Monday, May 25, 2020

Betrayed By Benns

This is the age of ultracrepidarianism, i.e., the giving of advice and opinions outside the scope of one's knowledge and/or training---and unfortunately many people accept such worthless advice. Once, while interviewing a potential client, the client's brother (whom he brought with him) interrupted me to tell me I was "all wrong" in the proper way to file the lawsuit. Knowing I was correct, I politely asked him if he was a lawyer. "No," he responded. "But I'll have you know I took two legal courses online." I shot back, "I'll have you know I went fishing twice, but that doesn't make me Jacques Cousteau." I have had my advice challenged by Wikipedia and tweets from celebrities. It makes me shake my head in dismay.

However, there are times when emergency circumstances necessitate a non-expert to weigh in. I'm a former New York City science teacher and current lawyer, so why am I writing a blog on theology? In the absence of the Great Apostasy, I wouldn't be; and shouldn't be. There is no hierarchy with Ordinary jurisdiction, no pope, and no approved theologians and canonists. The burden of trying to make our Catholic way the best we can falls (by necessity) on Traditionalist clergy and the laity. If we ever get a real pope again, I will first thank Almighty God, and then (happily) deactivate this blog, as it is no longer necessary.

There are also times when a person's advice and/or actions are just so egregiously wrong, they should never be consulted ever again. This applies even to qualified experts. If a surgeon leaves a scalpel inside a patient's body and they die as a result, they should never be allowed to practice medicine again. Now, consider the following scenario:

A married laywoman decides to end the state of sedevacante by "electing a new pope." She was a Home Aloner, convinced all Traditionalists were "evil schismatics and heretics," so she deprived herself of the Mass and Sacraments.  The leading "papal contender" was a former Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) seminarian, David Bawden (b.1959), who was expelled after approximately two years of study in 1978. This female Home Aloner and self-professed "theologian," decided to "call a conclave." Bawden allegedly contacted all Traditionalists to attend his conclave, which was held on July 16, 1990. How someone could claim to have attempted to contact all Traditionalists in an age before computers is baffling. As a result, six people attended near his parents' Kansas farmhouse; Bawden's mother and father, two nice neighbors who were husband and wife, the "female theologian," and Bawden himself. David Bawden was then "elected" as "Pope Michael," and at 61 (as of this year) still lives with his mommy on the farm.

According to various sources, Bawden is believed to have anywhere from 30 to 100 followers worldwide. He has never held a real job. The female "theologian" later abandoned and denounced the very "pope" she helped to "elect," and is back Home Alone. In the meantime, there are between 30 to 100 people following this very same false "pope," thereby putting their salvation in danger. Do you think this woman should ever write about theological matters again?

Neither do I. Unfortunately, Mrs. Teresa Stanfill Benns, the "theologian" in question, remains undaunted. She runs a website entitled Betrayed Catholics (betrayedcatholics.com) in which she tries to convince Traditionalists to abandon their churches and chapels and remain under a self-imposed "spiritual quarantine." Upon inspection, the only thing diseased is her theological writing. She's peddling a new book, and has written a series of posts explaining why Traditionalists are not the remnant Church. In this post, I will expose the flaws in her "research" wherein she calls into question the validity of any/all ordinations and consecrations performed by Bp. Thuc and Abp. Lefebvre. Although she does not mention Bp. Mendez, since Bishop Kelly derives his priestly orders from Abp. Lefebvre, she casts the same specious "doubt" on his orders, and thereby the good priests and bishops ordained/consecrated by him for the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV).

Please read her website articles which I cite because I have respected her decision of not wanting to have any of her materials used elsewhere without permission. Hence, I have merely stated her arguments using my own words, without quoting anything. By reading her work you can check that my representation of her arguments is accurate.

Please note that for sake of brevity, I sometimes refer to Bp. Thuc as simply "Thuc," and Abp. Lefebvre as merely "Lefebvre." This is in no way to be interpreted as a lack of due respect for these holy clerics and their proper titles.

The Invalid Case For Dubious Orders
On Benns' website, there is an article entitled "A Comparison of Anglican and Traditionalist 'Orders.'" You may read it in full at her above referenced site. She contends that the defects mentioned against Anglican Orders hold for Traditionalists. Do they really? Here are her major reasons for attacking Lefebvre and Thuc.

1. Abp. Lefebvre's ordaining and consecrating bishop was a Freemason and most probably withheld the intention necessary to validly confer Holy Orders. I've dealt with this canard in previous posts, so I will be as brief as possible and restate the main points I wrote prior.  

 There is a rebuttable presumption (praesumptio juris tantum) that every time a Catholic cleric seriously undertakes to perform a sacrament it is done validly. It is presumed that the correct matter, form, and intention were all present. Pope Leo XIII clearly teaches:

"A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does." (Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae [1896]--the very document Benns uses to attack the orders of Lefebvre).

According to theologian DeSalvo, "As long as the lack of proper intention is not externally manifested, the Church presumes that the intention of the minister is correct." (See The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, [1949], pg. 105).

The reason for this principle is clear: Divine Providence will prevent the Church from defecting. While we can never know with absolute certainty (without Divine revelation) if any particular sacrament is valid, we have moral certainty, and the assurance that the Church will continue. Each week at Mass, you don't know if the priest tampered with the bread and or wine. You don't know if he correctly pronounced (and included) all the necessary words of Consecration. He could have done such things, but it is never to be presumed. On moral certainty, the Church allows us to adore that which looks as mere bread as Jesus Christ Himself.

The reason for this presumption is spelled out by theologian Courtemanche, "...it would be monstrous for the law to presume that what the mouth speaks is not in the heart, since that would be tantamount to presuming the presence of a lie." (See The Total Simulation of Matrimonial Consent, [1948], pg. 41).

It is alleged that the Cardinal-Bishop who ordained Marcel Lefebvre a priest, and later consecrated him a bishop, Archille Lienart, was a Freemason. The evidence for his Masonic membership is hardly conclusive, but ad aguendo, I will concede he was a Mason.  There are those who assert that since Masons are the sworn enemies of the Church, Masonic clerics must withhold their intention and make the sacraments invalid. To demonstrate someone has withheld the proper intention, "...one must prove the existence of a positive will that excludes [the sacrament]." (See  Courtemanche, The Total Simulation of Matrimonial Consent, [1948], pg. 18). Such was the case in South America of a bishop who was strongly prejudiced against ordaining native [pueblo nativos] clergy. On his deathbed he confessed that he withheld his intention on those natives. The priest refused absolution unless the bishop agreed and gave permission for this to be told to the proper authorities. The native priests were re-ordained but NOT non-native priests. "The Church, recognizing that She can never know the internal intention of the minister, assumes it is the same as his external intention (the intention which the traditional rite provides by its very wording), unless he himself informs the Church otherwise." (See Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Sacraments, pg. 11 and footnote 19; words in parenthesis in original).

Those who assert Masons withhold their intention (have a "positive contrary intention" by willing "I do not intend to ordain [or consecrate] this man" while performing the ceremony) are setting up an opposite presumption from the Church, i.e., your sacraments are invalid, unless proven otherwise.If the Church tells us we must presume validity, we must do so. There is no "Masonic exception" to the rule. Remember that there is a possibility that any sacrament could be invalid, but we must not fear it because we have moral certainty. If Masonic membership makes sacraments doubtful, what about Modernists and Communists? They are the sworn enemies of the Church as well, yet we would have to consider virtually every sacrament invalid based on Modernism! (The number of Modernists who came out at Vatican II was staggering).

The objection to such bishops is not based on theology and the practice of the Church, but rather, "I've got a bad feeling about this situation." That does not suffice. Notice that even the bishop who admitted to withholding his intention on native clergy, did not state he did have the intention for non-native clergy. Did the Church ordain all of the priests "just to be safe"? No! It was presumed valid. Thankfully, it is Church teaching and not Mrs. Benns' bad feelings that control the principles of sacramental theology.

Wrong Ideas about the Intention to Confer a Sacrament
Benns also has a wrong idea as to what constitutes a proper intention. Benns asks for "which Church" did Thuc and Lefebvre consecrate these men? She claims neither Traditionalism nor the Vatican II sect is the True Church because an "antipope" rules in Rome and the Traditionalist Church is "headless." First, none of the heretics from Roncalli to Bergoglio is (strictly speaking) an antipope for that presumes a real pope against which they claim the papacy for themselves. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 will tell you an antipope is "A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected." (See https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm). So, unless she's gone back to "Pope" Michael at the Kansas farm, she's using imprecise terminology. Bergoglio is a false pope.

 Second, the True Church is never "headless" (in the sense of being unable to function) just because it is without a living pope on the throne. If that were the case, each time a pope died, the Church would be headless and no sacraments could be conferred until the new pope is elected.  According to theologian Dorsch:

The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

According to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

Third, the minister of a sacrament only needs to intend to do what the Church does, not intend to do what the Church intends.

This is the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in his pronouncement on Anglican orders: "Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.” (Bull Apostolicae Curae,  September 13, 1896; Emphasis mine)


The theologian Leeming says this passage recapitulates the teachings of previous theologians who "...all agreed that the outward decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists.… The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash." (Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology [1956], 476, 482.)

According to theologian Many, heresy, or even total apostasy from the faith on the part of the ordaining bishop, does not harm this sufficient intention, because intention is an act of the will.

"Error in faith, or even total disbelief, does not harm this intention; for concepts of the intellect have nothing in common with an act of the will." (S. Many, Praelectiones de Sacra Ordinatione [1905], 586.)

2. The Three-prong Attack Against Bp. Thuc
Benns does not question either Bp. Thuc's ordination or consecration, unlike her attack on Archbishop Lefebvre. Of course, there's the senility charge which she doesn't harp on, but, we are told, Thuc's consecrations were invalid because:

(a) He was a member of the Vatican II sect at the time of the consecrations in 1981
False. Bp. Thuc was confused about the person of the pope, and was trying to figure out the situation in the Church. He reconciled with Montini after the Palmar de Troya fiasco. Secondly, by 1981 he was certain about sedevacantism, otherwise why would he consecrate two theologians (des Lauriers and Carmona) who were known to reject the papal claims of Wojtyla? He rejected the heresies of Vatican II and the papal pretender. He was a member "on paper" only, much like Abp. Levebvre who was R&R prior to his 1988 "excommunication." According to the testimony of Fr. Noel Barbara, a priest who once opposed Bp. Thuc, and solemnly, publicly recanted that opposition after interacting with him, Fr. Barbara had this to say about Bp. Thuc just prior to the 1981 Consecrations:

"From all that I know about the matter, it is clear that up to the time of the consecrations of which I am speaking [in 1981], Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc:

  • never professed any error with regard to the faith which would make him a heretic;
  • has never been guilty of schism by contesting the universal jurisdiction of the pope;
  • has never incurred any censures of the law for communicatio in divinis cum acatholicis (worshiping with non-Catholics); whether he be good or bad, he was a bishop of the Holy Roman Catholic Church when he conferred the Episcopacy on R. P. Guerard des Lauriers and on Fathers Carmona and Zamora.

    Therefore, the judgment which we made about this matter . . . was completely wrong and should be retracted. This I have already done and now do so again." (See Barbara, "Episcopal Consecrations," in The Answers, pp. 66-67; words in parenthesis mine). On March 12, 1983, the Modernist Vatican again "excommunicated" Thuc precisely because he rejected them in these consecrations! He "reconciled" with them on July 11, 1984, a mere five moths before his death that year on December 13th at the age of 87. I could write another whole post (and someday I might) on the very suspect nature of the "reconciliation."

    (b) Bp. Thuc used the invalid Pauline Rite of Consecration.
    False. In his letter defending the attacks on his episcopal consecration, the eminent theologian Moises Carmona wrote a letter dated May 18, 1982, wherein he states:

    On October 17, Father Zamora and I were consecrated by Archbishop Thuc in a virtual catacomb, with only two distinguished doctors as witnesses. Both of us were conscious of the furious storms of protest that would come, but the words of our Divine Master encouraged us: "You shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; and you shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy." (John 16:20).
    On our return to Mexico, the attacks began. Some said, without any foundation, that our consecrations were invalid because we were consecrated with the new rite; others, more serious, said that, based on Canons 953 and 2370, the consecrations were valid but illicit, and that consequently we were suspended. (See http://www.cmri.org/carmona.html; Emphasis mine). For all consecrations he ever carried out, Bp. Thuc only used the Traditional Rite, and this is attested to by all witnesses. Benns makes the assertion that the Pauline Rite was used with no evidence to support such a claim.

    N.B. Bp. Peter Thuc was made archbishop on November 24, 1960 by Roncalli, a false pope. He really only has the proper designation of bishop. However, I see nothing wrong with allowing him that title since in 1960 no heresy had yet been professed and nearly everyone thought Roncalli was legitimate at the time. I see nothing wrong with those who wish to call him Archbishop Thuc (as Bp. Carmona does in his letter) out of respect and common error at the time the title was bestowed. I have many times referred to him as "archbishop" also.---Introibo

    (c) Thuc Used Invalid Matter Regarding the Oil for the Consecration
    This falls under the "You gotta be kidding me" category. Benns opines (without proof) that the oil used in the episcopal consecrations were most likely provided and blessed by a Vatican II sect minister. Was she there? How does she know the good bishop didn't obtain and consecrate the oil himself? Nevertheless, it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference because oil (consecrated or not) is not the matter of the sacrament and has no effect on validity.  Pope Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of 1947 solemnly settled the question as to what, exactly, constitutes valid matter and form for the orders of deacon, priest and bishop. His Holiness decreed in para. #4: "Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands..." (Emphasis mine). The matter, and the only matter, is the imposition of hands, not oil. If she meant something different (e.g., perhaps that the oil was integral to the Rite and if defective it somehow calls the rest of the Rite into question; which is false anyway) she certainly was far from clear. Again, there is only her speculation (absent any proof) that the oil was not properly consecrated and used.

    A Brief Remark on Thuc's Alleged "Senility"
    As we have seen, the Church sets a low bar, not a high one, in what is necessary for a sacramental intention. In order for the consecrations to be declared invalid due to senility, it would mean that Bp. Thuc was so "out of it" that he didn't know what he was doing, and had no intention to do it, while performing an episcopal consecration. There are numerous photos and witnesses that attest to the fact that Bp. Thuc was able to navigate the difficult, hours-long consecration ceremony and was able to pose for pictures. These are hardly the actions of someone who has tragically gone the way of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who had no idea who he even was towards the end of his life.

