the traditional clergy use your arguments. They obviously don’t think that what’s on your list suffices as examples that would prove the case against Roncalli. Again, where is Fr. Cekada’s article clearly showing that Roncalli was a false pope?

    Introibo: “I really don’t see how he can escape the charge of heresy and either lost office or never attained it.”

    Again, we need a minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    I simply don’t know whether Roncalli was an impostor or not. Therefore I can’t declare him to definitely be an usurper.

  15. Even if I concede we don’t know if he’s an imposter or not, the fact remains that there is enough evidence TO SUSPECT his election.
    Teaching occult theories and being removed from a teaching post are FACTS. What was written in Pacem in Terris is religious liberty.

    Is this enough (plus the white smoke and verified reports from American intelligence) to be SUSPICIOUS of his election? Yes. It is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid.

    —-Introibo

  16. “verified reports from American intelligence”

    Are you talking about the story that the FBI or CIA had documents that Siri was elected? That story is extremely questionable. I believe the only source for it is an anti-Catholic book by someone whom I heard was an apostate from being a trad. He made that claim in his book, citing a document in the archives of the CIA. Several people have filed Freedom of Information requests for the document cited in the footnote, and the response has always been that no such document exists.

    Contrary to popular belief, the author who made this claim was never a federal agent, but only a journalist, and thus did not have special access to the CIA archives. The footnote that cited a specific CIA document was changed in subsequent editions of the book and replaced with a vague reference to “CIA sources” or something equally vague. Numerous people have contacted this author requesting more information about this whole situation, and he refuses to discuss it.

    All in all it looks pretty bogus to me.

  17. Introibo,

    Geocentrism is not a dogma, as it was not solemnly defined. However, it was determined by the Holy See to be the correct interpretation of Scripture. On what grounds, then, would any obedient Catholic deny it to be the correct interpretation? On no good grounds, that’s for sure. And yet, not merely some, but absolutely ALL of the theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries did in fact deny it. And here we are in the Great Apostasy. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    You say that Salaverri considered the Galileo decision to be fallible. Of course, he would have to say that, since he obviously had no intention of assenting to it. Show me a theologian that is willing to assent to the decisions of the Holy See, and I will listen to him. The rest aren’t worth too much.

    As for the decisions of the Biblical Commission, Question #7 is not to the point, as none of the Fathers (nor anyone else, for that matter) ever considered themselves “strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?”

    On the other hand, Question #8 merely allowed (for the time being) the opinion that yom may mean a certain period of time, rather than a single 24-hour day. This question doesn’t bind the Catholic conscience to anything. Moreover, we are still bound to follow the common interpretation of the Fathers on Scripture, and ALL the Fathers interpreted yom to be a 24-hour day, except for St. Augustine, who believed that God created all things in a single instant, and the “days” were symbolic. Not a single Father considered yom to mean “a certain space of time,” and neither should we.

    But my main point is that the Modernists were not a sufficient cause to destroy the institutional Church.

    Reply

  18. George,
    The Church can never be destroyed, it was just driven underground—and I’m sure that’s what you meant.

    I hope you see where the problems lie:

    1. The Church defected as She was unable to prevent Her approved theologians from teaching something (geocentrism) that an obedient Catholic has “no good grounds” to reject. Yet all the popes allowed this to go unchecked.

    2. Show you a theologian Willing to assent to the decisions of the Holy See? Van Noort, Salaverri, Dorsch, Tanquerey, McHugh and Callan, etc. If they weren’t willing to submit to decisions of the Holy See, they would have been censured. Obviously, even St Pius X was a Modernist sympathizer and a weak pope since he did nothing to correct the theologians of his day.

    3. You claim:
    “Moreover, we are still bound to follow the common interpretation of the Fathers on Scripture, and ALL the Fathers interpreted yom to be a 24-hour day, except for St. Augustine, who believed that God created all things in a single instant, and the “days” were symbolic. Not a single Father considered yom to mean “a certain space of time,” and neither should we.”

    Yet, why would Pope St Pius X approve a decree that would allow you to contradict the common teaching of the Fathers on Scripture, something you say we are “bound” to do. Does this not make the decision of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and its approval by Pope St Pius X wrong??

    —-Introibo

  19. Not exactly relevant, but the term “institutional Church” makes me very uncomfortable in the way it seems designed to create a distinction between the Catholic Church and an institution called the “institutional Church”. Obviously for a Catholic there is no distinction between the two. Creating new terms to make a distinction between two things that our Faith teaches are identical seems like a bad idea.

  20. The institutional Church is merely an aspect of the One, Holy Catholic Church, which I have thought up to illustrate that part of the Church that has defected. It can be defined as the Catholic Church in its aspect as a unified and coherent network of diverse ecclesiastical communities subject to a hierarchy that possesses from God the authority to teach and govern it. Since it is clear that this aspect of the Church no longer exists, it can be rightly said that the institutional Church has been destroyed.

  21. Introibo,

    Again, thanks.

    There is enough evidence to suspect his election IF, as I said before, one is allowed to suspect based purely on a wealth of rumor, innuendo, unverified facts, etc. Are we?

