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???

Fielding objections to the Gerry Matatics refute

by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 1, 2024 | New Blog

+Feast of All Saints+

Prayer Society Intentions for November, Month of the Holy Souls in Purgatory

“O Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory, deliver all the souls of the faithful departed from the pains of hell and the bottomless pit.” (Raccolta)

Introduction

An objection to the article refuting Gerry Matatics was sent to me by email and the topics raised are presented below for those who may be in contact with the person(s) circulating these specious and repetitive objections. My answers to the objections, stated in blue, are listed in the responses below.

On Feeneyism

Objection: Matatics no longer supports Feeneyism. He states this in his videos.  It’s no different than you trying to elect a false pope and later recanting your position.

Response: It is not enough to state it, he must PROVE that he no longer supports this position by removing all traces of it as stated publicly on his website! I spent nearly two years condemning the heresies of David Bawden publicly on my website after denouncing him as “pope.” Please pay attention to the sum total of what is posted to Matatics’ website (https://www.gerrymatatics.org/GRIsGerrySede.html) as of 2019, part of which is quoted in my article. He has the obligation to correct it and publish the Church’s true teaching on this dogma as expressed by Pope Pius XII in Suprema haec sacra. I warned him about this long ago, as did others. His website copy now contradicts a truth of faith and favors a man condemned by Pope Pius XII as a heretic, and this is cooperation in heresy:

“I do not necessarily agree with or endorse every detail of every article on these other websites, especially on other matters. Particularly is this true with regard to their various views on the hotly-debated dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church no salvation”). Some of these websites take too unacceptably liberal a view of this dogma, HOLDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT PROFESS THE CATHOLIC FAITH COULD STILL BE SAVED — despite the clear teaching of the Athanasian Creed and infallible papal pronouncements to the contrary.

“St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, and in fact every single doctor of the Church and every catechism and theological manual used by the Church for the last millennium [teaches]  the remote possibility of salvation for Catholic catechumens who hold the Catholic Faith and who possess perfect charity and perfect contrition for their sins, and thus might qualify to receive the grace of the sacrament of baptism when they are unable, through no fault of their own, to receive the sacrament itself — especially if these spiritual qualities are evidenced by their martyrdom for the Catholic Faith. Such a rare occurrence would still require the existence of the sacrament of baptism and derive its efficacy from the sacrament, thus arguably not negating John 3:5 and similar papal statements. This would be the classic doctrine — not the modern liberal version thereof — of “baptism by desire” and “baptism by blood,” admittedly never dogmatically defined by any pope or council, but equally admittedly never explicitly condemned by any pope or council either. At best this teaching is a tolerable theological opinion within the parameters of Catholic orthodoxy, certainly not de fide but arguably proximate to faith.”

How can Matatics possibly state it is a tolerable theological opinion when Pope Pius XII excommunicated Feeney and issued Suprema haec sacra, based on numerous decisions of prior popes and councils?! Every aspect of the Feeneyite heresy from the teachings of the Church Herself is exposed  HERE. What Matatics states above is NOT the teaching of Pope Pius XII or the Continual Magisterium — it is slightly modified Feeneyism. If Catholics would only read the popes and councils, they would know this. Witness the teachings of Pope Pius IX and Pius XII, as presented below:

Singulari quadem, December 9, 1851

“Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only Ark of salvation, and that the one who does not enter it is going to perish in the deluge. But, nevertheless, we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that [ignorance] be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord.  Now, who is there who would arrogate to himself the power to indicate the extent of such [invincible] ignorance according to the nature and the variety of peoples, regions, talents, and so many other things? For really when, loosed from these bodily bonds, we see God as He is, we shall certainly understand with what intimate and beautiful a connection the divine mercy and justice are joined together. But, while we live on earth, weighed down by this mortal body that darkens the mind, let us hold most firmly, from Catholic doctrine, that there is one God, one faith, one baptism. IT IS WRONG TO PUSH OUR INQUIRIES FURTHER THAN THIS. “

Quanta conficiamur moerore, Aug. 10, 1863

“And here, Our Beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, We must mention and reprove a most serious error into which some Catholics have fallen, imagining that men living in errors and apart (alienos) from the true faith and from the Catholic unity can attain to eternal life. This, of course, is completely opposed to Catholic doctrine. It is known to Us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and who, being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God, who clearly sees, inspects, and knows the minds, the intentions, the thoughts, and the habits of all, will, by reason of His goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal sufferings.

“But it is a perfectly well-known Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of that same Church, and who are pertinaciously separated from the unity of that Church and from Peter’s successor, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been entrusted by the Saviour, cannot obtain eternal  salvation.”

This may sound a bit confusing but is made more understandable by the following:

Msgr. J. C. Fenton, in his The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, writes: “In the Mystici Corporis Christi Pope Pius XII asserts true Catholic doctrine by teaching that a non-member of the Church who is within the Church only in the sense that he has an unconscious or implicit desire of entering it as a member can possess the supernatural life of sanctifying grace. At the same time, however, he brings out a lesson much needed by some of the writers of our generation when he points out the fact that people who are within the Church only by an unconscious desire cannot be secure about the affair of their eternal salvation precisely because they ‘still lack so many and such great heavenly helps and aids that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.’” And here: “…That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church ACTUALLY AS A MEMBER, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing,” (“Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church,” (The American Ecclesiastical Review, December 1958).

The American Ecclesiastical Review, “Questions and Answers,” January 1958, Rev. Francis J. Connell: “Those who are not actual members of the Church can be sanctified and saved if they are invincibly ignorant of their obligation to join the Church and are in the state of sanctifying grace, since such persons have an implicit desire of membership in the Church. But they are not to be reckoned as members of the Church — not even invisible members.” (Rev. Connell was Msgr. Fenton’s teacher.)

As you can see, Matatics does NOT hold to the teachings of Pope Pius IX or Pope Pius XII or to all the previous popes and councils. Nowhere does Pope Pius IX or Pope Pius XII limit baptism of desire to catechumens.  Catechumens are not invincibly ignorant, nor is their desire unconscious, but conscious. Matatics is a slick operator and his teaching is heretical, because it impugns the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff to decide such matters. Now read what I quote from Msgr. Fenton in the Feeney section of the Matatics article concerning the necessity of accepting these teachings of the Roman Pontiffs. Pope Pius XII is the only authoritative interpreter of what previous popes and councils meant in their teaching on baptism of blood/desire. And Msgr. Fenton is a highly decorated and approved theologian qualified to comment on this; Matatics is not. The best source to properly understand the Feeney heresy is Msgr. Fenton’s The Catholic Church and Salvation, available for free download at archive.org.

Publishing forbidden works

Objection: You yourself have published works in violation of  Canon Law. [This] is strictly forbidden.

Response: It is a rule of Canon Law that the higher law prevails whenever there is a conflict of law. It would be a violation of Can. 1325 NOT to defend the faith. If I thought for one minute that I was violating Canon Law, I would not be writing. See the 2006 revised article on this here: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/1-credentials/where-is-your-imprimatur/ Pope Pius XII commanded us to take up all the duties of the hierarchy in their absence. The address containing that command is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and therefore is binding on all the faithful. The command of the popes, beginning with Pope Pius IX, to engage in Catholic Action, is further proof of this. Canon 1385 forbidding us to write is an ecclesiastical law dependent on the bishop, so Pope Pius XII’s command supersedes this law; it is the higher law. Moreover, as the canonists and moral theologians commonly teach and as I have stated here before, Can. 15 excuses one from an ecclesiastical law that is impossible to obey. It is today impossible to submit one’s works to a bishop.

But the law governing debates is a different matter. Permission for these must come directly from the Holy Office unless there is an emergency (Can. 1325), and there is no emergency here that cannot be resolved by resorting to previous approved works in written form. Presuming such permission from the Holy See during an interregnum is usurpation of papal authority as is infallibly stated in Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. So these debates are forbidden and in fact, Pius XII says any attempt to do this outside his permission is null, void and invalid.

Written works can much better PROVE that these arguments are drawn out in obedience to the Church’s own teaching and Canon Law; I have no authority of my own. And one cannot do this effectively in videos. If any published work is challenged as contrary tom faith or inaccurate, the challenger is then expected to use the same laws and teachings to show that they are not contradicting truths of faith. This has never been done by LibTrad pseudo-clergy OR Matatics because they cannot answer the arguments. This being the case, Canon Law tells us that authoritative papal documents prove the case and cannot be contradicted (Can. 1814). What I have presented on my site is papal and canon law. Can. 1825 states: “Presumption may be… a presumption of law, which is stated in the law itself.” And the presumption about public ecclesiastical documents being genuine is stated in Can. 1814.

Canon 1827 reads: “He who has a presumption of law in his favor IS FREED FROM THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WHICH IS THUS SHIFTED TO HIS OPPONENT. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed in the case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands.” If Matatics is such an educated oracle and defender of the faith, as his promoters and followers believe, then why has he not produced written evidence he is indeed teaching the Catholic faith? Why is he ignoring Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and siding with Feeneyites?

I did not write The Phantom Church in Rome of my own accord — readers approached me and requested it be written to help them persuade family members and friends to leave the Traditionalist movement. I have emails to prove this. It is primarily a summary of previous writings and articles on my site. Is it reasonable to think that without some sort of explanation people not well educated in the faith would understand the relevance of things written in normal times if not explained in relation to what is happening today? I don’t think this is at all realistic.

Patrick Henry

Objection: He seemed to be off the Recusant bunch… Because he is older, I think he’s very confused about what is going on.

Response: He is not that much older than I am. I have known Henry since the mid-1980s and have had various exchanges with him. He has repeatedly attempted to direct readers away from my site. He may be getting older, but he has employed various people and methods to discredit me. So he doesn’t seem confused to me. Like Matatics and all LibTrads, he rejects the necessity of the papacy in order that bishops may exist, a denial of papal authority and an endorsement of the Gallicanist heresy. It is also the rejection of the teaching in Mystici Corporis Christi and Ad Sinarum Gentum that bishops receive their powers only through the Roman Pontiff, not directly from Christ.

Matatics correction

Objection: Much of the information you mention is only word of mouth, not from him personally. His website is very outdated and no longer functional. He doesn’t know everything that’s going on with the Recusants… This could be construed as slander.

Response: I am in touch with others who assure me he is aware of the sect and is associated with several of them or their children. I would not have said so otherwise. See the article here on why I am not about to approach him. https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/does-gerry-matatics-respect-his-fellow-catholic-writers/ The moral theologians teach we don’t have to attempt fraternal correction if there is good reason to believe it will not do any good. One does not commit slander when revealing a false reputation in order that others may not be deceived. (Revs. McHugh and Callan). And I will not tolerate heresy on the Internet from anyone. I was recently told by one individual that Matatics told him/her if s/he believed anything I wrote, he wanted nothing to do with them. So I seriously doubt anything I say would convince him. If Matatics is not associated with the recusant sect, he has the obligation to say so publicly, since they are clearly not Catholic and he is the one who first invented the inappropriate recusant reference. Matatics must be the one to prove he is not in violation of papal teaching; I long ago proved my case.

Objection: No one should follow just one person’s “take” on the Church; they should be pointed to the actual documents. No one can claim to have a higher moral authority.  

Response: I have never claimed to possess a “higher moral authority.” I only point people to the documents of popes, councils, Canon Law and pre-1959 approved sources — they are the authorities. I then demonstrate the interconnections, which the Church Herself allows me to do. There is a proposition against the scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas which the Church long ago condemned. It states: “That… from one matter another matter cannot be inferred or concluded, or from the non-existence of one, the non-existence of the other” (DZ 554). I don’t offer people a “take” on the Church: I offer them the testimony of the popes, the councils, Canon Law and approved theologians as the scholastic method teaches. It is against reason to state that by offering this, inferences cannot be drawn from them, as this proposition attests. Traditionalism and Fideism are heresies that teach that the faithful cannot reason out their faith for themselves, and listening to present-day “Traditionalists” is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Conclusion

These are the same arguments that have been leveled in defense of these online LibTrad preachers for years. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Truth today seems to be measured in the number of “likes” you can rack up for your videos and how many followers read and subscribe to them. Of course we should be listening to the popes about how to measure things such as this, since Pope Pius IX condemned the notion that: “Authority is nothing more than numbers and the sum of material strengths” (Syllabus of Errors, DZ 1760); in other words the voice of the “majority” is no measure of truth. But then he lived in a world without Facebook or YouTube, so who is going to believe he has any credence today?

Peter’s FAITH the rock on which the Church was founded

by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 15, 2024 | New Blog

+Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary+

An article written in June has been submitted for comment by a reader from a Novus Ordo site called Canon Law Made Easy. The Canon Law referred to on that site is the false revision of the 1917 Code issued in 1983 by the usurper John Paul 2. This revision was first suggested by Angelo Roncalli before the first session of the false Vatican 2 council.  In the Novus Ordo article, statements are made and links provided regarding the “schismatic” sedevacantist position and the false basis for this position. Of course no one expects members of this non-Catholic sect to get anything right, regardless of their supposed canon law credentials. But the points they use to deflect enquirers from sedevacantism need to be addressed, since they predictably fail to inform their readers that they do after all have the obligation to diligently research the legitimacy of the 1958 election and form their conscience accordingly.

The revised 1983 “code”

Abp. Amleto Cicognani observed that changes to the law are odious and are to be made sparingly. Revs. Woywod-Smith state under Can. 22 that “Changes in the law are made solely by the Holy See, and only for serious reasons and after mature deliberation… It is a fundamental principal that the general presumption is always in favor of the old law remaining unchanged.” So if those considered doubtful “popes,” at best, change the laws, then in doubt the old laws always remain in force under Can. 6 §4. Doubt concerning the validity of these false popes suffices, for those not able to gain a more advanced degree of certainty; a doubtful pope is no pope, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, and as a doctor of the Church his opinion is probable according to the moral theologians. We are to use such opinions, also reflex principles whenever we have no one to consult regarding such situations. Canon 22, in the 1917 Code states: “A more recent law given by the competent authority abolishes a former law if the new law explicitly says so or if it is directly contrary to the old law or if it takes up and readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law.”

The entire question here must be asked and answered for those who have not yet done the necessary study: were Roncalli and his successors true popes, “competent authority”? Were their elections unquestionably valid?  The answer to this question should be obvious, given the fruits of these imposters and what has been presented by this author and others for nearly 35 years. This is why, of course, all these objectors assume the question is preposterous, schismatic, absurd, etc. They list those who have the least likelihood of offering any credible evidence for Roncalli’s false election, the more fantastical sedevacantist proponents, to make sedevacantism appear to have little value as a tenable theory. While claiming to uphold the law, they violate it, resorting to sophisms to avoid addressing the issue, that is arguing beside the point. The elephant in the room remains very large and real while they talk around it.

They don’t even get the real jist of the issue or the sedevacantist position held by LibTrads, writing: “And since a man who isn’t validly elected Pope can’t validly select new Bishops and Cardinals, this means that subsequent Popes were chosen by non-Cardinals, meaning that the new Popes weren’t/aren’t validly elected either. So sedevacantists are basically saying that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has pretty much ceased to exist” (June 6, 2024). Only those praying at home really believe the hierarchy has ceased to exist, in this the end times. Sedevacantist pseudo-clergy believe they are the hierarchy and can continue to function without their head bishop, the pope. The proper term, which all canonists should be familiar with, is actually canonically elected. And the real issue here is not whether the non-cardinals chose subsequent popes or a non-pope could select new bishops. The old law easily solves the problem, and if these commentators were truly competent canonists who had done their due diligence, they would know this. Canon 2391 § 1 states that a college electing an unworthy candidate is automatically disqualified from proceeding to a new election.

Certitude and matters of faith

In a link to a 2017 article, provided in the June 6, 2024, article, we read: “Canon 205 tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance — and it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism. If you don’t believe that this or that papal document was issued by a man who is/was really the Pope, then you naturally don’t intend to abide by whatever it says by refusing to accept the authority of the current Pope or his recent predecessors, a Catholic who’s a sedevacantist willfully puts himself into a state of schism… But since sedevacantists tend to cite (incorrectly) a lot of canon law in support of their positions, it seems reasonable to assume that they are aware of both the Church’s position on the crime of schism, and the penalties that may accompany it…

“Sedevacantism… is a schismatic movement rather than a heretical one. As sedevacantist Catholics refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Holy Father(s), deciding for themselves that he/they are not really Pope(s), they are deliberately taking themselves out of full communion with the Church… When people take it upon themselves to decide that the Pope isn’t really the Pope because he took a sketchy theological position, or because his personal morals were scandalous, or because it looks like his election wasn’t done quite right… they’re playing with fire.”

But there is a major problem with these statements. Catholics MUST decide for themselves, for they are obligated to arrive at certitude that the man claiming to be pope was canonically elected, according to the laws prevailing at the time, NOT the revised 1983 code — the old law still prevails. Theologians unanimously teach that one cannot act in a state of doubt regarding matters concerning eternal salvation, such as obedience to a true pope, unless and until that doubt is resolved, and no one will consider ALL the evidence to resolve it. That we are bound to remove this doubt is clearly demonstrated from the binding decrees found in Henry Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, (DZ 570d, 650, 652, 674, also Cum ex Apostolatus Officio): “A pope canonically elected, who lived for a time after having expressed his own name, is the successor of blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church,” (DZ 674).  This is an article of faith, proposed for belief to the Armenians and to Wycliffe and the Hussites. The article proposed to the Armenians asks them to hold that “all the Roman Pontiffs who…  succeeding Blessed Peter have entered canonically and will enter canonically,” will possess the same plenitude of jurisdiction Christ granted to St. Peter. Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton states that what was proposed to the Armenians is to be considered a dogma of faith, (The Concept of Sacred Theology, pgs. 132-33).

In his 1896 work Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy, Sydney F. Smith, S.J. wrote: “The following passage is [found] in Ferraris Bibliotheca, a work of the highest authority. In his article on the Pope, (S.v. Papa, p. 949) [the respected theologian] Ferraris says: It is of faith that Benedict XIV, for instance, LEGITIMATELY ELECTED and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance, where Martin V’s Const. Inter Cunctos decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’”  (See DZ 674, 675).

No schism if positive doubt established

This same article of faith is one we ourselves must believe. But if certitude cannot be had regarding the canonical status of the election, and the book The Phantom Church in Rome, also articles on this site have provided sufficient evidence for years to cast grave doubt on the results of the 1958 election, then one is bound in conscience NOT to hold such an election valid. According to the opinions of seven notable theologians, in withdrawing from the “obedience” of  a man claiming to be pope who you believe was never canonically elected, no schism is involved. Vermeersch-Cruesen, Reiffenstuel, Schmalzgrueber, Ferraris, Vechiotti and Szal state: “There is no schism involved… if one refuses obedience [to a pope] inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election…” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L.). Serious reasons, that is positive doubt, must exist and proofs must be presented to support such a position. This fulfills the provisions of Can. 20 and establishes probability according to Church teaching. These theologians agree that one need only suspect that the man claiming to be Pope is irregular in some way or invalidly elected (Can. 2200), and we have established far more than just suspicion in the documents presented on this subject.

And then we have the probable opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, who teaches a doubtful pope is no pope: “When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there also is a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case, no one is bound to obey him… But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all… An authority that may be justly doubted at all times is no authority; it commands neither obedience nor respect as is evident in churches that reject the claim to indefectibility… One who intrudes himself into the ministry against the laws of the Church receives no authority, and consequently can transmit none to his successors…

“Therefore,” continues the Cardinal, “If a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.”  (Rev. E.S. Berry,  The Church of Christ: “p. 402).

St. Antoninus, commenting on the Great Western Schism, also noted: “The question was much discussed and much was written in defense of one side or the other. For as long as the schism lasted each obedience had in its favor men who were very learned in Scripture and Canon Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were illustrious by the gift of miracles. Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds of many still in doubt. Doubtless we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor. But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know Canon Law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.” And the superiors and prelates WE follow are those writing before the death of Pope Pius XII.

Another respected theologian weighs in here: “A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power, but he has not practically in the Church the same right as a certain pope — he is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim,” (The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, Rev. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J., emph. his.) Rev. O’Reilly was the theologian of choice in Ireland for local Irish Councils and Synods and was a professor of theology. The opinion of these men and the proofs that the 1958 election was invalid also constitutes the juridical certainty in way of evidence required by Dom Charles Augustine under Can. 430. What Szal presents, then, is a solidly probable opinion, one which helps establish certitude, and according to the laws and teachings of the Church it may be followed at will.

So those among LibTrads holding John 23 as validly elected and the Novus Ordo “experts” who criticize others for misquoting Canon Law and accuse them of willfully committing schism are asking Catholics to actually ignore their conscience and deny an article of faith. Furthermore they have entirely argued beside the point regarding the question, refusing to consider evidence that amply shows there were numerous alarming irregularities and evidence of outside election interference  in 1958. These facts have been available for years, even decades. Pretending to be champions of Canon Law, they entirely discount and ignore the canons then in effect which have been cited here numerous times. But most importantly, they entirely dismiss Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which infallibly voids any attempted act or acts contrary to those canons, and levies penalties for violations of his law that could be lifted only by a future canonically elected pope. This renders their reasoning and their arguments null and void.

Peter’s faith lacking in Roncalli, Montini

We read above from this NO site that: “Canon 205 [1983 code] tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance… it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism.” No, the issue of Church governance and unchanging faith is the key problem with ALL LibTrad and Novus Ordo sects. The Church was founded on a rock — on PETER’S FAITH. It was not founded on fractured rock or sand. Both Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis exclude heretics or suspected heretics from election and Roncalli was a proven suspected heretic (see HERE). And the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.” Neither Roncalli or Montini were loyal to Pope Pius XII or retained that same faith. His governance meant nothing to them; they were working together and with others to establish a new church, and they succeeded. Many instances have been cited proving they questioned or denied the faith; Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo Missae proved that most effectively. Montini and Roncalli were Catholics in name only. But how do you make an objective judgment in this case when the man falsely elected has been declared a “saint”?!!

Dr. Cyril Andrade wrote in a 1976 article, Are Papal Elections Inspired by the Holy Ghost?”: “Pius XII is pope: Montini is his pro-secretary of State: Roncalli is Papal Nuncio in Paris: the Pope suppresses the “Worker Priest” movement in France because far from reclaiming the workers to the Church, all of the 200 “Worker Priests”, themselves, lost their faith; but Montini and Roncalli, in collusion, secretly encourage the movement and keep it alive against the order of the Pope.” After explaining how both the elections of Roncalli and Montini were secretly engineered by Freemasons and others, Andrade writes: “Does this scenario of low, vile intrigue, connivance, collusion and treachery of the hierarchical mafia led by the liberal (heretical) gang of Suenens, König, Döpfner, Lercaro, et al, in any way lend credence to the canard that the Conclave that elected [Roncalli and] Montini was “secret” and “inspired by the Holy Ghost”?

“To thus make a mockery of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, in this vile fashion, is to be guilty of the unforgivable sin. But, then, the Vatican II Mafia does not believe that the Holy Ghost is God for, in the fourth Eucharistic prayer which they have concocted for their Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) they state categorically: “Father in heaven, you alone are God . . .” (Emphases added), thus excluding the Son and the Holy Ghost from the Trinity Godhead.” And these Novus Ordo pretenders can dismiss these heresies and proofs that faith is lacking, in Francis AND his predecessors, to accuse sedevacantists of schism and rejection of lawful authority?  Please see the article HERE which confirms what Andrade wrote so long ago.

And not only must the one elected as pope be considered here but the ones electing as well. As Andrade notes and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis states, the cardinals are tasked to select who they believe is the worthiest among them to act as Christ’s vicar. Those making this selection must certainly be Catholic themselves. Yet we see that all those cardinals who participated in Roncalli’s election, minus those who had the good fortune to pass away, went on to convene and approve the deliberations of the false Vatican 2 council. And they were good Catholics, they can be trusted and we have no reason to doubt them? How could anyone be so blind? A canonical election requires that all those voting be Catholics who have not automatically forfeited their office owing to some heresy. Ecumenism is a heresy; religious liberty is a heresy; the insertion into missalettes distributed in 1959 containing the English translation, “for all men,” is a heresy. If only a few cardinals could be proven to be suspect of heresy, or disobedient to the pope or to have participated in plots to confirm Roncalli as pope before Pope Pius XII’s death, and there is proof of this,  Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis declares the election is invalid for want of a two-thirds plus one vote.

Peter’s faith is the rock, and without it the entire  foundation that is the papacy crumbles. Does any true Catholic really believe that the Holy Ghost would descend upon and grant the gift of infallibility to a man suspected of heresy for over 25 years, elected by men, some of whom were complicit in rigging the election, with assistance from the CIA and other groups? Canon Law and pre-1958 canonists deny the election would be valid. Pope Pius XII declares in his infallible Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that anything done in violation of the sacred canons during an interregnum is null and void. Common sense and any reverence for the institution of the papacy should tell us that such an election is doubtful in the extreme, especially considering what went before compared to what followed. It would convince a rational person, if we were dealing with truly rational human beings identifying as Catholic. But sadly this is not the case today. Pray that the veil be lifted from their eyes and the hardness be driven from their hearts.