Robert Robbins Gravatar Image
Robert Robbins has published a short article in attempt to refute a comment I made to him on my website. [1]
Robbins stated, “The law does not say that, in the case of necessity, one may ignore the law (because it is no longer binding), and go and get oneself some holy orders and exercise the sacerdotal ministry without being sent by any lawful superior. The law does say that, in the time of necessity when it is impossible to receive the sacraments, one’s desire for them satisfies as a substitute for the sacraments themselves…”
Three points:
1. There is a thing known as cessation of law and epieikeia. Robbins has not made a case that the law of consecrating bishops by papal mandate is absolute where cessation of the law or epieikeia is impossible.
2. If consecrating bishops is lawful under the circumstances, then receiving the sacraments would not be impossible for those who have priests.
The desire clause for Baptism and Confession is there to answer the question whether God can save apart from the sacraments, but that doesn’t mean that the two sacraments aren’t necessary. The books tell us that they are a relative necessity based on a positive precept.
3. Robbins accuses our bishops and priests of “ignoring the law.” However, there’s also the law on publishing Catholic material. Can. 1384 § 1 tells us we don’t have a right to publish books without approval. § 2: “extends the meaning of the term books so as to include newspapers and other periodical publications as well as all other published writings, unless the contrary is manifest.”
Using Robbins’ argument, the law does not say, in case of necessity, one may ignore the law (because it is no longer binding) and go publish whatever Catholic material without lawful authority. Perhaps Robbins was unaware of this law, but to be consistent with his argument, he must now shut down his website and stop publishing.
Robbins continues making bad arguments by comparing the Japanese situation where they had no priests for hundreds of years and our situation today.
Two more points:
1. Outside of prayer and fasting, there was nothing whatsoever they could do about not having priests. They had no choice in the matter. Because they didn’t have priests and the sacraments, their way to salvation depended solely on faith, desire, and perfect contrition for salvation. They didn’t receive the graces that come via the sacraments.
2. The Japanese didn’t appoint themselves priests, because they understood that they didn’t have the power to do so. Sedevacantist laymen aren’t appointing themselves priests either. However, every bishop has the power to make priests lawful or unlawful, which means licit or illicit. Gregory IX expressly states: “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”
The necessity of having Catholic bishops and priests and the lack of true sacraments can easily be seen; therefore, our bishops were validly and licitly consecrated. Pope Gregory IX gave us the decretal of necessity, when it’s for the good of the whole Church.
Robbins continues, “I mean, isn’t it that the Sedevacantists think they know better than the Church? They are not guided by the Church by their own admission, for if they have determined that the law has ceased to bind them, then their only authority becomes, not the law, since it has ceased, but their own human prudence, what they have determined to be expedient in this time of necessity.”
Bishop Carmona appealed to the teaching of the Church when he was consecrated bishop. In fact, all of our bishops appeal to Divine law and the teaching of the Church. Robbins should have researched the topic before writing about it. He has admitted that he’s already made up his mind. Therefore, he makes up lies about our bishops. He writes, “have not all the Sedevacantist bishops sought out their own episcopal consecration? How un-Catholic does it get?”
I know no sedevacantist bishop that sought out his consecration. I know for a fact that Carmona, Zamora, McKenna, and Pivarunas did not seek out their consecrations. What proof does Robbins have to make such slanderous remarks?
Lastly, Robbins makes a serious blunder when he says, “There are no known priests in the world, because God has preordained it to be so, and no matter how much we might want there to be sacraments to help us, these, with the priests, have been taken away as a punishment for our sins.”
The power of a bishop to consecrate and ordain is an indelible mark of the priesthood that cannot be deprived. Even the Eastern Orthodox have valid priests and bishops this very day. The Code of Canon Law permits Catholics in danger of death to receive absolution from non-Catholic priests and bishops. Therefore, we have sacraments to help us no matter how much Robert Robbins denies Catholic theology and says no priests exist to administer the sacraments. There are literally tens of thousands of valid priests and bishops around the world.
Robert Robbins prides himself as being one who exposes false teachers and teachings. Yet, he does what he accuses us. He fails to make proper distinctions and creates fairytales, such as saying there are no known priests in the world and telling us and his children his fairytale is true.
I admire Robbins trying to fight for what he believes in, but he’s fighting the wrong battle with the wrong weapons. Like I said in my podcast interview, if you will not consider the possibility that we are right, nothing will convince you. It’s like this with everything.
Robbins must consider that he might be wrong, that there is such a thing as cessation of law, the Church’s necessity to exist makes licit what is normally illicit, the bishop’s power to consecrate can’t be deprived and valid priests exist everywhere even if unlawfully, canon law permits Catholics to receive the sacraments from any priest (heretic, schismatic, vitandus excommunicate) when in danger of death, receiving the sacraments is better than not receiving them, the safer course is to follow the authorities, and not to allow your own opinion to become a dogma and condemn all others for not following your opinion.
Footnote:
https://catholiceclipsed.com/2022/08/11/the-fairytale-of-independent-catholicism/
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Thank you for writing this rebuttal piece. There’s are good to see exactly where we differ and where we agree. I am not sure if I will write a reply or not. I’m thinking about it. But let me quickly say, Steve, I condemn no one for trying to follow their conscience, be they in the Novus Ordo or Sedevacantist mass mission. And I do countenance the possibility of being wrong, which is how (you will recall from my BIO) that I was able to learn of how I was wrong attending a Sedevacantist mission. So I am always open to correction and a new understanding. Pray-at-Home is not de fide. It is a practical solution to a problem we all face and which we all must act in the face of. You are doing your best and are sincere. I know you know I am. We are trying to please God but doing the best we can with the knowledge we have.
“Perhaps Robbins was unaware of this law…”
No, Steve. I’ve heard of it.
https://catholiceclipsed.com/2022/06/09/in-defense-of-catholiceclipsed/
Thank you for this comment. Canon 1384 § 2 includes all published writings, which includes our blogs. You have privately interpreted that law as not to include your blog. Bishop Thuc and others have interpreted the law on papal mandates as not including all circumstances. They did not ignore the law, but they understand the laws don’t always apply in all circumstances. I hope you’ll reconsider that attending mass at your mission was lawful.
Thank you, Steven, for fighting the good fight!
There comes a time in many instances such as we see today whereby sincere folk will find themselves being judge and their own pope. It satisfies one’s desire to be in line but it also cuts to the root of the problem of who to trust, what authority to follow and how best to do what is right. But it is never prudent to sway from church teaching or become lax and deficient in knowing the faith thoroughly.
Not an issue of validity, but legality.
Council of Trent infallibily, in Session XXIII, canon 7, condemns as heretical those who say that those who aren’t sent by the ecclesiastical and CANONICAL Authority, are legitimate ministers of the Word and of Sacrements. It is a dogma, thus without exception. Theologians explained that only the pope has the power (by virtue of divine law) to sent bishops canonically, but they also explain that the Pope can also delegate his power (to send canonically) to other bishops if he wants, and he can also withdraw them, in virtue of his Primacy.
Speray: You think we’ve never seen Trent’s teaching? I deal with this argument here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/07/10/the-problem-with-the-home-alone-position-part-i/ and https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/09/03/where-the-shepherds-and-teachers-are-the-problem-with-the-home-alone-position-part-iii/
To consecrate a bishop without being a Canonical Authority, as your bishops do, is an usurpation of the Petrine powers, and undermine the Primacy of Peter, and have been condemned by the Council of Trent.
Speray: Nope. You misunderstand all of it. All our bishops are lawful and were duty bound to do what they did under the circumstances.
Also, at 29th June 1950 (cf. A.A.S. 1950, p. 601-2), a Roman Congregation explained this (my translation and my emphasis) :
“The Catholic Church is, by the very institution of Jesus Christ, a perfect society, hierarchically constituted, whose power and jurisdiction belong fully and sovereignly to the Roman Pontiff, successor of St. Peter in the primate. FOR THIS REASON, no one can, without a legitimate INSTITUTION or CANONICAL provision, occupy ecclesiastical offices or benefits or introduce others into them.”
Hence, your bishops and priests, as Council of Trent say, aren’t legitimate ministers of the Word and of Sacrements.
Speray: Our bishops don’t occupy ecclesiastical offices or benefits or introduce others into them. So you got a big problem with your understanding of the situation.