    Teaching occult theories and being removed from a teaching post are NOT FACTS. The first is a story that was retailed by Dr. Coomaraswamy, and the second is a FACT, but it’s ALSO a FACT that Roncalli remained in place as a Cardinal under Pope Pius XII, and is therefore presumed to be papabile.

    No. What was in Pacem and Terris was NOT religious liberty, and I pointed it out last time we discussed this. I think you need to review that exchange and your responses.

    Since when do Catholics rely on the CIA and FBI to learn when their new pope has been elected? I’ll grant that something unusual happened with the smoke, but none of the Cardinals came out at the time and denied John XXIII’s election.

    Introibo: “Yes. It is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid.”

    Who says that you can declare that suspicions based on this, particular, set of flimsy “evidence” is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid? No one. That’s “Introibo’s Law.”

    Sedevacantists recognize Paul VI onwards as pseudo-popes based on SOLID, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. For some reason you’re not applying this standard to Roncalli.

    Again, Fr. Cekada and other clerics aren’t using your reasons. Fr. Cekada avoids John XXIII for precisely the same reason he avoids Pius XII’s liturgical changes. He hasn’t taken the huge bundle of rumors, false ideas about Pacem in Terris etc., and then declared that they create suspicion to enable one to definitively declare Roncalli an usurper.

    Again, I don’t know if Roncalli was an usurper. Neither do you, so perhaps you should pull back on DECLARING him a pseudo-pope, and instead just state that YOU believe he was problematic to the point that YOU have your doubts that he was genuine.

    Reply

  22. I have an excellent memory but I don’t remember every exchange I’ve had with readers over the course of nine years. I believe Pacem in Terris to promote religious liberty. If you wish to argue it go right ahead.

    When do Catholics rely on the FBI and CIA for information about a conclave? Since the information is now public and declassified and casts a serious doubt over the election. A specific cardinal with a specific papal name was mentioned.
    See https://novusordowatch.org/fbi-consultant-cardinal-siri-elected-pope-1958/

    That is real credible FACT that there is serious concerns over the 1958 conclave. None of the Cardinals denied Roncalli’s election because if the resignation of the other elected cardinal was coerced, its invalid. Later, Siri may have genuinely resigned with no duress but that has no retroactive Force with regard to Roncalli.

    Fr Cekada And the other Traditionalist clerics don’t use this line of reasoning. Who cares? They have no ordinary jurisdiction and none were approved pre-V2 theologians or canonists as was my spiritual father, Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD. The SSPV denies the validity of Thuc bishops. Fr Cekada would have us believe an Una Cum Mass is mortal sin, but you can freely avail yourself of elderly V2 apostate priests with valid orders for Confession outside the danger of death. I follow no one blindly in this age of the Great Apostasy.

    If Roncalli is not an objectively doubtful pope as per Theologian Szal, you must submit to him.

    Therefore,
    The 1962 Missal with the name of St Joseph in the Canon and the elimination of the people’s Confiteor, the Misereatur, and Indulgentium must be the only Mass for you. (Ironically, SSPX refuses to eliminate those prayers). Do you attend the Mass of 1962 and acknowledge it as the normative Mass?

    Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Küng and other censured heretics were all rehabilitated by Roncalli without abjuration of heresy. Do you accept them as approved Theologians?

    The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 had been called to Rome at the behest of John XXIII and also rehabilitated. Do you accept them?

    He rehabilitated Montini. All the cardinals he appointed are valid. Paul VI should therefore be accepted until November 21, 1964 when he signed Lumen Gentium. You might want to update your Mass to the first steps of the Novus Bogus in January 1964.

    A doubtful Sacrament is treated as no Sacrament in the practical order. Ditto for a dubiously elected pope. If there is no objective doubt, one must submit.

    If you want to consider him pope, go ahead. You might want to rethink that while you read approved Theologian Kung.

    —-Introibo

  23. Introibo,

    Thanks, yet again.

    We debated recently, about a year ago or so. I did argue successfully against your notion that Pacem in Terris contains heresy. You’ve forgotten. But it’s there in one of the threads.

    Go read the NOW article again. There’s no probative value. It’s admitted that the information cannot be verified. For all we know it could’ve been completely fabricated. Therefore all else you say that flows from it (the report) is inadmissible.

    Do you exclusively attend Pian Masses? Have you dictated to the SSPV that they must use the 1958 Missal because you believe Pius XII was the last true Pope? If not, do you stay home alone?

    As for all the rest:

    Introibo: “A doubtful Sacrament is treated as no Sacrament in the practical order. Ditto for a dubiously elected pope. If there is no objective doubt, one must submit.”

    Excuse me, but you haven’t even proved he was a “dubiously elected pope.” Therefore it looks like you must submit. Time to dust off your copy of Theologian Kung’s manual?

    You’ve proved nothing other than Roncalli was a bad pope. (I wish you could prove otherwise.)

    Tell me Introibo, did Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD, approved theologian and canonist, ever write a formal theological opinion, laying down the proof that Roncalli was a false pope? Did he, perchance, use Roncalli’s poor taste in rehabilitated theologians as a reason why he ceased to be a Catholic? If he (your authority and spiritual father) didn’t, are you bound to accept Roncalli and his theologians? It works both ways. Btw, did Fr. DePauw even give an informal opinion on John XXIII? His informal opinion is as good as anyone else’s, so if he had one I’d like to hear it. By the way, was Fr. DePauw a sedevacantist? If so, when did he come to the sedevacantist conclusion?

