Monday, July 4, 2022

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.

109 comments:

  1. Such a great point that I wanted to highlight a small section of it below...

    "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."

    Did people in those days stay at home? Did those people say to themselves "there are bishops out there, but we don't know where they are?" Did those people say the bishops appointed themselves and therefore refuse to submit to them? Nope, nope, and nope.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      We absolutely learn from the Great Western Schism that the people did not claim not to know where Bishops are, they did not claim the Bishops appointed themselves, and they did not refuse submission. The practice of the Church refutes the HA position.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. I think it is disingenuous to suggest that I, Robert Robbins, and my family were converted by Benns. The only thing that really moved our intellects toward the authentically Catholic position, in relation to Sedevacantist clergy, is a BetrayedCatholics article on epikeia (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/canon-law/the-origin-and-use-of-epikeia-links/).

    What I do say in my BIO on my website (CatholicEclipsed.com) is the following:

    "Gerry Matatics is another stay at home Catholic, or, as the late Fr. Cekada would say, Home Alone Catholic, who approaches the question by way of Divine Mission and jurisdiction. The sedevacantists priests and bishops operating today do not have an extraordinary mission by God, as evidenced by their lack of miracles, and do not have an ordinary mission by the Church, as evidenced by their lack of a papal mandate. Hence, without mission, there is no jurisdiction, and without jurisdiction, there is no right to dispense sacraments."

    I would really like to see Introibo argue with Gerry Matatics on the point of canonical mission. Anyway, my wife and I also listened to Gerry's audio recordings explaining the issues with Sedevacantists. That was very powerful stuff, too.

    The point I am wanting to make is that T.S. Benns did not convert my family, but she did help us with some difficulties in understanding the issues. We are all fallible, because we are all not the Roman Pontiff. Benns has been doing excellent research for the past several decades, which I think Introibo discredits without justification. True, she is capable of error, as we all are, and there are errors in what she says. But there is a lot of good, sound Catholic teaching that she re-presents on her website, which are valuable in understanding the crisis we are in, just as I am sure there are a lot of good things here on this website, notwithstanding its endorsement of Sedevacantist clergy. I hope people will find my own website encouraging and educational, but I know there are errors there, too. The issues we face today are too serious to just sit back quiet and not attempt an authentically Catholic response to them, even if that means we may err in doing so.

    As to the crux of the disagreement at present, the issue for me has always been the lawfulness of pastors, and the doubtfulness of sedevacantists lawfulness and, in a secondary way, the validity of their sacraments as a consequence of their doubtful lawfulness. I believe my position is logically demonstrable from Catholic teachings. I do not invoke canon law, because, as Introibo rightly points out, I am not a canonist and theologian. I invoke the Catechism, something I believe everyone should do, because if they did, they wouldn’t be going to a pastor who is not sent to him by the Church, but who comes in his own name. That is the point at issue: Sedevacantists come in their own name. They are not sent to us by the Church. Therefore, we should avoid them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Robbins,
      mixing truth and error is no virtue. Pope Leo XIII writes in Satis Cognitum (the Pontiff is quoting here an anonymous author writing against the Arians):

      "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition".

      We follow what is always safe to follow in these horrible times of universal apostasy: the infallible Magisterium of the Church plus approved theologians and canonists. Teresa Benns is none of these.

      Introibo has always made it very clear he's merely a layman and that his aim is to expound the teaching of the Church applied to the extraordinary circumstances of a decades-long interregnum. I've been reading and commenting on his blog for two and a half years now and can attest to that.

      Joanna S.

      Delete
    2. Robert you say,

      "The sedevacantists priests and bishops operating today do not have an extraordinary mission by God, as evidenced by their lack of miracles, and do not have an ordinary mission by the Church, as evidenced by their lack of a papal mandate."

      Not so fast. According to Bp. Pivarunas there is a miracle in connection with Bp. Carmona. His body is incorrupt per this article: https://www.cmri.org/adsum/adsum-2016-10.pdf
      Unless you can prove that Bp. Pivarunas is a liar, you cannot say that it isn't true.

      It also depends on what you mean by ordinary mission. The mission of the Church is to save souls. Introibo in the above article shows how they are justified in doing what they do.

      you write... "Benns has been doing excellent research for the past several decades, which I think Introibo discredits without justification. True, she is capable of error, as we all are, and there are errors in what she says. But there is a lot of good, sound Catholic teaching that she re-presents on her website."

      She is not only capable of error but in serious error and is a quack which has been demonstrated.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Mr. Robbins,
      It sounded as though your first encounter leading to the HA position came from Benns. On your website it says on BIO:
      "It was all unsettling, enough so that we were once again scratching out heads and wondering whether this was the Church. That’s when we 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. "

      However, if you say it was not her, I can't disagree as you know your motivations. I therefore retract my statement that you were converted by Benns with my apologies.

      Everything else I wrote stands, and I hope you will re-consider being HA. Take into consideration the remarks made by Joanna and Lee above.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. The power of orders is distinct from the power of jurisdiction. Thus, a validly-ordained bishop can lack jurisdiction. Am i right? Because it seems Mr. Robbins doesn't know this.

      Delete
    5. At the time of writing my BIO page, I didn’t know that. Since then, reading Aquinas, talking with Eric Hoyle and reading his studies, and even arguing the point with Benns herself, I am certain that the power of orders and jurisdiction are quite distinct. Thank you for bringing this error to my attention. I will have to make some edits. (Robert)

      Delete
    6. Robert,
      That orders and jurisdiction are distinct is basic theology that you can find in any Dogmatic Theology manual of an approved theologian pre-V2. Aquinas was great, but there was much orthodox deepening of understanding since then, that you should read from those in the 1920s-1950s.

      I also find it interesting that the well-known HAs were heretics. Matatics was a Feeneyite (and still might be, I'm not sure). For a while he was offering "courses" online re: virtually every possible subject (e.g., Dogmatic theology, Moral theology, Canon Law, Ecclesiastical History, astronomy, chess, etc.) and said if there's any course someone would like to take, just email him and he'll teach it. Talk about a high estimation of oneself!

      Hoyle was also a Feeneyite who handed over millions of dollars (literally) to the malevolent, misfit "monks" of NY, Fred and Bobby Dimond.

      As the expression goes, "Just sayin'"

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Gerry Matatics was on Jeopardy one time too, which was one of "Pope" Michael's favorite T.V shows.

      Lee

      Delete
    8. Hoyle and or Matatics would win a debate with you introibo. And I would add easily. Unfortunately, I don't think either of them would debate you. Both of them held your position and changed because it is so contradictory and absurd. I'm convinced that this is why you hate Benns so much and its why you keep going back to her bogus conclave, as though that gains anything for your position. The only thing you have is the more popular position, which gives you a false sense of superiority. It's more popular for the same reason that the SSPX is more popular than the sede sects and why the Novus Ordo is more popular than the trad sects- and each has to do with one choice being easier than the other. Do not ever forget that your sect is also responsible for numerous antipopes. People like Benns come from your position. All Conclavists were sedevacantists first and you can try to separate yourself from this but you really can't. Your present sect just hasn't gotten around to seriously addressing the pope issue yet but it's coming. Having learned from situations like Benns you're too afraid to expose yourselves as frauds too. You all are. Sooner or later you will have to face the pope situation and the results will be about as impressive as the Benns conclave.

