So, it has come to my attention that yet another deceitful gatekeeper, by the name of Teresa Stanfill Benns, who runs a website called Betrayed Catholics, has been making complete fabrications concerning Catholicism in general. And to what end, you may ask? Well, the usual one: Trying to make sure that nominal (already deceived) Catholics, who are merely ignorant of the lies that have been forced upon them since birth, do not get wind of the actual Catholicism which is today held ONLY by 1958 Sedevacantists.
In short, this deceitful shrew lies about a great number of things, but all of them come to the same conclusion: You must follow the fake “Pope” Bergoglio who is just a “bad Pope” and not the gay handmaiden to Satan that he actually is.
It is complete nonsense of course, but then another moron who should also hold her tongue (and typing fingers) as per 1 Corinthians 34-35 and even more clearly 1 Timothy 2: 12-13:
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.
15 Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
Hilariously calling herself “The Thinking Housewife”. But also tragically, because she gives actual housewives with a brain a bad name. Her piece is here, and it is very simple to refute… IF you actually understand the basics of canon law and Catholicism. But she is merely quoting Benns and Benns style, is very much like the one of John Salza, a supposed “ex” self-confessed freemason who pretends to teach people how the Novus Orco Church is the Catholic Church.
Well, it isn’t it is the result of usurpation by Stanists and it is a full inversion of Catholicism of course, as readers here will know by just looking for the words “Vatican II” or “Canon Law 118.4” or “188 part 4” and reading the relevant posts. And John Salza, having been a Freemason even though a layman is absolutely forbidden from teaching anyone anything about Catholicism. In fact, even if his repentance were real (it is not, by all measures one can reasonably observe) this would still be the case, since, once a heretic, even clergy who repent are to have authority over precisely no one, and spend the rest of their days in a monastery in perpetual penance. That is the dogmatic law. Imaginbe how much less authority a heretic layman has then to tell anyone anything. About anything.
So let’s dispense with the unthinking and at best illiterate “housewife”, which is really a dismissing of Benns, since all the “housewife” does is parrot the same lies Benns does.
Benns assertion is quoted in full by the Housewife and we will do the same here and also take it apart piece by piece in the usual Kurgan style.
Her lies in filthy bold, my pristine truth in normal text.
“TRADITIONALISTS argue that necessity knows no law and they can resort to epikeia to justify their ordinations and consecrations.
She begins in the usual freemasons fashion, intentionally trying to obfuscate simple concepts by use of jargon and unnecessarily “scholarly” wording. I say “scholarly” because it is of course a lie, a deceit and an attempt to wrap oneself in the in any case logical fallacy of argument from authority. Using the Greek word for “reasonableness” is simply obfuscation in the first place (most people have no idea what Epikea means and the slight confusion the causes to them puts them in the immediate mental state of assuming the writer must be very “scholarly” indeed). Well, she is not, and in fact this transparent deception shows she is not even mildly intelligent. Just vicious and nasty from the start. The deception is that there is no need to use the word “reasonableness”. There is a very sound and logical concept at play here, which is simply this: ROMAN LAW. Which Canon Law and the Church has always used. The point of Roman Law is that it is based in absolutely sound yet humane logic. So, for example, unlike the mechanistic and inhuman British Laws, or worse the American ones, in the context of a criminal act, in Roman Law, there is no specific prescribed action other than generally. Each case is evaluated on its merits. The murder of a pedophile is not the same as the murder of an innocent shop owner, and so on. But more importantly, Roman Law is soundly based in logic. So for example it follows the rule of silent assent and the reasonable and logical concept of the negative application of a rule being valid when such situations are fulfilled for it. Two relevant examples will suffice: There is NO prescribed maximum duration of an Interregnum (time between when one Pope dies and another valid one is elected). Therefore, no specific limit can ever be prescribed for it. We could go 1,000 years before a new and actually valid Pope is finally voted in after the usurpers have been done away with it and this would in no way mean the Church has defected, otherwise it would mean the church had defected as soon as St. Peter died. or when for almost 3 years there was literally no one at all even pretending to be Pope a few Centuries ago. In short, you cannot assume things that don’t make sense.
But furthermore, the sentence above is a lie. NO ONE has ever said “reasonableness” is why ordinations by Bishops of other Bishops is why Sedevacantist Bishops can ordain new Bishops.
The reason is covered in detail in my book Reclaiming the Catholic Church but to summarise it:
Whenever a Pope dies Bishops have no jurisdictional authority, and neither do Priests. In essence all a Bishop can do and priests too is issue the sacraments to the faithful, which of course includes doing Holy Mass and doing so WITHOUT the name of any Pope joined to the prayers, since no pope exists presently. Because the Pope is the one that has final say in if ANYONE is actually allowed to become a Bishop, what the liar Benns is pretending to say is that: “Only the Pope can validly make someone a Bishop, so Sedevacantist ordinations are invalid and a sham.” this is a filthy lie and the entire history of the Church proves it. Whenever Popes died and before another was elected Bishops were ordained, the eventual new Pope had absolute authority to veto any of those ordinations that happened before he came to the throne. And in the era of the Borgia and Medici, this veto power was used a lot. But even then, Popes would generally not make any comment of people who had been ordained as Bishops who were not some kind of threat or power-play. In fact, throughout its history, most Bishops are ordained and the Pope says not a thing about it. And because it’s Roman Law and the rule of silent assent is a given, it means that if the Pope says nothing, the ordination is assumed valid. And that is how it has ALWAYS been. So she lies straight out the gate. And then she gallops on to the next lie.
This has been refuted here.
The link leads to a screed of John Salza-like absurdities, obfuscations, lies and so on. It really is the Freemasonic way. She invokes the Papal writings of Pope Pious X and Pious XII Vacante Sede Apostolica and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, as if they agreed with the lies she is saying. they do no such thing of course. And it goes on to several lengthy pages of lies and obfuscations. it is the Argument ad infinitum Salza also uses. Writing page sand pages of lies so enmeshed and so twisted with the facts that one’s brain gazes over and once again they do this to give the impression that they are great and wise scholars that have “done their homework” but of course, it’s all nonsense, because we have already seen that the ordinations are simply assumed valid and always have been, until a new and VALID Pope says specifically otherwise.
And as explained at length in a separate work, Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS) — which infallibly decrees what can and cannot be done during an interregnum — forbids any correction or change in the law during an interregnum. ‘The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them… In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.’
Note again the strawman. She is trying to imply that VAS says “You guys can’t ordain Bishops when a Pope is dead or not valid!” But that is not what it says at all. All it says is what has already been known from the very first Pope on. When a Pope dies or is not present on the throne, no one has authority to do anything other than give the sacraments. We already know that. and we already know that Bishops and priests were ordained throughout the history of the Church without a Pope necessarily being validly on the throne. And after one did come validly to the throne, unless they specifically stated so-and-so was actually NOT accepted as a valid Bishop or priest, it was assumed by all, positively, definitively and permanently that they in fact were validly elected.
“Here we are talking both papal laws and Canon Law, which is largely taken from papal and conciliar law.
Again an obfuscation of nonsense. There are only two kinds of Laws in the Church. Divine Laws and Church or Ecclesiatical laws. Divine Laws are immutable and eternal. For example, a public defection from the faith makes you a heretic without anyone needing to say or do anything, regardless of your status, which includes even a previously valid Pope. Another divine Law is that no one can be forced to become Catholic or get married say, again their will.
Ecclesiastical rules on the other hand are generally for the smoother running of the Church as it got larger. For example, the requirement of 70 Cardinals to vote in a Pope. this is merely a human rule that was not followed in the past, and therefore need not be followed in the future if circumstances make it obsolete or irrelevant. For example, in the current state of things there is not even 70 valid Cardinals. but then, neither were there ANY Cardinals at all int he year 400. And yet we had the Church and Popes were getting elected, by non-cardinals every one. So all that one requires to know is if a rule is of Divine Law, in which case it is absolute and eternal, or if it is of ecclesiastical law, in which case the specifics and the reasons for it need to be looked at and logically understood so that if things have changed to the point that the rule no longer makes sense, this is understood and acted upon intelligently.
Some may object that Can. 20 advises the use of epikeia, and to invoke it would not be a violation of the law. But Can. 20 specifically states there must be no other provision in the case considered, and such provision was already laid down in VAS.
We have already covered this above. She is just lying.
It also recommends consulting the laws given in similar cases and the common and constant teaching of approved authors.
Here there is the hint that she is well aware that ecclesiastical rules are not immutable, because Divine laws don’t change, and there is no such thing as “similar cases”. Either a law is divine or it is not. So in this case, it is a divine law that the Pope (if he exists and is valid) is the ultimate, supreme authority of the Church on Earth, as representative of Jesus Christ. It is also the case that JESUS is the ultimate head of the Church and NOT the Pope, and that any infallibility a Pope has is limited to when he makes official pronouncements on faith and morals, which in essence, for 2,000 years have almost entirely been composed of refining of divine law; required usually because gnostics, statists and protestants started to teach false doctrines in precisely this fashion, so what was always a law and a rule known by all now needed to be spelt out in detail to avoid the sophists and deceivers to confuse the faithful.
It is also a law that if a Pope does not exist, then any ordination performed in accordance with the rules of ordination is automatically assumed to be valid and this becomes NOT the case ONLY after a valid Pope IS elected and said valid Pope for whatever reason deems that an ordination was in fact not valid.
Also, the “teachings of approved authors” is yet another bit of nonsensical theatre thrown in to confound things and make it seem as if you need to consult 12 tomes from the archives to know if a “pope” putting demonic effigies on the altar is sacrilegious or not. But you do NOT need to do that. Because Canon Law is the distillation of every behaviour and rule a Catholic should follow. And because it was put together by a group of cardinals expressly for the purpose of ensuring that there was no contradiction in the 40,000 or so documents that the team of Cardinals looked at to compile the CoCof 1917, it is also part of the infallible magisterium of the Church, which is why in over 100 years, NO ONE has been able to find defect with ANY of its rules or laws. Instead the New Orcs (Novus Orco) simply said in 1983 that a new code was required and they made up a document that literally contradicts itself several times over and is just a typical mis-match of gnostic stuff blend with some roadkill.
What even St. Thomas Aquinas may have to say on a topic is irrelevant if you have Canon Law of 1917, because it is the final judge of how behaviour should be undertaken for a Catholic, Be they clergy or lay people. So it is totally pointless to refer to “esteemed authors”. It’s like saying you need to go have a coffee with the guy who wrote the book you need to study to pass your driving test, in order to be able to do the exam. It’s nonsense. There is no instance in which Canon Law does not supersede the thoughts, opinions, or writings of any Catholic
Laws given in similar cases point to the summoning of the bishops to elect a pope (Council of Constance) and a good number of authors agree on this, namely St. Robert Bellarmine and those supporting his teaching.
Once again, arguing for a straw man. Under normal circumstances, sure… but when your “Pope” is a henchman of Beelzebub, and so are his “cardinals” you don’t call these indemoniated freaks together to elect the baddest of them to be a horned minor demon. And St. Bellarmine simply laid out the procedure that should be followed when/if things are X. Which no one is arguing. But things are now Z and X is really not that relevant now.
St. Bellarmine also recommends the calling of an imperfect council in the absence of a pope if the cardinals cannot elect.
Oh…so…we CAN deviate from the ecclesiastical rules when it makes sense. Just as I said and she has been denying from the start until… now. Freemasons are not smart. Aside picking evil, which is dumb, they also can’t think on their feet. But the problem is not this, the issue is that fake Cardinals who are also fake Catholics, heretic every one of them, have no business electing anyone, much less one of their number to be “Pope”.
Finally, Can. 20 cannot be used in anything involving penalties. And VAS is a document levying several penalties.”
Again irrelevant. Because VAS says nothing about Bishops being elected when there is not a valid Pope being somehow illegitimate.
— Teresa Benns, Betrayed Catholics
And there you have it. Just another gnostic/heretic trying to get you to be “in communion” with Satan’s henchman instead of with the infallible magisterium of the Church.
There are only two types of men
Those who have a line; and hold it.
And those who do not.
Now, a man’s line may vary somewhat over time, as life and experience gradually (or occasionally suddenly) make him aware of things he did not know, errors of judgement, or lies he has unwittingly believed.
But in essence, a man that has a line will hold the line regardless of where and when he is.
It’s the difference between someone willing to die for an ideal and those who are not.
While neither type of man is guaranteed to be ethical, there is a difference between them in that even if amoral, those who have a line are reliable at least as it concerns that line, while the others are not.
Historically such men, with a line, will tend to become the leaders of disaffected groups in any unjust society, and organise other men of this same type into an irregular “army” to take care of the many injustices and the corrupt, supposedly “elected”, leaders, and their nefarious minimums.
In many cases, such men started what later became known as criminal organisations, be it the mafia, triads, or yakuza, but in origin, starting from the “bandits” of Southern Italy, these were local men with the capacity, acumen and courage to do violence upon their and their people’s enemies, in direct response to injustices perpetrated on them.
Over time, such men, absent a moral imperative that they must believe in themselves at a profound level, will eventually, and inevitably, become corrupted, and if not them, their sons and grandsons will. Because once you cross the line of being willing to go against the “law” (however unjust it may be) in order to serve the greater good of “justice” from a human perspective, you will quickly realise that the “law” of the/any government, is no more and no less than the imposition of whatever rules by the use or threat of physical force. And who of us can’t do better than government work? So if you were to succeed at imposing your will on (initially) the government, how long would it be before you decide that you can impose it on whoever/everyone?
Did you know that Pablo Escobar had tried to become part of the government of Colombia? And while his “business” was brutal, and it is not politically viable to say so, are you certain that had he succeeded his rule would have been worse for the locals than the current government of Colombia? Because I for one don’t have enough relevant and verified information to be sure either way.
I do know, however, that someone like Pinochet was (and continued to be) vilified for having taken over Chile by force, and having stopped communism there by making some 3,000 people disappear, and having some other 30,000 or so escape that country. Bad guy right?
Except that in every single example we have from history of communist regimes coming to power, not only are millions of people displaced, but often millions are murdered, and certainly NEVER less than many tens of thousands.
Given these two alternatives, it seems obvious that Pinochet should be considered a heroic figure. But that does not suit the narrative of the people that run this planet.
Just like it does not suit their narrative for you to know a few choice bits of information, such as:
Because once you find out all of the above and connect them, you will realise at minimum two things:
1. This planet is run and operates on basically lies, at almost all levels of functionality. The entire thing is so absurdly run on false premises that are built on nothing but lies to an extent that most human beings simply are not mentally equipped to handle without feeling absolutely overwhelmed by despair.
2. The actual real history of Catholicism and its real actual dogmatic teachings is the one story about how and why this planet works as it does that not only makes sense, but fits all the available evidence we have, AND models reality so well it can be used to predict how certain things will go both in the small and individual scale as well as the large and global one, to a degree that no other theory or ideology comes even close.
I lived with realisation n. 1 above from the age of 26 to 43 without having realisation n. 2. And yet, I did not despair at all. That alone makes me rather uncommon. Then from age 43 to 47 I investigated realisation n. 2 obsessively to make sure that, absurd as it had seemed to me for my whole life, this realisation n. 2 was in fact true.
If you do this, you also become aware that Catholicism is the only philosophy and religion that has warned us about all the evil people involved in the lies and demonic shit mentioned in that partial bullet-point list above. Which tends to perk your ears up.
Then you realise it is also the only religion that upheld the required use of violence against evil which is innate and intrinsic to every even partially decent human being that ever lived.
That is, in Catholicism, the use of violence to protect yourself or others (and especially innocents) from evil is not just permitted, it is in fact considered the duty of every lay Catholic. The only other alternative is to choose martyrdom for yourself; that is, the consciously allowing yourself to be imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed in the name of justice and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Those are the only two acceptable ways to deal with evil for a Catholic.
At which point you realise why the same people that perpetrate all the evil on this Earth spent literally centuries to infiltrate and subvert Catholicism, culminating in the creation of the fake “Catholic Church” that has had only fake “Popes” promoting its destruction since 28th October 1958.
Catholics, Catholicism and the Catholic Church have and has been the ONLY effective force on Earth that has ever managed to resist the evil that occurs on this planet and for a time at least reduce it enough to create the best living conditions humanity has ever had in its entire history.
And the means of victory remain fully at our disposal, despite the massive blow that Vatican II was.
There remain more real Catholics today on Earth (Sedevacantists) than were ever present in Rome and our planet during the persecutions of Emperor Nero. And we have far better communication lines open and far more valid priests and Bishops than used to be around back then. As well as fully functional Church services.
Most important of all, because our battle is NOT primarily fought in the physical plane, our numbers are NOT a deciding factor in the fight. Rather our convictions, prayer and internal emotional and spiritual state is far more relevant.
Of course this does not invalidate the physical, which remains an undeniable, real, and important part of life (and as long as we inhabit the material world will remain so), but it does invert the order of importance:
The spiritual/mental/faith based part of the fight is in my estimation at least 80% of the fight, with the physical being 20% at most. And most of that 20% is in things like simply putting in the physical effort to do what is required, be it showing up at work, doing what needs doing, learning what needs learning and taking effective, regular, constant action towards the goals that will result in the maximum human freedom and good, which ultimately comes down to:
1. Creating communities of people that understand all of the above, and decide to band together to:
A) become self-sufficient in all things, from clean water and food to medical, energy and defence.
B) take over local government and instilling actual Catholicism at all levels
2. Defending 1. above against all enemies by all means available
3. If and when it becomes necessary to do so, use force to defend yourself and your community from evil doers who would use force on you and yours.
If you do a really good job of 1 and 2 by non-violent means, 3 may never be required, but in any case, it is best to have the capacity for 3, because on this Earth, the only real rights you have, are the ones you have sufficient force to be able to protect.
If you have read and digested all of this post correctly, you may now have come to an overall conclusion, which is that there are three types of men, rather than only two:
1. Those who do not have a line and hold it.
2. Those who do and have no ethical basis that is based in justice and goodness.
3. Those who do and do.
And if you have been paying attention, the first on that list are not men who count, at least not in my eyes and I think, not so much in the eyes of God either.
So what you have left are men who are Catholic, and men who are not. So… just two types of men.
Not all Catholics are always good and not all non-Catholics are bad, but broadly speaking one type will create societies that are wholesome, honest, safe and good, and the other type will inevitably, eventually, descend into degeneracy.
You might not see it now. I certainly didn’t see it for decades even after I figured out the first half of it, which for most people is actually the hardest one to see, so I understand if you think I am just yet another confused zealot screaming “Jeeeeaaasssuss is da waaaay!” Like some Bible-thumping retard, of which, unfortunately, this planet if absolutely filled. Such creatures are a mixture of frauds, con-men, cowards, heretics, intentional deceivers, liars, Satanists and a large number of powerfully ignorant and lazy masses too brainwashed, stunned, stupefied and inflamed with bad health to be able to reason their way out of a parking lot.
I, dear reader, am none of those things, and yet I was deceived and as a result remained ignorant of the truth for at least nearly 2 decades more than necessary. But I had not the benefit of anyone doing what I am doing here now, which is to lay out in plain and straightforward fashion, all the pieces of the puzzle before you. Your only task at this point is to decide if you will at minimum take the time to see if these pieces I present to you are valid or not. I certainly am not asking you to “just believe me”. Quite the contrary. I have always advocated (even when I did not know that it was a dogmatic Catholic principle) that every man must absolutely know and make up his mind for himself.
But even that requires you at least investigate the concepts and bullet points I laid out before you, and while yes, some of those points can potentially take months of study to figure out, I assure you it is but a small fraction of the time it takes you to figure them all out without anyone pointing them out as the essential pieces of the puzzle that they are.
So, all that is left for you to do now is decide how lazy or not you are, and hence decide if to look into the pieces or not.
That is, assuming you’re not already brainwashed enough to not even consider doing so because you have already been predisposed to assume some part, or most of what I say is itself a lie, and if that is the case, I can easily guess which part you have been “inoculated” against: Catholicism.
At any rate, it is what it is, and you will do as you will. My task here —insofar as any can be construed in the form of a blog post— is done.
Godspeed and good fortune to you.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 30 December 2024 | Posted in Catholicism, Clown World, Heretics, Impostors and Frauds, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, The Enemy Within, The Jews, Zombie Apocalypse