Recent posts

#41

Dogma & Doctrine / Re: Was William of Ockham the ...

Last post by justjeff - February 02, 2026, 03:11:13 AM

who opposed the (then-material) dogma that the souls of the deceased destined to heaven behold the Beatific Vision immediately after death

By "(then-material) dogma" do you mean that it had been defined or had been taught universally by the bishops prior to Pope John XXII?

I read somewhere in discussions about papal infallibility that Pope John XXII's error was no argument against papal infallibility because:

1. He wasn't teaching it to the whole Church, but rather in more private conversations or letters and in a sermon or two. and
2. the Beatific Vision immediately after death was pretty much accepted by most in the Church, but had never been defined and was not an infallible teaching.

I assume that his recantation of what he had written/said is irrelevant as to the infallibility question.

#42

Dogma & Doctrine / Re: «True or False Pope» discu...

Last post by justjeff - February 02, 2026, 02:11:47 AM

True or False Pope, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope", pp. 379-80 (PDF pp. 399-400) is logically unsound:

the unanimous acceptance does not cause the Pope to be a true Pope, but is instead an effect that would not be present unless the cause (a true Pope) was itself present. [true enough..., but this does not follow:] If the Church universally accepts a man as Pope, we have infallible certitude that he is, indeed, a true Pope.

This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, because:
(true pope ⇒ peaceful & universal acceptance) ⇎ (peaceful & universal acceptance ⇒ true pope)

We can conclude that:
(not peaceful & universal acceptance) ⇒ (not true pope)

Otherwise, one couldn't explain Antipope Anacletus II vs. Pope Innocent II.

Thank you, that is excellent.

#43

Dogma & Doctrine / Re: «True or False Pope» discu...

Last post by justjeff - February 02, 2026, 02:06:47 AM

One major issue I have with ToFP is that they don't discuss the case of Antipope Anacletus II vs. Pope Innocent II, presumably because it would go counter to their insinuation that universal and peaceful acceptance makes a valid pope; e.g., they quote St. Alphonsus:

It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.

However, I doubt St. Alphonsus considered Anacletus II as ever having been a true pope.

Also, S&S's main thesis, that Bellarmine and Suarez held the same "common opinion" that a declaratory sentence is necessary first, rests on the opinion of one theologian, John of St. Thomas. Sedevacantists do not base their argument one theologian from centuries ago but on several who have interpreted and developed the thought of St. Robert et al.

Thank you, this thread is extremely interesting to me. I just came across the story of Antipope Anacletus II just yesterday after someone mentioned him and I looked him up in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't have much knowledge of the history of these things but this struck me as an extremely important facet of this discussion, a discussion that seems critically important at this juncture of Church history.

#44

General Discussion / Some of my background...

Last post by justjeff - February 01, 2026, 11:36:36 PM

1st off, thank you so much for your book repository, Geremia. What an absolute goldmine of information for the public. May Our Lord bless your donation of time, effort, expertise and money to bear much fruit in edifying and saving souls.

Short version: Baby boomer, went through the VII, TLM -> Novus Ordo, cultural revolution of the '60s & following. Left the faith in college, reverted ~ 7 to 12 years(?) later... to the John Paul II Catholic, baby apologist, admin on a Catholic discussion forum, to questioning VII, the Novus Ordo & the current hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Still searching for solid ground to stand on.

Long version:

I was born in Missouri (suburbs) in the mid-1950s, went to what I believe was a solid Catholic grade school taught by devout nuns. Though I don't remember for sure, a friend told me that we went to Mass every day. My missal had English on one side & Latin on the other & I didn't really have any issues following along in the Mass and knowing what was going on, from the perspective of a well catechised grade schooler.

We moved to a neighboring parish after my 6th grade and I believe that was about the time that our archdiocese switched to the Novus Ordo. I'm not sure which of the variables, 7th grade, VII, Novus Ordo, different order of nuns, different pastor, &/or the radicalizing culture of the late 60s, was the cause, but the discipline & religious education, catechises and educational rigor were quite different. It was far more "relaxed" if you will.

I went to a new Jesuit all boys high school. I was in the 4th class there, so it was the first year they had freshmen through seniors. In retrospect I would consider it a mixed bag. It was probably a significant step up from public schools, but probably a step back from what these schools would have provided a decade or so earlier. For instance, Roe v Wade probably came out during my junior year and my religion teacher laid it out pretty clearly for us, if I recall. It seemed rather obvious and non-controversial to me that this was a very bad thing. On the other hand, I remember books assigned in an English class seemed borderline soft-porn, which might get the boys to read them enthusiastically, but were probably not spiritually uplifting for hormonal, pubescent young men.