      Delete
    9. Lots of menace & accusations of hate, 0 arguments.
      Translation: you are a shame for us home aloners.

      Delete
    10. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't understand how a Catholic adult doesn't yet know that the powers of order and jurisdiction are distinct. You don't need to learn that from Aquinas or a theology manual. That can be found in something as simple as Baltimore Catechism No. 3.

      Delete
    11. It's becoming quite clear that none of the Home Aloners in the comments read the article or if they did just turned a blind eye to it.

      To all of them I say, good luck trying to make that act of perfect contrition before death when you won't be ready. Good luck trying to answer for every mortal sin you've committed during your past life that wasn't absolved. Good luck trying to explain to Our Lord why you really didn't believe in Vatican I Session 4 #3 even though you claim to. Good luck trying to explain how you were smarter than approved theologians when the approved theologians don't agree with you. Good luck trying to continue figuring out how you are realistically going to save your soul when you have very little to no hope in your favor.

      Lee

      Delete
    12. reply to anon 10:23

      I am not an angel. I have to come by my knowledge through discursive intellection like the rest of us humans. I had not read the Baltimore Catechism at the time of the writing, nor am I sure which number you are referring to which makes a distinction between holy orders and jurisdiction. Perhaps you could let me know which. (Robert)

      Delete
    13. Introibo, Gerry Matatics may be a Feeneyite, I don't know. But there isn't any BOD=heresy in his tapes I benefited from. Hoyle was a member of a monastery which taught and promoted BOD=heresy, but he has since separated himself from that. You're "Just sayin" is mere argumentum ad hominem. I plan to put up on my DATABASE a scholarly article by Hoyle which wipes the sacristy floor with the late Cekeda's half-baked articles on jurisdiction. You should check it out. I should have it up by this afternoon.

      Delete
    14. Robert,
      I really wish some HA would get "ad hominem" correct. I did not state that Matatics or Hoyle were wrong or evil because of having been Feeneyites, hence no ad hominem. "Bp." Joe committed that fallacy when he equated my anonymity with being in the company of "the devil," rapists, and murderers (literally). THAT's ad hominem.

      I was (literally) "Just sayin" because I find something most interesting among most HAs. Some of my readers may pick up on it. Both Matatics and Hoyle were Protestants, turned Feeneyite, turned HA. What has that to do with It? The basic error of all three positions is PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Protestants do that with the Bible. Feeneyites do that mostly with papal and conciliar decrees, and HAs do that with Canon Law.

      While Fr. Cekada has put up some half-baked ideas, he is not the "authority" on HA. How about your linking to the "less-than half-baked" articles of Teresa Benns? She rejects the opinion of St. Alphonsus based on her false belief that jurisdiction comes to Bishops through the pope and that this is DOGMA. It took me less than 10 minutes of research to prove that assertion incorrect--it is NOT dogma and the opposing opinion (that the jurisdiction comes directly from God) may be held.

      Will she correct that error? Will you put an addendum to your post containing her response to me that her contention is wrong? Her 40 years of "intensive study" haven't gotten the self-anointed autodidact very far, has it? Moreover, you acted upon her advice that ANYONE (literally) can interpret Canon Law. Once more, I've shown that not to be the case. Why would you link to a site so laden with error?

      Fred and Bobby Dimond have a couple of good articles that have no error, but the site promotes heresy as a whole. Benns may have some good articles, but as a whole she is wrong and incompetent.

      Bottom line: Canon Law was created by the Church to serve Her needs and promote the eternal welfare of souls. The Church was not created by Canon Law to serve the canons and act to the detriment of souls by using private interpretation to enforce every jot and title of the Code in a time never contemplated by the lawgivers.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    15. @anon7:21
      You write: "People like Benns come from your position. All Conclavists were sedevacantists first and you can try to separate yourself from this but you really can't."

      Protestants in the 16th century all came from Catholics, therefore Catholicism leads inextricably to Protestantism. Makes sense.

      The pope issue could be resolved in many ways--perhaps sedeprivationism is true, or perhaps we are in the last days and no more popes. Therefore, a conclave doesn't follow.

      I don't hate Benns only her POSITIONS she foists on others.

      I agree with anon7:54:
      "Lots of menace & accusations of hate, 0 arguments.
      Translation: you are a shame for us home aloners."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    16. "Will you put an addendum to your post containing her response to me that her contention is wrong?" What are you asking me to do here? I am confused. Of course, I want to promote open and honest debate on things which we Catholics of good will ought to be considering critically. My object is not to make war but peace. Though I am very harsh with the Sedes, it is only because they are (in my estimation and research) dead wrong about the lawfulness of their operations. That stated, however, I do believe we must work just as hard at charity as we do at truth. Whether you believe you are employing an ad hominem not fallaciously is your opinion. I come from the simple school of thought that says, if you are addressing a person instead of their argument, in your argument, when their argument does not rely upon their own identity or credentials, you are committing the fallacy of ad hominem. It is irrelevant that Hoyle or Matatics were caught up in errors before they became Catholic if what you are doing is trying to arguing with some claim of theirs. It is irrelevant that Teresa was a conclavist, if you are trying to arguing with her position on some point of canon law. That is classic ad hominem, and I see that you do it often, probably out of habit of impeaching expert witnesses as you said. But, Introibo, nobody, not Teresa, Gerry, or Eric, claim to be expert witnesses. So, in point of fact, you could argue with them without even mentioning their names at all, only their positions. But, I understand this would considerably weaken the stratagem you so often employ on this website, to defame detractors of Sedevacantist clergy in order to defend Sedevacantists. I say this as a mere observation and without malice. I am working at charity now as much as truth. (Robert)

      Delete
    17. Robert,
      I will set forth the FACTS:
      1. Benns reply to me, published on your site declares that jurisdiction for Bishops comes through the pope is DOGMA and cites to Pius XII and claims the opposite view (that it comes from God) is "Protestant heresy."

      2. Theologian Salaverri directly addresses this point and demonstrates that the opposite opinion, while not preferred, may be held. It is NOT DOGMA.

      3. Benns rejects the opinion of St. Alphonsus on supplied jurisdiction stating that it can't be true during an interregnum because all jurisdiction must come through a pope exclusively, and this is DOGMA.

      4. Ergo, Benns is demonstrably WRONG. You should let your readers know it is not DOGMA.

      5. You attempted to interpret a Canon privately using Canon 18 based on Benns claiming ANYONE (remember young Bobby?) can interpret Canon Law. I cited no less than six eminent approved canonists showing this is not the case--only approved canonists and theologians may give a doctrinal ("private") interpretation based on their superior education and training. A serious error was committed, yet you link to her site. How many more must be lead to error?

      6. What Matatics and Hoyle do are PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. It is the basis of their previous errors. That is a fact. I am not arguing "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which would be fallacious.

      7. Teresa, does de facto, claim to be an expert. Matatics claims to be an expert on virtually everything under the sun. Pointing out neither are qualified is NOT ad hominem--and that is not MY OPINION (See my citation to logician Gensler in this post).

