Mi ca El !?

Abbé Zins, translated by chartreux a écrit : ven. 02 sept. 2022 7:51
On some writings by Teresa Benns

InHocSignoVinces a écrit : sam. 07 mai 2022 16:15

Frightening presentation of the Antichrist Montini-Paul VI

(W.F. Strojie)

W.F. Strojie was a pioneer sedevacantist catholic who not only denounced the false religion produced by the V2 cabal ; he was rather the first who unmasked the Anti-Christ, recognizing him in Montini.

Your inaccurate claim is contradicted by Teresa Benns herself (whom you also quote), who mixes very good things with confusions of the most basic level. Here is how she summarizes W.F. Strojie's inconsistencies :

Teresa Benns a écrit :
Summary
1. Strojie was an early proponent of the material-formal theory, the belief that the V2 popes never taught heresy ex cathedra, could reform themselves and continue to rule the Church.
2. He believed Christ Himself could supply jurisdiction to a false pope, even if he was unquestionably the Antichrist, based on an opinion put forth by St. Robert Bellarmine.
3. He denied the applicability of Pope Paul IV’s Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.
4. He did not believe one could claim Paul 6’s election was invalid based on Canon Law.
5. He questioned the teaching of Canon Law regarding heresy, at least as it was understood by Traditionalists.
6. He tended to prefer the opinions of theologians to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs.
7. He did not believe remaining Catholics could gain much by studying their faith or engaging in Catholic Action, yet he expected them to be able to determine which teachings of Paul 6 were true or false.
8. He focused on the problem (the false Vatican 2 council, the errant “popes”) not the solution (mobilizing the faithful to learn and properly defend their faith).
9. His understanding of the situation can be attributed to a failure by theologians and bishops, following the close of the Vatican Council in 1870, to properly accept and propagate the true meaning of infallibility as it was defined by the Council
10. This theological “trend,” a continuation of the Gallicanist heresy, contributed to the development of Modernism and Americanism.
11. It fostered a distrust of the papacy and the demeaning of Scholasticism and Canon Law.
12. Those following these theologians and bishops ignored the teaching of the popes who condemned this trend; instead they favored the theologians then perpetuating it.
13. This eventually culminated in the election of John 23 and the calling of the false V2 council.
14. It has resulted in the false attribution of the beginnings of liturgical “renewal” and ecumenism to Pope Pius XII. This despite the fact that John 23 and Paul 6 were proven to be secretly behind these movements prior to their “elections” and were not favored by this pope.
15. This distrust of the papacy and quasi-Modernist outlook spilled over into the ranks of the remnant, (unwittingly) encouraged by Strojie and deliberately promoted by others.
16. It prepared them for what is now in the works — the “gathering together” of the various Traditionalist sects to push for the resignation/deposition/conversion (?) of Francis.
All this in order to return the Church to its previous state in the 1950s without addressing the what destroyed Her in the first place — the arrival of the Great Revolt or Apostasy, admitted by Strojie (the Shepherd struck and the flock scattered); the reign of Antichrist, also admitted by Strojie but with Christ directly supplying him with the necessary power, and the inevitable cessation of the Holy Sacrifice as foretold by the prophet Daniel.

This quote about W.F. Strojie, shows that Teresa Benns gets very close to the truth in many aspects of the general current situation, though not without adjuncting many inaccuracies and approximations, notably by generalizations intended as simplifying devices but turning out to be unfair exaggerations.

On the other hand, when Ms. Benns takes it upon herself to lecture us about theology and canon law, she displays a lack of acquaintance with basic data leading her to the most surprising confusions and deplorable interpretations, which might well make others despise and ridicule everything else she says.

Abbé Zins, translated by chartreux a écrit : lun. 05 sept. 2022 15:10
First, historically, she seems to be aware of a traditionalist movement after the 1988 bishop ordinations only.

This leads her to write falsely :

Teresa Benns a écrit :
This includes the only two founding bishops of Traditionalism, Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin Ngo dinh Thuc.

In reality, the resistance started earlier with elderly priests and some laymen (such was the case of my parents and family) who had rejected and fled the liturgical and doctrinal revolution in the parishes, without yet being able to grasp the causes of it. This was before even hearing about Archbishop Lefebvre and his seminary.

Abbé Zins, translated by chartreux a écrit : jeu. 08 sept. 2022 14:14
Next, putting Archbishop Lefebvre and Thuc on the same level is, at the same time, false, unfair and even grotesque, for several reasons.

1̊ The former was a member of the group publicly opposing the modernist revolution in the "Council", the latter made several hyper-"progressive" statements there, including one favourable to the "ordination of women", and another asking why, in addition to the Protestants present, buddhists and members from other sects were not also invited to V2?

2̊ The former founded his fraternity with the approval of a diocesan bishop who left V2 before it ended, his seminary with the agreement of the local bishop, and all three had served as bishops under Pius XII. The latter not only founded nothing at all, but simply retired in the city of Toulon.

3̊ The former publicly ordained priests youths from Catholic families, previously incardinated in their dioceses, and then incardinated in his fraternity, with the approval of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. The latter granted the requests of all sorts of sectarians, beginning with those from Palmar de Troya, schismatics, esoterists, etc ..., surreptitiously "ordained" or "consecrated" by him in his F1 personal apartement at Toulon, without a Master of Ceremonies, and most often without any witness at all, and not without simoniacal arrangements.

Abbé Zins, translated by chartreux a écrit : lun. 12 sept. 2022 14:40

Those same approximations and false equivalences are made even worse by the following equally false statement, seriously unfair at least up to the 1988 consecrations :

Teresa Benns a écrit :
They have received orders from notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics, namely Lefebvre and Thuc, also any Old Catholics or orthodox, (Can. 2372.)

According to the public rumor of the time, including the one circulating in the "progressive" press (as it was then called) who denigrated him, Archbishop Lefebvre was on the contrary the only Catholic bishop who had the courage to resist the liturgical and doctrinal revolution publicly.

It was only much later that we heard of Bishop de Castro Mayer, who resisted with all his diocese at Campos, Brazil and his seminary.

Teresa Benns thus confuses and lumps together the history of the Spokane sect and co. in the US, with the history of the traditionalist movement in France, Europe and elsewhere.

On the other hand, this putting on the same level is a godsend to the schismatics and sectarians as it contributes to "improving their image", the better to infiltrate the traditionalist environment and get accepted within it.

It must nevertheless be said, to make somewhat more understandable Ms. Benns' oversimplified and retroactive view and her blurred perception from the other side of the Atlantic, that the fact that Carmona, followed by Dolan, allied themselves with the Spokane sect, after having first denounced it as such and threatened to deny communion to those who frequented it, is quite apt to foster her inaccurate interpretation.

Abbé Zins, translated by chartreux a écrit : jeu. 15 sept. 2022 11:50
This inacurracy in Teresa Benns' mind becomes clearer with the following anachronistic statement, a judgment on the past which was full of obscurity and uncertainty, from a largely clarified present-day :

Teresa Benns a écrit :
« As proven elsewhere, Lefebvre, Castro de Mayer, Thuc, Mendez et al — all lost any jurisdiction they once possessed by joining the Novus Ordo sect, celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae, signing Vatican 2 documents and accepting offices from a false pope. »

This is a misunderstanding, either genuine or affected, of the common error that was nearly-universal at the beginning of the revolution, and of the pratical consequences flowing from it, doctrinally expounded since the Constance ecumenical Council, and enshrined in canon law under canon 209 of the 1917 code.

This common error is admittedly not to be confounded with the deliberate and actively self-deceiving error which came later.

Abbé Zins, translated by chartreux a écrit : lun. 19 sept. 2022 11:51
Many statements made by her in a peremptory tone, such as this one :

Teresa Benns a écrit : Bishops have simulated ordinations without dimissorial letters, (2373). Traditional “priests” have simulated the Mass and Sacraments, (Can. 2322).

seriously betray how she mingles together lawfulness and validity on the pratical level. Thus Teresa Benns clearly displays how she fails to distinguish between "moral" power (the licit, lawful character) and "sacramental" power, between moral "invalidity" (the illicit, unlawful character) and sacramental invalidity; the "power" of jurisdiction and the "power" of orders.

This is again demonstrated by the two following quotes :

Teresa Benns a écrit :
It should be noted that while Lefebvre, Thuc and others receiving their episcopate from Pope Pius XII could (theoretically) validly ordain IF they had possessed the jurisdiction to first administer tonsure, those who have since been foisted on gullible Catholics as ordained and “consecrated” by them or others without the papal mandate received nothing at all. Whether touted as priests or bishops, having never received tonsure, they could never even have become priests!

It seems to me that no writer from the clergy, however incompetent, could utter such an enormity, resulting from such a total unawareness of the most elementary distinctions.

And yet many swallow this all, hook, line and sinker! What is more, they even consider it an absolute, unanswerable argument, and they call incompetent anyone who does not rave with admiration at such inane pronouncements of a new Lady-Pope.

The coarser and more brazen it is, the easier it is for them to swallow the camel while pretending to strain at a gnat.

Abbé Zins, translated by chartreux a écrit : lun. 26 sept. 2022 13:07

Now here is another claim of hers. This one shows a really dense lack of understanding, worthy in blindness of a rabbinical literalism, and perhaps caused by a stubborn refusal to admit or acknowledge a confusion pointed out by some critics. It considers a disclipinary measure, and pretends to make a preposterous "deduction" of an effect which is nowhere implied in it :

Teresa Benns a écrit :
Consecrations and Confirmations would be valid but illicit if performed during any time other than an interregnum, but Pope Pius XII says they are null and void during a sede vacante.

She would be hard pressed indeed to quote one single author distorting Pope Pius XII's prescriptions to such an extent. By the way, Pius XII only reiterated what had been prescribed by Pope St. Pius X, who himself only gathered in an orderly fashion what was more scattered before him.

Abbé Zins, translated by chartreux a écrit : jeu. 29 sept. 2022 10:32

Teresa Benns a écrit : « During an interregnum any acts usurping papal jurisdiction (presuming the approval of a true pope to administer a diocese and create priests) are declared null and void by Pope Pius XII in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.»

While this is about jurisdiction and moral power, she makes a false and bizarre application of it to sacramental power, failing once again to distinguish between "moral" power (the licit, lawful character) and "sacramental" power, between moral "invalidity" (the illicit, unlawful character) and sacramental invalidity ; the "power" of jurisdiction and the "power" of order :

Teresa Benns a écrit :
« For those who believe they are receiving valid Sacraments from validly ordained priests, this information is of the utmost importance. Because these (unwitting?) imposters never became priests for lack of valid tonsure, as simple laymen they are not (a) bound to keep the Seal of the Confessional, since it involves no Sacrament; (b) able to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice because they cannot validly or licitly consecrate the Body of Christ and (c) fit to administer any of the other Sacraments.

Their actions are termed simulation of the Sacraments, punishable under Can. 2322 by ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See.

Abbé Zins, translated by chartreux a écrit : lun. 03 oct. 2022 11:47
As she seems to have understood or at least more or less felt that she is being reproached with making a basic confusion between valid and licit, she tried to prove that imaginary absolute invalidity of hers "better" by fabricating the following fallacy : tonsure morally implies jurisdiction to be "valid" ; without a "valid tonsure", all the orders conferred afterwards are (sacramentally) "invalid" and "therefore" "simulated" only :

Teresa Benns a écrit : « No mandate, no diocese, no tonsure.» « No candidates were qualified to even be considered for tonsure and no jurisdiction existed to validly convey it. Ergo, it was never received in a manner that satisfies the requirements of Can. 147 for validity; every canon law regarding the administration of tonsure was violated. » «Traditionalists have tried to slip out from the noose around their necks by various subterfuges, primarily: (...) the assumption that tonsure is an actual order arising from the power of Orders, when it is actually an act of jurisdiction.»

To summarize, by quoting canon 147 in this context, she displays once again her confusion, this time between receiving a tonsure and receiving an ecclesiastical office, and she then follows this enormity by another, nearly putting tonsure on the same level as baptism - baptism which is indeed necessary for validly receiving the other sacrements.

Abbé Zins, translated by chartreux a écrit : ven. 07 oct. 2022 11:20
Let us consider just one example, which might hopefully help her realize the obviousness that so far she cannot or will not see :

If the validity of holy orders depended on a "valid tonsure", which itself depends on jurisdiction, we should then hold as "invalid" and "simulated" all the ordinations and consecrations made by those who call themselves "Orthodox".

Could she quote one single Catholic author (or, better, a Pope) holding them to be invalidly (sacramentally) ordained and consecrated ?

Those ordinations and consecration are assuredly illegitimate as they are schismatic. But they are not sacramentally invalid.

By thus wishing to prove too much, and stubbornly refusing those elementary distinctions, she only succeeds in undermining her own credibility more and more.