Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

We’re Going to Keep Talking About Schism! Wherein Steve Rants.

sodom-1

I consider Fr. Z an ally in our cause. I respect him, and I agree with him more often than I don’t. But something about his post yesterday isn’t sitting well with me. He writes:

Some people are talking about “schism” because of the Synod.

No matter what happens at the Synod, there will be no schism by either side.

Schisms are passé. Catholics don’t schism.

Indifference and apathetic drifting are the real threats.

Conservatives have no where else to go (e.g., the SSPX simply not an option). Conservatives accept Vatican II AND the Catechism of the Catholic Church AND Code of Canon Law.

Liberals love to hear conservatives talk about “schism”, because liberals are actually the ones trying to bring it about. As they try to impose NewChurch, liberals are already in de facto schism. But they’ll never make it official. They are basically Congregationalists. They are still in the cafeteria. They take what the want and leave the rest. Schism would take too much effort and money.

Schism talk is for journalists only, for headline effect. But it’s to the liberals’ advantage.

So, I want to assures the world that there will not be a schism.

There is no real threat of schism from the right. There will be no formal schism on the left, for different reasons.

So – get over it. Stop the distraction.

For a working definition of schism, let’s grab the handy Catholic Encyclopedia off the shelf, shall we?

Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act. In this etymological and full meaning the term occurs in the books of the New Testament.

[…]

“Between heresy and schism”, explains St. Jerome, “there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe” (On Faith and the Creed 9). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.

Put more simply, we find this in the current Code of Canon Law:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Schism is on the table. We hear a lot of talk these days about de facto vs. de jure schism. Fr. Hunwicke gave some consideration to the distinction earlier this week in a brief  analysis of the canonical situation of the SSPX:

A year or two ago, Cardinal Mueller suggested that, although the excommunication of its bishops had been lifted, the SSPX was still in de facto schism.

At first, I disliked this idea, because it seemed to nullify the emollient effects of the removal of the excommunications, as intended by Benedict XVI. But, upon lengthier thought, I came (as I usually do … honest, no irony here …) to the conclusion that his Eminence is right. After all, with whatever justification, the SSPX does not have any recognition in Rome or throughout the world-wide churches which are in unflawed communion with the Holy Father. De facto there is no communicatio in sacris between SSPX clergy and diocesan bishops. To call this a de facto schism, which after all does imply that the Society is not in a de iure schism, and thus is not canonically schismatic, does seem at least arguably to be a useful analytical category.

I wonder exactly how far heterodox or heteropractic elements in the hierarchy need to go before they themselves can prudently be judged to have entered this interesting new category of de facto schism. I have in mind Cardinal Marx and his like, with their threats “go ahead without waiting for the Synod” et similia. How different is this from the SSPX going down its own path without waiting for Rome to “return to the Eternal Rome”?

I think the answer, to both Fr. Z and Fr. Hunwicke’s points, is that yes, real, actual schism is here right now.

The SSPX, for our purposes, is an actual distraction from this larger point. When it comes to the active, raging heterodoxy amongst apostolic successors happening this very moment across the world, the debate over de facto or de jure is a technicality. The effects of this schism, wherever you stand on taxonomy, are markedly less academic – though they would probably be far less damaging if they were juridically declared rather than allowed to fester as they have. Tragically, like the proverbial boiled frog, we’ve been steeping in this toxic amalgam of legitimacy and schismatic heresy within the institutional Church for such a long time that few of us seem able to tell for certain just how bad it really is right now. Like good sheep, we await the guidance of our shepherds; like good subjects, we await the judgment of our monarch.

Yet none is forthcoming.

And here is the crux of the issue: the reason we are dealing with de facto schism left uncondemned instead of de jure schism declared and denounced is astonishingly, frighteningly simple:

The chief legislator of the Church has chosen not to pronounce sentence.

The Encyclopedia cites St. Jerome in saying that “schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.” But why deny papal primacy when it is the mechanism by which a break into the Church’s communion and from its teachings has been imposed?

In other words: how did Kasper and Marx and Daneels and Forte and Baldisseri and Galantino and Maradiaga and Wuerl and all the hairy hordes of prelates who infect the Church with error wind up at the top of the Synod food chain to flout Our Lord’s teachings with impunity?

Because Pope Francis put them there, and has not seen fit to remove them.

This is the reality Catholics around the world are struggling with right now. They don’t know what to think. We’re all papists, we faithful sons of the Church. But when do you say to Peter: “I’m sorry, your holiness, I can’t follow you down this road.”?

I’ve seen people — real, actual, non-hypothetical people — asking what they are to do if, at the conclusion of this year’s portion of the Synod, one of the following scenarios plays out:

  1. Pope Francis blesses some document or language allowing the divorced and remarried to receive communion after some prescribed process that does not involve removing themselves from the adulterous relationship, or
  2. Pope Francis does not make such a decision, but rather delegates the discretionary power to do the same to either the regional bishops conferences or the local ordinary.

What these concerned people want to know is simple: “Can I go to Mass or communion at a parish or in a diocese where they are allowing Eucharistic sacrilege by inviting those who are living in adultery to receive communion? And if I can, should I?”

The fact is, even the sacraments of a heretic or schismatic are valid, ex opere operato. So the reality on the ground is that it’s like the Arian crisis all over again. At the time, St. Basil wrote:

“Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven.” Ep. 92. Four years after he writes: “Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts,—a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid the most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part in the {460} wicked Arian leaven.” Ep. 242. Again: “Only one offence is now vigorously punished,—an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries, and transported into deserts. The people are in lamentation, in continual tears at home and abroad. There is a cry in the city, a cry in the country, in the roads, in the deserts. Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up, our altars deprived of the spiritual worship.” Ep. 243.

Can you imagine living like this? I’ve heard tell of parish priests in my own diocese who have warned their flocks that such a time may be coming, and soon.

There is a third possible outcome, which is that Pope Francis will pull a sneak attack, surprising everyone by strongly and unequivocally re-stating Church teaching on the Sixth Commandment and possibly even disciplining those who had chosen to attempt to transmogrify the Church into an institution that accepts illicit sexual unions. Some Catholics are really holding out hope that Wildcard Scenario #3 is going to happen. And theoretically, it could. If Pope Francis is planning a surprise attack, however, he’s doing the surprise part very, very well. Still, the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways, and Pope Vigilius was a huge letdown to Empress Theodora and her not-so-merry band of Monophysites, so never say never.

But we have to deal with what we know, and the realm of probability. The last half of the Synod empowered some very bad men to do some very big damage to Church teaching on marriage and sexuality. And we have an as-yet uncontested account from the guy appointed by the pope to run the show that the pope was actually…running the show. Make of it what you will.

So where does this leave us?

Faithful Catholics are not going to start a schism. It’s not how we work. Fr. Z is right about that. We believe in docility and obedience to the Magisterium. But the fault lines have already appeared, and they’ve begun looking more like battle lines now. Groups of the faithful are making pledges to uphold Church teaching. Pledges that others have been respectfully asked to make, to no avail. The other side is already saying they won’t be made to do anything other than what they want.

With so much of the outcome already on the table, it seems that the Synod itself may be only a formality.

This is real, not imagined, division. This is not just “indifference and apathetic drifting,” though these are present too (which explains the lack of resistance in most places). We are a house divided, and we know that unless something changes, the house — as it is — cannot stand.

No, talk of schism is not a distraction. It’s the main event. The men who are seeking to violate Christ’s commandments from within an official Church body under the guidance of the pope and to foment widespread Eucharistic desecration and the normalization of homosexual relationships within the moral law will never win the war, but the battles are theirs for the taking. The tide is turning against us in society, and I fear that we are in the minority within the Church.

One way or another, these fractures and fissures are going to turn into breaks and chasms. People will choose new parishes that align with their ideologies. Faithful priests will be persecuted. Holy Masses may eventually have to be said in secret. The Bride of Christ will, once again, share in His Passion.

Our Lady warned us of this as recently as 1973. She said:

“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

“The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them”

Our Lady speaks also of temporal annihilation:

“As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead.”

Does this sound familiar? It should:

And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth. And his wife looking behind her, was turned into a statue of salt.  And Abraham got up early in the morning and in the place where he had stood before with the Lord, He looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country: and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace. (Gen 19:24-28)

The destruction of Sodom, but on a mass scale. As fitting as it is terrifying.

So, to answer the question that’s on your mind right now: what do we do? Fast. Pray. Resist. Teach as many people as we can to think critically and to learn the unchangeable truths of our faith. Prepare our children. Learn the Litany of Humility, because you’re going to need it when people start coming out of the woodwork to condemn you for standing up for what’s right. Ready ourselves even for the possibility of martyrdom, as Cardinal Burke has said.

Of course, Our Lady gave us the only sure remedy:

“The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests.”

We have our marching orders. In the words of Winston Churchill, “This is no time for ease and comfort. It is time to dare and endure.”

90 thoughts on “We’re Going to Keep Talking About Schism! Wherein Steve Rants.”

  1. In my opinion, Fr. Z has been attempting to avoid the obvious for some time now. First, he discovered some sort of hermeneutical key (“reading Francis through Benedict”), yet when that turned out to be absurd (it was always absurd), he tried to make light of the situation by mocking the world’s admiration of Francis (as if they were silly for seeing Francis the way they saw him — “fluffiest pope evah”). I stopped paying attention to him after that, but it doesn’t surprise me to hear, according to his latest narrative, schism will *never* happen.

    Reply
  2. I’m pretty sure Father Z is correct. The chance of a formal schism is close to 0%. It’s not like centuries ago when there was only one church in the town you lived in. Nowadays if you don’t like your church, you go to another. As an organization, the Catholic Church has plenty of challenges, but keeping the flock together is low down on the list. There are some who think a Schism is likely, and these are the same people who care passionately about the issues the Synod is set to address. Most people (Catholics and otherwise) are not passionate about those issues. Just as there isn’t really a “culture war” in society except in the minds of self-styled culture warriors, there isn’t really a large split within the Church over these issues. People are just indifferent.

    Reply
    • And might I add, blind to what is really transpiring. There are those who are so focused on their own little world, they have no idea what (and correct, nor do they really care) is really going on.

      Reply
      • Especially those who put out drivel about how they are making a concerted effort not to stay informed and not to care. Because the complete destruction of what our ancestors built is much ado about nothing. Mention any problems in the Church, and they will talk about how “vibrant” their personal parish is. See how “involved” and “active” everyone is. And by everyone, they mean the select group of families that volunteer for everything (sometimes even pushing out actual new volunteers) and have the ear of the pastor. It’s okay if 70% of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence, because plenty of people are there at the Mass they attend. And even if it is in shorts and flip flops with their kids eating snacks and coloring, we should just all stop being so “judge-y.”

        Reply
        • You got it. They look at you like you’re from another planet when you bring up happenings in the Church that are troubling. Seriously there are tons of ‘Catholics’ who are not even aware of all the heresies being bantered about in Rome or elsewhere. Everything, according to these clueless poor creatures, is WONDERFUL in the Church of Christ. They are so filled with a false sense of ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ they really throw out anything the least bit concerning. I have plenty of them in my own home Parish.

          Reply
  3. Regarding the Synod later this year, I think scenario 2 is more than likely as it doesn’t necessarily change any dogma. Call it apostasy by administrative change. The Holy Father will publish a wonderfully orthodox declaration, say great things about the family, and put everyone at ease. But, behind the scenes he will delegate the real meat and potatoes to the bishop’s conferences. He will at a later date publish “guidelines” for Bishops on how they are to deal with divorced and remarried Catholics, as well as the role of homosexuals within the Church. The Vatican will do this quietly – no fanfare. Using both the tools of the modern bureaucracy, as well as a passage of time, a sea change of Catholic moral thought will take place, but the dogma will remain. The Amen Chorus will cheer, and the average Catholic will just slip into a deeper morass of indifference.

    Call it the slow-burn method.

    Reply
      • Steve, this piece is so important it needs the widest possible distribution. I will do whatever I can to promote it.

        And yes, the commenter above is quite right: it will be the “slow-burn method” yet again—the method that has already been applied to the destruction of the Roman Rite by way of “options” that became mandatory, reducing the law to an option.

        Here the process will be the same as that followed with Communion in the hand: an abuse already established in practice (by Bergoglio himself in Buenos Aires!) will be deemed permissible under “conditions” worded in such a way as to sound rigorous but which are actually gaping loopholes through which the law will disappear into the exception. From the place where it is already established, the abuse will spread throughout the Church.

        And though it all, the neo-Catholic nomenklatura will smugly assure us that there has been no change in doctrine. The frogs will be assured that they are in no danger of boiling alive.

        Reply
        • Thank you, Chris. Though I sadly doubt our power to persuade those who most need it, I hope that those who are still on the fence or have reservations can, when confronted with the obvious, begin preparing themselves.

          Reply
          • Steve, I too pray for those millions who have been deceived by the principalities and powers of Satan who descended upon and into Christ’s Church that they would see the light and come out of the darkness before its too late.
            Mary, Mother of God, pray for us – and for them!

        • If a method is wrecking the Church, why change it ? Excellent post.

          One potential silver lining: Catholics will be more & more disabused of the fantasy that Rome is in sense worth discussing Catholic. God Willing, they will turn to the SSPX, and that may lead to the beginnings of a return to the True Faith, once the incubus of the Papacy is got shot of. Then we can have the Church back.

          Reply
    • EXACTLY! This is in essence what I said in my post. This ‘administrative change’ or shall we say ‘pastoral approach’ as they like to say, will all be very quietly played out. We will not really hear anything unorthodox coming from Francis. The objective is to lull Catholics into heresy, slowly. Vigilance is critical. One needs to be sly as a fox and gentle as a lamb. Unless I’m all wet, it will not be a fast ‘hatchet job’, but an ever so slow ‘evolution’ that is so typical of modernists, and for some difficult to detect.

      Reply
    • Agree completely with the probability of outcome #2: “Pope Francis does not make such a decision, but rather delegates the
      discretionary power to do the same to either the regional bishops
      conferences or the local ordinary.”

      Reason for this approach: It will be generally applauded as no big deal and the normal, reasonable and, of course, merciful approach by the Vatican. Local Bishops will make no definitive announcement in their diocese but rather allow priest discretion in the confessional. A strategy of stealth, silence and if asked will say that nothing has really changed.

      Folks who object will be labeled as rigid, judgmental, and unmerciful.

      Solution: “The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign
      left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the
      Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests.”

      Reply
    • Since this method was the intent of the revoluniaries in Vatican II, i.e., state something “Catholic” and correct but give the bishops the freedom to “experiment” and do as they wish, and has been very successful in indoctrinating the people into their anti-Catholic ideology, you are, no doubt correct.

      Reply
  4. Yes the Church is fractured, but even those who are not explicit modernists are guilty of some sin. Cardinal Burke whom you quoted, for all the good he has done he still has in the past supported the practice of Christian Seder Meals. How many Catholics in good faith have been doing this for years never thinking twice? We have the leaders we deserve, we have only ourselves to blame.

    Reply
    • Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke is not impeccable although he is infinitely holier and smarter than is IANS; still, there is the matter of an increased laxity in regards to the inroads of Judaising

      http://www.hebrewcatholic.net/ahc-interview-of-archbishop-raymond-l-burke-3-of-5/

      Denzinger 712

      It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining
      to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided
      into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because
      they were established to signify something in the future, although
      they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s
      coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the
      New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed
      hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as
      necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without
      them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of
      Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been
      observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for
      salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that
      they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All,
      therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath
      and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the
      Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal
      salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore,
      it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time,
      before or after baptism’ to cease entirely from circumcision, since,
      whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all
      without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed,
      because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help
      can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament
      of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of
      the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy
      baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any
      time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be
      conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when
      danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the
      Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest
      should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of
      the Armenians [[n.. 696].

      Reply
  5. “Surely God can force out a confession of the true faith from a heretical heart, as he once put words in the mouth of the ass Balaam; but it would be violent and not according to the custom of God’s providence sweetly ordering all things.”
    St. Robert Bellarmine, De Pontifice Romano, bk. 4, ch. 6

    Reply
  6. From St. Athanasius:

    “May God console you! … What saddens you…is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence; while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises — but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle — the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way…

    “You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith, which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

    (Taken from: “Coll. selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum,” Caillau and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp. 411-412; See also Letter XXIX, Fragment 7, in “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Second Series], Athanasius,” Vol. 4, Edited by Philip Schaff, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Mass., Second Printing, 1995, pp. 550-551)

    Reply
    • Thank you, Scott for your post. I read St. Athanasius’ words recently on another blog–I cannot remember which one. His thoughts are the answer to where we are right now in the confusion within the institutional Church.. The corrupters in Rome–the present pontiff included– may have the buildings, but we will have the true Faith. The Church lives within each person who holds in his or her mind and heart belief in the fullness of the Faith. Any prelate who teaches other than the true faith loses his authority. This last truth I learned from reading St. Thomas Aquinas, and it is reiterated in the writings of Deitrich von Hildebrand. It is not a matter of being in schism from a corrupted institutional structure, but a matter of loyalty to the true and full Faith. Get a catechism and immerse yourself in Christ. Perhaps the true Church will be underground. It is our loyalty to Him that constitutes whether or not one is in schism’.

      Reply
    • Why? Because they’re already schismatic and already allow the divorced and remarried to receive communion? Just cut to the chase?

      I hear this inclination a lot from people. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

      Reply
    • If the Vatican does embrace either one of those scenarios at the Synod, then that will vindicate the Orthodox opinion and we have to make a U-Turn back to 1054.

      Reply
      • Exactly. Which would necessarily call into question the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to be the one true Church, established by Christ. After all, if the RCC has been wrong for 1,000 years and the Orthodox correct, which had the Holy Ghost protecting it?

        But perhaps undermining the Catholic Church’s unique position is part of the Synod end game.

        Reply
        • I just can’t entertain the possibility that this is true. It seems more likely to me that we’ll be dealing the scenario Bellarmine and Suarez speculated on but were never sure could really happen: a pope who excommunicates himself through heresy.

          The teaching on divorce and remarriage is true. Christ made them unequivocally clear. We either believe Him, come what may, or we might as well make up religion as we go along.

          Reply
          • That what is true, Steve?

            I certainly wasn’t calling into question the Divinity of the Holy Catholic Church. But you can bet if, after 1,000 years, the Orthodox thinking is adopted and Rome reverses herself, that that will be shouted from the rooftops as proof that the Roman Catholic Church is not and has never been who she professes to be.

            That has been the end game of the phony post VII “ecumenism” anyway. The Catholic Church is simply one of many.

            And I’m not familiar with the Bellarmine and Suarez scenario. I will look it up. Off the top of my head I’m wondering how such a scenario (a Pope excommunicating himself through heresy) squares with the dogma of Papal infallibility but, as I said, I’ll look it up. Thanks for referencing it.

        • The discipline can be changed without officially, dogmatically, redefining adultery; sure, such a change in discipline (for pastoral reasons) will effectively drain the Doctrine of Adultery of its substance but it will not be an official formal change; liberals/modernists can act as doctrinal sappers but they can not confect a formal change in Doctrine.

          Such a change is an ontological impossibility as even a fierce opponent of Pope Francis admits:

          https://harvestingthefruit.com/rorateburke/

          Reply
          • IANS is in full agreement with that statement as it reflects the reality
            that spiritual sappers can undermine – but not change – irreformable
            doctrine.

            To be a Catholic Traditionalist is to acknowledge that Doctrine can not
            change. Period.

            And so, if, as in all likelihood appears will happen, there is a
            pastoral solution to the putative problem, it will not change the Doctrine on Adultery, even though it will effectively be seen as having done so by those in extra and ad extra of The Church.

            A man can leave his wife and marry another woman but he is still
            married even though 98% of those alive will deny he is still married
            to his wife.

            So, we get to side with Jesus contra mundum (and contra some powerful Prelates amongst the Hierarchy) and in that we must count our own selves as blessed despite all observable evidence to the contrary.

            God will bring good out of this evil and the choice twixt good and evil within the Church will be the starkest since the Arian heresy and men will reveal what is in their souls by their actions -will they stand with Jesus or will they stand against Jesus.

            Yes, we who war against the pastoral praxis will be mocked – just like Jesus was publicly mocked. That is a great blessing for a disciple of Jesus.

            IANS is of the opinion that all of this is not only necessary but that such a captious controversy is to be desired as men will have to put up or shut up about following Jesus; are they a Saint John or are they a Judas?

            God will cleanse His Church but such a metanoia can not be done easily or pleasantly and this is prolly just the beginning of that punishment/cleansing and so what better time could a man be alive that during this time?

            We Catholic Traditionalists are famous (infamous?) for cavalierly speaking about martyrdom as that which we must undergo to even gain purgatory; well, men can not now then say that God does not have a sense of humor in that he is given us just what we have asked for.

            Pax tecum, and thanks you deeply for such a great blog, Sir.

  7. I was greatly disappointed by Fr. Z’s take on this issue. If we had to wait around for the “liberals” to formally declare schism, we’d be waiting for a very long time indeed. But that’s not how it’s supposed to work, either. Rather, defenders of orthodoxy – ideally headed by the Pope – are supposed to draft a carefully worded document which gives a detailed description of the errors in question and corrects them, and then present this document to those suspect of holding such erroneous views with the demand that they either submit and sign it or suffer the consequences. That’s the way material heretics and de facto schismatics are supposed to be dealt with. We’re not supposed to wait around for them to admit it freely; we’re supposed to take the fight to them. Why is that not even on the table as a viable option? It’s not as though Cardinals Müller, Burke and Caffarra would be unable to put together a whopper of a syllabus of errors. I have a sneaking suspicion that Bishop Athanasius Schneider already has one in draft form tucked away somewhere….

    Reply
    • Wow, I was thinking the same thing about Bishop Schneider. I’m sure that behind the scenes faithful Bishops are planning the ‘counter attack’. That said it is all speculation of what will happen in the fall, but I do really believe considering all we’ve witnessed from this Holy Father, that scenario #2 will be in play. That seems to be his M.O. After all, didn’t he insist when he took the Chair that he was to be referred to as the ‘Bishop of Rome’? He will allow each Bishop to decide how to approach the ‘problem’ in his own Diocese. Oh yes, we will hear nothing but orthodoxy from Rome, but behind the scenes and quietly he will craftily and slyly give directives that indicate ‘free reign’ for the Bishops. It will be more or less a ‘free for all’, that we will not hear about but will begin to witness. Each Bishop will be allowed to carry out his own theology on the matter, and the only Bishops and Priests that will be persecuted will be the faithful ones. Is this not already happening?? Lord, have Mercy on us, and give us all the spiritual tools we will need to stand strong in the true faith. Pray the Rosary.

      Reply
    • When the pope himself is a heretic it isn’t reasonable to think he is going to defend orthodoxy by drafting a “carefully worded document which gives a detailed description of the errors in question and corrects them.”

      The popes of Vatican II were/are all heretics in that they defended the most blasphemous heresy ever concocted in church history that the Catholic Church is not THE Church of Christ but merely “subsists” within Christ’s church, which are now “the people of God” and downplaying to almost non-existence the primary function of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – it is a sacrifice-and emphasizing the Protestant heresy that it is a “community meal to memorialize the Last Supper.”

      And the “Ecumenism”-condemned in Scripture and by Pope Pius XI, the “Right to Religious Liberty”, and the notion of “collegiality” which gives all of the prelates the freedom to do as they please within their jurisdictions, while the changes to the government of the church all serve indifferentism, relativism, and a certain future of the discarding of the primary of the pope.

      Reply
      • “At first, I disliked this idea, because it seemed to nullify the emollient effects of the removal of the excommunications, as intended by Benedict XVI. But, upon lengthier thought, I came (as I usually do … honest, no irony here …) to the conclusion that his Eminence is right.”

        ## IOW, the lifting of the (pseudo-)excommunications was a fraud, a lie, a sham, and a cheat. The dishonesty of the Papacy in this is beyond disgusting. To call such behaviour shameless & false is not a whit too harsh. To call Catholics some of those in “unflawed communion” (why the need for the adjective ?) with Rome is itself a perversion of language. And why was Mueller “right” ? We are not told.

        St Jerome’s notion of schism is absurd – what happens when it is Peter who plays the part of Judas, Peter who turns hireling, Peter who feeds the Church with stones & serpents rather than bread ? Such flatterers of the Papacy have no answer. Jerome’s position is ultimately relativistic.

        “I’ve heard tell of parish priests in my own diocese who have warned their flocks that such a time may be coming, and soon.”

        ## If it comes because of the men on the Throne of Peter, than to Hell with them. If they won’t shepherd the Church, they forfeit the obedience of Catholics. This really is not difficult. There have been horrendous creatures on the Throne of Peter before – why should there not be again ? Lord Acton’s unflattering estimate of the Popes is about right: http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html

        Fire and brimstone upon the Vatican would be a sight to see, but I don’t see why the gays are copping the blame. They were not to blame for the betrayals by the V2 Popes – the Popes were. Put the blame where it belongs: with the Popes. No-one else inflicted paedo bishops & paedo-friendly bishops on the Church – the Popes did that.

        Reply
  8. Mr. Skojec. Excellent post; kudos.

    The sine qua non of Catholicism is unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and one can only control what his own self does. So, if this ancient sacramental discipline has the sacramental of defenestration applied to it there are no options to consider.

    One must maintain the bonds of unity and adhere to Tradition.

    There is no advantage to be found in throwing-in with some putatively pure schism or sedevacantism, there is only the counsel of despair to be found outside the Church.

    Saint Vincent of Lerins teaches us that these sort of situations are the way that God tests us to see if we love Him and during this time of testing, we must be faithful Catholic men and teach our family and friends to man-up during this execrable ecclesiastical epoch.

    Under pressure, dust and diamonds are formed and one sure as hell does not want his domestic church to be producing the dust that will be blown away as the storms of heresy and schism intensify.

    Reply
  9. “Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.” – St Augustine of Hippo

    Reply
    • “…anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.” – St Augustine of Hippo”

      RIGHTEOUS

      THUNDER

      Five
      times banished

      Exiled
      seventeen

      Excommunicated
      champions

      God puts
      at each scene.

      Saint
      Athanasius,

      Feast
      day of worth

      On the
      second of May

      The
      month of great mirth.

      Out in
      the deserts –

      As
      history has charted –

      You
      preserved the true Mass

      Great
      lion-hearted.

      Now
      Lefebvre

      And the
      sixties egalitarians

      Like
      Athanasius,

      His time
      his Arians.

      For He
      who abolished

      Death by
      death

      Sent him
      to absolve

      Sin
      width and breadth.

      And yes
      the same moon

      The same
      sun we’re all under…

      We venal
      rain – but Lefebvre

      Righteous thunder!!

      Reply
  10. When you get to a state as bad as we have arrived at, it is time to man the life rafts and put on the emergency beacon.

    In the Latin Church, that emergency beacon prayer to God is, “Oh Lord Jesus hear my cry. Oh God make haste to help me.” Repeat this 1000 times per day for at least the next 10 days. At the end, drop to your knees in front of a crucifix and say, “Speak Lord. Your servant is listening.”

    It is of the utmost importance that you do not disregard the image of being adrift at sea in a life boat, your very soul dependent upon God hearing your cry of desperation. Lamentation. Sack cloth and Ashes. Bread and water.

    The narrow gate is right in front of you, but you must learn to push with your soul to pass through it.

    Remember this is free spiritual advice. Your results may very and are entirely between you and the Holy and Undivided Trinity.

    Reply
    • So, ten days later, and what a beat down I’ve just subjected myself to. Not wanting to be one of those that won’t follow the advice they give, I did just as I proposed in the post above (except for the sack cloth & ashes and the bread & water, oops, forgot that part). It wasn’t until this morning that I began to process what had happened. I’m in a shambles, but in a good way.

      Suffice it to say that asking God 10,000 times to come to my aid and, low and behold, He is more than ready to do it. Praise be to God. However, and I don’t say this to complain, it turns out that a) He isn’t really all that happy of how I’ve treated the people He has placed into my life, myself, or the possessions He has entrusted to me and b) Jesus Christ really is the Word of God!

      The key to it is that being made for God we are, in fact, almost totally colonized by evil. Nay, that suggests we’ve been forced. That’s not it. We’ve been eager students of evil. I have no problem making such a blanket statement, there is ample evidence to support the assertion if one but looks around and/or in the the mirror. Personally, almost all of the thoughts that sound in my head are the collaborations of the domestic enemy (the flesh/the appetites) with the world and the devil. I’m grateful to know and to have the grace to recognize it, but it is daunting to see the extent of my betrayal of God.

      Which brings me to what needs to be done: reparations. There really is no saving the world as it is and you or I can’t save the Church. The lower can not save the higher. ‘sides, the Holy Spirit is already on the job.

      Salvation is for all men, but applied individually. We have a very big debt on our books owed to God. The realization of our having sinned so frequently and so seriously needs to move us to attempting to make amends. In other words, there is a price to be paid. The Church teaches us how to do that.

      Salvation costs. Start paying the price.

      Reply
  11. I am flabbergasted that the author completely ignores the fact that without the Church, there is no Eucharist. So, avoiding places of worship would entail avoiding the Eucharist. No matter how sinful one’s priest is, the Eucharist that is consecrated by his hands will still be more powerful than “avoiding places of worship” and singing kumbaya (in Latin, of course).

    It is surprising to me that authors like these down play the phrase “valid but illicit” of schismatic or irregular groups like SSPX. Valid, yes, BUT ILLICIT, meaning that partaking in those sacraments is gravely sinful. Joining SSPX would be gravely sinful, and in many circles their group is cavalierly written about, as if they are the stalwarts of the Church. They are not. They are currently in grave sin, especially during their illicit celebration of the sacraments.

    Reply
    • First of all, YOU are not the judge of anyone. But the point of the author was to say that if the SSPX are in defacto schism, then so are many groups of the Church today.

      Why is it that you consider going to an SSPX mass so bad, yet you wouldn’t think twice if someone told you they were attending a Protestant or Anglican service? The SSPX believe everything we believe, yet progressives and modernists dissident from church teaching. And it’s not just mixes of people from parish to parish, it is entire parishes and dioceses who have been disobedient to Rome for the past 50 years. You are so blindly enraged at the SSPX that you fool yourself into thinking everything is fine in the Church. No, the entire Church is in a state of defacto schism, it’s just that the battle lines haven’t been drawn, the Pope won’t act.

      Reply
    • So many errors in such a small amount of text.

      “Avoiding places of worship” is what St. Basil was describing during the Arian heresy, because the faithful would not partake of the “Arian leaven.” This is no different than families who avoided parishes with priests who had signed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, or those in the underground Church in China, or in the former Soviet Union. Masses were said by priests in secret. Families hid priests in their homes. This is nothing new, and it will happen again.

      “No matter how sinful one’s priest is, the Eucharist that is consecrated by his hands will still be more powerful than “avoiding places of worship” and singing kumbaya (in Latin, of course).”

      This is a nonsense sentence. Of course sacraments are valid “ex opere operato.” But attending the parish of a heretic is bad for the soul. Eucharistic minimalism is a fantastic way to go for the sacrament and lose your faith in the process. If your parish has valid Eucharist but teaches heresy from the pulpit every Sunday and makes sure to include every possible Eucharistic abuse, the benefit you derive from attending those liturgies is all but nullified, just as if you were to eat a healthy, home-cooked meal laced with Arsenic.

      “It is surprising to me that authors like these down play the phrase “valid but illicit” of schismatic or irregular groups like SSPX. Valid, yes, BUT ILLICIT, meaning that partaking in those sacraments is gravely sinful.”

      It is not gravely sinful to partake of sacraments in SSPX chapels, according to no less an authority than the Vatican itself. I’ve covered this topic before:

      https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/will-cardinal-muller-meet-sspx/

      http://www.steveskojec.com/2015/02/crypto-lefebvrianism-the-willful-confusion-around-the-sspx/

      There’s even more data on this issue from Card. Castrillon Hoyos, who had the competence to speak on this matter, here:

      http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410

      Father John Hardon, noted moralist, described the situation thusly:

      “Now my own opinion which I have been giving now for years. In my judgment, Catholics do fulfill their duty of assisting at Sunday Mass by attending in the Holy Sacrifice a church affiliated with those who are members with a schismatic group like the Lefebvres. But then I also must add the Catholics be sure at those seeing them attending these schismatic Masses are not scandalized into thinking that professed Roman Catholics have given up their fidelity to the Bishop of Rome.”

      We could go on all day. It’s not sinful to attend their Masses. Possibly imprudent, but not sinful.

      Reply
      • As Dietrich von Hildebrand points out in his writings, if two or three people are holding to the true Faith, there is where the Church is. The very Center of the Church, the nucleus of all Her grace, is the Holy Eucharist and the Priesthood. In the comment above by Guest, he misunderstands that the corrupters in Rome are setting a precedent through their tampering with the Sacrament of Matrimony and the inevitable disrespect for the Holy Eucharist. Such tampering will set the stage for disbelief and disregard for the Gift of Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist. It will also affirm that basic understandings of the Sacraments can be changed, They cannot. It is a matter of understanding WHERE the Church will be when these travesties unfold–and they will for sure. The Church is where full belief in the full Truth contained in Catholic Revelation is upheld. It is not a matter of ‘leaving the Church’ as following the true Church in all Her richness, right out of the buildings of Rome if necessary.

        Reply
      • You threw out a bunch of jibberish yourself! What in the world “Eucharistic minimalism”? The Eucharist contains infinite grace, according to the disposition of those who receive it. Of course, in your own post that you cite, you cherry-pick and muddy the waters! In the discussion of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, says that “As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.”

        So, according to that statement, in a sense, they desecrate the Eucharist when they say Mass!

        Fr. Hardon says, “…affiliated with those who are members with a schismatic group like the Lefebvres.” He calls them schismatic! If he was to be consistent, he would then apply all Catholic teaching of schismatic to the SSPX group, and hence, it would be sinful to attend their services! All you have done is provided an argument of a usually-sound theologian who actually contradicts himself! In the end, your argument fails too!

        Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Muller make it very clear that SSPX is out of communion with Rome BECAUSE OF DOCTRINAL ISSUES.

        “It’s not sinful to attend their Masses. Possibly imprudent, but not sinful.” Of course, you are only speaking from a BA in whatever from FUS, not from an authoritative or educated standpoint! That is simply your opinion, backed up with cherry-picked statements, all while you ignore statements from authoritative sources like Benedict XVI and Cardinal Muller!

        Illicit means sinful!

        Reply
      • From Pope Benedict (on Vatican web site) :
        http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

        Regarding – SSPX
        It includes:
        ” In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. ” – Pope Benedict.

        Until the Church comes out with a new OFFICIAL statement – this is it.

        Reply
      • I attend Mass at “Schismatic” Lefebvres churches, I have never heard anyone say they don’t believe in the Papacy, we just can’t consider heretics valid Popes. This has been taught by many Doctors of the Church. Where the Faith is, the faith for 2000 years there is the Church….we don’t worship buildings, places, or false titles …aka heretical Popes. When Christ sees fit to restore Rome to Catholicism we will all be with the Pope. Until then…we remain faithful to the Church of the Saints…not the Church of Modernism.

        Reply
      • What if the “Bishop of Rome”, is a heretic? Doctors of the Church and Common Sense say that to follow such a man is heretical and a mortal sin. Follow Christ and the Church/Mass of all time, that guaranteed by St Pius V, not a man the world calls Pope. When Christ sees fit to restore a Catholic Pope to the Papacy, every Traditional Catholic will follow. Until then…….

        Reply
    • You’re obsessed with “licit.”

      I’m guessing you’d have no problem with a Cardinal Marx, et al because their Masses are licit.

      Who is the Pharisee here?

      Reply
  12. In further response to Guest, a friend asked what the difference would be between a Mass where those in the state of mortal sin were allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament (desecration of the Eucharist) and a Black Mass (desecration of the Eucharist).

    Reply
  13. You are not helping. Fr Z’s post gets it right. 3 days ago at a Catholic event I had the opportunity to meet and ask questions of a laywoman who together with her husband was one of the few lay auditors of the synod. She gave a fascinating, factual and insightful presentation. She said the overwhelming majority of the synod fathers did not agree with Cardinal Kasper and the German bishops. She also was able to dispel some myths that had been promoted as “evidence” of synod manipulation. The blogosphere is full of misinformation and hysteria, but I have noticed that if you listen to those with more direct and complete knowledge of the synod, reasons for a grim attitude pretty well evaporate. Listen to the bishops and not Pewsitter, if you want to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about. Those who are pondering “what to do if there are some kind of pastoral changes incompatible with infallible doctrine” are doing harm to the cause of Christ.

    Reply
    • You said Fr Z is right about the lack of schism – and yet Fr Z himself was one of the first ones to report on the Synod manipulation. And as I recall his source was a personal contact INSIDE the Synod. And secondly, according to the journalist Sandro Magister:

      “On communion for the divorced and remarried, it is already known how the pope thinks.
      As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the “curas villeros,” the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away,
      even without those “penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop” projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out.”

      Now Francis is familiar with this story and he never denied it. And if all this ISN’T the case – then what exactly was the point to the Synod in the first place?

      Reply
    • The cause of Christ is advanced when the laity have their ears and eyes wide open and actualise their Conformational DUTY to defend the Faith. They too have a DUTY to teach and defend the church according to their state in life.

      That this is an official teaching (See Pope Leo XII) should be known by all.

      Reply
    • ElizD,

      On the contrary, what really won’t help is burying our collective heads in the sand.

      If you realize there’s an intruder in your house, do you simply turn up the TV and hum a little tune? Maybe if you don’t pay attention, the danger will pass?

      Sadly, we don’t need an overwhelming majority to agree with Kasper and the Germans in order for their agenda to win. They have, by every appearance, the favor (or at least the permission) of the pope to do their damage. But even so, we do know that at least a simple majority voted for language that is troubling. Half a century later, the Rhine is still flowing into the Tiber.

      I also know people who were present at the synod. And I have it on good authority that some manipulations were quite obvious – among them the fact that the relatio post disceptationem was a pre-written document, translated into six languages upon its release despite allegedly being composed only hours before; and the stealing of the books from the synod fathers’ mailboxes, which everyone in Rome knows happened but nobody will talk to journalists about. Of course, Baldisseri’s own testimony of what transpired should also be taken into account.

      I have also spoken with bishops. I’ve even published the most outspoken one here. Bishop Schneider’s analysis of the synod is deadly accurate, and exactly what people need to hear: https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-against-pharisees/

      His analysis of what we should do next is similarly important: https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-battling-the-new-gnosticism/

      And he has personally told me that it’s up to us, the laity and our families, to fix the mess in the Church. We must become holy. We must inspire and support our priests. We must pray for holy popes and bishops.

      The cavalry is not coming. The Calvary is.

      Those who are pondering what to do if such things come to pass, incidentally, are not harming the cause of Christ. They are seeking guidance on how to preserve it. Priests are already being presented with people who are coming to them, saying the pope has said it’s fine for them to receive communion – despite their adulterous relationships. At the close of the second half of this synod, this problem will grow much worse.

      Humanae Vitae was almost completely undermined by a year-long media campaign saying what it WOULD say (ie., the Church was changing her teaching on contraception) before it came out; when it came out reaffirming Church teaching, the damage was done, the document had no teeth, and in pastoral applications around the world, we saw priests and bishops winking at the teaching and telling people contraception was not a sin.

      Which may just explain why over 90% of Catholics now contracept.

      But Humanae Vitae, if nothing else, was a Catholic text that made a good, if not adequate, defense of moral teachings on human sexuality.

      We aren’t likely to get another Humanae Vitae, judging on the documents and statements we’ve seen so far in this papacy. And with the world so much further gone, do we honestly believe the outcome of this situation, which is following the same gameplan as the 1960s, but with greater amplification, will have better results?

      There’s a reason why the saying goes, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

      Reply
      • It’s already beyond asking, winks, and nods, Steve. I have a relative
        in my family, who after “being divorced” from her Catholic husband, has
        been “remarried” for some 20 years. And now, with a paean of praise to
        Pope Francis and the pastorally sensitive priest who gave her the “all
        clear”, she has been receiving Holy Communion (sans decree of nullity)
        since a few months after last year’s synod. Poor souls.

        Also,
        ElizD, if the manipulation is simply about myths being told by the
        hysterical, what information did your source provide re: why Cardinal
        Pell roared that the manipulation had to stop, why the midterm report
        was released to the press before the synod fathers, and why the rejected
        sections of the midterm report still ended up in the final report?

        Reply
        • About receiving Holy Communion if divorced and civilly remarried:
          DOCTRINE of the FAITH:
          CCC: “1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions.
          In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was.
          If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law.
          Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities.
          Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ,
          and who are committed to living in complete continence. ”

          If your Sister is living in complete continence, yes she may receive the Sacraments, otherwise she is committing adultery with the valid spouse of another.
          Sounds like her Priest may have some explaining to do, unless she merely has chosen not to tell you about her private life.

          There are Catholics who have repented of their sins, and then chosen the will of God rather than their own. And they do live in complete continence.

          Reply
    • All is well. Nothing to see here.

      And your thoughts on the relatio post disceptationem? Reacting as a Catholic must do to that disgraceful document is not “hysteria”.

      Some of us are paying attention.

      Reply
    • ElizD,

      It was just the opposite, the most controversial paragraphs from the synod showing more positive attitudes towards Homosexuality, Cohabitation, and Divorce/Remarriage received a majority vote from the synod fathers. They received an over 50% majority yes vote, but those paragraphs failed to receive a two-thirds majority to pass. However, the yes vote totals were close to two-thirds majority! A majority of Catholic bishops voted yes! Only a handful of no votes kept them from almost reaching two thirds.

      Reply
      • The visible Church, the one with the buildings are no longer Catholic. How could they be with evil oozing from their pores like you just mentioned. Evil is being taught in their homosexual infested seminaries? How could a valid Priest come from such places? They are all in Schism against the Traditional Catholic Church. Leave it, it is evil, the Catholic Church still exists but must be found out in the desert not in the modernist churches where the “Priest” faces the congregation.

        Reply
  14. Just as an aside, I’d like to say that this site has become one of my favorite go-to Catholic sites after discovering it only in the last month or so. I forget what led me here but I quickly bookmarked it after reading a few articles and now I stop by daily to see if there’s anything new posted. Great writing on important topics from obviously Traditional-minded Catholics; well done, all of you. May God Bless your work and never stop writing the Truth.

    Reply
  15. Greetings, Mr. Christopher Ferrara. I am a diocesan Catholic priest from Spain, who also lived in the United States. Honoured to be among Steve Skojec’s OnePeterFive team. Just wanted to let you know how I deeply admire your forthrightness in everything you do for Holy Mother Church. When you team up with Michael Matt at The Remnant, you make an awesome duo! I have recently discovered your contributions in The Fatima Center. So, please accept my heartfelt congratulations and encouragement for your steadfast apostolate, that I’d like to extend to Mr. Matt. With my priestly blessing from Spain: +Father José Miguel Marqués Campo

    Reply
    • Father, thank you so much. When a member of the sacred priesthood sees some merit in my work, I am greatly encouraged to continue. I hope you can find a place for me in your prayers and Mass intentions.

      Reply
      • Indeed so, Mr. Ferrara! I do keep you all in my prayers and Mass intentions… especially since I’m the bishop-appointed Chaplain of the Traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Oviedo (province of Asturias, northwestern coast of Spain, where the Catholic Reconquista began in the early VIII century!) Please consider me as your staunchest ally who would most gladly welcome a visit! God willing, perhaps one day… In the meantime, we’ll see each other over the Internet. God bless! +Father JM

        Reply
  16. The problem with schism, and with SSPX, is that in leaving the Church they make the enemies job easier. Our Holy Father has over the course of a few brief years dis-abused me of any remnants of ultramontanism, but despite this fact, orthodox Christians can not help but acknowledge the Petrine ministry and its integral importance in the plan of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our enemy, knows this too! He tried schism and achieved many divisions in the Church…and some individuals still fall into that trap…but a victim of his own success in causing so many divisions the enemy has undermined whatever credibility schism may have ever held. Yet despite this Peter still calls people back into unity, even in spite of the man in the office. Thus the forces of the enemy have spent the last half century trying to undermine Peter himself, or at least create chaos aboard the Bark of Peter. Our Lord promises that the gates of hell will no prevail…but this does not mean they will not try. Placing yourself formally outside of the Church means that you can no longer engage the enemy where he has brought the battle, inside the Church. And so while de facto schism exists already orthodox Christians can not schism against the Church even when it seems as if the Church has been taken over by schismatics.

    Reply
    • The holy Father you speak of IS the heretic. He has the buildings but HE and his followers are outside the Church. He denies many dogmas of the Faith, ergo is no longer even a member of the faith. Therefore he can not be the legitimate head of a body of which he is no longer a member. Check your premises, Benedict commits a new heresy virtually every day, yet you still consider him a valid Pope. I wish it were so, but I look at the Church, and everything in life as they are , not as I wish they were,

      Reply
  17. Divorced, ‘Remarried’

    Subject: Francis: ‘Church must welcome gays, divorced’

    I’m not sure where Mr. Bergoglio has been for the past 50 years…. Apparently he is not familiar with the Vatican II sect in the United States. (That being the case, one wonders how he has “ascended” the “ranks” to become pope, when he doesn’t even know what’s going on!) I know of divorced people (and “remarried” people) who were / are “lectors,” “Eucharistic ministers,” godparents, Sunday school teachers, etc. at the local Vatican II “parish” in my area… Can you imagine a true pope (e.g. Pius V, Pius X) ever “acknowledging the positive aspects of open dissent” about homosexuality? It’s amazing that people would still consider this man a Catholic, let alone a pope. When are you “traditionalists” going to learn that it is over? You have been at it for 50 years now and things are only getting worse. It is time to seriously start thinking about becoming Eastern Orthodox. That is the road I am headed down. I have never once heard any of this garbage in the Orthodox Church in the entire time I have been attending it. They are true to their convictions and have every bit as much a claim to being the true Church as Rome. (More so in my estimation.) Stop beating your heads against the wall. It hurts! +FND

    Reply
  18. Divorced, ‘Remarried’

    Subject: Francis: ‘Church must welcome gays, divorced’

    I’m not sure where Mr. Bergoglio has been for the past 50 years…. Apparently he is not familiar with the Vatican II sect in the United States. (That being the case, one wonders how he has “ascended” the “ranks” to become pope, when he doesn’t even know what’s going on.) I know of divorced people (and “remarried” people) who were / are “lectors,” “Eucharistic ministers,” godparents, Sunday school teachers, etc. at the local Vatican II “parish” in my area… Can you imagine a true pope (e.g. Pius V, Pius X) ever “acknowledging the positive aspects of open dissent” about homosexuality? It’s amazing that people would still consider this man a Catholic, let alone a pope. When are you “Traditionalists” going to learn? You have been at this for 50 years now and things are only getting worse. It is time to look at becoming Eastern Orthodox. That is the path that I am on. In all the time I have been attending, I have never been subjected to any of this garbage. They have just as much a claim to being the true Church as Rome does. (More so in my estimation.) Stop beating your head against the wall. It hurts! +FND

    Reply
  19. We have the power to fight this, folks! It’s called prayer, penance, and sacrifice! I recall the story of a young monk, centuries ago, who sought out advice from an old, holy monk. He asked him, during the course of their discussion, if the faithful in future ages would be able to pray through the night and fast for days like they did. The old monk thought about it, and said, no, future faithful would scarcely be able to pray for one hour, or fast for one day. But, he said, “But, they will be greater than us, because we fight Satan chained. They, will fight Satan unchainged!”

    Reply
  20. We laity have the tools to help this situation out greatly! It’s called prayer, penance, and sacrifice!

    I recall the story of a young monk, some centuries ago, who sought out the advice of an old, holy hermit monk who lived in the desert. He asked, “Father, will future generations of the faithful pray through the night like we do? And will they fast for days, like we do?”

    The old monk looked at him and said, “My son, future generations of the faithful will scarcely be able to pray for one hour, or fast for one day. Yet, they will be greater than us, because we fight Satan chained. They, will fight Satan unchained!”

    Reply
  21. Francis is the False Prophet and the Schism is inevitable. Too simple. Too tragic. But deserved, for our apostasy and disobedience. All that needed to be done was a consecration to Russia by a real Pope in union with the Bishops but that simple act was too complicated for minds too bent on not offending the Red Dragon. Now its up to Divine Justice- times up.

    Reply
  22. “Only one offence is now vigorously punished,—an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries, and transported into deserts. The people are in lamentation, in continual tears at home and abroad. There is a cry in the city, a cry in the country, in the roads, in the deserts. Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up, our altars deprived of the spiritual worship.” Ep. 243.

    This is where we have stood since Vatican II when the synthesis of all error was deemed Catholic. The Popes since Vatican II are the heretics, every one save possibly JP I? Those following heretical Popes, and blasphemous masses are the heretics, a great many unwittingly. The rest of us Catholics, whom are considered by the Novus Ordo to be in schism, go to Mass “out in the deserts” [VFW Halls, garages] . We are NOT the heretics. I continue to pray for the just who are too timid to stand up to heretical “leaders”. Make the final step …when Christ sees fit to return Rome to Catholicism we’ll all go back to Rome. As Ann B puts it, we really don’t deserve God’s blessing…..but pray we will.

    Reply
  23. I needed to re-read this. Glad I did, what, 6 months after it was published with the sin-nod in its 3rd week. Even more important now than it was then. Thank you Steve, and may God Almighty keep you and bless you in abundance.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...