    Signatories at Vatican II
    Benns then attacks both bishops because they signed the documents of Vatican II. Since they signed the documents they were "heretics" and "outside the Church." Therefore, they cannot be presumed to have valid sacraments. As demonstrated above, as long as the Catholic Rite is used (which it always was), the intention is presumed correct. Were Lefebvre and Thuc heretics? No. The documents were signed under the appearance of coming from legitimate Church authority, and the "pope" asked them to sign. The essence of heresy is denial of a dogma with stubborn resistance to the Church's authority. The bishops at Vatican II were in a unique situation of having a false pope, and many didn't want to even contemplate such an event. After the heresy became apparent when the bishops went home after the Council, almost all did accept it.

    However, suppose, ad arguendo, they were heretics. They weren't declared heretics, for by what authority could they be declared such? Sedevacantist author Mr. John Daly, has done a masterful analysis of theologian De Lugo's teaching on undeclared heretics:

    Cardinal de Lugo holds that the law forbidding Catholics to participate in worship together with heretics or schismatics does not apply unless those in question have been declared to be such by the Church (or belong to a condemned sect). And de Lugo also shows that the majority of theologians hold his view on this subject, against a minority who disagree.

    This teaching is supported by Pope Martin V's Ad Evitanda Scandala which expressly allows communion with excommunicates until they have been condemned by the Church. Naturally this does not apply to what is certainly forbidden by divine law – as would be participation in a rite which itself contained heresy or which exposed oneself or others to grave scandal.

    It should be noted that there has been no noteworthy change in ecclesiastical law on communication in sacris since de Lugo wrote. The law forbidding communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics remains in force (Canon 1258). And the law authorizing the reception of the sacraments from uncondemned excommunicates (Canon 2261) remains in force also. (Commenting on "Communication in Religious Rites with Heretics"--Cardinal De Lugo, Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio 1)

    Benns' Dishonest and Shoddy "Research"
    In another related article on her website, "Additional proofs Traditional 'clergy' cannot function," Benns claims that Canon 2261, referenced by Mr. Daly, does not apply to schismatics, and instead of electing a pope (!) Thuc and Lefebvre created their own sect.  Benns uses lots of quotes from theologian Szal to prove you can never approach schismatics for the Sacraments. (Please read the article if you want to see the full argument). I bring this up because Benns, knowing that most of her readers don't have access to these theological works, will not check her citations, and simply take her word for what it says.

    On page 62 of theologian Szal's work, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], we read, "There are times when the Church does permit the faithful to receive the Sacraments from a schismatical minister, but when such a permission is granted a necessary condition is set, namely, that the Sacraments be administered according to the rite of the Church." (Emphasis mine). That would certainly apply to Traditionalists wouldn't it, Mrs. Benns?

    On pg. 92, theologian Szal references the Catholics in the East where there are almost exclusively schismatics and not Catholic clergy. He writes, "It is very probable that a Catholic may find himself in a situation which implies the guilt of mortal sin in his soul and will not have the opportunity of going to confession to a Catholic priest for two or three months. He is in the state of mortal sin, and his conscience is troubled. He tries to make an Act of Perfect Contrition, but he cannot satisfy his conscience in this matter. In this case, if there were no scandal or danger of perversion, such a person could probably confess his sins to a schismatic priest and receive absolution in order that he would no longer remain in the state of mortal sin." (Emphasis mine). Even doubt about jurisdiction does not prevent him from going. Would this not apply to Traditionalist clergy today, Mrs. Benns? She reveals a lot by what she omits. 

    Conclusion
    Teresa Benns is the one betraying Catholics and Our Lord, not Traditionalists who are the remnant Catholics in this time of the Great Apostasy. Between 30 to 100 people are following some deluded man in Kansas as "pope" because of Mrs. Benns holding a farmhouse "conclave" based on her "theological research." She disavows the very fictitious "pope" she created, goes back to being Home Alone, and wants to sell a book on her nonsensical ideas. Her "scholarship" is both shoddy and dishonest.  She is doing Satan's work in trying to keep Traditionalists away from the Mass and Sacraments; a "spiritual lock-down" with consequences to the soul more deadly than COVID-19 when you stay home alone. Someone who "elects" a false pope on farm should pray for God's forgiveness and never attempt to expound on theological matters ever again.

    In her current writing, I have demonstrated Benns:

    • makes a material false statement regarding Thuc's alleged use of the Pauline Rite
    • assumes facts not in evidence (the oil for consecration was made by a Vatican II sect minister)
    • has an demonstrably false idea regarding sacramental intention
    • has a confused and/or erroneous idea about oil and its role as matter in Holy Orders
    • cherry-picks citations to theologian Szal to "prove" her preconceived notions
    • makes no analysis between declared and undeclared heretics
    Benns has claimed that credibility is important. I agree. Too bad Mrs. Benns doesn't have any. 





    209 comments:

    1. Benns is a pharisaical person. Look what he omitted in her "teaching":
      "Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence." St. Paul's first epistle to Timothy 2: 11-12.
      Every time a woman tries to dig in theology, we have:
      - Hillary White and her denial of the Vatican Council I
      - Theresa Benns and the farmhouse conclave
      - Ann Barnhart and Resignationism

      How can B. Thuc and A. Lefebvre be schismatic when they are not disobedient to any living Pope?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. I wouldn't place all women in the same category as Benns, Hillary White, et al. What about women such as St. Teresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Siena? Also, in Romans 16 1:2, St. Paul speaks of Phebe as being in the ministry of the Church and a great help to him. I am not saying women should be Priests, altar girls, etc., I am just tired of women in general being disparaged.

        JoAnn

        Delete
      2. Joann,
        I agree. I’m sure Poni does as well—she is a woman too!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      3. I am not "disparaging" women.

        Who disparages women?

        - Musicians
        - Marvel movies & video games & anime series with obscene women characters
        - Feminazis
        - Trans women

        Not me and neither St. Paul. We have had great women in the trad movement such as Amanda Smith, Cindy Cain (rip) and Colleen Eldracher, and also Laura Wood from "The Thinking Housewife" if she weren't a home aloner :( None of them makes farmhouse conclaves.

        Although the work of St Bridget is frequently quoted by St. Alphonsus Liguori, she only wrote her revelations. St Therese work is more focused on spirituality than in theology. Both are related, but she never used definitions like "de fide", or compare different opinions. All of them were subject to men, unlike Benns who works on her own.

        Also, remember that also men can hold to theological nonsense: Skojec and Nope Michael who fell for Benns. None of them has the authority *or* the theological knowledge to teach yet they blog about it regularly.

        Delete
      4. By the way, i have only written about theology in this posts:

        - A translation on 2 posts by Steve Speray about the Dimond bros
        - A translation of "The Schizophrenic Church of the R´n´R" published on December 2018 in this blog
        - A post about Frank´s blasphemies about the Blessed Mother.

        Delete
      5. Poni,
        I was not referring to you as to "disparaging" women. I am sorry as I should have been more clear as to what I meant. I am tired of being accused of being a feminist by those who don't like women who are outspoken or voice an opinion.

        JoAnn

        Delete
      6. I wish the term "Feminist" never existed. "Feminism" was invented and used by the early Communists a hundred or so years ago to disparage and lessen the dignity of women by proclaiming that their purpose as bearers and rearers of children is inferior to that of workers and producers, although God gave women a nature and purpose that is different but equal in dignity to the purpose given to men. The idea was to set women and men against one another. People like Germaine Greer, Erica Jong, and Gloria Steinem, along with many others, made a lot of hay (can you say money?), and established a new social paradigm by highlighting the (made-up) "inequality" that existed between men and women. It did incalculable damage to people and families. "Racism" was another Communist buzzword. The aim which was to pit ethnic/racial group against group. It is part of the devil's plan to incite hatred in people for one another, and progressivism (Communism) fills the demonic bill by insinuating that there is some natural inequality among peoples which must be forever fought against, where in reality there is none whatsoever. We are all - male or female, black, yellow, red or white - created by God to serve His plan, which is perfect. Racial or gender supremacy or inequality is a false construct created by those who are basically very angry or unhappy and cannot see the greatness of God's plan for all of humanity.
        Jannie

        Delete
      7. Jannie,
        You would THINK treating people as equals would be a no brainer. My post against such (racism) received more comments (202) than any of my over 450 posts to date. Many of those comments were filled with hate and written by so-called Traditionalists.
        Sad.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      8. Introibo,
        I would guess most people have had a negative experience with someone of a different race regardless of whether they will admit it. However, that doesn't mean that they are filled with "hate" because they have been honest enough to admit and share their experiences.

        Delete
      9. @anon5:41

        The problem is that, at least in my experience, their negative experience with individuals of a different ethnicity tends to color their perspective of the *entire* ethnicity.

        I can't even begin to recall how many times (over the various conservative websites I've visited over the years) that negative stories about urban thugs (who happen to be black or Hispanic) translate into value judgments about the entirety of Africa, Latin America, or South America.

        It's the same mentality as that of the liberals treating white people as a monolithic entity, despite the many differences between the different European peoples.

        Sincerely,

        A Simple Man

        Delete
      10. @anon5:41
        No, it doesn’t. However, when an entire group of people are degraded and referred to as “criminals“ or “animals,” there’s a problem with THAT.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      11. How many times are white policeman lumped into a bad category by blacks or Hispanics because of what a few bad white cops did? Sounds like you have been fortunate enough to have not had many negative experiences - good for you.
        You sound so noble.

        Delete
      12. Simple Man,
        Exactly right!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      13. @anon9:58 & 10:05
        1. I specifically condemn all forms of hatred including black people who hate and discriminate against white people. It’s equally morally reprehensible.

        2. To say that someone is prejudiced because of describing their skin color to the police is politically correct stupidity which I abhor.

        3. Yes I allowed the “criminal” and “animal” remarks to be posted because it makes my point. I have had many negative experiences with Italian-Americans. I harbor no bad will against Italians, and take each one as an individual to be judged on his/her own merits. I will not call them all “mobsters.” That’s not how Traditionalist Catholics should behave. The excommunicated Fr Leonard Feeney referred to Pope Pius XII as a “dirty WOP.” Feeney was not Catholic for many reasons and I will not emulate his hatred.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      14. Everyone arguing in this thread is the result of a society that needs Segregation for the betterment of ALL RACES.
        "Seperate but Equal".
        -Andrew

        Delete
      15. Andrew,

        Voluntary segregation is one thing (because that is simply freedom of association).

        Segregation enforced by the arm of the state is quite another.

        Sincerely,

        A Simple Man

        Delete
      16. Andrew,
        I’m surprised you wrote that. What about different nationalities? “Separate but equal”? What about interracial couples and their bi-racial children?

        The answer is living as true Catholics.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      17. We're not a catholic nation.
        Andrew

        Delete
      18. Andrew,
        You don’t need to live in a Catholic country (now non-existent) to apply and live by Catholic principles. Should we not fight against abortion, Catholic country or not? We must also not have government imposed segregation.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      19. In all due respect,Minneapolis + Louisville are what happens in secular integrated cities.
        -Andrew

        Delete
      20. What happened in Minneapolis is people jumping to judgement. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If the shoe was on the other foot that phrase of law would be screamed from the rooftops.
        JoAnn

        Delete
      21. Introibo,

        "I specifically condemn all forms of hatred including black people who hate and discriminate against white people. It’s equally morally reprehensible."

        Hate like love is an emotion. When one acts on hate it becomes a crime. Do you not hate abortionists, or do you love them? I intensely hate abortionists, but I pray for them, and intend no harm to them. If I say that I love abortionists when I don't, doesn't that make me a liar? I was told by a Novus Ordo Priest that if I hate anyone for anything that I am going to hell. Which is it, be a liar or be truthful?

        Delete
      22. @anon1:16
        According to theologian Jone, "Emnity, hatred, desire for revenge and cursing are mortal sins if the matter id grievous. The following acts and dispositions are not to be confused with such sins: natural aversion for another, indignation at or dislike for the wicked or the harmful conduct or quality of another... We may wish our neighbor evil, even death itself, if we do so for his own good or some other equally great advantage, e.g. that a frivolous youth be not led astray and eternally lost..." (See "Moral Theology" [1961], pg. 78)

        You may hate the abortionist for what he does (as do I), but not as a person. "hate the sin but love the sinner." "Love" means charity, not having warm fuzzy feelings for him. You may even wish his death is motivated to prevent the further loss of life and that he may convert prior to death. It is never permissible to wish someone eternal damnation.

        Think of Dr Bernard Nathanson. Once an avowed abortionist, baby-killing sleezebag, he converted and sincerely repented, becoming a great pro-lfe advocate. From what you've told me, you've done nothing sinful. The Vatican II sect "priest" has no idea (surprise, surprise) of what he's talking about; he should shut up and do the world a favor.


        God Bless,

        ---Introibo

        Delete
      23. Introibo,
        I read where it was Ghandi who started the phrase "hate the sin but love the sinner". Don't know if this is true?
        Doesn't someone who commits adultery become an adulterer? Doesn't someone who drinks alcohol to excess become a drunkard? Therefore, how is the sin separate from the person? Our sins don't get cast into hell, the person does.
        "Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice." Roman 6:16

        Delete
      24. @anon6:31
        The sin the ACTION, the sinner is the PERSON who can change by the grace of God. A vice doesn’t become who you are unless you refuse to repent. Has everyone who ever told a lie to be forever branded a liar? Virtues work the same way. Just because you gave alms doesn’t forever make you an alms giver.

        Think of St Mary Magdalene, St Paul, and St Mary of Egypt. Do we define them today by their sins? The great almsgiver might fall into sin before death and go to Hell.

        The apt verse for us is Philippians 2:12
        “ Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling...”

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      25. Introibo,
        Thank you for the explanation. Greatly appreciated!

