+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???