    Last time we spoke, you said you were going to go away and do some research. This is what I was asking for this time: A minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    You haven’t supplied.

    I’m uncertain about John XXIII. I simply don’t know. I look for solid evidence. You’re certain without having solid evidence. That’s the difference between us.

    But only God knows for certain.

    On that basis I prefer not to definitively declare Roncalli was an usurper.

    P.S. One moment it’s high praise from you for Fr. Cekada, next moment it’s “Who cares about him!” Fr. Cekada is a prolific writer. It IS significant that he hasn’t written condemning John XXIII, whether you think so or not.

  24. You: We debated recently, about a year ago or so. I did argue successfully against your notion that Pacem in Terris contains heresy. You’ve forgotten. But it’s there in one of the threads.

    Reply: With a 90 hr. plus work week and a family, I have a hard time believing I can do this much, so please don’t expect me to go looking for an exchange a year ago. If you want to debate it hear fine. Roncalli took a line right from John Courtney Murray’s heretical religious freedom.

    You: Go read the NOW article again. There’s no probative value. It’s admitted that the information cannot be verified. For all we know it could’ve been completely fabricated. Therefore all else you say that flows from it (the report) is inadmissible.

    Reply: Did you read the following?
    Such are the claims of Paul Williams, former consultant of the FBI, researcher, and author. Despite Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made to the United States government, we have so far been unable to get copies of the cited declassified intelligence documents, and thus we cannot verify whether Williams’ claims about what these documents say are accurate. However, the mix-up in smoke signals of the conclave of 1958 is verifiable historical fact, recorded in the newspapers which reported on the conclave day of October 26, 1958, such as the New York Times and the Houston Post.

    As proof of this, we are producing below in PDF format the front pages of two American newspapers that reported on the conclave. Both of them mention the white smoke and the official announcement of a successful election on October 26 (two days before John XXIII), with everybody expecting the appearance of the new Pope, who, however, never did appear (keep in mind that white smoke is not produced until the Pope-elect has accepted his election):

    Download PDF: “New Pope: False Signals: [Vatican] Radio tells of election, bells sounded in error”, The Daily Gleaner, Oct. 27, 1958, p. 1
    Download PDF: “Cardinals Cast 8 Ballots Without Choosing Pope”, Newport Daily News, Oct. 27, 1958, p. 1
    So, at the very least we know that the conclave had indicated the election of a true Pope two days before Angelo Roncalli claimed the pontificate.

    Dr. Williams’ claims regarding the election of Cardinal Siri as Pope Gregory XVII and its subsequent suppression, are very significant for the Catholic Church because it is not possible for anyone, including “French cardinals,” to “annul” an accepted papal election. Nobody is able to take a valid papal election away from the Pope — only the Pope himself can resign, and even then there are restrictions as to the validity of a resignation: “Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185). It is not possible to validly elect another Pope if a true Pope is already reigning.

    If, then, a true Pope — whether Cardinal Siri or anyone else, for that matter — was already reigning when Cardinal Roncalli was chosen, this would guarantee, per divine law, the invalidity of the election of John XXIII, no matter how many people recognized him as the true Pope afterwards.

    To prevent any misunderstanding, please note that Novus Ordo Watch does not endorse or recommend Dr. Williams’ book The Vatican Exposed, which is anti-Catholic to a large extent. We make reference to it only because the information it shares regarding the conclave of 1958 appears to be based on the OBJECTIVE FINDINGS of the U.S. intelligence community and hence would seem to be sufficiently reliable. (Emphasis in Original)

    (Continued below)

  25. Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances. Even a 1L would concede reasonable suspicion under these facts and circumstances.

    You:Do you exclusively attend Pian Masses? Have you dictated to the SSPV that they must use the 1958 Missal because you believe Pius XII was the last true Pope? If not, do you stay home alone?

    Reply: Yes, Pian Masses ARE NORMATIVE. It should be followed, but it is not heretical to follow pre-1955. I asked if you believed they are normative. You deflected answering. Have I mentioned this to the SSPV. YES. To SEVERAL PRIESTS AND A BISHOP. I cannot “command them” into doing otherwise.

    You:Excuse me, but you haven’t even proved he was a “dubiously elected pope.” Therefore it looks like you must submit. Time to dust off your copy of Theologian Kung’s manual?

    You’ve proved nothing other than Roncalli was a bad pope. (I wish you could prove otherwise.)

    Reply: Your wish came true> I’ve proven reasonable suspicion. If you don’t think rehabilitating hard-core Modernists, combined with all the other articulated facts and circumstances raises a reasonable suspicion, you need to dust off a law book and some books on basic logic–Bayesian probability would be a good place to start.

