G.K. Chesterton wrote concerning his conversion to the Catholic Church: “The difficulty of explaining ‘why I am a Catholic’ is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true.” I do not have the same difficulty in explaining the reasons to be a Home Alone Catholic, because there are not ten thousand reasons but only one reason: that Home Alone Catholicism is the only true way to be Catholic today.

And yet there are at least ten—probably ten thousand—consequences or effects of this elephantine truth which may be enumerated to elucidate the principle reason or cause. If there is no bishop in Rome who is the legitimate and actual successor of Saint Peter, as there surely isn’t, and if there are no bishops who have retained the faith and so are truly apostolic, having been appointed by a true Vicar of Christ, as there surely aren’t, and if there are no known priests with legitimate and valid holy orders who have jurisdiction to offer the Sacrifice of the mass publicly and absolve sins in the tribunal of the confessional, as there surely doesn’t appear to be, then the Home Alone position is so very much demonstrable that its denial either arises to the height of stupidity or else sinks to the depths of heresy. I think most who do wage intellectual combat against Home Alone are simply wielding the intellectual equivalent of butter knives. It is not a fair fight when you have the certitude of dogmatic authority and your opponent has mere opinion which turns out to be heresy.

So far then has the truth of the Home Alone position been demonstrated on the pages of this blog, I would like to offer my top ten reasons to be a Home Alone Catholic, which are the consequences of the truth.

10. No More Mass in the Hood

When my family and I realized that the mass of Paul VI—aka the Antichrist—was invalid at best and Satan’s supper at worst, we decided to attend the mass offered by the Institute of Christ the King in St. Louis, which was over two hours away. Though we didn’t realize at the time the multitude of inconsistencies in attending the indult mass, because we were blissfully ignorant of the spiritual dangers of offering a mass una cum—offering the mass in union with the Roman Pontiff—with one we did not believe could be the Roman Pontiff, I recall a Midnight mass where we became frightfully aware of the physical danger of attending mass at midnight in a metropolis.

The mass had concluded and we were sent out into the cold night, and, having nursed a long fast, and feeling quite peckish, we decided to hit the Jack in the Box drive-thru before our flight back to Little Egypt. The line was long, which I suppose one is to suspect when grabbing a bite at midnight in the city which never rests, but my impatience boiled over into extreme restlessness to get my burger and get the hell out of there when I distinctly heard the clear ringing out of at least two small caliber pistol shots not a block or two from the fast food lane I was currently stuck in with my family. I finally rolled up to the barred drive-thru window, and rolled down my car door window, received my food—which was forgettable—and entered the freeway home, leaving the nightmare of attending midnight mass in a metropolis—which was not forgettable—to the past and my memory.

9. Goodbye to Glutenation

I almost do not want to mention this reason because some may misunderstand me, or think I speak irrelevantly about the Blessed Sacrament. Let me just preface my remarks by saying that I would give up all bodily comfort for the chance to partake of my Lord and God sacramentally in the Holy Eucharist again, if I knew that the reception of Him by the hands of the priests available today would be lawful. But, since I think it is not only unlawful but sacrilegious to do so, I cannot help mentioning as a happy consequence of this fact that my family no longer need fear ingesting gluten, which is one of the accidents of the substance of the bread which remains after the miracle of transubstantiation, wherein the substance of the bread—that which it really is—is changed into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

As we attended the Saint Gertrude the Great Mission, my wife, Laura, being more sensitive to gluten, had already to abstain from sacramental Communion, and offer up a spiritual communion instead, so now we all abstain from sacramental communion and offer up a spiritual communion instead, being most sensitive to sacrilege.

8. Cutting Costs on Clothes

Anyone who has more than the Freemasonic atomic family of four knows that clothing costs are exponentially more the more children one has. This effect is mitigated by the necessary protocol of hand-me-down, but not altogether neutralized, especially with boys who, after wearing a pair of jeans for a month, wear kneecap holes so big mother is obliged either to discard the pants, or hem them so high they become shorts.

As I have six children, the costs of clothing is already about as expensive as a second mortgage, I sure am glad that I do not have to afford a Church wardrobe for the children. That probably would make me have to take out a second mortgage on our home.

Think about it, six children, that’s six pairs of dress shoes every six months, each about 50 dollars on average—I’m talking JC Penny here, not Kmart. Then there’re hats for the ladies, or veils, dress coats and pants, and pretty dresses, the costs of which so far exceed my budget that we would have to dip into the grocery fund and start eating conventional food, i.e., genetically modified, toxically fertilized, pesticide-laden poison, just to pay for it. So I guess this is two for one, since not only do we cut our costs on Church clothes, since we do not need to be so spiffy in our living room offering mass and spiritual communion, we also don’t have to buy the cheaper conventional food. The Great Apostasy is a gift that keeps on giving!

7. Home School, Not Parochial School

It is doubtful that, had we never left the Novus Ordo, or the Sedevacantists, we would have become a classical homeschooling family. The tradition has always been for Catholics to send their children off for instruction at the hands of strangers three-quarters of the waking day, to receive training in the arts and sciences by religious sisters, usually very competent and skilled in doing so. Most of the Novus Ordo has abandoned this practice, and prefers to let laity run their parish schools, but one group of Sedevacantists still carries on the tradition. At QUEEN OF ALL SAINTS ONLINE ACADEMY which, though it has a veneer of being classical, doesn’t even require (so far as I can tell from the website) or even offer courses in either Latin or Greek–peculiar, to say the least, of a supposedly Catholic academy run by traditionalist religious that doesn’t require Latin of its students! We probably would have been tempted to enroll our children into the Sedevacantist academy, and would have never expanded our children’s language horizons beyond two world language credits, probably in Spanish or French.

Now, since we are Home Alone, our children are learning Latin and Greek, in addition to every single subject the Queen of All Saints Online Academy offers, plus some. The bonus boon is that I don’t have to pay for those adorable sweater vests and ties. And, what’s even more awesome, I get to spend more time with my children, and learn with them, and foster bonds with them that will last a lifetime–because they don’t spend three-quarters of the day away from mommy and daddy. Thank God for Home Alone.

6. Local Poor More Well-Off

In the Book of Proverbs we learn that “He that hath mercy on the poor, lendeth to the Lord: and he will repay him.” Now, since we do not tithe to the Novus Ordo churches, nor the Sedevacantists, we have a hefty item to balance on our budget every month, which is allocated to tithing ten percent of our income. Those who can find a worthy–and efficient!–charity which does not have so high an overhead as to make your contributions worthless, great for you! I know of none. But I do know of one charitable way of giving, or tithing your ten percent, which doesn’t have any overhead, usually because the one to whom you give doesn’t have a ceiling, let alone a home. Neither does this entity who stands to benefit from your benevolence require a salaried staff, which often is the sole beneficiary of your tithe. I am speaking, of course, of your local beggar on the street corner with the Sharpie-inscribed cardboard sign pleading with you to fulfill the commandment of God to love your neighbor as yourself. That is your actual neighbor, and not someone in Zimbabwe, who isn’t. As St. Thomas teaches, there is an order of charity which must be observed in performing acts of charity, and in relation to our neighbor, to the degree of his closeness:

“Moreover there is yet another reason for which, out of charity, we love more those who are more nearly connected with us, since we love them in more ways. For, towards those who are not connected with us we have no other friendship than charity, whereas for those who are connected with us, we have certain other friendships, according to the way in which they are connected. Now since the good on which every other friendship of the virtuous is based, is directed, as to its end, to the good on which charity is based, it follows that charity commands each act of another friendship, even as the art which is about the end commands the art which is about the means. Consequently this very act of loving someone because he is akin or connected with us, or because he is a fellow-countryman or for any like reason that is referable to the end of charity, can be commanded by charity, so that, out of charity both eliciting and commanding, we love in more ways those who are more nearly connected with us.”

It follows, then, that to give to our fellow-countryman on the corner is more commanded by charity than to give to a family in a hovel on another continent. So consider giving to your local poor as a way to tithe. I guarantee you, God will not be outdone in generosity.

5. Children’s Choir

When attending mass at some beautiful traditional chapel, one is amazed to hear the beauty of the Catholic musical heritage on display: the pipe organ, with its majestic nuanced tones, powerful as they are subtle, like the breath of angels, or the choir loft, so lofty one cannot even see the singers, but one would have to be tone deaf not to hear the overwhelming beauty of the Gregorian chant and Sacred polyphony. The loss of these are very much regrettable when one has to stay home for mass, and, were I anymore of a heathen, I’d probably give up the position all together, if only to savor the auditory delights of the Missa de Angelis. But, thankfully, that is what Youtube is for.

And yet there is a good which we receive from staying home and not attending mass with the professional choir. We ourselves must learn how to sing. Thankfully, my wife is already naturally talented to sing, and has a beautiful voice and discerning ear, so we already have a cantor to keep the children’s choir in line. There would simply have never been a reason to develop our ears and voices to glorify God had we remained in the pews of the sects, absorbed as we were in the beautiful professional choirs and majestic pipe organ, which, as I have alluded to, may be the last thing keeping people in the pews. Now, we sing a cappella, and hear every voice of the choir, even the little, mousey voices of the youngest. And, though we do not expect to be recording any chant album anytime soon, our choir is intimate and beautiful in its humility, and that pleases us, but, what’s infinitely more important, it delights our Mother Mary and our Father who is in Heaven.

4. Matrimony, the Mother of Souls

It goes without saying perhaps that the domestic Church is indispensable to being a Catholic. I say perhaps, because some people think it is antithetical to Catholicism, but that is just because they aren’t Catholic. Any real Catholic knows that the home is where holiness happens. True, we receive sacramental graces from going to communion, provided we go to ministers of the word and the sacraments who are actually sent to us by the Church, but when that is not possible, there are graces which we receive from praying at home, particularly through the Sacrament of Matrimony, which, the BC teaches, has particular graces:

1028. The effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony are: 
   1. To sanctify the love of husband and wife;
   2. To give them grace to bear with each other’s weaknesses;
   3. To enable them to bring up their children in the fear and love of God.

It is axiomatic that, when one breaks a leg, the other leg becomes stronger. Now, the sacraments may be considered the supports or the legs of the Church, and, when one is not available through the break in apostolic succession, the other sacraments become stronger through an increased dependence upon them. Matrimony is just one such, and my wife and I rely upon the sacramental graces which flow from our Matrimonial union to strengthen us on the most difficult task yet devised by God: the bearing with each other’s weaknesses. Most people, and I do mean most, even among so-called Catholics, simply divorce, and attempt to marry again, I guess with the assumption that their first marriage (and only marriage, since, when once married, always married) broke down on account of matter and not will. Well, being Home Alone, my wife and I depend upon the sacramental graces of Matrimony as if our lives depend upon it, because they do, not only our physical lives but our spiritual and eternal lives depend upon it, as well as our children’s lives, which is the whole point of Matrimony, the raising of our children in the fear and love of the Lord.

