Bishop Athanasius Schneider: The Synod on the Family & The New Pharisees…

Bishop SneiderIn fact the bishops who support Holy Communion for “divorced remarried” are the new Pharisees and Scribes because they neglect the commandment of God, contributing to the fact that out of the body and of the heart of the “divorced remarried” continue to “proceed adulteries” (Math 15: 19), because they want an exteriorly “clean” solution and to appear “clean” as well in the eyes of those who have power (the social media, public opinion). However when they eventually appear at the tribunal of Christ, they will surely hear to their dismay these words of Christ: “Why are you declaring my statutes and taking my covenant in your mouth? Seeing you hate instruction, and cast my words behind you, … when you have been partaker with adulterers” (Ps 50 (49): 16-18).  Read more

Comment

Is Bishop Schneider correct to be so outspoken in his criticism of the Synod bishops?  Isn’t he failing in “charity”?  Does he risk developing a “schismatic mindset”?  Is he likely to be “re-assigned” soon? Wouldn’t he be wiser to remain silent and simply pray at this time?  Comments invited.

98 responses

  1. Yes, God will certainly bless Bishop Schneider and the other bishops who are defending the Faith under attack, if rather late in the day. It took this synod to bring most of them out of the woodwork but, better late than never. Maybe now they will waken up to the root causes of this attack on the moral order.

    And if only the Catholic press would report the facts about the state of the Church honestly, more lights would switch on in more Catholic lay heads – there will be many Catholics in the pews ignorant of what even the secular press are now recognising as a “Catholic civil war” – read more

  2. Yes, he’s a courageous man. I wonder to what outpost he will be banished although it would be difficult to find one remoter than where he presently is!

    Is there any way of discovering who voted for what at the synod? I don’t know how many of the UK bishops were present but do we know how the ones that did attend voted? I’d love to know how Cardinal Nichols voted, for example. Also Archbishop Tartaglia although I can’t believe he would agree with the drastic changes proposed.

    • Olaf,

      As far as I know Cardinal Nichols was the only British Bishop in attendance at the Synod, and he was for the pro-Kasper camp. In fact, if I recall correctly from an interview he gave afterwards, he said he was of a mind to vote no for the controversial proposals because he didn’t think they went far enough. Woeful indeed, but there it is.

        • Gabriel Syme,

          It would be wonderful if you (and others) would write to ask the Archbishop how he voted at the Synod. A reply along the lines of “I don’t need to tell YOU…” blah blah would tell us all we need to know.

          Not to pressurise anyone, but here is the postal address for the Archbishop of Glasgow, in case some of you decide to take the bull by the horns: I would write myself but he fobs me off. Thinks I’m daft. See if I care 😦

          Most Rev. Philip Tartaglia
          Archbishop of Glasgow
          52 St Andrew’s Drive
          GLASGOW
          G41 5HF

        • Gabriel Syme

          Many thanks for the update. I didn’t know that Cardinal Nichols was accompanied by Archbishop Tartaglia.

    • Olaf,

      Nichols is a disgrace and would doubtless have backed “Franny and the Kasperites” to the hilt.

      As Athanasius says, when Nichols returned from the synod he was full of chat about how the heterodox relatio document “didn’t go far enough”.

      ‘Nuff said.

      As for ++Tartaglia – well, he previously made a decent fist of standing up for marriage in Scotland.

      However, my fear with any ‘mainstream’ (if you will) Bishop – other than the likes of +Schneider, who are few and far between – is the temptation to careerism and so conformity.

      I cant remember where, but I read a good article recently expressing disgust at over half the Bishops at the synod voting for heterodox statements – it went on to criticise them as conformists who stand for nothing.

  3. The bishop is correct. He should not let himself fall into the trap that uses the “kindler, gentler” ploy to portray advocates of time-honored tradition as narrow-minded or unwelcoming of sinners to the discussion table. It is a clever trap, and we should develop defenses that not only declare the truth, but point out the fallacies in the opponents’ arguments.

  4. Athanasius, as we now know, thanks to gabriel syme, that Archbishop Tartaglia was indeed at the Synod, is there any way of finding out how he voted?

    • Olaf,

      As I’ve just written above in response to Gabriel Syme, you could write and ask him how he voted:

      Most Rev. Philip Tartaglia
      Archbishop of Glasgow
      52 St Andrew’s Drive
      GLASGOW
      G41 5HF

      That would be great.

      Was nice knowing you 😀

        • Olaf,

          You’ll probably get an email address from the Archdiocesan website. Just Google ‘Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow’ and see what comes back.

      • Editor,

        These Bishops are all falling back on the old “anonymity’ chestnut, when asked how they voted. So if anyone gets a “can’t tell you how I voted, it was confidential” response to their enquiry, they should know that this means the bishop voted against the Commandments of God.

        • Athanasius,

          “So if anyone gets a “can’t tell you how I voted, it was confidential” response to their enquiry, they should know that this means the bishop voted against the Commandments of God.”

          That’s exactly what I meant when I said “that would tell us all we need to know” (if they refuse, on any pretext, to say how they voted.)

  5. If only, if only we had more bishops like bishop Schneider the Church would be in such a better state. Still, we must remember that way back in the 400’s or so the whole episcopy, including the Pope, apostatised except one: Athanasius. There’s hope still!

  6. Bravo Bishop Schneider! I am so glad that bishops like him and Cardinal Burke are speaking out to criticise the dissenters in the Synod. But I still find it incredible that so many lay people just refuse to believe what is happening. One of my friends keeps blaming the media! I’m just lost for words.

    • I’m really sorry to be so blunt about your friend, but anyone who blames the media for the synod at this point in time, when it is well recorded who said what and that the Pope refuses to say whether he agrees with the dissenters or not, is just plain thick.

      • Lily

        Bishop Schneider wasn’t blaming the media exclusively for the Synod, he was pointing out that it is on the side of the rebel prelates. We’ve all heard and read media reports over the years portraying Catholic moral teaching as out of date. Its coverage of the Synod was along the same lines. I think that speaks for itself.

