My brother called me on the phone and asked if I’ve seen Robert Robbins’ latest article against me? He said it was so terrible and funny and how I’m going to laugh when I see it. Sure enough, my brother was right. [1]
Probably against my better judgment, I’m going to reply to it even though it’s so bad. However, it gives me an opportunity to demonstrate how the home-alone position attracts real know-nothings. Not every home-aloner is a know-nothing, but it seems most are.
Robbins’ begins by making comparisons with a J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy book with our situation. When he’s not dressed up like Mr. Spock from Star Trek, Robbins thinks of himself as a little hobbit from Lord of the Rings. It’s apparent that he likes to play pretend and live in an imaginary dream world.
In defending the home-alone dream world where the Catholic Church is lost and has absolutely no shepherds and teachers, no Eucharist, no Confession, and no Holy Mass throughout the world, Robbins has to make up total nonsense. He quotes Vatican I and writes what he thinks it means:
[Vatican I] “‘So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.’”
[Robbins] “This quote does not teach that there must be (necessary mode) pastors until the end of time. Rather, it teaches that God willed (volitive mode) that there should be pastors until the end of time. Steve argues from the volitive mode to a necessary mode, which is fallacious. The argument fails, because it assumes a quality in the conclusion (necessity) that is not in the premises.”
Robbins believes an ecumenical council actually taught that Christ would really like for His Church to have shepherds and teachers till the end of time, but it may not work out that way so don’t expect it. Robbins has to believe this nonsense because he knows that his home-alone position is crushed if Vatican I is interpreted correctly. Robbins’ explanation is not just wrong, it’s blasphemous and heretical.
Christ’s will in the quote is not a mere wish or desire. Vatican I tells us that “in like manner” there should be shepherds and teachers as Christ Himself was sent, who then also sent the Apostles. It’s going to happen because He WILLS it.
Vatican I’s own Cardinal Manning wrote on his 1871 letter “The Vatican council and its definitions”:
He prayed unto the Father, not for the apostles only, but for those also who through their preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might be one even as He the Son and the Father are one. (St. John XVII. 21.) As then He sent the Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world, as he Himself had been sent by the Father: so He willed that there should ever be pastors and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. And in order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and that by means of a closely united priesthood the multitude of the faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and fixed in him the abiding principle of this two-fold unity, and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the everlasting temple should arise and the Church in the firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to Heaven. [2]
Robbins continues…
The arguments on the absolute necessity of the sacraments has already been disproved elsewhere on this website. But suffice it to say that the sacraments are not in themselves absolutely necessary for salvation, and to insist otherwise is actually a form of Feeneyism, which insists that at least one sacrament, baptism, is absolutely necessary as such for salvation, which the Church has taught time and again to be false and ridiculous.
Robbins missed the point completely. Of course, it’s not absolutely necessary for individuals to have the sacraments to be saved, but it IS absolutely necessary for the Church as a whole to have all the sacraments.
Robbins quotes Trent’s Canon as if I said something different:
CANON VI.–If any one saith…that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.
I demonstrated clearly how our clergy are rightly ordained and sent using Bishop Carmona’s explanation. Apparently, Robbins doesn’t understand what he reads. He misses point after point. He cites St. Francis de Sales, but I already explained how our clergy are not doing what St. Francis de Sales is condemning.
He missed the point about how staying at home is the antithesis of Catholicism. Perhaps, Robbins prefers having just two Sacraments and no one to confess to, like the Protestants.
He missed my point on the perpetual principle of the papacy. He writes, “Steve thinks that because the Church teaches that the papacy will be perpetual, this means that there will always be popes. But this is utterly false even on the facts. There hasn’t been a pope in over a half a century! The principle of perpetual succession of the papacy simply means that there will always be the potential for there to be a pope…”
I’ve made it clear in numerous articles and books that I don’t believe there will always be popes, but only the potential of having them. In fact, I don’t think there will ever be a pope again. The point is that if the principle is present, there’s no need for a miracle. Robbins doesn’t believe the principle is there, but only the potential which now requires a miracle.
Robbins missed the point about the Great Apostasy. The point is that we aren’t to stay at home hoping someone else will fix the problem of not having sacraments for the whole Church before Our Lord returns. Again, Christ wills that the Church at large has the Sacraments. Robbins just doesn’t believe he needs the sacraments at all, nor does the whole Church.
Home-aloners are on the opposite side of the pendulum with Feeneyites who say you absolutely can’t get to heaven without the Sacraments. Home-aloners say who needs the Sacraments anyway? Both positions are stupid!
On my survival mode point, Robbins states, “Steve makes the argument that one is able to break the law when required to do so for survival.” This is an outrageous lie. I’ve made it clear that our clergy are not breaking the law but are following the spirit of the law and not sinning against it.
Robbins actually cites the Baltimore Catechism about the indefectibility of the Church and then argues how it has defected by not having, nor needing to have shepherds, teachers, the Mass, and the Sacraments.
Lastly, Robbins completely ignores how Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII tell us that we shall have shepherds and teachers for the Church at large till the end of time. Of course, he ignores it and/or denies it, because he has to. He has to twist everything from Vatican I and canon law to papal teachings and the Baltimore Catechism.
I expect Robbins to reply again with more buffoonery, more lies, and more hypocrisy. After all, he believes he can ignore, twist, or break ecclesiastical laws and publish without permission since he has made himself the final authority in his churchless world. This is to be expected from home-aloners because they’ve lost the Church. It only exists in their imaginary dream world where they pretend to be hobbits cuddled together in their little cottages.
Footnotes
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Cute critique, Steve, but it is called an analogy. But it is true I don’t take myself so seriously that I am above likening myself to fictional characters. I seem to recall another who tried to tell stories and liken real people to fictional characters. What was His name again?
I am glad you enjoyed my post and laughed. I enjoyed your post, too, and laughed. I guess we aren’t so much talking as laughing past each other.
This is Babylon.
I thought you might like the attention.
I like that there are more people reading my blog. Perhaps some may see the truth in what I am saying, however imperfectly.
There’s no truth in what you are saying. It’s all part of your imaginary dream world.
There are no words that can describe how pathetic Robert Robbins is.
I’ve have some discussions with him at the Novus Ordo Watch combox and he’ll say some of the most pernicious and heretical comments. He’ll then try to change the argument like a Protestant and tell you what “he really meant.” Sadly, he won’t “really mean it” because a few days later you’ll see him write the same things he always believed.
There’s Mr. Lee, charitable as ever.
Robert,
You say that as if you are charitable. You trash talk all the time.
Last time I checked, Pope St. Pius X said modernists should be beaten with fists. Was he charitable?
Last time I checked, St. Paul said O foolish Galatians who has bewitched you. Was he charitable?
I’m glad you get offended by my comments. You and so many others offend God by your beliefs and persuading others to believe the same way.
What the hell is RR smoking? I have yet to read any factual supporting statements he makes, no references, no church documents to study etc yet he has all the answers which have no leg to stand on, and are basically anti-Catholic stupid. Hopefully, his fellow -kind can see he has a problem in his twisted assessment of truth and Catholicism.
Obviously I’m smoking Longbottom Leaf of the Southfarthing, the best pipe-weed in the Shire, or did you not read that I believe I’m a hobbit?
Can you write about marriage annulment in sedevacatism?
Sounds like a great idea. There’s a probable opinion that common error (can. 209) grants valid annulments in Eastern Orthodoxy, which by logical extension would work in the novus ordo establishment.