3. Isolated from Evil Influences

The world is wicked. Period. Not just the bad actors behind the globalist cabal–probably Luciferian in origin–but also your neighbor across the street, as well as yourself, if you are honest. That is why it is so important to try to control what comes into your home, and what comes into your children’s souls through evil influences, be they from children at school or church. Our children live what many may consider to be very isolated lives. We prefer to call it monastic in body if not in spirit. Being members of worldly associations is not altogether conducive to sanctity, as any monk or cloistered sister would tell you. As the Imitation of Christ teaches:

“What can you find elsewhere that you cannot find here in your [home]? Behold heaven and earth and all the elements, for of these all things are made. What can you see anywhere under the sun that will remain long? Perhaps you think you will completely satisfy yourself, but you cannot do so, for if you should see all existing things, what would they be but an empty vision? 

Raise your eyes to God in heaven and pray because of your sins and shortcomings. Leave vanity to the vain. Set yourself to the things which God has commanded you to do. Close the door upon yourself and call to you Jesus, your Beloved. Remain with Him in your [home], for nowhere else will you find such peace. If you had not left it, and had not listened to idle gossip, you would have remained in greater peace. But since you love, sometimes, to hear news, it is only right that you should suffer sorrow of heart from it.”

Home is where humans and heaven meet. God became Man, and dwelt among us, in a home, in the Holy House of Loreto, which, as pious legend has it, was so holy that the angels where ordered to relocate it from the Holy Land to Loreto, Italy, which stands today as one of the most visited shrines in the country. There He lived isolated from evil influences, safeguarded by Saint Joseph and Mother Mary. Living out the faith at home alone in imitation of the Holy Family–it doesn’t get much more holy than that.

2. Increased Prayer Life

I know that when my family attended the fake mass at the Novus Ordo, we almost never prayed at home, and when we started to attend the Traditional Latin Mass, we prayed the rosary, and when we attended the mass of Sedevacantists, we prayed the Angelus and the Rosary, and some more personal prayers, but only when we decided that the Home Alone position was the only way to keep the faith and the commandments of the Catholic Church, did we start to pray much more:

• Angelus, 3x daily
• Rosary
• Acts of Faith, Hope, Love, and Contrition
• Consecration to the Sacred Heart daily
• St. John’s Mass and Spiritual Communion on Holy Days, including every Sunday
• Confiteor, Mass prayers and parts, etc.

And a handful of other prayers it would be tedious to mention. The point is, being Home Alone, we pray so much more than we ever did, and prayer is a means to attain grace, as the BC teaches:

1117. The fruits of prayer are: 
   1. It strengthens our faith,
   2. nourishes our hope,
   3. increases our love for God,
   4. keeps us humble,
   5. merits grace and atones for sin.

I can attest to the fruits of prayer in my family. Are we perfect? By no means! Do we still have a lot to work on? Absolutely. And yet I wonder how we would be today, had we remained in the Sedevacantist mission, being content with saying our daily Rosary and the few prayers, compared with now, where we pray throughout the day. We who pray at home, pray at home! The whole point of Home Alone Catholicism is being a Catholic at home, which means we are not depending on being a Catholic at church, and praying there, since that option has been taken away from us. And, though the loss of the sacraments and attending mass is harder than I can say, there are benefits from being Home Alone none of our opponents consider. An augmentation of the fruits of prayer is, simply put, an increase in holiness. If we pray more, we become more holy.

1. Home Church

The last reason to be a Home Alone Catholic is the building up of the Home Church. The way in which we do this has already been explained in the preceding nine reasons. We do not go to church because there are no lawful pastors, so we bring the Church home, and build it up through works and prayer, and build it on the Rock of Christ:

Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof, (Matthew 7:24-27).

The Rock of Christ is the rules and articles of the faith, which one may learn from their catechism. There it teaches that we must not go to unlawful ministers who have not been sent to us. It also teaches everything we must know and do in order to save our souls. We can carry on the faith at home, and, as I think I have at least strongly suggested, carry on the faith at our Home Church even better than trying to do so in the Novus Ordo or Sedevacantist churches, and this is so even if they were lawful–which they are not! The Novus Ordo is heretical, and the Sedevacantists are schismatic, which means no one receives graces from their sacraments. Of course, had we be born in a difference age, and not during the Great Apostasy, then living out our faith at home would have been greatly influenced and made more holy by the reception of the sacraments from actual Catholic ministers. We would have had the spiritual benefit of a confessor who could not only absolve us of our sins, but also offer us Catholic counsel, because he had been trained in an actual Catholic seminary, as opposed to whatever you want to call happening down in Florida, were it is deemed near miraculous to have seminarians who have manners. But the necessity to have a Home Church would have been the same, even during normal times. The only difference is, not that Home Church is now indispensable whereas it wasn’t before, that now we can look to nowhere else for grace.

Powered by

Perhaps you have noticed in the menu bar the new addition of the QUASI STELLAE tab? I originally envisioned the idea for a philosophical journal as a whole new website, but after I started to think about the project, I thought that a page on CatholicEclipsed would work just as well.

It is my intention to explore the crisis of the Church from philosophy, and publish articles on the QS page which dive into the principles behind the crisis, to help make sense of things. There will of course be overlap into theological principles–those truths which come from Divine revelation instead of reason–but generally I would like to focus on the philosophical underpinnings of what we believe, as that is my special competency and training.

As you navigate through the page, you will see that there is a table of contents which has hyperlinks to the various content on the page. This will be periodically updated with new material, which I will announce through the CE Log. The one I am currently working on, and which is published in part, is On the Form and Matter of the Papacy, which takes a look at what the papacy is from an analysis of the form and matter. Though it does not state outright, the article (which is made up of three articles), has Bishop Sanborn’s paper, On Being Pope Materially in the background, which gives voice to the objections the articles try to deal with.

Let me share with you a word on the method of the Dialectic of Saint Thomas Aquinas, which I have adopted for my mine on QUASI STELLAE. There is a great short article on Thomstica.net, “St. Thomas Aquinas for Beginners,” by David A. Smither, which I encourage you to read in full. Below is a section taken from the website, on how to read the articles written in the dialectic style of Aquinas:

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE SUMMA ARTICLES

Articles of the Summa are written in the style of a “scholastic disputation.” These are really short, systematic debates, and once you know your way around them they are a ton of fun to read. Sadly, most people who open the Summa get lost in the seemingly obtuse structure of the articles, get discouraged by this, and end up giving up on St. Thomas.

The basic structure is as follows.

1. Statement of the Question, usually in a yes/no form.
2. Objections, wherein Aquinas summarizes arguments against his own position.
3. “On the contrary,” wherein Aquinas quotes from an authority like the Bible, a Father of the Church, or ancient pagan philosophers like Aristotle, in support of his own position.
4. “I answer that,” wherein Aquinas argues for his own position. This is typically the longest part of the article and where the real substance of Aquinas’ one view is to be found.
5. “Replies,” wherein Aquinas answers each of the previously stated objections and explains why it’s wrong, frequently by recourse to careful distinctions that show the objection to be partly right and partly wrong.

It is very difficult to write as clear as Saint Thomas Aquinas, because one needs to have the clarity of thought that he had in order to do so. Oftentimes elaboration and a casual style are more appropriate for difficult and complex issues of philosophy. When this is the case, I will venture from the scholastic disputation style of Aquinas, and write more in the classical style, with an introduction, definition of terms, body, and conclusion. But the method used in presenting arguments in the Summa served Aquinas and generations after him very well, so I will utilize mainly this method.

I hope you check out the QUASI STELLAE page, and frequently return to it for new articles. Further, I hope it may help to clarify certain issues, or open up your mind to grander vistas of the faith.

The Technocratic Island of Númenor

I woke this morning with the fog of a dream on my head, which I vaguely recall had something to do with restoring the guild-system to furnish artifacts once again actually worth having as furnishings. In my dream the item was a crucifix, no doubt inspired by the replica crucifix hanging behind me, which was modeled after a crucifix of a chapel in a Word War II warship, which itself was sunk in the sea so many years ago. Finding my way through the fog of that dream to my coffee pot, then to my rounds on the internet, I came across a delightful little blog, which featured the article by Ben Reinhard, “Amazon, Tolkien and the American Technocracy.” I do not know, but I am assuming that Reinhard is a devoted distributist, as indeed any sane and reasonable Catholic would be. But there are different flavors of distributism, nor do I claim to have theoretical knowledge of the economical complexities that bless or plague the word and the theory. But, as far as I can make out from the happy article, Reinhard seems to be an exponent of a reactionary kind of distributism.

What is demanded for in any theory, be it practical or speculative, is a certain modicum of consistency and what might just as well be called fair-play, and, as the practical theory under discussion at present deals with the notions touching (however disagreeably) on economics, we might say also fair-trade. The system cannot contradict itself, and when a contradiction arises based upon the essential structures of the system, you have a collapse of the system as a practicable theory. Take the case of what I shall call reactionary distributism, as in that which Reinhard seems to promote. In the article cited above, Dr. Reinhard (sorry for not mentioning he is a doctor and teacher at Franciscan University of Steubenville) speaks eloquently against Amazon for making everything so convenient and quickly available. He chides Bezos for his billions, and casts him as a kind of second Servant of Sauron, after Saruman, ready to make waste Middle Earth by his technocratic dictatorship. Now, there is something to say for how big business has become pretty much the only business, but there’s something that the adversaries of big business never allow, and that is, that big business tends to have standards that little businesses have almost all but forgotten or never had to begin with. This is because big business is no longer an isolated endeavor and enterprise of one or a few merchants wanting to make a buck. Big business has left the shop mentality behind and has become a culture, a people of its own. Big business has become, in no small measure and not equivocally, in its essentials the medieval guild which distributism so exalts to the stars.

The guild system of medieval Europe consisted in general outline, as groups of highly skilled tradesmen and merchants who were unified by their art-science, and ensured productive quality based upon rigorous standards of membership. In a word, the guild was a society and culture, much like the society and culture of Amazon, for instance. What the guild was precisely not, and what it actually stood against openly, was the independent workman with no credentials, who insisted on his own way, his own technique, his own name brand. The guild stood against and wanted to crush the (ever idealized in our contemporary American culture) Ma and Pop Shops, because these were a spot on the guild’s standards and undermined their profit margins, through selling inferior goods. This brings me back to the notion of contradictory systems.

The brand of distributism that Reinhard pushes is contradictory in this regard, that, not only is it reactionary but it conflates the bad with the good. As Reinhard says:

“There does not seem to be a universal solution; specific steps will vary according to the abilities and needs of a given individual or family. For some, this may mean downgrading to a ‘dumb’ phone; for others, sharply curtailing smartphone use. It could mean a commitment to never buy online what could be purchased in person. It could mean dumping Amazon altogether, along with all its works and pomps. More positively, resistance could mean engaging in activities that are natural but arduous: writing a poem, planting a garden, raising a family.”

We are to give up our smartphones in exchange for dumb phones, because technology is bad. Online shopping, which is convenient for the average healthy person, and absolutely critical for the cripple who can’t make it out his house without breaking something, is to be accounted a social blight, presumedly because, Amazon, along with any store you please, provides the service. This is simply unthinking and reactionary and contradictory. First, that dumb phone, it might surprise Dr. Reinhard, was an invention directly borne out of the minds of a thousand technologically inclined men who did not see it altogether evil to make communication evermore efficient and lucid. If Reinhard had it his way, we should stick to feather quill and rolled parchment and carrier pigeons, but that only betrays the point even further, for these things were just as much technology as smartphones are today. The only difference is, whereas ink pens and pigeons do not require a guild-like culture to make them, smartphones do.

I contend that one is able to write a poem, plant a garden, and raise a family with technology. Actually, I would argue that one is not able to write a poem, plant a garden or raise a family without technology. The problem with the reactionary distributism of Reinhard is that it is wholly based upon sentimentalism of degree and not on the cold distinctions of the essentials of things. Obviously one is not going to get far digging a garden without a plow, which is just a piece of ironmongery of the Iron Age. Obviously written language was just a technology devised by men to make man forget how to remember. If, taken to its ultimate conclusion, this brand of distributism which is purely reactionary instead of thoughtful and productive contradicts itself and blows up. Man is, as has ever been the case, an inventor, because he is made in the image of God, Who is the Creator. Invention is nothing other than creation from something. God creates out of nothing. Man creates out of something, which means he uses what already exists to create something new.

Now, if Reinhard’s criticism of Amazon and the American Technocracy were strictly confined to criticizing those things which perhaps never should have been invented, then I am all for such. But that is not upon which his criticism is based. Rather, it is because Amazon is big:

“For all its heat, however, The Rings of Power controversy has generated surprisingly little light, as neither the show’s critics nor its defenders have shown that they possess any clear sense of what Tolkien’s work is actually about. Or perhaps not so surprising. The simple truth is this: never has a society been so ill disposed to receive Tolkien’s vision as twenty-first-century America, and never has a company been so poorly qualified to safeguard Tolkien’s legacy as Amazon Studios. Quite the opposite is true: our modern technocratic society (and the trillion-dollar company that serves as its avatar) are very nearly the picture of Tolkienian evil.”

Now we come to the beginning which is also the end of the discussion–and the debate. The claim that Amazon Studios is not qualified to safeguard Tolkien’s legacy is very intellectually and historically clumsy. Reinhard says this, because Amazon represents, in his mind, everything that is bad about big business and our modern technocratic society. The only problem with his analysis is that the reverse and exact opposite is true. Because Amazon Studios is the exemplar of the avant-garde of cinematic arts, which itself requires and is indeed built upon the latest technologies of the technocratic society we happily live in, and because Amazon is an amazing (sorry for the pun) billion-dollar business of Bezos, who is a genius businessman, it is most, not least, qualified to put into mind-boggling high definition live-streaming cinema the fantastical world of Tolkien’s vision in every home across the world.

Let me just pause here for a moment and add an artistic critical review of what I believe is already the greatest achievement in the cinematic arts to-date, and there have only been three episodes aired. The Rings of Power is in vision, sound, and story development, a visual arts production by far surpassing anything I’ve ever experienced before. Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings was probably the greatest before our age, but that is just the thing about living in a technocratic society. Things keep getting better. The Rings of Power makes The Lord of the Rings look almost amateurish if you can believe it. Of course, the new show has nothing on the acting of the movies, and that is a big blot, but technologically speaking, e.g., the sets, the special effects, the costumes, the sound, these qualities of the new series blow the old out of the water. But, back to my argument against this reactionary distributism threatening to throw us back into technology-free barbarism.

Should we have entrusted the great artistic task of communicating Tolkien’s literary legacy in the visual arts to the local Ma and Pop Shop, perhaps in the form of a church pageant play, with handmade costumes and that really down-to-earth feel of festivity and amateurism so often displayed at such open-air enterprises? By no means, nor would that be very medieval at all! Were the construction of the cathedrals entrusted to such Ma and Pop Shops? Were the construction of the cathedral organs? To whom were given the commissions of stone or paint of the Renaissance, and who funded them? The most skilled and the rich, that’s who, just as it is today. Reinhard is not reacting to modernism but to medievalism, where the rich and the most skilled ruled.

The problem with Reinhard’s form of distributism is that it is a democratic reaction to a non sequitur, because, if taken to its logical conclusion, Reinhard’s position ends in self-contradiction. The problem with democracy is that it elevates the fool over the wise and the mediocre over the marvelous. Democracy is inimical to invention and discovery, both in the practical arts as well as the theoretical sciences, because it exalts the Ma and Pop Shops who have neither the leisure or inclination to improve or progress in technology or science. For progress in technology as well as in knowledge a guild-like approach must be used, not a local, private, do-it-yourself enterprise. Every civilization which is worthy of the name had its great ages and inventions and was, at its heart, technocratic in industry, from the Roman aqueducts and roads, the technology of which was not surpassed for a thousand years, to the Medieval cathedral and printing press, to the Edisonian era in which artificial lighting literally changed the face of the earth, to the present Computer Age, against which Dr. Reinhard writes. But to be against technocracy is to be against man in his most noble attribute. It is to try to efface his image in the likeness of the Divine Creator.

In his latest, Steve Speray says, 

“Probably against my better judgment, I’m going to reply to it even though it’s so bad. However, it gives me an opportunity to demonstrate how the home-alone position attracts real know-nothings.” 

And further on, Speray asserts:

“I demonstrated clearly how our clergy are rightly ordained and sent using Bishop Carmona’s explanation. Apparently, Robbins doesn’t understand what he reads.” 

And then, he says: 

“On my survival mode point, Robbins states, ‘Steve makes the argument that one is able to break the law when required to do so for survival.’ This is an outrageous lie. I’ve made it clear that our clergy are not breaking the law but are following the spirit of the law and not sinning against it.”

Finally, Steve concludes: 

“I expect Robbins to reply again with more buffoonery, more lies, and more hypocrisy. After all, he believes he can ignore, twist, or break ecclesiastical laws and publish without permission since he has made himself the final authority in his churchless world. This is to be expected from home-aloners because they’ve lost the Church. It only exists in their imaginary dream world where they pretend to be hobbits cuddled together in their little cottages.”

Well, happily (from my Hobbit hole in which I am fated until my doom to remain a know-nothing on account of my pleasure I receive herein, smoking my Longbottom Leaf, feet up, and not violating Divine precepts) I did manage to write a reply, but whether it is full of buffoonery, lies and hypocrisy, the world and God may judge. I have attempted to demonstrate—actually demonstrate as opposed to what Steve does which is merely assert without logical proof from authority and reason—what the Church teaches concerning this business of holy orders and canonical mission, based upon my reading and understanding of Carmona and what the Church teaches. Whether I understood what I read, I will, again, leave to the world and God to be judge.  

It is my sincerest desire that it be read with the same spirit of care and attention with which it was written and that if there be any falsehood found therein, Mr. Speray may have the goodness to point out wherein it errs. But that if there be no falsehood found, then perhaps a civil and truly Catholic discourse on the problems facing us Catholics may be broached, so that we do not become:  

“Ships that pass in the night, and speak each other in passing,

Only a signal shown and a distant voice in the darkness;

So on the ocean of life, we pass and speak one another,

Only a look and a voice, then darkness again and a silence.”

Whether anyone may licitly receive holy orders without canonical mission?

Objection 1: It would seem that those who do not have a mission in the Church are able to act as ministers of the sacraments. For, as Pope Gregory IX declares in the fourth rule of his decretal, “What is not lawful by law, necessity makes lawful.” But holy orders are necessary for salvation, insofar as the sacraments are necessary for salvation, and holy orders are necessary for the sacraments. Thus, holy orders are licitly received in a time of necessity without canonical mission. 

Objection 2: Further, according to Rule eighty-eight of Boniface VIII, “It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit,” hence, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a vacancy of the Holy See by forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests. Therefore, it is not only lawful to receive holy orders but a sin not to receive holy orders without canonical mission through a strict adherence to the letter of the law.    

Objection 3: Further, the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. But the necessity of canonical mission seems to be a matter of ecclesial law, which is itself directed by a higher law, namely the Divine law, of which the salvation of souls is a precept, indeed the highest precept. Therefore, holy orders are not illicitly received without canonical mission when the Divine precept would be violated if the ecclesiastical precept were followed.

On the contrary, the Ecumenical Council of Trent teaches, “If any one shall say…that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema, (Session XXIII. Canon vii.). 

Further, the necessity of canonical mission for holy orders is a rule of faith and not discipline. But a rule of faith must be believed and followed. Therefore canonical mission for holy orders must be believed and followed as  a rule of faith.    

Further, canonical mission is a matter of divine law and not human law. But divine law is not subject to change as human law is, because the Divine lawgiver being infinite and perfect in understanding foresees all contingencies, whereas human law being finite and imperfect cannot. Neither therefore is canonical mission subject to change. 

I answer that, ecclesiastical canons are of two kinds, those of discipline and those of faith: 

“As to the authority of ecclesiastical canons, it is evident a distinction must be made when speaking of canons of faith and canons of discipline, for the former are irreversible, the latter are not. Similarly, it is plain that canons containing a precept already binding by reason of Divine or natural law, cannot be on the same footing as those that are of mere ecclesiastical origin,” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Ecclesiastical Canons”).

Now it is evident the necessity of canonical mission cannot be set aside because it pertains to the rules or canons of the faith, none which may be set aside without becoming by that very act a heretic, as the Theologian teaches: 

“Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind,” (ST. II.II:11.1).

Rectitude of the Christian faith is determined by the rule of faith. Hence, the denial of a rule of faith is a deviation of the rectitude of the Christian faith, which is heresy. That canonical mission is a rule of faith, the Council Fathers of Trent made clear:   

“…yea rather it doth decree, that all those who, being only called and instituted by the people, or by the secular power and magistrate, ascend to the exercise of these ministrations, and those who of their own rashness assume them to themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be accounted as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door.These are the things which it hath seemed good to the sacred synod to teach the faithful of Christ, in funereal terms, touching the sacrament of Orders. But it hath resolved to condemn things contrary thereunto, in express and specific canons, in the manner which follows; to the end that all men, with the assistance of Christ, using the rule of faith, may, amidst the darkness of so many errors, more easily be able to recognize and to hold Catholic truth,” (Trent, XXIII, Sacramental Orders, emphasis added).

Hence, the denial of the rule of faith of the necessity of canonical mission is heresy. But an act cannot be both heretical and licit. Therefore neither can holy orders be received without canonical mission, because to do so is an act of heresy, not in word but deed, insofar as the act implies the denial of the divine precept which should bind the conscience, as all rules of faith so bind. 

Reply to Objection 1: There are different kinds of necessity: “…the sacraments are necessary, not absolutely but only hypothetically, i.e., in the supposition that if we wish to obtain a certain supernatural end we must use the supernatural means appointed for obtaining that end…It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men. Writers on the sacraments refer to this as the necessitas convenientiae, the necessity of suitableness. It is not really a necessity, but the most appropriate manner of dealing with creatures that are at the same time spiritual and corporeal.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Sacraments”). 

The objection rests on the assertion that holy orders are necessary for the sacraments, which are necessary for salvation, which is true, if necessity is understood in the right sense, which the above shows to be hypothetical necessity or necessity of suitableness, and not absolute necessity. But believing and following a rule of faith is absolutely necessary, as was demonstrated in the body of the article. Therefore, we should follow what is absolutely necessary and not what is only hypothetically so. 

And, since what is not lawful by law, necessity makes lawful, and since it is absolutely necessary to follow a rule of faith, though it be ordinarily unlawful not to receive sacraments, the necessity of impossibility of receiving sacraments from those who have not received their holy orders from canonical mission would make it lawful not to receive the sacraments. Thus, the decretal of Gregory IX applies to the hypothetical necessity of the reception of the sacraments more fittingly than to the absolute necessity of the rule of faith, which cannot be dispensed with without committing the act of heresy.     

Reply to Objection 2: Since canonical mission is a matter of Divine law, as is evident by the words, “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you,” (John 20:21), and as the Theologian teaches, “Our Lord said (Matthew 7:24): ‘Every one . . . that heareth these My words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock.’ But a wise builder leaves out nothing that is necessary to the building. Therefore Christ’s words contain all things necessary for man’s salvation,” (ST. II.II.11.2), it is evident that one who adheres to the strict meaning and interpretation of Christ’s words does not sin but, on the contrary, is a wise and holy man, and acts in accordance with the necessary means of securing his personal salvation.   

Reply to Objection 3: Canonical mission is a matter of Divine and not human law, as was proven above. Further, as a rule of faith, the necessity of canonical mission for holy orders is a part of the supreme law of the Church, insofar as the belief of all articles of faith are required for salvation. Hence, because the denial of a rule of faith amounts to a violation of the precept of the supreme law of the Church, the reception of holy orders without canonical mission is not only illicit but a violation of the Divine law, which is itself an act of sacrilege, as the Theologian teaches: “Isidore says (Etym. x) that ‘a man is said to be sacrilegious because he selects,’ i.e. steals, ‘sacred things,’” (ST. II.II.99.1). Now the reception of holy orders without canonical mission is an act of stealing, which is evident by the words above, “…thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door.” Therefore, the reception of holy orders without canonical mission is both illicit and sacrilegious.         

An Analogy and Apology

I begin this refutation of  “Where the Shepherds and Teachers Are—The Problem with the ‘Home-Alone’ Position—Part III” with an apology to Steve Speray. I am sorry that, in attempting to explain the circumstances at present affecting the Body of Christ, and the problems facing the Kingdom our Lord has established here on Earth, it is necessary to make an analogical appeal to the most popular literary achievement and subsequently most popular cinematic achievement ever, or one might just say generally, the most popular artistic achievement ever. I am speaking, of course, of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (LOTR), and the film adaptations of Peter Jackson. As an aside, it might also be of interest that Amazon has just started to air what may turn out to be the greatest achievement in series-based cinema, called Rings of Power, the first two episodes of which blew my hair back, and made me ponder the mysteries and beauties of Middle-Earth and Tolkien lore for the rest of the evening, bathed as it was (fittingly) in hues of golden sunset signaling the coming ember days of autumn. Very Elvin. Very Catholic. 

And that is perhaps the beginning point of the analogy I wish to draw, between the LOTR and the crisis facing earth today. The parallels are so very near the case, that analogy almost breaks down, because there is no analogy between two things essentially the same. The only difference between the fictional epic and the story it tells and what is going on now in the world is that the one is fictional and the other is not. 

The LOTR is not a novel because nothing like it has ever been achieved. It is more like a novel-novel epic. But even the epics of old, The Aeneid, The Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, etc. do not compare with it, either in literary scope, or world-creation and fandom. It is entirely different. The only thing that is comparable in literary achievement to the LOTR is the Bible, which comparison isn’t even fair, because the Bible was written by God and LOTR by man. 

But let me develop the analogy, with all apologies to Steve Speray. You see, Steve’s position is so very much on the wrong side of the story, that it really is embarrassing to have to point out the fact to him. The main LOTR story line is that there exists a Ring of Power which must be destroyed and cannot be wielded by anyone, be he wizard, elf, dwarf, or man—the only one who really can “wield” it is Tom Bombadil, but that is only because he is a prelapsarian Adam figure preserved from temptation to evil. As Jospeh Pearce, a renowned Tolkien scholar, puts it in a lecture series he has on the LOTR:

“Tolkien also describes his work as an allegory of “power usurped for domination” – a theme which is all the more important to examine in our modern world. Characters throughout The Lord of the Rings are tempted by power and the urge to seize it and wield it for personal gain and unlawful control. Throughout the journey of the Fellowship, various characters face the temptation of the One Ring – the wizard Gandalf, through whom the Ring would wield a terrible power; human man Boromir, who would use it to save his people; elf queen Galadriel, weary from fighting the “long defeat” against evil. Among the characters who do usurp power for domination are Saruman, the white wizard who succumbs to evil, whose machinations at Isengard only bring more evil into Middle-earth.”

As I have argued before on the CE Log, the powers of Holy Orders are real powers. If I could liken a priest to any Middle-Earth character, I would say a priest is most like a wizard—the most powerful characters in bodily form in Middle-Earth. Granted, then, that the sacramental and jurisdictional powers of Holy Orders are in fact powers, then it is evident that the Sedevacantist clergy go against the whole moral of the myth of LOTR. 

In this argument from analogy I must pause and answer an objection which some may be entertaining at this point. Is it even reasonable to make an analogy from fictional literature (however seemingly inspired it is, if not by God Almighty, then surely by the Muses), to answer what seems to be a question in theology? How can such this argument be taken seriously?

The answer to the objection is simple enough. This isn’t about theology. If it were, the Home Alone position would win every time, because the arguments for it in theology are so strong and self-evident as to be dogmatic. Canonical mission is so much required to exercise the powers one receives in Holy Orders that to deny this truth is heresy. Steve recognizes this as fact. He just makes a distinction between the dogma in ordinary times versus those in which we are find ourselves now, which, everyone agrees, are extraordinary times. As Steve writes:

“In ordinary times, the clergy are sent out by being placed in offices. This is how bishops attain full apostolic succession. The sedevacantist clergy are sent, but not in ordinary fashion, because of the extraordinary circumstances of the Church’s existence. All the normal rules and teachings from the theological manuals only address the Church within the framework of pre-apostasy times.”

So we agree on the theology. The only difference is, whereas Home Alone Catholics dare not disturb the law and usurp the powers which are not proper to them, Sedevacantists—going against the clear warnings of the LOTR—do not think twice to usurp those powers and try to use them to fight the evil in this world. You cannot fight evil with evil. You cannot create order and law by disorder and lawlessness. You cannot sanctify through profanation.

Refutation Proper

It is not my intent only to level Tolkien against Sedevacantists, as if that would satisfy any intellectually rigorous mind on the question of whether one should attend their chapels and missions for sacraments. As convincing as the analogy is in itself, it only goes so far, since it is an argument, not so much for the head as it is for the heart. Now I must descend into the realm of the intellect, and, if not point by point, at least head by head, demolish the absurd claims Steve Speray makes in defense of his indefensible position of usurpation of holy orders.  

THE NECESSITY OF HAVING SHEPHERDS AND TEACHERS

In this section, Steve claims that the Vatican Council (there is only one council of the Vatican, since the other council was illegitimately convoked by a false pope), teaches there must be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. Steve quotes:

“‘So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.’”

This quote does not teach that there must be (necessary mode) pastors until the end of time. Rather, it teaches that God willed (volitive mode) that there should be pastors until the end of time. Steve argues from the volitive mode to a necessary mode, which is fallacious. The argument fails, because it assumes a quality in the conclusion (necessity) that is not in the premises. 

The arguments on the absolute necessity of the sacraments has already been disproved elsewhere on this website. But suffice it to say that the sacraments are not in themselves absolutely necessary for salvation, and to insist otherwise is actually a form of Feeneyism, which insists that at least one sacrament, baptism, is absolutely necessary as such for salvation, which the Church has taught time and again to be false and ridiculous. 

So Steve’s argument of the necessity of pastors in the Church does not stand from the words taken from the Vatican Council, because it was not written in the necessary mode, nor an argument for the necessity of the sacraments, because the sacraments are not absolutely necessary.   

WHERE THE SHEPHERDS AND TEACHERS MUST BE FOUND

In this section, Steve attempts to get around the necessity of canonical mission by broadening the definition of pastors (shepherds and teachers) claiming insofar as Sedevacantists administer sacraments, they are shepherds and teachers, or pastors. Steve concludes:

“Imagine if Christ sent out the Apostles only to be immediately imprisoned so the Church could never take off. What would be the point of sending them out? How would it benefit the Church? Vatican I is saying that shepherds and teachers will exist till the end of time precisely for the same reason Christ sent out the Apostles, to actually be effective and benefit the Church. Again, the gates of hell have prevailed if the Church is totally incapacitated.” 

The problem with this is that it rests on the refuted interpretation of the Vatican Council, and the absolute necessity of the sacraments. Further, it is ironic that Steve talks of the Apostles being sent out. That is precisely what Home Alone Catholics deny about the Sedevacantists. If they had been sent by God, then of course we must submit to them. Since they have come in their own name, we must refuse them submission, as they are anathema, as the Council of Trent teaches and commands: 

CANON VI.–If any one saith…that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema. 

Those who insist that we should go to ministers who have not been sent by the Church but are nevertheless lawful, run afoul of this canon, and are the true heretics. Which brings me to the next section in Speray’s tediously argued refutation. 

THE LAWFULNESS OF SEDEVACANTIST CLERGY

Steve opines:

“Because Christ wills that there shall be shepherds and teachers till the end of time, they must exist by divine right. No human ecclesiastical law can prevent this right. It is absolutely necessary that shepherds and teachers exist for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ, which is why Jesus wills their existence.” 

Now, not only must pastors exist until the end of time, but they exist by divine right, which, Steve argues, no “ecclesiastical law” can prevent. Well, as it happens, canonical mission is a matter of divine law, not human, so that’s strike one. The second strike already happened when it was disproved that there must be pastors until the end of time. And Steve strikes out with the third error in asserting that Sedevacantists are pastors, because a pastor is one with holy orders who has been sent by canonical power, not any Joe off the street who happens to have stolen holy orders. 

Then Steve proposes the asinine argument that Sedevacantists, though they do not have ordinary mission, have extraordinary mission, because the Church supposedly needs them to. Steve opines:

“Our sedevacantist bishops and priests are not working in an extraordinary mission that works outside the framework of the Church where there exists a pope, his ordinary succession, and bishops with ordinary jurisdiction who are ready and willing to transmit valid orders. Rather, our clergy work in an extraordinary mission that continues the ordinary mission of the Church insofar as possible precisely because these things are wanting.”

But this runs counter, not only to the above canon, but also to what extraordinary mission is. As St. Francis de Sales teaches:

“THESE reasons are so strong that the most solid of your party have taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission, and have said that they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission had been ruined and abolished, with the true Church itself, under the tyranny of Antichrist. This is their most safe refuge, which, since it is common to all sorts of heretics, is worth attacking in good earnest and overthrowing completely. Let us then place our argument in order, to see if we can force this their last barricade. 

First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries?” 

I encourage those who have not read the book of St. Francis de Sales to do so, especially the first part which deals directly with actual necessity of canonical mission. Here Steve, along with the Sedevacantists, is no different than any other heretic or sect trying to reform the Church. “Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries?” St. Francis asks. Of course it is, and has been for decades now, from private conclaves, to a stupendous theory asserting the heresiarch of the Novus Ordo sect is in a sense pope, to the innumerable independent mass centers and missions out there dotting the landscape, which have no mission at all, either ordinary or extraordinary. They are simply so many usurpers feigning to be Catholic clergy.      

OTHER PROBLEMS WITH THE HOME-ALONE POSITION

In this section, Steve has positively lost, if not his mind altogether, at least his commonsense and Sensus Catholicus. He makes this preposterous statement right out of the gate:

“Staying at home is the antithesis of Catholicism. The Church is sent out. We are sent out after Mass, Ite Missa Est. We don’t stay at home, we go out. If every Catholic stays home, there are no Sacraments except baptism and marriage FOR THE WHOLE WORLD. That’s the foundation of Protestantism,” (emphasis original).

I could argue and write probably ten thousand words, and proffer authority after authority to dismantle this claim, but for the fact that it already dismantles itself by its own interior contradictions. Steve says that we are sent out of Church. We don’t stay at home. When I first read that sentence, I really did laugh out loud. I was thinking to myself, where exactly does Steve go after mass on a Sunday anyway, if he doesn’t go home? I don’t know where Steve goes, but when I was attending mass, I would go home. 

But this objection—if it can be construed as an objection and not the unhappy effect of a brain aneurysm—that “Staying at home is the antithesis of Catholics” needs further word. The reverse is so obviously the case, I do not know where to begin to set it aright, because I would need to talk about almost everything our Catholic faith touches on. There was a book written on the subject, The Christian Home: A Guide to Happiness in the Home,” by Celestinew Strub, which you can read in full here. Let me at least quote the concluding words of that holy instructional work on the Christian home by the author:

“Home, sweet home! What a multitude of tender thoughts and feelings are associated with the utterance of that sweet word! What a host of happy memories it conjures up of the innocent days of childhood, of the carefree days of youth, of the toilsome days of maturer age. The home is, indeed, the center of the sweetest and purest of all earthly joys, the starting point of all that is best and greatest in human history. Our Divine Savior Himself gave the home a special consecration by gracing the humble home of Nazareth with His presence during thirty long years; and He thereby gave us also the first and the supreme model of the truly Christian home. Yes, so sacred is the word home that it is commonly used to designate even that eternal dwelling place that God has prepared for those that love Him. 

Love your home, then, dear reader, and try to make it worthy of that sacred name. You can adopt no surer means than to establish religion in your home by enthroning the Sacred Heart as its King and by conforming it as closely as possible to the home of the Holy Family. If the father seeks to imitate St. Joseph; if the mother emulates the loving care of Mary; if the children are docile and diligent after the example of the Child Jesus; and if all seek first the Kingdom of God and His justice,–be it ever so humble, yours will be a happy home. What, then, if those foes of your salvation, the devil and the wicked world, storm and rage without,–you and yours will be safe within the walls of your Christian home. For, built as it is on the rock of Faith, we may truly say of it what Our Blessed Savior said of those who hear His words and do them: “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew; and they beat upon that house, and it fell not; for it was founded on a rock” (Mt. 7, 25).”

One who would claim “Staying at home is the antithesis of Catholicism” either doesn’t have a brain in his skull or has a devil in his heart. I am sorry if I am coming down on Steve hard here, but the defense of the home today is so vastly more important than anything in existence, that I am inclined to say that the assault on the home is the one fight, the only fight, that ever there was, or will be. It is just as important as religion, even more so, because it is the necessary cause, the material cause of our religion, both in its origin and practice. In origin, God became Man, and dwelled, not among us, but among his mother and father, the Holy Family of the Holy Home. And Christ did so for thirty years, then went out according to Providence, and was treated as an enemy and murdered. That is what happens outside the home. And in practice, our religion is carried out on a daily basis in the home in earnest, and only superficially witnessed to in the world. We are not wholly ourselves at work or play. But at home, we relax into our personal habits and hobbies, and live out on a fundamental level who we are, and how we are with others, our children and spouse, and relatives. It is in the home that our Catholic faith is tested, because that is where we live for the greater majority, in childhood and then adulthood. 

I could write a whole post on just this idea alone, but since a greater man than I has already written the book on it, I recommend you read that instead. 

Steve goes on in this section of the problems with Home Alone to say that there is an implicit heretical denial of perpetual succession of the papacy, because the solution would require a Divine intervention. As I have argued before, that this idea of perpetuity denotes the essence of the papacy as it relates to the quality of continuity of time of the papacy itself, and does not imply the quality of extension of any given pope. Let me explain: I could say that there shall be a father as the head of a home in perpetuity. All this means is that, insofar as there is a home, there shall be a father which is its head, in order properly to be called a home. But the definition of the thing does not prove the existence of the thing, but only the essence of the thing. Steve thinks that because the Church teaches that the papacy will be perpetual, this means that there will always be popes. But this is utterly false even on the facts. There hasn’t been a pope in over a half a century! The principle of perpetual succession of the papacy simply means that there will always be the potential for there to be a pope, because the Church as such is a family with a Holy Father as its head.

The next so-called problem with Home Alone is, if not the stupidest objection is at least the most funny:

“Also, home-aloners admit that we are in the great apostasy. However, Holy Writ tells us that the great apostasy is part of the reign of Antichrist. The reign of Antichrist is short-lived due to Christ’s return. If we are indeed in the great apostasy, then we are not coming out of it. There’s not going to be anyone to fix the Church save Christ at His Return. Therefore, we can’t stay at home hoping that someone somewhere on earth can rectify this terrible crisis. We must do the best we can and the sedevacantist clergy did just that. They fulfilled having shepherds and teachers for the faithful for the whole Church as Christ willed.” 

So, let me get this straight, Steve, you admit that we may be in the Great Apostasy and the reign of the Antichrist, and that the Second Coming may in fact be nigh upon us, but (and this is where it gets really funny) “we can’t stay at home hoping that someone somewhere on earth can rectify this terrible crisis”? So, does that count Jesus Christ, coming to judge the living and the dead? He’s not one we can rely on? Or do you mean, because—technically—Christ is coming on clouds in glory, he is not actually on the earth or from the earth? You bet on your usurping Sede clergy to fix things up. My chips are on the one like the son of man who comes with the clouds of heaven. 

SURVIVAL MODE

In this section Steve makes the argument that one is able to break the law when required to do so for survival. If ever there was a time to break the law, say, of the First Commandment, then surely the martyrs should have been dispensed from following the law to save their own lives. But let’s set that aside, because Steve seems to be arguing from spiritual survival of the Church and members of the Church. So the Church (or those who claim to be members of it) is allowed to break God’s law and ignore canonical mission for the sake of survival. But this argument relies upon an assumption, namely, that without the sacraments, the Church has defected. But that is not how the Church has defined indefectibility:

BC 544:…when we say the Church is indefectible, we mean that it will last forever and be infallible forever; that it will always remain as Our Lord founded it and never change the doctrines He taught.

Indefectibility is tied up with doctrinal soundness, not the availability of the sacraments. And the only Church which has the mark of indefectibility, by which the Church as a whole is indefectible, is the Holy See of Rome. No other see was granted the promise of indefectibility. The indefectible teachings of the Roman Pontiffs is preserved and we are living testament to its efficacy, because we adhere to the BC, and to other approved pre-1958 catechisms and works of religious instruction which teach us what to believe and what to do to save our souls, or, how to spiritually survive. Nowhere in any pre-1958 Catholic book is it taught that we should seek sacraments from those without canonical appointment, as even Steve admits:

“The books don’t cover the extraordinary mission of sedevacantism, but only condemn, and rightly so, those who assume authority apart from the authority of the pope and the ordinary transmission of the faith.” 

Laura couldn’t stop laughing after she read this out loud while we were editing the article together, so I guess this quote takes the cake for the funniest thing Steve wrote, which we’ll let be an end-cap to this section.  

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE HOME-ALONE POSITION CONDEMNED 

In this section, Steve brings out what I suppose he thinks are the big guns against Home Alone, papal teachings against Old Catholics. But the quotations are actually very much applicable to Sedevacantists rather than Home Alone Catholics. Steve quotes Pius IX:

“’They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.’”

That pretty much sums up Sedevacantists.  

The other papal quotes Steve uses speaks of the Church as carrying on the mission and mandate Christ received from the Father, to teach all nations the ways of God and to baptize them. This mission, Steve believes, is only carried out by the Sedevacantists. The only problem with this is that the Sedevacantists have no mission, as is evidenced by their lack of miracles. But the other objection is that, insofar as we who keep the faith at home, baptizing and educating our children by our approved catechism, and other books of instruction, and praying the mass, offering up spiritual acts of communion, and abiding by all the laws of the Church, not just those we think are convenient to keep, we who hold the Home Alone position, not Sedevacantists, are the ones who are carrying on the mission of the Savior.

The problem is, Steve has a problem with what it means to be a Catholic during the Apocalypse. He would rather bend and break Divine law, stretch and tear divine teaching of ecumenical councils, than live according to the standards that Catholics have always lived by and always will, no matter how tough it gets under the Antichrist. I really do pity Steve in his ignorance, for his lack of Catholic sense, and for his being too immersed in the false sect to see the forest for the trees. Perhaps he really should just stay home, and meditate and pray and be still, instead of running out his door in search of an adventure or whatever he is seeking outside his home.  

Hobbits as the Heroes of the Story

I began with an analogy taken from LOTR characters, and reasoned that the Sedevacantists are those who are tempted to usurp the power of holy orders just as characters in the book and movies were so tempted by the Ring of Power. The fictional characters who were so tempted either perished or were doomed to walk the roads of the world in utter destitution–Sharky as Saruman. So much for the antagonistic characters of the Sedevacantists in this epic we are living out. What about the heroes of this story? I would humbly submit to your judgment, that the heroes of this story are the Hobbits who only want to live in peace at home, who do not grasp for power beyond a good walking stick:

Roads go ever ever on

Under cloud and under star,

Yet feet that wandering have gone

Turn at last to home afar.

Eyes that fire and sword have seen

And horror in the halls of stone

Look at last on meadows green

And trees and hills they long have known.   

For most of us Home Alone Hobbits, we have journeyed far from home for long enough, thank you. We have seen the “horrors in the halls of stone” of the Novus Ordo, and have dwelt with the dragon long enough. Perhaps Steve and his fellow Sedevacantists find the home a cramped vision and space for the Church, that evangelization and carrying on the mission of Christ is better served on the roads of the world which go ever on and on, instead of at rest at a happy hearth and home. But that is not what I have found. I have been on journeys halfway across this wide world, and had my adventures on land and sea, and tried to evangelize those I met on the way, but to no avail. So now I focus on evangelizing my children, teaching them the ways of God from what I have received from Church teachings in the catechism. In this story, I am not the large-scale hero who goes out and conquers with power and might and skill, like Gandalf or Aragorn, nor yet even like Frodo, who bore the burden of the temptation to power unto the cracks of Mt. Doom, where the evil of the Ring finally destroyed itself through the temptation of Gollum. Of all the characters of Tolkien’s imagination, I’d say Home Alone Catholics are most like Hobbits, Samwise Gamgee in particular, who was simple, humble and home-loving, and who was, according to author himself, the true hero of the story.

By St. Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Question 38. Article 2:

Whether heretics and those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders?

Objection 1: It would seem that heretics and those who are cut off from the Church cannot confer Orders. For to confer Orders is a greater thing than to loose or bind anyone. But a heretic cannot loose or bind. Neither therefore can he ordain.

Objection 2: Further, a priest that is separated from the Church can consecrate, because the character whence he derives this power remains in him indelibly. But a bishop receives no character when he is raised to the episcopate. Therefore he does not necessarily retain the episcopal power after his separation from the Church.

Objection 3: Further, in no community can one who is expelled therefrom dispose of the offices of the community. Now Orders are offices of the Church. Therefore one who is outside the Church cannot confer Orders.

Objection 4: Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ’s passion. Now a heretic is not united to Christ’s passion; neither by his own faith, since he is an unbeliever, nor by the faith of the Church, since he is severed from the Church. Therefore he cannot confer the sacrament of Orders.

Objection 5: Further, a blessing is necessary in the conferring of Orders. But a heretic cannot bless; in fact his blessing is turned into a curse, as appears from the authorities quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 25). Therefore he cannot ordain.

On the contrary, When a bishop who has fallen into heresy is reconciled he is not reconsecrated. Therefore he did not lose the power which he had of conferring Orders.

Further, the power to ordain is greater than the power of Orders. But the power of Orders is not forfeited on account of heresy and the like. Neither therefore is the power to ordain.

Further, as the one who baptizes exercises a merely outward ministry, so does one who ordains, while God works inwardly. But one who is cut off from the Church by no means loses the power to baptize. Neither therefore does he lose the power to ordain.

I answer that, on this question four opinions are mentioned in the text (Sent. iv, D, 25). For some said that heretics, so long as they are tolerated by the Church, retain the power to ordain, but not after they have been cut off from the Church; as neither do those who have been degraded and the like. This is the first opinion. Yet this is IMPOSSIBLE, because, happen what may, no power that is given with a consecration can be taken away so long as the thing itself remains, any more than the consecration itself can be annulled, for even an altar or chrism once consecrated remains consecrated for ever. Wherefore, since the episcopal power is conferred by consecration, it must needs endure for ever, however much a man may sin or be cut off from the Church. For this reason others said that those who are cut off from the Church after having episcopal power in the Church, retain the power to ordain and raise others, but that those who are raised by them have not this power. This is the fourth opinion. But this again is IMPOSSIBLE, for if those who were ordained in the Church retain the power they received, it is clear that by exercising their power they consecrate validly, and therefore they validly confer whatever power is given with that consecration, and thus those who receive ordination or promotion from them have the same power as they. Wherefore others said that even those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders and the other sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as to the first effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect which is the conferring of grace. This is the second opinion. But this again is inadmissible, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is cut off from the Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in Baptism in a case of necessity. Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion.

Reply to Objection 1: The effect of absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a heretic cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments. Moreover in order to give absolution it is necessary to have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not.

Reply to Objection 2: When a man is raised to the episcopate he receives a power which he retains for ever. This, however, cannot be called a character, because a man is not thereby placed in direct relation to God, but to Christ’s mystical body. Nevertheless it remains indelibly even as the character, because it is given by consecration.

Reply to Objection 3: Those who are ordained by heretics, although they receive an Order, do not receive the exercise thereof, so as to minister lawfully in their Orders, for the very reason indicated in the Objection.

Reply to Objection 4: They are united to the passion of Christ by the faith of the Church, for although in themselves they are severed from it, they are united to it as regards the form of the Church which they observe.

Reply to Objection 5: This refers to the ultimate effect of the sacraments, as the third opinion maintains.

Comment

It is not my custom to post entire articles from other people–however eternally eminent in learning and holiness–for the reason that I think it is kind of cheap. If you wanted to know St. Thomas Aquinas’s thoughts on heretics and holy orders, then you would have consulted the Summa to find out what they were. Nevertheless, after Laura read to me some pertinent parts of Teresa Benns’s most recent article, “A summary of epikeia and intention in Traditionalist orders,” I thought that a complete quotation of an applicable article from Aquinas might settle some doubts and confusion on the point of heretics and holy orders.

This is not a new idea with Benns. She has promoted this invalidity theory for seemingly as long as BetrayedCatholics has been on the web. Old opinions die hard, and the potency of the evergreen opinion of Teresa resides in her complete incomprehension of the two-fold power of orders, the sacramental and jurisdictional powers. As the BC explains:

984. The Church possesses and confers on her pastor, the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction; that is, the power to administer the Sacraments and sanctify the faithful, and the power to teach and make laws that direct the faithful to their spiritual good. A bishop has the full power of orders and the Pope alone has the full power of jurisdiction.

If, as simple children of the faith, we read and understand our catechism, and assent to the teachings found in it, we will not be daunted or confused by the wild world around us which insists upon confusion as burglars insist upon the cover of night. And, if St. Thomas is a little difficult for you to read, no matter. The BC is here to help:

1004. Bishops, priests and other ministers of the Church cannot exercise the power they have received in Holy Orders unless authorized and sent to do so by their lawful superiors. The power can never be taken from them, but the right to use it may be withdrawn for causes laid down in the laws of the Church, or for reasons that seem good to those in authority over them. Any use of sacred power without authority is sinful, and all who take part in such ceremonies are guilty of sin.

Thus, when the two-fold distinction of sacramental and jurisdictional power in holy orders is maintained, confusion is diffused, and we begin to see and think and believe as commonsensical Catholics again. Are the Thuc consecrations doubtful? Probably. Are they unlawful? Absolutely. Are all Sedevacantist sacraments invalid because a papal legislative act seemingly nullifies them in their sacramental and not just their jurisdictional power? Well, St. Thomas Aquinas, who was about as good with a pen as Luke Skywalker was with a lightsaber, said: “That’s IMPOSSIBLE!”

Powered by

It has not been an infrequent occurrence to correspond with those who remain at home on Sunday instead of going to mass who are not altogether right in the head. I do not mean to draw a causal connection between the two, as conjunction is not proof of causation, but I do believe there must be an underlying cause or condition which must account for the higher frequency of having to converse with fools.

There are assumptions made in any thought, either known or not, which stand, as it were, at the back of the room of the thought. I am conscious of at least one assumption that my assertion above makes, and that is that the claim, ceteris paribus, any correspondence with people outside the home alone cohort would yield the same frequency of foolishness, is false. Be that as it may, I assume that the claim is false, though I cannot strictly prove it unless I try to verify the assumption by emailing fellow bloggers in my genre, which I’m not entirely inclined to do, at the risk of myself coming off as a correspondent equally foolish.

Moving on, then, with the thrust of my argument, I would say this: the reason, perhaps, for the higher frequency of bizarre beliefs and manners among home alone Catholics is that they are, well, alone. Not absolutely, of course, but compared with their counterpart religionists, with their parish hall, community outreach programs, school, congregation of smiling faces ready to greet you at the door, and, above all, priests and confessors to instruct you in spiritual and life matters, home alone Catholics are emphatically alone. And this being alone is dangerous.

Man is a social animal, which means that he is fitted by God to live in society. It takes a great deal of actual grace and practice living out the virtues to live in a society peacefully with others—and it takes enormously more grace to live peacefully outside society. Home Alone Catholics are just abiding by the commandments of God and the laws of the Church. I do not say Home Alone is wrong, so please do not misunderstand me. But I do so that the position is fraught with danger, both spiritual and mental, and even physical. Being in the desert is dangerous.

The physical dangers of living home alone are quite obvious. Your dependence on your physical welfare becomes almost completely dependent on those services your taxes afford, which is not exactly a consolation. If you are estranged from your relatives (perhaps most of us are) and your friends were all from Church you no longer attend, you are going to have a difficult time if a life issue happens, say, you are hospitalized with kidney disease, and there are no family or friends to help you make the life transitions that inevitably follow such a health crisis.

Let’s take the mental next. There are any number of issues, or problems, both practical and theoretical which a man is called upon to solve. If he has a community of persons, friends or associations with whom he can communicate, he is alleviated of the burden of bearing all the intellectual labor involved which is demanded by the problem. He asks a fellow parishioner, let’s say, who happens to be also an investment banker, whether he thinks it a good idea to sell short this month on a particular stock, since rumors are in the air of a merger. The fellow parishioner obliges him with free financial advice, and says the merger is a myth concocted by lunatic communist conspiracy theorist podcasters and mustn’t be heeded by any rational entity worthy the name. This man, being a rational entity himself, heeds the friend’s financial advice, cancels his subscription to the podcast “Red Scare” and saves himself the indignity and destitution which would have surely been his unhappy lot had he not a friend from Church with whom to consult.

Then there’s the spiritual. Let’s say you struggle with a vice of the flesh, perhaps it is gluttony in the form of the abuse of alcohol—not an entirely inconceivable probability in a country which had to pass a constitutional law forbidding hard drink. You belong to a parish-supported AA meeting group, which helps those like yourself overcome the sinful overconsumption of intoxicating liquor. You meet every Wednesday night, which is good, because otherwise you would be drinking yourself to hell-knows-where, down at the sports bar watching the seasonal game (it matters little which). Now you have a band of supporters you can work out your sinful addiction with and rely upon for moral encouragement.

But let’s remove you from those societies, from the parish hall where you were want to talk financial investment strategy over a donut and styrofoam cup of coffee, or the AA meeting which was the last thread keeping you sown to sanity and out of Satan’s jaws, and see how you fair home alone. Without a great deal of natural and supernatural virtue, I think you will agree, you won’t fair very well at all.

We who remain at home instead of soliciting sacraments from doubtfully valid and illicit priests whom the Church has not sent, do not do so because it is easier or because it is fun. On the contrary, the physical, mental and spiritual labor and suffering is arduous, and a great sacrifice. I truly believe that we who are home alone and who, by God’s almighty mercy, make it to Heaven, will wear shimmering crowns of golden glory for our spiritual martyrdom. Home alone calls us to live according to a higher demand on our natural intelligence and spiritual vigilance, just as one would need to in the desert, the path through which we trod is not primrose but penitential purple, mortifying our flesh, our minds, and our souls on our natural dependency on society in favor of a supernatural dependency on God and His Mother—have you prayed the Rosary today?For those who can endure it, and not long for the garlic and onions of Egypt, we must pray everyday for the unseen Manna from heaven, which is sanctifying and actual grace, to give strength to our bodies, clarity to our minds, and holiness to our souls.

Home alone is dangerous, but so is following Christ, for He is leading us to our death: God is leading us to Golgotha.

by Robert Robbins

This is Just a Dream

It is perhaps one of the greatest glories as well one of the ugliest blights on Catholic culture that the man of the faith is ever engaged in controversy and argument. The battle of the argument is as glorious as any battle of war, though also as ugly as war. A good argument is bloodless as in the case of the Sacrifice of the Mass, yet it nevertheless is very much a duel to the death–the death of the old man.

First, I make a distinction between argument as such and mere quarrel. What almost always happens, either in debates online in the comments, or at one’s family reunion dinner table, is not argument in the strict sense at all. It is fighting, which is usually why the women of the table, or the women of the combox, don’t stick around to watch and listen. The fight arises out of a misunderstanding of what argument actually is, which is not trying to disprove an opponent’s position, but rather trying to get an opponent to agree with one’s own. But in either event, whether one is merely trying to disprove another or get another to approve of one’s own, here is the most important point about argument: unless both agree on the principles of the subject, there is no point arguing, because there can be no argument.

The object of argument, as the object of war, is peace or agreement. When an argument must devolve to the status of disarmament, it is probable that the reason for doing so was because there was no agreement struck in the intellect. The most likely reason for doing so was because either of the two combatants were too tired or fed up with fighting in futility. This invariably happens, not because the subject matter cannot be resolved or reduced to primary truths all may agree on, but because such truths are almost never arrived at because of human frailty, as in the case of sin, which is weakness in the will, or in the case of ignorance, which is weakness in the intellect.

If the former frailty, that of a defective will, is the issue, then I would urge anyone who suspects this to be the case to withdraw from the argument. The reason is that, no matter how strong a case one makes for one’s own position, the one whose will is sinful, or which is not moved by the good, is not to be engaged with, because that one’s will will never be convinced of the truth, because its motive principle is something other than the good (truth as it is in the mode of willing, as opposed to thinking). St. Augustine, quoting Isaias, says, “Unless you believe, you will never understand.” If I may be so bold, I would add, “And unless you love, you will never believe.”

But, if the one with whom you argue–as opposed to merely quarrel–is of sound will but who lacks understanding, then there is hope that peace is on the horizon. The question becomes, how do you know when one is merely ignorant and not haughty? The answer is easy enough. When you present that one with a proposition to which any reasonable man would assent, and your interlocutor does so assent, then you’ve found yourself one of good will, and it is time to proceed to the next stage in the argument.

But, in my experience–I’ve had such terrible experiences–it so seldom happens this way, because there are so few good men out there with whom to argue. I think that in this age of the Great Apostasy, what is perhaps so striking, is that man falls out of favor with God, not so much because he doesn’t love God or his neighbor, but because he doesn’t love the truth:

“…And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity,” (2Thess. 2:10-11).  

So, the next point to make is, what is the truth and how does one love the truth? The truth is, according to Aquinas, and commonsense, a thought which is equal to what is. Truth is an intellectual mode of being, which is to say it is found in an intellect. But, unless we are God, truth is not caused in the intellect but in the world of what is. Perhaps this is a little dense for some, so I will give an example. If I have the thought that the grass in my yard is green, but, in fact, the grass is my yard is brown (as it presently is because I think a sorcerer cursed it), then my thought is false and not true. However much I would will my grass to be green–and however much I pay the weed company to make it so–doesn’t change the fact that it is brown. If I insist otherwise, even against my senses, that my grass is green and not brown, then I do not have a love of the truth, but rather a love of a dream which does not exist, in other words, a love of lying.

Now let’s up the ante shall we? Aquinas teaches that theological conclusions are more certain on account of their source being Divine revelation, which cannot err, as compared with merely human science, whose source is the senses, which can err. The Baltimore Catechism is a compendium of conclusions of the science of theology, and as such, commands our assent for its truthfulness absolutely more than the authority of our senses command us to believe our grass is green, or in my case brown. In a word, the BC is truth, and we must love it, believe it, even before we understand it. Because without loving, there’s no believing, and without believing, there’s no understanding.

So, as an example of something we should love, believe, and (with grace) come to understand, let’s look at a few teachings found in the lesson On the Attributes and Marks of the Church:

517. An attribute is any characteristic or quality that a person or thing may be said to have. All perfections or imperfections are attributes.

518. A mark is a given and known sign by which a thing can be distinguished from all others of its kind. Thus a trademark is used to distinguish the article bearing it from all imitations of the same article.

There are any number of sects out there claiming to be the Catholic Church. The BC teaches us certain truths by which we may distinguish what is and is not the Church. We must be guided by these certain truths to have certitude that we belong to the true Church of Christ. Now I call these truths of the BC those principles all must agree on before any argument may be had. So, for instance, if you find yourself arguing (or trying to argue anyway) with, say, a Sedevacantist who believes that the CMRI, SGG, SSPV, MHTS, etc. are clergy making up the remnant Church, then all you need do is ask your interlocutor whether he accepts and assents to all that the BC teaches. If he says yes, then game on! Ask him if he agrees with the following:

519. We know that the Church must have the four marks and three attributes usually ascribed or given to it from the words of Christ given in the Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church from its beginning.

520. The Church cannot have the four marks without the three attributes, because the three attributes necessarily come with the marks and without them the marks could not exist.

521. Both marks and attributes are necessary in the Church, for the marks teach us its external or visible qualities, while the attributes teach us its internal or invisible qualities. It is easier to discover the marks than the attributes; for it is easier to see that the Church is one than that it is infallible.

522. The attributes of the Church are three: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.

548. The Church has four marks by which it may be known: it is One; it is Holy; it is Catholic; it is Apostolic.

I am sure at this point, your interlocutor is getting a little hot under the collar, because he knows what questions are coming next, which need hardly be asked, but I will just for the sake of thoroughness: I ask, do the Sedevacantist groups have the three attributes of authority, infallibility, and indefectibility, by which the four marks of one, holy, catholic, and apostolic exist, and by which you or I am to know that that Church is the Church of Christ? Perhaps your interlocutor couldn’t say if the groups he thinks are Catholic have the attributes, because they are not easily known. You might ask, as it seems the BC encourages you to ask, whether the groups your interlocutor thinks are Catholic are one in the sense the BC defines:

549. The Church is One because all its members agree in one faith, are all in one communion, and are all under one head.

550. It is evident that the Church is one in government, for the faithful in a parish are subject to their pastors, the pastors are subject to the bishops of their dioceses, and the bishops of the world are subject to the Pope.

At this point, I am sure your heated interlocutor will now starting blathering about epikeia and cessation of law and the common good, etc., but to no purpose, since, as important as the care of souls and the sacraments are, these considerations are secondary or irrelevant altogether as to how we know what and where the Catholic Church is. There are any number of good-doer groups out there calling themselves Christian, or even Catholic. The good Lord knows their multiplicity. But the Catholic Church is one, and no matter how much we may want the grass to be green, or our favored little sect to be one, the truth is, the lawn is brown and the Sedevacantists are legion.

I could go on and show how the Sedes are not holy, catholic, and apostolic either, but perhaps we’ll save that for another post. I leave you–and your interlocutor who has probably blocked you by now, or stormed out of the combox or dining room, with this slightly modified lesson from the BC:

Q. 571. How do you show that [Sedevacantist] Churches have not the marks of the true Church?

A. [Sedevacantist] Churches have not the marks of the true Church, because:
   1. They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they profess different beliefs;
   2. They are not holy, because their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil consequences;
   3. They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine. They have not existed in all ages nor in all places, and their doctrines do not suit all classes;
   4. They are not apostolic, for they were not established for hundreds of years after the Apostles, and they do not teach the doctrines of the Apostles.

Powered by

By Ezekiel

I am happy to introduce the newest contributor to the CE Log. Insightful, full of ideas and a fervent desire to see the Church more visible, Ezekiel comes to CatholicEclipsed with practical spiritual helps to build up the visible Body of Christ. I hope you enjoy–Robert Robbins.

So today for Catholics, it seems there are no churches available. Normally for tithes it would be encouraged to voluntarily contribute to parishes and different fundraising efforts in order to support the cost of keeping churches up, the needs of clergy, and various charitable or Church operations.

Still it would seem that Catholics could keep up a charitable spirit, and continue to give “time, talents, or treasure” to worthy causes. This can build up treasure here, as God desires to give to those who give to others, as well as more importantly to build up treasure in heaven. 

“Give, and it shall be given to you,” (Luke 6:38).

I have wondered at times if Catholics might put in to greater practice the various corporal and spiritual works of mercy, and if God might respond to bring an end to the confusion of today if people had a greater love of God and neighbor.

I might ask you for example, are there homeless you’ve seen in your community? Could you personally reach out to them, or could we organize a group to reach out to them who are trained to handle their needs professionally? Why do some of these persistent problems exist? Are we our brothers’ keepers?

I believe traditionalists today are capable of doing more and that God desires more of these activities and will help people to do some of these things. We could pray and listen to what God inspires in our hearts, as each person has a unique calling from God. 

“By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another,” (John 3:35).

I think there may be many people who want to help others more, to show what a Christian’s love is, but they may not know how. But they don’t need to know how, but simply to pray to allow God to show them how.

“Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends,” (John 15:13).

Jesus made the ultimate gesture of expressing love for one’s neighbor, by undergoing suffering and death on the Cross. 

What do you think Catholics should do to “tithe” today when no churches are available to give to?

What is God asking us to do out of love for the good of others?

List of Works of Mercy

Seven corporal works

To feed the hungry.
To give drink to the thirsty.
To clothe the naked.
To harbor the harborless.
To visit the sick.
To ransom the captive.
To bury the dead.

Seven spiritual works

To instruct the ignorant.
To counsel the doubtful.
To admonish sinners.
To bear wrongs patiently.
To forgive offences willingly.
To comfort the afflicted.
To pray for the living and the dead.

by Robert Robbins

Dams were Built for a Reason

In a recent post, Steve Speray wrote a response to me, entitled, “Robert Robbins’ Futile Attempt to Defend the Home Alone Position,” in which he states the following:

1. There is a thing known as cessation of law and epieikeia. Robbins has not made a case that the law of consecrating bishops by papal mandate is absolute where cessation of the law or epieikeia is impossible.

My article to which Speray refers dealt with the idea of necessity, in particular, how the sacraments themselves were not absolutely necessary, and so cessation of law need not be invoked to consecrate bishops, ordain priests, open seminaries, monasteries, and mass centers all over America. The whole presumption is that the sacraments were absolutely necessary for our salvation, and so priests were absolutely necessary for the sacraments, and so bishops were absolutely necessary for priests. All I did was gently point out the fact that the first presumption is false, and so the last assertion is false. But that wasn’t conclusive for Speray. I hope it at least gets readers of this blog thinking more critically about the claims made by Sedevacantists concerning necessity. From where I’m standing, there’s a gigantic whole in their logic.

Anyway, this post is more about the other principle often invoked, but which is essentially the same as the cessation of law. That is, epikeia. I am currently reading History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, by Rev. Lawrence Joseph Riley, A.B., S.T.L., a dissertation written in 1948 Riley produced while attending The Catholic University of America, back when it was Catholic. On p. 20, Riley writes:

This, then, is the nature of epikeia — “a correction of law where it is defective owing to its universality.” 6 For it is reasonable that there exist some means of emending a law in a particular case where it errs because its terminology is universal, even though in general the law may be ordained to the common good.

I do not pretend to have a full understanding of epikeia and the ways in which it may be applied validly and lawfully to any given situation. I would like to study this question more in-depth by reading Riley’s work. What I propose below is but a preliminary musing of mine. It is definitely opinion, but it sounds reasonable to me. I encourage thoughtful discussion on it in the comments if readers feel inclined. It is only through discussing these issues that a better understanding of them may be attained, and we may have peace of mind and spirit.

To that end, a thoughtful reader of this blog brought up a good point just before I was going to write this article, which I hope he doesn’t mind I share:

“…I believe there is sufficient doubt concerning the use of epieikeia in the Thuc consecrations, that staying home as a Catholic is the safest option. Plus, from the examples they provide in the book concerning epieikeia, it seems to be something an individual would use regarding some law as it affects him in an extraordinary way, not something that would be applied to the whole Church. Who decided for all Catholics that the Thuc consecrations had to happen and that epieikeia could be applied? Was it Thuc? Was it the priests who were to be consecrated?…”

The whole notion of epikeia is that it applies to universal law in its application to a particular case. But that is not what Sedevacantist do. They apply epikeia, not to a particular case, but to the universal state of affairs in the world. This is tantamount to saying that the universal law as such was defective as conceived and applied universally, and so the lawgiver–in this case the Church, if we are confining ourselves to speaking on the necessity of papal mandates for episcopal consecrations–was defective in legislating the law, because, alas, it is universally in need of correction. Obviously this conclusion is intolerable and absurd. The Church is infallible and unerring in her ecclesiastical law, otherwise we would be led astray by evil laws. The Sedevacantists, at the rockbottom of this debate about epikeia, are really saying that the laws of the Church are defective if universally applied. Let that sink in.

Some may object and say I go too far, because, after all, though it is true that the application of the law in the current situation is universal in space, it is not so in time. The current state of affairs have only been so since the death of Pius XII, after the death of whom the universal law of a papal mandate became defective, not on account of its universal application in space, but because of its universal application in time.

The objection sounds solid, but for the fact that the lawgiver undoubtedly foresaw the possibility of an interregnum, as there is always an interregnum after the death of a pope. The only difference is that there has been several decades since the Church has had a pope, whereas usually the Church does not have to wait this long.

The papal mandate is a law for the common good. Anyone who thinks about it for a moment, knows that to be true. We cannot have any man be a successor to the Apostles for Heaven’s sake–not that Sedevacantists actually claim to be successors to the Apostles, but that’s for another post. To say that the papal mandate is not required because it is a detriment to the common good when it was established for the common good, is absurd. It is like saying that a dam which was established for the common good of not flooding a village downstream should be removed because it is a detriment to the common good of the village. The idea is unintelligible. The net result has been a flood of doubtfully valid, unformed priests throughout America–and elsewhere in the world, but predominately here–offering doubtfully valid and licit sacraments in moonlight missions.

But there is another argument against the use of epikeia. If epikeia is only applicable to human law, which errs in its universal form when applied to a particular case, but epikeia is never applied to the natural law, but rather is used to make just and equitable what is lacking in the human law, thereby bringing the human law up to the natural law, it stands to reason that epikeia could never be invoked to correct Divine law. But canonical mission, whereby apostolic succession is transmitted from a lawful bishop consecrating a priest with the approval of the bishop’s lawful superior (the pope), is what the papal mandate secures. So, at least in its object, though not in its essence, the papal mandate is a matter of Divine law, not merely human law, and so cannot be corrected by epikeia.

Like I said, these are just some preliminary points and thoughts I have after reading a little of Riley’s book on epikeia, which I encourage those who can to read as well–it is scholarly, which means very dense and somewhat dry. I do not think that Steve has made a case at all for necessity or the use of epikeia, which he must do. The burden of proof is on the one who claims a right to act, not on the one who is trying to act within the law and claims no right to act without it. But I have shown, in albeit a sketchy and preliminarily way, a couple arguments against the use of epikeia, which may help to kickstart a deeper discussion and research into the question of its valid use in the current crisis.

So much for Speray’s first point. Let me jump to his third:

3. Robbins accuses our bishops and priests of “ignoring the law.” However, there’s also the law on publishing Catholic material. Can. 1384 § 1 tells us we don’t have a right to publish books without approval. § 2: “extends the meaning of the term books so as to include newspapers and other periodical publications as well as all other published writings, unless the contrary is manifest.”

Steve is right here. I do not have the right to publish anything, but I believe that justice and a reasonable cause compel me to do so, without the ordinary’s approval–which is physically impossible. As always, I turn to the BC for guidance, which teaches the following:

1180. We are obliged to make open profession of our faith as often as God’s honor, our neighbor’s spiritual good or our own requires it. “Whosoever,” says Christ, “shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.”

Here we have a positive precept to profess the faith when our neighbor’s spiritual good requires it or when God’s honor demands it. Unlike the reception of the sacraments which have substitutes for them, such as perfect contrition for penance, spiritual communion for the Holy Eucharist, and even Baptism of Desire for Water Baptism, there is no substitute for the profession of the faith. You either do it or you do not, and it is impossible to please God without faith. There are millions upon millions of would-be faithful Catholics who are in ignorance of the true faith because of the reign of the Antichrist. CatholicEclipsed is just a dim light to help those in the darkness. And since I try only to assert that which may be known through right reason or the catechism, I do not think any evil but only good is coming from this website. I hope Speray would not think otherwise. I have only defended the safer course, which is, well, safer. How can anyone find issue with that?

The BC actually makes the profession of faith a necessity for salvation:

1179. They who fail to profess their faith in the true Church in which they believe cannot expect to be saved while in that state, for Christ has said: “Whosoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.”

Those who have the ability to communicate and use the technologies available of the day, have a positive duty to profess their faith in Christ and His Church. I do so here on the internet, because that is where most people are to be found who have a care about their souls. There is a lot of people who couldn’t be bothered to care about their eternal destination. The internet consolidates those who have an interest in religious matters into one place. It is like a public square wherein we can discuss the faith. It is the enemy of religion who would want to silence the faithful’s voice in the public square.

But Speray goes on:

Using Robbins’ argument, the law does not say, in case of necessity, one may ignore the law (because it is no longer binding) and go publish whatever Catholic material without lawful authority. Perhaps Robbins was unaware of this law, but to be consistent with his argument, he must now shut down his website and stop publishing.

There is a distinction between claiming the right to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate and claiming the right to publish one’s profession of faith on the internet. The two cases are not equal, and so cannot be judged the same. The Sedevacantist acts according to a perceived necessity where there is none, whereas I act were there is a necessity, the necessity to profess the faith. The Sedevacantist grasps for a power which he does not currently have (Holy Orders), whereas I already have the power of my voice, which I simply exercise without the approval of my superior, because I don’t have one. The Sedevacantist acts against Divine law, insofar as canonical mission to preach, govern, and sanctify require mission from the Church, whereas I act in accordance with Divine law, insofar as I profess the faith and do not deny Christ before men. You see, the two cases are about as dissimilar as milk is to beer.

Speray continues:

The power of a bishop to consecrate and ordain is an indelible mark of the priesthood that cannot be deprived. Even the Eastern Orthodox have valid priests and bishops this very day. The Code of Canon Law permits Catholics in danger of death to receive absolution from non-Catholic priests and bishops. Therefore, we have sacraments to help us no matter how much Robert Robbins denies Catholic theology and says no priests exist to administer the sacraments. There are literally tens of thousands of valid priests and bishops around the world.

When I said there were no priests I knew of in the world, was it not painfully obvious that I meant Catholic priests? The principle of charity in academics is that one assumes in his opponent’s argument the stronger position. Instead of doing so, Speray assumes not just the weaker position in my argument, but the asinine and absurd position in my argument. That only shows that Speray’s arguments for his position are so very weak, that he must contrive to make mine seem weaker than they are, even against a commonsense and charitable reading of them, in order to make his own seem stronger.

I wish to tie up this discussion with Speray with this. He said:

…if you will not consider the possibility that we are right, nothing will convince you. It’s like this with everything…

This is ironic, since I did consider the possibility that Sedevacantists were right when I was one. I received the sacraments from Fr. McGuire (now Bishop) at a Holiday Inn mission for about a year or so. My two oldest received their First Penance and First Holy Communion from him, and we were in communication with the then Bp. Dolan to receive Confirmation for my wife, elder children and myself. We were enrolled in the Brown Scapular, and Saint Gertrude the Great actually had a picture of the event on their website. We tithed regularly to SGG, and tuned in to the live-feed when we couldn’t go to the mission, which is a two-hour drive oneway. But Steve makes it seem like I’ve never entertained Sedevacantism in any serious sense, which is just flat-out false. My wife and I were very serious about being Sedevacantists, and we thought we found the Church, but, through the power of the daily rosary (which I confess I have slothfully neglected!) and through study, we came to the peaceful conclusion that the Church is in eclipse, and that, to be good and faithful Catholics today, we must profess the faith, pray the rosary, St. John’s mass, and perform spiritual communions and acts of perfect contrition. The sacraments of Sedevacantists are doubtfully valid and, by reason of Church law and Divine law, illicit. They are eclipsing Catholicism in their own way, though not as egregiously as the Novus Ordo. And so I must profess the faith against them, as well.

I don’t think that what I have come to understand and write about Sedevacantists is a fairytale. But this is.

Powered by