    You: Tell me Introibo, did Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD, approved theologian and canonist, ever write a formal theological opinion, laying down the proof that Roncalli was a false pope? Did he, perchance, use Roncalli’s poor taste in rehabilitated theologians as a reason why he ceased to be a Catholic? If he (your authority and spiritual father) didn’t, are you bound to accept Roncalli and his theologians? It works both ways. Btw, did Fr. DePauw even give an informal opinion on John XXIII? His informal opinion is as good as anyone else’s, so if he had one I’d like to hear it. By the way, was Fr. DePauw a sedevacantist? If so, when did he come to the sedevacantist conclusion?

    Reply: You missed my point entirely (no surprise). Traditionalist clergy are not approved theologians or canonists. They have the minimum training, and no one has Ordinary Jurisdiction. Fr. DePauw’s was at least a canonist. There is currently no infallible head so don’t cite to e.g., Fr Cekada as a stand alone authority. Capiche?

    I submit he taught religious liberty, he was suspect of Modernism, he was removed from his teaching post, and we have strange circumstances surrounding his election (to say the least). All of this gives reasonable suspicion because the conclave gave the white signal, withdrew it, and the man who emerged wasted no time rehabilitating Modernist theologians along with other actions that a pope would not do. If you can cite another pope who rehabilitated large numbers of censured theologians in one fell swoop, I’d like to see it.

    You:You’re certain without having solid evidence. That’s the difference between us.

    Reply: I’m certain there is reasonable suspicion, that is enough.

    You: One moment it’s high praise from you for Fr. Cekada, next moment it’s “Who cares about him!” Fr. Cekada is a prolific writer. It IS significant that he hasn’t written condemning John XXIII, whether you think so or not.

    Reply: I give praise when it’s due, and castigate when necessary. He’s a prolific writer, conceded. He hasn’t written on Roncalli–that’s all it proves, unless you can read minds or he has told you otherwise. Interesting that what you find significant becomes so. but all the evidence surrounding Roncalli doesn’t even add up to reasonable suspicion. Hopefully, you’ll never need to sit on a jury.

    —Introibo

  26. Introibo,

    Thanks for all that.

    Introibo: “Could the Siri Theory be true? Possibly. I don’t buy it, but I try to follow the evidence where it leads.”

    Neither do I, and unlike you I don’t think it raises reasonable suspicion. The white smoke is mysterious but not enough to definitively declare Roncalli a papal usurper. But suddenly a theory you “don’t buy” is used to apply a secular law definition of “reasonable suspicion” to Roncalli’s election. Here are the FACTS -No one in the actual conclave raised the alarm at the time. None had a reasonable suspicion/raised doubts about the election result. We’re talking about Cardinals whom were actually present versus a lawyer from NY opining about “reasonable suspicion” decades later/second guessing these Cardinals and the election that not one of them raised the alarm about. Explain that?

    Of course I read the article. It’s full of the usual speculation, and it’s admitted that it’s not been verified. Anonymous sources told anonymous sources that Siri was elected. (Told the Americans fairytales for all we know).

    No deflection. You’re the one who ignores your opponents’ points. Let’s say I thought that the Mass of John XXIII was the normative Mass. (Btw, it may be.) I’d be in no position to force clergy into saying it. The Pian Mass is not heretical. Should I attend SSPV or CMRI or just stay home alone? You’re the one who misses points.

    I don’t have time to continue at the moment. I’ll get back to you later.

  27. The Siri Theory —-that Siri remained pope, and has a successor somewhere, I don’t buy. That he (or another) could have been elected and forced to resign is a possibility.

    No one raised the alarm as to Roncalli’s election. Explanation: it is possible that the one elected resigned under duress, but they thought it to be legitimate.

    Facts: Roncalli was under suspicion of Modernism, was a Socialist sympathizer, and was removed from his teaching position.

    Facts: There was a strange conclave where it seemed a pope was elected, then it changed, then Roncalli appears. There is evidence that American intelligence thought Siri had been elected.

    Fact: Roncalli begins to rehabilitate ALL THE MODERNIST AND CENSURED THEOLOGIANS. Something a real pope would not do. Combine that with Pacem in Terris and all the rest and you’ve got a reasonable suspicion.

    You don’t need a law degree to figure THAT ONE OUT.

    —-Introibo

  28. How is this passage from Pacem in Terris heretical: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”? Notice it says “right dictates”. This qualification of “right” saves it from heresy; if the passage had left “dictates” undefined then a case could be
    made against its orthodoxy. I have doubts about Roncalli’s being a pope; I have no doubts that Montini and successors were/are non-popes.

    Regarding Cardinal Siri: he openly accepted Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Wojtyła as Vicars of Christ as well as Vatican 2 and the Bogus Ordo, so, regardless of what happened at the 1958 conclave, he wasn’t a pope either.

    I read the following on Novus Ordo Watch some time back:
    “As we all struggle to explain fully what has happened to the Catholic Church since the death of Pope Pius XII, it would behoove us to acknowledge that we simply do not have all the facts; that is, we do not know everything that has transpired, for example, with regard to the conclave of 1958. This is where the whole Novus Ordo Sect mess started, and right from the beginning New York’s Cardinal Francis Spellman had a choice remark to make about the new “Pope”, Angelo Roncalli, who had assumed the name of John XXIII: “He’s no Pope. He should be selling bananas” (John Cooney, The American Pope: The Life and Times of Francis Cardinal Spellman [New York, NY: Times Books, 1984], p. 261). If only he had!

    Interestingly enough, Spellman “refused to place John XXIII’s coat of arms either at St. Patrick’s [cathedral] or the chancery” and instead “had a life-size wax figure made of Pius XII” (ibid.). Did Spellman, who of course had participated in the secret conclave, know something we can only speculate about? This is the same Cardinal Spellman about whom Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote in his personal diary that he was “coming out of the [1958] conclave looking white and shaken” (Fenton, Personal Diary: “My 1960 Trip to Rome”, entry for Nov. 2, 1960). Whatever transpired in that most fateful conclave, we know from the results that it was not of the Holy Ghost.”
    In connection with the above, see also https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/fatima-2018-like-sheep-without-shepherd-derksen.pdf .

    Reply

  29. Leo,
    I agree with much of what you say; you make salient points. As to Pacem in Terris, according to the Pontifical Academy Of Social Sciences, “Interestingly, it was along this latter front that the move was made directly toward the subject of religious liberty during the first session of the Council (11 October to 8 December 1962). Only eleven days after his opening al- locution, Pope John raised the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity to the same rank as the Council Commissions, thus empowering it to submit schemata. In the preparatory phase to the first session, two draft texts on the Church (Scheme Constitutionis de Ecclesia) included a chapter entitled ‘On the Relations Between Church and State’. Had the issue re- mained in that context, it would have been considered solely in the light of ecclesiastical public law. Now, having been empowered to submit schemata, Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat produced a document that was first en- titled ‘Freedom of Cult’, and a few months later,‘On Religious Freedom’.6
    Second, in December of 1962, shortly after learning from his physicians that he had a terminal cancer, Pope John instructed Msgr. Pietro Pavan of the Lateran to draft a new encyclical, which would be called Pacem in terris. The drafting committee understood that one sentence in particular would have a direct effect on the schemata being drawn by the commissioners – ‘Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public’.7 (§14) But, in order to allow the Council to exercise its full deliberative weight, these sentences on religious liberty were carefully, even somewhat ambiguously, written.
    Published on MaundyThursday,Pope John christened Pacem in terris his ‘Easter gift’.8 It was also called his ‘last will and testament’, because he died on 3 June 1963. For our purposes, it was his own, indirect schema for a number of issues that would come before the second session of the Council (29 September to 4 December 1963), including religious liberty. (See http://www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/acta17/acta17-hittinger.pdf).

    That encyclical helped the enemies of the Church and under Canon 2315, that puts one under suspicion of heresy. That’s my take. In any event I thank you for adding to the evidence that we have REASONABLE SUSPICION as regards Roncalli’s election—-and that’s good enough!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  30. Introibo,

    Introibo: “Your wish came true> I’ve proven reasonable suspicion. If you don’t think…”

    Wrong. You THINK my wish came true. Big difference. You’ve proven nothing. Every traditional Catholic ALREADY knows that Roncalli was a bad egg. We don’t need you to prove that. There are two aspects to this which you convenient leave enjoined. 1) Solid evidence that the election was invalid. 2) Solid evidence that Roncalli was a heretic/apostate/non-Catholic. As far as 1: You have confusing smoke signals at the beginning of the 1958 conclave followed by unfounded “possibilities.” That’s it. That’s the sole reason for your “unreasonable suspicion” regarding the legitimacy of the election. Confusing smoke signals and an unverified US intelligence report which, if it were verified, has every “possibilty” of being riddled with disinformation.

    But confusing smoke signals have apparently occurred previously.

    https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson

    “In the early 1990s, Gibson and Tom Costello hosted a video called Catholics, Where Has Our Church Gone?[26] which is critical of the changes made to the Catholic Church by the Second Vatican Council and espouses the Siri Thesis that in 1958, after the death of Pope Pius XII, the man originally elected pope was not Angelo Roncalli, but another cardinal, “probably Cardinal Siri of Genoa” (a staunch conservative candidate and first papabile). Gibson stated that the white smoke which emanated from a chimney in the Sistine Chapel to announce a new pope’s election was done in error; black smoke signifying that the papacy was still vacant was quickly created and the public was not informed of the reason for the initial white smoke. A still photograph of a newspaper story about this event is shown. “Had our church gone up in smoke”? asked Gibson. He stated that the new pope was forced to resign under duress and two days later, the “modernist Roncalli” was elected pope and took the name “John XXIII”. In 1962, Roncalli, as Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council.[26] In 2006, Hutton Gibson reversed his position on the Siri Thesis, asserting that this theory was based on a mistranslation of an article written on October 27, 1958 by Silvio Negro for the evening edition of the Milan-based Corriere della Sera.[27] A similar event also happened in 1939; in that case a confusing mixture of white and black smoke emanated from the Sistine Chapel chimney. In a note to Vatican Radio, the secretary of the Papal conclave at the time, a monsignor named Santoro said that a new pope, Eugenio Pacelli, had been properly elected regardless of the color of the smoke. Pacelli took the name Pius XII.[28]”

    As for 2: The Catholic Church doesn’t excommunicate people due to “reasonable suspicion.” One is not declared a heretic due to suspicions. We don’t decide that such and such a bidhop is a heretic based merely on a suspicion. There was plenty of opportunity to deal with Roncalli IF the Church had any real evidence against him. Instead, he ended up Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice under Pope Pius XII. By the way, Roncalli banished Bugnini. He didn’t resurface until after his death. The fact is that your secular law definition of “reasonable suspicion” (of Roncalli being a heretic) is NOT enough for you to definitively declare Roncalli an usurper. Thank God these matters don’t rely on secular lawyers arbitrarily deciding that there’s “reasonable suspicion,” and therefore “X bishop is no bishop at all!”