      8. You write, "So, in point of fact, you could argue with them without even mentioning their names at all, only their positions. But, I understand this would considerably weaken the stratagem you so often employ on this website, to defame detractors of Sedevacantist clergy in order to defend Sedevacantists. I say this as a mere observation and without malice."
      No. You could easily take out the name of Benns in my argument regarding the incorrect interpretation of "ANYONE" and my argument that jurisdiction coming to Bishops through the pope is NOT DOGMA. My arguments stand on their own merit, not on the use of ad hominem fallacy. Not using her name does not weaken anything.

      9. Benns uses ad hominem constantly with her victim complex that "Every man is against me and attacks my position because I'm a woman." I went out of my way not to mention her gender and even said so in last week's post. Nevertheless, she goes out of her way to suggest because I cited a statement of John Daily, it was based on misogynic motives.

      10. "Bp." Joe Marie attacked me based on my anonimity comparing me to thieves, murderers, and rapists (literally). You repeated this ad hominem claptrap in the combox over at Novus Ordo Watch. Didn't recognize it as ad hominem?

      People living alone in glass domiciles shouldn't throw hard projectiles, Robert.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    18. Properly speaking, Introibo, I didn't "repeat" his claptrap, I simply quoted it, and said it sounded interesting. What I did say to another in response to that was the following, just so your readings may see that I was being fair and honest:

      "I agree that perhaps leading with such a vindictive tone against the person of Introibo was perhaps ill-considered. I have no doubt Joseph wrote that introduction last, as is so often the case, which is to say, I am sure he had good reason for using the language he did. The refutation, or rebuttal is very good, as far as I have scanned so far. I will have to read it in full. But there are some very good arguments being made in it, and these shouldn't be neglected simply because the author went a little loose-canon with the rhetoric. To do so says that one is more inclined to lick one's wounds than to be all that interested in truth. Your dismissive reaction to a perceived calumny (not calumny if true, mind) indicates to me that you don't care too much for truth but for hurt pride. We're all Catholic men here (some women, of course!). Might we start acting like it?"

      I am wanting to work on a piece at present to alleviate the confusion regarding this direct jurisdiction from God business. What you describe, as I have come to understand through reading Hoyle's study against Cekada (which you should read, by the way), is not direct jurisdiction, but extraordinary mission. I do not have a perfect understanding of the distinction between mission and jurisdiction, but it seems clear to me that the Church teaches that mission is prior to jurisdiction, and without which one cannot licitly act within the Church. Sedevacantist clergy have not demonstrated an extraordinary mission from Christ, so it would be wrong to follow them or receive sacraments from them. But more on all that in time over at CatholicEclipsed.com.

      I think that issue is most important. The other things about the witch-hunt for Benns, or the so-called interpretation of canon law (when all I did was read it and apply it to my particular situation), and the ad hominem ad nauseam tit-for-tat must drop to the wayside. What really matters, for ourselves and for our readers out there is the demonstration that either Sedevacantist clergy are licit and Catholic or they are not. I believe they are not, which is why I no longer attend their chapels. You believe they are. The question is, how do you go about demonstrating that legally?

      I would welcome a clean, concise argument in favor of the legitimate standing of Sedevacantist clergy and their operations in independent chapels. Perhaps that could be a special post of yours. It should be short and to the point, providing proofs for the thesis--which itself should be clearly set forth. This will go a long way in alleviating confusion and allowing constructive discussion on so important an issue.

      God bless you, sir. (Robert)

      Delete
    19. "2. Theologian Salaverri directly addresses this point and demonstrates that the opposite opinion, while not preferred, may be held. It is NOT DOGMA."

      Could you cite a source for this? (Robert)

      Delete
    20. It was in the post, but I'll repeat it here without emphasis--just look in the post:

      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).

      "We think this opinion is to be preferred." If it were DOGMA, he would have said so, or be censured a heretic. Can you imagine him writing in 1955, "The Assumption of Mary is an opinion to be preferred"?

      As to repeating his claptrap, it's amazing how excuses come so quickly for you to exonerate HAs including yourself. What you wrote was in response to a reader of mine who saw the calumny right off the bat.

      I believe I have more than amply demonstrated:
      1. Benns is clueless
      2. Traditionalists can function during the Great Apostasy.

      It is NOT "my job" to convince you. (or anyone else) of the truth. I have written many posts against Feeneyism, yet Fred and Bobby Dimond remain unmoved. See St. Luke 16:31. Of course if some are converted by God trough what I write, I'm overjoyed! In 9 years 8 people have informed me they converted as a result of this blog.

      This blog is dedicated to Traditionalists and the myriad evils we face today. I write on a number of different topics. I can't cater to the obdurate, or I'd be a one-topic blog.

      God Bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    21. I was asking you to demonstrate in a systematic and logic way your thesis that Sedevacantist clergy are licit, providing proofs. That you are not willing to do so only shows your lack of either a. goodwill or b. competence. I have not shown myself obdurate. That is stupid. You have not demonstrated "2. Traditionalists can function during the Great Apostasy," because you haven't demonstrated anything.

      Delete
    22. Robert,
      Feeneyite: "You either refute this new video/article by "Bro. Peter" Dimond or you're (circle one)
      a) Incompetent
      b) a liar
      c) a heretic
      d) an agent of Satan
      e) all of the above

      [The answer is (e) all of the above]

      That dog won't hunt.

      I have this with Feeneyites, R&R, and V2 sect apologists all the time. Go back and read. If you did that you wouldn't have to ask me for the citation to Salaverri I already supplied in the post.

      There is the situation with the Great Western Schism, how jurisdiction is supplied in the internal forum, how the Church can be "many years" without a pope, yet remain "in a different way." The Church is Indefectible. That means whatever She requires She has even if we don't have all the answers.

      Moreover, consider:
      All approved canonists and theologians who rejected Vatican II saw no problem with "mission" and "jurisdiction." Those canonists and theologians who were apostates HATED sedevacantists yet NONE of them claimed "lack of mission" or "jurisdiction" as problematic. If it were a defeater for Sedevacantism, they would have used it.

      I was lucky enough to have been taught the Faith by Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, an approved pre-Vatican 2 canonist who received his degree in 1955. I started this blog in his honor, so that the Faith he passed on to me, that of the One True Church, could be defended and spread to others. I'm not claiming to be an expert because I was taught by one, but I know enough to understand error. Fr. DePauw did not hesitate to tell me the position of HA was "sheer insanity," and those who propose it are "dangerously ignorant of Canon Law."

      He was by FAR qualified to make such a judgement. Not you, Benns, Hoyle, Matatics or any other "autodidactic genius."

      When I began this blog 12 years ago, I would answer such challenges. They would respond that I didn't give ENOUGH proof, that my sources weren't sufficient, that I allegedly failed to demonstrate a particular point, etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum. I'll leave it to my readers to decide for themselves if the HA position makes sense after reading what I wrote.

      As I write this, it is after midnight here in NYC. I've just finished my work and must get up at 5:30am. AS an attorney, I work an average of 90-plus hours a week. On top of that, I have obligations to my wife, my family, my friends, as well as my religious obligations and those of the eleemosynary organizations to which I belong.

