Open Letter to Introibo

Editor’s Note: My wife, Laura Robbins, wrote an open letter to the author of the Introibo Ad Altare Dei blog, in response to the post “Get The Correct Interpretation And You’re Home Free.” I thought it was very well written, and I think you will agree. The points made are salient to the controversies affecting us Catholics who are just trying to make heads or tails of the chaos. I present the letter in full below. Be sure to leave a comment if you feel inclined! She’d love to get your feedback.

Dear Introibo:

I will try to make this as short as possible. I was reading your article today about CE and I further clicked on and started reading your article “Betrayed by Benns”.  I hope you understand this has nothing to do with my husband or Benns and everything to do with truth so please be objective when you read this, as I assume I am being objective in my argument:

First, I don’t believe Thuc to have been an invalid priest or bishop, but he certainly defected from the faith and never truly came back to the Church even dying in communion with the Novus Ordo. 

Next, with Lefebvre: you say you will assume Lienart was a mason. Good, because there is plenty of evidence of it including Lefebvre’s own admission—why should we assume a public statement from Lefebvre was a lie or the result of confusion? 

I will set you some examples that don’t refute any of the Church teachings you have brought forth. 

One, say there was a man who committed theft. The authorities charge the man, but he is PRESUMED innocent, until proven guilty by a trial. The trial doesn’t come up with enough evidence to charge the man (and there are no witnesses who even saw it happen), so he’s found “not guilty” by the law. Does that mean the man did not commit the theft? No, it means that the law presumed something and couldn’t prove its contrary. It doesn’t say anything about the fact of the theft by the man.

Two, back to the Church, using your true example. The Church presumed that those native priests had sacraments. But the people were being absolved the whole time by laymen. The Church cannot supply holy orders and jurisdiction to laymen. All those absolutions were null and void and some people may have gone to hell over it, if they only had imperfect contrition for their sins!

Masons and Communists are declared enemies of the Church. Why should we (laymen) presume that the declared enemies of the Church want to perpetuate that same Church with truly ordained and consecrated clergy?! Has the Church told us specifically that masonic orders are valid? Did She so declare? Did She even declare that we are to “presume” masonic/communist orders are valid?

Here’s what She did say regarding something similar:

First:

“THE MINISTER OF A SACRAMENT IS PRESUMED TO INTEND WHAT THE RITE MEANS: NEVERTHELESS, IF IN FACT HE RESOLVES NOT TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES, HE HAS NOT SUFFICIENT INTENTION AND THE SACRAMENT IS INVALID.”

This is even emphasized as such in the original! That is a portion that I’m sure you have read since you decided to ellipsis it within your article.  

Second:

“Lehmkuhl gives an interesting case of conscience on the point. A certain priest had lost his faith and had joined a forbidden society, after which time he began to perform his priestly duties in an external manner only. He religiously observed the correct and exact performance of the matter and the form in the sacraments he administered, but inwardly he intended not to do what the Church does and what Christ instituted. The solution of the case declares that the sacraments conferred by the priest were null and to be repeated absolutely,” (The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments by Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L. 1949, referencing Casus Conscientiae, Vol. II, p. 14, Casus 7, Augustin Lehmkuhl, 1903).

He says “repeated absolutely”, not conditionally. I assume I do not need to educate you on what that means. Note that there’s not even a death bed confession here in this example.

So back to Lefebvre, his ordination to the priesthood was performed by a Mason, not just any mason with supposedly good will, but a high ranking mason. Why should we assume that his ordination is valid? Because the Church was silent on the issue?! 

An episcopal consecration cannot be made valid on a layman. The man must have holy orders according to the Church teachings cited by “Bishop” Joseph Marie, which I know you’ve read. So any ordinations that Lefebvre tried to perform were invalid. Not because of VAS, not because he was a heretic who defected from the Church either before or at Vatican II, but because you can’t give what you don’t have. 

Should we assume that his orders were valid just so that we can have possibly dubious sacraments? Because as the Church stated above, Her (and our) presumption does not a sacrament make. We can presume all day, but if they were invalid, then all these sede clergy are performing invalid and sacrilegious sacraments, because pretty much ALL of them come from Lefebvre and his unapproved seminary opened and ran with approval of and under a false pope!! 

Are you willing to risk your eternal damnation on that presumption? Because you already stated today,

“Being home is the “safe way” to Heaven. We have the Act of Perfect Contrition, Spiritual Communion, and the Rosary. Ans. All these things are beautiful and Catholic. If this is all you have (like the Japanese Catholics during the Great Persecution) that’s the way to go.”

This is all the HAs (as you call us) are doing. Ensuring that we are on the safe road. There are NO graces conferred with invalid sacraments. Why should we risk it? That, to me, is quite a presumption! We do not have a pope to rectify the issue and the Church teaches us to always follow the safer course with respect to the sacraments. (I will cite it for you if necessary. I don’t have the reference off hand.) How are you doing that?

Just because you don’t like what the outcome is, doesn’t mean you have a good argument against it. You may be a good lawyer (you certainly argue like one), but that doesn’t give credence to your arguments just because they are delivered with rhetoric. It may very well be that there were few valid clergy left by Vatican II because of worldwide infiltration of the Church from masons and communists. That may help to better explain the complete and “sudden” apostasy. 

Also, if you didn’t see this on my twitter feed, I argued that all clergy must have defected before the election of John 23 for this reason, Billot says (found here https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/):

“But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis, at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later. By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope]. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions.”

All the supposedly valid and reigning bishops adhered to both Roncalli (through his whole pontificate) and Montini (at his election and some time after). Billot emphatically says this cannot be. He says “universal adherence” is an “infallible” sign! He says this point must be firmly placed beyond all doubt! Therefore, as said above, they may not have been true clergy from having defective orders because of infiltration. You can try to argue this point, please do!, but don’t use rhetoric and ill-placed or deceptive ellipses to do so. It’s unbecoming of a man who calls himself Catholic. 

Happily Home but Not Alone,

Mrs. CatholicEclipsed

6 thoughts on “Open Letter to Introibo

  1. Hello Robert: Laura’s response is very good. Years ago I stopped reading any of his ( Introibo ) remarks. I do not remember the exact reason but I see here, he is just another apologist for the traditional movement. He mentions Cekada (RIP) as though he was an expert in canon law which T. Benn’s clearly showed there were some major issues with him and his interpretations. Laura made an excellent point with her remark here ” that doesn’t give credence to your arguments just because they are delivered with rhetoric”…I notice a bit of Introibo’s sarcasm mixed in with his rhetoric. It is obvious he did not read T. Benn’s book or he would not have mentioned that which she already made a mea culpa for and warned anyone not to read her 1st book. He brings up a very old issue to put doubt in his readers minds about any of her writings.  I find that despicable. Dialogue with him is fruitless in my opinion but I know you had to respond to his accusations and distortions of truth. Like those also at “novus ordo watch”  the biggest promoters of the trad movement and all it stands for, including it;s schism and errors.  Laura made some excellent points in her response and  I agree with her totally. Thank you for all your efforts to protect our faith, the truth and integrity of others….  “O Mary, our hope, have pity on us” ( Raccolta )   God Bless,  Joseph M.

    Like

    • Sorry Joseph,
      Any person who thinks six people in a farmhouse can elect a pope should never be trusted. She gave a “mea culpa”? Tell that to the 30-100 people still following the false pope she created. She can’t even properly interpret who interprets canon law. Nevertheless, some people will never learn. What did P.T. Barnum say?

      God Bless,

      —Introibo

      Like

      • To Introibo,
        So, according to your judgemental heart, a person cannot grow in wisdom or knowledge, or feel contrition for past mistakes. I believe T. Benns is truly sorry for the role she played all those years ago in the misguided “conclave”. She has admitted as much and has moved on. Why don’t you? As for the people still following the false pope, they are not innocent dupes, but must take responsibility for their own actions. We should pray for them that God will give them wisdom and discernment to get out of that situation (and that they become Pray-at-Home Catholics). And to echo what Laura said: “Happily Home, but not alone!” Jeff S.

        Like

  2. Dear Mrs. Robbins,
    Despite a long day at work, I felt it necessary to respond to your open letter. Thank you for writing it. Your argument seems to rest on a failure to understand my post.

    1. As to Abp. Thuc, there is the exculpatory letter of Fr. Barbara and, as I wrote, “I could write another whole post (and someday I might) on the very suspect nature of the “reconciliation.” Isn’t it interesting that ONLY the representatives of the Modernist Vatican claimed he signed the reconciliation? It reminds me of Cardinal Ottaviani allegedly retracting his famous Intervention bearing his name when he was handed the instrument on his deathbed while blind and under heavy medication.

    2. Interestingly, you claim of Thuc that “I don’t believe Thuc to have been an invalid priest or bishop.” Why? Couldn’t his ordaining bishop have been a secret Freemason and had a positive contrary intention not to ordain him? How do you know that’s not the case? Do you even know who Thuc’s ordaining bishop was? Why do you trust him? That’s why the Church sets up a rebuttable presumption of validity because to demonstrate someone has withheld the proper intention, “…one must prove the existence of a positive will that excludes [the sacrament].” (See Courtemanche, The Total Simulation of Matrimonial Consent, [1948], pg. 18).
    We never know with certainty that ANY particular sacrament is valid due to defect of intention. However, when the Church says we must presume something we presume it. We know that the Apostles had valid sacraments as they were confirmed by the miraculous manifestations of God. Starting in the second century onward, you should stay Home Alone, because we can’t know with apodictic certainty they were not apostates with defective intentions. This is somewhat akin to the Vacancy Pushers like Richard Ibranyi, the nutcase from New Mexico who places the last pope in 1130 A.D. The only two things we can have no doubt about is our own existence (because if we doubt our existence, the subject of the doubt must exist) and our immediate sense impressions. How do you know your not a brain in a vat like the Matrix? It can’t be proven, but these are properly basic beliefs which we have the right to believe unless a defeater is offered. So too with the sacraments being valid–are properly basic beliefs and unless MANIFESTED we must hold them as valid. So your analogy to the civil law, while true, is inapposite. The principle you suggest would necessitate staying Home Alone since circa 101 A.D. and implying a defective Church.

    3. As to your citation, “Lehmkuhl gives an interesting case of conscience on the point. A certain priest had lost his faith and had joined a forbidden society, after which time he began to perform his priestly duties in an external manner only. He religiously observed the correct and exact performance of the matter and the form in the sacraments he administered, but inwardly he intended not to do what the Church does and what Christ instituted. ..” I assume I do not need to educate you on what that means. HOW DID THEY KNOW WHAT HE INWARDLY INTENDED? It must have been divulged in the EXTERNAL FORUM OR Someone can read minds. I prefer the former. It was not the mere fact of Masonic membership (secret society) because It is an established fact that Cardinal Rampolla was a high ranking Freemason. None of his consecrations or ordinations were repeated. There were bishops consecrated during the French Revolution by Masonic bishops, and they were received back as bishops, not subject to absolute or conditional consecration. So if Masonic membership = invalid/dubious sacraments, the true popes did not practice that teaching for some strange reason.

    4. Just as God is not constrained by Canon Law, he is not constrained in giving graces. If I follow the Church’s teaching, I have full confidence God will give me special graces (including contrition and not attrition) if I should go to a cleric that is invalid despite Church teaching as in the case of the Indian priests invalidly ordained pre-Vatican II. Unlike Feeneyites, God can save who he wills, and His ordinary means is by the true Mass and sacraments. What about Bp. Mendez and the SSPV? Invalid too? Secret Masons?

    5. I resent you calling me “deceptive” “THE MINISTER OF A SACRAMENT IS PRESUMED TO INTEND WHAT THE RITE MEANS: NEVERTHELESS, IF IN FACT HE RESOLVES NOT TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES, HE HAS NOT SUFFICIENT INTENTION AND THE SACRAMENT IS INVALID.” Yes, and I never denied that but HOW DO WE KNOW IF HE RESOLVES NOT TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES? According to theologian DeSalvo, “As long as the lack of proper intention is not externally manifested, the Church presumes that the intention of the minister is correct.” (See The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, [1949], pg. 105).That’s how we know Mrs. Robbins—externally manifested, like the South American bishop I cited in my post.

    6. As to Universal acceptance, it does not mean what you think. Please see my post: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/04/does-universal-acceptance-guarantee.html

    7. Lastly, I will end with the reason I will not stay Home Alone, or with a spouse and six kids. “Christ promised that He would be with His Church until the end of the world. Although men cannot be metaphysically certain of having received the sacraments, all may, according to common sense, depend upon the fidelity of Christ’s ministers in the administration of the sacraments, and according to faith rely upon the Indefectibility of the Church and her ministers as a body.” (See The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, [1949], pg. 106). Please take the Red Pill, Mrs. Robbins

    God Bless,

    —Introibo

    Like

  3. Great arguments Thank yo u andGod Bless you and your Family the problem is they cant accept that the Mass would be taken away by antichrist and bits Church teaching , by the way there is a sacramental that has received a Blessing in perpetuity by Pope Pius ix and doesnt need further Blessing by a priest and that is the Sacred Heart Badge just wanted to give that information for all Cathacomb Catholics who feel uneasy about not having Priests to Bless the sacramentals anyway God always supplies God bless all stay at home Catholics outthere hang in there

    Like

  4. In my opinion, Laura approaches the big question (how to safely practice the true faith) with a common sense, logical, and everyman method.

    The author of the article’s approach seems to me to be similar in a way as when a protestant is presented with a contradiction with his system of belief and the answer is that he is being led by the holy spirit. The sede-traditionalist, in my opinion, is mistakenly attached to, at the very least, doubtful sacraments and orders in a slavish way and will use the general argument from authority (his own), “well you do not understand canon law properly” or “you are not properly trained in canon law”, etc. (this was Cekeda’s (RIP) argument) in the the same way as the protestant is guided by his own holy spirit rebuttal. At the bottom, it seems to me, there is an attachment to something on the human level, e.g. a divorce and remarried protestant/N. O. who believes in the absolute validity of their marriage because they are “led” by the holy spirit to believe so, or the sede-traditionalist who believes in the validity of the sacraments he is receiving because he completely associates his faith with it. As of yet, his faith cannot stand without it, and so, he will strike out with cleverly worded tomes to protect his system. But there is a spiritual cost, I think, to spending time in this place of contention. In my experience, it has been a chain, that I am grateful by grace to have been released from. My purpose in commenting is not to change the mind of the article’s writer, but to encourage someone already convinced of the pray-at-home position who may be struggling with the “gas-lighting” whether overt or covert from sede-trads or novus ordites. Two things this past year have really be a help for me: 1) To follow The Liturgical Year by Dom Gueranger and 2) the liturgical year on CD (The Liturgical Year in Gregorian Chant: Schola Bellarmina). I found a set of these on Ebay. God bless, Scott

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s