By my junior year I was hanging out with guys that were into partying, including alcohol & pot, and when I went off to college I quit going to Mass. I rationalized my drift into at least virtual agnosticism was that the bible was full of miracles and yet there hadn't been miracles in hundreds of years (sic).

The Holy Spirit was probably able to keep prompting me in some recess of my mind, at least occasionally, to wonder, "What is the meaning of life?". I remember thinking that there were essentially 3 possible answers to that question.

1.) There is no God, and therefore, really no "meaning" to life". If that was the case, then "the meaning to life" would essentially boil down to what a neighbor and friend of mine had on his bumper sticker... "He who dies with the most toys wins". Hedonism. Epicureanism. Party, avoid pain and discomfort, and have as much fun as you can until you die... or

2.) Darwinian survival of the fittest. I'm sure someone could come up with a better bumper sticker for that than I, but my weak effort would be something like, "He who has the most descendents through time wins!"

3.) A religious meaning. There are obviously a lot of options in this category, but I had taken a comparative religions class in high school and the only one that really made sense, was the Catholic one. I realize my upbringing would make me quite biased in thinking that, but everything I have seen throughout my life reinforces that adolescent/young adult gut feeling. If forced to put that option on a bumper sticker, I would probably go with something like, "Whoever gets to heaven and spends eternity in God's presence wins!".

I didn't spend a lot of time contemplating any of that, but it did pop up periodically for me. I even took a philosophy class to see if it might light on reality and how we experience it and better understand it. Unfortunately, that was a dissapointment to me and if anything muddied the waters even further for me. I had also taken a few psychology classes, which were more interesting to me, but shed no light on the underlying search for "The meaning to life." I think its hypothesis of "maturational readiness" explained why I got nothing out of the philosophy class to some extent. The example that comes to mind was trying to teach a very young student to type. No matter how bright the child and how much time and effort were put into it progress was extremely slow to the point of worthlessness... until the child reached a certain age/maturity level and then they could pick it up quite quickly. I just wasn't mature enough &/or didn't have the foundation to be thrown into the deep waters of philosophy over the millennia and of the assorted, contradictory philosophies.

I recently started a book study, led by a wonderful priest, on the books, "The Death of Christian Culture" and ", The Restoration of Christian Culture" both by John Senior. He only touches on philosophers and philosophies somewhat tangentially, but I believe that it would have been a godsend for me to have had him as a teacher, or especially as a mentor back in those agnostic, searching days. He was a professor at the University of Kansas, an archrival of Missouri, btw, and having him, or someone like him, pull the ocean of philosophical thought into an organized, logical system, for lack of a better word, would have had the possibility of making sense of it all to me at the time... as it did for so many others.

Left to my own devices, I in effect decided to straddle the fence three ways. I know that metaphor is strained, but I can think of no other. Maybe it's a corner of 3 fences? I would try and avoid hell, using very minimized criteria for doing so... don't commit adultery, murder, stealing or (bad) lying; have as many viable offspring as I could; all while maximizing fun and enjoyment while minimizing pain and suffering.

That wasn't a very satisfying compromise long term, but I suppose it sufficed to quiet my conscience a bit. But it seems to me that the Holy Spirit was gently reminding me of the Truth in the background and those thoughts occasionally still bubbled to the surface.

One year and aunt stopped to visit our family on her way back to California from a visit to Medjugorje. I had never heard of it and was a little intrigued about her stories of ongoing miracles there. She gave me a newspaper/tabloid type thing that spoke of miracles all over the world. I was astonished. If miracles were really happening around the world, why wasn't this on the evening news and in our newspapers?

I read through that newspaper chock full of these stories and eventually bought a book on Medjugorje by someone who had been converted by his experience of visiting there. It kicked away the excuse I had concocted for doubting Catholicism. I was apprehensive of going to a Mass, given my sinful lifestyle and my history of walking away from the Church, missing Mass and the sacraments for 10 years or more. But eventually I did. I didn't really think the roof would cave in on my, but it almost felt like something untoward might happen. But it didn't.

It was a gradual, imperfect return to the faith over a few years(?), but I think Our Lord was patient, kind, deferential and loving throughout the ongoing process.

I stumbled upon EWTN on cable and was mesmerized. I couldn't tear myself away, and even hated going to the bathroom because the commercials also seemed like grace filled teaching moments. I felt cheated. Why hadn't I been taught this stuff in school and perhaps even in Church? I'm sure I had been taught some/much of it, but it had been a looong time ago. One of the EWTN shows may have been titled something like Treasures of the Faith, and the host observed that it was like a family that had a chest of gold and other treasures in chests in the attic, but the family was unaware of it and living like virtual paupers. That seemed to be a terrific analogy to me.

I'm sure I heard some apologetics on EWTN and I joined an apologetics & evangelization maillist in the early days of email and the internet. I didn't realize that I would suddenly be getting a bunch of emails, but I really enjoyed learning and watching and even participating in some of the interactions with non-Catholics and even anti-Catholics. I came to a stronger realization that we have solid answers for those who criticized and attacked the Church. It reinforced my belief that the Catholic Church was indeed THE Church founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I eventually became a moderator on an early, large at the time, Catholic Discussion forum, and that eventually turned into being a moderator. I had become very confident by that time that I could at least find a very solid answer to any assaults on the Church... with one sort of exception... the occasional Traditionalists who asserted that the Church had gone off the rails about the time of Vatican II.

On the surface, it sounded a little absurd. Our Lord had promised, after all, that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and that He was the head of the Church and would be until the end of time. (See The Church in the New Testament) It seemed a little preposterous to me that the Church could be teaching error, or worse yet that virtually the entire world, including the VAST majority of Catholics in the pews, could all be following an anti-pope for many decades by that time. The sedevacantists had somewhat varying starting points for the false popes, but John XXIII was the most common one as far as I could tell. If that had truly happened, that meant that John XXIII, John Paul I(?), and John Paul II (at the time) were all anti-popes. That would indicate to me that the gates of hell had indeed prevailed against His Church for quite some time, and if so, there seemed to be no end in sight. "The hidden remnant" didn't seem to me to logically fit, nor did it have a historical precedent as far as I could tell. In fact, the history seemed to have precedents of many movements that felt the Church had gone off the rails, but they were tragically mistaken.

A Catholic Answers apologist had roughly stated that if it seems to us laymen that the Church is teaching something incorrectly that we should assume that we aren't quite grasping it rather than that the Church itself is wrong. This seemed reasonable to me and I felt that they had a reasonable explanation for all of the Protestant objections to the faith, and to most of the Traditionalists objections to Church teaching... but I didn't delve all that deeply into the latter and there seemed to be far less material attempting to refute their objections.

When they posted magisterial documents from the past like The Syllabus of Errors, I couldn't really reconcile that with more recent Church documents and statements. I put off the time consuming and difficult task of serious research into reconciling things, perhaps similar to my delay in confronting "The meaning to life", assuming that I just hadn't studied enough Church history and theology to do so and didn't have time to almost put in the research needed that might rival that of getting a masters degree in theology &/or philosophy, &/or Catholic history.

So I took the easy/cheater's(?) way out and eventually would tell these annoying interlopers that this was a forum that was faithful to the Pope and the Magisterium as taught in the then new Catechism of the Catholic Church, and that if they wanted to continue to fight against them, that would constitute proselytism and they should go to a Traditionalist forum for discussions, or start their own.

But that loose end in what otherwise seemed like an airtight worldview nagged at me a bit. I worried that when John Paul II's pontificate came to an end that the radical/heretical(?) leftists might prevail and pull the Church back into the hermaneutics of rupture as some termed it. I was very relieved when Cardinal Ratzinger was overwhelmingly elected to the pontificate. I knew that he was one of the at least quasi-heterodox radicals pre & during Vatican II, but felt that the Holy Spirit had pulled him back into orthodoxy.

The apologists roughly in line with those of the worldview of Catholic Answers had repeatedly assured us that the heterodox were an older breed that were dying out and that the John Paul II Catholics would prevail keeping the Church on the straight and narrow path of a hermaneutics of continuity. The election of Pope Benedict XVI seemed to confirm their predictions. He should certainly be able to appoint enough new Cardinals to cement the orthodox position of the elector cardinals who would elect the next pope. The heterodox wing of the hierarchy certainly seemed quite upset about his election, dubbing him "God's Rottweiler", though those who knew him protested that implied aggressiveness was not like him at all.

In the crazy events that followed, such as the events leading up to and including Pope Benedict XVI's abdication, I was very much on edge. The aftermath, the election of "Pope Francis" and what followed confirmed my fears of where things were headed for the Church. I'm surprised that I couldn't find Julia Meloni's book, The St. Gallen Mafia here, but maybe my search was flawed.

As Bergolio seemed hellbent on perverting the Church, I had to leave the forums I had administered for years. It had already faltered some years earlier because of management changes & web hosting issues, but defending Bergoglio & his actions was a bridge too far.

I've been reading and struggling for some years now, trying to sort things out and to understand as best I can where we stand at the moment. I will start a new thread to ask for viewpoints and resources examining questions such as who is the current Vicar of Christ, is the Novus Ordo valid?, what is the place of the SSPX, the FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King, the SSPV and so on with regards to The Church.

When I do, I'll try and link to the new thread or threads here, and to link from there back to here.
{edit}: Here it is: Is Pope Leo XIV a true pope or an anti-pope? etc.

