Saturday, February 18, 2017

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

Note: None of the teachings on our site must be deemed absolutely infallibly or true, and the reader must be advised to follow his own conscience. Even if our teachings proclaim this or that position to be true (according to our own interpretation), the reader must understand that this is our own private interpretation of saint quotes and church teachings, dogmas and encyclicals. Whatever the case may be, always follow what you think the church teaches on any matter; and do not trust blindly on what is taught on our site (even if we claim this or that position is a mortal sin) – even if our position may seem true and infallible (you may, however, follow what we teach blindly if you think this is the true position). If you have worries about any position, ask a knowledgeable friend or priest for guidance; and if you have further concerns, ask another priest or even several priests to see what he thinks about this or that position. No one can be forced to believe in any position that is uncertain, and the reader must be advised to follow his conscience. So if you think any position is uncertain according to your own conscience, make a reasonable judgment, and then ask for advice or continue to study the issue until you have made a right judgment – according to your conscience.

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

5 comments:

  1. I received your comments/challenge on my blog post. Your ideas are so misguided, rather than publish them, I'm refuting your errors on my next post (February 27, 2017) Challenge accepted.

    ---Introibo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is his response:

      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-magisterium-unto-themselves.html

      I have not made a follow up so far, because I have changed much of my position since then, and before that, I simply did not agree with him. Now, however, since the law of conscience is true and because this is based on what you think the Church teaches, this is what you have to go after and no mortal sin is committed if you believe this is a Church teaching even if MHFM or others condemns you for it.

      Delete
  2. Introibo has a new blog post about this topic today. I commented there that I agreed with you about "imperfect sodomy" being a mortal sin and told him that Saint Alphonsus Liguori agreed that it was a mortal sin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your reply.

      St. Alphonsus indeed condemns it as a mortal sin. He also condemns oral sex and other unecessary non-procreative sexual acts as mortal sins:

      1: On Matrimony, Book VI, n. 491-492
      St. Alphonsus considers a question on marital sexual acts:

      “Or whether it is always [a] mortal [sin], if the husband were to insert [his] penis into the mouth of [his] wife?”

      Then, the Saint gives an answer proposed by some moral theologians of his day:

      “In the negative [say several authors] … but only if there is no danger of pollution.”

      Some theologians of that time period (1700’s) claimed that it would be moral, only if there was no danger that the husband would climax (“danger of pollution”). But then the Saint rejects their answer and gives an answer he asserts to be the truth:

      “But the truth is in the affirmative [citing several authors] … not only because, in this act, on account of the warmth of the mouth, there is proximate danger of pollution, but also because this [act] is considered [to be], in itself, an abnormal type of pleasure against nature (as has been said of any type of shameful sex).”

      Saint Alphonsus asserts that this type of act, within marriage is a mortal sin for two reasons. First, because there is always the danger of pollution, i.e. the risk that the husband will climax, making the act a completed unnatural sexual act. Second, because this type of act, even without climax, is “in itself … against nature”, which means that it is an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral sexual sin. And he asserts that the same is true of “any type of shameful sex”, that is to say, any type of unnatural sexual act.

      Delete
    2. Canon Law defines the natural sexual act in explaining the consummation of a marriage. A marriage that is ratified by the consent of the spouses (at the wedding ceremony) is afterward consummated only if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature. Even if one or both spouses are infertile for some reason, the act is still termed natural, if it is the type of act that would be capable of procreation if they were fertile.

      The moral object of any act is the end toward which the knowingly chosen act is inherently ordered, regardless of whether the moral object is attained. To be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and procreative. Sexual relations open to life is inherently ordered toward the procreative meaning, and so it is called the natural act.

      An unnatural sexual act is any type of sex, whether or not climax occurs, which is not ordered, by the nature of the act, toward procreation. Unnatural sexual acts are not procreative. Neither are they truly unitive (even if there exists a merely physical type of union in the act), since these acts do not offer the type of union ordained by God for husband and wife.

      Then the Saint adds some commentary after his answer:

      “And besides, whenever another orifice [or vessel] is sought by the husband, other than the natural orifice, which has been ordained for copulation, it is considered [to be] an abnormal type of [sexual] pleasure.”

      The term “vessel” [vas] in Latin texts of moral theology refers to any orifice or receptacle used in a sexual act. The natural vessel is the vagina of the wife. Unnatural vessels include any other orifice or body part used to commit a sexual act (even if it is not strictly speaking an orifice).

      St. Alphonsus considers the question on rectal intercourse:

      “Whether a man sins mortally by beginning intercourse in the posterior receptacle (the anus), so as to consummate it afterwards in the appropriate receptacle (the vagina)?" The answer given to that question is: "[Various theologians] deny it is a mortal sin as long as there is no danger of pollution [ejaculation outside of the vagina]... But it is more generally and truly affirmed [to be a mortal sin] by [various theologians], because coitus itself of this kind (even if without insemination) is true sodomy, although not consummated, just as copulation in the natural vessel of another woman is true fornication, even if insemination does not take place.” Liguori supports the view of those who argue that rectal intercourse is a mortal sin.

      Delete