        Delete
      26. @JoAnn I was referring to the looting rioting social disorder etc in Louisville + Minneapolis.
        -Andrew

        Delete
    2. I can imagine a lot of interesting responses will be had here, because I've seen this lady's blog referenced quite a bit in other places. I don't doubt that she sincerely believes she's doing what's right, but she does appear to be making a lot of assumptions as to what the pre-V2 Popes would have condoned or condemned about the response of traditional Catholics to the current situation in the Church (much less her very uncharitable presupposition that the Traditionalist movement was **never** Catholic, going by the title of one of her recent posts).

      Just for the sake of completeness on the matter of Abp. Lefebvre's consecration by an alleged Freemason, Rama Coomaraswamy wrote in detail about this allegation all the way back in the 80s: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=85&catname=14

      In addition, what I also find interesting about Ms. Benns: for all her ostensible devotion to the letter and spirit of papal letters, Canon law and the approved theologians, wouldn't those very same prevent her from blogging on theological matters without prior canonical approval?

      (On an anecdotal level, what is it about Colorado that makes women who run Catholic blogs go to such extreme lengths? You've got Ms. Benns who goes to extremes on home-alone, and you've got Ann Barnhardt who goes to extremes on resignationism, among many other topics.)

      On an unrelated note: happy Memorial Day to all Americans, as well.

      Sincerely

      A Simple Man

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Simple Man,
        You’re comments continue to add much to this blog! Thank you and have a wonderful Memorial Day!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      2. Simple Man,

        Benns and Barnhardt live in Colorado?

        - Your Friend Colin (Kemper)

        Delete
      3. Colin,

        Ann Barnhardt doesn't exactly advertise her location, but she provides enough context in her posts and podcasts to indicate that she lives in the Colorado area in a rather under-the-rader fashion after her tax protest many years ago. It would likely be somewhere in the Denver area (judging by how she references being in proximity to an FSSP parish, IIRC, and she was never at the one in Colorado Springs when I still attended there).

        As far as Theresa Benns is concerned, I don't think she has a mailing address placed on her blog, but the fact her About Us page boasts of various awards from exclusively Colorado-based organizations is conclusive enough evidence, in my opinion.

        Sincerely,

        A Simple Man

        Delete
      4. A Simple Man,

        I’m from Centennial and now living in Broomfield. I go to the CMRI parish in Wheat Ridge. Do you go to the CMRI mission in the Springs?

        - Your Friend Colin

        Delete
      5. Colin,

        I attend Mary, Help of Christians in the Springs. I occasionally visited Wheat Ridge prior to the COVID craziness.

        Sincerely,

        A Simple Man

        Delete
    3. The only thing I will say about Bawden, is that he at least professes the Catholic Faith in his videos. He is most likely a false pope based on the doubtful election. As for the 30-100 followers, they can not be held accountable for their error. If they believe he is Pope, then they should assent to his teachings and legitimate commands. In some way, I envy them. They have a Pope who professes the Catholic Faith. I wish SSPV/CMRI would bury their differences and elect a Pope. As far as Benns goes, her errors are all over many blog comboxes.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Tom,
        You make many valid points. Isn’t it pathetic that a deluded man in Kansas is Catholic and Bergoglio isn’t?

        God Bless,

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      2. Introibo, I sometimes wonder if Bawden is sane or not.

        To a normal person, the way he claimed the papacy is ridiculous, and he's probably insane. But he seems perfectly sane in his youtube videos, and can reason well, it seems.

        Delete
      3. Tom, the SSPV is against CMRI.
        But the CMRI isn't against SSPV.

        The two groups that make divisions in the sedevacantist community today are the anti-Thuc line SSPV and the una-cum-is-mortal-sin group of Bps. Sanborn, Dolan, and Fr. Cekada, S.T.D.

        The CMRI is, aside from being the largest, one of the only groups that doesn't pronounce anathemas on other organizations (except for irregular clergy, perhaps).

        Also, it's really hard to get an imperfect general council thinking that a large group like the Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, which covers western Europe, especially Italy, France, and Belgium, is sedeprivationist and thus won't elect a pope.

        Or, Introibo, if the sedevacantist community in Rome elects a pope, would it result to having a true pope?

        Delete
      4. @anon9:35
        You’re basically on the money with your assessment of the current situation. Your question regarding sedeprivationism and an imperfect general council is an excellent one; and one for which I have no answer. I wish all Traditionalist clergy would work together to find the answer and a solution.

        Fr. Cekada, who has done great work for the Traditionalist movement, does NOT possess a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD). He couldn’t. Having been born in 1951, he was 13 when the V2 sect was established. There are no pontifical universities under a true pope where he could have received that prestigious degree.

        God Bless,

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      5. @anon9:24
        Not everyone who suffers from a delusion needs to be institutionalized. How many times have you seen interviews with people who knew serial killers say, “I’m so shocked! He was quiet and seemed like a nice person.”

        I’m not a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist but in my layman’s opinion Bawden is delusional. That doesn’t make him dangerous to society (e.g., a killer) but it does make him unbalanced. What will happen if Bawden goes to Judgement? Who will “elect his successor”?

        If that person is more deluded than Bawden could he start a dangerous cult with those 30 to 100 followers? It’s scary.

        God Bless,

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      6. Introibo, that thing about Fr. Cekada being a theologian was clearly a joke. It's how people look at Bps. Sanborn, Dolan, and Fr. Cekada in regards to the una cum. And I don't like it.

        Delete
      7. In regards to Bawden, the only thing he probably did as "pope" was "excommunicate" Benns. Is there something else?

        Delete
      8. @anon6:14
        I think he appointed the red birds around the farmhouse as the “College of Cardinals.” (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!) You can check his website for any “papal decrees.” Print them out, so if during quarantine you run out of toilet paper, his decrees will actual have a useful purpose!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      9. @anon6:07
        I get the joke now, and I agree with you!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      10. Bishop Markus Ramolla +
        Father Marcellus Moylan at
        Our Lady of Victory in
        Fairfield OH do a great job of staying away from all
        Polemics and offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass +
        Traditional Catholic Sacraments.
        -Andrew

        Delete
      11. Bp. Ramolla is one of the bishops that don't ban.

        Anyways, speaking of bans, Cincinnati is a nightmare for an average sede.

        Delete
      12. @anon6:01
        I’ve heard Ohio is full of warring sedes. I’m glad Bp Ramolla is not banning people over personal grudges, made up “sins” and the like.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      13. On a related note, what is it about Cincinnati (and Ohio more generally) that draws so many traditionalists and sedevacantists to set up shop there?

        Sincerely,

        A Simple Man

        Delete
      14. Cincinnati is a blessing!
        Several Trad-Chapels to choose from.
        IMO,Bp.Ramolla is the best option.
        We would be so blessed in our hometowns if they were like
        Cincinnati OH.
        God bless
        -Andrew

        Delete
      15. @Simple Man and Andrew,
        Ohio is second only to New York in Traditionalist chapels and Churches. Fr. DePauw continued the True Church by setting up a Chapel in Long Island in 1968–4 years after founding the Catholic Traditionalist Movement while Vatican II was still going on.
        Bp. Kurz, the first Traditionalist Bishop started in New York with Fr DePauw.

        The SSPV was founded here. The first ordinations by Abp Lefebvre on American soil took place here. We have SSPX chapels and independent chapels.

        Why did Ohio become another bastion of Traditionalists? I don’t know. Any native Ohioan want to tell us?

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      16. I live 150 miles from Ohio and have zero idea.
        My hometown and state are the French Revolution's dream come true.
        -Andrew

        Delete
      17. Introibo, just my thoughts, but if a Catholic man is recognized by the Church as pope, by that fact, he is pope. But I think this also works in a diocese, provided there's no higher authority to reject this. So if Catholics in New York assemble and elect their own bishop, by that fact he becomes bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. And since there are no other bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, by the fact that he alone is part of the Church Teaching, he automatically becomes pope.

        Delete
    4. Bishop Bawden held several real jobs between 1979-1990.
      Excellent article and based on the circumstances,I'm going to Coptic Orthodox for confession.
      God bless Introibo!
      Andrew

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Andrew,
        My prayers are with you my friend! I hope you get regular access to a Traditionalist chapel soon. BTW, what real jobs did Bawden have and what is the source?

        Thank you!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      2. He has talked about working at an insurance firm in the 80's.
        They required employees to attend computer training which led him to work at another job because that skill was rare in the late 80's.
        If I'm not mistaken he worked at a hardware store in early 80's after he left the SSPX.
        IMO he should've stayed and been ordained.
        Bp.Sanborn remembers him + said he was a candidate for ordination.
        Personally I think he's stable and simply had a problem with being submissive to authority at the seminary who around his same age.
        Not taking sides that is an objective opinion and I could be wrong.
        His BIG PROBLEM is the Old Catholic and Duarte-Costa line in which he derives his ordination + consecration.
        Personally if they can trace back to the original Bishop I dont have a problem with it but,understandably many other Catholics do.
        If there is a imperfect he should be invited.
        God bless
        -Andrew

        Delete
      3. Andrew,
        We disagree on his mental state, but we agree on the alleged “orders” he received. “Bp.” Bob Biarnesen is virtually a mystery. His lineage is highly dubious and unknown. I also find it more than strange as to why he “conferred orders” and left. Bawden never mentions him. You think he would have been appointed Pro-Prefect of the Sacred Hen House, or something.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      4. Andrew,
        Will the Coptic Orthodox hear your confession since you are not Coptic?
        JoAnn

        Delete
      5. I'll let you know Joann.

        Delete
      6. Andrew, by Coptic Orthodox, are you referring to the Oriental Orthodox?

        Are they monophysites, or chalcedonian?

        Delete
      7. Idk haven't talked to them yet.

        Delete
      8. The Coptic Orthodox chapel coordinator said their visting Priest would call given he's only here once every other week.
        No they are not Monosyphites.
        As he was telling me this i remembered there are literal Coptic Catholics.
        -Andrew

        Delete
    5. Introibo, it seems that you mentioned that Bp. Moisés Carmona is a theologian. Is this true?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. @anon9:16
        I have seen him in several sources with the initials “STD” after his name, which means “Doctorate in Sacred Theology.” This would qualify him as an approved theologian pre-V2. If the degree is merely HONORARY it would not so qualify him. He was an unquestionably properly trained and validly ordained Roman Catholic priest, having been ordained in 1939.

        If there is proof it is honorary only, I will retract the title.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      2. Thanks, Introibo. I was the one who made Bp. Moisés Carmona's page in Wikipedia. So I was shocked to see him as a theologian here, because I though I missed something.

        Anyway, he was a seminary professor. I remember Pistrina one time doubting Carmona's line because he's wasn't probably that educated, whereas des Lauriers was. Stupid website, that is.

        Delete
      3. @anon6:10
        Yes, thank God Pistrina Liturgica and Lay Pulpit are both defunct!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      4. "the Reader" and "Diogenes" is Mr. Toth, a seminary dropout.

        People say that seminary dropouts tend to be jelous to priests.

        Delete
      5. @anon8:32
        That doesn’t surprise me.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      6. My comment is more than a year old, but if anyone is still reading it, I would like to say that the Reader was called more than 15 times in Pistrina as Craig/Toth, and the Reader never objected to being called those. Some Cathinfo members also called him that.

        Diogenes was also called Craig Toth in Cathinfo, but if he isn't (which I think is unlikely) I retract my statement. Same with the Reader (which I think is more unlikely).

        Delete
      7. Also, same with him being a seminary dropout.

        Delete
    6. Hello Introibo! So it’s safe to say that you’re a villain (lawyer) by day and a superhero (theologian) by night?

      Seriously, thank you for trying to refute the home alone and conclavist positions! It’s very serious. People who appear to have more credibility than David Bawden are taking that position. Among them are priests and bishops from Europe and South America. They disparage those who don’t agree with joining their conclave as sinning by favouring the great apostasy and the acephaly of the Church. One of them in particular is a Thuc bishop named José Squetino Schatenhoffer. He has ordained priests and consecrated bishops. He’s also got followers in Mexico, Cuba, South America, France, and Spain.

      One of his followers in Spain is also a Thuc bishop. He considers himself “papabile.” He’s no chicken farmer like Clemente Rodríguez. He lives in his family’s palatial mansions. He’s very highly educated from Opus Dei schools which makes him highly suspicious. He even copied their statutes. At least, it’s the pre-1958 rules as a secular institute or pious union approved by the last Pope. Hopefully, he doesn’t use their spirituality books like Camino (“The Way”) and etc.

      Please address these in a future blog post Introibo. God bless!

      —JCA

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. JCA,
        Lol! Some would say I’m a villain all the time! Very interesting about this Schatenhoffer. It sounds like the beginning of a cult. I will definitely look into it. If you have any links about gI’m that you could share, please pass them in.

        God Bless,

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      2. If I'm not mistaken
        Bp.José Squetino Schatenhoffer is ordained + consecrated by a 100% certifiable valid
        Duarte-Costa line Bishop who was ordained in the True Church around 1941 + consecrated in traditional Rite by
        Bp.Duarte-Costa himself.
        -Andrew

        Delete
      3. Andrew,
        If you have a link or a source please send it on. I’d like to investigate the issue.

        Thank you!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      4. Hello Introibo! I’ve heard the rumours of Bishop Juan José Squetino being of the Duarte-Costa line. I can only find evidence that he was consecrated by Thuc bishop, José Franklin Urbina.

        This link is from one of his most vociferous critics:
        https://www.padre-hernanvergara.com/mundo-cat%C3%B3lico/squetino-shattenhofer-es-un-ac%C3%A9falo-en-su-propia-doctrina

        This link is a defense of his position in his own words:
        http://fundacionsanvicenteferrer.blogspot.com/2019/08/acusacion-contra-mons-squetino-por-un.html

        This link is from one of his followers in Spain who is a Thuc bishop and will join the “conclave” as one of the “papabiles.” You can navigate the site to see his opulent surroundings and other “interesting” things about who can get admitted to his congregation. Take note also of the Opus Dei pre-conciliar constitution he’s copying:
        https://www.obispopabloderojas.com/443672529

        God bless!

        —JCA

        Delete
      5. Bp. Carlos Duarte Costa was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1945 for being in favor of married clergy among other things. He was proud of it. He started the Brazilian "Catholic" Church. I don't think one should receive sacraments from anybody coming from his line. What do you think Introibo?