      How I find time for a post a week is a minor miracle. Thank God I have Lee to do guest posts and a very understanding wife who encourages me.

      I will not be goaded into taking on even more because THEY are not satisfied as to the sufficiency of my post. I'm glad you make enough money with a Masters Degree in Philosophy to support yourself, a wife and six kids--and can also write on a website and make videos with Benns. Now, THAT's impressive--not your HA "theology."

      Good night and God Bless,

      ---Introibo


      Delete
    23. Dear Introibo,

      I am impressed by how hard you work! I don’t work near as hard, so don’t be impressed with me. By the way, I don’t make any money from my education. I am a medically retired Navy veteran with kidney disease who does dialysis at home five days a week. My Disability provides for our welfare.

      I am sorry I asked you to write a short post concisely demonstrating an articulated thesis with logical proofs. That is the only real way I know how to get to the truth of things. I love rhetoric—as I know you do, too—but it is not sufficient to discover the truth of something, only to persuade others to believe it.

      If ever you get the time to send me your thesis and proofs for it, then I can try to understand it and argue with anything I don’t agree with, not rhetorically but logically.

      God bless you.
      Robert

      Delete
    24. Dear Robert,
      Thanks! I'm impressed with my work ethic too! I'll pray for your healing. It's nice to know the military takes care of its members. My father fought against the Imperial Japanese in WWII, and received a Purple Heart. The only thing he got was jerked around. Lifelong PTSD and we had to live in Section 8 housing. Not enough to support a wife and one kid--you have enough for a wife and six kids. Times sure have changed for the better. Deo gratias.

      I have seen your 'logic" with "SMH." You see, I cannot send someone a thesis and proof unless he understands the basics first. So, first you must answer:

      1. Why did you attempt to interpret Canon Law when you are incompetent to do so?

      2. Explain how people who are incompetent to interpret Canon Law see a problem where canonists and theologians pre-Vatican II did not.

      3. How should encyclicals be interpreted?

      4. Why is immediate jurisdiction "Protestant heresy"?

      5. Where did the clergy get their jurisdiction during the Great Western Schism when there could have been no pope?

      6. If the Church needs jurisdiction, and there isn't any, how does that not equal a Church that can defect?

      Then, I can try to understand it and argue with anything I don’t agree with, not rhetorically but logically.

      You have more time then I do. You are also in luck that my good friend Steve Speray will be doing a brief rebuttal of HA on his blog "Catholicism in a Nutshell." He's an ex-Navy man too!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    25. I am sorry to hear that your family and your father were so ill-treated by the VA. The VA is doing a lot better at treating PTSD, which, I am sure in your father's time was not well understood. In fact, I went to an appointment yesterday, and I was screened for PTSD by my doctor and nurse. The VA is worried about it now, now that there's more science behind it I'm guessing.

      I do not know what "SMH" means, but if you question my understanding of either formal or informal logic, I'd love to have a public debate with you on it, if you'd like. This is just an empty accusation, not to mention professionally offensive and discourteous. I think I've earned my stripes by my educational background in the area of philosophy and logic, as I am sure you have earned yours in the practice of law.

      1-3: Define interpretation. I've simply applied the law as I understand it. I have not attempted to explain the meaning of it, or to give it a novel application--like Sedevacantists do with the invocation of necessity and epikeia, which the law itself does not countenance to supply canonical mission.
      4. Immediate jurisdiction may not be heresy, but claims to extraordinary mission without miracles is heresy. In fact, it is the fundamental heresy of Protestantism, who came in their own name to teach the people about the true ways of God. It is Protestantism in its very nature.
      5. Presumably supplied jurisdiction through common error based upon the law itself which grants such. If this is what Sedevacantists claim, then all you need do is write up a legal brief with the question of law and supply me with the relevant laws you think win your case. This should prove a cakewalk with your extensive experience doing so.
      6. Indefectibility is just one of three attributes of the Church, the others being authority and infallibility. These attributes were promised to and guaranteed to be present in one church, that of Rome, from which all jurisdiction and (most to the purpose) canonical mission comes. Sedevacantist clergy do not derive their mission (do they even claim mission?) from Rome. They come in their own name, interpreting canon law (which you said only theologians and canonists may do, but you give them a pass) to their own ends. If you claim that indefectibility is preserved in Sedevacantist chapels, then you must also show how they have the attributes of authority (which they universal deny) and infallibility (which they would sooner run through town in only their Roman collars than claim). (Robert)

      Delete
    26. Robert,
      Please see my addendum above.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. Hats off to you, Introibo for having taken pains to vivisect the make-believe "theology" of Theresa Benns once again!

    It seems to me one of the principal errors in Benns' understanding (or rather the lack thereof) lies in the fact that she actually has no idea how the Church hierarchical operated before Vatican II, nor is she willing to acquire that knowledge for it would mean goodbye to her being a self-proclaimed doctoress of Canon Law.

    First of all, there is this obvious division between those in the Church who teach (the Pope, the bishops, and other clerics who are subject to them - this includes theologians and canonists) and those who are being taught (all of the faithful). This is basic catechismal knowledge.
    Now for a rhetorical question, where does Theresa Benns place herself, huh?

    Thank Heavens we all have ready access to Canon Law commentaries by real, Church-approved theologians and canonists, like this one:
    https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/mode/2up

    God Bless,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanna,
      An excellent commentary on Canon Law! Thank you for the link!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. If Benns can't figure out what "anyone" stands for in the language of the Church with regards to interpreting the sacred canons, I have a few sentences for her to decipher:

    “Religion is sorely attacked,” he [Leo XIII] said to a French Catholic writer whom he received a short time after his election; “ it must be defended. Upon that everything depends. Society is to be saved by defending the principles of religion."'

    A million-dollar question for Theresa Benns: what religion is Pope Leo XIII referring to?
    If she applies her fake theology to that paragraph, she might get some "interesting" answers... However, if you go by the reasoning of the Church and Her legitimate hierarchy, you can't go wrong.

    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanna,
      Benns is just so demonstrably wrong on so much, I can't understand how ANYONE can follow her writings. Literally, ANYONE--including young Bobby!!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Oh, Robert! What about the indissolubility of marriage???? Your leader, Teresa Benns, clearly denies this teaching of the Church in your boring interview with her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon10:49
      Yes, what about that? Will Robert and Teresa clarify that statement? If Benns holds that position, that is now HERESY.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. She doesn't hold that position. I asked her about it, and what she meant was that those marriage ceremonies which are only witnessed by a Sede priest are doubtfully valid, since (I'm supposing) the canons governing it require a valid priest, or else two witnesses without a priest in the case of necessity. Honestly, I have not researched the question on matrimony beyond knowing that vows exchanged before two witnesses is valid in the event that a priest will not be available in the foreseeable future. Anyway, Teresa Benns believes marriage is indissoluble (which wasn't actually the first charge against her, but to answer that, too), and she does believe that, under the prescribed conditions of canon law, marriages are confected validly.

      Anyone who is of good will and is accusing a fellow Catholic of heresy should probably go and ask that person about it. I am not Teresa's representative, but I did feel obliged to offer a word of explanation since she supposedly stated something heretical on my video.

      I hope this clarifies things. Thank you. (Robert).