    To be continued…

    Reply

  31. Your ignorance shows. Reasonable suspicion regarding an election allows one to consider the one elected a dubious pope. You don’t need moral certitude.

    Hutton Gibson’s assertions do not jibe with the objective facts put forth since; and which I cited from NOW above.
    Let me give another example:
    if your neighbor had been Michael Jackson would you allow your child to spend the night there with a friend? Why not? He was never convicted of child molestation. However, he thought there was nothing wrong with a 44 year old sharing a bed with children because “nothing sexual went on” and all he does is give them hot milk and cookies before sleeping in the same bed with them, which he believed “the whole world should do.” Combine this with all his other bizarre behavior, and It would be reasonable to suspect he might be a child molester.

    Not enough to convict of anything but enough to be suspicious! That’s all I need and what I’ve got!

    —-Introibo

  32. Introibo,

    Your ignorance is astoumding.

    Your so-called “reasonable suspicion” is unfounded. Unfounded in terms of the election, as I’ve just shown, and unfounded as far as suspecting Roncalli and then using that to definitively declare him a heretic. Reasonable suspicion cannot be used to declare prelates heretics. That’s the point. What, precisely, don’t you understand about that? It’s not the principle that’s the problem, it’s your application of it that’s problematic. So spare me your recycled Michael Jackson examples. And for, I hope, the last time: the US security agency report is UNVERIFIED. Hutton Gibson’s presentation of FACTS obviously trumps your suite of “ifs,” “possibilities” and unverified reports which could be a whole lot of disinformation. See, it works both ways. Even if you can manage to dig up the report, I’ve already cast doubt on it due to it coming from an anonymous source/s to an anonymous sources/s in US intelligence; everyone knows that disinformation is a large part of spycraft.

    Btw, you missed my point when I referenced Fr. DrPauw. Am I surprised?

    1) I was not using Fr. Cekada as a Church authority.(I subsequently explained why I referenced him.) You assumed I was, then went on a little tear. But, oddly, you threw Fr. DePauw in as an example of a true canonist and theologian, so my questions relating to Fr. DePauw still stand. You deflected. Now, I’ve got another question re: Fr. DePauw.

    First. Do you now admit you were wrong about Roncalli preaching heresy in Pacem in Terris? If you still cling to your error, do you acknowledge that you are, stubbornly, almost on your own with that? But far more impottantly, DID Fr. DePauw object to Pacem in Terris at the time, declaring it was heretical? Did the learned theologian Guerard des Lauriers? How about Cardinal Ottaviani? Any of the distinguished, conservative churchmen of the time? Anyone? Anyone at all? (Why not? It’s obvious heresy, right?) Answer: No. Just the lawyer from NY in 2019.

    I rest my case.

    I’m uncertain about Roncalli. The difference between us is that you think you can definitively declare people to be heretics purely on your suspicions which you (erroneously) deem to be “reasonable.” I don’t.

    In charity. When you make comments along the lines of praising Fr. Cekada when it’s warranted and castigating him when necessary, you sound capricious, atbitrary and narcissistic. Just sayin’…

    And I noticed that your Lenten resolution went out the window. I was very polite, but you started to become rude, so I retaliated. Will you now go back to following your own rules, please?

    Reply

  33. 1. Hutton Gibson’s report is verified? Yeah. I suggest you reread NOW article. The papers reported FACTS about the conclave and the mix up. Gibson also has plenty of citations that Roncalli was a Freemason including Theologian Arriaga. But since it doesn’t meet you manufactured requirements for “proof” you will conveniently discount it.

    2. The facts remain that Roncalli was censured, there was a mix-up of smoke at the conclave, and Roncalli appears rehabilitating ALL the censured theologians alive from Pope Pius XII. Something unprecedented and no pope would do. Read the proof offered by Leo above regarding the actions and sayings of Cardinal Spellman WHO WAS THERE. Is that good enough for you? How about the fact that Cardinal Ottaviani was so sure of his election he even had his names picked out as Pope Pius XIII. Ottaviani told Fr. DePauw, “There was something seriously wrong.” (With the conclave).

    Did Fr object to Pacem at the time? Yes. He said it was “offensive to pious ears.” See also my reply to Leo.

    I’m glad you rested your case. I just wish you were a lawyer opposing me. You’d make my work so much easier and my lawsuits so much easier to win.

    Finally, how about this quote from Roncalli:
    “Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
    (See Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, 1998, pp. 18-19.)

    Do you believe that the Eastern Schismatics and the True Church have “the same Faith”?