        Lee
        Lee

        Delete
      6. Lee,
        He was a declared heretic and I don’t believe people should receive Holy Orders from the lineage. What if some bishop in the line publicly abjured their involvement and wants to be truly Catholic? That might solve the outside the Church problem, but there are others. Did they use the Traditional Rite? We’re they properly trained? Are there Old Catholics involved. If someone was consecrated pre-1945 by Duarte-Costa, and the lineage is untainted by false Rites and Old Catholics (that would require much vigorous investigation), I would accept that line (also no profession of heresy).

        There’s so much wrong with that line, the practical advice is to stay away. In the 1990s a new sect called “The Charismatic Episcopal Church” arose claiming valid orders from a Duarte-Costa bishop of “impeccable” lineage.

        Even if true, most Duarte-Costa bishops accept Anglican Orders as valid. So did this bishop. He consecrated “Fr” Craig Bates who received his priestly orders from an Anglican “bishop.” Bates was not conditionally ordained, and it is the majority teaching of the approved theologians that you must be a priest to be validly consecrated. Hence, “Bp.” Bates and his clergy are dubious at best.

        Except in the most rare circumstances, stay away.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      7. JCA,
        Thank you for the information!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      8. A nun in Florida sent this info to me via email.
        I'll get her name for you so you all can email.
        She will reply to anyone long aa it's not vulgar or rude.
        Give me a few days and I'll get back to you Introibo.
        God bless
        -Andrew

        Delete
      9. I visited Mons. Squetino website and found the following very cosmic ideas, not written by him but by R.P Carlos E. Mesa:

        From "Carlos E. Mesa" - Consignas y sugerencias para militantes de Cristo:

        "Everything comes from the Father and must return to Him. Men is intermediary and pontifex of the return of the universe. Immersed in matter, he recapitulates and emerges from her"

        "Every man makes a bridge (pontifex) because he links within himself matter and spirit. And it is the pontifex of creation because it corresponds to him to become a prayer, and fly towards God in the name of all creatures, inanimate or irrational"

        "But the Great Pontifex is Christ, God and Man, first born of his brothers and crown of the world"

        "He, by the Incarnation, attracted to Himself all creatures, and his person, living universe, conciliation of heights and abysses, offers himself to the Father as representation of all things."

        "Less meditations of moral background, less psychological introspection (the Catholic concept of knowing ourselves?) delinquent or distressing. I will raise my eyes to the face of God, i will try to surprise and taste the hidden taste of the theological mysteries, and capture those bursts with a light of glory that cross the night of faith"

        Delete
      10. As for Obispo Pablo de Rojas:

        - He considers that Lefevbre´s ordination is "more than doubtful"
        - His line: Thuc - Clemente Dominguez - one Derek Schell - one Subirón Ferrandís
        - He is involved with Opus Dei, and he follows Jose María Escriva de Balaguer. He has formed a co-fraternity, with some sort of lay-monks. - - He will assist to the conclave.
        - He uses almost a whole page to inform his followers that they must try to remain in the same position as much as possible and maintain a straight posture.
        - He uses a whole page to inform us about his family´s coat of arms.
        - He holds some racist ideas. He says that a) We can determine the superiority of a race b) the "arian" race is the one chosen by God. c) apparently, he says to the jews that they are the messers of this world, corruptors of german youth, "slaughterers of the life that flows from arianity" and that he will close them the Gates of Heaven. I can´t understand 100% what they are saying because the page is written in such a weird language that i can´t understand.
        - He calls himself "His Catholic Greatness", i ignore if this is a common title or self imposed.

        Delete
      11. Poni,
        Thank you for the information. He sounds like a certified lunatic. His kind can be very dangerous.

        God Bless,
        —-Introibo

        Delete
      12. @Poni When you say his lineage,is that who ordained him?
        I've noticed many of these wild card Bishops never include their ordaining Bishop.
        -Andrew

        Delete
      13. Yes.
        However, Bp. Pablo de Rojas was ordained by Schell, and re-ordained sub conditione by Subirón Ferrandís. The website states that Schell left the Palmarian cult when Dominguez called himself "pope".

        Delete
      14. Poni,
        You have much valuable information about this group of clergy!
        Thank you,

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      15. Speaking of Mexico, is the U.S. and Mexico the only two countries where the birth and growth of the sedevacantist movement is independent of another country?

        Delete
      16. @anon8:59
        Good question for which I don’t have a good answer.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    7. Benns and Bawden make Trad's look kooky. Read some on Benn's website when I first found Tradition and concluded very quickly that she was off her rocker. Never read or listened to Bawden due to his association with Benns. Figured it was a waste of time as I needed to spend my time learning about the true Church and Faith. I am so grateful for Introibo and his blog where there is sound and gracious teaching. Thank you, Introibo for all you do!

      JoAnn

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Joann,
        Comments like yours keep me writing! Thank you!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    8. Introibo, in regards to Bp. Thuc's alleged recouncilliation, is there concrete proof he didn't? Fr. Miller wrote that this is probably not true. When I tried to write this in Wikipedia, it's said that it's not a reliable source. Is there a reliable source?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Wait, never mind that was a stupid question. You probably can't get concrete proof of something that didn't happen, if it really didn't.

        Delete
      2. @anon4:57
        Yes, I can’t prove a negative, insofar as there’s nothing to prove. Kind of like asking, “prove you never committed murder.” However, there is evidence that the “reconciliation” was effectuated through deceit and coercion against a dying bishop in his late 80s. If I get the chance, I’ll write a post about it.

        God Bless,

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      3. If I remember correctly,there is no signature of Bp.Thuc on the supposed renunciation of his
        ordinations + consecrations.
        -Andrew

        Delete
    9. Speaking of oils, is consecrated oil necessary for the validity of Confirmation?

      St. Thomas Aquinas says yes, but then, theology grows

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. @anon6:03
        The Sacrament of Confirmation has many points never definitely settled by the Church. The more common opinion is that the remote matter is chrism solemnly consecrated by a bishop. The proximate matter is the imposition of the bishop’s hand while he anoints the forehead of the person while reciting the form.
        (See theologian Tanquerry “Dogmatic Theology” [1959], 2: 232-233).

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    10. Dear Introibo,
      There is something that puzzles me about the Abp. Lefebvre Consecration controversy. Wasn't there at least one, more likely two, co-consecrating bishop(s) in addition to Abp Lienart? Isn't that required by the discipline of the Church? Wouldn't there be only one consecrating bishop in an emergency? Isn't the purpose of this rule, if I am correct and it is a rule, to ensure that episcopal consecrations are valid? Isn't that why Abp. Lefebvre enlisted the participation of Bp. Castro de Mayer when he consecrated the four in 1988? While knowledge of the Church's requirements for validity is well worth knowing, if Abp. Lienart had co-consecrators, doesn't that fact make Lienart's intentions moot? In all my reading on this subject, I have never seen any mention of co-consecrators.
      Thank you for your consideration, and your blog.
      John

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. John,
        You are correct in what you say, but there is one thing you overlook. In order to become a valid bishop, you must first be a valid priest. Almost all pre-V2 approved theologians taught that the attempted consecration to the episcopacy of a deacon or layman was invalid or dubious. This idea is also inherent in the very words of the consecration, where the consecrating bishops intone the form as follows: “ Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”

        How can God “perfect in Thy priest” anything if he is not first a priest? Lienart was Lefebvre’s ORDAINING BISHOP. There is only ONE bishop who ordains a priest, and if Lienart withheld his intention, then Lefebvre left the ceremony still as just a deacon. Therefore, since he (allegedly) did not have the priesthood, there was nothing the Co-Consecrators could do to “save” the Sacrament and make him a bishop. If the subject has an “obex” (invalidating quality), the Sacrament is invalid. The female sex is an obex to ordination, so no matter what a bishop does he cannot make her a valid priest.

        I hope this clears up the objection they make. Rest assured they are wrong nevertheless!!

        God Bless,

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      2. It has something to do with the fact that an episcopal consecration only affects the priesthood as to the secondary act, perfecting it, giving him the ability to ordain and confirm.

        The principal act of the priesthood is already perfect in a simple priest, that is, to consecrate the Eucharist.

        And Introibo, how can the subdiaconate be considered a sacrament if most theologians just consider it a sacramental now? Also, is the diaconate really not a permanent office in nature? How about St. Francis, who never became a priest by his humility?

        Delete
      3. @anon6:22

        1. I don’t know any theologian since the Vatican Council of 1870 who considers the subdiaconate a sacrament. It is not.

        2. The diaconate is absolutely permanent in nature. There is an indelible character imprinted for each of the three grades of Holy Orders. Just because the character is permanent doesn’t mean the state of remaining one must or should be permanent.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      4. Sorry, I didn't phrase well number 2. So, is the state one must remain in the diaconate permanent, by divine law?

        Thank you, and God bless

        Delete
      5. @anon7:21
        By Divine Law, once a deacon always a deacon. The indelible character lasts forever.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      6. Sir, I meant that is the purpose of the diaconate *solely* to be a preparation for the priesthood?

        May one be a permanent deacon, without willing to be a priest? Or is that forbidden by Divine Law?

        Delete
      7. @anon10:22

        See here for a thorough explanation of the history of the ddacon: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm

        Of particular note is the following paragraph: "In later times the diaconate was so entirely regarded as a stage of preparation for the priesthood that interest no longer attached to its precise duties and privileges. A deacon's functions were practically reduced to the ministration at high Mass and to exposing the Blessed Sacrament at Benediction. But he could, as the deputy of the parish priest, distribute the Communion in case of need."

        Thus, in the practical order, the diaconate is considered a stepping stone to the priesthood in this day and age.

        However, in the historical and theological order, the duties and purpose of the deacon involved the maintenance of order in the congregation, catechesis, and secular administration of the parish.

        Thus, I think it's fair to say that a permanent deacon is not forbidden by the Divine Law at all. It might raise a few eyebrows in modern times, but such an individual would likely make up for it by being more active in non-liturgical roles that have normally been handled by the priest in recent centuries.

        Sincerely,

        A Simple Man

        Delete
      8. Can Diaconate baptize or offer
        Extreme Unction?
        -Andrew

        Delete
      9. Andrew,
        Baptism yes, extreme unction m, no. Only a priest or Bishop can administer Extreme Unction.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      10. Introibo, is St. Thomas Aquinas correct that a deacon's principal act is to carry the Eucharist in a vessel?

        Delete
      11. @anon7:19
        At the time it may very well have been so. The three sacraments that imprint an indelible character are all ordered towards the Eucharist. Baptism allows for the reception of the Eucharist. Confirmation allows the soldier of Christ to defend Church teaching on the Eucharist and is (in a sense) a further strengthening of Baptism. Deacons can assist in the Holy Sacrifice directly and are extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. Priests can offer the Holy Sacrifice and confect the Eucharist. Bishops can transmit the power of consecrating the Eucharist in the ordination of priests.

        Yes, one of the principal acts of a deacon is the reverent handling of the Eucharist. Is it THE principal act? To the best of my knowledge and belief, the Church has never decided the issue.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      12. Why's the Latin Church not really in for calling the episcopacy a separate order, Introibo? Isn't the only way one can see it this way is if one follows St. Thomas Aquinas' principal-secondary-acts reasoning?

        Delete
      13. @anon11:33
        Since the Council of Trent, the approved theologians are nearly unanimous in teaching the episcopate is an “order distinct from, and superior to the priesthood” (See theologian Pohle “Dogmatic Theology” 11:80)

        By the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, I don’t think he left any room for doubt. The reasoning of the Angelic Doctor is brilliant (as usual). There are other theological supports for this conclusion in addition, but St Thomas was correct.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      14. So the Latin Church sees it that Holy Orders has 8, not 7 orders? The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that the sacredotal order is one alone, and places "bishop" as priest in the second degree.

        What do you mean that St. Thomas was correct, when he said that the episcopacy can only be separated from the priesthood as to the secondary act? I'm curious as to what other theological supports you refer to.

        Thank you.

        Delete
      15. According to Theologian Pohle,
        “Many canonists and theologians do not hesitate to speak of eight orders. The title “De Septum Ordinibus” was not composed by the Fathers of the Tridentine Council, but added later. ... The chapter thus inscribed treats the episcopate as a separate and distinct order... For the priesthood can be conceived as a genus with two species, the episcopate and the priesthood proper. Nevertheless, there are, theologically speaking not seven or eight sacraments of Holy Orders but only one.” (See “Dogmatic Theology” [1929], 11:93-97).

        The orders of porter through subdiaconate are of ecclesiastical origin. The diaconate, priesthood and episcopate are three grades of the one Sacrament of Holy Orders.

        The essence of the episcopal power and dignity is in the ability to ordain priests and consecrate other bishops. This makes it a true Sacrament with its own character.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      16. Thank you very much Introibo. Greatly appreciated.

        Delete
      17. Wait hold on, if the episcopacy is a separate order, true sacrament, which has its own character, as most modern theologians teach, what's a sound reason as to why consecrating a layman directly as a bishop dubious other than the wording of the form? One can argue that we are all 'priests' anyway, that is why the forms are specific, such as "second degree of the priestly office", "fullness of the ministry", etc.

        - j

        Delete
      18. @anon10:03
        There are approved theologians and Canonists (a minority) that hold deacons and even laymen can be directly consecrated to the episcopacy. The matter has never been definitely settled by the Church. According to Theologian Sagues the dispute among theologians “depends generally on the opinion which each one has about the nature of the episcopate. Those who say the episcopate confers only the power of confirming and ordaining, necessarily require a priestly ordination...others say the episcopal order includes the priestly so the latter can be omitted.” (See “Sacrae Theologiae Summa,” [1956], IVB: 72-74).

        Sagues agrees with the majority of theologians. Canon Law(1917) forbids conferring orders “per saltum” (by jumping or skipping over lower grades), and since the Church must always follow the safer course, anything doubtful must be considered invalid in the practical order when conferring the Sacraments. If the episcopal order only contains the power to confirm and ordain, consecrating a deacon or layman would be invalid. The Church considers any consecration of a non-priest to be dubious, and priestly ordination followed by episcopal consecration would be necessary to cure the doubt.