      Delete
    3. Robert, I don't need to ask Teresa about marriage, because I know what the Church's teaching is on the indissolubility of this "great Sacrament". She's not someone I go to when I wish to learn Catholic truth. You, however, promote her on your website (and Youtube page) as a defender of the faith. Moreover, in your own interview with her, she opines about marriage not being valid in some cases, where I believe, as does the Church, that the marriage would be a truly sacramental marriage in such cases
      .
      So, anyone watching those videos can conclude that you share her opinion on this. Why would they not conclude that given that you promote her and her writings?

      Delete
    4. Robert,
      with the response Benns gave you, she has only made it clear that she is clueless with regards to basic sacramental theology. Marriage is always presumed to be validly contracted between a baptized man and a baptized woman (on condition that no canonical impediments are present), no witnesses needed, period.
      Saying that marriages witnessed by a sedevacantist priest are doubtfully valid (ergo, invalid in practice - that's the basics of sacramental theology too) is just phoney.

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
  6. This is a really good article. I actually thought it was de fide that jurisdiction was mediated through the pope. Very interesting and informative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Gregory,
      Thank you, my friend! Many people probably think that too. However, no one should promote it as such (Benns) without doing the research first. It took me under ten minutes of research to find the answer the "pope maker" couldn't!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Has anyone read the article "My Petition for Spiritual Help" by Patrick Henry? Mr. Henry covers the issue of jurisdiction and proves that jurisidiction only comes from the pope: https://www.jmjsite.com/my_petition_for_spiritual_help.pdf

      Delete
    3. @anon2:40
      Yes, I read part of that tome. He doesn't prove anything. In 1955, theologian Salaverri, under the guidance of the Magisterium, declared that jurisdiction coming through the pope is a probably opinion. For it to be definitively held, it would need to be infallibly declared such in 1956-1958. Mr. Henry offers no such proof.
      He reminds me of what theologian Garrigou-Lagrange said of Wotyla's thesis (which he failed): "Writes much. Says little."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. if jurisdiction doesn't come through the pope than why did Pope Pius XII say it does? Couldn't you say he clarified the teaching on jurisdiction once and for all? Are you saying this is just the pope's personal opinion but that the church was free to disagree with it?

      Delete
    5. Introibo, first, what Salaverri wrote contradicted Pius XII's Mystici Corporis. That certainly seems to be a problem. How could he say it was a "probable opinion" unless he didn't read the encyclical. Second, why would it need to be infallibly declared? Catholics were instructed to assent to Encyclicals too. It seems you are putting a single theologian above the Roman Pontiff, who is obviously the supreme law giver. I am curious if anyone else besides Salaverri contradicted the issue of jurisdiction after Mystici Corporis was published?

      Delete
    6. BTW, I just read Patrick Henry's "Petition" and I thought it was brilliant. Perhaps you ought to read the whole thing instead of part of it. Just sayin...

      Delete
    7. @anon8:32
      I'm not surprised. If you thought that was brilliant, you must believe Benns is the new Aquinas. Perhaps you'd like to petition to slop the Papal Pigs in Kansas.

      Just Sayin...

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. @anon8:30
      You write: "what Salaverri wrote contradicted Pius XII's Mystici Corporis."

      No. An approved theologian of his rank would be guilty of heresy and censured/excommunicated. What Salaverri wrote contradicts what you THINK Mystici Corporis means.

      You write: "How could he say it was a "probable opinion" unless he didn't read the encyclical."

      Salaverri, like the other theological giants, would consult with clerics in the Roman Congregations and the theologians who helped draft the Encyclical. Hence they can derive an exact meaning.

      You write: "Second, why would it need to be infallibly declared? Catholics were instructed to assent to Encyclicals too."

      Correct. Yet the Pope, while declaring his opinion was not intending to settle the issue. Hence, Salaverri's teaching.

      Theologian Van Noort called the opinion of jurisdiction via the pope "Certain" in light of Mystici Corporis, as did Cardinal Ottaviani. Van Noort says of the opinion of direct jurisdiction from God, "[the opinion is] WE FEEL, no longer tenable." (See "Dogmatic Theology" [1957], pgs. 324-326). Van Noort, one of the strongest proponents of the mediated jurisdiction via the pope, nevertheless, does not declare the teaching of Pius as bringing debate to an end, or infallible. Note Van Noort's use of the phrase "we feel"--meaning his opinion as a theologian.

      Yet even if mediated jurisdiction were to be definitively held because the pope closed debate or infallibly defined it (he did neither), it is not the "death stroke" for the opinion of St. Alphonsus' opinion that Benns thinks. But I need not even go there, as she claimed direct jurisdiction to be "Protestant heresy"--yet not condemned by Trent which debated it, nor is it infallible which is necessary for the denial of a proposition to be heresy (Protestant or otherwise).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. Introibo, if jurisdiction comes directly from God, then how could it be that your "bishops" don't have jurisdiction? If what you claim is true then they must all have it. But it is a fact that they do not. This of course is the error of the late Bp Vezelis.

      Delete
    10. @anon6:11
      God does not simply give jurisdiction to a bishop upon consecration. Were this true Eastern Schismatic bishops would likewise have jurisdiction. As theologian Van Noort explains, "...jurisdiction was bestowed from Heaven always in dependence upon and with subordination to the supreme pontiff, so that the pope could always restrict, extend, or even completely prohibit the exercise of that jurisdiction." (See "Dogmatic Theology" 2:325).

      What Benns does is to make the pope into some "divine spigot" by a necessity of means through which any/all jurisdiction MUST pass through. Hence, her absurd contention that supplied jurisdiction cannot take place during a papal interregnum. That's not what it means.

      Nevertheless, that's why she's so adamant to "prove" mediate jurisdiction to be DOGMA. I have shown this is simply not the case.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Introibo, I just wanted to say thank you for your blog and your well-reasoned and thoughtful articles. I normally don't post anything here or elsewhere since I'm a relatively new Catholic baptised one year ago on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. It is my understanding that recently baptized Catholics should remain silent on matters of canon law and theology for a minimum of five years. Anyway, just my two cents. God bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CyrusD78,
      Congratulations on your baptism into the One True Church!

      Many thanks for leaving this comment. Comments like this, that let me know my blog is helping Traditionalist Catholics, is what keeps me writing!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Congratulations Cyrus.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
  8. Introibo, I don't understand why you need to reject Pope Pius XII's teaching for St. Alphonsus'.

    Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton explains: "Victoria, outstanding theologian though he was, seems to have misconstrued the question at issue, and to have imagined that in some way the traditional teaching involved the implication that all bishops had been placed in their sees by appointment from Rome. ... The teaching of Pope Pius XII on the origin of the episcopal jurisdiction is not a claim that St. Peter and his successors in the Roman See have always appointed directly every other bishop within the Church of Jesus Christ. It does mean that every other bishop who is the ordinary of a diocese holds his position by the consent and at least the tacit approval of the Holy See." (Fenton, Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Roman See)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:19
      I don't need to, as you very aptly explained! We can assume consent for the preservation of the Church.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the reply Introibo. Can I ask you then why you hold to the minority opinion that bishops' jurisdiction come directly from Christ, if you don't need to?

