Contending For The Faith---Part 5

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Betraying Her Own Incompetence: The Errors Of Teresa Benns

Last week, my post of 6/27/22 focused on Robert Robbins, a "Home Aloner "(hereinafter "HA") who was converted to that position, i.e., that all Traditionalist clergy are illicit (or invalid) since the Great Apostasy and that your only option is to stay "Home Alone" on Sundays, worshipping in the room of your choice. To read the post in full, please see:introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/06/get-correct-interpretation-and-youre.html?sc=1656796278186#c4795469183046987141

Mr. Robbins shared my post with the woman who converted his family and him, one Teresa Benns, arguably the best known HA, who maintains the website betrayedcatholics.com. Benns has influenced many to stay away from the Mass and sacraments of Traditionalist clergy on specious grounds. (For the record, Benns is not the "leader" of HAs, nor are her extreme views representative of all HAs). Mr. Robbins received a guest post from Benns, entitled Who's Betraying Who?--A Response to Introibo, which can be read in full here: 

 catholiceclipsed.com/2022/06/30/whos-betraying-who-a-response-to-introibo/

This post is a rejoinder to Benns' response to me. I will expose her errors and explain why it is fine to attend Traditionalist churches and chapels in order to attend Mass and receive the sacraments. 

The Response of Benns Answered

For this section of my post, I will place what Benns wrote in red text color. As she cites my post of last week, I will place [Introibo] before it and [Benns] before her reply to it. My answer below will be in the usual black text color. The pertinent parts to which I'm referring are cited for sake of brevity. Anyone wanting to read the response of Benns whole and unabridged is welcome to do so at the site listed above. 

1. She's not twisting Canon Law because when she changes her mind, she can twist it some more to "absolve herself."

[Introibo] “These Home Aloners (hereinafter “HA”) twist Canon Law to declare everyone except themselves as heretics, schismatics, etc., and always find a way to further twist the law when it suits their needs (the fallacy in logic of “special pleading”– the law applies to everyone except me).”

[Benns] False. If people would read my website, I counted myself a material heretic long ago when I first left Bawden, just not a vitandus as he claimed. I then go on to explain to readers how to remedy material heresy as best as we are able in these times according to Canon Law. If I consider everyone heretics and schismatics, I consider them such only because I myself once was the same, before leaving the Traditionalist sect and Bawden. No one need remain in this state; there are remedies.

When Benns engineered the "election" of "Pope" Michael, Canon Law (not to mention common sense) was twisted beyond recognition. Anyone who didn't submit to the new "pope" was outside the Church. She had a falling out with Bawden (aka "Pope" Michael) and finds a way to "absolve herself" staying home alone. Now everyone who isn't HA is outside the Church and needs Benns to give them the "remedy" for being "absolved." Sounds like she took the Tinfoil Tiara from Bawden and made herself "pope." 

2. The Autodidact Genius (Not).  

[Introibo]---[Benns quotes] Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T. Mag, J.U.D., OFM (A Manual of Canon Law, 1947): “In the absence of an authentic declaration concerning the meaning of the law, ANYONE may interpret the law for himself, provided he observe the rules set down by the lawgiver in Canons 18-21” … [But] the canonist Augustine says: “Private interpretation, viz., one given by juriconsultants not commissioned by the lawgiver, or by expert canonists (doctors), must be made in conformity with certain rules which are necessary for the right understanding of ecclesiastical—in fact of all—law.”

[Benns] Here Introibo points to canonists who restrict such interpretation to those who have studied it in the “seminary.”

No. I don't know why Benns puts the word seminary in quotation marks; does she doubt true seminaries existed before Vatican II? The canonists (every one I referenced) agree that "anyone" does not mean every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has a copy of the 1917 Code of Canon Law is able to interpret it. Nor does "anyone" mean any priest who "studied it (Canon Law) in the seminary." The Magisterium gives authoritative interpretations. Doctrinal interpretations (i.e., "private") may be given by canonists and theologians. 

Canonists and theologians have the highest degree of ecclesiastical training and education, way beyond the mere seminary training of the average parish priest pre-Vatican II. These clerics must obtain a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD) or a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD), respectively, and must produce an erudite thesis to be defended against the Board of Theologians at the University, and have it published with Magisterial approval that guarantees it is free from all doctrinal and moral errors. Furthermore, they must not be censured by the Church. That's quite a high bar. 

[Benns] While this statement itself is still open to interpretation regarding the word “anyone,” 

Is it? I cited no less than five of the greatest canonist pre-Vatican II that clearly show "anyone" does not mean literally "anyone," such as young Bobby the 18-year-old Traditionalist next store who dropped out of high school. (Kudos to my readers who remember young Bobby from last week's post). Benns cites...herself that ANYONE is still open to interpretation. 

[Benns] ...laypersons can certainly cite Canon Law and challenge Traditionalist interpretation of the laws, pointing out that the laws are not being followed.

No. In order to cite Canon Law and point out anything, a person must first understand the basic principles and nomenclature, and Teresa can't get past the word "ANYONE." (Emphasis Benns). It reminds me of someone who took offense when I told him the jury did not declare O.J. Simpson innocent, he was declared not guilty, which is not the same thing in U.S. criminal law.  Here's what happened:

1. A reader of Robbins' website emailed and claimed a canon prevented him from publishing about religion.

2. Benns sends Robbins an email citing canonist Ramstein and emphasizing ANYONE can interpret Canon Law.

3. Relying on Benns' advice, Robbins applies the rules of interpretation from canon 18 to deduce he can publish about religion.

This is called...wait for it...interpretation!

[Benns] Merely citing canons and pointing out that they apparently have not been followed according to their previous understanding by approved theologians does not constitute private interpretation. Traditionalists make no attempt whatsoever to follow these rules, and this speaks volumes regarding their supposed superiority in being able to interpret the law. (Emphasis Benns).

Like your citations regarding who can interpret Canon Law? Which canonists taught "anyone" includes young Bobby? Moreover, how is it that highly trained and respected canonists and theologians never interpreted Canon Law as HAs? To name but two:

Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, Professor of Canon Law and Moral Theology for Mount St. Mary's Seminary in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, and a peritus (theological expert) at Vatican II who fought against the Modernists.

Fr. Martin Stepanich, STD rejected the heresies of Vatican II and continued to celebrate the True Mass and sacraments. 

These competent clerics never thought that we are bound to stay HA and may not attend Traditionalist chapels. Yes, we must look to authoritative Church decisions, and the teachings of theologians and canonists. We must also apply the correct principles such as epikeia. Benns does not do this at all. 

[Benns] In their Canon Law Digest commentary on Can. 17, Vol. 5 (1963), the canonists Bouscaren and O’Connor write the following: 

“His eminence, the president of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Canons of the Code, Maximus Cardinal Massimi, declared shortly before his death… that it was his personal opinion he no longer preferred to give authentic replies since all the canons were already sufficiently clear in their obvious meaning.  It is interesting to observe that no officially promulgated replies have since been given for the Code of the Latin church since his death [in 1954].” So this very experienced cardinal, the last of his kind, believed that the Code should be taken exactly as it stood, supplemented by the authentic interpretations already given for over 35 years. And pointing to them exactly as they stand is all I have ever tried to do. (Emphasis Benns).

Like the Feeneyites, Benns insists that anyone can read "the obvious meaning" of the words in Canon Law. In a similar fashion, Protestants reject the Magisterium on the grounds that they can "read the Bible for themselves." The cardinal said the canons were "clear in their obvious meaning"--to whom? Anyone? Young Bobby? (Maybe Bobby can do Mr. Robbins next guest post). No, it is understood that it is clear to those properly trained (canonists and theologians), just as the legal meaning of "not guilty" is clear to lawyers, not the average non-lawyer. 

[Benns] I will match my 40 years of intensive private study from approved sources to theirs any day. Challenge that and you are going to have to tear down the entire concept of self-study, homeschooling and explain why there are so many Nobel Prize winners and other award-winning individuals on the long list of famous autodidacts. 

Pride certainly goeth before the fall, doesn't it? After 40 years of "intensive study," Benns (a) does not understand basic Canon Law verbiage, (b) thought she could "elect a pope in Kansas" with six "electors" and (c) has the audacity to compare herself to Nobel Prize winners. To be clear, an autodidact cannot simply claim to have studied law on his own and be allowed to practice law. Passing the Bar Exam (and other rigorous requirements in the absence of a JD from an ABA-approved law school) are required. Likewise, an autodidact cannot study medical books for a certain number of years and practice as a doctor; there are major and rigorous requirements there as well. If these exist for those who must protect a person's property, freedom, and life, how much more important is the soul?

40 years of intensive study doth not a canonist/theologian make, especially considering the egregious errors committed. The only award Benns should get is the Booby Prize. 

3. Setting the Record Straight: It was in a Store...

[Introibo]“Benns, using her phenomenal research ability, decided that she could “call a conclave” to elect a pope. All true Catholics from around the world were allegedly contacted in a world without computers, and there were only six “electors” that came to the Kansas farmhouse of one David Bawden, a former seminarian of the SSPX who had been expelled. The “electors” consisted of Bawden, his mommy and daddy, two nice neighbors, and Benns… She has since renounced Bawden, and was “excommunicated” by him, leaving those poor souls following him in peril for their salvation. Nice going, Teresa Benns.” (But Introibo claims this is not an ad hominem or personal attack…) (part in parenthesis added by Benns).

[Benns]Well try getting your facts straight and maybe you would have better luck documenting your non-existent case.

Ok, Teresa, set me straight! 

[Benns]In several articles for Traditional Catholic publications and in the book written prior to the election, I begged Catholics for input for three years before proceeding, and received only rude and vague, non-committal replies...Bawden was not elected at his residence, but a store owned by his parents. Two neighbors did not help elect him, but two longtime friends, former SSPX members, who attended from out of state. Others also were present at various times.(Emphasis in original by Benns).

You're right! These facts change my entire analysis! When I was first told in the mid-1990s there was some guy in Kansas claiming to be elected "pope" by his mommy, his daddy, two nice neighbors, and a lay "theologian" on a farm, I though it was a joke. That was the reaction of every single person who heard it for the first time from me. That just seems crazy, and you can't believe any sane person would do that. However, had I known that David Bawden, an SSPX seminary-reject was "elected pope" in a Kansas STORE by his mommy, his daddy, a self-anointed theologian, and TWO LONGTIME FRIENDS from out of state, it would seem not only sane, but the epitome of theological genius worthy of Aquinas and Liguori! Please. 

[Benns]Every individual originally involved with Bawden from 1990-2007 left him and remained pray-at-home Catholics. I spent two years on the Internet debunking every error that led to the “election” in order to warn off those who might follow him after I left. I engaged in email correspondence with them. What else would you have suggested??? (Emphasis in original by Benns). 

He has 30 to 100 followers today; whether they were there or not. His mother is still with him, so your statement is demonstrably false. There's even a documentary on Bawden available on YouTube. I can't tell you how many times I've been approached by someone who knows my religious views and shows me that documentary saying, "This is how crazy sedevacantism is--you go and elect a pope!" Benns tried to undo what she did, but I suggest she shut down her site and never publish on Catholicism again. If I had a lapse of reason and tried electing a pope as she did, I would be too mortified to be seen in public, yet she continues to hold herself out as an ersatz "expert." 

[Benns]And how about all the THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS Traditionalists have helped to commit sacrilege, idolatry and other sins?!!

"Sacrilege, idolatry and other sins" according to...your interpretation of Canon Law.  We see how competent you are at doing that.

[Benns] As far as this not being an ad hominem attack goes, I don’t think you fully understand the meaning of ad hominem.

Oh, I understand a lot of things, Mrs. Benns--and understand better than you.

[Benns] Catholic manuals on logic describe it as, “Confusion of the person with the issue “(Oesterle); “ridicule of an adversary” (Walsh). Avoidance of the real issues of validity and lack of jurisdiction, also ridicule have always been Traditionalists’ stock-in-trade. 

As I explained in my previous post: "Lest anyone accuse me of an ad hominem attack on Benns, let me make myself clear. It is not ad hominem to point out that someone who purports (de facto or de jure) to be an expert or highly knowledgeable on some subject, is not knowledgeable as they claim. As a lawyer, I have many times impeached expert witnesses on their alleged credentials. Also, a person's prior bad acts may sometimes be bought up in court to show a propensity to do something. In certain circumstances, a witness who had previously been convicted of perjuring themselves in a past court case, can have that fact introduced by the opposing lawyer to show a propensity to lie. Finally, the fact that Benns is a woman will never be used against her. I will not (and need not) use that to expose her as a pseudo-expert in research, theology, and canon law. Anyone who therefore claims that I used her gender against her is both dishonest and using a red herring. ---Introibo"

She conveniently left that explanation out. Furthermore, according to logician Gensler, the non-fallacious way to argue is as follows:

"Rick believes A is true. In holding this, Rick violates legitimate rational standards (for example, Rick is inconsistent, biased, or not correctly informed). Therefore, Rick isn't fully reasonable in holding A...A "personal attack" argument can be either legitimate or fallacious. It's legitimate in our example; here we conclude that Rick, because he violates rational standards, isn't fully reasonable in his beliefs." (See Introduction to Logic, [2002], pg. 334; Emphasis mine). I'll leave it to my readers to decide if trying to elect a pope in a store with six "electors" violates rational standards. 

Here's an example of a fallacious ad hominem against me by HA "Bp." Joseph Marie. 

Here is my original post:

introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/05/doubting-yourself-in-extreme.html

Here is his reply: 

bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/introibo.html

Here is my rejoinder:

introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/08/sophistry-on-steroids.html

The ad hominem of Joe, like many others, is that I'm wrong or evil because I'm anonymous, which he calls "hiding."

Joe writes: "The author of this article, Introibo ad Altare Dei, has chosen to hide his identity. 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."

What does being anonymous have to do with my arguments? Does anonymity make me incompetent or violate rational standards? Does it make me the devil, a Freemason, a spy, a robber, a murderer, or a rapist? HA using fallacious ad hominem--a textbook example. 

If we really want to talk about someone along the lines you mention, regarding false authority and bad acts, lets talk Bp. Thuc. There is eyewitness and handwritten testimony that should prove to any rational human being the man was at the very least non compos mentis and even as an allegedly full-blown “sede” presented as a member of the Novus Ordo church. But of course that could never be interpreted as the “external manifestation” of a contrary intention to consecrate.

We agree: it could never be interpreted as the “external manifestation” of a contrary intention to consecrate. For a thorough refutation of Thuc adversaries, please see the amazing and brilliant tome of Mr. Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch. His logic is airtight and his facts are well-supported. See http://thucbishops.com. 

4. A False Analogy is like a Leaky Screwdriver.

[Introibo] [In reference to T. Benns writings in light of the Bawden affair]: “If a surgeon operated on a person with a diseased lung, and removed the normal lung, leaving the diseased lung inside and causing the death of the patient afterwards, would you want him operating on you (if he kept his license by some miracle)?” 

As an attorney you should be able to easily spot a false analogy, but obviously not. You just portrayed me as ignorant and incompetent and now you’re comparing me to someone with credentials; not the same at all. A misinformed but well-intentioned laywoman might make an honest mistake, right?

I was being benevolent in making my analogy! (And Teresa thinks all men are against her because she's a woman! Benns always plays the victim card). An honest mistake is eating meat on Friday, thinking it's really Thursday. The height of incompetence (or insanity, take your pick) is thinking you can elect a pope in a store with "six electors." The better analogy is a plumber thinking he can perform open heart surgery because he has experience "cleaning out pipes" and studied medical books at home like a Nobel Prize winning autodidact. There's a name for anyone delusional enough to let the plumber operate on him/her: they will be known as a "cadaver." Will you risk your soul with Benns? 

5. Cult-like Activity. 

[Benns] And don’t shine me on about the cult-like atmosphere of these Trad groups; I’ve seen them at work. Coercive persuasion comes in many forms, and one of them parades as the whisper into the devotee’s ear, “If you don’t have the Sacraments, you can’t earn the graces you need to get to Heaven.”

Um, would that "cult-like atmosphere" include Benns writing on her website that "if you don't stay HA you're outside the Church and going to Hell"? 

6. More "Bennsian Error." 

The most pernicious error in Benns' reply is regarding jurisdiction in danger of death and a papal interregnum. I cited St. Alphonsus Liguori, whom the Holy See has pronounced all his opinions safe to follow in practice. He said jurisdiction is supplied "in a long sea voyage, in a difficult delivery, in a dangerous disease, and similar cases…The same is true of one who is in probable danger of falling into insanity (amentia)…and the same of those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty. For it is believed that they will have no other priests in the future." 

She states she does not hold to this because:

1. "...only a canonically elected Roman Pontiff can supply the necessary jurisdiction in danger of death"

2. "St. Alphonsus is safe to follow, but different rules apply during an interregnum."

3. "Trads always try to trump the popes with a theologian."

4. "As Pope Pius XII defined in Mystici Corporis, all episcopal jurisdiction comes through the Roman Pontiff. It is a Protestant heresy to believe otherwise."

Got all that? First, she is claiming that Pope Pius XII made an ex cathedra pronouncement in Mystici Corporis, that all episcopal jurisdiction comes through the Roman Pontiff, the denial of which constitutes heresy. This is demonstrably wrong.

As theologian Salaverri teaches, "On the mediate or immediate origin from God of the jurisdiction of Bishops. This question was raised in the Councils of Trent and Vatican, but it was not decided. Several authors with Victoria and Vasquez held that the jurisdiction was given immediately by God to the individual Bishops; but generally Catholic authors with St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez hold that jurisdiction is given to the Bishops immediately not by God but mediated through the Roman Pontiff. Pius XII teaches this opinion positively in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis, when he says: 'But Bishops so far as their own diocese is concerned...are not completely independent but are subject to the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy ordinary power of jurisdiction received directly from the Sovereign Pontiff himself.' We think that his opinion is to be preferred." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pgs. 144-145; Emphasis mine). 

Approved theologians choose their words very carefully or they will be censured as heretics. If Benns were correct that to hold Bishops get jurisdiction immediately from God is "Protestant heresy," how is it that the Council of Trent, convened specifically to deal with Protestantism, discussed this very question and did not condemn it? Moreover, if it was infallibly decided by Pope Pius XII (this would be a prerequisite for it to be labeled heresy), then theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri, one of the theological giants pre-Vatican II, taught heresy in his theology manual and was not censured by Pope Pius, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and the Bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction who approved his work and allowed its use in the seminary. Can you imagine an approved theologian in 1955 writing that the Assumption of Mary is "an opinion to be preferred" and not "dogma to be definitively held" without being censured as a heretic? 

This proves that Pope Pius XII did not define, or declare as no longer subject to theological debate, the teaching that Bishops receive jurisdiction immediately from God. Furthermore, there is not a single canonist or theologian that teaches supplied jurisdiction in danger of death can only be given to a priest to absolve a dying penitent if there is no papal interregnum. Is it possible they just didn't mention it? Hardly. To illustrate the problem, let's suppose a Catholic was in immediate danger of death on February 13, 1939, two days after the death of Pope Pius XI, and seventeen days before the election of Pope Pius XII. There is no Catholic priest with jurisdiction available, only an excommunicated Catholic priest, who is willing to hear the Confession of the dying penitent, with all measures taken to prevent perversion of the penitent. According to Benns the absolution would be invalid because there is no pope sitting on the throne of St. Peter. I dare Benns to present one (just one) theologian, canonist, papal decree, decree from a Roman Congregation, or teaching of an Ecumenical Council that declares this nonsense to be the case. 

The Church in the Great Apostasy

Approved theologians taught there could be an extended interregnum as we have today, and therefore it cannot be incompatible with maintaining the Four Marks.

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).

Therefore, the Church can remain for many years deprived of a pope, and the form of government remains "then in a different way." Moreover, there was a historical situation in the Church for 51 years called The Great Western Schism. From 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or possibly none) could have been the true pope. Which one, if any, was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit?  There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= jurisdiction exclusively theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. In an age of much shorter life spans there could have been no bishops left with Ordinary jurisdiction, had none of the claimants been a true pope. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.

Bp. Pivarunas, commenting on the Great Western Schism writes:

Fr. Zapelena (an approved theologian) states that jurisdiction was supplied by the true pope to those bishops who mistakenly followed the wrong papal claimant. Furthermore, he also defends his thesis in the hypothetical supposition that if all three papal claimants were doubtful popes and therefore no popes at all, Christ Himself would have conferred jurisdiction as much as was necessary.

Why is this so? The Catholic Church is indefectible and must always remain the institution of salvation as established by Christ. The proof of this thesis can be demonstrated from the historical fact that with the election of Pope Martin V and the end of the schism, the validity and lawfulness Of the Sacraments administered by the bishops and priests of each of the three factions (during this Great Western Schism) were never questioned. The reason for this is that jurisdiction was supplied either by the true pope or in the event there was no pope, by Christ Himself.

If one were to raise the objection that Fr. Zapelena states that jurisdiction is only supplied “on account of the common error of the faithful together with the colored title,” and that there is no “color of title” with the consecration of traditional Catholic bishops today, the answer is found in Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M.., LL.B. (November 1957):

“In the old Canon Law the great majority of Canonists and moralists did not admit that common error alone was sufficient to make the exercise of jurisdiction valid; they demanded in addition the ‘titulus coloratus,’ that is to say, some act on the part of the superior which is ordinarily sufficient to confer jurisdiction, but which, on account of some secret impediment was rendered invalid. That ‘color of title’ is no longer required, and in case of common error, no matter how created, the Church supplies the jurisdiction for the benefit of the people.”(See cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-consecration-of-bishops-during-interregna). 

As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine). So too, Traditionalists stand "willing to give that allegiance" when there is a true pope. 

The teaching of the theologians clearly show a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church.  Therefore, all Four Marks, jurisdiction, and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ. 

Benns implicitly denies the Indefectibility of the Church.

Conclusion

I can't believe I'm writing on the same subject two weeks in a row, considering how manifestly lame the claims are of Teresa Benns. How an educated man like Robert Robbins, holding a Masters degree in philosophy, falls for this HA nonsense is beyond me. I've shown Benns to be a self-anointed theologian who knows nothing of the things upon which she pontificates. If you choose to stay Home Alone in the house of Benns, you'll find yourself in a domicile built on the sand of error and bringing you down.   

Addendum

It's not often that I put an addendum on my post. The last time I did so was in 2019, if memory serves me correctly. Since last week, I've been hit by a barrage of blather by HAs accusing me of "arguing fallaciously and reasoning poorly." That particular quote comes from Laura Robbins, wife of Robert Robbins, who runs the HA website "Catholic Eclipsed." Ironically, it is Mrs. Robbins who is guilty of arguing fallaciously and reasoning poorly. Her husband touts his Masters Degree in Philosophy from the Catholic University of America as proof of his expertise in logic and is offended that I would call his understanding of logic into question (in the comments below). Robert should be well aware of what his wife writes and posts on the website to check for grammatical errors (if any) and to make sure the content is solid. Therefore, unless Robert allows things to be posted without checking for serious errors, it is reasonable to presume he read it and saw nothing wrong.

The post by Robbins may be read here:

https://catholiceclipsed.com/2022/07/07/of-apologetical-lawyers-and-theological-laymen/

My Reply to Laura Robbins by Introibo

1. I'm not concerned with the truth because I'm a lawyer.

She writes:

As lawyers, people like John Salza, Chris Ferrara, and the man behind the Introibo blog are used to researching. They can pick a pertinent quote out of a court decision and use it to argue well their case. They know how to use rhetoric in order to persuade a judge or jury to see their point. Their whole purpose is winning a case. What is the problem with this? Well, Law is not concerned with truth so much as judgements and justice according to cases already decided and current laws on the books. In fact, I have it on good authority that at law school, lawyers are taught that “law is ordinance of reason”, and if you try to argue for the use of “Right Reason”, you get cancelled by a Novus Ordo Catholic criminal law professor pushing Bob Dylan CDs. You see, modern American Law isn’t concerned with right or wrong, it’s concerned with winning the argument set before you and (as if you didn’t know) it’s infiltrated with a bunch of communists who only care about destruction, not about truth. 

The point to all of this is, Salza and Ferrara argue well for the R&R crowd, and Introibo argues well for the Sede crowd. They sound very convincing to their readers because they’re talented at persuading others. They are taken as authorities because others believe they have the ability to read and research well. 

This is pure fallacious ad hominem. I discussed ad hominem in the post above.

"Rick believes A is true. In holding this, Rick violates legitimate rational standards (for example, Rick is inconsistent, biased, or not correctly informed). Therefore, Rick isn't fully reasonable in holding A...A "personal attack" argument can be either legitimate or fallacious. It's legitimate in our example; here we conclude that Rick, because he violates rational standards, isn't fully reasonable in his beliefs." (See Introduction to Logic, [2002], pg. 334; Emphasis mine). I'll leave it to my readers to decide if trying to elect a pope in a store with six "electors" violates rational standards.

Let's explore ad hominem more in depth:

According to logician Walton, "In some cases, an ad hominem argument is designed to attack an arguer's presumed impartiality by imputing bias to the arguer. In such a case, the criticism alleged is that the arguer in question cannot be trusted to engage in fair argument because he or she has a hidden agenda, a personal motive or bias for pushing one side of the argument and ignoring the other side."

(See Informal Logic, [2008], pg. 185; Emphasis mine). 

Once, when I was 17, I was on the subway and a nun was on the side opposite to me. There were two young women (I'm guessing in their early 30s) behind them, discussing how happy they were that NYC was opening more abortion clinics and that "no one believes a fetus is human anymore." The nun politely turned around and introduced herself to the ladies. She explained she was a Biology Professor at Fordham University, and had an earned Ph.D. in that field, also from Fordham. The good sister started making an argument from biology that the unborn is indeed human and abortion is wrong. I'll never forget the response of one of the women, which was as rude as it was fallacious, "Please turn around and stop talking! You have no idea what you're talking about. Of course you're against abortion, you're a nun!" 

Therefore, the arguments of that nun could not possibly be correct, or even considered. She was biased and must be ignored due to her status as a nun. 

Laura Robbins does the same with lawyers instead of nuns. Due to the fact that I'm a lawyer:

• I'm not interested in the truth, only in "winning my case"
• I know how to use "rhetoric" (in the pejorative sense of the word) meaning I'm being deceitful in my writing 
• I'm a Communist (or at least associated with Communists) because American Law is infiltrated with them
• I'm taken as an "authority"

Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows I go out of my way to say I'm not an authority, just someone trying to make his best Catholic way through these perilous times. That's why I will not interpret Canon Law or try and hold a conclave in a store with six people.

I'm bad-willed and use rhetorical "tricks" to win my case for the Communists. This is true, by the way, of ALL lawyers. Every. Single. One. This outrageous claim is only rivaled by "Bp." Joe Marie, another HA, who claimed that because I'm anonymous I'm "in hiding" and therefore not only "theologically incompetent," but to be placed in the same category as "Freemasons, murderers, and rapists." 

I was a tenured science teacher here in the NYC public school system for five years prior to my becoming an attorney. Science is concerned with truth. No, wait. I know: all scientists are atheists out to subvert the world and work for Freemasons, and science teachers are their minions. Every. Single. One.

Hence, I don't base my writing on logic and solid facts, it's all just "smoke and mirrors," so please disregard what I write without reading it. 

2. I argue fallaciously and reason poorly.

Laura Robbins continues:

Why do I bring this up? Well, Introibo has been at it again, arguing fallaciously and reasoning poorly. He wrote in his most recent post Contending for the Faith Part 5:

“As theologian Salaverri teaches, “On the mediate or immediate origin from God of the jurisdiction of Bishops. This question was raised in the Councils of Trent and Vatican, but it was not decided. Several authors with Victoria and Vasquez held that the jurisdiction was given immediately by God to the individual Bishops; but generally Catholic authors with St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez hold that jurisdiction is given to the Bishops immediately not by God but mediated through the Roman Pontiff. Pius XII teaches this opinion positively in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis, when he says: ‘But Bishops so far as their own diocese is concerned…are not completely independent but are subject to the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy ordinary power of jurisdiction received directly from the Sovereign Pontiff himself.’ We think that his opinion is to be preferred.” (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pgs. 144-145; Emphasis [Introibo’s]).”

The problem with this is answered by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis (20):

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.” (Emphasis mine)

You see, regardless of what a theologian (even a well-respected one) commented, what the pontiffs say is not just “an opinion to be preferred”. The pope is actually writing to the theologians telling them, when Papa makes a decision, you listen! It’s obvious, he says, that the matter cannot be open for discussion any longer. Who cares what the ancients wrote. Who cares what a (or many) theologian(s) argued. I am the voice of Christ speaking to you and He has spoken! 

Now if the pontiff teaches something of faith and morals do we care to quibble about whether it technically amounts to heresy or some other theological censure? Introibo does. He, along with all modernists and protestants hate the word “heresy”. They sometimes seem to hate it with a passion. I wonder why that is?! But if someone is obstinately holding an opinion against Church teaching, well I call that heresy. I don’t stop to look up whether it’s officially been declared ex cathedra with all the right terminology (“declare, proclaim, define” etc.). I just know, if you don’t listen to Mother Church, I can call you a schismatic, if you’d prefer, but you’d still actually be a heretic for denying the supremacy of Peter and the requirement to believe whatever the Roman Pontiffs have heretofore taught. And that’s not just my opinion, that’s Church teaching, too!

Theology is a science--the "queen of the sciences" as it deals with the most important aspects of existence; God and the things of God. If you don't know how to proceed, you wind up in error and heresy (oh, I like that word, but only to designate what it really is). Here, Laura argues as a Feeneyite. 

Here's an actual argument a Feeneyite once gave me:

Mystici Corporis # 22:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."

Nowhere does the pope mention Baptism of Desire or Blood! He then cites the exact para. #20 Laura did in Humani Generis, that we must submit to encyclicals when " ...the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute." Therefore, there is no Baptism of Desire or Blood. One problem for the Feeneyite: since he does not understand how theology operates, Pope Pius XII wasn't closing debate or defining anything. There's a distinction between membership and being within the Church.  It is defined that "Outside the Church there is no salvation," not "Without membership in the Church there is no salvation." It's a distinction with a difference. That won't register with a Feeneyite because they are clueless as to how theology operates as a science.

Laura Robbins does the same:

• The pope is actually writing to the theologians telling them, when Papa makes a decision, you listen! (Is he telling them that?)

• It’s obvious, he says, that the matter cannot be open for discussion any longer. (So obvious the approved canonists and theologians didn't get the message)

• Who cares what a (or many) theologian(s) argued. (The Church cares, Laura. That's why theology is a science and approved theologians as a body are protected by the Holy Ghost from falling into error)

• Now if the pontiff teaches something of faith and morals do we care to quibble about whether it technically amounts to heresy or some other theological censure? Introibo does. (Yes, and so does the One True Church of Christ, Laura)

• He, along with all modernists and protestants hate the word “heresy”(No, I like the word just fine, but I don't want to use it incorrectly, but as the Church uses it)

•  They sometimes seem to hate it [heresy] with a passion. I wonder why that is?! (Because we are all Communist lawyers and agents of Satan with bad motives and hidden agendas, right Laura?)

• But if someone is obstinately holding an opinion against Church teaching, well I call that heresy. (Yes, but the CHURCH doesn't, Laura. That's what matters. Not what you, your husband, Benns, Matatics, Hoyle, "Bp." Joe, or anyone one else calls something. Church teaching actually matters to this Freemasonic Communist lawyer in hiding)

• I don’t stop to look up whether it’s officially been declared ex cathedra with all the right terminology (“declare, proclaim, define” etc.). (I know, Laura, being accurate and correct makes no difference to you or your spouse. However, that pesky, nitpicking Church cares!)

• I just know, if you don’t listen to Mother Church, I can call you a schismatic, if you’d prefer, but you’d still actually be a heretic for denying the supremacy of Peter and the requirement to believe whatever the Roman Pontiffs have heretofore taught. And that’s not just my opinion, that’s Church teaching, too! (It is required to believe what the pope taught, not what YOU THINK the pope taught)

When a top theologian, like the great Salaverri, tells us the pope was not deciding something infallibly or closing off discussion altogether, you can bet that is the case. Why? Because the Magisterium checks to make sure, guided by the Holy Ghost, that nothing they write in their theology manuals contain any error in Faith and/or morals that will be used to train the priests (and future bishops) of the Church. Salaverri would have been censured and ordered to redact what he wrote under pain of suspension (and possibly excommunication). Laura Robbins believes de facto, in a Church that can't teach correctly, and thereby defects. That's not the Roman Catholic Church.

3. The Value of Theological Notes and Censures.

The Church teaches us that there are different grades of theological certitude and with them different censures. This informs us what we must believe and when we may have latitude to accept a different theological teaching. According to theologian Cartechini (On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them, [1951]), there are various "notes" assigned to a theological proposition. The highest grade assigned to the mediate jurisdiction of Bishops is Certain.

What does that mean? According to theologian Cartechini, it is "A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning." What censure is attached to it's denial? Temerarious. What are the effects of such denial? Usually, mortal sin of temerity. Can a Catholic ever dissent and not sin? Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition.." Therefore, an approved theologian, like Salaverri, can dissent. He does not in fact do so, but even under the highest classification given, theologians CAN dissent and hold the opposite opinion, and the laity can follow their teaching.

That is the teaching of the Church. I'm no theologian and have no Magisterial authority. I wish I did have authority so I could add a new theological note: Really Asinine. This would be used to designate any proposition by faux, self-anointed theologians/canonists who defy rationality. Like all theological notes, this applies if you believe the proposition but unlike other notes, it would also carry the censure of never being permitted to speak or write on the Faith ever again. Examples:

• Claiming all parts of an encyclical are necessarily binding is Really Asinine
• Stating anyone (including young Bobby, the high school drop out) can interpret Canon Law is Really Asinine
• Not caring what approved theologians taught about theological notes is Really Asinine
• Not treating theology as the science it is and deserves to be treated as is Really Asinine.
• Linking your website to another website of a person so manifestly incompetent they attempted to elect a pope in a Kansas store with six electors is Really Asinine

 Laura writes in her last paragraph: Eric Hoyle is not a lawyer. He follows truth wherever it leads, even if he can’t take pleasure in exposing the darkness.

So Eric Hoyle follows the truth because he is a non-lawyer? What if he were a lawyer? Would that invalidate his arguments? What if he became a lawyer? Would all his arguments prior be invalid, or only those going forward? The fallacious ad hominem against me is Really Asinine. 

I can actually give some leeway to those misfit "monks," Fred and Bobby Dimond when they use fallacious ad hominem against me. After all, they have no no education beyond high school. However, for Robert Robbins, a man who flaunts his Masters Degree in Philosophy, to permit his wife to publish something so overtly fallacious, there is no such excuse. For anyone who wants to continue to read their drivel, it's..well, Really Asinine.

Get The Correct Interpretation And You're Home Free

 

Last week, I was informed by Twitter that I can no longer tweet the link to my blog because it ostensibly "violates the rules" of the social media platform. What you are reading is a site that "promotes hate" against homosexuals and transgenders. First, disagreeing with someone's lifestyle is not "hate." Second, the truth is not always welcome. The teaching of the One True Church has always been that homosexuality is an offense against God and nature, and I reiterate that teaching. It seems that both freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion can be curtailed if the elites deem it contrary to their ideas and goals for society. Third, my use of the word "sodomite" to label homosexuals is accurate. The word sodomy comes from the city of Sodom, destroyed by Almighty God for the sin of homosexuality--one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance. Euphemisms like "gay" must be used. Reminds me of Communist regimes that refer to their concentration camps of torture and death as "relocation centers." 

Nevertheless, I shall continue to publish posts that expound and defend the teachings of the Church. My tweet last Monday, explaining that my site link cannot be tweeted was responded to by a gentleman named Robert Robbins, owner of the website Catholic Eclipsed (catholiceclipsed.com). He replied to my tweet, "It sounds like you've made it! I mean, it is not like every website out there trying to  get the truth out is censured. Catholiceclipsed.com isn't. I can't wait till it is!" Mr. Robbins is correct that I wear this censoring as a badge of honor. If my little blog is being tagged like this by the powers that be, I must be doing something right. 

Mr. Robbins website is pleasing to the eye and well-written. He seems by all indications to be a man of good will. Unfortunately, he promotes the "Home Alone" position, i.e., the view that all Traditionalist clergy are illicit (or invalid) since the Great Apostasy and that your only option is to stay "Home Alone" on Sundays, worshipping in the room of your choice. The late Fr. Anthony Cekada coined the term after the hit 1990 movie Home Alone, stating that these misguided Traditionalists are in a perpetual re-run of that movie minus the joyful conclusion. These Home Aloners (hereinafter "HA") twist Canon Law to declare everyone except themselves as heretics, schismatics, etc., and always find a way to further twist the law when it suits their needs (the fallacy in logic of "special pleading"--the law applies to everyone except me). 

In the overwhelming majority of cases, I find HA to be followers of (or inspired by) Mrs. Teresa Stanfill Benns, who de facto holds herself to be a "theologian" and "canonist."  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." (Think: "The religious version of Dr. Fauci"). 

Mr. Robbins explains his religious journey from Vatican II sect, to Latin "masses" run by the sect, to sedevacantism, having been convinced by what he experienced and the writings of Fr. Cekada. Sadly, he decries what he claims were "the lack of clerical formation of the priest, the apparent moral degradation of the Holiday Inn congregation, and the quasi-cult character and conduct of the St. Gertrude bishops and priests." Finally, "we [he and his wife] came across the website BetrayedCatholics, run and authored by T. Stanfill Benns, a devout Catholic who chooses to stay at home instead of soliciting vagrant priests and bishops for sacraments. In her work, Benns cites ecclesiastic norms and laws which insist that papal mandates are required for the consecration of bishops, and that, without which, such consecrations are null and void. That was a powerful refutation to those who arrogate unto themselves episcopal privileges." 

Mr. Robbins has a "sect spectrum" on his site, ranging from the Vatican II sect all the way down to the "true Catholics," the HAs. I knew if I just took a glance through his material, I would find glaring errors. On the very first post I chose to read, I found what I was looking for, as Mrs. Benns is either (a) extremely incompetent or (b) purposely deceptive. (I wrote a post about Mrs. Benns ludicrous idea that Traditionalist orders are invalid, and I will reference that post later).  Mr. Robbins wrote a post entitled, In Defense of Catholic Eclipsed, wherein he cites an email from a reader:

A very well-informed and good-willed Catholic just trying to get to the grave with his soul intact no doubt, emailed me with some arguably well-founded criticisms regarding the things I have published here on CatholicEclipsed; the most important perhaps being an accusation of hypocrisy. I reproduce his remarks in pertinent part now: 

“You and others publish material regarding religion. Such publications require jurisdiction and are also in violation of Church law (C. 1385). Nevertheless, you seem to hold yourselves dispensed from these requirements while at the same time you hold others strictly to them, e.g., the papal mandate. It comes across as being duplicitous and a classic case of “laws are for thee, not for me.” This strikes me as a contradiction, which if you could clarify, I would appreciate.”

Mr. Robbins receives help in answering by none other than Mrs. Benns. She wrote to him:

Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T. Mag, J.U.D., OFM (“A Manual of Canon Law,” 1947, above) states: “In the absence of an authentic declaration concerning the meaning of the law, ANYONE may interpret the law for himself, provided he observe the rules set down by the lawgiver in Canons 18-21.” This is confirmed by the following canonists. Speaking of Pope Benedict XV’s Motu Proprio promulgating Canon Law, Monsignor Amleto Cicognani writes: “There is no prohibition in the Motu-proprio of private interpretation, which may be doctrinal or usual…It is said to be doctrinal when it is given by those skilled in canon law; customary (also called usual) when it is derived from unwritten practice, that is custom…General rules for the right interpretation of the Code are given in Canons 17 ff, besides those of Canons 5 and 6, (“Canon Law,” 1935, pgs. 434, 598-9). As Rev. Nicholas Neuberger explains in his dissertation, “Canon 6,” (Catholic University of America, 1927), “Of old the jurists distinguished between a mere declaration of and the interpretation of the law. The declaration today is called comprehensive interpretation. Its scope is not to change the law but determines the sense of the law comprehended therein from the beginning. Therefore, it adds or subtracts nothing from the original meaning…The comprehensive interpretation adds nothing anew but explains more and more the significance attached to the words …Ordinarily, every private individual may interpret laws according to the rules of jurisprudence, unless a special prohibition has been made…The code, in Canon 6 §2 bids us have recourse to the doctrine of the approved authors. The authentic, however, always remains the guide for the doctrinal.”

Mr. Robbins then opines, Now we know that in the absence of an authoritative interpretation of the law, a private person—even a layman—may interpret the law himself, if the rules of interpretation are followed. He then interprets the law on his own authority as allowing him to publish on his website about religion.  

So, is this true? Can young Bobby, the 18 year-old Traditionalist who lives next door and dropped out of high school, go online and correctly interpret Canon Law for himself in the Great Apostasy? Mr. Robbins appears to be a man open to hearing the truth. This post is geared towards him and all other HAs in good faith. It is not a personal attack on them, rather it is written in the spirit of charity. I hope they will see they have been---as the title of my prior post on the subject says---Betrayed By Benns.

The Background of Teresa Benns

Lest anyone accuse me of an ad hominem attack on Benns, let me make myself clear. It is not ad hominem to point out that someone who purports (de facto or de jure) to be an expert or highly knowledgeable on some subject, is not knowledgeable as they claim. As a lawyer, I have many times impeached expert witnesses on their alleged credentials. Also, a person's prior bad acts may sometimes be bought up in court to show a propensity to do something. In certain circumstances, a witness who had previously been convicted of perjuring themselves in a past court case, can have that fact introduced by the opposing lawyer to show a propensity to lie. Finally, the fact that Benns is a woman will never be used against her. I will not (and need not) use that to expose her as a pseudo-expert in research, theology, and canon law. Anyone who therefore claims that I used her gender against her is both dishonest and using a red herring. ---Introibo

1. A false "conclave" that produced a false pope. In 1990, Benns, using her phenomenal research ability, decided that she could "call a conclave" to elect a pope. All true Catholics from around the world were allegedly contacted in a world without computers, and there were only six "electors" that came to the Kansas farmhouse of one David Bawden, a former seminarian of the SSPX who had been expelled. The "electors" consisted of Bawden, his mommy and daddy, two nice neighbors, and Benns. Bawden was "elected pope" and took the name "Pope" Michael. 

This scenario is just so outrageous it doesn't even merit the energy to write a refutation. It sounds more like a late-night comedy skit than something purporting to be serious theology. About 10 years ago, Bawden found "Bp." Bob Biarnessen to ordain/consecrate him. It is never explained why "Bp." Bob never submitted to the "Holy See of Kansas." Why didn't he become a "Cardinal" and "Pro-Prefect for the Supreme Sacred Congregation of Slopping Pigs"? Bob's lineage comes from dubious sources making Bawden equally dubious. His "mass," sacraments, and any clergy are dubious at best.

According to Bawden and other sources, he has currently around 30 to 100 followers worldwide.That's 30 to 100 people who have their eternal souls at risk following a false pope produced by Benns. She has since renounced Bawden, and was "excommunicated" by him, leaving those poor souls following him in peril for their salvation. Nice going, Teresa Benns. 

2. Are Traditionalist clergy invalid? This is another example of pure theological ignorance on the part of Benns and many HAs. She attacks the orders of Abp. Lefebvre and Abp. Thuc. 

Please read my post here: 

introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/05/betrayed-by-benns.html. I have not seen any of her writings attack the validity of Bp. Mendez, but she can probably fabricate something given enough time. 

Why bring up these points? Anyone can make a mistake, unless guided by God Himself as in the case of the pope. If St. Francis of Assisi had said "2 + 2= 5" he would be wrong despite his sanctity. If Joseph Stalin had said, "2 + 2= 4" he would be correct even though he was thoroughly wicked. However, some mistakes are just so egregious, a person should not be trusted again. For example, if a surgeon operated on a person with a diseased lung, and removed the normal lung, leaving the diseased lung inside and causing the death of the patient afterwards, would you want him operating on you (if he kept his license by some miracle)? He could point to successful operations he did, but mistaking a healthy lung for a seriously diseased lung is so outrageously incompetent, you wouldn't trust him with your life (I would hope). 

If you would not entrust the life of your body to such a person, how much more important is your immortal soul? Do you really want to follow the "research" of a person who "elects a pope" on a Kansas farmhouse with the only "six true Catholics," and when she admits it's totally wrong, says "Whoops, I made a mistake"? Her contention regarding Traditionalist orders has been refuted by me on independent grounds--her facts are demonstrably wrong. Do you really want to stay under self-imposed spiritual house arrest, deprived of sacramental graces, by following her slipshod writings? Think about it. 

Now, on to the issue of can ANYONE (Emphasis Benns) interpret Canon Law?

Misinterpreting Who Interprets

I was once talking with a friend from Church, a fine gentleman of great piety. The discussion turned to Fatima. I explained to him that no one is required to believe in private revelations, even those approved by the Church. He protested, "But Fatima wasn't private! Thousands of people witnessed the Miracle of the Sun." I explained to him that the word "private" in relation to revelation has a special theological meaning. It does not refer to how many people saw something, but rather it is used to indicate revelation that is not part of the public Deposit of Revelation which must be believed, and ended with the death of St. John the Apostle in 100 A.D. 

Benns makes a similar mistake (I'm being charitable in assuming it's a mistake and not purposeful lying). Once more her citation to canonist Ramstein:

“In the absence of an authentic declaration concerning the meaning of the law, ANYONE [Emphasis hers] may interpret the law for himself, provided he observe the rules set down by the lawgiver in Canons 18-21.”

As we shall see, "ANYONE" does not refer to any layman such as young Bobby, the aforementioned 18 year old high school dropout. 

Proof:

According to canonist Della Rocca: The study of canon law, precisely because it is a sacred science, is therefore recommended to clerics... (See A Manual of Canon Law, [1958], pg. 5)

As regards its [canon law] sources and origins, interpretation is doctrinal when given by private doctors or juriconsultants; (Ibid, pg. 65; Emphasis mine)

The true meaning is made even more clear by canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 17:

Doctrinal Interpretation. Every theologian and canonist may interpret the law privately (i.e. with the authority warranted by their own private learning). Their interpretations, however, have only that weight which attaches to the reasons on which they are based. They possess special value when they are almost unanimous and consistent over an extended period of time, since in the latter case they would be practically obligatory. (See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:35; Emphasis mine).  

So private interpretations are not made by "anyone" as in young Bobby, but rather by theologians and canonists due to their advanced ecclesiastical education and training. A theologian is a cleric who has a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD), and a canonist is a cleric who has a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). Both theologians and canonists must get their training/education from an approved Pontifical University and defend a thesis before the Board that meets with Magisterial approval. This is also confirmed by canonist Della Rocca's use of "private doctor"--i.e., a Doctor of Sacred Theology (theologian) and/or a Doctor of Canon Law (canonist). Neither Benns nor Mr. Robbins (not to mention young Bobby) are qualified to interpret Canon Law.

Again, from canonist Bouscaren: The whole of canon 17 refers to authoritative interpretation; that is interpretation given with official authority as opposed to doctrinal interpretation, which is given privately by anyone who knows the law. (See Canon Law, [1951], pg. 31; Emphasis mine). 

You can see that "anyone" is modified by "who knows the law" (i.e., canonists and theologians).

Finally, from the eminent canonist Augustine: Private interpretation, viz., one given by juriconsultants not commissioned by the lawgiver, or by expert canonists (doctors), must be made in conformity with certain rules which are necessary for the right understanding of ecclesiastical---in fact of all---law. (See A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, [1918], pg. 96). 

Once more, Benns gets it wrong. If I ever did "research" like this, my law firm would have fired me long ago. Did she not look at these explanations, or did she purposefully omit them? If epikeia and common sense are applied (like Traditionalist clergy do) HAs may finally be "home free."

Some Objections Considered

1. Traditionalist clergy are not properly trained and have cult-like behaviors.

Ans. Traditionalist clergy receive enough training to validly administer the Sacraments. If someone does not exhibit the minimum training, simply stay away. Do you think all was perfect with pre-Vatican II clergymen? As Fr. DePauw told me, "They didn't become bums overnight." (Benns calumniates Fr. DePauw as "Masonic"-- once more not knowing all the facts and getting it all wrong. I'll leave that for another post.) What constitutes "cult-like behaviors?" A cult should be used to describe an organization that uses coercion to get people in and/or prevent people from leaving. Fr. DePauw would always say, "If you don't like it here (Ave Maria Chapel), the doors are never locked; feel free to leave and I wish you well."  The SSPV have holy and well formed priests (except Fr. Greenwell whom I always avoided). Don't let a bad apple spoil it all. Go somewhere you feel comfortable. Unfortunately, this is what we deal with when we have no pope for unity. 

2. Traditionalist priests and bishops have no jurisdiction. All their absolutions are invalid outside of the danger of death. 

Ans. Jurisdiction, HAs will admit, is supplied to ALL priests when the penitent is in danger of death. The death knell of the HA position is provided by St. Alphonsus Liguori, whom the Holy See has pronounced all his opinions safe to follow in practice. He writes: "Is any priest able to absolve from any sins and censures, not only at the point of death, but also in danger of death? This is denied by [various names] but more truly and more commonly affirmed by...The reason for this is that in this matter, the danger in taken for the point, as is clear from...For in such a case, anyone in mortal sin is bound to confess in the same way as if he were at the point of death. This is accepted by...provided that such a danger be so grave that it can scarcely be distinguished with certainty from the point: but, more immediately, it seems to be sufficient that there be prudent fear that death will arise in the danger. Now such a danger is considered to be present in a battle, in a long sea voyage, in a difficult delivery, in a dangerous disease, and similar cases...The same is true of one who is in probable danger of falling into insanity (amentia)...and the same of those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty. For it is believed that they will have no other priests in the future."(See Theologia Moralis, Bk.6, no. 561, Q.2) 

 As Traditionalist John Daly notes, we are in "the same position as those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty and with excellent reason to believe [we] will never have access to any priest possessing jurisdiction in the future. Thus we can be sure that any truly Catholic priest to whom we do have access, even if he be bereft of jurisdiction and laboring under excommunication, can lawfully and validly absolve us."

3. In the End Times the Holy Sacrifice will cease. This is why we stay home. It is the Great Apostasy now.

Ans. You're staying home unnecessarily. Almost all theologians teach it will occur during the reign of the Antichrist. According to theologian Huchede, "Religious Persecution of Antichrist...The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass shall no longer be offered up publicly on the altars." (See History of Antichrist,[1884], pgs. 25-26). Notice the modifier "publicly." It has never been defined by the Church that the Mass shall completely cease. Some theologians, such as Huchede, leave open the possibility of the Mass offered in private to small groups of the faithful. In either case, the reign of the Antichrist is not here yet. 

4. Being home is the "safe way" to Heaven. We have the Act of Perfect Contrition, Spiritual Communion, and the Rosary.

Ans. All these things are beautiful and Catholic. If this is all you have (like the Japanese Catholics during the Great Persecution) that's the way to go. To forego the True Mass and Sacraments (when available) for substitutes at home, is to deprive yourself of countless graces. After all, Christ instituted the Mass and the seven sacraments for the salvation of the human race. He did not teach the Apostles to make acts of perfect contrition, spiritual communion, and recite the Rosary. Our Lord Himself instituted the Mass and sacraments as the most excellent means of grace and sanctification. HAs unnecessarily make extraordinary means ordinary means, all to their spiritual detriment. 

Conclusion

I hope Mr. Robbins will realize he's been Betrayed By Benns, and not stay home, but come home to the One True Church with the Mass and sacraments for his family and himself. Teresa Benns has proven herself an ultracrepidarian sciolist. She has created a false pope in a Kansas farmhouse, calls into question Traditionalist orders on false grounds, and thinks anyone can interpret canon law. Young Bobby is looking more competent by the second. 

Divorcing Marriage And Morality

 

With the family under attack like never before, one of the first major attacks on the sacred institution of Holy Matrimony came from Vatican II. The sect which the Robber Council spawned has destroyed the very permanence of marriage by giving out  phony "annulments" for almost any cause, and permitting those who get them to "remarry." Under Bergoglio, it is taught that a person who is divorced and "remarried" (without even a phony annulment) and is living in an active sexual partnership might not be responsible or culpable for the mortal sin of adultery. This post will examine the true teaching of the Church on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and what the Vatican II sect has done to destroy it.  

1917 v. 1983 Code of Canon Law on Matrimony

Vatican II has changed a de fide (infallible) teaching of the Church on marriage:

 The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; its secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence. The latter are entirely subordinate to the former. 

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared this statement of Church teaching as de fide in 1944. (See AAS 36, 1944, 103). This teaching was already in the 1917 Code. Here's what the Church's canons say about Matrimony:

Canon 1013 - section 1

The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; its secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence.

Canon 1012 section 1

Christ our Lord elevated the very contract of marriage between baptized persons to the dignity of a sacrament. (Emphasis mine)

Compare the 1983 Vatican II sect definition:

Canon 1055 - section 1.

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this [covenant] between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. (Emphasis mine). 

Two egregious errors become apparent. The first is that the primary and secondary ends of marriage are put forth on equal footing with the secondary end mentioned first.   I do not hesitate to call the definition heretical. It comes as a logical corollary of the second error; marriage is a covenant and not a contract. What's the difference? In a contract, both parties must freely enter and accept the terms of said contract. The form of the sacrament creates a contract. After the bride and groom pronounce their vows, they cannot withdraw their consent. A covenant implies an ongoing consent, and if either party at any time withdraws consent, the marriage is over. Welcome to no-fault divorce under the guise of "Catholicism." 

Once again, the 1917 Code:

Canon 1081 -  section 2

Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts a perpetual and exclusive right over the body, for acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children.

Notice the primary end of marriage is the reason for the right over the body of the spouse. 

Compare the Vatican II sect's 1983 Code:

Canon 1057 - section 2

Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman, through an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept each other in order to establish marriage.

No longer is the primary end of marriage, the procreation and education of children, even mentioned. It's all about the spouses and "giving and accepting" each other. To those who object the canon says the covenant is "irrevocable," the revised code permits psychological immaturity as grounds for annulment. As "psychological immaturity" is not defined, it can mean virtually anything modern psychologists want it to mean, and "annulments" are given as the "covenant of love" was not truly present. 

The Mother of All Heresy: Vatican II

The heretical definition of marriage given in the 1983 Vatican II sect Code comes from...you guessed it...the Robber Council, Vatican II. In the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes [hereinafter GS], the married state is deemed as "the intimate partnership of life and love which...has been established by the creator..." (GS para. #48), whose proper end is procreation:

By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory (GS para. #48).

Note that it does not find its "reason for being" in the procreation and education of children, but its "crown." This leads one to believe that the end of the state of matrimony is mutual perfection of the spouses, that is, the secondary end becomes the first, since the true end (the procreative one), becomes secondary because it is proposed as a consequence (or "crowning glory") of the Modernist value of marriage.

Again, Vatican II teaches:

But God did not create man a solitary being. From the beginning "male and female he created them" (Gen. 1: 27). This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between persons (GS para. #12).

This is a correct, yet incomplete, and leads to serious error. Its incompleteness is due to the fact that it doesn't quote what is written in Genesis 2:18-23:

 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.  So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

GS creates the false impression that God created man and woman at the same time, rendering them totally equal. Men and women are similar, but not in complete equality, as St. Paul explains, speaking in the name of the Lord in the famous passage of  1 Corinthians 11:3:

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 

Vatican II's entire teaching on marriage (GS para. # 47-52) is completely silent on the natural difference between the sexes established by God. From the premise of a non-Catholic idea, it advances to a natural and total equality between the spouses (considered in the abstract as "persons") as beings who express themselves freely in the "community of [matrimonial] love," completely ignoring the teaching of St. Paul and the Church throughout the ages, according to which, as we have seen, man is the natural head over the woman and, thus, over the family. This ignores the principle of nature that a woman's fundamental vocation is as spouse and mother, of bringing children into the world and educating them in a Catholic way. That's not to say women are to be bossed around and mistreated by their husbands, nor does it mean women can't be professionals (my wife is a highly educated professional). It means that the vocation of spouse and mother is more sublime. Many women now scoff at the idea of being a mother, or "just want one" child to be raised by a child care service.

Vatican II thus opened the way to feminism, that particularly perverse idea which, in the name of false equality, exalts false liberty. In the name of false liberty we now have sodomite "marriage" and the destruction of true marriage and family. Compare the words of Pope Pius XI:

 Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church." (See Casti Connubii, para. #26; Emphasis mine).

Vatican II Sect Marriage: Fostering Religious Indifferentism and Adultery

The Church has always forbidden Her faithful to marry non-Catholics. The hierarchy sometimes gave dispensations, but on very precise conditions: (1) the Church required the non-Catholic to promise to avoid any danger of corrupting the Catholic spouse and (2) She also asked that the engaged couple make a written promise to baptize all their children in the One True Church and give them an exclusively Catholic education. 

1917 Canon 1061

The Church does not dispense from the impediment of mixed religion unless:

1. justifying grave reasons require it;

2. the non-Catholic party gives a guaranty to remove from the Catholic party the danger of perversion [of the Faith] and both parties give a guaranty that all offspring will be baptized and reared only in the Catholic Faith;

3. there is moral certainty these guaranties will be fulfilled 

In addition, the Catholic spouse was obliged to work prudently for the conversion of the non-Catholic spouse. This all ended in the Vatican II sect when Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) issued the Motu proprio entitled Matrimonia Mixta on March 31, 1970. The non-Catholic spouse no longer has to make any promises. Instead, the so-called Catholic party promises to "try" and raise any/all children as "Catholic" (Vatican II sect). By placing the faith of the allegedly Catholic spouse and the children in grave danger of corruption, it goes against the Divine-positive Law and is immoral. It therefore could not come from the One True Church.

Not to be outdone, Bergoglio published the "Apostolic Exhortation" Amoris Laetitia on March 19, 2016. Chapter 8 discusses the issue of people who are divorced and civilly “remarried.” In paragraph 305, the Argentinian apostate explains that certain divorced and civilly “remarried” persons, while living their new and purely civil union as if they were married, can be in the state of grace. They can therefore benefit from the help of the Sect. He declared in note 351:

In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber (!), but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy. I would also point out that the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.  

Translation: Those living in open and unrepentant adultery, which constitutes continual mortal sin, can somehow be in the state of grace and receive "communion." This flies in the face of all Church teaching from 33 AD to 1958 on the subject. Furthermore, the Eucharist is indeed a help for those striving to be perfect "even as Thy Heavenly Father is Perfect" (St. Matthew 5:48) and not to those who have deliberately banished God from their souls through mortal sin--"Do not give that which is Holy to the dogs..." (St. Matthew 7:6).  All of this is against the Divine-positive Law. 

Conclusion

We live in a wicked world where sodomites can "marry," divorce is both acceptable and easy, divorce and "remarriage" is not considered adultery, and the procreation of children is not as important as self-fulfillment. All of this is having a devastating effect upon society. It began in earnest, as almost all modern day ills, with the heretical teachings of Vatican II and the counterfeit sect it spawned. 

The Straight Dope On Drugs

 

When people hear about "drug abuse," images of addicts buying cocaine, heroin, etc., from shady looking dealers in dark places comes to mind for most. However, the acceptance of drugs has become rampant in recent years. As of January 2022, nineteen (19) states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, going a long way in making the acceptance of substance abuse a reality. This is but one example of the law making something evil appear good, or at least morally neutral. 

I fully support the use of psychotropic medication for those who have serious mental issues or traumatic events from which they need to recover. Nevertheless, it is abuse when people think that being unhappy about something jejune requires mind-altering drugs. According to the CDC, "During 2015–2018, 13.2% of Americans aged 18 and over reported taking antidepressant medication in the past 30 days. Antidepressant use was higher among women than men in every age group. Use increased with age, in both men and women. Almost one-quarter of women aged 60 and over (24.3%) took antidepressants." (See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db377.htm#:~:text=%2C%202009%E2%80%932018.-,Summary,men%20in%20every%20age%20group.). The answer to life's adversities is not to be found in a medicine bottle.

This post will give the Church's teaching on drugs and the theological implications for our times. 

The Teaching of the Church Regarding Drugs

According to theologian Jone, "Since morphine, opium, chloroform and similar drugs can also deprive one of the use of his reason temporarily, that which was said of intoxicating drinks holds also for narcotics. To use narcotics in small quantities and only occasionally, is a venial sin if done without a sufficient reason. Any proportionately good reason justifies their use, e.g., to calm the nerves, dispel insomnia, etc. Such use becomes gravely sinful if it creates an habitual craving for 'dope' which is more difficult to overcome than dipsomania and more injurious to health. To use drugs in greater quantities so as to lose the use of one's reason is itself a mortal sin; but for a good reason it is permissible. Such a good reason is had in case of an operation, i.e., that the patient be rendered insensible to intense pain, or that one might remain calm under the knife. In like manner one may administer opiates to one who is suffering greatly in order to alleviate his pain." (See Moral Theology, [1961], pgs. 57-58; Emphasis mine). 

Since narcotics are under the same general rule as alcohol, here's what moral theologian O'Connell has to say about the loss of reason: "It is not requisite...[to] be rendered utterly stupid and helpless...[rather] that one would do things inordinate which otherwise he would not do...The malice of drunkenness consists in the fact that, without a sufficient reason, a person in a violent way deprives himself of the use of the noblest of his faculties." (See Outlines of Moral Theology, [1958], pg. 168; Emphasis mine).

As you keep in mind these principles of Church teaching, also consider that we know so much more about the effects of drugs today than when theologians O'Connell and Jone were writing in the late 1950s-early 1960s. Then came the Great Apostasy and the drug culture of the late 1960s. I can only imagine how Church teaching would have further developed on this issue in light of all we now understand.

Drug Abuse and Health

Here are the facts:

• 40 million Americans ages 12 and older have substance problems. Addiction and substance abuse affect more Americans than heart conditions, diabetes or cancer

• 75% of all high school students have used addictive substances, including cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana or cocaine; 1 in 5 has a substance problem

• Almost half (46%) of all high school students currently use addictive substances

• 46% of children under age 18 live in a household where someone age 18 or older is smoking, drinking excessively, misusing prescription drugs or using illegal drugs

• Addiction, substance use and abuse are the largest preventable and most costly health problems facing the U.S. today, responsible for more than 20% of deaths in the U.S.

• Addiction, substance use and abuse cause or contribute to more than 70 other conditions requiring medical care, including cancer, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, HIV/AIDS, pregnancy complications, cirrhosis, ulcers and trauma, and account for one-third of all hospital in-patient costs

(Source: drugfree.org/article/fast-facts-about-addiction). 

Drugs and the Occult

In the 1960s, Timothy Leary, "the Pied Piper of Harvard," led mesmerized youth into spiritual experiences that materialistic scientism had told them did not exist. Leary’s LSD (and other psychedelics) turned out to be the launching pad for mind trips "beyond the physical universe of time, space, and matter" to a strange dimension where anything was possible. For millions it was a “mind-blowing” experience that forever changed their lives.

The drugs of abusers put people into an altered state of consciousness; hence, the attraction. Those of you who read my series of posts called "Singing For Satan" (published August 2017-August 2019), know that almost all of the musicians were drug users, and most claimed contact/inspiration from "spirits"--Eminem, The Eagles, etc. They used drugs and entered into an altered state of consciousness which makes one susceptible (like hypnosis) to demonic forces. So-called "shamans" (pagan "witch-doctors") take drugs for this very reason; it enables them to make "contact with the spirits." Leary called the Beatles “the four evangelists.” Listening to the Beatles’ album Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, Leary said, “The Beatles have taken my place. That latest album—a complete celebration of LSD.” (See Jay Stevens, Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream, [1987], pg. 345). 

Millions subsequently discovered that they could get as “high” or even “higher” through various techniques of Eastern mysticism (TM and other forms of yoga, visualization and hypnosis). Thus was born something called The New Age Movement. Hindu and Buddhist occultism penetrated every area of Western society, from psychology and medicine to education and business. Numerous yogis and gurus, such as Vivekananda, Yogananda, Maharaj Ji, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Baba Muktananda, and others quickly realized that drugs had opened the Western mind to their message, and they invaded our shores.

Even young children are being caught in the drug web. If Johnny misbehaves, mother increases his Ritalin dose; and to keep herself on an even keel, she takes Prozac. A large percentage of Americans no longer know how to stand up to adversity and thereby develop strength of character. Instead of facing their problems and working through to a solution, they insist upon a wonder drug to assist them with every difficulty.

There are approximately 171 BILLION cells in an adult human brain, and we don't fully understand how they all function. Moreover, the mysterious link between the human soul (which was made in God’s image) and the brain and body is forever beyond the grasp of science. Yet that connection is being tampered with by drugs in order to adjust the behavior of people. How could there be a chemical solution? Yet millions take drugs such as Fluoxetine, Citalopram, Sertraline, Paroxetine, Escitalopram, etc. to adjust mood and behavior long term for non-severe problems.

In the Apocalypse 22:15, we read, "Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying." According to theologian Haydock, "the dogs" refer to unbelievers (See The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with a Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, reprint from 1859, pg. 1656), and "sorcerers" comes from the Greek word pharmakeia from which we get the word "pharmacy." The word does not only mean the sorcery that comes from idolatry but can also refer to the use or administration of drugs. We see that pagans often used drugs to call on their "gods" (demons), so it's not surprising that Holy Scripture seems to link the two. 

Aldous Huxley (d. 1963), the famous author of Brave New World, and philosopher, was known to experiment with LSD and mescaline. He was deeply involved in the occult. On his deathbed, he asked his wife to shoot him up with LSD so he could "trip" into the afterlife. She complied, and I cannot imagine what horrors he found that never end, unless he somehow repented by a miracle of grace. In a speech he delivered to a California medical school, two years before his death, he made the following chilling prediction:

There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.  (See academyofideas.com/2018/06/aldous-huxley-brave-new-world-dark-side-of-pleasure; Emphasis mine). 

Other Considerations

1. St. Paul writes, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). The reason St. Paul gives for this instruction, is that alcohol (a substance like narcotics) leads to indulging passions without restraint, a.k.a. debauchery. He contrasts drunkenness with being filled with the Holy Ghost. The principle behind the passage is simply this: Stay away from alcohol and other drugs that will confuse your thoughts, weaken your inhibitions and make you more vulnerable to sin. Can anyone think of a drug that doesn’t do all those things? Whether depressant or stimulant, psychedelic or dissociative, legal or illegal, substances that affect the mind are given a negative appraisal by God: “In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper. Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things” (Proverbs 23:32-33). Although taking alcohol in moderation (and prescription drugs) is fine, why use them unless necessary? Why invite something that can lead to serious sin into your life?

2. Long-term use of mind-altering drugs can cause the actual things they are prescribed to prevent; e.g., suicidal ideations, and even homicidal rage. 

3. Self-control is one of the primary virtues of the Christian life. Traditionalists are instructed to be in control of their decision-making processes and not enslaved to anything that erodes their ability to act in ways that are honoring to God. A clear mind — which is impossible under the influence of drugs — is crucial to self-control, which in turn affects our ability to grow in the spiritual life.

Conclusion

Only God, and not drugs, can be trusted to get us through life's hardships. Yes, for serious mental defects and short-term use, prescription drugs are a blessing. However, abusing drugs proscribed, or using "recreational marijuana," or  taking illicit drugs puts a person on a physical, mental, and spiritual crash course. There are all kinds of reasons people turn to drugs, but it all boils down to the escape from pain in our life. Pains that come from abuse, job problems, marital problems, etc., are all too real and very hurtful.

Nevertheless, ponder this question: How do drugs really help? They may alter your perception of reality for a while, but they do nothing to change it. In fact, they only give you more problems in the end. Addiction. Isolation. Financial burden. More hurt piled on top of what was there before. Stay close to the Sacraments. Pray, and offer up your pain to God as a sacrifice for your sins in order to save your soul and the souls of others. Turn to Christ and His Mother--and don't be a dope. 

Contending For The Faith---Part 4

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

The RIGHT Rite of Christian Burial

To My Readers: I am out of town on business for several days. Thankfully, Lee has an excellent apologetic of the True Rite of burial vs. the Vatican II sect rite. In this post, he very ably defends the truth of the Church as compared to the falsehood taught and evils given in the sect pretending to be the Catholic Church. Please feel free to comment as usual, and if you want me to respond I shall, but it will take a bit longer this week, so thank you for your patience!

God Bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

In the year 2004, many things took place. Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was released, the Iraq war was going on, Facebook was launched by Mark Zuckerberg, the five cross flag of the country of Georgia was restored to use after a 500 year hiatus, The first legal sodomite (same sex) marriage was performed in the state of Massachusetts, Fidel Castro bans transaction of the American dollar in Cuba, Skull and Bones politicians George W Bush and John Kerry ran for American president with Bush winning re-election, and John Paul II gives the relics of St. John Chrysostom to the Eastern Orthodox religion. 

While all this went on throughout the world, something also happened to me. It was my last time to ever actively participate in a Novus Ordo "Mass." It wasn't just any ordinary Sunday "Mass" but it was the funeral "Mass" of a fellow parishioner who died in a car accident. His brother was one of my best friends. A year prior, I had already discovered the Indult Mass in my local area, as well as sedevacantism even though I hadn't completely understood it, but nevertheless was not fully against it because of what John Paul II had done and all the strange nonsense going on throughout the whole modern Church.

On the day of the funeral, the casket was brought into church for "Mass." Many of my former Protestant friends from high school years were in attendance and the priest (he was a valid one) did make an announcement from the pulpit that if anybody was not Catholic, to cross the arms over their chest so that way he knew not to give them communion. Nothing out of the ordinary but what struck me and probably what bothered me the most were the vestments he was wearing. They were white vestments. I had just learned about Requiem Masses when studying about the Traditional Mass and the color was always black, representing mourning for the dead, and more importantly, praying for them.

He said the reason for using the white vestments was because of it representing Christ's resurrection from the dead and a sign of hope for the dead person. Without arguing with him (and I had some previous arguments with him) I just kept my opinions to myself and proceeded to help as an altar server. Unfortunately, the priest believed in many Modernist ideas, which ranged from not believing it to be wrong for a Catholic to be apart of the local Masonic lodge, to the frequent use of music like "A Mighty Fortress is our God" (a Lutheran hymn) when processing out once "Mass" was over. What was really frightening was that he was one of the priests who volunteered to say the Indult Traditional Mass for nostalgia purposes. Seeing the spirit of Modernism produced in one of the priests who I grew up around in my youth, let's now look at what the Vatican II sect produced regarding Christian Burial.

The Changes

Picking up where I left off in the above paragraph, white vestments became an option in 1970 for the Vatican II sect which was specifically allowed by the new "Roman Missal" for funeral masses in England and Wales. This color signifies the celebration of Christ, Mary and the saints in the Church, and is worn on Christmas, Easter and other prominent days of celebration. Many American dioceses also allowed white for funerals as a representation of hope and a celebration of Christ (so they claim).

The problem is simple, lex orandi, lex credendi (i.e., "The law of prayer is the law of belief"). If white vestments are used for a funeral, it's not a sign of hope or else green vestments would be worn. Rather it's a sign of not believing in praying for the dead because they've already been "saved," and hence the use of festive colors. It's a Modernist lie because traditionally speaking, white is always used for festive days during the liturgical calendar. Funerals are not festive unless of course the person is automatically a saint in heaven, and that person is praying for us on earth. Sadly, this is the spirit of the Novus Ordo religion, that all are most likely saved. It couldn't get any more Protestant.

What's particularly disturbing is the change of rules concerning Christian Burial, specifically those who are denied same.

When the world was Catholic, the following rules were set out according to the the old Rituale Romanum (1950):

Denial of Christian Burial

A pastor ought to know precisely who are to be excluded from Christian burial according to the Church law, lest any such ever be admitted thereto contrary to the decrees of the sacred canons.

Persons who depart in this life without baptism are not to be allowed Christian burial. Yet catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be treated the same as the baptized (TAKE THAT FEENEYITES)

The following are to be denied Christian burial, unless before death they manifested some sign of repentance: 

a.) Persons reckoned as notorious apostates from the Christian faith, and persons who were notorious for belonging to a heretical or schismatic sect, or to the Masonic sect, or to other societies of the same kind;

b.) Persons excommunicated or interdicted after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence;                        c.) Those who have committed suicide with full deliberation; 

d.) Those who died in a duel or from a wound received in a duel; 

e.) Those who ordered their body to be cremated;  

f.) Other public or overt sinners.

If any doubts exists in regard to the cases mentioned above, the Ordinary should be consulted if time permits; and if a doubt still remains, the body should be given ecclesiastical burial, yet so that all scandal is precluded.

 4. Those who are deprived of ecclesiastical burial must also be denied the funeral Mass and even the Mass of anniversary, as well as other public obsequies."

Fast forward to our times of Counterfeit Catholicism and we see revisions in the 1983 Code of Canon Law stating the following:

THOSE TO WHOM ECCLESIASTICAL FUNERALS MUST BE GRANTED OR DENIED

Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.

§2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals.

§3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.

Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1. notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;

2. those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;

3. other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.

§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

USSCB (United States Conference of [Non] Catholic Bishops) 

In April 1997, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments granted an indult for the United States to allow the diocesan bishop to permit the presence of the cremated remains of a body at a Funeral Mass. Later that year, the Congregation confirmed the special texts and ritual directives (Prot. n. 1589/96/L for both indult and texts)...

The practice of cremation has grown and become more commonplace in the United States, and it is often presented as a more affordable alternative to traditional burial. What is often overlooked is the Church’s teaching regarding the respect and honor due to the human body. The Order of Christian Funerals’ Appendix on Cremation states: “Although cremation is now permitted by the Church, it does not enjoy the same value as burial of the body. The Church clearly prefers and urges that the body of the deceased be present for the funeral rites, since the presence of the human body better expresses the values which the Church affirms in those rites” (no. 413).

Ideally, if a family chooses cremation, the cremation would take place at some time after the Funeral Mass, so that there can be an opportunity for the Vigil for the Deceased in the presence of the body (during “visitation” or “viewing” at a church or funeral home). This allows for the appropriate reverence for the sacredness of the body at the Funeral Mass: sprinkling with holy water, the placing of the pall, and honoring it with incense. The Rite of Committal then takes place after cremation (see Appendix, nos. 418-421). Funeral homes offer several options in this case. One is the use of “cremation caskets,” which is essentially a rental casket with a cardboard liner that is cremated with the body. Another is a complete casket that is cremated (this casket contains minimal amounts of non-combustible material such as metal handles or latches).

When cremation takes place before the Funeral Mass, and the diocesan bishop permits the presence of cremated remains at the Funeral Mass, the Appendix provides adapted texts for the Sprinkling with Holy Water, the Dismissal for use at the Funeral Mass (or the Funeral Liturgy outside Mass), and the Committal of Cremated Remains. The introduction provides further specific details about how the funeral rites are adapted. In all, the rite notes:

The cremated remains of a body should be treated with the same respect given to the human body from which they come. This includes the use of a worthy vessel to contain the ashes, the manner in which they are carried, and the care and attention to appropriate placement and transport, and the final disposition. The cremated remains should be buried in a grave or entombed in a mausoleum or columbarium. The practice of scattering cremated remains on the sea, from the air, or on the ground, or keeping cremated remains on the home of a relative or friend of the deceased are not the reverent disposition that the Church requires. (no. 417)

For some families, the choice of cremation is based on financial hardship, so this choice often means also that there is no plan for committal or burial of the cremated remains. As a means of providing pastoral support and an acceptable respectful solution to the problem of uninterred cremated remains, one diocese offered on All Souls’ Day in 2011 an opportunity for any family who desired it the interment of cremated remains. The diocese offered a Mass and committal service at one of its Catholic cemeteries and provided, free of charge, a common vault in a mausoleum for the interment of the cremated remains. The names of the deceased interred there were kept on file, though in this case they were not individually inscribed on the vault. Link here: https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacramentals/bereavement-and-funerals/cremation-and-funerals

Do you notice anything?

The first difference is the baptized. In the new rite, unbaptized children are now permitted to receive Christian burial whereas before that wasn't permitted. There was a reason and it is because unbaptized children do not enter into heaven nor could they desire it like catechumens (adults) and therefore went to limbo. The Roman Catechism says: "The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Next, is the new belief that baptized persons enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial communities can receive Christian burial, unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister (YES A NON-CATHOLIC MINISTER) is not available. Yet a little further down its says those who are notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics are not to be given Christian burial. Are non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities not heretical or schismatic churches? I guess that applies to one who espouses Sedevacantism, since that is the only people they cannot tolerate.

The reason for the change is because it's in accordance with the Vatican II teaching from Lumen Gentium para. #15, which states, "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power."

To the Contrary...

Pope St. Pius X Catechism

Preliminary Lesson

On Christian Doctrine and its Principal Parts

1 Q. Are you a Christian?

A. Yes, I am a Christian, by the grace of God.

2 Q. Why do you say: By the grace of God?

A. I say: By the grace of God, because to be a Christian is a perfectly gratuitous gift of God, which we ourselves could not have merited.

3 Q. Who is a true Christian?

A. A true Christian is he who is baptized, who believes and professes the Christian Doctrine, and obeys the lawful pastors of the Church.

4 Q. What is Christian Doctrine?

A. Christian doctrine is the doctrine which Jesus Christ our Lord taught us to show us the way of salvation.

5 Q. Is it necessary to learn the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ?

A. It certainly is necessary to learn the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ, and those who fail to do so are guilty of a grave breach of duty.

6 Q. Are parents and guardians bound to send their children and those dependent on them to catechism?

A. Parents and guardians are bound to see that their children And dependents learn Christian Doctrine, and they are guilty before God if they neglect this duty.

7 Q. From whom are we to receive and learn Christian Doctrine?

A. We are to receive and learn Christian Doctrine from the Holy Catholic Church.

8 Q. How are we certain that the Christian Doctrine which we receive from the Holy Catholic Church is really true?

A. We are certain that the doctrine which we receive from the Holy Catholic Church is true, because Jesus Christ, the divine Author of this doctrine, committed it through His Apostles to the Church, which He founded and made the infallible teacher of all men, promising her His divine assistance until the end of time.

9 Q. Are there other proofs of the truth of Christian Doctrine?

A. The truth of Christian Doctrine is also shown by the eminent sanctity of numbers who have professed it and who still profess it, by the heroic fortitude of the martyrs, by its marvellous and rapid propagation in the world, and by its perfect preservation throughout so many centuries of ceaseless and varied struggles.

10 Q. What and how many are the principal and most necessary parts of Christian Doctrine?

A. The principal and most necessary parts of Christian Doctrine are four The Creed, The Our Father, The Commandments, and The Sacraments.

Getting back to the new rite of Christian burial, it also omits refusing Christian burial to those who belong to Masonic sects or those of a similar kind whereas the old did not. Who knows, maybe by 1983 those in charge of the Vatican II church were Masons and didn't want to be refused Christian burial so they just got rid of it. It also omits refusing Christian burial to the excommunicated, those who commit suicide and those who get in a duel. Why? It's only anybody's guess.

Lastly, the new rite of Christian burial loosened restrictions and now allows cremation since 1963. The old rules from the Roman Ritual strictly forbade it because of the Catholic belief in the Resurrection of the Body and the fact that the body is a temple of the Holy Ghost which should be buried because it will rise again on the last day. Also, on December 8 1869, the international Congress of Freemasons, imposed it as a duty on all its members to do everything possible to wipe out Catholics from the face of the earth by promoting cremation. This was done so as to undermine the Catholic faith in the resurrection of the body and everlasting life as we profess in the Apostles Creed. While the 1917 Code did permit cremation under the strictest of circumstances such as mass death/disease, it is now looked at the same way as annulments are given out. It's cheap, convenient, and less meaningful, which results in forgetting the faithful departed altogether.

Conclusion

The best answer to this life is what St. Thomas Aquinas desired. A good death. We must never forget to pray for the dead, but to prepare for it and to make sure it is all done within the Catholic Church and it's true clergy. Not the hirelings of the Vatican II sect.   

Just as Satan fell like lightning from heaven, so too has the Vatican II sect fallen like lightning away from Catholicism. It simply cannot get anything right because it is a new, false religion imposed upon the world. Many of the so called "priests" and even those who are still validly ordained, take off on Mondays presumably because they feel they work so hard on Sunday. "Masses" on Saturday now fulfill the Sunday obligation and Holy Days of Obligation are moved to be celebrated on Sundays. It's the so-called "spring time Church" where death is the last thing on peoples mind. "The People of God" just have to be "good" and live their life to the fullest. It's no wonder Bergoglio says to not sweat the Last Judgement. A totally sick joke.