        Theologian Sagues concludes by quoting the great theologian Gasparri who said, “The arguments for one or the other opinion are not conclusive. We, therefore, think that the opinion (that priestly ordination is required first) is truly probable both intrinsically and extrinsically because of the authority of so many and such great teachers (theologians).”
        Ibid, pg. 74

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      19. Thank you.

        - j

        Delete
    11. DYNAMITE!This is was a much needed article! I also learned that the Vat2 popes are not technically antipopes, although, they do oppose the Catholic Church if not true popes. GREAT JOB, INTROIBO!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Saddlery Tack,
        Thank you my friend!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      2. But it's okay to call them antipopes at least informally right? I enjoy doing that.

        Delete
      3. @anon6:23
        Informally? No problem!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      4. Look, Intriobo, the praise of men! Why don’t you stick to printing dirty lyrics from 80s pop songs, you hack.

        Delete
      5. @anon6:59
        Tsk! What anger!
        Yes, I enjoy the praise of men which is why I remain completely anonymous
        Why don’t I stick to the “Singing For Satan” series? Two reasons:

        1. I’ve exposed all the bands and artists on whom I did research and making people aware of their lifestyles and lyrics was part of that endeavor

        2. I enjoy making boors like yourself angry,

        Mission accomplished on both counts,

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      6. @anon6:59,

        What's with the attitude, what did Intriobo (sic) do to you?

        Delete
      7. Introibo, I'm not anon6:59, but I don't think you are completely anonymous, as you have revealed a lot of yourself, like your gender, age, career, place, etc.

        Although it makes me curious if your patron saint who you revealed, shares the same name of yours.

        Delete
      8. @anon5:02
        When you know my name like my friend Steve Speray, then you are not anonymous. Knowing certain things about a person (a middle aged lawyer from NYC) doesn’t qualify.

        Traditionalists are very much concerned with their own matters. I went to Mass as Ave Maria Chapel for almost a quarter century every Sunday, and most people don’t even know my name (and vice-versa). In the secular world (so to speak) religion is only talked about if it’s negative (if at all).

        So I remain, evermore, the anonymous

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      9. I see your point, but you called yourself *completely* anonymous

        Delete
      10. @anon8:39
        Fair enough. I will qualify my definition of “anonymous” to signify “my name and details of my life are unknown” while certain general things are known.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      11. I am sorry, but what kind of a loser do you have to be, anon6:59, to come to this blog and call Introibo a hack. Why even come here then? Ever since I came to Tradition, it has been very very clear that tradyland is infiltrated with those wanting to stir up division and strife. And who cares if Introibo is completely anonymous or semi anonymous. Really? It never ceases to amaze me that people who claim to be traditional Catholics comport themselves so badly! So my conclusion is, they are just pretending. Hang in there Introibo, we can only pray for these people. And thanks again to you for your wonderful blog. Fr. De Pauw is undoubtedly very proud of you and interceding for you from Heaven. I wish you would give some consideration into writing his biography. Thank you!

        Delete
      12. @anon1:18

        Sorry to be this guy (I'm not anon6:59, and I wasn't being rude when I said I think he is semi-anonymous, and I certainly respect Introibo, and I certainly didn't say you should care), but you should be careful on calling someone *undoubtedly* in heaven. Makes you stop praying for Fr. DePauw. He was holy, yes, but not canonized.

        I certainly respect Fr. DePauw and Introibo, also.

        Delete
      13. @anon1:18
        Thank you for your most kind words, my friend! Father DePauw made it clear to me that any kind of publication (book) regarding him or his time at Vatican II would be published if and only if the Board of Directors of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement approve. I don't see that happening anytime soon. I have many letters he sent to me and many talks he had with me, including instructing me in theology. The contents of these letters were of a personal nature (and many of the talks). I would not divulge such information, and that which does not relate to me, I would not feel right sharing in a book without Board of Director approval that he wanted. Who knows? Someday I might get the green light, and what a biography I would have to write!!

        God Bless,

        ---Introibo

        Delete
      14. @anon8:54
        Understood!

        God Bless,

        ---Introibo

        Delete
      15. "From parts unknown" like the 70's/80's professional Wrestlers that would wear masks. ;))
        -Andrew

        Delete
      16. Lol!! “The Masked Blogger”

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      17. LoL I miss those days.
        -Andrew

        Delete
    12. Also, although the SSPV bishops' lineage can be directly traced to Pope St. Pius X, something they really like to tell,

      one of Bp. Thuc's co-consecrator was directly in the lineage of Pope. St. Pius X. The other co-consecrator, indirectly.

      I'm interested however about his main consecrator.

      What rite was he consecrated in? A Chaldean, a Syrian, and an Armenian consecrated him. Yes, literally. Very unique!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. @anon6:30
        Yes, Archbishop Drapier has an interesting lineage which can be found at catholichierarchy.org. I really don’t know anything else about him.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      2. Info on Bishop Drapier is impossible to find on the Internet.
        -Andrew

        Delete
      3. What no, Wikipedia and catholichierarchy.org has info on him.

        But just as most Latin lines stop at Cardinal Rebiba, Bp. Thuc's direct lineage stops at a Chaldean patriarch.

        Introibo, is it possible for a pope to wrongly declare, for example, that the Thuc lineage is invalid? Does his infallibility cover these? I don't think the Anglican line can used as comparison as the form and intention (based on what's obvious) were judged.

        Delete
      4. @anon7:45
        You correctly observe that the Church has to judge ordinations and consecrations on an individual basis. Pope Leo’s decree against Anglican orders is considered infallible by many approved theologians. This is because the defect was inherent in the bastardized rite itself. Also, the Anglican hierarchy comes through Matthew Parker, whose consecration was based on the invalid ordinal. If the pope were to rule that a certain man’s consecration was invalid that decision is binding on the conscience of all Catholics. As a logical corollary, all clergy that descend from him must be considered equally invalid.

        Only if a true pope were to declare the consecration of Bp Thuc invalid (based on a complete investigation), then his entire lineage would fall with him. There has never been the slightest indication anything was wrong with his orders, so the odds of that happening are slim and none.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      5. So basically, not only are our consciences bound, but that the pope is infallible when he declares that a bishop secretly withheld his intention?

        Delete
      6. @anon11:21
        No. A pope cannot know such. He can only judge based on the external manifestation of a positive contrary intention (like the South American bishop) or a defect inherent (a) in the rite used OR (b) if the Catholic Rite was used, a manifested defect such as witnesses who heard him omit part of the essential form, for example.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      7. Bp.Thuc had 3 Eastern Rite lines and 2 Roman Rite lines based upon his Consecrator +
        Co-Consecrators.
        -Andrew

        Delete
      8. Yes, Andrew, and what I like is that those two Roman lines can directly or indirectly be traced to St. Pius X, so the SSPV's bishops are not alone in their 'previlege' of descending from St. Pius X.

        Delete
    13. How long can this state of Sedevacante last? Another 50, 100, or more years? What happens to Apostolic Succession?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. @anon10:22
        It is not forbidden by Divine Law, but the Holy Ghost led the Church away from having them be a permanent state. It is now preparation for the priesthood.

        —-Introibo



        Delete
      2. @anon10:23
        Theologian O’Reilley tells us that we cannot know what God is prepared to tolerate (like the Great Western Schism). Apostolic Succession continues through the Traditionalist bishops and priests.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      3. Introibo, thank you for the reply, but you placed the [first] reply in the wrong comment.

        Delete
      4. My apologies! Working from home is driving me batty!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      5. Unlike other popes who lose their titles upon death, St. Peter is eternal pope in Heaven. I believe St. Gregory the Great wrote extensively on this. This is why the prophecies of Anna Maria Taigi, who saw present and future in her orb, and those of Elisabeth Canori, and Marie Julie Jahenny, speak of the restoration of Holy Mother Church through the Holy Angelic Pope and Great Monarch, and say it will be Saints Peters and Paul who will return to elect this pope. If people are not familiar with Anna Maria Taigi, I would suggest they become so. Her miraculous orb assisted many popes and cardinals.

        Delete
      6. @anon1:27,

        What would it mean for St. Peter to be an eternal pope for heaven?

        He obviously does not have jurisdiction over the saints in heaven.

        Also, the prophecy speaks of Sts. Peter and Paul electing a living cardinal. There's no cardinals today. Or you'll accept the Cassiciacum Thesis.

        Although I've read that there will be a Great Monarch. And our Lady of Success states that there will be a great cleric. (In a sermon, Abp. Lefebvre did something silly as saying that, not that he does refer himself as the great cleric, the audience should judge who it is, while talking about how he is the one perservering the faith, etc. Obviously, you know what he means...)

        Delete
      7. @anon1:27
        Please be careful with private revelations, they must never be a substitute for Church teaching. I continually warn against this trend among some Traditionalists. A "miraculous orb" sounds more pagan than anything else--like a kind of soothsayer, the practice of which is condemned by the Church.

        Theologically, there can be no "eternal pope" in Heaven. The office of pope means "Vicar of Christ ON EARTH." If I'm not mistaken, Jahenny was involved with the ridiculous "Three Days of Darkness" so-called prophesy. Stick with the approved theologians and Church teaching.

        ---Introibo

        Delete
      8. Marie Julie had the stigmata and this was confirmed by Church authorities. Pius XII visited her when he was still a cardinal. Our Lord revealed to her in early 1900 about the future destruction of the Holy Mass, and many of the prophecies given to her by Our Lord and Our Lady came true. I think you should have a bit more respect for her than calling that prophecy ridiculous because this was a holy woman who suffered enormously and after a period of strict discernment by Church authorities, was accepted. Many miracles took place around her miraculous, again approved by Church authorities. By the way, Anna Maria Taigi said the same thing about the 3 Days, and the popes and cardinals consulted her almost daily. You personally may doubt it, but it is not ridiculous. People said the same about her speaking of the future destruction of the Holy Mass. It is also good to be careful, thank you, , but you also need to be careful because if your only knowledge of her is that you “ believe” that she was involved with the “ridiculous” prophecy, than you are not familiar with her. It would be wroth your time, as she had the Stigmata and was very holy. Thank you.

        Delete
      9. And PS, the miraculous orb of Anna Maria Taigi was real. Please look into it before deeming it pagan. It was a great miracle and she helped protected many popes. She is incorrupt and a Venerable. She was a very holy woman.

        Delete
      10. https://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2009/12/blessed-anna-maria-taigi-wife-mother.html?m=1

        Her miraculous orb was Confirmed in her canonization Introibo, plus many miracles. This is a poor article, but there is a wonderful book, Anna Maria Taigi, Wife, Mystic and Mother with Ecclesiastical Approval.

        Delete
      11. Please tell me why people get fixated on prophecies and become adamant that others do so?

        Delete
      12. @anon1:37, 1:39, 1:52, and 7:01

        1. Bl. Anna Marie Taigi was beatified exactly 100 years ago by Pope Benedict XV. She was not canonized and although holy, no blessed or saint’s Private revelation can replace the teaching of the Church.

        2. Jahenny was indeed involved with seriously disturbing “prophesy”—the so-called “Thee Days of Darkness” which I wrote about here:

        http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/09/shedding-some-light-on-three-days-of.html?m=1

        3. People get fixated on private revelation and it is not healthy. Some like the sensational over the unsensational teachings of the Church.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    14. The first time I ran across the word “ultracrepidarianism” was several years ago when I got banned on the 1P5 site and someone called Skojec an ultracrepidarianism for doing so.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Tom,
        Haha! Yes, $teve $kojec believes the Church defected and you need to FOLLOW HIM AND HIS IDEAS. He actually gets approximately 175k from begging the readers of that useless blog for money. An ultracrepidarian for sure!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    15. Excellent article Introibo! A question off topic I have is in regards to self defence and defence of property. Being that I live in the Twin Cities, with all these violent riots going on do you have any quotes from the Church that can explain our right to defend our property from the destructive riots? Thanks and God Bless.

      David.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. David,
        Before I answer I an duty bound to state I am not giving LEGAL advice, only imparting Church teaching. Realize what the civil law in your state considers justified, the Church may not, and vice-versa.

        THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH:
        According to theologians McHugh and Callan, "If the attack is equivalent to an attack on life (e.g., the aggressor wants to take the last loaf of bread from a poor starving man..)or it seems to be an attack on life (e.g. [a robber] breaks in a house as if he meant to kill), then killing him is not unlawful...

        If the attack is on goods of great value...the common opinion is that killing is lawful...

        If the attack is on goods of little value..killing is not permitted"

        (See "Moral Theology" [1930], pgs. 109-110; some words rearranged/changed by me so the condensed section makes sense).

        God Bless,

        ---Introibo

        Delete
      2. And, if it is little or great value, is relative to the owner, Introibo?

        God bless.

        Delete
      3. David,
        Yes, insofar as it is related to their wealth or ability to survive. Hence, someone stealing your only car you need for work (and you cannot afford another) would be of great value. Stealing the car of a billionaire would be of little value. The dividing line is not always very clear. When in doubt, it should not be considered of great value.


        —-Introibo

        Delete
      4. Thanks for the reply, Introibo.

        (I'm not David, however)

        God bless.

        Delete
    16. Why is it that the fact that Bp. Thuc received permission to consecrate bishops without papal mandate when connections with the Holy See close given by Pope Pius XI and renewed by Pope Pius XII not mentioned that much?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. It's a good thing to know that, but saying that is useless as it implies Bp. Mendez did not licitly, or less licitly consecrate bishops compared to Bp. Thuc's consecrations.

        Both Bp. Thuc and Bp. Mendez licitly consecrated bishops, even if Bp. Mendez did not get a papal mandate, while it could be said Bp. Thuc had, because of the prolonged sede vacante state.

        Delete
    17. @Anonymous June 1, 2020 at 2:12 a.m.

      I say this with no meanness meant, but you state "...the fact that Bp. Thuc received permission to consecrate bishops without papal mandate..."

      Can you please provide, reference or point me (or anyone to) one document, one shred of empirical evidence, to substantiate this alleged "fact"?

      I have heard the same thing over the years, and the only "proof" that I have ever seen was that I heard it over and over again, by people who were attempting to justify his extra-canonical/non-canonical papal consecrations, by some exception to the law.

      By the way, such people were all Thuc-line bishops and priests and their supporters---nary a word from Lefebvre priests and bishops or independent priests (I didn't know the inestimable Fr. Depauw, but I'd bet $100, he never said that or thought that about, Thuc either).

      So please, show me the alleged fact---and even better if you can do so from non-Thuc sources, but I'll accept even pro-Thuc sources, as long as I can independently verify it myself, thank you.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. http://www.cmri.org/history-of-cmri.shtml

        CMRI's website. Also, it would be strange to be so specific as to say that it was granted by Pope Pius XI and renewed by Pope Pius XII.

        Whatever the case is, before Mendez came, Thuc was the only source, making his consecrations licit, as Mr. Derksen explained. Also, we need to remember that Bp. Mendez was consecrated in the Vatican II sect. Under John XXIII. He wasn't a canonical bishop to begin with. I'm not saying Bp. Kelly's consecration was illicit however.

        Delete
      2. @anon10:05
        Bp Mendez was NOT consecrated in the Vatican II sect, but in the True Church with a false pope. On October 28, 1960, everyone (except perhaps some Cardinals at the conclave) honestly believed Roncalli to be the pope.

        I don’t believe he ever attained the papacy, but he had “promulgated” nothing heretical inder Pacem in Terris (1963). All the laws of Pope Pius XII were in full effect until January 1, 1961. The Vatican II sect was not formally established until the signing of the heretical document Lumen Gentium by Montini on November 21, 1964.

        God Bless,

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      3. There was nothing heretical in Pacem in Terris, Introibo?

        I think it's plausible anyway to believe Bp. Mendez was a canonical bishop through common error.

        God bless.

        Delete
      4. @anon7:29
        I’m sorry for not expressing myself more clearly! Pacem in Terris was heretical indeed, but that was nearly three years after the consecration of Bp Mendez!
        See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html?m=1

        God Bless,

        —-Introibo

        Delete
      5. Thanks Introibo. I see.

        Btw, are you aware that your post about John XXIII is the first and top link in NOW's section of John XXIII?

        Delete
      6. @anon8:06
        No, I wasn’t aware! I’m humbled by the honor!

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    18. Introibo: Even among so-called Home Aloners, we don't look at Mrs. Benns as some kind of authority. I'd imagine that the vast majority of us don't even know the woman. We are a lot less verbose than she is.

      Her writings are way too long for one thing.

      It's certainly not the same type of relationship as you might have with a Lefebvre or Thuc clergy, by any means.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. @anon2:44
        You are correct. Benns is not the spokeswoman for Home Aloners. Many, however, follow her lunacy in farmhouse “conclaves” and her erroneous ideas lead many to abandon the Sacraments.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    19. You made two interesting claims:


      "nearly everyone thought Roncalli was legitimate at the time."

      If that is the case, why do you consider him an antipope?

      "However, suppose, ad arguendo, they were heretics. They weren't declared heretics, for by what authority could they be declared such?"

      I thought sedevacantists believed that heresy of its very nature severed one from the body of the Church? Public adhesion to a supposed heretical council certainly would suffice.



      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Contra Catholicism,
        Interesting claim #1: For a Vatican II sect apologist, you are woefully ignorant of Roncalli. For my analysis as to why he never attained to the papacy, see my post "The Case Against Roncalli:"

        http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html

        Interesting point #2: Heresy DOES sever a person from the Church. There is a distinction between declared heretics and undeclared heretics. As written above, "Cardinal de Lugo holds that the law forbidding Catholics to participate in worship together with heretics or schismatics does not apply unless those in question have been declared to be such by the Church (or belong to a condemned sect)."

        Public adhesion to a heretical council (which Vatican II was) does NOT suffice as the sect it produced is not CONDEMNED. A doctor who performs an abortion is, ipso facto, a murderer of an innocent child. The sin of abortion makes him a child killer--a murderer. However, and unfortunately, no court in the United States will legally declare him to be a murderer and sentence him to death. The lack of legal conviction in no way lessens the severity of the crime and the punishment that awaits before God if he does not repent.

        I noticed you wrote this on a Saturday evening. I thought you'd be at the "Saturday is Sunday" Celebration of the YOU-charist, where man-centered entertainment rules! I'm sure the service will make mention that June is the month dedicated to the Most Sacred Heart of J...er, I mean, GAY PRIDE MONTH! The "homily" will tell you how sodomites are oppressed and "sodomite lives matter." Please note that there is no contradiction between devotion to the Sacred Heart and Gay Pride if you interpret it in the light of tradition. The Sacred Heart is all about love, and gay pride is all about loving whom you choose; therefore, since love is at the "heart of the matter" only the object of that love has changed, but the love remains! The "hermeneutic of continuity"! Make sure you give a big donation too.
        You never know when you'll need to post bail for the pastor!

        ---Introibo

        Delete
    20. "Heresy DOES sever a person from the Church. There is a distinction between declared heretics and undeclared heretics."

      I'm familiar with the distinction. You're simply having a hard time comprehending that public heresy according to canon 188.4 entails the loss of office.


      Just go ask Steven Speray!lol


      "Public adhesion to a heretical council (which Vatican II was) does NOT suffice as the sect it produced is not CONDEMNED."

      If Vatican II is formally heretical, and Thuc publicly adhered to it, then he would be considered a heretic because (1) he should have known better given that was an archbishop, and (2) as sedevacantists like to argue, malice is presumed in the external forum. And as Van Noort says, even material public heretics are excluded from membership from the church. Just go ask Steven Speray, he'll tell ya!


      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Contra Catholicism,
        You’re not serious, right? It’s hard for me to believe someone’s that “reason-challenged” shall we say. Go back and learn to read because what you’re arguing doesn’t apply or show you even understood what was said.

        Let me spell it out for you:
        My argument is against Benns who claims that since Lefebvre and Thuc signed the documents of Vatican II they were outside the Church and THEIR SACRAMENTS ARE NO LONGER PRESUMED VALID. Got that?

        Ok. There is no “heretical presumption against a correct intention” AS LONG AS THE CATHOLIC RITE IS USED. Which it always was by Thuc and Lefebvre. Still with me? Ok.

        I then argue that given the unique circumstances of BEING UNDER THE APPEARANCE OF AUTHORITY (“pope”), they may very well be excused at the very end of Vatican II, as the usual principles for heresy might not apply under the unique circumstances (and were not even contemplated by the authorities you cite).

        However, a good attorney always argues in the alternative. What if those principles DO APPLY, and THEY WERE HERETICS? I directly address this point, in stating the truth that they were not DECLARED HERETICS. Who could declare them such? Not Montini!

        Theologian DeLugo teaches that Catholics CAN receive the Sacraments from non-declared heretics as long as the Catholic Rite is used!

        Hence, even if undeclared heretics, the Sacraments of Thuc and Lefebvre would not thereby be considered invalid or illicit since the Church shows the presumption of validity in the Sacraments of undeclared heretics and even allows Catholics to receive the Sacraments from them, which means they are not considered illicit either. Got all that?

        So there is no need to ask my friend Steve Speray anything because you didn’t understand what was written. Steve is an intelligent, sincere, and a great writer. You possess none of those characteristics. All you do is rehash old Salza arguments and apply them to situations where they are COMPLETELY inapposite.

        Do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself. Stop sending me comments as “anonymous” and asking me if I’ve read a critical commentary about one of my posts. It was written by a homeless man who thinks he’s a “scientist” and is a follower of.. “Pope Michael”! He's deluded too. You know what they say, “Birds of a feather...”

        I hope you found this little tutorial helpful. I really do. You might want to ask your local Vatican II sect pedophile, er, I mean “priest,” if he has “The Little Golden Book of Heresy” or something along those lines that might be on your intellectual level.

        I was a New York City science teacher. Unfortunately for you, I never taught special education.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    21. Dear sir.
      I got to this post following the link you sent me from your blog post on Gerry Matatics where I commented on the post and mentioned Teresa Benns.In the post I responded to your comments and made clarifications but you did not publish my comments. I hope you will have the integrity to post my comments here for all your readers to see.
      On that post I commented that your and Joe's arguments about the validity of traditionalist clergy is actually a moot point. True Catholics reject traditional Catholic clerics' ministrations on many other counts apart from validity problems. This is demonstrated in this post on Teresa's site, being a direct refutation to your diatribe against her in this post. Once again you should have the integrity to post this comment and the link to Teresa's article if actually the quest for Catholic truth is what this your blog stands for.

      https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/bp-ngo-dinh-thuc-possessed-no-special-faculties-or-ordinary-jurisdiction/

      In the above link Teresa Benns refuted your post above and 'Fr' Dominic Radecki's save-my-image attempted defense of Bishop Thuc 'consecrations' given as a talk below:

      https://qoa-webfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/sermons/Sermons%202018/02_11_2018_-_Archbishop_Thuc_part1.mp3

      https://qoa-webfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/sermons/Sermons%202018/02_18_2018_-_Archbishop_Thuc_part2.mp3

      https://qoa-webfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/sermons/Sermons%202018/02_25_2018_-_Archbishop_Thuc_part3.mp3

      Thank you in advance for posting this comment

      Francis

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Francis,
        Did it ever occur to you that your comment went to spam or didn’t come through? That happens. Secondly, I’m not without integrity if I do not wish to publish the rantings of a woman who put together a farmhouse “conclave.”

        I think Mrs Benns should follow Scripture 1 Timothy 2:12, “ But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.”

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    22. Thank you for dispelling my suspicions by publishing my comments. I just want to be sure of your transparency before engaging you as a critique of my current position. Honestly I need to hear from the opposing side to ensure that I don’t follow any one blindly.
      A little background of my journey into the true catholic faith will help you to know how to be of assistance in my quest for the wholeness of the Catholic truth.
      I am from Nigeria. For all my days throughout my high school and college years I never knew anything but the Vatican II catholic religion. Nobody ever mentioned of any resistance to the Vatican II reformation to my hearing. Luckily for me I had developed an ardent interest in reading catholic literature. So when in 1999 the Dimond Brothers’ magazine fell into my hands and I read it I was thrown into a terrible crisis of faith realizing for the first time that there is something called traditional Catholicism which never existed anywhere in my country to my knowledge at that time. This set me into researching and soul searching for the truth that has lasted till now.
      It is interesting to note that in this my spiritual odyssey I had nobody to give me spiritual direction as to where the truth resides. In fact all the ‘Priests’ (V.2) I confided my findings to have vigorously tried to dissuade me from pursuing the truth. Unfortunately they could offer no cogent refutations to all the points I was discovering so I surged on. So as an individual I hear all arguments carefully before taking a stand. I don’t have any particular attachment to any individual. That is why I have had to change my position several times based on this Advice given by St. Anselm to his disciple:
      ˜You must not so cling to what we have said, as to abide by it obstinately, when others with more weighty arguments succeed in overthrowing ours and establishing opinions against them, and further, If there is anything that calls for correction I do not refuse the correction.
      That means that even now I am ready to abandon the Home-Alone position of Teresa Benns if you could bring forward weightier arguments to overturn her points.

      ReplyDelete
    23. I was once an ardent follower of ‘Fr’ Grunner and his Fatima ‘Apostolate’. In fact Grunner would send every issue of Fatima Crusader Magazine to me and address personal letters to me. When I discovered the Dimond brothers’ writings I asked for his opinions and this made him to dedicate an issue of the Fatima Crusader to “refute” Sedevacantism. The Sedevacntists struck back with counter arguments. Mario Derkson’s rebuttal to Grunner was instrumental to my dumping Grunner’s R&R for Sedevacantism then. Then came the Sedevacantist Dimond brothers network of errors on Baptism of Desire and Blood. I was delivered from this trap by opening up myself to the arguments of Griff Ruby’s straights Talk-The art of scholastic dishonesty defense of BOB/BOB.
      After this came my entanglements with the Siri’s Hidden papacy with I promoted with all my breath until I stumbled into Teresa Benns’ expose of the Siri fallacy.
      So Mr. Introibo, I understand that you are a lawyer. Let me see you systematically debunk the theological arguments of Teresa Benns. I assure you that just like before if you present weightier arguments than Teresa documents there is no reason why I should not become a Sedevacantist traditional catholic again like you. I like you to tackle Benns just as you did for Josephmarie and not engage in ad hominem. I will give you specific articles of hers for you to analyze with the view of convincing me of the unsoundness of the Home-alone position which she espouses.
      Perhaps we should start with the refutation she made specifically to your article against her on your blog. I am of the view that she proved you wrong in her refutation to your blog post. If you think I made a wrong judgment then demonstrate it. You did not address her argument. You need to do that. Your insistence on writing her off on account of her conclave fiasco to me is like begging the question. Saint Augustine we are told wrote a book of retractions at a point in his life and yet he was the great saint he was. There is nothing unCatholic if a Teresa Benns retracts her errors as a result of further research and studies.
      Secondly she has written a rebuttal to your false (in my opinion) interpretation of 1Timothy 2:12. What you are insinuating of this biblical text in this context of our arguments is directly contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII called THE MISSION OF CATHOLIC WOMEN as demonstrated in this link titled “POPE PIUS XII ORDERS WOMEN (OH MY!) TO ENGAGE IN CATHOLIC ACTION”:
      https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/3494-2/
      Let me see your refutation to this teaching of Pope Pius XII above.
      You also need to read this article published in 1916 in A catholic periodical called “THE CATHOLIC MIND”. The title of the article is “CHIEFLY AMONG WOMEN”. You will be greatly enlightened about what women have done and can do in the Church. Find this article at:
      https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=women
      Dear Introibo, I am here engaging you in a friendly exchange of ideas I am not here to attack you but to learn from you as I am willing to do from everybody. I need your critique to keep me from following anybody blindly for I have learnt from past experience that just when you think you have passed the truth you will find yourself in a dead end again.
      Note after responding to/refuting Teresa’s post above I will forward another of her articles which I think sweeps my hesitation to her position for you to analyze.
      Thanks for your time
      Francis

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Francis,
        Please provide the specific link to Benns where she allegedly refutes my post. I do not see such.

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    24. Thank you Introibo for your willingness to engage in this debate. I hereby present the links of her refutations again as you requested

      1) https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/bp-ngo-dinh-thuc-possessed-no-special-faculties-or-ordinary-jurisdiction/

      Is the link to her blog post titled:
      “BP. NGO DINH THUC POSSESSED NO SPECIAL FACULTIES OR ORDINARY JURISDICTION”
      This addresses this your blog post against her and the points insinuated by Fr Dominic Radecki in his audio talks I posted in my first comments on this blog article.

      The opening paragraph of Teresa’s refutation reads:

      “A reader has suggested that I refute a recent attack on my person by a Lefebvre and Thuc defender who suggests that because I promoted and participated in a “papal election” and am a member of the female sex I should maintain perpetual silence and be subject to my male counterparts…”

      2) https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/3494-2/

      Is the link to her blog post titled:

      “POPE PIUS XII ORDERS WOMEN (OH MY!) TO ENGAGE IN CATHOLIC ACTION”

      This addresses your response to my first comment wherein you advocated that she should keep quiet as a woman in the light of 1Timothy 2:12.

      The opening paragraph of Teresa’s refutation here reads:

      “The infantile prating of Traditionalists admonishing women to be silent in Church as St. Paul teaches in I Cor. 14:34 (and silent everywhere else as well, it seems) give no context to this use of Scripture and only belies their basic ignorance of the Church’s true position on this subject. So in order to refute these errors regarding the Church’s stand on women and the role they must play in defending the faith, the following teaching of TRUE Church authorities, not self-appointed Traditionalist popes, should be observed. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:”…

      3) https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=women

      Is the link on her website to an article published in a Catholic periodical (THE CATHOLIC MIND). in 1916 titled:
      “CHIEFLY AMONG WOMEN”.
      This article corroborates the points she enunciated in her blog post on Pope Pius XII’s “MISSION TO CATHOLIC WOMEN” above.

      4) https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/4-heresy/tracing-traditionalism-to-its-masonic-origins/

      Is the link to her website to article documenting how Traditional Catholicism is the Handiwork of freemasonry in origin and practice based on the writings and observations of early writers and defenders of Christ’s Church at beginning stages of the Vatican II revolution.

      These are the four links I have shared on your blog that I pray you and your readers to address for my enlightenment.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Francis,
        In order to debate, there must be a clash of ideas. There is none here.

        1. In her alleged “refutation” of this post, she (1) is talking about JURISDICTION while this post exposes her shoddy and false work concerning the VALIDITY of Thuc and Lefebvre. I’m arguing apples and she replied with oranges. Can’t you see that?

        I never said she was wrong because she participated in a false conclave, rather I point out that if she is so wrong about validity and conclaves, why would you trust her in any other matters??

        If someone habitually lied to you, isn’t that good reason NOT to believe them? It is not as hominem to question someone’s competence when they have habitually proven themselves incompetent.

        I NEVER claimed she was wrong because she was a woman. Gender is not mentioned once in this post as a reason she is wrong.

        2. My comment was more like sarcasm. However, that might make an interesting post. Nevertheless, why believe an incompetent who makes Strawman arguments. Francis, ask yourself why she didn’t cite my article for her readers to investigate. I cited her article and website. She knew if someone read my post, she would be exposed as LYING about what my post REALLY argues.

        3. Irrelevant to her being proven both incompetent and lying about my post.

        4. “Documenting” the Masonic origins of the Traditionalist Movement when she lies about Thuc using the Pauline Rite of consecration?

        Francis, if I find time, I will do a post on the role of women, but how could you consider in #1 a refutation when she misrepresented everything I argued and lied that one of the reasons was that women should remain silent?

        —-Introibo

        Delete
    25. Dear Introibo,
      Is this really the best apologetic response you can offer in defense of traditional Catholicism against the contentions of Home-Aloners to convince a sincere truth seeker like myself with the background I clearly painted for you?
      What I see in your response here is a smart evasion from confronting the burning issues on the table using technicalities the same tactic I encountered with the Dimond Brothers during my sojourn in their camp. They will tell you: “Oh St Thomas Aquinas taught errors on the Immaculate Conception so his teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood cannot be correct; St Cyprian taught that Heretics could not baptism validly so his teaching on baptism of desire cannot be correct; the document in which Pope Innocent II taught baptism of Desire is not dated (even though it appears in Denzinger) so we should not believe he believed in this doctrine; Fr Feeney was right for not going to Rome to defend his denial of baptism of desire because…” etc, etc. You see what I mean.

      You wrote:
      “In order to debate, there must be a clash of ideas. There is none here.”

      Yes there is a clash of ideas. Traditionalists believe there are certainly valid masses available for remnant Catholics as administered by traditionalist clergy today (mostly emanating from Thuc and Lefebvre) and the Home-Aloners posit that this is not true. Home-Aloners maintain that masses and ministrations of traditionalist clergy are not valid on two counts namely validity and jurisdiction each of which deficiency renders traditionalist clerical ministrations void. That is the debate. This is why your contention and accusation of Teresa arguing oranges while you argued apples is irrelevant in this context. If either apples or oranges go bad, your stand on why Catholics could receive sacraments from traditional catholic clergy crumbles. By the way I asked Teresa to respond to arguments put forward by you and “Fr” Radecki (Audio talks posted) wherein you try to convince Catholics to patronize Traditional Catholic Clergy. Thus any and all arguments whether of Validity or Jurisdiction presented is relevant to the question.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Francis,
        Please forgive me if I doubt you are a 'sincere truth seeker." I'll spell it out for you why.

        You write:
        What I see in your response here is a smart evasion from confronting the burning issues on the table using technicalities the same tactic I encountered with the Dimond Brothers during my sojourn in their camp. They will tell you: “Oh St Thomas Aquinas taught errors on the Immaculate Conception so his teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood cannot be correct; St Cyprian taught that Heretics could not baptism validly so his teaching on baptism of desire cannot be correct; the document in which Pope Innocent II taught baptism of Desire is not dated (even though it appears in Denzinger) so we should not believe he believed in this doctrine; Fr Feeney was right for not going to Rome to defend his denial of baptism of desire because…” etc, etc. You see what I mean.

        Reply: Yes, and to compare me to the sophistry of the Dimonds is as insulting as it is stupid.

        (a) Aquinas and St. Cyrprian, etc. did not misrepresent their opponent's arguments. St. Thomas took great pains to make sure they were correctly represented. I hope you can tell the difference. I'm not saying "This person was wrong about X so don't believe Y," rather, Benns was purposefully deceptive. NEVER did I claim that her gender was a reason not to believe her or that she should keep silent. Not one place in the POST. I said it as a snide remark in the comments to you. This is not an oversight on the part of Benns, it is a lie and a Strawman argument in logic.

        (b) When I bring up the "farmhouse conclave" it's not a matter of being wrong it's a matter of TEACHING ERROR. St. Thomas may have been wrong on the Immaculate Conception when it was a matter of open debate, but he never taught heresy or egregious error leading people into union with a false pope. Big difference.

        You write: Home-Aloners maintain that masses and ministrations of traditionalist clergy are not valid on two counts namely validity and jurisdiction each of which deficiency renders traditionalist clerical ministrations void. That is the debate.

        Reply: Benns certainly didn't respond to my refutation that Thuc and Lefebvre consecrations are valid. I've written not only this post, but several others, including a response to "Bishop Joe" and a rebuttal to his rebuttal, to which he never responded.

        I have met the clash. As to jurisdiction, see my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-church-can-supply-jurisdiction-but.html

        Benns NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED TO REBUT MY REFUTATION ON THE VALIDITY OF THUC AND LEFEBVRE ORDERS.
        (Continued below)

        Delete
    26. You wrote:

      “Documenting” the Masonic origins of the Traditionalist Movement when she lies about Thuc using the Pauline Rite of consecration?

      Do you seriously think I should change my opinion and dismiss the evidence presented in this article simply because you allege that Teresa “told lies” about your post? Teresa based her conclusion on documented Testimonies available to her and you equally based yours on similar testimonies available to you. How could you conclude that her source and not yours is the one doing the lying?
      And did you read this article in question? I have read it thoroughly. Incidentally on reading your post carefully I saw a curious revelation you made of your connection to one of main actors of the theme of the article namely Fr. De Pauw. I am tempted to believe that your attempt to minimize the weight of this information is an admission that there is more to this issue of Masonic Origin of Traditional Catholicism than meets the eye. As long as I don’t see any cogent refutation of this article I guess I am compelled to believe that Traditional Catholicism is truly the work of Freemasonry.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. You wrote: Do you seriously think I should change my opinion and dismiss the evidence presented in this article simply because you allege that Teresa “told lies” about your post"

        Reply: I didn't "allege" she told lies, it is a FACT. This post does not claim her gender has anything to do as to why she is wrong or does not have any credibility. THAT's A LIE Francis. I'll repeat myself, as you didn't get it the first time, "If someone habitually lied to you, isn’t that good reason NOT to believe them? It is not as hominem to question someone’s competence when they have habitually proven themselves incompetent. "

        You write, Teresa based her conclusion on documented Testimonies available to her and you equally based yours on similar testimonies available to you. How could you conclude that her source and not yours is the one doing the lying?

        Reply: The fact that she lied about the contents of my post shows a propensity to lie. As to Thuc, my sources are PRIMARY. The witnesses who were actually there and understood the Latin of the Traditional Rite. They swore under oath that what they stated is true. Benns could not have a batter source than one who was there. In the article of hers I refute above SHE DOES NOT CITE ANY SOURCE. NOT. ONE. SOURCE.

        You write:I am tempted to believe that your attempt to minimize the weight of this information is an admission that there is more to this issue of Masonic Origin of Traditional Catholicism than meets the eye. As long as I don’t see any cogent refutation of this article I guess I am compelled to believe that Traditional Catholicism is truly the work of Freemasonry.

        Reply: That Fr. DePauw was TEMPORARILY involved with an organization with suspicious ties (because of misrepresentations) doesn't prove anything. You will believe a proven liar (Benns) writing about the character of the most Anti-Masonic priest there is, and I'm expected to believe you sincerely seek the truth?

        (Continued below)

        Delete
    27. You wrote:

      “Francis, ask yourself why she didn’t cite my article for her readers to investigate. I cited her article and website. She knew if someone read my post, she would be exposed as LYING about what my post REALLY argues.”

      Teresa did explain to me why she would not cite your article and I guess she reserves the right to do so just like you argued that you reserve the right to operate your blog anonymously. Remember that “Bishop” Joesphmarie took issues with you having to operate anonymously too. But most importantly I already have access to your site and the relevant articles and I must say you are not doing the good job confronting the issues in a way that can convince me. I assure you as I did before that if you convince me I will abandon Teresa’s Home-Alone position to your Sedevacantist traditional Catholic position. All I am asking for is weightier arguments to overturn my current position.

      You also stated:

      “Francis, if I find time, I will do a post on the role of women...”

      Will the post convince me that to hold contrary views to that of Pius XII who authorizes all lay Catholics including women to engage in Catholic Action? Will the post add to or contradict the canon law that states:

      Can. 1935: “Any of the faithful may at all times denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction…or out of zeal for justice to repair some scandal or evil. Even an obligation to denounce an offender exists whenever one is obliged to do so either by law or by special legitimate precept, or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion, or other imminent public evil.”

      How will you post justify your assertion that:

      “I think Mrs. Benns should follow Scripture 1 Timothy 2:12, ‘But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.”

      In the light of papal teachings and canon law stated above? If you have the energy to write I will humbly advice that you use your time to address the specific arguments put up above in the links under focus. I don’t believe a post on the role of women will contribute anything much if any on the issue of whether Catholics should receive sacraments from trad clergy.

      Finally if after all the above considerations you still feel an aversion to Teresa and her works I will direct you to peruse the works of Patrick Henry of www.jmjsite.com who cannot be accused of all the accusations leveled against Teresa. Patrick Henry has elaborately documented why Traditional Catholicism is a non-Catholic sect also. It is your best interest to avail yourself of the information on these issues. You may wish to refute the veracity of the following expositions as available from these links:

      1)https://www.jmjsite.com/my_petition_for_spiritual_help.pdf


      or the audio version of the above below

      https://www.jmjsite.com/mypetitionforspiritualhelp.html

      2)https://www.jmjsite.com/letter_to_bishop_giles.pdf


      Thanks for your time
      Francis

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. You write: Teresa did explain to me why she would not cite your article and I guess she reserves the right to do so just like you argued that you reserve the right to operate your blog anonymously.

        Reply: Ok, I have said numerous times I operate anonymously because (a) all glory belongs to God, not me. Who I am is irrelevant, it's what the Church teaches. (b)I don't want my family and friends to be labeled "homophobic" and "antisemitic" becauseof my writings and have discrimination heaped upon here in New York City, the hotbed of liberalism.

        Now, what is Benns' reason for not citing my post? It couldn't be that (a) she never touched on my refutation of the validity of Thuc and Lefebvre and (b) I never argued against her because of her gender, thereby exposing her as a liar, could it? NO! It couldn't be that Francis!!

        You write: Remember that “Bishop” Joesphmarie took issues with you having to operate anonymously too.

        Reply: Yes, because Joe said, "If you go to Introibo’s blog and look up his profile, you’ll find a blank page. There’s zero information about him. Whoever he is, he is hiding. Interesting. The devil hides. Members of Freemasonry and other secret societies hide. Spies hide. Thieves, robbers, murders, rapists and other criminals hide. However, Catholics don’t hide. Christ didn’t hide." Well, Joe got it wrong. So because I choose not to subject my family and friends to possible attacks of discrimination and such because of my blog, I'm equated with the devil, Freemasons, spies, thieves, robbers, murderers, and rapists!! Moreover, Catholics don't hide, they are bound to profess their faith. Well, not exactly. First, being anonymous is not the same as "being in hiding." There are many people who publish various works under pen names, and law enforcement officials investigating crime syndicates who don't reveal that part of their lives to others for obvious reasons. I wouldn't consider them to be evil. This is a weird kind of "guilt by association." Second, let's see what a real theologian has written about a Catholic's duty to profess the Faith. According to theologian Jone, "Divine law obliges one to profess his faith publicly if silence or evasion would imply a denial of faith, contempt of religion, an insult to God or scandal to one's neighbor."(See Moral Theology, pg. 65).

        Joe states, "Christ didn't hide." At least once He did, for good reason. The gospel according to St. John 8: 59 states: "They took up stones therefore to cast at Him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." Most commentaries on this passage suggest Christ hid Himself among his followers so as to avoid the confrontation, others ascribe a miracle whereby He became invisible to them. Christ hid Himself at least once, so Joe's assertion is false.

        You write: How will you post justify your assertion that:

        “I think Mrs. Benns should follow Scripture 1 Timothy 2:12, ‘But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.”

        Reply: I don't need to justify it Francis--it's called "sarcasm."

        Finally, you wrote: But most importantly I already have access to your site and the relevant articles and I must say you are not doing the good job confronting the issues in a way that can convince me.

        Reply: God has given sufficient evidence of His existence yet atheists will always clmor for more because it can't "convince them." You remind me of them. I don't believe you are sincere or of good will at all. Like the Dimonds, Benns will not link to my post because it may persuade the non-dense to her falsehoods. like Christ says in St. Luke 16:31 of the hard-hearted, “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced EVEN IF SOMEONE RISES FROM THE DEAD.’” (Emphasis mine)

        ---Introibo

        Delete
    28. Correction:
      Teresa Stanfill Benns did NOT claim that validly consecrated oil was necessary in order for episcopal consecration to be valid.
      Please avoid anti-scholastic fallacies such as petitio principii [begging the question] & other uncharitable attacks against her [such as weak attacks against a Catholic laywoman who obediently defends the Faith/Church teaching like countless female saints have done in the past:
      https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/3494-2/]

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Schneehaga,
        That is incorrect. In the article Benns wrote at this time, she DID make that claim. Perhaps she since redacted it.

        YOU ARE ASKING ME TO AVOID FALLACIES? That's a joke! Please show me where I ever begged the question. Benns never cited this article in her alleged "refutation" and claimed I argued her arguments were wrong because she is a woman. That's a lie. Look above in the post and cite one line where I argue she is wrong because she is a woman--you won't find any.

        Is it "uncharitable" to call someone who lies a liar? Uncharitable to say that someone who engineered a farmhouse conclave producing an antipope should keep her nose out of theology?

        I will gladly debate Benns in a neutral forum regarding the validity issue. Like everyone else I've challenged, she will "bravely run away." Benns is a joke. I stand by every word I wrote.

        ---Introibo

        Delete
    29. I mean, you'd have to link me to the exact source where you claim she claimed otherwise - please don't call her a liar unless you have sufficient proof to back it up, which doesn't seem to be the case.
      She already explained how she was acting in good faith re: the Pope Michael error - she's transparent about this, so it seems excessive to bring it up this way (we've all made mistakes & I admire her for having learned from hers like St. Paul did).
      https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/introduction/how-i-became-involved-in-a-papal-election-and-supported-a-traditionalist-antipope/
      All fallible humans should avoid fallacies - none of us are immune to them.
      Anyway, I didn't say that you committed these fallacies personally/maliciously - I asked you to avoid them, since I have noticed a general vibe online of hypocritical misogyny from "Trads" (who are only laymen themselves) who seem OK with a laywoman writing about theology as long as she agrees with them, but then wheel out the 1 Timothy 2:12 verse if she disagrees with them).
      Don't forget that St. Hildegaard von Bingen countered male Catholic clerics in order to defend truth/justice & she was vindicated.
      Either way, the stay-at-home stance is the only correct Catholic stance today - V2 & Trad clerics are not legitimate:
      https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/7-recent-articles/12-2-14-frequently-asked-questions-on-sedevacantism/

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Schneehaga,
        1. I can't show you anything she redacted--for obvious reasons.

        2. If you look at the exchange between pro-Benns commenter Francis and myself, you will see that she (a) did not reference my site as I did hers) and (b) she stated that my argument against what she wrote was based on the fact that she is a woman--THAT IS A LIE. Read the exchange above. So yes, I have proof from one of her own supporters regarding her "refutation" of me---SHE IS A LIAR and attacks a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

        2. Good faith doesn't mean she is PROFOUNDLY INCOMPETENT. Not because she is a woman but because SHE IS AN IDIOT. If that sounds uncharitable or unduly harsh, I'm actually being CHARITABLE in that characterization. Anyone who believes a "conclave" can be validly held in a farmhouse with David Bawden, his mommy, his daddy, the nice neighbor and his wife, and Benns herself has serious issues--to say the least. This is not some "innocent error"--it's akin to a surgeon leaving his scalpel and instruments inside a patient's body. Would you allow such a surgeon to operate on you because he made such a teeny-tiny "mistake" in good faith? Any surgeon who did such is GROSSLY INCOMPETENT and should (would) have his medical license revoked. If one such error that can kill a person's BODY disqualifies him from medicine, then creating an antipope on a farm with six people and endangering the SOULS of no less than the approximate 100 people who follow "Pope" Michael should be enough never to listen to her again. Period.

        3. I always avoid logical errors--I need to do so for my court cases--and I don't need to be reminded of such.

        4. I have no problem with Benns being a woman; I have every problem with her setting up an antipope, being a liar, misrepresenting her opponent's arguments, and continuing to discuss that which she does not understand.

        5. If you want to believe the Home Alone stance is the only correct one, you are entitled to your opinion, but not to declare it truth with your pseudo-Magisterial "authority." And whom do you cite to deprive yourself and others of the Mass and Sacraments? Why, Teresa Benns, the incompetent, self-anointed "theologian" who made a "small error" in leading people out of the Church to follow an antipope! You remind me of the cult-like followers of Fred and Bobby Dimond who cite these pseudo-educated crackpots to "prove" Feeneyism.

        6. I renew my challenge to debate Benns on a neutral forum regarding the Validity of Traditionalist Orders and expose her slipshod "research" on "Masonic orders" etc. I won't be holding my breath for Benns to accept and get exposed as an incompetent.

        ---Introibo

        Delete
    30. 1) It sounds like you're asking me to just take your word for it - yet you criticised Teresa for how she used witness testimonies, which seems hypocritical on your part.
      2) Feel free to email Teresa re: the Woman point - it sounds like a possible misunderstanding, but my warning above still stands.
      3) You're wrong about the stay-at-home stance, so that makes you profoundly incompetent in that sense - at least Teresa had the intellectual humility & strength to admit she was wrong (don't forget that St. Peter made mistakes too).
      4) You messed up the numbering of your points - this is proof that you're only human like the rest of us & make mistakes too :)
      5) She already openly rejected non-pope Michael, you haven't presented proof of her having intentionally/maliciously lied, you seem to be misrepresenting her & your own understanding about the stay-at-home stance is flawed.
      6) I haven't deprived myself of the Sacraments (in accordance with Catholic Church teaching, we have: Lay-Baptism, Acts of Perfect Contrition/Lay-Confession, Prayers for Spiritual Communion & Holy Matrimony via 2 Witnesses Without a Priest Available + the China Decree for Certain Marital Dispensations) - I reject the heresies of MHFM, Feeneyites, Papacy-Pushers, V2 & Trads (as I reject all heresies in general).
      7) Feel free to contact her via her website if you need to ask her questions in good faith for the sake of clarification.
      God bless & good night.
      tinyurl.com/V2summary

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Schneehaga,

        1. I'm hypocritical because she altered what she had written? That has nothing to do with what I wrote regarding the testimonies. Apples and oranges.

        2. I don't need your warning and Benns wrote something DEMONSTRABLY WRONG--even a cursory reading of my post shows I never claimed she was wrong because she is a woman. That is a malicious lie.

        3. St. Peter never made mistakes in his teaching authority; no pope can. I'm wrong about the Home Alone stance? I'll debate you on a neutral forum regrading both Home Alone and validity of the Sacraments. You should have no problem showing all who read our debate that I'm "profoundly incompetent."

        4. There's a big difference between making mistakes like all humans (e.g., repeating a number in my paragraphs while I'm working) and being PROFOUNDLY INCOMPETENT as creating an antipope. Like the surgeon who leaves his scalpel inside a patient's body, or a woman who makes an antipope in a farmhouse conclave, saying "Whoops! Everybody makes mistakes" doesn't suffice. If you can't recognize the distinction you're profoundly incompetent as well.

        5. She maliciously lied by claiming I disparaged her arguments based on her gender as a woman when even a cursory glance would show otherwise. Read commenter Francis above. That's proof of lying. She rejected the antipope after causing souls to follow this false pope--I'm impressed! (Not)

        6. If you think having Spiritual Communion is the same as receiving Jesus Christ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, you are profoundly incompetent regarding the role of the sacraments. (Notice the running theme regarding Benns and her followers?).

        7. If you or Benns want to debate on a neutral forum, fine. I'm not wasting time contacting an incompetent liar for "clarification."

        God Bless,

        ---Introibo

        Delete
    31. [To clarify my comment above: The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the term "Laity" as meaning "the body of the faithful, outside of the ranks of the clergy" & the term informal term "Trads" can mean members of non-Catholic sects who mistakenly think they're Catholic, so Trads aren't necessarily Catholic laypeople]

      1) No, I find it hypocritical that you expect me to blindly believe your claim against her, while you criticised her for having used witness testimonies as evidence.
      2) You don't seem to have hard evidence of her having been malicious (as opposed to her having misunderstood your intent or similar) - she could have been commenting on a general impression she was getting, which I frankly also got from your article (f.ex. how you used the term "woman" to criticise her when you could have just said "person", which can come across as passive-aggressive/as an Ad Hominem fallacy).
      3) Neither you nor Teresa have teaching authority - Teresa doesn't claim to have formal authority & she's honest about quoting Catholic Church teaching, which proves the stay-at-home stance to be correct.
      4) You disobeying binding Catholic Church teaching by rejecting the true stay-at-home stance & doing so openly online is an example of you being profoundly incompetent.
      5) That isn't evidence of her having maliciously lied - it could be evidence of a misunderstanding, which I encourage you both to resolve in good faith.
      6) See the bottom of page 79 onwards re: Spiritual Communion very much being Catholic Church teaching:
      https://archive.org/details/vainfearsthatkee00antouoft/page/n83/mode/2up?q=Spiritual+Communion
      [with Imprimatur - originally published in 1904]
      7) Ask Mary to help you see the truth & be willing to follow her no matter the cost.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Schneehaga,

        1. I'll repeat, one has nothing to do with the other.

        2. No. Benns' article clearly claimed that my post argued against her being correct on the validity of Traditionalist Orders when I never stated such. How can you misconstrue something I never stated? An "impression"? That's just plain pathetic. I also don't subscribe to the "WOKE" victimhood status. So anyone looking for sympathy because "I'm a (fill in the name of your chosen victim status--woman, black, sodomite, etc.) and I don't like your tone" has come to the wrong blog.

        3. I've never claimed to be a theologian, NOR HAVE I BEEN SO ARROGANT AND STUPID AS TO CREATE AN ANTIPOPE AND LEAD PEOPLE INTO FALSEHOOD. She proved Home Alone correct, in the same sense she "proved" Bawden's "papacy." You're allowing the doctor who left his scalpel in a patient to operate on you.

        4. OK prove my incompetency by debating me on an online neutral forum. I won't be holding my breath for you to accept.


        5. If she thinks what I wrote above is arguing against her position because she's a woman, she's either (a) a liar or (b) in need of a helmet and crayons as she rides her bike to special education class.

        6. I NEVER DENIED SPIRITUAL COMMUNION IS AGAINST CATHOLIC TEACHING. See my comment above; who taught you to read, Teresa Benns? I stated that receiving Christ Himself --Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity --is not the same as Spiritual Communion. It is FAR SUPERIOR. At the Last Supper Christ instituted the Mass, Holy Orders, and the Holy Eucharist for a reason. He did not teach the Apostles Spiritual Communion at the Last Supper unless you read it in "The Revised Home Alone and Totally Clueless Bible" by Teresa Benns. Spiritual Communion does not compare in Graces to He Who is the Author of Grace in the Holy Eucharist which is available and spurned via the wacky theology of Benns and the Home Aloners.

        7) I already do that--hence this blog. May She who destroys all error open your eyes.

        ---Introibo

        Delete
      2. N.B. on #2--Benns' article clearly claimed that my post argued against her being correct on the validity of Traditionalist Orders BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN when I never stated such.

        Delete
      3. 1) Yes, they do - I'm kinda baffled that you seemingly fail to see the truth here.
        2) I'm sure we can agree that being born female/black is not in the same moral category as choosing to act as a sexual degenerate - in any case, just because Liberals have gone overboard with Woke Culture (by perverting "Christian" virtues) doesn't give people a free pass to overcorrect by being cruel/anti-Christian while hypocritically claiming to be Christian (which is in & of itself a perversion).
        3) Semantics aside, you're publicly acting as a theologian by posting about theology online - Teresa made/corrected a mistake similar to how St. Paul made/corrected a mistake.
        4) I'm countering you right here - please calm down.
        5) You honestly sound like a bit of a schoolyard bully to me.
        6) Please take your own advice & read what I wrote above properly - I didn't say you denied it, I told you to read the source (please read it in context of the reality we find ourselves in today, i.e. that V2/Trad clerics are not Catholic clerics & therefore we may not attempt to approach them for real Sacraments that they cannot offer anyway - people need to ditch their spiritual addiction to poisonous faux-sacraments & stick to the safer course as appropriate regarding God's Sacraments in general):
        "Reply to Objection 2. That sacramental eating which is also a spiritual eating is not divided in contrast with spiritual eating, but is included under it; but that sacramental eating which does not secure the effect, is divided in contrast with spiritual eating; just as the imperfect, which does not attain the perfection of its species, is divided in contrast with the perfect."
        "Reply to Objection 3. [...] Nevertheless sacramental eating is not without avail, because the actual receiving of the sacrament produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does the desire thereof, as stated above of Baptism (III:69:4 ad 2)."
        https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4080.htm
        https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4079.htm
        "the Fathers unanimously taught the Mass would cease, and according to the Vatican Council, this must be accepted as a rule of faith"
        https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/end-times-teaching-and-traditionalists/
        7) Keep asking her until you realise how painfully wrong you are about the correct stay-at-home stance - I'll be praying for you, because I can tell you have good potential despite you having taken a wrong turn.

        Delete