      Delete
    3. @anon9:43
      I don't hold that as INFALLIBLE OR CLOSING DEBATE. I agree with Salaverri it is probable. Therefore, when considering a theological conclusion, we should look at all possibilities. Benns attempts to close debate, calling direct jurisdiction "Protestant heresy" which is sheer and crass ignorance for one who gloats about her research skills.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. But what do you think of what Fenton wrote: "In the latest edition of his classic work, Institutiones iuris publici ecclesiastici, Msgr. Alfredo Ottaviani declares that this teaching, which was previously considered as "probabilior" or even as "communis," must now be held as entirely certain by reason of what Pope Pius XII has said. The thesis which must be accepted and taught as certain is an extremely valuable element in the Christian teaching about the nature of the true Church." (Fenton, Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Roman See)?

      Delete
    5. @anon12:28
      That was Cd. Ottavianni's teaching as a private theologian, not as Pro-Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. All Holy Office decrees are signed and ordered published by the pope himself and must be obeyed.

      Mediated jurisdiction was always the majority opinion of theologians after Trent. I think it is correct, and the Cardinal's teaching offers even more weight to it.

      It does not, however, get anyone one step closer to declaring immediate jurisdiction "Protestant heresy" that cannot be held, as per Benns whacky writing.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo, do you believe that what is expounded in encyclical letters ought to be believed? (Robert)

      Delete
    7. Not only does Ottavianni say so, but Pope Pius XII says so, and we obviously should listen and accept what the pope says, but you go ahead and argue against this:

      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.“

      Delete
    8. Introibo, over here in Europe the HA is no problem.Most are hapy to go to Mass,etc with one of the traditional priests.God bless

      Benedict
      France

      Delete
    9. Benedict,
      Ah! The home of my Patron Saint, King St. Louis IX! No doubt His Saintly Majesty is still looking out for his people!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Robert and anon@1:11
      Yes, I do! We are bound to believe what Mystici Corporis says, para. #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." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.
      Therefore, we must not believe in Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood. The pontiff is clearly referring to the SACRAMENT of Baptism and does not anywhere mention substitutes, does he? Clearly, he was intending to settle the dispute that one can only belong to the Church, and hence be saved through Baptism by water.
      Try to argue against this:
      Humani generis para #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"; 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.“
      Therefore, you reject Baptism of Desire and of Blood, correct??
      You argue like a Feeneyite. THIS WAS THE EXACT ARGUMENT ONCE USED BY A FEENEYITE AGAINST BOD AND BOB ON ONE OF MY POSTS.
      That we must assent to encyclicals, CONCEDED. That we must assent TO WHAT YOU THINK THEY MEAN BASED ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION; DENIED. You, Teresa Benns, Matatics, Holye, etc. will interpret Canon Law and Church teaching to fit your needs—just as Protestants and Feeneyites do. Thanks for making my point far better than I could!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    11. I don't understand deep theology and will not try to without a proper teacher and guide. My only question will the jurisdiction of the Church simply disappear with the death of the last pre-1969 Bishop?
      -Andrew

      Delete
    12. Andrew,
      In a word: NO!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    13. What does 1969 have to do with jurisdiction?

      Delete
    14. This is probably the silliest thing you’ve written I’ve ever read. I cannot respond with anything more than a face-palm and a sigh. (Robert)

      Delete
    15. Robert,
      That was a very intellectually vigorous and logically flawless refutation (no "rhetoric" here!).

      Translation: "I can't respond because I can't refute it."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    16. Introibo, I don't understand why you're using that argument. Catholic theologians, and you yourself, back then, made the distinction between being a member of the Church and being inside the Church. Pope Pius XII does indeed teach that one must be baptized with water to be a member of the Church, and that doesn't disprove BOD or BOB.

      Delete
    17. @anon12:56
      Please see my Addendum above

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    18. Thanks, that was a great addendum.

      Delete
    19. Pre-1969 Bishops i.e. the last of the traditionally Consecrated Bishops.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    20. Thank you for the reply Andrew. But Holy Orders ≠ jurisdiction, so jurisdiction has nothing to do with 1969.

      Delete
    21. I was asking if the last of the traditionally Consecrated/ Ordained Bishops were the last of jurisdiction.
      It's why I stated "1969" because that's when the traditional Rites stopped, outside of a few random Bishops after Jan 1969.
      You misunderstood my question as I never once stated "1969" had anything to do with it objectively speaking. It was a question.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    22. Your question assumes that the bishops consecrated from 1959 (or 1962, or 1965, etc. pick your date) to 1968 have jurisdiction, and I don't know why you believe that. My point is that whether they were validly consecrated or not has nothing to do with whether they have jurisdiction or not.

      Delete
    23. Never says they had anything as it was a question.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    24. Ok:
      If I asked "Are dogs the only animals that can fly?" that question wouldn't make sense. You would reply, "Why do you think dogs fly?" It wouldn't make sense for me to reply back, "Never said dogs can fly as it was a question". Obviously, the statement above assumes, for some reason, that dogs can fly.

      Similarly, your question, "Will the jurisdiction of the Church simply disappear with the death of the last pre-1969 Bishop?" assumes that all pre-1969 bishops had jurisdiction. Why do you think a bishop consecrated in 1967, for example, has jurisdiction, even though the "Pope" at this time was Paul VI? I'm not saying that's false. I'm just asking why you think so.

      Delete
  9. Off topic but the Georgia Guide Stones were demolished yesterday after part of it was blown up. People are rejecting the New (Liberal) World Order.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      Deo gratias!

      God Bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Could it be we're in the next phase of their plan?
      -Andrew

      Delete
    3. Andrew,
      I guess we will all have to wait and see, my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Hello Introibo, Robert says the article on Epikeia is what affected him most from this Teresa woman, who by the way, has done a lot harm to many souls. As a now deceased priest wrote me several years ago on this subject, Epikeia is not exactly the point here, rather what is applicable is the intrinsic cessation of law, as the law in these terrible times has become impossible to comply with, or just too difficult to observe, putting in danger the salvation of souls, and the very existence of the Church in large areas of the world. Thus it is understood as a matter of evidence that the law ceases to obligate.

      Epikeia, that is, the benign interpretation of the law, is similar, but not the same, and was applicable in the past when the Church was so benign that she was giving automatically juridiction to other priest presiding a marriage, when, for example, the bride was experiencing too much of reverential fear in presence of the proper parish priest.

      The very nature of the law is asssuring the fulfillment of the common good. Abstaining from purposely receiving the sacraments, goes directly against the common good of the whole Church, so it is morally sinful.

      This is why in today’s very urgent situation, the priests recieve juridiction by the operation of the law itself, for the good of the faithful, and that there has always been a grave obligation in conscience under pain of mortal sin and eternal condemnation to do what the ordinary pastors are no longer able to do, for whatever cause.

      This is why the absolutions given by a parish priest in other church in which he was having no juridiction were still valid when the proper pastor was not available.

      Also, from my own understanding, does the Church not exist for the glory of God and the salvation of souls? Using a lower law to frustrate a higher law is akind to the Scribes and Pharisees telling people to ignore the 4th Commandment if they gave them all their money. I cannot recall the passage, but in reading Santa Teresa of Avila, I recall Our Lord complaining to her that people were trying to bind His hands with their own laws.