    Is this not heresy? Or does it not constitute evidence?

    Finally, if you don’t like the way I come off sounding, please don’t interact with me and presume to tell me how to run my blog. I have been more than charitable.

    —-Introibo

  34. Introibo,

    1. I suggest you actually read the Gibson report again. It references an Italian newspaper report that rolled off the presses during the 1958 conclave. It’s verifiable history. It has far more credence than the fairytale you’re using to claim “reasonable suspicion” about the election. I haven’t manufactured any requirements for proof. The Church doesn’t allow one to declare prelates heretics based on reasonable suspicions which are based on fairytales. That’s what you’re doing. Yes, I’ll discount all hearsay or similiar evidence. This isn’t a cruddy, civil case in a New York court with low evidentiary requirements.

    2. So Roncalli was censured. That automatically makes him a heretic; but if it doesn’t, don’t worry, a mix up with the smoke – just like what happened at the election of Pius XII – is enough to reasonably suspect the election. Yeah. What Leo relayed was interesting, but in NO WAY DOES IT SUFFICE AS HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION. I wouldn’t even doubt it on the strength of that information.
    It’s merely stories from books written by people about other people using third hand information. Zero guarantee of accuracy. Do you believe every story you read? And Spellman’s banana remark sounds like it was made due to a personal dislike of Roncalli. Again, what’s missing are the firsthand accounts from those present that there was something seriously wrong with the election – threats, violence, coercion, duress. There’s none. Just unspecific “he said, she said” “evidence.” Cardinal Ottaviani seems very confident, but so were others, including Cardinal Siri, according to the popular stories. What a PITY that Ottaviani didn’t ELABORATE when he spoke to Fr. DePauw. It’s ALWAYS the way. No real evidence. But tell me, did Fr. DePauw opine that Roncalli was ipso facto excommunicated for “rehabilitating” those theologians, or is just you unsuccessfully trying to establish the false and novel corollary that no true pope would do that?

    3. You still haven’t answered my questions about Fr. DePauw. Did Fr. DePauw publicly or even privately state that Pacem in Terris was heretical, and as a result John XIII was a heretic and no pope at all?

    4. You reopened my case. I only wish I could oppose you in court. I’d never lose a case.

    5. Wow! I agree that that quote from Roncalli sounds bad. I found it on the Dimond Bros. Feeneyite website, along with all their hearsay “evidence” about Roncalli being a Freemason. Its authenticity is immediately dubious. Thing is, and what you can’t seem to grasp, Roncalli was never brought to trial for heresy, tried and convicted. He was “suspected of Modernism” in 1925, and then went on to become a Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice under Pope Pius XII.

    What I’m still after is a minimum of one example where it can be clearly shown what crime Roncalli committed, when he committed it, and how that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    Finally. No, I like interacting with you. I just thought you were sounding a bit unfriendly. I realize now that I was obviously just imagining it. My bad.

    Reply

  35. 1. Please read the newspaper reports embedded in the NOW report that is HISTORY. Not speculation.

    2. You’re conflating two separate issues. (A) Roncalli being a heretic and (b) being invalidly elected. If Siri had been elected and coerced into resigning and Ottaviani was elected, his election would be invalid, although he was definitely not a heretic.

    So, if we have reasonable suspicion that the election may be invalid that is enough to cast him a dubious pope. Remember that the standard is SUSPICION. That does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    2. Now let’s see what we have:
    A censured cleric removed from his teaching position. His friends are Socialists and Freemasons. There is suspicious smoke and reports from American intelligence that another cardinal was elected. There are two Cardinals present at the conclave who thought something was wrong. Roncalli begins rehabilitating all the censured heretics.

    Taken together, is there reason to suspect that Roncalli was not validly elected given the circumstances and his behavior—especially after he became “pope”? You bet.

    Consider reasonable doubt is a low standard of proof. It cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

    3. Fr DePauw was sede since at least 1999, and would not discuss details. I answered what he thought of Pacem at the time and the document was praised by the Masonic Lodge.

    4. Before you could even hope to compete you’d need to learn evidentiary standards and not conflate issues.

    5. I have the book. The quote is legitimate. This is the genetic fallacy, something is wrong or dubious because of its origin. The National Enquirer is a rag, but they correctly reported John Edwards was cheating on his wife. Interesting too, is that you don’t immediately find Hutton Gibson automatically suspect. Do you deny the Holocaust too? Not enough evidence? Everything bad in the world is the result of Jews?

    Never brought up on trial for heresy. Neither was de Lubac, or sodomite Baum. Neither was Montini. How did HE lose office if there was no trial?

    There is reasonable suspicion such that we may hold Roncalli as a dubious pope, which is no pope in the practical order.

    —-Introibo

  36. Introibo,

    Firstly. YOU, in fact, were the one who was conflating the two issues -election/heresy. I pulled you up on it in a previous post. I distincly separated the two because you were combining them.

    Did you carefully read anon @ 8:22’s post? I did. It confirms all I said about your use of a fairytale to claim reasonable suspicion. You can’t claim reasonable suspicion using the NOW fairytale about the FALSE story from the fraudulent anti-Catholic author about the supposed US intelligence reports claiming Siri was elected. Anon @ 8:22 put paid to your reasonable suspicion claims using that nonsense as a reason. NOW had old NEWS reports about the smoke confusion. So what? There were similiar reports in 1939 when there were similar problems with the smoke at the election of Pope Pius XII.

