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.