Saturday, February 18, 2017

Are pre-Vatican II Church approved theologians free from error?

One common -- and extremely dangerous -- opinion today among traditionalists is the claim that all approved pre-Vatican II theologians essentially are "safe to follow", and that they are "without any error" and "faithfully express the teachings of the Church", as demonstrated in the conversation below.

But this is not true, unless, of course, one wants to argue that sodomy is not a mortal sin and even permitted to do in marriage and the marriage act! Yes, that's right, one so-called claimed "safe to follow and free from error" pre-Vatican II theologian, actually teaches this heresy, as we will see.



Junior RibeiroOctober 13, 2016 at 9:52 AM
You wrote that we must study the good Catholic theologians. What are they and what books you recommend? Thank you.


Introibo Ad Altare DeiOctober 13, 2016 at 3:40 PM
Dear Mr. Ribeiro, 
The "good theologians" are those learned men from the pre-Vatican II era whose writings were approved by Holy Mother Church as free from error and were used to educate Her priests. They faithfully express the teachings of the Church.
There are many of them, but three stand out as exemplary whose writings are in English.
1. Fr. Joseph Pohle. He had written 12 volumes of dogmatic theology, which you can now purchase in a set of six hardcovers for $319 on Amazon.com. If you get it and read through them, you will have an exemplary understanding of our Faith!
2. Fr. Ludwig Ott. His "Fundamentals of Dogmatic Theology" is one-volume and available at Amazon.com for only about $28. You will learn a great deal (obviously not as much, but it is excellent!).
3. Fr. Heribert Jone. His "Moral Theology" is also available from Amazon.com and contains all the moral principles and basic teachings in morality all in one volume for about $40.
If you can get at least OTT and JONE you will reap great benefits from your better understanding of the Church!
God bless,
---Introibo

Leaving dogmatic theology aside, I will focus only on the so-called "Moral Theology" of the pervert Fr. Jone.



Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone, 1951: “I. Imperfect Sodomy, i.e., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted: Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution…” (“3. The Sins of Married People,” Section 757)

Here we can see Fr. Jone say that rectal intercourse between a husband and wife is not a grave sin as long as the husband does not spill his seed when sodomizing his wife. And according to Fr. Jone, this is not even sodomy! One must ask, then, “What is it?” and “What is the purpose of this filthy and perverted act?” It is sodomy, plain and simple! And the purpose is to mock God and to degrade and disgrace the wife. Not only is this sodomitical act by the spouses contrary to nature and cries out to God for vengeance, but it is also physically destructive to the health of both spouses.


However, Fr. Jone contradicts his above teaching within his same book. In Section 230 he gives the correct definition of sodomy as follows.


Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone: “230. – II. Sodomy. 1. Definition. Sodomy is unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or of the opposite sex; the latter of heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercourse (imperfect sodomy). Either kind of sodomy will be consummated or non-consummated according as semination takes place or not.”


Therefore, whether the seed is spilled during sodomy or not, it is still sodomy, but one is called consummated sodomy and the other is non-consummated sodomy. Hence in Section 230 he correctly teaches that a husband who sodomizes his wife but does not consummate the sodomy is still guilty of sodomy, which he correctly classifies as non-consummated sodomy. His teaching in this section contradicts what he teaches in Section 757 when he says that the husband’s non-consummated sodomy is not sodomy at all. Nature itself tells even a pagan that any form of rectal intercourse for any reason as well as any kind of sexual activity outside what is necessary for procreation is intrinsically evil and selfish. 

Is it reasonable to believe that God would have allowed His Church to be eclipsed like this by the Whore of Babylon (the Vatican II sect) unless the majority of Catholics were already bad or displeasing to Him? Of course not. Indeed, we learn from Jacinta herself – the Prophetess of Fatima – that even before Vatican II, almost all people were in a state of damnation; and it is just a fact that the people of that time were many times more virtuous than the “Catholics” of our own time. “Jacinta, what are you thinking of?” Jacinta, the prophetess and seer of Fatima replied: “About the war which will come. So many people will die, and almost all of them will go to hell!” Consider that this statement by Jacinta was made before the Vatican II revolution. And many Catholic nations participated in the war. Yet almost all Catholics were damned. Are you any better than they were?


I would like to ask Introibo how he think the great apostasy even came into being if everything taught before Vatican II was safe and sound to follow? Is it not obvious that many teachings and practises before Vatican II must have been heretical, unsafe, and displeasing to God since He allowed the apostasy happen? Obviously. Why else would God allow the Vatican II apostasy to happen, unless, again, the majority of Catholics were displeasing to him?



Introibo: "The "good theologians" are those learned men from the pre-Vatican II era whose writings were approved by Holy Mother Church as free from error and were used to educate Her priests. They faithfully express the teachings of the Church."

In reality, there are a lot of heretical imprimatured books. It is illogical to presume that a Pope reads and thus personally approves all official decrees and responses from the Roman Congregations, along with all unofficial ones attributed to the Roman Congregations found in the many books that publish them, along with reading all books in the world with imprimaturs, along with ruling the Church spiritually and temporally, along with sanctifying his own soul by prayer and meditation, along with sanctifying Catholics as the chief shepherd, and along with calling non-Catholics to conversion.


Pope St. Pius X testifies to the impossibility of a pope’s inspection of every imprimatured book, even with the help of the Holy Office, and also testifies that there were many bad books that were given imprimaturs.

St. Pope Pius X, Pacendi Dominici Gregis, A.D. 1907: “51. We bid you do everything in your power to drive out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books that may be in circulation there. The Holy See neglects no means to put down writings of this kind, but the number of them has now grown to such an extent that it is impossible to censure them all. Hence it happens that the medicine sometimes arrives too late, for the disease has taken root during the delay. We will, therefore, that the Bishops, putting aside all fear and the prudence of the flesh, despising the outcries of the wicked, gently by all means but constantly, do each his own share of this work, remembering the injunctions of Leo XIII in the Apostolic Constitution Officiorum: “Let the Ordinaries, acting in this also as Delegates of the Apostolic See, exert themselves to prescribe and to put out of reach of the faithful injurious books or other writings printed or circulated in their dioceses.” In this passage the Bishops, it is true, receive a right, but they have also a duty imposed on them. Let no Bishop think that he fulfills this duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many others of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the Imprimatur elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or excessive confidence in the author as may sometimes happen in religious Orders.”

The same logically applies to the official Roman Congregations’ decrees and responses, and more so to the unofficial decrees and responses found in the many books that list them.

Also consider our Lady’s prophecy in the Church approved apparition of La Salette:

“In the year 1864 Lucifer, together with a great number of devils, will be loosed from hell; little by little they will abolish the faith, and that even in persons consecrated to God; they will so blind them, that without a special grace, these persons will take on the spirit of these evil angels; a number of religious houses will lose the faith entirely and cause many souls to be damned. Bad books will abound over the earth, and the spirits of darkness will everywhere spread universal relaxation in everything concerning God’s service: they will have very great power over nature; there will be churches to serve these [evil doctrines or] spirits... and even priests, because they will not have lived by the good spirit of the gospel, which is a spirit of humility, charity and zeal for the glory of God.” (Prophecy of La Salette, 19th of September 1846)

The Great Apostasy—Vatican II, the Conciliar Church, and her apostate antipopes—did not come about overnight.

I would not trust any pre-Vatican II "Moral Theologians". Does anyone really think morality became better as time progressed, or worse? If you want to be safe, stick with St. Augustine and the Fathers and Saints of the Church!

For those who want to read and learn a lot more on sexual ethics, I can recommend the following interesting and informative article that is absolutely packed with quotes from the popes, saints and fathers of the Church:


Sexual Pleasure, the Various Sexual Acts, and Procreation