Thanks to any and all who had the patience and fortitude to wade through all of that, and to those who haven't, but may participate in any further discussion(s). May Our Lord continue to shower us with His many blessings and graces.

Your brother-in-Christ,
Jeff

#45

Anti-Modernism / Re: «Rebel Hearts» (2021)

Last post by Geremia - January 31, 2026, 10:28:09 PM

See the 1999 article in Culture Wars: "Carl Rogers and the IHM Nuns: Sensitivity Training, Psychological Warfare and the 'Catholic Problem'" by E. Michael Jones.

#46

Forum-Related / «The World Brain: Google's pla...

Last post by Geremia - January 18, 2026, 03:33:47 AM

Larry Page (Google founder) had always wanted to digitize books. In 1996, the student project that eventually became Google—a crawler that would ingest documents and rank them for relevance against a user's query—was actually conceived as part of an effort to develop a universal digital library. The idea was that, once all books were digitized, you'd be able to map the citations among them, see which books got cited the most, and use that data to give better search results to library patrons.

#47

Fides et Ratio / ASML's Jos Benschop asked for ...

Last post by Geremia - January 07, 2026, 12:08:06 AM

@36:20, Jos Benschop, senior vice president technology at ASML, describes divine intervention in helping him develop EUV techonology.

#48

Holy Scripture & Liturgy / Separate Seats for Men and Wom...

Last post by Geremia - December 27, 2025, 08:51:01 PM

1917 can. 1262 §1 (which has no equivalent in the 1983 Novus Ordo Code) says:

[Peters's transl.:] It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
[🇻🇦:] Optandum ut, congruenter antiquae disciplinae, mulieres in ecclesia separatae sint a viris.

A Commentary on the New [1917] Code of Canon Law vol. 6 pp. 204-5 (PDF pp. 2729-30):

§ 1. Conformable to ancient discipline, it is desirable that the women should be separated from the men in church. The very division of the ancient basilica singled out the vestibule for the penitents; the catechumens were usually admitted to the rear of the nave; the faithful occupied the side aisles, the men on the right [Epistle] side of the entrance, the women on the left [Gospel side]. Those who were held in special honor by the congregation, as widows and virgins, and those who, on account of age or social position, were entitled to peculiar regard, had their place in the forward end of the aisles or in the transept. The different orders of the clergy were in turn distinguished, the bishop had his seat in the middle of the apsidal circle, while the presbyters were seated on either side of him, but at a lower level, the deacons stood near the altar and the inferior clergy had their place with the choir in the nave.⁶⁵ In this country it will, we fear, be difficult to carry out this "desire" of the Church, on account of our custom of family pews.

#49

Holy Scripture & Liturgy / Re: Advent Preface?

Last post by Geremia - December 22, 2025, 03:40:55 AM

FIUV Positio N. 8 Prefaces says the Advent Preface is part of the "Paris Missal ('de Vintimille') of 1738" and "Neo-Gallican Missal of 1738".

[V]

#50

Holy Scripture & Liturgy / Advent Preface?

Last post by Geremia - December 21, 2025, 09:19:15 PM

Does your chapel use the Advent preface? My SSPX one doesn't, but it does appear on the DivinumOfficium.org missal—e.g., for today (4^th Sunday of Advent) or during the week in Advent (e.g., last Saturday of Advent):

de Adventu Vere dignum et iustum est, æquum et salutáre, nos tibi semper et ubíque grátias ágere: Dómine, sancte Pater, omnípotens ætérne Deus: per Christum Dóminum nostrum. Quem pérdito hóminum géneri Salvatórem miséricors et fidélis promisísti: cuius véritas instrúeret ínscios, sánctitas iustificáret ímpios, virtus adiuváret infírmos. Dum ergo prope est ut véniat quem missúrus es, et dies affúlget liberatiónis nostræ, in hac promissiónum tuárum fide, piis gáudiis exsultámus. Et ídeo cum Angelis et Archángelis, cum Thronis et Dominatiónibus, cumque omni milítia cœléstis exércitus, hymnum glóriæ tuæ cánimus, sine fine dicéntes:

Advent It is truly fitting and proper, right and profitable to salvation, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks to You, Lord, holy Father, Almighty and everlasting God, through Christ our Lord. For You have promised Him, O faithful and merciful One, as a Saviour for the lost human race; so that His truth might instruct the ignorant, His holiness might sanctify sinners, and His power might strengthen the weak. Since, therefore, the time of His coming is near, and the day of our liberation is dawning, we trust in Your promises and exult with joyous love. And, therefore, with Angels and Archangels, with Thrones and Dominations, and with the whole host of the heavenly army, we sing a hymn to Your glory, saying without ceasing:

I can't find it in my 1962 or 1920 missals, though they do have the Præfatio de Nativitate. Is the Advent Preface a post-1962 novelty?