    I don’t have time at the moment to answer your entire post, but I will later.

    In the meantime, when fif you first formulate your “argument” about “reasonable suspicion” and put it in writing here?

  37. I want to thank you for inspiring me. If you would be so kind, I’m doing my next post on John XXIII, and we may pick up in the comments on Monday where we leave off today.

    I’ve always said I’ve learned a lot from my readers and I mean it. Had it not been for you coming back again about Roncalli, I wouldn’t have started my research into him again, and see things from a fresh perspective.

    Thank you my friend for challenging me. The unchallenged mind can’t grow. We may not agree, but I respect your intellectual pugnacious proclivity. It’s a good thing to have! Until Monday!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  38. Anonymous May 15, 2019 at 12:28 PM:
    You said: “Spellman’s banana remark sounds like it was made due to a personal dislike of Roncalli.” Note that Cardinal Spellman also stated: “He’s [Roncalli] no Pope.” This sounds more than an affirmation of a personal dislike. Pacem in Terris was an unfortunate encyclical, but it can’t be convicted of explicit heresy. What Roncalli said about the “Eastern Orthodox” looks heretical to me!
    By the way, when you said, “We know that John Salza demolished a facile argument put forth by Bp. Sanborn”, what were you referring to?

    Reply

  39. Hello Leo,

    Thanks for your post, but most of all for your correct assessment of Pacem in Terris not being heretical. Not unlike yourself I have my personal doubts about John XXIII, but they certainly don’t warrant me declaring he’s a heretic based on what’s in Pacem in Terris. That wouldn’t be just.

    Leo: ‘Note that Cardinal Spellman also stated: “He’s [Roncalli] no Pope.” This sounds more than an affirmation of a personal dislike.’

    I agree that it’s a positive assertion. It could easily be merely an affirmation of a personal dislike and distrust of Roncalli’s overall abilities. Just as is the following affirmation made by a sales manager of a car dealership: “He [Fred] is no car salesman. He should be on an assembly line in a cannery.” This speaks to Fred’s ability/suitability/skillset etc.

    But let’s say this [Spellman’s] comment was somehow meant to mean Roncalli wasn’t legitimate. Where’s the followup from Spellman? He was a Catholic Cardinal. If he had the solid evidence that Roncalli was an usurper – for whatever, legitimate reason – why did he just make a cryptic comment; an (alluring, nowadays) allusion to Roncalli being a fraud and then just leave it at that?
    Again, what’s missing are the firsthand accounts from those present that there was something seriously wrong with the election – threats, violence, coercion, duress. There’s none. Just assorted cryptic comments posing as evidence. But one thing seems to be beyond any doubt – Spellman was no fan of Roncalli. And unless or until we get a clarification of the statement, it must be interpreted as I’ve indicated, else we do gross INJUSTICE to both Spellman and Roncalli.

    I was referring to the article by Salza on their website. I assumed Introibo had seen it. Although Salza concludes correctly, he does it in his usual dodgy manner. From memory, Salza – big advocate of not using hearsay evidence to prove religious points (I agree) – ends with using the old, recycled statement Roncalli SUPPOSEDLY made on his deathbed when he SUPPOSEDLY learned that the Council was taking a wrong turn, to wit: “Stop the Council! Tell them to stop the Council!” – or words to that effect.

    Young Johnny Salza is an insufferable hypocrite, no doubt about that!

    Reply

  40. Knowing now what we know about Roncalli, would any of you let him teach the Faith to your children? I wouldn’t because from what I know about him now, he seems to have a different idea as to what the Catholic Faith entails then his predecessors. For that doubt alone, I would avoid any of his teachings.

    Reply

  41. PS-you can substitute any conciliar claimant to the Papacy in the place of Roncalli and you would get the same answer. NO

Oglasi

About John Defensor

Na tapetu su teme koje govore o povrataku pravovjerja i normalanom razvoju crkvene hijerarhije i katoličkog laikata. Posebna pozornost posvećena je najvećoj pošasti: novoj krivovjernoj religiji koja se formirala II. vatikanskim saborom: Novus Ordo Crkva. Katolicizam bez kompromisa nastao je iz pravovjerja Tradicije Duha Božjega u Jednoj, Svetoj, Katoličkoj i Apostolskoj Crkvi. Prazna Sveta Stolica od preminuća Pape Pija XII.,1958.

Posted on 16/05/2019, in Novus Ordo religija, Tradicionalni Katolicizam and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Komentiraj.

Komentiraj

Popunite niže tražene podatke ili kliknite na neku od ikona za prijavu:

WordPress.com Logo

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš WordPress.com račun. Odjava /  Izmijeni )

Google photo

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš Google račun. Odjava /  Izmijeni )

Twitter picture

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš Twitter račun. Odjava /  Izmijeni )

Facebook slika

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš Facebook račun. Odjava /  Izmijeni )

Spajanje na %s

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

%d bloggers like this: