Monday, June 27, 2022

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. 

91 comments:

  1. "Catholic Eclipsed" says that for the prophesied cessation of the Sacrifice of the Mass to be possible, "it makes more sense to think that Holy Orders itself will be taken out of the way, so that there wouldn't be any priests left to offer the mass."

    However, according to the Catechism of St. Pius X:
    "8 Q. Will the Catholic Priesthood therefore never cease on this earth?
    "A. In spite of the war that hell wages against it, the Catholic Priesthood will last until the end of time, because Jesus Christ has promised that the powers of hell shall never prevail against His Church."

    Also, Introibo, I remember this reply which you made last year:
    "4. One theory advanced by theologians (such as the aforementioned Huchede, is that the Antichrist--aided by Satan--will be able to successfully hunt down and kill all (or almost all) priests and bishops, and the few remaining alive will be carefully monitored in prison and therefore, unable to offer Mass."
    (http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-church-can-supply-jurisdiction-but.html?showComment=1600641860741#c5482005384556567890)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you agree that there is a distinction between "priesthood" and "priest"? This is a distinction that I have made elsewhere: it is between essence and existence, between definition and instantiation. The priesthood still exists. I have never doubted that. I only doubt that there are any lawful--and so Catholic--priests to administer the Sacraments. (Robert Robbins)

      Delete
    2. @anon12:48
      You are correct theologian Huchede advanced the idea that most bishops and priests will be killed off with the rest imprisoned and unable to offer Mass. The possibility is also that there may be a few priests in hiding--the Church has never decided the issue.

      Mr. Robbins,
      From the theologians I've read, I believe the priesthood must remain instantiated in at least some priests--whether of not able to say Mass due to imprisonment or the like. It is not like the papacy which will always remain even without a live pope to fill the seat, as taught by theologian Dorsch among others.

      God Bless you both,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Intro, Bishop Sanborn made a similar statement to yours at yesterday's ordination ceremony at MHTS. He was positive in his understanding of the absolute necessity of priests until the end. I trust his credentials as a well trained priest of almost 50 years, and teacher of seminarians.
      -Jannie

      Delete
    4. Jannie,
      Thank you for the information! I trust Bp. Sanborn as well.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. I trust Bp.Sanborn too but strongly disagree with his
      "Una Cum" nonsense.
      -Andrew

      Delete
  2. "The teaching of the One True Church has always been that homosexuality is an offense against God and nature."

    This is not quite correct. "The teaching of the Catholic Church is that sodomy is an offense against God and nature." Acts of sodomy don't even require a man's involvement and can be performed using inanimate objects, which is equally as sickening.

    Heterosexual is a term invented by a sodomitic activist in the 19th century along with homosexual to try and lay a scientific foundation from which they could promote their way of 'living.' Their behaviour doesn't have any fixed inheritable biological basis and is best explained through the lens of the Catholic faith i.e. a consequence of original sin which affects our nature and makes us prone to concupiscence. Catholics should reject such terms from our vocabulary. There are sinful acts and sinful behaviour only. We don't condemn the sinner, only the sin.

    Letting these behaviours be used as the foundation of a false identity is a diabolical trap. As soon as it is part of an identity the soul cannot separate themselves from the sin as it is part of who they are. If it is just a behaviour they can choose to stop it with the assistance of God's grace. Changing your identity is a much more challenging idea when you have accepted something as a core belief about something as important as who you are.

    These false identities also then place demands on society to treat them with greater dignity than their behaviour deserves because they're an out-group that is being discriminated against, rather than because they engage in behaviours that are physically and psychologically harmful. The damage that these behaviours causes gets put down to discrimination when it is simply an intrinsic consequence of engaging in these behaviours, which society can no longer condemn because psychologically it means condemning these people entirely, because these acts have become foundations of their identity.

    I choose not to recognise false identities in thought or word. They are not of God and are not the lens through which a Catholic should see the world. God desires that sinners might be saved whomever they are. Only procreative sexual acts between a husband and wife who have received the sacrament of marriage to eachother are permitted. Everything else is unlawful and requires that sinners pray for the grace to repent and co-operate with this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:10
      Thank you for an intelligent and thought provoking comment! I always learn from my readers.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. No wonder you got censored by Twitter. Social media and fake news media work for Satan and the Antichrist. They want to establish a totalitarian rule where those who uphold traditional morality are persecuted. Ever since Roe vs. Wade was overthrowned, the media presents more the hysterical reactions of "pro-choice" rather than the opinions of those who defend the fundamental right to life. Their message is: if you are pro-life or defend marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of any other form of union, shut up because you will be the target of so-called tolerant and open-minded people who will overwhelm you with insults. But thank God for that ! And keep telling the truth, we need people like you in this dark time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      Thank you for your kind words, my friend! I shall continue, with God's grace, to publish the truth.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Why do you think we are not in the reign of the Antichrist? Why do you think the Antipopes of the past sixty years are not the Antichrist. This is my opinion. (Emphasis on opinion!) You seem to assert with confidence that it is not the case that we are in the reign of the Antichrist. I am just wondering why. (Robert Robbins)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert,

      How do you know with absolute certainty that we are living in the reign of Anti-Christ? You can have a strong opinion thinking we are living it but what if it isn't and that it comes at a later time.

      What is Anti-Christ? Is it one man or is it man (a combination of men) as St. Pius X implies in E Supremi Paragraph #5?

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Introibo published a post about it:

      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-man-of-sin.html

      Delete
    3. Because the antichrist is one person. Not 6.

      Delete
    4. Simon,

      Thanks for posting that article. It's a classic and very interesting.

      SMocko,

      Who says the Anti-Christ is 6 person's? Not me. I just ask the question.

      Pope St. Pius X says this,

      "Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, MAN has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2).

      Now how is it one man if Pope St. Pius X clearly says it's MAN that is Anti-Christ?

      And EVERY SPIRIT that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this IS Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them” (I John 4:3-5).

      Cornelius À Lapide explains in his commentary: And now already he [Antichrist] is in the world, not in person, but in spirit; that is to say, in his forerunners. This is what Paul says, “The mystery of iniquity doth already work.” (2 Thess. ii. 7.)

      Lee

      Delete
    5. "How do you know with absolute certainty that we are living in the reign of Anti-Christ?" I don't, which is why I said it was an opinion. (Robert)

      Delete
    6. Robert,

      If you strongly believe the reign of Anti-Christ is in the world, then who is it?

      Lee

      Delete
    7. Mr. Robbins,
      As I wrote in a post, I am of the opinion that the Antichrist is a single individual:

      "The Antichrist will rule the earth for three and one-half years being worshiped as God and persecuting the few faithful Traditionalists left on the planet. Everyone must accept the "mark of the beast" or be slain. God will provide for His True Church by preparing a safe haven in the desert and not allowing the Antichrist, Satan, or the false prophet to discern their whereabouts." (From my post Simon cited above).

      Obviously, this hasn't happened. The Antichrist's persecution will be so fierce, we will know when it's here. That is one thing upon which all theologians I've read seem to agree.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Why do you say, "the Antichrist's persecution will be so fierce, we will know when it's here," when Christ Himself said that the Antichrist would deceive even the elect if that were possible? The chief mark of the Antichrist, as with the Devil, is pride and deception. He will deceive but openly, as it were, because he is so haughty. This is what we see with the persecution of the Church by the Antipopes (sorry, I mean, False-Popes--I know you are a stickler for precise definitions). As to whether Antichrist is one man or a system, the unanimous opinion of the Fathers is that he is a man, not a system. I do not see a contradicting in say that the man the Antichrist is the False Pope and his successors in the false church. This is so fitting it is frightening. Thankfully, Cardinal Manning believes the same. If you don't believe the antichrist will have successors as such, then it could be argued that Paul VI was the Antichrist, but I think the antichrist is to be looked for in the unprecedented situation we are living through, with the extended interregnum and false pope after false pope persecuting the Church. (Robert)

      Delete
    9. Maybe He was thinking "a persecution so fierce that it will be nearly impossible to resist deception"?

      Just a thought

      Delete
  5. The strongest argument, nevertheless, that the Home Aloners have is that the lack of papal mandate means lack of apostolicity or is an act of schism. So the question to answer is whether the church would supply jurisdiction in this situation or not. I believe that in order to see the truth about this positions, it may be more important to talk about ecclesiology than about canon law.

    Another one would be the argument using Ad Apostolorum.

    Benns seems to believe there is no such thing as a Catholic Bishop today. She seems to deny, at least implicitly, we will never be able to have a Pope again, which is heresy for Vatican I thought the Papacy will last forever.

    Other home aloners are more reasonable than her, and while believing the trad bishops are illegitimate, they don't deny there are ordinary bishops somewhere, perhaps capable of electing a Pope.

    I am willing to listen to both positions + learn more about the topic, but there is no reason to trust a blogger if they would hold such ludicrous beliefs. The truth is that this is a much ignored topic and I would like more post about it coming soon!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:58
      The lack of a papal mandate in no way indicates schism. We have the historical example of St. Ansgar. St. Ansgar was appointed to the See of Hamburg in 831 by the emperor, before the pope knew about it. It was a new see which the emperor himself formed. After he created it, he appointed St. Ansgar to the position. The saint was then consecrated by bishops of the area. Pope Gregory IV DID NOT CONDEMN WHAT HAD HAPPENED BUT PRAISED WHAT HAPPENED. His Holiness subsequently confirmed the arrangement, but he did so after the fact. This is another example of how at various times in Church history bishops were sometimes consecrated and installed into even brand new sees without a papal mandate or without receiving papal approval. They were not considered schismatic. Since the very life of the Church depends on an Apostolic Succession epikeia applies and the mandate is not needed.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. But, Introibo, surely you would agree that canonical norms develop over time and that a precedent that is over a thousand years old is not quite useful as a precedent wouldn't you? I mean, would you be forgiven by the court if you cited a 200 year-old English common law from the antebellum period in America to prove a case on burglary, when statutory norms had been legislated in your jurisdiction just last week? The question is, what is the controlling law here. A law from 831 hardly counts as controlling. The most recent laws and decrees are controlling here because, unlike divine law, canon law may be developed and changed over time. You gotta stay current of the times in law, as you well know. It is not different for canon law. (Robert)

      Delete
    3. Robert,
      Oh, but it is different. The fact of St. Ansgar proves that a papal mandate is not required by Divine Law, only by ecclesiastical law, which can change. The salvation of souls is the supreme law. Any ecclesiastical law which impedes the Church's Divine Mission, ceases to bind. As theologians McHugh and Callan teach, “The greater obligation prevails, and the lesser obligation disappears.” (See "Moral Theology," [1929], 1:140-141).

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. How about Ad Apostolorum?

      Delete
    5. @anon2:17
      The key to understanding that encyclical of Pope Pius XII is to remember that it was addressed to the Church under Communist rule in Red China. Paragraphs #49 and 50 make clear the teaching imparted:

      49. What then is to be the opinion concerning the excuse added by members of the association promoting false patriotism, that they had to act as they alleged because of the need to tend to the souls in those dioceses which were then without a bishop?

      50. It is obvious that no thought is being taken of the spiritual good of the faithful if the Church's laws are being violated, and further, there is no question of vacant sees, as they wish to argue in defense, but of episcopal sees WHOSE LEGITIMATE RULERS HAVE BEEN DRIVEN OUT or now languish in prison or are being obstructed in various ways from the free exercise of their power of jurisdiction. It must likewise be added that those clerics have been cast into prison, exiled, or removed by other means, whom the lawful ecclesiastical superiors had designated in accordance with canon law and the special powers received from the Apostolic See to act in their place in the government of the dioceses.
      (Emphasis mine).

      I said elsewhere that papal appointments and mandates are not of Divine Law but ecclesiastical precept. Pope Pius XII distinguished between those who have no bishop as in the case of St. Ansgar, and those who drive out (or kill, imprison, etc.) legitimately appointed bishops to be replaced by ones of their own choosing.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. What is the source of your information about St. Ansgar? The Catholic Encyclopedia says this: "By permission of [Pope] Gregory IV, Louis the Pious established there an archiepiscopal see, in 831, with jurisdiction over all missions in Scandinavia, Northern Russia, Iceland, and Greenland. The see was given to St. Ansgar, the Apostle of the North, but the piratical raids of the Northmen and the Obotrites compelled him to remove to Bremen." (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07121b.htm)

      Delete
    7. @anon7:22
      "The American Catholic Quarterly Review" Volume XIV, [1889], pg. 498:

      "He selected as missionary bishop of the northern countries St. Ansgar, and in 831 sent him to be consecrated as Archbishop of Hamberg by Drogan, Bishop of Metz, who was brother of the Emperor Louis and son of Charlemagne, in the presence of three archbishops, Ebbon of Rheims, Hetti of Treves, and Olgar of Mentz, and several bishops , including the bishops of Bremen and Werden; all of whom took part in the consecration of St. Ansgar, in token of their sanction. THE EMPEROR LOUIS THEN SENT ST. ANSGAR TO ROME WITH LETTERS TO POPE GREGORY IV, ASKING HIS FORMAL APPROVAL. THE POPE TESTIFIED HIS APPROVAL BY A DECREE..." (Emphasis mine). The approval came AFTER the fact of the consecration.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Thank you for the quotation. I found it here: https://books.google.com/books?id=spHNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA498

      The paragraph containing your quote begins thus: "The Christian kings and emperors of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, with the consent of, or by some privilege sanctioned by, the Holy See, took an active part in the historic progress of the Church. Not only did they sit or be represented in the general councils of the Church, a right which seems to have ceased only with the Council of the Vatican, but they founded sees and dioceses within their dominions, and sent their nominees for the episcopacy either to Rome or to some neighboring archbishop or bishop for consecration. Such was the accord between the Church and the Christian state."

      So it appears that the Holy See had already approved the process by which St. Ansgar was appointed to an episcopal See, and thus the principle holds true that "it was only by the consent, express or tacit, of the Popes that others ever did or could validly elect bishops." ( Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, n. 344, p. 151, https://archive.org/details/elementsofeccles01smituoft/page/150/mode/2up )

      Delete
    9. @anon2:10
      Yes. It proves that having prior papal approval is not necessary. It is purely ecclesiastical. One of the elements of Ecclesiastical law is internal cessation. Canonists Abbo and Hannon explain commenting on Canon 21:
      "A law ceases to exist when it ceases to be reasonable; for then its whole purpose of promoting the welfare of the community is defeated. This occurs in two ways: when the law becomes useless (negatively) and when the law becomes harmful (positively). In both ways, law ceases intrinsically." (See "The Sacred Canons," [1952], 1:44).

      Since the salvation of souls is the supreme law, and the Mass and the sacraments give the greatest graces to achieve this goal, the need for a papal mandate prior to consecrating a bishop ceases to bind as it would harm the Church by causing the hierarchy to cease, and with them the Mass and five of the seven sacraments.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. I see it the opposite way, that St. Ansgar's appointment was done according to a custom approved by the Holy See, but without explicit prior approval from the pope. Such cases are very numerous in Church history and are very different from today's traditionalist bishops who (1) don't come by way of a custom approved by the Holy See, (2) don't claim the right to govern any territory.

      Delete
    11. @anon8:39
      Stay tuned and I'll demonstrate why the meaning passed on by me is that of the Church.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. The Home Alone stance is even more incomprehensible and ludicrous to those of us who have no access to the Mass and the Sacraments because the priest couldn't care less about anyone he's not familiar enough with (and even if you email him in the most polite manner, giving your full name and your place of residence, asking in all sincerity if one of the chapels he offers Mass in is available to the public, all he has to say is, I quote:
    "Generally, there's little space in there but if the host knows that someone has already got into contact with me, things will be easier".
    And that's it for the email conversation with the priest.
    However, about 6 months later I found out by sheer accident that there's a new, bigger chapel in the same location I'd been trying to reach. You'd think the priest emailed me to pass on the happy news? Not at all. He mentioned it quite casually in one of his rare priestly notices on his website that they had been able to worthily ask the Divine Providence for the protection against external and internal (!) enemies since there's this new and more stately chapel.
    Too bad no one (except the chosen ones) knows the whereabouts of this oh-so stately chapel as the priest gave no address...
    I swallowed my pride, though, and contacted once more the very same people who'd refused to answer a basic and polite question of mine (that was before I'd emailed the priest) as they were actually in charge of the previous tiny chapel (a private apartment, actually). They forwarded my message to yet different people who turned out to be the new chapel managers and everything seemed to be coming up roses at last. I couldn't be more wrong than that...
    The lady assured me that the new website for the chapel should be ready soon, and there I'd find all of the addresses (sic) and that I'm welcome in there (funny thing to say when you're actually not giving the address). Anyway, four months passed and I finally got the link to the chapel website (and some warm greetings too) - boy, was I surprised to find out there's no address given on that website either! I was "privileged" enough to be sent the address privately via email now.
    When I finally arrived there to hear my very first Mass in person (after a year and a half of practically begging to be deemed "worthy" plus three months of delay on my part) it turned out I was as "welcome" there as you would treat a hobo wandering into your wedding party and tolerate the guy as long as he behaves himself. The priest couldn't have missed my face as I was sitting right in the front (there were a dozen or so people in that pokey room of a chapel) and must have been the only stranger there, and yet he didn't feel the need to talk to me. I spent some ten, maybe fifteen minutes in the narrow hallway being absolutely disregarded by the congregation, waiting for the priest to be finally left alone (you know, everyone has to say "bye" to the priest!) so I could talk to him in private but couldn't take it any longer and left, being no longer able to hold back the tears.
    My point is, if you have a normal, publicly known Catholic sede chapel and not a bunch of cronies in a reasonable distance, do not deprive yourself of the treasures of the Mass and the Sacraments.
    People like myself are dying to have a healthy Catholic apostolate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:09
      What an incredibly sad story, and what a miscreant for a priest. A priest is to save souls not neglect them! If you let me know what state you're in, perhaps my readership or myself will know of a chapel or a priest that can come to you once a month in your area.

      May God give you strength,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Intro, I am so glad you chose this topic!
    For years I have enjoyed a blog, geared mostly to Catholic wives and mothers, written by a Sede Catholic woman. She posts worthwhile information, whimsical musings on life in the pre V2 days by talented guest writers, and some beautiful music and art videos, among other things.
    I still like it very much, although apparently she has come under the influence of BetrayedCatholics and posts links to Mrs. Benns' blog.
    I don't get the reasoning, but this lady used the DRB verse Lk.18:8 to make a case for HA.
    I half-seriously considered the merits of her views, especially since I had seen in other places that in this time of confusion, whether to attend Sede Mass or stay home is a matter of conscience, neither being a perfect solution to the problem.
    But I believe, at the end of the day, that Christ, as He promised, will not leave us orphans, and the indefectible Church will go on because He willed it to. I don't think conscience can allow one to reject those words of Our Lord.
    Again, thank you, Intro, for your thoroughly prepared and well stated position on HA.
    -Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      I agree with you that "Christ, as He promised, will not leave us orphans, and the indefectible Church will go on because He willed it to. I don't think conscience can allow one to reject those words of Our Lord." Well stated! I know these crazy times can tempt us to stay home, but we must stay strong for "...he that shall persevere to the end, shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13)

      Praying for you always Jannie!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. So, Introibo, are you saying that those who believe it is safer to remain at home instead of soliciting sacraments from possible schismatics or heretics are themselves not Catholic? Are you saying that, in order to be Catholic today, we must solicit sacraments from doubtful priests who are, by their own admission, not even "lawful pastors," because they have no canonical mission and do not rule in a jurisdictional territory like actual Catholic priests and bishops do? That is a massive claim, counselor. I would love to hear your evidence for it. (Robert Robbins)

      Delete
    3. Robert, you are on the right path sir. I know Benns and I think she is an intelligent passionate woman who has been in this fight most of her life. Did she make a mistake in trying to elect a pope? yeah but so what! it's not like she did any real harm. It's not like Bawden has a million disciples following him. That situation was never a threat. But it did illustrate the impossibility of restoring the Holy see which arguably has done far more good than people think. As far as mistakes go, I don't know a single trad who hasn't made them. Even DePauw (sp?). For example, he never publicly espoused the sedevacantist position. He hid it from the general public which is a pretty pathetic. Anyways, I like Benns and applaud her for her courage. She has understood for a very long time that it is ludicrous to think trads can make bishops and start churches.

      Delete
    4. She denies catholic bishops must exist now. She could say she just doesn't know where they are, but no, she has to deprive the church of

      1) Means of electing a pope

      2)Apostolic Bishops

      The church must always be able to elect a Pope, I believe.

      Delete
    5. Robert,
      The Antichrist will rise as primarily a political figure at first, led by the false prophet before he claims godhood. Theologian Ott tells us that during his persecution; according to theologian Ott, many Catholics will be put to death (See "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" [1955], pg. 487).

      I do not hold HAs to be heretical or schismatic for the position alone. However, claiming those of us who attend chapels to be heretical or schismatic is erroneous. Also, claiming to interpret canon law is, itself against canon law. So what does that make you? Benns now professes heresy regarding matrimony according to an HA commenter. We do not "solicit" sacraments, we get them dispensed from the clergy available to us. Fr DePauw, an approved canonist, was qualified to privately interpret the canons. He saw that canons that would cause the Church to end cease to bind, such as the need for a papal mandate. Ditto for theologian Bp. Carmona. We see St. Athanasius and St. Ansgar as historical examples.

      @anon1:33
      Yes! A woman holds a "conclave" near a Kansas pigsty to "elect a pope"! That's the epitome of intelligence and zeal. Satan is zealous too! So Bawden only has 30 to 100 followers on the road to perdition--no big deal, right?

      As I said NO ONE has made a mistake like electing a "pope" on a farm with six people. It's like the surgeon taking out a normal lung instead of the diseased lung. Would you let him operate on you over that "one little mistake"? ONLY one person died! No big deal!

      Fr. DePauw always acted with concern for his chapel members. He was afraid that if he was to go public, some would leave and go to Vatican II sect Latin "masses."

      What's really ludicrous is following an ultracrepidarian sciolist full of pride and self-importance, electing a false pope, and not even understanding who can interpret canon law. I see you as someone who comes out of the bathroom wiping his elbow with toilet paper.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. “We do not "solicit" sacraments, we get them dispensed from the clergy available to us.”

      Don’t be pedantic. I am pretty good with words to, and I know how to use them. Solicitation is the precise term to use. You solicit sacraments from Sede clergy, insofar as you seek out priests in your area and ask for sacraments from him. You are the active agent in the reception of the sacraments, because the priest wouldn’t dispense them without you asking for them. I know that moral mood of an argument can be changed by the voice used, and the agent either emphasized or suppressed. Don’t play word games with me, Introibo, you’ll lose. (Robert)

      Delete
    7. Robert,
      In that sense all Catholics "solicited" sacraments pre-Vatican II. I avoid the word, as someone else wrote, because of its connection to "solicitation in the confessional"
      Sounds sordid.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Well, I do not mean that you are sordid to solicit sacraments. I did, and I think it was the most holy thing I could do because I didn’t know better. I just felt like you were being pushy about my terms. (Funny how I used the wrong “to” when saying how great I am with words. Just the Lord humbling me! (Robert)

      Delete
    9. "solicitation in confession" is a crime when the priest asks the layperson to do disgusting stuff.

      Delete
    10. Can we stop this discussion? (the one about "solicite") It's stupid.

      Delete
    11. to anon 3:22, Benns isn't depriving the church of bishops or the means to elect a pope. What an ignorant statement. Sedevacantism understood properly deprives the church of both. Benns is just honest enough to say it. That's why you hate her.

      My reply to Introibo: I don’t know how many followers Bawden has but you seem to think Benns did great damage to the Catholic church and souls which is totally hilarious.

      No one has made a mistake like electing a pope? You did. Only you’re worse because you continue to hold your ridiculous errors for decades. At least Benns had the courage to retract her conclave error.

      Fr DePauw was a coward and you just admitted it. Good job.

      As I said to anon above, you trash Benns because she speaks some truths that expose you. You don’t want people reading her material so you viciously attack her person. she's obviously a big threat to you. Hopefully, some people who see your personal attack on Benns will now be curious enough to visit her website.

      Delete
    12. @anon10:14
      You write: What an ignorant statement. Sedevacantism understood properly deprives the church of both.

      Ans. You understand sedevacantism about as well as Benns understands how to elect a pope and who can interpret canon law.

      You write: I don’t know how many followers Bawden has but you seem to think Benns did great damage to the Catholic church and souls which is totally hilarious.

      Ans. He has 30-100 followers. How precious is even ONE soul to Christ? Ever hear about the Parable of the Lost Sheep? (St. Matthew 18:10-14). By doing what she did, I can't tell you how many people I've met (in person and vis these comments--published and unpublished at the request of the commenter--thinking sedevacantism is ridiculous and idiotic because it "leads to phony conclaves" like "Pope" Michael. The result? They remain in the Vatican II sect. That's great damage to the Church.
      I'm not surprised you find it "hilarious." After all, if ignorance is bliss, I can only imagine the joy given by complete vacuity.

      You write: No one has made a mistake like electing a pope? You did. Only you’re worse because you continue to hold your ridiculous errors for decades.

      Ans. Which "pope" did I elect? I live in NYC and there's not much farmland in Manhattan, so I couldn't hold a "conclave" next to the Sacred Chicken Coop like Benns did in Kansas.

      You write: Fr DePauw was a coward and you just admitted it. Good job.

      Ans. Fr. DePauw was one of the most brave priests ever. He came out against the Vatican II sect FIRST in 1964. Where was Benns in 1964? Not on TV, radio, and newspapers spreading the word while the Robber Council was still going on! He did what he needed to do because he wants to save souls, unlike Benns. He is also competent as an approved canonist to interpret canon law unlike Benns and you. That's what I proved. Needless to say you don't get it (surprise, surprise).

      You write: As I said to anon above, you trash Benns because she speaks some truths that expose you. You don’t want people reading her material so you viciously attack her person. she's obviously a big threat to you. Hopefully, some people who see your personal attack on Benns will now be curious enough to visit her website.

      Ans. Satan speaks some truths also to ensnare people in error. This blog is dedicated to exposing those who are in error like Bobby and Fred Dimond and Benns, to name but three. After reading this if people visit her website, go right ahead and see the purposeful deception for themselves. I'm confident the truth will prevail, and that certainly is not what an arrogant person claiming to be able to elect a pope and interpret canon law has on her side.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    13. To the anon 10:14

      Did it it occur to you that I could be a home aloner? Benns literally said there are no bishops anymore in the world. I believe ordinary bishops are some where in the world, just I don't know where. Maybe there is an exiled pope, just I don't know where.

      I saw Benns said in her blog bishops were extinct, unlike other HA like Patrick Henry.

      If she recanted that belief, then good, because her blubber just gives a bad name to catholicism. If she is "brave enough" to believe there are no bishops at all, maybe she will be brave enough to abandon catholicism, recklessly believing it is a false religion. I, and decent HA will not deny dogma because we want to show ourselves as theologians.

      Your lack of charity is scandalous and you are sending souls to hell. St. Francis de Sales converted hugenots with charity, not by accusing the calvinists of the mortal sin of hatred towards him. Did it occur to you that it was a rash assumption to say I hate her? I don't hate Bergoglio, neither do I hate Benns either.

      Delete
  8. Another problem with Mrs. Benns (and there are many!) is that she doesn't believe in the indissolubility of marriage, or at least, she seems to question it.

    Let me rephrase that: She seems to question the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Matrimony in this day and age.

    Mr. Robbins interviewed her (on Youtube, it's really rather dry and boring--- sorry Mr. Robbins, she's a boring guest) and she spoke of this very thing: Stating that she thought that in this day and age, people don't contract marriage validly.

    Again, opining on something, such that if she is wrong, souls could be lost to eternal damnation. Think about that for a moment. Let it sink in. Hellfire and damnation are for as long as God will be God. It takes only ONE mortal sin to end up there.

    Mr. Robbins failed to challenge her on this and has failed to address this matter. He seems to follow her blindly. This is dangerous and I pray to God that he'll come to his senses. He seems like he's an alright man.

    Unless there is clear evidence otherwise, the Sacrament of Matrimony is always ****presumed**** to be valid, Popess Benns' "opinion" notwithstanding. Introibo, I know we don't agree on the licitness of traditionalist operations, but correct me if I'm wrong here.

    For the record, I am a so-called Home Aloner. Mrs. Benns is no more representative of HAs than any traditionalist priest who goes off the deep-end is representative of traditionalists (i.e priests who follow the errors of Fr. Feeney).

    The main problem with Teresa Benns as I see it: Pride. A LOT of it. It was pride that made her assume (by the way, remember back when people used to break the word "assume" into three words---which I won't repeat here?) with no justification WHATSOEVER, that she could elect a pope.

    I mean, talk about audaciousness!

    The fact that she thought for a very long time that she (and I'm prescinding from the fact that she is a woman; that's not that point here) thought that she was vested with the AUTHORITY of Christ's Holy Church to elect a Pope tells you all that you need to know about her.

    You don't need to know anything else.

    Folks, coming from a HA (a view that I know is not thought of highly---and, frankly, I get that) if attempting to elect a Pope (when you clearly don't have any claim WHATSOEVER---Kansas!!!) is not PRIDE, I frankly don't what is!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Mr. Robbins failed to challenge her on this and has failed to address this matter. He seems to follow her blindly. This is dangerous and I pray to God that he'll come to his senses. He seems like he's an alright man."

      I would have challenged Benns on her claim that people do not contract marriage validly if I knew that is what she claimed. Honestly, perhaps I drifted off during the interview, if that is when she said it. I emphatically believe matrimony is valid today, and may be contracted licitly and validly without a priest, because that is what the canon law says. I myself have been happily and validly married for thirteen years.

      As for following Benns "blindly," that is simply untrue. In fact, I am currently in an email exchange with her in which I disagree with her on a point. True, I do not wish to disagree publicly with those who I would call my fellow Catholics in matters that are not in themselves de fide, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't do so if one held to an erroneous opinion that was dangerous, or published heretical opinions.(Robert Robbins)

      Delete
    2. Robert,
      I agree with anon@10:12. You have a moral obligation to see what she said during your interview. If she claimed marriage is not valid in these times, you should publicly denounce her heretical view.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. I am looking into it now. Honestly, it slipped right past me. I know I am responsible for anything that may be wrong or heretical on my website. It is not because I believe matrimony is invalidly celebrated by most today. Like I said, I must have drifted off during that part of the interview and I do not rewatch it when editing, I am asking Benns about it now to clear things up. (Robert)

      Delete
  9. A priest once defined Pride to me as the following: "Pride is the inordinate estimation of one's own excellence."
    That's Benns to a tee.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If I had to pick between David Bawden or Blasphemer Bergoglio for Pope, at least Bawden professes the Catholic Faith. For the Home Aloners, my advise is to reflect on the Supreme Law of the Church, the salvation of souls. Canon Law cannot be used against to cause harm to the faithful. There are valid Sacraments out there. Go to them while they are still easily attained. The days are coming when even those may be take away from us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:03
      I'd like to repeat those wise words: " For the Home Aloners, my advise is to reflect on the Supreme Law of the Church, the salvation of souls. Canon Law cannot be used against to cause harm to the faithful. There are valid Sacraments out there. Go to them while they are still easily attained. The days are coming when even those may be take away from us."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. For the record, I'm the commenter at 10:17 p.m. and 10:12 p.m.; I am NOT the commenter at 7:03 a.m. Me personally: I wouldn't choose either between Bergoglio and Bawden, even if Bergoglio, at least, has or seems to have, a colored title, which I still don't think he does at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:09
      I agree that you either wind up with the supremely wicked (Bergoglio) or the supremely delusional.(Bawden).

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. I give every Catholic in these days of difficulty the benefit of the doubt regarding their handling of Mass attendance and reception of the Sacraments as long as they stay away from the NO. Even then, only the most invincible ignorance or mental handicap excuses them, IMO.
    The phrase "Soliciting Sacraments" has a tawdry sound to it. (There used to be statutes against a certain type of "solicitation" so I will say no more.) It gives Catholics who attend Sede chapels and Mass centers a taint of desperation rather than presuming that they probably have, in good faith, done their homework and spent many hours or longer, researching the facts before stepping into a Sede Mass center. I know our household has, and so have many, many others we know. Granted, some may not have done due diligence, but that is on the individual!
    As far as "lawful" pastors, I honestly ask: what does that mean? The Sede clergy do not claim to have any other jurisdiction than that of providing the basic needs of the faithful. The bishops do not pretend to exert any authority beyond what the principle of Epikeia allows.
    The "golden rule" in times of prolonged vacancy of the Papal chair is that Divine Law does not serve the Church, but the Church serves Divine Law which is above everything. And Charity is all. In His Most Sacred Charitable Heart, Our Lord still gives us His Body and Blood, and Matrimony, and Baptism and Confirmation and Holy Orders, etc. Why would He not?
    In Christ's Love,
    Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,

      Great comment.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Jannie,
      I agree with Lee! No one could have said it better!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. “A. By "lawful pastors" we mean those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority and who have, therefore, a right to rule us. The lawful pastors in the Church are: Every priest in his own parish; every bishop in his own diocese, and the Pope in the whole Church.”

      Sedes aren’t lawful pastors. Period. And no magic word like epikeia can change that. (Robert Robbins).

      Delete
    4. epikeia is real, nevertheless

      Delete
    5. Robert,
      No "magic wand" necessary. What you cite refers to the Church during ordinary times, not extraordinary times such as these.

      @anon9:53
      You can be sure epikeia is real!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Robert, where is that quote from?

      Delete
    7. Robert,

      I've asked you before about Vatican I which says "that there shall be pastors in the Church until the end of time."

      Your answer was you don't know where they are at, but maintain that they are "somewhere." What good is the quote if you don't know where they are?

      Is not the Church visible? If the Sede clergy are not it, there is no Catholic Church. If there is no Catholic Church, the gates of Hell won and Christ would be wrong in His promise that it wouldn't prevail.

      The very fact that you cannot and will never be able to point to one bishop left in the Church means you by default are denying Vatican I. It is as good to you as flat salt that as Christ would say should be thrown out and trampled under by men.

      Lee

      Delete
    8. Then the burden of proof falls on you, Introibo, to demonstrate how the ecclesiastical structure of the Church somehow changes and that the Catechism's definition of lawful pastors is changed somehow, and by what authority does this change (in the very essence of the Church!) take place. Sede clergy are not lawful pastors in any sense of the term, because they do not rule (as they admit) in any parish or diocese, and neither were they appointed by any superior. They appointed themselves! (Robert)

      Delete
    9. Robert,

      Nothing changes. You simply believe that when there is no pope to grant appointments that nothing is lawful no matter what, which would mean the Church is finished and it's Game Over.

      Why do you baptize your family members if the Church specifically says that Baptism can only be administered by a lay person if it is in danger of death? You can't just baptize your family outside of danger of death because you would you are appointing yourself as the proper minister to do it.

      I hate to say it, but you argue like a Feeneyite. Unless your born again with Water and the Holy Spirit you cannot get into heaven. You see they say a person must have water no matter what under all circumstances and if you say desire or blood that is going against Our Lord's words.

      Lee

      Delete
  13. Introibo,

    Thank you for the post. I had not heard of Ms. Benns. This reminds me of the extreme position of those in the N.O. who feel that nothing can be questioned nor judged, and thus when Vatican II preaches false ecumenism, they are not "allowed" to interpret this as incorrect, since they are not theologians or scholars, and they simply must not understand.

    Unless I am mistaken, it is very Catholic to know at least the basics of the faith, which I believe is accomplished through studying the catechism. That said, I understand that I have limitations and should stick to what I perceive to be "basic" Catholic truths when making judgments, and that at some point I will surely wander into "foreign lands", as in, advanced theological topics or concerns. I like to think that if I have at least one (although preferably a few) solid reason(s) for my Catholic position, a reason that another may not argue successfully against, then that is a good start. God bless.

    -S.T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. S.T.,
      You sound like a wise man! May you continue to grow in knowledge of the Faith and in God's grace.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. There is the perception, largely due to the voluminous, longwinded, and prolix writings of Benns, that she somehow "represents" HA'ers. Not so. From what I gather, most of us avoid her.

    Implying that she is somehow a "leader" of HA'ers (although due to her proud nature, I'm sure she thinks she is) would be just as false as me stating that Bishop Fellay represents all of your views and he "speaks" for you since he offers masses and some of you, no doubt, have at least once attended the mass of a priest he ordained.

    Both sides would be unjust arguing that against the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:39
      Your point is well taken. Benns is arguably the most well-known HA, but she certainly is not some ersatz "leader." I don't think I would be off the mark to say she has heavily influenced MANY HAs, but not all--like yourself. Your analogy is on point; Benns is no more the leader of all HAs than Bp. Fellay or Bishop Pivarunas is leader of all Traditionalists.

      Let me set the record straight here, that Teresa Benns is not a "leader" or "representative" of all HAs. Thank you for your correction.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. And by the way, I disagree with Traditionalists, I do not regard them or you as "heretical". I think of heresy as as someone who couldn't care less what the Catholic Church teaches on a topic (i.e. the Assumption). They refuse to believe. They know it, and they think the Catholic Church is wrong on at least one point.

      Both HAer's and Traditionalists look to THE CHURCH for justification for what they do. They both quote THE CHURCH to explain their reasoning. They both wish to be faithful to: THE CHURCH. They are both intense and difficult to deal with because they see the NOVUS Ordo masquerading as the Catholic Church, and they both realize that it isn't the Church.

      But without a true Pope there are going to be difference since only a true Pope is the principle of unity. If he weren't the principle of unity, we wouldn't need a pope.

      So while we do disagree, and I'm not minimizing those differences, we should not make things out to be beyond what they are. What I mean here is, I don't think we can "write" each other out of the Church. I just don't.

      Popess Benns in the HA's might and some traditionalist priest might against us HAer's; both would be wrong.

      God bless you, Introibo.

      Delete
  15. Introibo, on another matter, how's your friend doing--- the former police officer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:08
      Peter (not his real name) is still living a relatively reclusive life and doing Bible study/praying at home. He actually contacted me last month to inform me he feels called to help various charitable causes. He was raising funds for a family whose 17 year old child was tragically killed in a car crash. The parents are not coping well and he wants to give them some money so the father can take a temporary leave of absence from work to pull himself together. Peter will personally deliver the money. I wished him well in his endeavor and sent him a generous check. We will be talking again soon!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. I have a question for you introibo on another topic

    *Have you published anything on the subject of spiritualism?My wife and I know somone whom we have ended friendship with because of their strange ideas who believes in this.

    God bless



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon11:45
      Could you please define what you mean by "spiritualism"? Do you mean calling upon the spirits of the dead, or people who consider themselves "spiritual but not religious," or something else?

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Calling upon the spirits of the dead and using spirit guides from years ago

      Delete
    3. @anon8:25
      Please see my post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/10/dead-men-tell-no-tales.html

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. See also:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/06/imaginary-friends.html

      Delete
  17. Pope Leo XIII declared,

    For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ – “Now you are the body of Christ” (I Cor. xii., 27) – and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible: and because it is the body of Christ is it living and energizing, because by the infusion of His power Christ guards and sustains it, just as the vine gives nourishment and renders fruitful the branches united to it. And as in animals the vital principle is unseen and invisible, and is evidenced and manifested by the movements and action of the members, so the principle of supernatural life in the Church is clearly shown in that which is done by it.

    From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a HIDDEN and INVISIBLE Church are in grievous and pernicious error. Satis Cognitum #3

    The Home Alone position succumbs to a hidden and invisible Church. If it wasn't hidden or invisible they would be able to point to at least one or two bishops in the world who profess the Catholic Faith even if there is not pope in office.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee that is another great refutation of HA! I had forgotten many of the details of SC, by the Pope who was no less than a Seer.
      IMO, Pope Leo's quote here sends it out of the ballpark for the "walk-off".
      :)
      Thanks for your comment.
      -Jannie

      Delete
    2. I believe he was referring to the protestant belief that membership in the church is impossible to determine, being purely a spiritual, internal, and individual matter. Calvin believed it was only for the predestined to be members if the church.

      Some HA believe that the only thing invisible is the hierarchy (eg; ordinary bishops). With "invisible" i don't mean they can't be seen, only that they don't know were they are.

      Benns is a prideful smug wannabe theologian. She believes the church is dead. But she doesn't imagine, to my knowledge, an invisible church like the protestants.

      Delete
    3. Anon, 12:08

      The point of the quote also applies to HA because as Vatican I declared there must be pastors in the Church until the end of time. To say "we don't know where they are" is an implication that it is invisible or hidden Church which is impossible and heretical.

      Lee

      Delete
    4. I disagree. They believe Is like we lived in a pagan country and don't know were is the pope, but believe with certainty he exists. The HA church is not invisble because you can contact the believers, who can be distinguished by outsiders.

      Delete
    5. Anon 9:55

      How can a HA believe that bishops exist when they don't recognize the New Church and traditional bishops as Catholic or lawfully appointed? What else is left?

      The HA position check mates itself into not only not knowing where bishops exists but the impossibility for them to exist considering the circumstances. Apostolicity is over with. The HA's are visible among themselves but the hierarchy is invisible which makes the Church GONE forever. You cannot baptize unless its in danger of death. You cannot lawfully marry people any more than the justice of the peace. You have no other sacraments. You have to have a hierarchy PERIOD and it MUST be visible (as in seen by the faithful) otherwise it's practically good for nothing.

      Lee

      Delete
  18. Fr.DePauw was not required to publicly profess the Sedevacantist opinion.
    It's a private opinion and he knew it was beyond his authority to publicly settle ecclesiastical disputes.
    He died in 06,it was a much different World back then.
    That Priest was the antithesis of a coward. He left his seminary post & comfortable lifestyle (he earned it not an insult) for the Holy Catholic Church.
    I didn't know him,this isn't personal.
    Fr.DePauw was traditional 8 yrs before Bp.Lefebvre became a public figure.
    To take the steps he did and never stray from his vocation is astounding and inspiring.
    We would be more than blessed to believe and live in total Faith to our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ and his Holy Catholic Church as did Fr.DePauw.
    Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Thank you for the kinds words about Fr. DePauw. Everything you stated was true. He was like a second father to me, and I would not be maintaining this blog today were it not for him and the formation in Faith he gave me. I wish you had known him, Andrew, and attended his Mass. You would have seen his courage and piety first hand!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I am very glad you "cut your teeth" so to speak, at the chapel there, Intro. I wish I had been to Fr DePauw's Masses or even heard of him all those years ago. I agree he was one of a very few originals who had the courage to go against Modernism after V2. I also agree he had a great deal to lose, in worldly terms, by taking the bold steps he took. I first saw him in a video shortly after we seriously began considering leaving the NO about 17 years ago. In the 11 minute video he spoke about the true Mass, and in his strong, accented voice said very gravely (pointing to the Missale Romanum): it is all in "de Boook!" which no one had the right to abrogate the way it had been. He spoke with uncompromising certainty, and listening to his faultless reasoning confirmed to us even more that our household was in the right place, the Traditional RCC.
      What a great priest!
      -Jannie

      Delete
    3. Jannie,
      I second that sentiment! I learned so much from him.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. You're welcome!
      Wish I could've met him,Fr.DePauw was one of a kind and inspiring.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete