The REAL reason we lost the Mass and why it matters

by T. Stanfill Benns | May 31, 2025 | New Blog

.

+Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary+

(The following article is in response to readers who have requested a brief and concise summary of what happened to the Church for those among the younger set just now realizing the errors of the Novus Ordo or Traditionalism. While it is difficult to try and distill almost 67 years of heartbreak down to a few pages, I feel I have done my best.)

Introduction

Especially with the election of Leo 14^t, the Novus Ordo church and so-called “Traditionalist” sect members alike are beginning to wonder what lies ahead. This is especially true considering a recent influx of young converts among the Novus Ordo church — converts with a longing for the Latin Mass and a return to more traditional ways. But will such a return really remedy what has happened to the Church? A return to the Latin Mass certainly has not been any solution for Traditionalists. Rocked by repeated scandals and continuing schisms, they almost seem to have become an anachronism. What remains is an increasing level of unease among all the various sects, and a persistent sense of impending doom.

To help navigate this diabolical maze of uncertainty, some perspective is desperately needed. While it is true that the demise of the Church was largely facilitated by Zionist Jews, the secret societies, the Protestants and Modernist infiltrators, these groups were not the primary cause of the  Church’s destruction; they were only the means used to completely gain control of an already greatly weakened Catholic laity. Those just now waking up to the true state of affairs in the Church who are investigating Traditionalist sects may be resorting to online videos explaining how we lost the Mass and the Church, the errors of Vatican 2 and the need to return to the Latin Mass. Those producing and narrating these videos will attempt to educate them on the errors of the false Vatican 2 council, the heresies found in the new “mass,” etc.

This information may be interesting and to some extent helpful but at best these videos provide only partial answers. Except as they touch on the Mass, doctrinal matters  are generally not addressed, and failure to understand  Catholic teaching as an integral whole is why we find ourselves in this predicament today. Sincere enquirers should be listening to the popes, (St. Peter to Pope Pius XII), the teachings of the ecumenical councils and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not those promoting these videos, who have little or no training in doctrinal matters. At their conclusion, these videos usually direct viewers to one or more conservative Novus Ordo groups or Traditionalist organizatIons. But this denies a basic premise of the Catholic faith, one which every Catholic must believe to be saved. And that is the primacy of jurisdiction enjoyed by the Roman Pontiff.

One video falsely states that a validly ordained priest is all that is necessary to offer a valid Latin Mass. The Mass is dependent for its efficacy on the one offering it. It cannot be offered by just anyone who presents as a member of the clergy. Pretending that the Mass is the most precious possession we lost is presuming there yet exists valid and licit clergy to provide valid and licit sacraments and effect the consecration of the Eucharist. But for any of this to exist, the Church has always taught that such clergy first must be in communion with a canonically elected Pope. Both Orders AND jurisdiction, not just Orders, are necessary to be a valid successor of the Apostles.  Jurisdiction is entirely dependent on the existence of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff who alone can provide the permission necessary for the consecration of those nominated as bishops. This was first written into law by the Council of Trent. And without such permission no one nominated as bishop who is not approved by the Pope can be validly consecrated or ordain or consecrate other bishops.

 Pre-election heresy in a papal candidate

Many have doubted for decades that the popes after Pius XII were true popes and some openly maintain that the papal see has been vacant for 67 years. Many doubted Francis was a true Pope as well. And until these doubts are resolved, as Bd. Pope Innocent XI infallibly teaches (DZ 1151), all must remain in limbo and no one may receive Sacraments, attend liturgical functions or yield obedience to a doubtful pope (St. Robert Bellarmine). An infallible papal bull, Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, clearly shows how a man could appear to become pope for the very purpose of destroying the Church. That man would have to be a heretic before his election, although this might not be known at the time, (and no man who is not a Catholic could ever become pope). But the fact that such a man would later promote heresy during his supposed pontificate would alert the faithful to the fact that he was a heretic pre-election and never became pope in the first place. For Christ has guaranteed, and the Vatican Council teaches, that no true pope could ever speak or promote heresy from the Chair of Peter.

For nearly 1400 years, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass stood untouched. That alone speaks volumes. Holy Scripture tells us that the Continual Sacrifice will disappear one day when Antichrist, the abomination of desolation, stands in the Holy Place. It is the unanimous opinion of the Early Fathers that this indeed will occur in the last days and both the Council of Trent and the (only) Vatican Council infallibly teach that we must believe this on faith. What exactly is the abomination of desolation? Pope Paul IV’s bull teaches that it is either a heretic or one suspected of heresy. St. Bernard of Clairvaux stated that antipope Anacletus was an antichrist owing to his invalid election. The Council of Florence also called antipope Felix V an antichrist.

No man can become pope unless he is elected according to the papal laws and canons prevailing at the time of election. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, as testified to by Pope Clement VI (Super quibusdam, 1351), Pope Martin V (Inter Cunctas, Errors of Wycliffe and Huss, Council of Constance, 1418), Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559), Pope St. Pius X (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904) and Pope Pius XII (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945). These laws are not limited to papal elections but are also mirrored in the laws of nations. Those countries electing their leaders by popular vote necessarily determine who may be elected and what invalidates an election. This has been openly discussed at length in this country and should come as no surprise: American law, as that of the Catholic Church, is based on Roman law. And certainly as a Divine institution, it applies far more stringently to the Church than to any nation.

The abrogation of the Latin Mass was the canary in the coal mine warning the faithful that the abomination of desolation, the Man of Sin, was standing in the Holy Place.

Had the bishops insisted, as Pope St. Pius X ordered in Acerbo nimis, that Catholics truly study and know their faith, they would have understood this. Had encyclicals been read from the pulpit at the order of the bishops and explained to the faithful, at least some of them would have understood from the beginning. But this was not the case, because the cardinals along with the bishops led them into heresy and schism. They followed the path of Judas, one of the apostles, who betrayed Christ; once-Catholic bishops of the East who embraced schism; and the priest Luther and Catholic King Henry VIII, fathers of the Reformation. And those priests who did not go along with the changes after Pope Pius XII’s death were no better. For they did nothing to educate the laity and investigate the true status quo of the Church, uncovering the root cause for Her destruction, or discover whether the pope had provided for such a crisis.

These early “traditional” priests pretended that in an emergency all could be swept aside to accommodate the wants of those believing themselves to be Catholic. They did not remember that Christ said first to go and TEACH all nations, then baptize — that His doctrine was to go before the ministration of the Sacraments — especially given the ignorance of the faithful and their clerical obligation to them. One of the videos mentioned above, treating of the new “mass” and the Vatican 2 changes, suggests that the faithful had no right to correct the Novus Ordo hierarchy for their faithlessness in signing Vatican 2 documents, implementing changes to the Sacraments and celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae. This in direct contradiction to Can. 1325, that unless the faithful publicly speak out against such heresies, they will be branded as heretics themselves. These ignorant priests had every opportunity to discover and translate from the Latin the infallible papal document that would have resolved and explained everything.

John 23 never eligible for election

But that translation was not rendered until 2012, by a layperson, and by then it would be too late to prevent the idiolatry that already had been committed and continues today.

This was no accident, because that papal document contained many things that neither the Novus Ordo nor Traditional pseudo-clergy wished to hear. Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS), was that document. It was a careful restatement  of the original constitution promulgated in 1904, Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica, with only a few additions. Pope St. Pius X’s constitution was a thorough codification of all papal election law throughout the centuries as Pope Pius XII explains in his preface to VAS. It infallibly declared, as had papal election law for centuries, that no one who is guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism can be validly elected; that no one can usurp papal jurisdiction during the interregnum (such as lifting censures reserved to the pope alone, or approving men nominated for consecration as bishops, which can be done only by the pope); and that no one can change the papal election law or any of the Sacred Canons even in part, or dispense from them.

It is a matter of public record that Angelo Roncalli, John 23, was a suspected heretic at the time of his election. He also was disqualified as a papal candidate for violating other prohibitions in Pope Pius XII’s constitution. Roncalli himself later publicly confirmed he was a suspected heretic and even joked about it. It is also a matter of public record that a massive campaign was conducted to prepare Catholics for the acceptance of ecumenism in the 1950s by no less than the CIA. Proof also exists that lay interference by the CIA took place before and during the conclave that “elected” Roncalli, something that Pope Pius XII, in VAS, cites as invalidating the election. All of these facts have been documented. Pope Pius XII infallibly declares that if anyone even attempts to usurp papal jurisdiction, interfere in anyway with the election or change or dispense from the election law or Canon Law in any way that such an attempt is null, void and invalid. All was to be left to the future pope.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis teaches, (paras 1-3):

1. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff. Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.
2. Likewise we command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the laws of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church,nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy. On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.
3. 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. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff. 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.

The consequences of all this are that John 23 never became pope; he was disqualified for election. Nothing he or any of his successors did ever really happened — it was all null and void. Canon Law teaches that a college that elects an unworthy candidate cannot proceed to another election, invalidating the election also of Paul 6 (Can. 2391 §1, 1917 Code). There was no John 23 missal (1962), no second Vatican Council (1963-65), there were no changes in the rites of the Sacraments (1968), the Latin Mass remained intact (1969), Canon Law was never changed (1983) — everything remained just as it was when Pope Pius XII died. It reminds one a little bit of the fairy tale Sleeping Beauty where once Sleeping Beauty falls asleep, the hedges grow around the castle and hide it. She remains asleep until her Prince (and we can interpret the Prince here as Christ Himself) beats down the hedge and kisses her awake again.

Most importantly, those who ordained priests and consecrated bishops following Pope Pius XII’s death such as Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin ngo dinh Thuc, also all those they ordained or consecrated, never became clerics because the interregnum never ended. Lefebvre’s and Thuc’s valid pre-1958 consecrations could not be removed, (although they ipso facto lost their offices as bishops for recognizing the false popes, signing Vatican 2 documents and offering the New “mass” — see Can. 2314 §3). But their right to VALIDLY EXERCISE THEIR ORDERS was stripped from them by Pius XII in VAS. The Traditionalist movement was just another non-Catholic, schismatic hiccup in the Church’s history. They did not “save” the Latin Tridentine Mass because they were not clerics and could not offer it or administer the Sacraments validly,

It was the papacy, not just the Mass that mattered

Logic is a collection of rules based on the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas which guide the mind to think correctly in its attainment of truth. There is an error in logic known as Non causa pro causa (Latin meaning “non-cause for cause,” or false cause). “It is a catch-all term that describes any type of fallacy in which we mistake a false cause of an event for the real cause… Reverse causation fallacy occurs when the direction of cause and effect is reversed. In other words, we assume that A causes B, without realizing that B actually causes A.” St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there must be a cause for every effect but that cause must be rightly identified. Unbelievably, the cause of the crisis in the Church was wrongly identified as the loss of the Latin Mass, as though the entire Catholic faith was founded on the Mass itself, and not St. Peter, the rock, and his successors. And this even though those condemning the Novus Ordo Missae, Patrick Henry Omlor included, publicly stated that this new liturgy was heretical.

And yet that liturgy and all that went before and after it was engineered and made law by men who Catholics were bound to believe could never err, as the Church infallibly teaches. Nearly half the faithful left the Novus Ordo in the late 1960sw and 1970s. This was an act of schism, unless that departure was based on the firm knowledge that the church they left was not the true Church. They at least implicitly acknowledged the heresy existed but failed to identify and condemn its actual cause: the Great Apostasy, consisting of false popes and apostate cardinals and bishops. VAS demanded a true pope be elected, but there was no one left to canonically elect a true pope — the shepherd had been struck and the flock successfully dispersed into the hands of the enemy. No one seemed able to decipher the fact that it was the papacy that had perpetually cemented the Mass into its Latin form and protected it for nearly 1400 years. But once he who withholdeth — the pope — was taken out of the way, it was fair game.

We live in that time foretold by St. Thomas Aquinas that would exist between the death of Antichrist and Christ’s second coming. This may be a frightening revelation, a hard saying, but it is one that must be accepted and dealt with because it is the only one that is consistent with the entirety of Catholic truth. God long ago determined some would have to live through these times, although few would retain their faith. We cannot run and hide as Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden. We know how deplorable the times we live in truly are and how offensive they are to God and worthy of damnation. They are deplorable precisely because we have lost the papacy and with it the Mass. We were long ago warned by the saints and theologians that when the Holy Sacrifice ceased, Satan would be loosed upon the earth. Is this not what we are seeing today? Antichrist alone could have accomplished this, as Holy Scripture and infallible papal teaching tell us, so we cannot deny it and remain Catholic.

An alternative reality

Holy Scripture predicts Antichrist will come in all signs and lying wonders, show himself in the temple as though he were God and deceive, if possible, even the elect. St. Paul describes the operation of error to believe lies that will afflict all but a few believers in that time (2 Thess. 2). What greater delusion could exist than the reign of seven usurpers pretending to be true popes to all the world and representing the Catholic Church while systematically destroying it? What greater deception could be imaginable? Both Novus Ordo and Traditional sect members believing or at least partially accepting this imposture live in an alternative reality, defined as: A state of things that does not really exist,  (Cambridge Dictionary); or any[thing] that deviates from the [Catholic-Ed.] perception of reality” (VocabDictionary). Their own vulnerability to brainwashing can be chalked up to their ignorance of the faith. Only immediate departure from these sects and constant prayer to the Holy Ghost can bestow on those so deceived the grace necessary to learn the truth.

There is still time but time is running out, for no one knows the day nor the hour. May God grant you the light to see and the miracle of grace necessary to save your souls. “Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.  For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities” (Apoc. 18: 4-5).

(See the homepage and current articles page HERE for the proofs mentioned above.)

Free Anti-Semitism book and charity toward our enemies

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 24, 2025 | New Blog

+The Annunciation+ (With a commemoration of St. Dismas)

Fr. Doyle’s Reflections on the Passion, Pt. 3

Gesthemani

OUR BLESSED LORD had designedly planned that Peter, James, and John should be afforded but a glimpse of His divinity when it burst forth on the occasion of His Transfiguration. Now in the Garden of Olives these same Apostles would see their Lord and their God bent and crushed under the weight of sin. The thought of the Transfiguration would have to strengthen them in this hour of disillusionment.

The apostles had always known our Lord to be composed in the face of attack or crisis. For instance, when the elements of nature tossed their fishing boats until they, hardened fishermen though they were, quaked with fear, Jesus was calm and unafraid; but in the Garden of Gethsemani they were to see this same Christ prostrate on the ground bathed in a sweat of blood. That which made up the very anguish of Gethsemani was the fact that Christ, at that moment, took upon Himself the sins of the world — past, present, and future. But why had Christ invited the Apostles to accompany Him in the Garden of Olives? Well, as He entered the darkness, He may have craved human companionship. It was not that the Apostles could do anything for Him, but that their very presence would support Him. Too, He wanted to teach them some important lessons.

The first lesson was this, that when one is oppressed, discouraged, heartbroken, and forsaken, he should pray. That is what our Lord did. He was afraid. He was overwhelmed by the sins of mankind, His Apostles, His closest friends, fell asleep – yet He prayed. Always remember what our Lord told His weak apostles when he awakened them the first time: “Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mt. 26:41).

The second lesson was equally apparent. While Christ’s closest friends were asleep as He went through the initial phases of the Passion, His enemies were very much awake. At that very moment Judas was briefing the soldiers on where to find Christ and how to apprehend Him. The soldiers were getting themselves ready to arrest the Son of God.

So it has always been and always will be — the enemies of your soul and mine, the enemies of Christ and His Church never sleep. They are always more vigilant, more energetic, more active then we are. Resolve today to make [a Holy Hour] and let the picture of Christ in the Garden of Olives come to your mind. Approach your prostrate King — promise Him to do some positive penance for the sins you have committed. Ask Him to teach you this important lesson — that when doubts, trials, sorrows, and temptations assail you, you, following His example, you will pray, pray, pray.

Our Lord had suffered a terrible ordeal in His initial phase of trial in the Garden of Olives. He had, some thirty-three years earlier, taken on the burden of human nature, Now in this fateful garden, Christ took on the awful burden of man’s sins, and He rightly looked to His closest friends to share His burden in return, if only by compassion. They failed Him. They slept. Oh how the words of the prophet were fulfilled: “I looked for one that would grieve together with me, and there was none; for one that would comfort me, and I found none” (Ps. 68:21).” (End of of Fr. Doyle quotes).

Introduction

Several readers have requested that I make available an excellent booklet written on anti-Semitism, which is now posted for all to read HERE. (Please wait for a moment to view it as it takes a while to load). This booklet was published by Radio Replies Press in 1944 and exposes the false information now circulating on the Internet about the Church’s true position on the Jews. Radio Replies was an approved publication praised by Church officials and Catholics worldwide for its comprehensive treatment of moral and dogmatic theology questions. This booklet presents the correct theological outlook on the problem of anti-Semitism and what the popes have taught throughout the ages on how we should regard the Jews. Yes, they are the enemies of Christ and henceforth our enemies as well. And during Lent this is most painfully apparent. But we must keep this in perspective and turn our own eyes inward during this time, for certainly the hierarchy we believed to be true Catholics are more guilty than they are, in many respects, for what has happened to the Church. And we must not be seduced by those who pretend to take their place.

Our Catholic faith teaches that, “…The worst [sinners] are those Christians who have died in mortal sin, without repentance and without regret; for these have despised the death of Christ and His sacraments, or else they have received them unworthily and in vain. And they have not practised the works of mercy, showing charity toward their neighbours, as God has commanded. And for this they are doomed to the depths of hell. The second kind are the unbelievers, Pagans and Jews. These must all appear before Christ, though they were damned already during their lives; for, in their time, they possessed neither Divine grace nor Divine love, and for this reason they have always dwelt in the eternal death of damnation. But these shall have less pain than the evil Christians; for, since they received fewer gifts of God, THEY OWED HIM LESS LOYALTY” (Bd. John of Ruysbroeck, The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage, 14^th century.)

The faithless cardinals, the traitorous bishops, the false shepherds and wolves in sheep’s clothing, and their cooperators — all of those leading the people astray — they, not the Jews, are the ones who bear the brunt of the blame. And they are the ones who would be most severely punished, deposed and degraded if a canonically elected pope could be elected, which sadly is now an impossibility. The baptized Catholic who has abandoned his faith, and most especially those commissioned to care for the flock, are the ones who should tremble.

The charity we owe our enemies

In meditating on the Passion, as all are bound to do during Lent, the true enormity of sins committed and yet being committed by ourselves and others should become more truly heinous than ever they seemed before. We know that the Church has always prayed for the conversion of the Jews, pagans, infidels and the return of non-Catholics to the fold. In making our First Friday reparations, we ought to be praying for this as well. Yes, the Jews are our enemies, along with those of our own household and there has been much misunderstanding on what type of charity we owe our enemies and the limits of such charity. There should also be an order in our fight against the enemies of faith and how to best direct our energies to defend Christ and His Church. All this will be made clearer below. “He who can never love Christ enough, will never give up fighting against those who hate Him” — St. John Chrysostom.

From Rev. Felix Sarda y Salvany’s Liberalism is a Sin

LibTrad apologists continually “disagree” with those who point out their errors, accusing their critics of a lack of charity or unjust condemnation of their position. This when they themselves are the ones practicing liberal charity. Since they have no authority to teach, and Rev. Sarda was a theologian commended by Pope Leo XIII’s Holy Office, it is quite clear that their objections are specious and uncharitable in themselves. Rev Sarda explains below why this is true.

“It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for the defense…The love due to a man inasmuch as he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service, we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense toward men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God’s sake. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.

“Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of charity; our neighbor first and, if at all, God afterwards. By its reiterated and trite accusations of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and too concrete to admit of misconception. It is: sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when in his own interests he is crossed, humiliated, and chastised. It is practiced in relation to a third party, when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, BY HOLDING THEM UP TO THE CONTEMPT, HORROR AND EXECRATION OF ALL. It is practiced in relation to God when, FOR HIS GLORY AND IN HIS SERVICE, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample underfoot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests and even life itself to attain this highest of all ends…The saints are the type of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion…”

Rev. Sarda tells us further: “The bond of union should never be neutrality or the conciliation of interests essentially opposed…This neutrality or conciliation has been condemned by the Syllabus and… is a false basis. Such union would be a betrayal, an abandonment of the Catholic [ideal]. Such union with any group, for any enterprise whatsoever, would [not only] be unfavorable to Catholics, but actually [would be] detrimental. Instead of augmenting our forces, it would paralyze and nullify the vigor of those who would be able, if alone, to do something for the defense of the truth…The kind of soldiers we need go into the deadly breach and never flinch. No compromising, no minimizing with them. They plant their banner on the topmost height and form a solid invincible phalanx around it. That not all the legions of earth and hell combined can budge a single inch. They make no alliance, no compromise with a foe whose single aim, disguised or open, is the destruction of the truth. They know the enemy by nature is implacable, and his flag of truce but a cunning device of treachery.” And this applies especially to organizations that try to unite all those with disparate “Catholic” beliefs.

On the “incurable,” and those in heresy or schism

St. Alphonsus Liguori writes, under the heading The Duty of Accusing or Denouncing Another: “Here it is asked whether fraternal correction must precede accusation. Several distinctions must be made…(1) If the crime is public, since for this reason infamy or notoriety is already present, (e.g., before a number of people in the street), then no correction ought to precede. Thus St. Thomas, Sanchez, Sotus, Paludanus and Salmant with the common opinion. In such a case, to quote St. Thomas, ‘The remedy must not be applied only to him who has sinned that he may improve, but also to those who notice the crime has come.’ And for this reason, a public crime ought to be punished. The truth is you do not sin either against charity or against justice if you accuse without warning (1) When the crime gives injury to the common weal as in…heresy…For with these crimes, scarcely, if ever, is it to be hoped that correction will be fruitful, and delay can be exceedingly harmful,” (Theologia Moralis).

“St. Paul commands Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment,” (3:10,11) Cornelius a Lapide and St. Robert Bellarmine understand(s) this passage as meaning that the warnings are required when it is doubtful whether or not someone is truly pertinacious in heresy. In the case of manifest heresy, no warning would be necessary.

“Cardinal de Lugo, considered by St. Alphonsus to be the greatest theologian since St. Thomas, devoted the most detailed study we are aware of to the subject of the pertinacity required to make someone a heretic. He discusses whether a warning is needed in order to establish that someone is a heretic, and concludes, after considering the opinions of all the noted theologians and canonists, that such warnings are not always necessary – nor are they always required in practice by the Holy Office. The reason for this is that the warning serves only to establish that the individual is aware of the opposition existing between his opinion and the Church’s teaching. If that were already evident, the warning would be superfluous,” (Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales, Disp. XX, De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Sectio vi, n. 174 et seq.). It should be noted here that the very law used as the old law for the canons on heresy, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which we are bound to consult should any questions arise concerning the law, states that where heresy is concerned no warning or declaratory sentence is required for the censure to take effect. This also was reiterated in a decision from the Holy Office in the 1930s.

To dismiss the claim that Church teaching and practice did not always clearly specify the matter of a man’s ordination and consecration without the proper qualifications, we quote the following: Pope Hadrian I condemns in DZ 301 “…those priests who without examination… are ordained that they may preside.” And in DZ 363 we find (Pope Callistus II, Laetaran Council I): “Let no one, unless canonically elected, extend his hand for consecration to the episcopacy. But if he should presume to do so let both the one consecrated and the one consecrating be deposed without hope of restoration.”  This is only a reiteration of what is found in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. And it must be emphasized here that in teaching this, the popes were not NOT considering the fact that the ones seeking consecration were already public heretics and schismatics!

And from St. Thomas Aquinas: “As the Philosopher observes (Ethic. ix. 3), when our friends fall into sin, we ought not to deny them the amenities of friendship, so long as there is hope of their mending their ways, and we ought to help them more readily to regain virtue than to recover money, had they lost it, for as much as virtue is more akin than money to friend­ ship. When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, AND BECOME INCURABLE, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore. (Q. 25, Art. 7, Pt. II-II: Reply Obj. 2).

(Pt. II-II, Q.31, Art. 2, Reply Obj. 3): “The excommunicated and the enemies of the common weal are deprived of all beneficence, in so far as this prevents them from doing evil deeds. Yet if their nature be in urgent need of succor lest it fail, we are bound to help them. For instance, if they be in danger of death through hunger or thirst, or suffer some like distress, unless this be according to the order of justice.” And following St. Thomas, as they do, Revs. McHugh and Callan wrote: “An act is NOT contumely when given to those deserving of reproof, or when directed toward the IRRETRIEVABLY WICKED.”

Are LibTrad pseudo-clergy irretrievably wicked? For some 40 years, they have been warned that they are operating outside Canon Law, that their validity is in grave question, and finally that their “orders” are undeniably invalid according to the laws of the Church and the teachings of the Popes. Not one of them have reversed course, admitted their guilt, publicly abjured their errors, made reparation and restitution (all of this required by Canon Law) or asked for forgiveness. It is difficult to believe that they are anything but unrepentant and pertinacious. In any event they are notorious heretics, and we are bound to avoid them and condemn their attempts to pervert those who are searching for the truth. While what follows applies to those who are still Catholic, and those suffering from personal offenses only, it provides guidelines regarding our treatment of those who are our professed enemies.

From The Casuist,  Vol. 1, (p. 193-95)

“We must not wish our enemy evil; that is we must not repay evil with evil or cherish a spirit of revenge toward him. We must pardon the personal offense when requested, not always immediately. Sometimes there may be just cause for deferring pardon in order to manifest the pain we suffer by reason of the offense. Sometimes, even, we may be obliged to make the first advance towards a reconciliation to prevent scandal or to save our enemy from sin when we can do so without much trouble to ourselves. We must wish our enemy well; that is, we must include him in our prayers. We must succor him in his needs as we would anyone else. And if we exercise charity indiscriminately toward a large number, we must not exclude our enemy, for this would be a mark of revenge; and if special ties of blood etc. unite us, we are bound to give evidence of goodwill toward our enemy as we give to others who are bound to us by the same ties. But special marks of friendship that we owe to no one in particular, either by reason of their personal condition or the customs of the country, we are not obliged to show to our enemy.

“It is one thing to harbor a spirit of revenge and quite another thing to desire the reparation of outraged rights. It is perfectly legitimate to desire the restoration of our good name or the restitution of our stolen property and to take action at law to obtain them; yes, even to take criminal proceedings against the offender to have him punished. If this is done out of love for justice it is quite in keeping with the law of charity. If it is done from a spirit of revenge, it is of course sinful. ONCE SATISFACTION HAS BEEN MADE, WE MUST FORGIVE THE PERSONAL OFFENSE. UNTIL SATISFACTION HAS BEEN MADE, THIS IS NOT REQUIRED OF US. We are not obliged to salute those who have wrongly offended us unless they make the first advances, unless it be a question of the superior or unless, to refrain from soliciting our enemy for a long time could be interpreted as a mark of hatred. But if our enemy greets us first, we are bound to greet him in return except once or again we might be justified in refusing to recognize a greeting in order to show our feelings have been hurt. If therefore on account of circumstances the denial for a time of the ordinary salutations and greetings must be interpreted as a manifestation of wounded feelings and if in fact the denial proceeds from no spirit of hatred or ill will such denial is not sinful” (end of Casuist quotes).

It should be noted here that the above deals with personal offenses, but what we are dealing with today are public, notorious crimes regarding LibTrad pseudo-clergy and their defenders. These are a different species and require adjudication by the local Ordinary or the Roman Pontiff. Because we have no access to them today, the law still applies as far as it can be observed and these laws are detailed below.

Canon Law on reparation and amendment

Can. 672 §1: “[If] a dismissed religious… has for three years given signs of complete amendment, the religious organization is bound to receive him: however if either on the part of the organization or on the part of the religious there are serious objections against the return, the matter shall be submitted to the judgment of the Holy See.”

Canon 1933: “Offenses which are subject to criminal procedure are public offences… Penances, penal remedies, excommunication, suspension and interdict can be inflicted also by way of precept without judicial procedure providing the offense is certain.”

Canon 1935: “Any of the faithful may at all times denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction… or to get damages for losses sustained through the criminal act of another or out of zeal for justice to repair some scandal or evil. Even an obligation to denounce an offender exists whenever one is obliged to do so,either by law or by special legitimate precept or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.”

Canon 2242: “A person is considered to have desisted from his obstinacy when he has truly repented of his offence and has at the same time made proper satisfaction for the damages and scandal caused or has at least earnestly promised to do so.” And, “Absolution cannot be denied whenever the offender ceases to be obstinate as declared in Canon 2242”(Can. 2248).

Canon 2313: “Penances are imposed when a person who has incurred a canonical penalty truly repents and asks for absolution from a censure or dispensation from a vindictive penalty. The principal penalties are: (1) the recital of specific prayers; (2) pious pilgrimages or other works of piety; (3) special fasts; (4) almsgiving for pious purposes; (5) retreats or spiritual exercises for some days in a pious religious house.”

From the canons above we can deduce the following.

If one has been excommunicated for some reason (and this could even include excommunication for material heresy or schism on the part of LibTrad followers in the present circumstances it seems), then they must be on their good behavior for three years after having satisfied the canons requiring amendment. This is true because of the element of fraud involved, even though their offences have been public and notorious. Under Canon 1325 we are bound to renounce anything that is said or done contrary to the faith. So such persons, if they have publicly sinned in writing or in actions, must make amendment and do reparation by publicly denouncing the actions or the writing. They also must  satisfy the financial obligations regarding the damages done insofar as possible and perform the penances described in Canon 2313. This in order to demonstrate their sincerity and their desire to be absolved from any sin or excommunication. Any amendment must be complete; there can be no recidivism or return to heresy, schism or previous errors.

Needless to say, very few exiting the LibTrad sects have obeyed these canons. Certainly none of their pseudo-clergy have renounced their errors, publicly abjured them, made their amends and done penance. And how could they possibly recompense their followers financially? Yet this is what the laws of the Church command them to do.

Conclusion

It is contrary to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs to continue to castigate the Jews for their sins even though they are enemies of the Church. This because such castigation has the appearance of desiring revenge and is against the virtue of prudence. LibTrads cannot blame others for errors they are not willing to correct themselves. The Orthodox Jews call us idolaters because we worship Christ and they don’t believe that he was the Son of God. Well, all members of the LibTrad sects are idolaters because their clergy are invalid and they’re worshipping a piece of bread! How can they point fingers at others when they are guilty of these grave sins? Christ prohibited this behavior in condemning the Pharisees and pointing out the humility of the publican in the parable. He forgave His enemies from the Cross, and in inviting St. Dismas to heaven, He demonstrated that repentance is worthy of forgiveness and reward. He also forgave those Jews who, following the Crucifixion, renounced their sect and converted to Christianity.

Prudence dictates that those among the LibTrad sects blaming the Jews for destroying the Church should not be further encouraged, lest they possibly take revenge and commit a sinful act against them. Christ died for His own people as well as for us. We need not be friendly to the Jews because they have not asked our forgiveness or made amends by converting, but neither should we be actively persecuting them. They are not the ones pretending to be Catholic and misleading those who should be true Catholics — individuals who profess to love Our Lord and wish to be saved. The popes didn’t spend their time and energy continually berating the Jews, but they most certainly routinely condemned those wolves in sheep’s clothing misleading the faithful, along with their false doctrines.

In the end, the Church will triumph, and the Jews will be converted. “Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.  Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Apoc. 3: 9-10). This may not happen until the very end, the time given for penance and reparation prior to the Final Judgment. But Christ has promised it, and He is ever true to His promises. The faith and the patience of the saints alone, excluding all thoughts of revenge, will save us.  If we drink the cup of His adorable Passion to the very dregs, there is redemption and victory over eternal death awaiting us at the end.

1955 Fr. Cronin work upholds VAS on Trad invalidity

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 2, 2025 | New Blog

†Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary†

Light a candle, purge the darkness from your souls

Prayer Society Intention for February, month of the Holy Family and the Blessed Trinity

“O Most Holy Trinity , who art dwelling by Thy grace within my soul, make me love Thee more and more.” (Raccolta)

(Please pray for a reader’s mother’s swift recovery from her stroke and for the repose of the soul of Timothy Hunt, requiescat in pace.)

Introduction

A post last week on the Novus Ordo Watch site (definitely not recommended, but which sometimes publishes accurate articles on matters of faith), has provided a thought-provoking sequel of sorts to the article on the rehash of Robert Robbins’ objections posted here last week. Since it will be quoted and discussed at length below, the article can be viewed HERE. I do, however, possess an original edition of Rev. John F. Cronin’s work, the author cited in the article, and have verified all the quotes from his work. Not that there was any question that the quotes were accurate, but firsthand quotes are always preferable to those relied upon secondhand.

The article opens with comments on the confusion regarding the extent of the binding nature of papal documents, both before and after Vatican 2, a confusion that could easily have been dispelled by drawing a firm dividing line at the moment of Pope Pius XII’s death Oct. 9, 1958. When such chaos as occurred at Vatican 2 exists, the safer course demands that all which is doubtful be rejected, and only that which is certainly orthodox be trusted. There were means to determine this and these means were available via seminary libraries, local libraries by inter-library loan, from Catholic booksellers and later the Internet. I know this because I began purchasing books from seminary libraries and these other venues in the early 1980s. At that time there was no Internet, so everything was done the hard way. I assumed others were doing the same, and a select few were so doing; but not for the same reasons.

The Novus Ordo Watch article seemingly states that it was not generally understood, following Vatican 2, that irrevocable assent was required not only to infallible papal documents but also to those things taught in the ordinary magisterium. As explained in an article posted several years ago HERE, the confusion was generated by those opposing Henry Cardinal Manning and strict interpretation of the Vatican Council decrees. Pope Pius XII ended this confusion with Humani generis by teaching that: 1) What is taught in official papal documents is not binding, para. 20; 2) Ex cathedra pronouncements are rare, para. 21, 3) Restrictions can be placed by theologians on what constitutes an ex cathedra pronouncement, and theologians may dictate a formula for the actual wording of the pronouncement, para. 21.

For over three decades, we have quoted Bellarmine, Manning, Berry, Tanquerey, Billot, Garrigou-Lagrange, Fenton, Connell, Herve, Van Noort and others who in many cases taught what was contained in Humani generis long before it was written. Cronin now joins this list of theologians. But when papal documents written by Pope Pius XII and his predecessors were readily available in the 1960s and 1970s, as were the explanations by these theologians, why was no one citing their binding nature then? Why were the revered “Traditionalists,” such as Saenz-Arriaga, Lefebvre, Oswald Baker, Vezelis, Kelly, et al insisting that these teachings were not strictly binding, that Canon Law was to be interpreted liberally or dismissed, that they did not strictly apply in an “emergency” when Pope Pius VI himself, in the letter Charitas, taught that they most certainly did?

If these sites are going to now insist that their readers accept the binding mature of papal documents, then let there be no exceptions to this rule. But we know they are making exceptions — and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law governing interregnums, also obedience to Canon Law, are primary among them. The entire debacle that became Traditionalism and later Sedevacantism could have been avoided if those who presented themselves to the faithful as orthodox clergy and established Traditionalist groups had carefully studied papal teaching and Canon Law before embarking on their (lucrative) careers. But that was not consistent with their motives. The papacy was not the focus of their attention, only the Mass and Sacraments, as if the latter could validly exist without the former. And this is why they had to find a way around the jurisdiction issue, which tells us they knew there was a problem. So they pretended epikeia could fill the gap, excluding Canon Law and binding papal teaching.

Where the problem began

Below we will comment on some of Cronin’s remarks as they relate to the above, but first we will address the objections noted in the article made by Pope Pius XI denouncing the prideful assumption by Catholics that papal decrees not issued ex cathedra were not binding.

“For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104).

And to this we add, from Pope Pius XII’s Humani generis, (nos. 29-31): “It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason for it falls to reason (to demonstrate God’s very existence and the truths of faith)… But reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly trained, that is when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by early Christian ages and which moreover possesses an authority of even higher notes, since the teaching authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets…” (and here of course he is speaking of Scholasticism).

“Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, in which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. The Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor, since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light. His doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping safely and usefully the fruits of sound progress.”

If we seek an answer to why the doctrine on papal obedience has been so perverted, it is found in the tenets of the Modernists, whose hatred of authority, magisterial teaching and Scholasticism is well-known. And, (with the exception of des Lauriers, Carmona, Zamora, McKenna and Vezelis), where did all of those who later served as Traditionalist “bishops” receive their training? In Novus Ordo seminaries and secular universities and then the Society of St. Pius X, which at least nine of them later exited. Does anyone really believe that these men could possibly have received Catholic training in these institutions, saturated in Modernism and Rationalism? For there they were taught by men never approved by the Church, in seminaries never erected by a canonically elected pope and admitted as candidates to the priesthood by those who had no right or power to call them. And we wonder why people are confused and have not obeyed the popes…

(The quotes below are taken from Rev. John F. Cronin, Catholic Social Principles: The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church Applied to American Economic Life [Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1955], pp. 55-61; 685. Imprimatur, 1950. Rev. Cronin’s ecclesiastical career is summarized HERE.) 

On minimalism

Fr. Cronin —“In the first place, the teaching mission of the Church is not confined to infallible pronouncements by the pope or ecumenical councils. Christ’s injunction to teach all nations was not limited by any qualifications… The Church has been commissioned by God to teach with authority on matters of faith and morals. It has been promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In rare cases, the fullness of this guidance is invoked in a solemn definition of an article of faith. But the great bulk of Church teaching is had through the normal channels of pronouncements by the popes, bishops, and theologians… A “minimist” attitude of accepting only infallible pronouncements is simply un-Catholic.”

T. Benns — We have addressed this before. As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton wrote: “Ultimately theological minimalism was a device employed BY LIBERAL CATHOLICS to make the rejection of authoritative papal teaching on any point appear to be good Catholic practice.Sometimes it took the crass form of a claim that Catholics are obligated to accept and to holdonly those things which had been defined by the explicit decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Holy See. This attitude… was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his letter Tuas Libenter (DZ 1683). Another crass form of minimalism was the opposition to the Vatican Council definition of papal infallibility. The men who expressed that opposition sometimes claimed to hold the doctrine of papal infallibility as a theological opinion but they showed a furious hostility to the definition which proposed that doctrine as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith” (“The Components of Liberal Catholicism,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, July 1958).

We see that this heretical attitude was condemned long ago. So how and why has it been allowed to fulminate among those who pretend to lead and direct those believing themselves to be “Traditional” Catholics today?

Acta Apostolica Sedis

Fr. Cronin — “As a second point, the form of teaching is relatively unimportant. Rather it is the solemnity and definiteness as determined by the text itself. It is true that the very nature of an encyclical, addressed to the entire world, implies a certain solemnity. But a broadcast, a papal letter, an allocution, or even an address to a particular group may, under certain circumstances, involve important and binding teachings on some matters.

T. Benns — We must remember that Cronin wrote just before the release of Humani generis, which taught that even papal letters, allocutions or addresses can be binding if entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. According to Msgr. Fenton: “Those allocutions and other papal instructions, which, though primarily directed to some individual or group of individuals, are then printed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis are directives valid for all of the Church militant. We must not lose sight of the fact that, in the encyclical Human generis, the Holy Father made it clear that any doctrinal decision printed in the pontifical Acta must be accepted as normative by all theologians. I This would apply to all decisions made in the course of the Sovereign Pontiff’s ordinary magisterium” (“Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” American Ecclesiastical Review).

Infallibility of two papal teachings spurned

Fr. Cronin — “The obligatory nature of such assent is particularly serious when the pope declares that he has, not only the right, but the duty to pronounce with supreme authority the… teaching of the Church. ‘Respectful silence, which consists in neither rejecting nor criticizing the given teaching,’ is inadmissible in this matter…“The… encyclicals and addresses contain various levels of teaching. At the highest level are the references to revealed teaching as embodied in the Scriptures.”

T. Benns — And yet we have those still insisting today that Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, is not infallible. This when Pope Paul IV wrote:

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio

“Whereas We consider such a matter to be so grave and fraught with peril that the Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and. kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by no one in this world — (even he) may be corrected if he is apprehended straying from the Faith. Also, it behooves us to give fuller and more diligent thought where the peril is greatest, lest false prophets (or even others possessing secular jurisdiction) wretchedly ensnare simple souls and drag down with themselves to perdition and the ruin of damnation the countless peoples entrusted to their care and government in matters spiritual or temporal. And lest it befall Us to see in the holy place the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, We wish, as much as possible with God’s help, in line with our pastoral duty, to trap the foxes that are busily ravaging the Lord’s vineyard and to drive the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be silent watchdogs, unable to bark, or lest We come to an evil end like the evil husbandmen or be likened to a hireling… (para. 2)

“We approve and renew, by Our Apostolic authority, each and every sentence, censure or penalty of excommunication, suspension and interdict, and removal, and any others whatever in any way given and promulgated against heretics and schismatics by any Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors… Upon advice and consent concerning such as these, through this Our Constitution, which is to remain forever effective, in hatred of such a crime the greatest and deadliest that can exist in God’s Church, We sanction, establish, decree and define, through the fullness of Our Apostolic power, that although the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties keep their force and efficacy and obtain their effect (bishops archbishops and Cardinals committing heresy, apostasy or schism) are forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank” (para. 3; end of Cum ex… quotes).

And then of course there is Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, specifically written to determine what is to be done during an interregnum and the rules and regulations for the canonical election of a true pope. Pope Pius XII wrote, in the preamble to his constitution: 

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis

“Continually in the course of the centuries, Our Predecessors solemnly determined to order and define the procedures of governance of the vacant Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff, for which they were supposed to provide; and in the same manner they endeavored to apply themselves with watchful care and to devote their energies to useful rules in the weighty business divinely entrusted to the Church, to wit, electing the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, who on this earth is the Vicar of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and as supreme Pastor and Head feeds and rules all the Lord’s flock. However, since there was already a desire to have collected into one place these laws about electing the Roman Pontiff, enlarged in number in preceding ages, and since some of them, less accommodated to special circumstances, had become outdated on account of changed conditions, the great man Pius X, our Predecessor, with judicious advice decided forty years ago to reduce them (appropriately selected) to a summary, having published the well-known Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica on the twenty-fifth of December of the year 1904.

“Wherefore, having seasonably considered the matter, with sure knowledge and the plenitude of Our Apostolic power, We have undertaken to publish and promulgate this Constitution, which is the same as that given by Pius X, of holy memory, but reformed throughout…”

As Cronin notes above: when a pope quotes from the writings of other popes in his own works, showing their great authority, “…these writings are considered binding upon the faithful.” And, “The form of teaching is relatively unimportant. Rather it is the solemnity and definiteness as determined by the text itself. The obligatory nature of such assent is particularly serious when the pope declares that he has, not only the right, but the duty to pronounce, WITH SUPREME AUTHORITY, the… teaching of the Church.”

The Sedevacantists who first published these excerpts from Rev. Cronin surely cannot applaud Cronin for his championing of the papacy and at the same time read the preamble to Pius XII’s constitution above and claim it does not irrevocably bind them! For the constitution is all Cronin says it must be: (a) a serious document, treating in its first three paragraphs the dogmatic scope of papal jurisdiction during an interregnum, (b) with grave import given to Pius XII’s words and commands, which (c) he backs with centuries of papal teaching contained in Pope St. Pius X’s original constitution. Anyone who could ignore his stated intent of issuing it, “with sure knowledge and the plenitude of Our Apostolic power” is definitely not Catholic or is incapable of all rational thought. Pius XII’s intent to invalidate any election not conducted exactly as the constitution commands; any acts usurping papal jurisdiction or anything contrary to papal or Canon Law is likewise secured in. para. 3 by his “Supreme Authority.” And paragraph 108 strengthens what is said in the preamble.

Conclusion

“God established an eternal chair in Rome… The primacy of Peter will endure forever through the special assistance promised it when Jesus charged him to strengthen his brethren in the faith” (Pope Pius XII, Address Vi è a Roma, Jan. 17, 1940). The etymology of eternal is from “…the late 14c., from Old French eternel “eternal,” or directly from Late Latinaeternalis, from Latin aeternus “of an age, lasting for an age, enduring, permanent, everlasting, endless,” contraction of aeviternus “of great age,” from aevum “age” (from PIE root *aiw- “vital force, life; long life, eternity”). And forever can mean: “…an indefinitely long period of time; without end” (Internet and other sources). We know that in the sense that Christ binds in Heaven whatever is bound on earth, the papacy is eternal; that binding will exist always, since God Himself has no beginning and no end. The primacy will endure likewise, for Christ is the invisible Head of His Mystical Body, the Church.

But we also know that the Church on earth will have its end. Henry Cardinal Manning writes: “Some of the greatest writers of the Church tell us that in all probability, in the last overthrow of the enemies of God, the city of Rome itself will be destroyed; it will be a second time punished by Almighty God, as it was in the beginning… The writers of the Church tell us that in the latter days the city of Rome will probably become apostate from the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ; and that Rome will again be punished, for he will depart from it; and the judgment of God will fall on the place from which he once reigned over the nations of the world…The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist, and of these prophecies of Daniel, without a single exception, as far as I know, and they are the Fathers both of the East and of the West, the Greek and the Latin Church — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” (The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy, 1861).

What was the first sign that all these things were about to befall us? The gradual dismembering, then finally the abolition of the Latin Mass. Some 40-50 percent of Catholics exited the Church in the late 1960s, early 1970s following the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae, so they indeed recognized this sign. Cardinal Manning’s warning regarding the Mass was first published in 1970, one year after the cessation of the Mass, when Robert Bergin issued his first edition of These Apocalyptic Times (printed by Fatima International). The book sold so many copies it quickly ran to many additional printings. But what Catholics didn’t know is that the unanimous opinions of the Fathers must be taken as a rule of faith, and that this is binding on Catholics for belief per the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council (DZ 1788, 1809). NO ONE may interpret Scripture otherwise, and yet this failure to acknowledge the significance of this event as taught by the Church Herself is precisely what spawned Traditionalism. This successfully prevented the faithful from realizing that the cessation of the Mass meant that Antichrist was among us.

Once the Novus Ordo Missae was instituted, who among aspiring Traditionalists read the binding pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs for the answers, or humbly and with a right intention consulted Canon Law? Oh no, they sought out “bishops” who had tacitly resigned their offices and were yet affiliated with apostate Rome, instead, and allowed themselves to be convinced that papal teaching was not binding unless issued ex cathedra. They did not bother to translate the one constitution that governed our situation and would have answered their questions. That constitution would not be fully translated from the Latin until 2012, when it was posted on this site! Early Traditionalists located and had translated Cum ex Apostolatus Officio on the 1970s, but the Society of St. Pius X and other LibTrad factions dismissed this obviously infallible bull as a disciplinary document, despite the fact that it clearly taught who would be considered the Antichrist if a heretic or schismatic was elected and “accepted” as pope. And this by providing a Scripture reference. Rev. Cronin rates such papal teaching as follows: “At the highest level are the references to revealed teaching as embodied in the Scriptures.“

Then of course there is Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis itself, fully complying with all of Rev. Cronin’s prerequisites for a binding papal document but dismissed as “an ecclesiastical law.” It erases the “papacy” of Roncalli, nullifiying his election on several counts. It also invalidates the acts of all those attempting to be ordained without valid tonsure or dimmissorial letters or attempting consecration without the papal mandate. In short, VAS stopped the Traditionalist movement dead in its tracks, before it ever began. NOW concludes its excerpts from Rev. Cronin with this statement: “Catholics must assent to what the Pope teaches because he teaches it.” Firm and irrevocable assent must be given to anything entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and decrees which mention previous infallible pronouncements and/or declare a person excommunicated.

But what they don’t mention is the inevitable penalty for multiple, repeated failures to assent to these papal acts — forfeiture of Church membership. That occurs just by enrolling oneself in a Traditionalist sect and remaining there, denying the papacy by pretending the juridical Church could ever exist without a canonically elected pope; attending “Mass” and receiving the “Sacraments” from laymen who never became priests or bishops; believing and accepting teaching from these same laymen as though it was authoritative. This explains how followers of LibTrad pseudo-clergy became “confused” regarding the binding nature of papal teachings.

(Please join us for next week’s blog and a surprising look at how Catholics in Communist countries coped when their faith was sorely tried.)

The Faith Eclipsed: Beware of LibTrad Robert Robbins

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 25, 2025 | New Blog

+Conversion of St. Paul+

A few years ago I posted an article explaining how those out to discredit the work posted to this site operate. Please read it again HERE. For it seems that the efforts of those working to lead others astray has continued and even escalated over the past several months and a review of this article will explain how and why this is happening. Below you will find the response to a comment posted to our Dec. 31 blog by one Rihard, listing as “errors,” excerpts from previous blogs and articles taken completely out of context. Rihard bases his objections on LibTrad Robert Robbins’ comments on blogs and other articles posted to my site in the summer of 2022. At that time, Robbins, presenting as a pray-at-home Catholic, appeared to support this site for several months, but eventually began to attack what was written here when the invalidity of LibTrad pseudo-clergy was first proposed.

One longtime reader, who has asked to remain anonymous, offers this summary of Robbins’ character: “Robbins sure has the ability of using words which to me just confuse. His personal attacks are quite vile. He states in “answering an obvious objection” that he wants to be a leader of The Home Alone Catholics.  He says he can offer instruction for the ignorant. HE claims he has the ability and aptitude to be a “kind of” catechist. He touts his “cum laude” 150 credits, he touts he had near enough credits to earn a minor in theology. Yet, he does not question the professors (Modernists) who taught him his treasured theology. He says he was with seminarians in university,  learning philosophy. So I ask myself, is the unapproved (by a true pope) theology his foundation is based on one to be proud of?”

Rihard’s objections are answered below. The links he provides to Robbins’ “refutations” will not be given here because they are hateful and filled with error themselves.

1) Lack of proof that immediate jurisdiction [from Christ, directly to bishops] is a Protestant heresy

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=Immediate+jurisdiction

“[Jurisdiction is] the right to guide and rule the Church of God… Jurisdiction is immediate when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his power is not immediate but mediate… It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school that, by declaring the pope to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful, the Vatican Council destroyed the authority of the diocesan episcopate…Protestant controversialists contend strenuously that the words, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.”, confer no special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift, they allege, is conferred on all the Apostles (Matt., xviii, 18). https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/pope

“We say mission is given mediately when we are sent by one who has from God the power of sending according to the order which he has appointed in his Church. Immediate mission is when God himself commands and gives a charge without the interposition of the ordinary authority which he has placed in the prelates and pastors of the church such as Saint Peter and the apostles were sent receiving, from our Lord’s own mouth this commandment” (St. Francis de Sales condemning the Calvinists in his The Catholic Controversy, Ch. 2-3). Robbins, like his LibTrad fellows, tries to pretend that mission and jurisdiction are not the same. And yet this definition tallies exactly with the one from the Catholic Encyclopedia above.

The Latin root of mission is mittere, to send. In his A Commentary on Canon Law, Rev. Charles Augustine comments on Can. 109 as follows: “The missio canonica is necessary for all who are inferior to the Pope. For as the Lord sent His Apostles, so in turn He sent others to exercise their spiritual power with authority, and without such credentials no one has authority in the Church.” The Latin root of jurisdiction means the power, right, or authority (to act) as determined by the law (canonica). This is why jurisdiction is either connected to an office or is delegated by one possessing an office.

In 1786, Pope Pius VI wrote Super Soliditate, condemning Febronianism, Regalism and Josephism: “All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man [Eybel] who was eager to renew in his unfortunate book errors which had been condemned by so many decrees; who has said and insinuated indiscriminately by many ambiguities that every Bishop no less than the Pope was called by God to govern the Church and was endowed with no less power; that Christ gave the same power Himself to all the apostles and that whatever some people believe is obtained and granted only by the pope, that very thing, WHETHER IT DEPENDS ON CONSECRATION OR ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION, can be obtained just as well from any bishop …” (DZ 1500).

The Vatican Council teaches: “If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honor only: let him be anathema.” Clearly this is not said about the bishops, but only the Roman Pontiff.

• Protestant bishops do not believe that that the Pope is the head of the Church, possessing immediate jurisdiction.
• They believe instead that their power to operate as pastors comes to them from Christ to the Apostles, whose descendants they are, and that Peter was simply one of the Apostles, not the head of the Church.
• Therefore they believe, as do Traditionalists, that they possess immediate jurisdiction — that their power to rule comes directly from Christ.

Read Msgr. Fenton on this here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/episcopal-jurisdiction-fenton (but ignore the preface notes about Francis). It is certain from all the above that the idea of immediate mission proceeding directly from Christ was a heresy embraced by Protestants, the Gallicanists, the Josephists, the Regalists and the Febronians. To deny this is to accuse Pope Pius VI, the Vatican Council and Pope Pius XII of promulgating error. These errors are all mentioned in connection with immediate jurisdiction in the Catholic Encyclopedia article linked above.

2)  Contention that: “Ott is not a trustworthy source of theology and should not be used, certainly, in defending truths of faith.”

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/ludwig-ott-warning-and-jurisdiction-errors-refuted/

Argue with a professor of theology writing before Pope Pius XII died, not with me Rihard. The book review quoted in the link above on Dr. Ott’s work was written by Rev. John J. King, O.M.I., who 1955 became a professor of theology at the Oblate College (Scholasticate) in Washington, D.C. All understand that already, Modernism had made many inroads into the Church by way of such theologians as Ott, who were labeled as doctrinal minimalists by Msgr. Fenton. The review was quite lengthy and went into great detail about other errors in Ott’s work, as well. But these errors were not relevant to the real question at hand: That Ott labels as sententia probabilis the teaching that bishops receive their jurisdiction immediately from the Roman Pontiff, not from Christ Himself, when, as Msgr. Fenton proves, this teaching is sententiae certa — declared by Pope Pius XII to be certain. Pious beliefs and tolerated opinions fall under the sententia probabilis note and have the lowest degree of certainty.

In launching his rabid tangent on my theological incompetence and “errors” regarding Ott in 2022, Robbins was attempting to divert attention from the fact that he was the one who endorsed the teaching of a theologian, already warned against by a theology professor; a theologian who did not accept the certain teaching of the Roman Pontiff. My edition of Ott is a second edition, written in 1959, long after Humani generis taught that infallible statements could be contained in the encyclicals and Ottaviani’s statement on sententiae certa. In this 1959 edition, Ott STILL lists Pius XII’s teaching as sententia probabilis. He heretically states: “Only Popes and bishops possess ecclesiastical jurisdictional power by Divine right,”  when Pius XII says of bishops in Mystici corporis: “Bishops…are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”

In the forward to this second 1959 Ott edition, Canon James Bastible writes: “The second English edition embodies the many changes made in the second and third German editions… Every effort has been made to eliminate inaccuracies but doubtless some slips have been overlooked in this book with its quarter million words. I shall be very grateful for any help by readers and correcting these in future edition.” Innaccuracies, when Ott is teaching the faithful and seminarians heresy? Because according to Msgr. Fenton, he most certainly was. Msgr. Fenton notes in his “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Pt. II” (Sept. 1949, AER):

“[Ottaviani] tells us [that] up until the present time this thesis had been considered as more probable and even as sententia communis [common opinion of theologians] but that from now on it is to be held as entirely certain by reason of the words of the present Holy Father… 

Monsignor Ottaviani [pro-secretary of the Holy Office under Pius XII-Ed.] assumes rightly that the authoritative statement of this thesis in the papal letter raises this teaching from the status of a more probable doctrine to that of a perfectly certain proposition. This observation on the part of Monsignor Ottaviani constitutes a valuable, practical corrective to a certain tendency towards oversimplification and MINIMALISM which had begun to invade some recent judgments on the doctrinal authority of the… encyclical letters.

“Thus it would seem that some teachings whose main claim to acceptance on the part of Catholics is to be found in the fact that they are stated in papal encyclicals would actually demand an assent higher than that which must be accorded to the content of the Church’s authentic but non-infallible magisterium. Such truths would demand the kind of assent usually designated in theology under the title of FIDES ECCLESIASTICA…” (Doctrinal Authority in the Encyclicals, Pt. II, AER, 1949. Please see also the link to Msgr. Fenton’s article above on episcopal jurisdiction).

“If that supreme power is exercised within the field of dogma itself, that is, by declaring that some particular truth has been revealed by God and is to be accepted by all men as a part of revelation,” Fenton continues, “then the assent called for by the definition is that of divine faith itself. If on the other hand, the Holy Father, using his supreme apostolic authority, does not propose his teaching as a dogma, but merely as completely certain, then the faithful are bound to accept his teaching as absolutely certain. They are, in either case, obliged in conscience to give an unconditional and absolutely irrevocable assent to any proposition defined in this way” (“Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” (AER, March 1953). Humani Generis closes all discussion on such issues. We refer you to the chart below, (On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J., Rome, 1951 — a work which was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations):

Is it just a coincidence that Ott is the “go to” source for Traditionalists, especially the Society of St. Pius X? This when there are so many other good sources (Tanquerey, Berry, Van Noort, Herve) to consult. So if those believing Robbins wish to content themselves with defending the teaching of someone who promotes heresy — and continues to teach as well that Traditional bishops are valid — that is their problem. But don’t accuse me of error in protecting my readers from people who brazenly show their contempt for the faith.

3) Contention that marriages before non-Catholic ministers are not sacramental

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/fools-professing-to-be-wise-and-attempted-marriage-clarified/

I am not going to repeat myself on this. It is Canon Law, plain and simple, a negatively infallible legal decision. You either accept what the Church teaches or you don’t. What is it about this clearly stated canon you don’t understand, or wish to obey? “Those marriages only are valid which are contracted either before a pastor or the local Ordinary or a priest delegated by either and at least two witnesses…” (unless Can. 1098 is invoked). Show me how and where the Church teaches otherwise, from Her own documents, as the scholastic method and Canon Law demands. The remedy for an invalid LibTrad marriage is simple: cite Can. 1098 and renew the marriage vows. It appears to me you prefer not to accept the clear words of the Popes OR Canon Law. Readers need only re-read the proofs provided in the link above. The regurgitation of all these objections is really about the fact that Robbins refuses to accept Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and Canon Law, which proves all LibTrad pseudo-clergy are invalid, meaning all their attempted acts were invalid as well.

4) The view that Catechism is not enough for defense of truths of Faith for lay people

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/why-the-catechism-alone-will-definitely-not-save-your-soul-2/

Why did Pope St. Pius X teach in Acerbo nimis: “The task of the catechist is to take up one or other of the truths of faith or of Christian morality and then explain it in all its parts; and since amendment of life is the chief aim of his instruction, the catechist must needs make a comparison between what God commands us to do and what is our actual conduct. After this, he will use examples appropriately taken from the Holy Scriptures, Church history, and the lives of the saints – thus moving his hearers and clearly pointing out to them how they are to regulate their own conduct. He should, in conclusion, earnestly exhort all present to dread and avoid vice and to practice virtue… If faith languishes in our days, if among large numbers it has almost vanished, the reason is that the duty of catechetical teaching is either fulfilled very superficially or altogether neglected… The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent,” (End of quote. And that of Trent is no ordinary catechism, but one which is detailed and would take a good deal of time to course through, if all topics would be covered). Clearly Robbins is not qualified as a catechist.

The grade school and even adult catechisms available today scarcely explain the text the way the catechist is required to explain and amplify it, and are no substitute for personal catechetical instruction, especially of adults. The Baltimore and Penny Catechisms may convey the basics, but many editions are incomplete because they have not incorporated the later teachings of the Roman Pontiffs reigning in the 20^th century. Acerbo nimis was written in 1905, so how would the faithful have even known about the dangers of Modernism if relying on Rev. Thomas Kinkead’s catechism (the most reliable), written in the 1800s, or the Council of Trent catechism, from the 16^th century?!  If catechism was enough, why were Catholics urged to join Catholic Action groups to receive special training in promoting the faith? Why was the Catholic Evidence Guild established? Is continuing education required in many academic fields? Then why not our holy Catholic religion, which far exceeds any secular institution?!

In the 1957 work, A Call to the Laity, Abp. Richard Cushing writes: “The hour has come for us to cease to expect a child’s study of a child’s catechism to give adults an appreciation of an essentially intellectual religion. The effort to attain the intellectual vision, the clear thinking and the moral integrity for which the Holy Father calls can be based only on a systematic study by the laity of the principles of justice and charity as they apply to modern problems of life and thought “(pg. 28). In other words, you don’t take a knife to a gunfight, and this is a battle of major proportions, not High Noon. Robbins should stop pandering to his own opinions and instead follow the hierarchy and the popes.

Rihard writes: “I add some of my personal observations, based on those previous points:

I looked at what Teresa Benns quoted ( https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/6-traditionalists/why-traditionalist-clerics-never-received-valid-orders/)  Canon 118 in the book of Canon Law: “Clerics only can obtain either the power of orders or that of ecclesiastical jurisdiction” (Can. 118). None of us are canon lawyers. However, this canon is included in the section “The Rights and Privileges of Clerics.” This means that the legislator in this canon most likely wanted to emphasize that only clerics can rightly (licitly) receive the power of orders. In my opinion, what is not meant by this canon is that those who are not clerics (clergy) cannot validly, albeit illegally, receive Orders.”

T. Benns: Your personal observation is wrong because you do not consider here Can. 108 or Can. 111. Under the heading “Laws Concerning the Clergy,” we read (Woywod-Smith commentary): “Those who have been assigned to the divine ministry at least by the first tonsure are called clerics” (Can. 108). Only clerics can proceed to the other orders. This two-part requirement distinguishes a cleric from a layperson. Who regularly assigns men to the divine ministry? Valid and licit bishops. “Every cleric must belong either to some diocese or to some religious organization and no recognition may be extended to vagrant clerics. By reception of first tonsure a cleric is ascribed to…the diocese for the service of which he was promoted,” (Can. 111; also the Council of Trent, Sess. 23, Ch. 16). “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction…” (Can. 118). Tonsure or some valid order is, by ecclesiastical law, a prerequisite for the VALIDITYof any office” (“Canon Law: A Text and Commentary,” Revs. T. Lincoln-Bouscaren and Adam Ellis, (Can. I09, 118).

Again, I refuse to repeat myself here. I may not be a lay canon lawyer (although there were such lawyers in the Church pre-1959) but I can read and understand what the popes, Canon Law and approved authors clearly teach. The links HERE and HERE prove these men could never have become clerics.

5) Calling potentially dangerous Covid-19 substances vaccines

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/may-the-lord-god-bless-you-and-keep-you/

“Everywhere in your blog articles and comments you call potentially dangerous Covid-19 substances vaccines… It is the safer course not to call potentially dangerous substances what they are not. (He calls them biological weapons, which may well be true)… This has also led you to believe that “Covid-19 vaccines” are not a matter (question) of Revelation and the mark of the beast although I believe the exact opposite…” https://dabasvide.wordpress.com/2022/02/08/zvera-zime/.

This objection has nothing to do with infallible teaching or the invalidity of LibTrad pseudo-clergy. First, this is a matter of opinion, not Catholic belief. I can diverge in my opinion on this if I choose, and I have good reasons for doing so. Secondly, not everything available in the alternative media is necessarily true; much is speculation which has resulted in media hysteria. Thirdly, the Church teaches we are not to assign a literal interpretation to the Book of Apocalypse since it is to be interpreted spiritually or symbolically. We are talking here about what the CHURCH says, not what I say. The primary interpretation — that the mark is a false sort of Baptism — must remain spiritual. And if the Church teaches it, and She does, then we cannot deny that. This is what I actually said: “There is nothing that says that the successors of Antichrist might not also promote some identification sign that must be received on the hand or forehead that would mark citizens in a way that could determine whether they buy or sell, but this is only a material extenuation of the spiritual reality.” The same goes for “vaccines.”

Conclusion

A little history and background information needs to be considered here. Robbins is a former member of the Novus Ordo sect, the Recognize and Resist group and the Sedevacantist sect operating St. Gertrude the Great in Ohio. The argument with Robbins began with a telephone conversation the summer of 2022 where I told him I believed I could prove LibTrad pseudo-clergy are invalid. He objected, saying I could never overcome the epikeia principle (when this is denounced unanimously by theologians as a principle that cannot be used in this situation). I sent him a rough draft of my work, but obviously he never accepted what I wrote.

He continued to make email statements such as: “I am asking for some kind of source to back up the claim that the idea that jurisdiction is unmediated by the Roman Pontiff is Gallicanism, and that Gallicanism (so defined) is heresy.” Really? And this from a self-professed (almost) minor in theology? Gallicanism was condemned as an error prior to the Vatican Council. As I have stated repeatedly, it was considered a heresy once the definition of the primacy was issued, and this from Henry Cardinal Manning and the Catholic Encyclopedia. And he cannot research these things for himself?!

When I refused to admit I had “erred” in calling immediate jurisdiction a Protestant heresy, he wrote: “Your claim that immediate jurisdiction is a Protestant heresy has not been proven. Yet that claim sits on my website garnering sneers and snickers…” So he is concerned not about the truth here, but about human respect. He admits the pope now possesses immediate jurisdiction over bishops, (but still holds it as only a probable opinion) writing, based on Ott and his own perceptions: “What you suggest, that it is heresy, is (a) not proven, and (b) absurd if coupled with the historical fact that it [the idea that bishops possessed immediate jurisdiction] was never condemned by the Church. It is not my fancy to go and argue every little point of theology, asking innumerable questions that do not get anyone closer to holiness, but rather inflame egos and puff up chests.” So if he doesn’t care to “argue every little point of theology,” what was all the ruckus about my classification of immediate jurisdiction as a Protestant heresy?! This is sheer hypocrisy.

Robbins clearly did not understand that once a matter IS decided by the pope, and that matter is related to a matter pertaining to divine revelation (how Christ transmitted jurisdiction), then yes, it becomes a heresy to say it is only a probable opinion! The matter of immediate jurisdiction from Christ to the pope, then the Apostles, was a common opinion even before Pope Pius XII made his decision, and I have documented this. That it was a dangerous one given the fact that Protestants and previous heretics claimed it also has been demonstrated, which is most likely why Pius XII decided as he did. That Robbins calls it “a little point of theology” given the fact that LibTrad pseudo-clergy (Cekada, CMRI) use it to justify their revolting simulation of the Sacraments and seduction of “Catholics” is the true absurdity here and amounts to the error of the minimalism Pope Pius XII condemned in Humani generis. As proven above, it is indeed a heresy now to deny that the pope possesses immediate jurisdiction.

He obviously hopes to so cloud the issues that readers such as Rihard are unable to sift the flyspeck from the proverbial pepper, as the reader notes above in our opening paragraphs. It appears he had the intention of alienating readers of this site to claim them for his own. And when this failed, and he could not generate the readership or revenue he had hoped for, he archived his site. His obvious trigger point — which reveals his true identity — is the invalidity of Trad pseudo-clergy. And he denies this fact despite the teachings of the popes, councils, canonists, theologians and St. Thomas Aquinas, dismissing Pope Pius XII’s infallible Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis as only “ecclesiastical” law.

Robbins can spew his hate-filled invective and self-serving verbiage all he wants, but he cannot change the fact that Traditionalist orders are invalid. He may try to pass himself off as a pray-at-home Catholic, but readers must not be fooled. These proofs of invalidity are what he, the recusants and other LibTrads fear the most, because it entirely unravels the premises on which Traditionalists founded their multi-fractured movement. THAT is what this persistent noise and these specious accusations are REALLY all about.

According to St. Robert Bellarmine, persecution is the fifth mark of the Church. Those praying at home have been shamefully betrayed in many ways by those pretending to be one of their own. I count myself honored and privileged to experience in some small way the same type of betrayal Our Lord Himself endured, praying only: “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” Or do they???