      Clearly, Our Lord knows what is happening and would not allow a lower law to frustrate his Holy Divine Will and Desires for His glory and our salvation. Our Lord is not in the business of the ahhh haaaa game!

      Teresa should abolish the name of her website, for God will NEVER betray His children! This website may have some good in it, like the Dimonds, but they are doing the work of the Devil through pride and causing much harm to souls.

      Robert, give yourself a good slap on the face, you are being deceived, and take your family to the Sacraments!

      Delete
    5. @anon1:06
      I agree Benns should never publish again! Thank you for your informative comment!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Part Two of thoughts on this matter copied and pasted for Home Aloners from a good and holy deceased priest (note English not first language):


    So, the question essentially seems to be: Does Our Lord agree to the fact that a validly ordained and personally Catholic Priest would confer sacraments to Catholic faithful put in extreme spiritual need, without having been officially sent by a jurisdictional prelate of the Church, due to the total lack of true authorities?

    So, here, we take for granted the sacramental validity of those priests and Bishop's Orders.

    The next question thus is: What does the Church understand by sending. She understands, granting jurisdictional power upon faithful, by which they can be taught, sanctified and governed, judged, punished even, relieved of some duty, etc... That is, the power of the Keys.

    But this power of jurisdiction can be granted in two manners: Ordinary, and Extraordinary.

    The quotes you have so rightly adduced pertain to the first. So, effectively, when we are in a normal situation, where Authority is accessible, the Pope must issue a Mandate, ruling, diocesan bishops and prelates must issue decrees of nomination, confession licenses, celebrets and all this, due faculties to authorize priests into sharing some of their authority.

    But what has the same Church disposed, and Popes authorised, in extraordinary times, when there was no authority, or it was unattainable?

    Then, for the spiritual good of faithful, and even so to assure the survivance of the Church, Popes grant an extraordinary jurisdiction to any and every priest or bishop, limited to what pertains to Sacraments. It is understood that the Church Herself, to the perpetual authority of Church's Canonical Law, grant all authorisations necessary to provide for the spiritual good of the faithful.

    Such clerics don't have pure juridiction, they can't, for example, excommunicate, erect a parish, suspend a divinis a priest, act as a ruling Bishop, or a parish Curé, etc... But they receive authorisation to say Mass everywhere faithful need them, give valid absolutions, bless marriages, or ordain other clerics so to serve people in extreme spiritual need.

    There are plenty of examples in the history of the Church of such extraordinary, supplied juridiction.

    When French Church became schismatic due to Revolution, Catholic Non-Jurors Priest acted without any mandate in favour of any faithful in need, and the Pope praised them.

    Same for Priests in the red zone when the Civil War in Spain.

    In moorish-occupied Spain, when it was impossible to communicate to Popes, episcopal Sees were occupied without papal formal authorisation, but a presumed one, and so happened many times, every occasion there was no Pope previsibly avalaible.

    In Elizabethan-Puritan Britain, how many times were Catholic priests ordained, and those caring for faithful, without any papal mandate? Popes always understood, taught and defined that it was a legitimate way of action.

    Chinese case, on the contrary, is totally different. Firstly, because they pretended granting those bishops ordinary, pure jurisdiction as ruling bishops. Only an actual Pope can do it, and explicitly.

    And too, because they were acting knowingly against papal known prohibition. That was indeed schismatic.

    But if nowadays non una cum priests and bishops keep abiding within the said legal limits, their behaviour is perfectly legitimated, by the Church Herself, and are sent by Saint Peter and all his successors as legally and legitimately as Saint Athanasius, ordaining bishops to other Sees, upon which he was having no explícit jurisdiction.

    It is very important to take in account that even without actual prelates, the Church still really rules through her Laws kept into St Peter's hands, and sends really those priests and bishops, in an extraordinary, diminished, minimal and emergency form, but nevertheless totally real and rightful.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you cite some books that describe the historical situations you mention, in France, Spain, and England? With particular details about priests administering the sacraments without any authorization? Seems like if that were true, someone like Fr. Cekada would have written about it.

      Delete
  11. Part Three (final)...

    Without a doubt, we have still validly and too licitly ordained priests, who licitly say Mass, confess, etc... And from which we can in all tranquillity of conscience receive the Holy Sacraments.

    A future Pope will , as did his predecessors, bless such emergency ministry, although he will certainly not bless all the pitfalls done by our present tradi clerics...

    I assure you that when one knows and understands the general principles of Church's Canon Law, and see them applied in history, the present case is hardly dubious, but very clear instead, and I'm totally sure that the future Holy Pope will not decide otherwise, even if he will be obliged to punish so many and grave misconduct among present tradi clergy.

    In addition, I would precise that ruling bishops nominated by Pius XII, lost their authority from Dec 8 1965, when they accepted Vatican 2 as a true Council. They automatically fell outside the Church, unless repented. But even so, didn't recuperate their lost jurisdiction.

    Same can be said about priests, no one has nowadays true pure jurisdiction, either pre or post Pius XII, only a supplied juridiction for sacraments.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:52
      Excellent! Thank you for sharing!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. Above, Introibo wrote: "God does not simply give jurisdiction to a bishop upon consecration. Were this true Eastern Schismatic bishops would likewise have jurisdiction. As theologian Van Noort explains, "...jurisdiction was bestowed from Heaven always in dependence upon and with subordination to the supreme pontiff, so that the pope could always restrict, extend, or even completely prohibit the exercise of that jurisdiction." (See "Dogmatic Theology" 2:325)."
    I asked a follow-up question but it might not have processed. I ask again:
    Introibo, if "God doesn't simply give jurisdiction to a bishop upon his consecration" then how and when does he receive it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:10
      Two ways: be explicit appointment by the pope, or as in the case of the Great Western Schism, it would be given upon his exercising his function when necessary and there can be no recourse to the Holy See. With the end of the Western Schism and the election of Pope Martin V, the Sacraments administered by the mistaken clergy who adhered to the wrong factions (who thus lacked a true canonical mission and ordinary jurisdiction) were never called into question. The Church supplied the jurisdiction to the bishops and priests.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thanks for answering my question but your answer seems contradictory. In your post you said it is an acceptable opinion (and possibly true) that bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from God upon consecration. But when I asked you why the sede bishops don't have jurisdiction, you said "God does not simply give jurisdiction upon consecration." So which is it? Furthermore, if it is a possibility that bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from God, then why were Bishops Vezelis and Musey wrong to claim they had jurisdiction? You just quoted theologians AFTER Mystici Corporis who said God gives jurisdiction directly to the bishop. Therefore Vezelis and Musey were arguably correct. But more than that, this would also mean that the entire trad movement was in schism for not aligning themselves with these two men.
      Once again Introibo, it is contradictory to say that the only other means of obtaining jurisdiction is to be supplied by the Church when according to some approved theologians, supplied jurisdiction would not even be necessary. I look forward to your reply and I am sure others here do as well.

      Delete
    3. @anon7:13,
      I never wrote in my post that jurisdiction come upon consecration to the episcopacy. I believe in mediate jurisdiction, however, I also believe in following what the Church says--no more and no less.

      You write: "why were Bishops Vezelis and Musey wrong to claim they had jurisdiction? "

      Reply: There may be merit to those who claim jurisdiction for a particular established See, as was the case with the Great Western Schism. It fails with Musey and Vezelis as they claimed half of the United States. My friend Steve Speray says he found a theologian that supports this position but he has not fully researched it, nor have I seen it, so please don't say "Introibo claims Sede Bishops can take established Sees." I don't know all the answers but I can spot answers that are wrong like HA.

      You write: You just quoted theologians AFTER Mystici Corporis who said God gives jurisdiction directly to the bishop.

      No, I didn't. I quoted theologians that did not RULE OUT the opposing proposition.

      Please learn to read well. It helps you greatly in life. Perhaps Eric Hoyle could tutor you.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. OK try not to be an arrogant jerk. I realize you get annoyed when people disagree with you but chill your pride.
      One of the most important conclusions readers of this blog could walk away with is that bishops may receive their jurisdiction directly from God upon consecration- according to you. Although you made it clear you do not believe this, you also made a case that it is permissible for others to believe it. Yet you dismissed Musey and Vezelis because they attempted to divide the country but IF they actually had jurisdiction, that would seem to be the right course of action. Remember if you were a sede at that time, ALL of the sees were considered vacant and none of the sede bishops save Vezelis and Musey believed they had jurisdiction. The rest outright rejected the idea. Therefore, the US was a territory that required unity that could only come from authority. Vezelis and Musey attempted to keep both the unity and authority of the Church intact. I am interested in why you think dividing the country was wrong under the aforementioned circumstances. I realize my questions are below you but please condescend.
      Second, Fr. Cekada wrote a nice piece describing why BOD is the teaching of the Church based on a majority of theologians in agreement. So, would not the same apply with the issue of jurisdiction? Some said it is immediate and some say mediate but which is the majority?

      Delete
    5. @anon7:17
      Sorry for being a crotchety old man, but maybe God will forgive me if I lose temper after having my character smeared (not by you). Ok:

      1. Sees can only be erected by the pope. No bishop, with the exception of the pope, can have universal jurisdiction in the external forum. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no bishop has ever held jurisdiction over multiple sees simultaneously. You can't claim jurisdiction over the archdiocese of New York, Boston, Washington, DC, etc. ***IF** such claim could be made (I'm not saying it could) that's what I think would be necessary--one diocese, not multiple ones. I asked Fr. DePauw how we would ever get out of this mess. He said (paraphrased from my memory) "Never in all my years of study could anything so bad rival the times in which we live. I was talking to two of my friends [both approved theologians], and after several hours we threw up our hands. We must proceed with the utmost caution and after intensive research. To run out and try and do anything less will be a case of a cure worse than the disease." If the great canonist DePauw was boggled, don't expect me to have it all figured out!

      2. All theologians hold that BOD and BOB are of theological notes that place them such that they cannot be denied without committing mortal sin (at the least). Therefore, BOD and BOB MUST be believed, and cannot be denied without losing sanctifying grace.

      Mediate jurisdiction has a note much lower, and does admit of possible exception. Not so BOD and BOB. Mediate jurisdiction has been the majority opinion of the theologians since at least the end of Trent.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Just an FYI: It is possible for a bishop to hold jurisdiction over multiple sees simultaneously.
      a. The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on "Diocese" states: "This situation differs from that in which a bishop administers for a time, or even perpetually, another diocese; ... the bishop holds two distinct sees, and his nomination must take place according to the rules established for each of the two dioceses."
      b. The Council of Ephesus confirmed "the previous practice of holding two bishoprics at the same time".
      c. Maybe the case of the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia counts, as he retains the suburbicarian diocese he previously held (Canon 236 § 4). Note that it was John XXIII who made the Cardinal-Bishops titular in 1962.

      Delete
    7. @anon9:28
      Thank you for this information! However, I would submit that Musey and Vezelis were wrong insofar as your citations do not go beyond two dioceses. There was never, for example, a bishop placed over all dioceses in the United States (or half). And the nomination must "take place according to the rules established for each of the two diocese" What are these rules and do they apply in our time? We have much to study and try to work out!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. I agree, Introibo.

      Delete
  13. I have learned a great deal from this 2-part series on Canon Law, Introibo. So much in fact, that I am now more than comfortable casting aside, for good, the whole question of HA as a possible theory to adopt. Fr. DePauw is a giant in the area of Canon Law and his refutation of HA alone should settle it in the minds of Catholics.
    I feel indebted to you for this blog, so I share the links to anyone I think will benefit from it.
    Finally, your patience in handling the comments on this particular post has been remarkable, to say the least.
    God bless you, and thanks.
    -Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which refutation is that? Could you cite a source of Fr. DePauw‘s refutation of HA? I’d really like to read it (Robert)

      Delete
    2. Jannie,
      Thank you! The ad hominem diatribes against me continue, so I added an Addendum above. Please read it and God Bless you!

      Robert,
      It was in my notes many years ago when I was studying with him. I never said he published anything, this is what I was taught. I may look for them and publish it!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. I have read the addendum, Intro. Again, thanks much for going the extra mile and providing more information from the Canons and the approved theologians. As the MIL of a lawyer, and a good one, I know that the study of law and successfully passing a bar exam requires the mental ability to retain voluminous amounts of information and the ability to defend a position well. Yes there may be shady lawyers, but the true Catholic lawyer models himself or herself after St. Thomas More. It doesn't get much better than that and for someone to assume bad will in a person, lawyer or not, is not virtuous. Far from it. If I may "crack wise" you should have tomorrow off because you have done at least a couple weeks' worth of good work here.
      - Jannie

      Delete
    4. Jannie,
      Thank you so much! As a matter of fact, I will be "taking off tomorrow," so to speak, as Lee will be doing a guest post so I can keep up with my work on the job!

      St. Thomas More, pray for us.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. In answer to your addendum, Introibo.

      https://catholiceclipsed.com/2022/07/12/more-peace-less-pugnacity-a-response-to-introibos-addendum/

      Robert

      Delete
  14. Jannie and to any others who are interested, below is a link to Steven Speray's refutation of HA that he posted today:

    https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/07/10/the-problem-with-the-home-alone-position-part-i/

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee, I say this with all due respect: Not every attempt at presentation of Catholic Home Alone sedevacantism is well written or cogent; and not every attempt at refutation of Catholic Home Alone sedevacantism is well written or cogent.

      Delete
  15. Can laymen read the commentary on the code of cannon law and make a judgement by that? Since we can't interpreted it ourselves?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OZSON,
      If it is agreed upon by the majority of approved canonists, it is safe to follow. I would not look to a single canonist for matters of importance.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. Introbio, Robert,
    I found this. This refutes both home HA, and those who say we can't go to SSPX for the sacraments.
    This commentary on the code states that we the faithful give jurisdiction, that is supplied by the church, by merely asking for the sacraments. Read the first 5 pages starting from the chapter of 2261. Correct me if I am wrong.

    https://archive.org/details/ExcommunicationItsNature/page/n99/mode/2up?q=2261&view=theater

    ReplyDelete