        Still, if Francis was a little more frank about his intentions with this Synod then the media wouldn’t have had such a field day speculating and pouring out one sided reports.

      • Lily,

        Ignore my last comments. I assumed you were referring to Bishop Schneider when, of course, you were not. I should have read Margaret Mary’s post a little more carefully. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

      • Margaret Mary & Lily,

        Oddly enough, today’s inbox brought an email from one of our readers, in which she forwarded an article from a website called These Stone Walls. The article is entitled “Pope Francis & The Scandal of Listening” and pushes the idea that all dear old Holy Father Francis was doing at the Synod was “listening” to ideas, he being so open minded and only concerned for the good of souls blah blah. But for the bad old media, the writer insisted, none of the upset would have happened.

        Brain dead and then some. Why on earth do these people prefer to make it up as they go along, instead of facing the truth? Who do they think they’re fooling? Do they think Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke and the African bishop (and others) who have spoken out to express concerns, are all bad guys, looking to harm the Church? Haven’t they noticed that Pope Francis did not respond to Cardinal Burke’s plea to make his position known in the face of the world wide focus on Cardinal Kasper’s scandalous attempts to legitimise adultery? That is, his only response was to sack Cardinal Burke. Yet more Papa Francis “mercy”.

        So I sympathise with your incredulity, Margaret Mary and I agree with your assessment, Lily. I really don’t like to say it, at least not in public, but I do think you’re onto something basic when you speak of an apparent lack of intelligence in those who still refuse to acknowledge the worsening crisis in the Church and choose, instead, to shoot the messengers, including the media. Crazy.

  7. if Francis was a little more frank – love it!
    Don’t you think Frank’s intentions are obvious?. Didn’t he tell some youngsters to ‘make a mess’ in their dioceses? Well his intention with this synod is clearly to make a mess in the Church, and he’s doing it very well.

    • Christina,

      He wasn’t too crazy about Cardinal Burke when he “made a mess” at the Synod. Very selective, is Papa Francis, about the type of “mess” to be made. Very selective indeed.

  8. I was delighted to see this interview by Bishop Schneider, hits every nail on the head. St Joseph would be proud of him! We badly need courageous Bishops to hammer the heretics.

    I think it matters not where a Bishop may be banished to now. The Internet has changed that calculus. Anyone can get their point across one way or the other now.

    God bless Bishop Schneider and Burke and all those who stood up for Christ at that shocking synod

  9. I wouldn’t want to say anything politically incorrect, but one famous person I read said that “One sparrow doesn’t make a Springtime, but one heresy makes a heretic.”

    • Dale Thorn,

      I don’t know why your comment went into moderation so apologies for the delay in publishing it. I can only repeat that, in my experience, the mysteries of technology are far more difficult to comprehend than any mystery of faith!

  10. I’ve just been rereading Bp Schneider’s statement and the more I read it the more remarkable it gets.

    Notice that he doesn’t stop at calling the ideas of the Kasper faction heresy but speaks instead of ‘a radical neo-pagan ideology’, ‘transgressing thereby the commandment of God‘ and ‘no scruples to pervert in a Gnostic manner‘. In other words, not only are their ideas un-Catholic they aren’t even recognizably Christian!

    That in the very bosom of the Church, there are people who undermine the teaching of Our Lord became an obvious fact and one for the whole world to see…

    Well, actually, it’s been obvious for a long time but perhaps, now it’s so blatant, the ‘can’t see, won’t see’ brigade will finally come to their senses.

    • CD,

      I’m afraid the “can’t see, won’t see” brigade WON’T come to their senses. As pointed out elsewhere on this thread, there are still numpties who think the media mis-reported the synod and (more or less) made the whole thing up.

      Gimme strength.

  11. As much as I hold Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider in high esteem, it should be said in all honesty that it’s not before time they and other prelates started to speak out for the faith. Good men that they are, they have not always appreciated the stance taken by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX because neither has the insight into the root cause of this present crisis that this great servant of the Church had.

    It seems now they have been obliged to open their eyes to that logical development of conciliar Modernist reform that the Archbishop warned of forty years ago, which is, as St. Pius X clearly delineated in Pascendi, the “evolution” (read destruction) of Catholic liturgy, dogma, doctrine and morals.

    Pope Francis is the first fully Modernist Pope the Church has had and he intends to carry Vatican II to its full conclusion, which is to transform our divinely instituted religion into a “human Church.” He is presently carrying out his designs relatively unopposed by a majority in the hierarchy, who should also be speaking out.

    This is not to say that Pope Francis is willfully destroying the Faith. No, I firmly believe he is convinced of his cause, certain that what he is doing is perfectly good and pleasing to God. However, the fact of His Holiness’ personal heresy is there for all to see and it needs to be countered vigorously by his confreres. There is no love of Pope or Papacy in those who permit a Pontiff to continue in his errors to the great detriment of the Church and the Faith. Those who go along with Francis for whatever reason, false obedience, fear of losing their position, fear of persecution or whatever, are not worthy of the sacred offices they hold. They are, in fact, deserters of duty, men who value human respect above obedience to God.

    As usual, it is left to the faithful to gather around a very small number of prelates who value their salvation above human respect and who consequently play the part of St. Paul in respectfully resisting Peter to his face. The rest just go along to get along, as was the case with 4th century Arianism.

    • Athanasius,

      “This is not to say that Pope Francis is wilfully destroying the Faith. No, I firmly believe he is convinced of his cause, certain that what he is doing is perfectly good and pleasing to God.”

      That, in a nutshell, is the precise nature of the “diabolical disorientation” foretold at Fatima.

      As for the rest of your post – on the button. Spot on. I agree. Who could disagree? Well said. Couldn’t have put it better myself. And, as I said once to a priest who’d preached a terrific sermon about Hell: “I hope you got through to those blighters…They really needed to hear [read] that…” 😀

  12. Here’s a gem from Dici – a short comment from Fr Lorains that says it all…

    On October 14, 2014, Bishop Marcello Semeraro, the Ordinary of the Diocese of Albano (Italy), notified the people of his diocese that since the Society of Saint Pius X was not “an institution of the Catholic Church”, they must not attend its chapels so as not to break communion with the Church. On October 30 the District of Italy of the Society responded properly. On November 3, Bishop Oscar Sarlinga, Ordinary of Zárate-Campana (Argentina) decreed that Catholics in his diocese are not allowed to take part in a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X or to receive any sacrament from him, and he even brandished a threat of excommunication.

    In October, Father Wendelin Bucheli, pastor in Bürglen (Switzerland) blessed a partnership between two women, acknowledging that the recent Synod on the Family had reassured him in his decision. It is not forbidden to attend his Mass, nor to receive the sacraments from his hands. No threat of excommunication is weighing on him. The Synod helped him to understand the “positive values” of the homosexual partnership….

    On October 30, in an interview granted to the Spanish newspaper Vida Nueva, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, expressed the “truth that many people sense today. They are suffering from a bit of seasickness, because, in their opinion, the ship of the Church has lost its compass.” The prelate even speaks about a “moment so critical that there is a strong feeling that the Church is like a rudderless ship.”

    The dismay of those souls is understandable, since nowadays in order to be considered models of “positive values” you have to be divorced-and-remarried or homosexual partners, and the only ones threatened with excommunication are the priests and faithful who are devoted to the two-thousand-year Tradition, that compass and rudder in the storm, when “the boat is taking on water on every side”.

    Father Alain Lorans

    Source

  13. Bishop Schneider is not being uncharitable at all. He is not speaking with this tone to berate people, or to insult or denigrate them, he is doing his Christian duty and fulfilling the third Spiritual Work of Mercy, which is to ‘admonish sinners’. As it says in Matthew 18:15-18- But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

    ‘And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican’.

    It also say in Titus 3:10-11- A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. (Bishop Challoner notes: By his own judgment: Other offenders are judged, and cast out of the church, by the sentence of the pastors of the same church. Heretics, more unhappy, run out of the church of their own accord, and by doing so, give judgment and sentence against their own souls.

    +Athanasius Schneider seems ‘extreme’ by today’s standards (or indeed lack of them), but in reality he being nothing more than a good Traditionalist Catholic, which is why he seems controversial. The same applies to +Burke.

    • Catholic Convert,

      Nobody has said (or thinks) that Bishop Schneider is being uncharitable. Quite the reverse. He’s been praised to the skies on this blog.

      However, good as Bishop Schneider is (ditto Cardinal Burke) he has not yet (as Athanasius intimates) travelled the full “traditional” road to acknowledge the root case of the crisis in the Church. He, and the other bishops who opposed Cardinal Kasper’s attack on the natural moral order, God’s moral law, are still quite content with the majority of the revolution in the Church – I seem to recall an interview in which Bishop Schneider praised the ecumenical movement. So, don’t let’s start calling apples, oranges.

      Great that Bishop Schneider and the other bishops who opposed Cardinal Kasper have demonstrated that they cannot tolerate such a scandal as re-writing the Ten Commandments… the natural moral order – but to call them “traditional” is to misinterpret the situation somewhat. We’re getting to the stage when a Catholic who actually believes in the existence of God, will merit the title “traditional”.

      • I think you have your feathers crossed, dearest Ed. I was not deriding or criticising any of our venerable brethren on this wee blog. I was merely addressing the second question in the blue ‘comment’ section. Now I know that was a rhetorical question.

        Have a look at this good one from 2012 concerning +Vincent Nichols: http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2012/09/marriage-preparation-for-homosexual-couples.html

        Now we know why he voted for Kasper’s side. Yet when the government did same sex ‘marriage, Nichols was dead-set against it?? I always thought he went both ways.

        • CC,

          The story you linked just shows the duplicity of some of the Catholic hierarchy. Bishops like these should be defrocked.

        • Silly me, CC, silly me. Apologies! I’d forgotten about my “blue” comment! What am I LIKE? (Now, that definitely IS a rhetorical question!)

          I agree with Athanasius about the duplicity of certain members of the hierarchy – the linked article which you kindly posted, is a prime example. Thank you for alerting us to it.

            • CC,

              I have certainly been told I’m a “cheeky chap-ess” – that I must admit 😀

              And the bad news just keeps rolling in… here’s the latest and, as if to underline comments already made on this thread about the numpty laity who just cannot see the truth staring them in the face, don’t miss the comments by “Anonymous” at the end of the article. Anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit picked this pope really does have to see someone. Preferably me. For five minutes. Any day, any time, any town, anywhere… Just five minutes.

              Tell you what, though, and I often think this when visiting the sites with the up to date news. The blog owners certainly keep us up to date with the news but for quality bloggers, one has to turn to Catholic Truth – she said in all humility. At time of writing this, for example, there has been no correction to the rubbish spouted by the defenders of the indefensible. Five minutes, that’s all I ask. Five. Minutes.

              • I wonder if he is a Freemason like his idol, Mgr. Bugnini? This Pope is truly diabolical. I can’t help but remember what Bishop Fellay said about Benedict XVI slowing down the crisis, as if one were falling from a plane with a parachute, whereas Francis has jumped, but cut the strings. I really want to know who came up with the idea that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope? Was this thought prior to the Council? Also, is Francis worse liturgically than Paul VI- i.e. what were Paul’s Masses like in Rome?

  14. Editor,

    You have addressed, what I think is a very real source of confusion in the Church today, how ‘good’ priests (like Fr. Guarnizo) and bishops like Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke, inadvertently add to existing chaos and mess by their refusal/unwillingness to acknowledge the root cause of the crisis in the Church. One does not harvest fruit that is at times poisonous and at other times good, from the same tree! It would take an extraordinary gardener to explain this extraordinary tree. 😀

    • Jobstears,

      It is always disappointing when the few priests who speak out on various moral issues and even in defence of the TLM (Fr Guarnizo offers it) show that they have imbibed other, if not most, of the errors of Vatican II.

      Very disappointing. If you ever find that “extraordinary gardener” pass on his phone number! I’d like a personal explanation!

    • Lily,

      I was not aware of the financial link to the sacraments in Germany. But church tax also made the bbc news, see link.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19699581

      Hypocrisy indeed by Cardinal Kaspar/German bishops where there is a push for allowing Communion for the divorced and those “remarried”.

      It is law apparently in Germany to register their religion be it catholic, protestant or whatever, so that the portion of 8 or 9% goes to the relative denominations. The only ones exempt are those who register as atheist.

      This tax break for the Catholic Church in Germany does not warrant Catholics being deprived or even a Catholic burial, because they do wish to pay the “church tax”. Where is the proof that those people are not willing to pay tithes straight to the Catholic Church?

      • Theresa Rose (& Lily)

        Like you I hate to see people deprived of the sacraments without good reason but I think the Church in Germany does have a good reason in this case.

        The only way out of the Kirchensteuer is to make a solemn declaration before a state official to the effect that ‘I am no longer a Catholic’ (or Lutheran etc). Now when you approach the sacraments you are implicitly declaring that ‘I am a Catholic’. Clearly, one of these two statements must be a lie and the Church can hardly condone lying.

        The right move would be to campaign for the repeal of the tax but that would be like expecting politicians to vote themselves a pay cut – not happening any time soon!

        • Confitebor Domino

          I’m shocked that the Church authorities in Germany ever signed up to such a disgraceful arrangement with the German government in the first place. If I remember correctly, Adolph Hitler initially imposed this tax on religious practice, presumably with the intention of tempting souls to give up their religion. That it is still in existence in Germany and approved by the Church there, which should have said no to it at the end of the war, is shocking.

          What’s even more shocking is that the Jews themselves appear to have gone along with this Hitler-imposed system of taxation which also affects them. I can’t believe this kind of thing is still going on in Germany, of all places!

          Imagine taxing people to worship God! Our Lord will deal with those temple money changers in due course, I have no doubt.

          • Athanasius

            I don’t think the Church did sign up to the system it was simply imposed by the state. The only choice is whether to collect the tax yourself or have the state do it for you – for a fee of course. Presumably the hierarchy considers the collection fees charged by the state to be worthwhile.

            The Kirchensteuer in Germany dates from the nineteenth century and was enshrined in the Weimar constitution. It was imposed in Austria by Hitler and that country opted to retain it after liberation.

            According to Wikipedia the logic behind it is:

            The church tax is historically rooted in the pre-Christian Germanic custom where the chief of the tribe was directly responsible for the maintenance of priests and religious cults. During the Christianization of Western Europe, this custom was adopted by the Christian churches (Arian and Catholic) in the concept of “Eigenkirchen” (churches owned by the landlord) which stood in strong contrast to the central church organization of the Roman Catholic Church. Despite the resulting medieval conflict between emperor and pope, the concept of church maintenance by the ruler remained the accepted custom in most Western European countries. In Reformation times, the local princes in Germany became officially heads of the church in Protestant areas and were legally responsible for the maintenance of churches. Not until the 19th century were the finances of churches and state regulated to a point where the churches became financially independent. At this point the church tax was introduced to replace the state benefits the churches had obtained previously. (emphasis added)

            Several other countries have similar arrangements, including Italy.

            In all honesty, I don’t see why this is a problem for the faithful in these countries. All they need to do is adjust the amount they put in the collection plate to allow for what they are already paying to the Church via the tax. We are, after all, obliged to support our pastors.

            • Confitebor Domino

              Thank you for clarifying the origin of the Church tax in Germany, I was not aware that it goes as far back as the 19th century.

              My problem with this tax is that it is State imposed, which seems to me to be a breaching of boundaries on the part of the State. I’m surprised the Church accepted such an imposition. I am also concerned about that recent change to the Church tax law to include mandatory taxation on Capital Gains. It seems that banks wrote to all church-going customers to advise that they would have to pay extra tax on Capital Gains, such as pensioner investment income. I just can’t see Our Lord being pleased with so incredible as setup as “pay or stay away.” The Church has always left it to the faithful to contribute what they can afford. As far as I’m concerned, the German hierarchy has turned the Church in Germany into a profit making enterprise.

              They should read and digest the Gospel account of the poor woman who contributed only a mite to the Temple Corbona (collection) while the wealthy put in vast sums of money. It was the poor woman Our Lord singled out as having put in more than the rest. I don’t think this is the way the German bishops would view it today under their system. They would probably excommunicate her. No, these Churchmen need a very brisk reminder of what the Church is and why it was instituted by Our Lord.

              • Athanasius,

                I totally agree with you about this Church tax – it’s disgraceful.

                The fact is, the Church in Germany is corrupt – some aspects of which we discussed quite recently on this blog.

                This article seems to give a fairly concise history of the state of the Church in Germany, although I’ve not read it right through. What I did read, however, made me want to canonise the entire cohort of Scots Bishops, so you can imagine that it does not make happy reading.

  15. Jobstears,

    One does not harvest fruit that is at times poisonous and at other times good, from the same tree!

    Substitute ‘rotten’ (Christ’s word) for ‘poisonous’ and the metaphor fails. Any good gardener WILL pick up rotten fruit and good fruit from the same tree – the former having been attacked by worms or similar causes extraneous to the good tree itself. The parable that you’re thinking of warns the faithful to beware of ‘false prophets’, who are likened to ‘rotten trees’ – human individual ‘prophets’ (teachers), who preach and write heresy. I don’t think it bears the interpretation that, carried to its logical conclusion, is schismatic, tending to the view that the entire mainstream Church is a rotten tree, which cannot be the case. The parable of the cockle and wheat teaches the same lesson – that good and evill elements in the Church will co-exist until the end of time and we have to distinguish between them and be certain that we stay with the wheat.

    I find it difficult to express the reservations I have to the way in which the likes of Bishop Schneider, and any other priest or prelate who speaks out strongly against various manifestations of the present diabolical disorientation of the Church, are often judged on this blog. It has been suggested, whenever this sort of subject crops up, that they are not true traditionalists unless they ‘go the whole hog’ by which, presumably, is meant ‘joining the SSPX’. This, if one is not careful and precise, suggests a schismatic mentality, although I don’t for one moment imagine that this is in any traditional bloggers’ hearts..

    In the so-far-failed and halted talks between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican, I understand that two Constitutions of Vatican II were to be revisited and their errors corrected in the light of tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay do not go any further, and SSPX priests have never in my hearing done so.

    We cannot know the motives of Archbishop Schneider and others who seem to see the whole sorry mess that ravening wolves have made in the Church for what it is, but don’t get out and join the SSPX, but I can well imagine that they understand that they can do great good in the situation in which they find themselves. I disagree that they ‘add to the chaos’. On the contrary, I think that they are beacons for those faithful who are longing for light. I pray that God will give them strength to continue and ‘not flee for fear of the wolves’.

    • Christina,

      While I can see (obviously or I wouldn’t have posted a thread in praise of Bishop Schneider) that those bishops who are speaking out about some aspects of the crisis in the Church obviously do some good, they are, I think quite obviously, overall, adding to the chaos. Definitely.

      The reason I say this is because Modernism, by its nature, causes confusion. I’m sure that’s spelt out somewhere in Pascendi, if not quite on every page! So, for those seeking leadership from the hierarchy in this crisis, to find a few bishops speaking out against the dissenters on one particular issue (marriage) but not on others, is confusing and most Catholics will, naturally, continue to think the other issues are not really issues at all.

      For example, Bishop Schneider is on record in support of ecumenism, and, if my (very poor) memory serves me correctly, we discovered this when one of our anything-but-traditional occasional bloggers posted a video link to make the point. In other words, she was saying “OK, so Bishop Schneider is opposed to Communion in the hand, but here he is promoting ecumenism, so if he’s right on the former, why not the latter?” Confusion into chaos, all the way. This Synod has been useful only because it has spurred a few bishops into drawing a line in the sand. They publicly said, in effect, we cannot re-write the Ten Commandments. But for the fact that we have been starved of episcopal leadership at ANY level until now, Archbishop Lefebvre excepted, we’d have thought it ludicrous that any bishop had to say as much. I recently heard someone praising a dentist (not mine, happily) whom I know to be extremely inefficient and so I was amazed to hear him praised to the skies by a friend. When I said so, she replied “but my previous dentist was horrendous.” That’s the position we are in now. We are praising Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke to the skies for defending the Ten Commandments, against a background of over fifty years with no episcopal leadership of the orthodox (let alone traditional) variety. Who’d have thought the Church would ever be in such a state, that we are virtually canonising two prelates for doing little more than defending the Ten Commandments?

      Nobody said those outspoken (on marriage) bishops need to “join the SSPX” but they SHOULD be openly supportive of the Society. That would make their position logical. As it is, we’re in the same position as those defend abortion on the grounds that if a woman is only “a little bit pregnant” it’s OK. Being orthodox on some teachings and not on others, is causing confusion to the point where many of the “mainstream” commentators (like Catholic Culture and I dare say Voris, although I don’t know, haven’t see any of his stuff for a while) are blaming the media for creating a fuss when there is no real problem with the Synod. They couldn’t do that if these same bishops said, unequivocally, “enough is enough. We’ve protestantised the Church. Time to restore the Faith, beginning with the Hoy Sacrifice of the Mass.” First of all, of course, they would need to tell the “be careful not to alienate anyone… you want to win people around” brigade to take a hike.

      Finally, it is most unjust to say that we, on this blog, say these bishops are not “true traditionalists” unless they “go the whole hog which presumably means joining the SSPX”.

      You are correct about “going the whole hog” but that means, as intimated above, defending ALL the teachings of the Church under attack right now, not just the attack on marriage which took place openly at the recent synod, gravely serious though that be.

      The reason we are “pro-SSPX” on this blog, is precisely because it is ONLY the SSPX which is defending ALL the teachings of the Church, the entire Tradition of the Church.

      Those who wish to support the other semi-traditional societies, those which offer the TLM with diocesan approval (which means they don’t rock any ecumenical and interfaith boats, and that they go along with the “spirit of Vatican II” – or else) are free to do so. Up here in Glasgow we have a saying which asks the rhetorical question: “who chooses mince when he could be eating steak?”

      So, in summary, all due credit to those bishops who have gone against the tide at the Synod. But what do they believe about all the other errors permeating the Church today? For them to act as true “beacons”, they need to be able to lead the faithful away from ALL the errors of Vatican II and its aftermath. Being a little bit orthodox is not the answer, even if it halts the march of the rebels, a bit, as happened at the “Cardinal Kasper Synod”. But more is required. Much more. “The whole hog” in fact. These bishops need to follow the Gospel injunction to let their “yes” mean “yes” and their “no” mean “no.” Everything else, we are taught, comes from the Evil One.

  16. Christina,

    When I talked about poisonous fruit in my feeble metaphor, I was simple likening Vatican II (not the Church) to the tree :D.

    I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was being critical of the good priests who speak up – I am not. I believe they are doing some good, but given the present state of the Church, for good priests to speak up without also pointing to the source of the problem is simply to apply a band-aid, a temporary cure.

    I don’t think for a priest to be a traditionalist he has to join the SSPX, but he has to be able to guide the laity who are looking for answers and he can’t do that if , for whatever reason he i) is not bothered enough by the crisis to look for answers and/or ii) he feels bound to never criticize Vatican II. And by criticize, I do not mean an emotional or belligerent response, the simple truth would suffice. I’ve watched a ‘good’ priest go through marvellous mental contortions as he tries to justify ecumenism and still hold that indifferentism is a sin, when it would have sufficed for him to point out what the Church has always taught about ecumemism. But he didn’t. The same priest invites families to the TLM while holding that the NO is every bit as good, and simply because V II says so, would you care to bet whether that family has come back to the TLM? This is what I meant by good priests adding to the confusion.

  17. Jobstears,

    “I’ve watched a ‘good’ priest go through marvellous mental contortions as he tries to justify ecumenism and still hold that indifferentism is a sin, when it would have sufficed for him to point out what the Church has always taught about ecumenism. But he didn’t. The same priest invites families to the TLM while holding that the NO is every bit as good, and simply because V II says so, would you care to bet whether that family has come back to the TLM? This is what I meant by good priests adding to the confusion.”

    I wish I’d read your post before answering Christina’s – you’ve said exactly what I was trying to say only better and in fewer words. I have to admit, that those who accuse me of never using two words when twenty will do, are (I’m ashamed to say) absolutely correct!

    • Editor,

      If you’d used two words instead of twenty, my little arsenal for defense of Tradition would never grow!

      “Modernism, by its nature, causes confusion…. So, for those seeking leadership from the hierarchy in this crisis, to find a few bishops speaking out against the dissenters on one particular issue (marriage) but not on others, is confusing and most Catholics will, naturally, continue to think the other issues are not really issues at all”.

      And “For them to act as true “beacons”, they need to be able to lead the faithful away from ALL the errors of Vatican II and its aftermath. Being a little bit orthodox is not the answer”.
      Exactly!

  18. Bah!. I’ve just written another post in answer to Jobstears, but it dropped off the screen! Don’t say ‘Phew, that’s a relief’ too soon, as I might have another go tomorrow.

      • Jobstears – shortlived!

        I am a longtime SSPX Sunday Mass attendee (and sometimes on other days) – so please believe me when I say I understand perfectly why you think as you do about the subject we were discussing, when I was so cruelly thwarted by an angel of light or darkness – I know not which. And in an ideal world every bishop and priest who has educated himself about how Vat.II was conducted, manipulated, sowed with time-bombs, based on the theology of modernist and therefore heretical theologians, etc., he would show a clean pair of heels and knock on the nearest SSPX priory door.

        but we are not living in an ideal world. You have given an example of the mental contortions of a ‘good’ priest, and I have met many such. But I have also met priests who didn’t have to.wriggle.. One I knew very well preached from his old copy of the diocesan pre-Vat.II ‘sermon syllabus’ which was used in his younger days by every priest in the diocese – or else! In the course of the year an adult version of the ‘Penny Catechism’ covered all the doctrines of the Church, so ecumenism was correctly described as a sin against the first Commandment – ‘taking part in the services or prayers of a false religion’. He had only fully orthodox pamphlets in his CTS rack, none of the diocesan-spewed rubbish in his porch,no invitations from ‘churches together, no collection for CAFOD, etc., etc. His parishioners formed one of the most devout and Catholic congregations I have ever seen. There have been many such priests in my experience who are, I think, pragmatists. They run their parishes and teach the faith to their flocks without raising their heads above the parapet. Again you might condemn them for this, but what if they did? One priest in the English Lake District did raise his head, and guess what happened? His erstwhile flock have now got a modernist in his place. Poor flock! Another dear and very holy Jesuit mentioned the crisis in the Church in a sermon and was prevented from preaching in the Jesuit-run church again.

        The point I am trying to make is that the Catholic laity at large knows little about the true Catholic faith – they are at the mercy of the wolves.Given also that they have been indoctrinated for years with the lie that the SSPX is schismatic, If every priest with ‘traditional’, i.e. Catholic, ideas were to join the SSPX, what would happen to those sheep?

        I think ot these priests, and at least a couple of English bishops, as ‘good trees’ in the mainstream Church, and hope and believe that slowly but surely, and by the grace of God, their sacrifices (and they are many) will bear good fruit.
        .

        • Christina,

          I agree with what you say because if all the traditional leaning priests were to speak out they’d be sent into exile. Saying that, though, I think in an ideal world more of them would show some heroism.

        • Christina,

          “…in an ideal world every bishop and priest who has educated himself about how Vat.II was conducted, manipulated, sowed with time-bombs, based on the theology of modernist and therefore heretical theologians, etc., he would show a clean pair of heels and knock on the nearest SSPX priory door.”

          It’s not so much “an ideal world” that is needed because the world was not “ideal” at the time of the Reformation when only one of the English bishops (John Fisher) stood up to be counted and paid the ultimate price as a result. There’s something else at play here, along the lines of those priests/bishops who are “good” in certain issues are not, really convinced in others. They have, in fact, been affected by the errors of Vatican II – and thus share in the diabolical disorientation to a lesser or greater degree. So, for example, Bishop Schneider, very clear on the wrongness of Communion in the hand, nevertheless defends and promotes ecumenism. That’s the nature of this crisis in the Church. Modernism is, by its very nature, a source of confusion.

          I really do not think we are in (much!) disagreement about this – we all recognise the goodness of those priests and bishops who are taking some level of stand against the tsunami of evil evidently afflicting the hierarchy, right to the top, at this time. But, if (as I believe) God has given us the SSPX to see us through this crisis, then it cannot be logical to consider it an option.

          It took me long enough to “get there” myself, so believe me, I understand the issues, but – at this very late stage (have you READ Mgr Loftus’s latest two article on the Synod in the anything-but-Catholic Times?) – it is becoming more and more difficult to comprehend why those who see the gravity of the situation re. the recent attacks on marriage, cannot see the rest and act on it.

          • No, I haven’t read Mgr. Loftus’s articles – after what I’ve learned on the blog about him I don’t really think I want to. i cancelled the C(not) T years ago as it’s run by the bishops. Now I’ve given up the CH as well and only know what’s going on via CT & this blog. Keep up the good work!

        • Christina,

          I agree this is not an ideal world :(. I am no expert on the crisis in the Church but from surveying the damage around me, and seeing the abysmal ignorance of the Faith (even in Catholics who attend the TLM) makes me skeptical of how good priests can undo the damage without speaking up.

          What would happen to the faithful if the good priest was exiled? Maybe his example and his sacrifice (like the blood of the martyrs) would suffice to nurture the seeds he’d planted.

          • Jobstears,

            A very thoughtful post indeed. There is no doubt that heroism of the kind we long to see would, indeed, bear much spiritual fruit. I think, however, from conversations I’ve had with a few secular priests (and even traditional priests defending them, would you believe) that they tend to belong to the school of thought which fears “abandoning” parishioners.

            The logic is that while Father remains in post quietly battling the crisis to the best of his ability, the faithful are, at least, receiving some crumbs of the Faith and Morals. With Father gone, they’d starve to death.

            Certainly, we cannot make any definitive judgment on these (obviously well meaning) priests but I can’t help thinking that, in their shoes, my conscience would be troubled.

          • Sorry to keep on about this – as you may have guessed I feel strongly about it!

            Most of the laity are religiously illiterate. It isn’t their fault, they’ve been brainwashed by the errors of Vat.II. Many have lost the faith, thanks largely to the imposition of the NO and suppression of the true Mass, and the fact that few faithful shepherds remain for them..
            This doesn’t mean that they can’t be reformed and re-educated, but it must be (and I speak as an educator) in stages. They have to unlearn 40 years of modernism – a whole lifetime for many, and few have had the advantages that most Catholics on this blog have had. The SSPX isn’t an option for them – they’ve never heard about it or been taught it’s schismatic, and most still think the true Mass is forbidden, have never heard of it, or think it’s boring and unintelligible. In spite of wishful thinking, road to Damascus experiences are granted to only a few, and the usual reaction of those who wander into a Mass is “Thank God we don’t still have that Mass”.

            But if they are fortunate to have one of the good priests I have met in my time appointed to their parish, surely he must do good. Even if it’s only the NO celebrated with no EMs, Communion kneeling and on the tongue, no sign of peace, discouragement from treating the church as a community hall, and so on, with sermons that are based squarely on tradition (and most traditionally-minded priests I know have been very anti-ecumenism), then little by little the light may dawn – and I’ve seen it happen – gradually.

            I I have great l hope, also of the ICKSP now established in Wirral and Preston. We lost more than the Mass with the liturgical changes over 40 years ago, and the SSPX priests, with their busy travelling apostolate have no time to do what the Canons can do in these two churches – solemn Mass (the normative form) on Sundays as well as daily low Mass, Lauds and Vespers, frequent Exposition, Benediction, access to Confession, evening instruction on the Mass, public rosaries, novenas, etc. etc.

            Because they’re not perceived as schismatic as is the SSPX, they can attract growing congregations, and the potential for conversion is huge.

            Anyway, I’ve had a good chance to say my piece(s), and I promise not to say any more on this topic – at least for now!

            .

            • Christina,

              You seem to have struck gold where you live and if the Wirral and Preston experience (ICKSP) was the norm I think you would be correct to encourage people to go along. In the places in Scotland that I know of where the 1962 Mass is available, it’s usually an Una Voce priest who is doing so because the bishop has told him to, or a Summorum Pontificum priest who can’t upset the apple cart too much. I don’t think there are any of the traditional orders here, or if there are, I couldn’t tell you where they are.

              • Michaela, alas it’s too far away for me to get to except for odd times when I’m revisiting the place where I was born, but I’ll do my best to get to Midnight Mass again as I did last year. So come on and join me in a bit of sinless envy of the many friends I have living still in Wirral, and have a quick look at what they have going on day by day on the doorstep. I did go to the Corpus Christi procession which was wonderful – just as it used to be in every parish pre-Vat.II,

                . http://domeofhome.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Remebrance-2014.pdf

                And here’s a little personal story. My dear dog, Lucy, was diagnosed with cancer – a lipoma on her carotid gland – last May. Having completed the ‘Miraculous 54-Day Rosary Novena’ asking Our Lady for a miracle, the tumour was shrinking and I asked Canon Montjean to give Lucy the blessing for sick animals. To my considerable surprise, instead of asking me to go and get her out of the car and bring her to him, he came out after Mass properly vested for the little ceremony, carrying his Ritual, aspersorium and aspergillum, and marched off down the road followed by a small procession of interested parishioners. Lucy was perfectly behaved, and continues to do well.

                This little story, and the list of all the pre-Vat.II Catholic liturgy and practices going on day by day in an established shrine such as this, illustrate what I have been trying to say in my recent blog entries. Whatever negative things may be said about these priests of a Society of Pontifical Right not being able to speak out, they can recreate a true living, thriving, pre-Vat.II -style parish. I thank God daily for the SSPX priests to whose Masses I usually go, but in their situation they simply cannot yet do what these ICKSP priests can do in a beautiful church given to them by a good bishop.

                • OK Ed., so there’s a quotation from Pope Francis – but it’s (amazingly) full of Catholic sentiment. And I read Bishop Davies’s letter referred to – in fact I think it was reprinted in CO.

                  • Christina,

                    I’m surprised you think the quote from Pope Francis was “full of Catholic sentiment”. I didn’t think it was a good quote for November. Although he mentions “purification” he still manages to get across the idea that we go straight to “the Lord”, i.e. heaven. Maybe I’m misinterpreting but I am sure there are much stronger quotes for the month of the Holy Souls than that one. The Holy Souls are not even mentioned by name.

                    I remember being delighted when Bishop Davies was appointed as he seemed to be very orthodox and it’s good that he has allowed the Institute of Christ the King to work in his diocese. I wonder if he attends ecumenical events? I suppose he has to go along with so much but he is still one of the best bishops.

                • Christina,

                  I’m amazed that there was a liturgy for animals before Vatican II. I’m not an animal owner and never thought about this before, but it strikes me as odd since animals don’t have human souls, obviously.

                  • Margaret Mary:

                    Thank you for bringing my attention to a very stupid remark of mine.You’re dead right (no pun intended) about the Pope Francis quote. For such a careless reading my only excuse is that it was read, and the comment written, at 2.05am. I must beware of blogging at that hour after a long day!

                    I am astonished at your amazement about the ‘blessing’ (NB the word I used) of animals.

                    Please scroll down the ‘Table of Contents’ on this link to the 1962 Rituale Romanum Ch.XI,(5th bullet point).

                    It would also help your knowledge of this subject if you Google around e.g. ‘History of blessings in the Ritual of the Catholic Church’, and you will find first of all the account of how God blessed the animals after He had created them, followed by many references to the saints, such as St. Francis, who, following His example, also blessed them.

                    Regarding your reference to the fact that animals do not have human (by which I take it you mean immortal) souls, as far as I know, the Church has never pronounced on the immortality or otherwise of animal, as opposed to human, souls. As C. S. Lewis said of animals, in his consideration of why, in their innocence, they share in human pain and suffering – “We know not what they are, nor why they are here”.

                    • Christina,

                      Thank you for all that info about blessing animals. I’m truly grateful as I didn’t know any of that. It’s a true saying that we learn something new every day! Yes, I should have written “immortal souls”.

                      That’s a very good quote from CS Lewis. I get the feeling that it will be very interesting when we get to “the other side” to know the meaning of everything and their place in God’s plan.

                    • Christina,

                      You’ve educated me, moi, on this matter of blessing animals as well. Like MM this is news to moi. Me.

                      But please tell me the ritual excludes spiders! I just hate them. Can’t help it. Please do NOT say they are God’s creatures. I’ve justified my hatred by convincing myself they date from the Ten Plagues… 😯

            • Christina

              I agree. Our Lord’s advice to be “as wise as a serpent,and as gentle as a dove” holds good, especially today.

            • Christina,

              Re your concluding sentence – feel free to say whatever you wish. I found it interesting and, believe it or not, encouraging to read about the ICKSP parishes you describe. I think a measure of the good they are undoubtedly doing, might be tested against the fact that I cannot imagine any Scottish bishop permitting them to establish the Order in any Scottish diocese. Who knows, we may end up advertising discounted train tickets to the Wirral and Preston, with a list of Estate Agents for those who are free to consider moving south of the border!

              The one thing in your post with which I disagree is the argument that the faithful will have to be “re-educated” and that “in stages.” It is this argument, more than any other, really, which has succeeded in keeping “traditional leaning” priests quiet and “obedient” to their disobedient bishops. After all, the new Mass was imposed overnight. There were no “stages” to re-train our minds. It was all or nothing.

              I can think of several examples – one in particular – where I’ve been in conversation with young people brought up in the new Mass, never known anything else, and who, after a relatively short one-off conversation detailing the key history of the Vatican II era, wanted to know more. In one particular case, the young person decided to go along to an SSPX Mass and never returned to the NO. Now, I hear you saying “Oh that’s Editor’s magic touch” and I’m humbled. Really. I mean, you could be right 😀 but I think of it more as being a case that the truth has its own power, truth speaks for itself. We just need to speak it and let God’s grace do the rest.

              Only a few weeks ago, one of our readers noticed a young twenty something (I think) man (slightly the worse for drink) sitting at the back of our SSPX chapel before Mass. She befriended him, invited him into the tearoom and gave him coffee before returning with him to the chapel, having explained a little about the difference between this Mass and the Mass he will have attended in his parish. After Mass, she took him back into the tearoom for more coffee where he said words to the effect that this was what going to church should be like. He singled out the women wearing hats/mantillas/scarves on their heads as being “beautiful”. I honestly do not think any massive re-education programme will be necessary – in any case, the way things are going, that very late consecration of Russia will take place and we’ll see all need for “re-education” of the kind you appear to envisage, disappear. Scales will fall from eyes and order will be restored.

              I do, of course, see the value in what you say about those sound priests in the traditional Orders, those who offer traditional devotions etc as well as the Mass. The one thing, however, that the faithful attending those parishes will never hear, is any serious criticism of Vatican II and its aftermath; there can be no rocking of certain boats, and so, while it is good that the things you list are available, the confusion of Modernism will continue to be a major influence even in those otherwise traditional parishes. Silence connotes consent, remember and any of those faithful attending the parishes you mention who come on here and read our blog, will continue to think of us as unfaithful and disobedient because their priests cannot preach the key distinction between true and false obedience in the context of the current crisis in the Church without incurring the wrath of the local bishop. That means their faithful remain in their ignorance. I’m trying to imagine chatting to some of those parishioners after Mass and criticising Pope Francis for his shenanigans at the recent Synod. How would they react? Would the priest agree or move awkwardly to another safer corner of the tearoom?

              In any case, I’m sure we’ve said many times on this blog that, yes, attending the kind of parishes you describe is definitely a step in the right direction. All I’ve ever said on the subject is that for parents who wish their children to grow up in an exclusively traditional ethos, there’s only one place to go. I know it’s not always possible, and we all have to make do and mend in such cases (so to speak!) But for anyone who wishes to bypass the diocesan/modernist influence, the SSPX is the answer. I repeat, however, that this is not to deny the value of the other traditional Orders in so far as they are able to BE “traditional”.

              PS – you are completely correct about those who are entirely negative about the TLM and I’ve heard that “I’m so glad we don’t have that Mass now” myself (in one instance from a priest) but those are the “hard cases” – typical of some diocesan Catholics we have on this blog from time to time – who would resist all and every effort to formally re-educate them anyway. God’s grace will win through in the end, if we all co-operate. Only one bishop (John Fisher) was martyred in defence of the Faith in England but the Faith was preserved there nonetheless. I’m rambling now, so I’ll sign off..

              The Rambler,
              Glasgow 😀

                • Christina,

                  There was no need to read between those lines – happily, that was a clear defence of marriage and a warning of the dissent to come. Wonderful. I hope they’ve followed it through with a condemnation of the dissent of so many bishops, including the scandalous comments of Cardinal Nichols that his only objection to the offending mid term document was that it didn’t go far enough!

                  I’d also love to see similar little nuggets in the “Dome” condemning all the other errors prevalent since Vatican II – but that’s really the problem for the diocesan approved traditional Orders, they have to be careful not to find themselves chucked out with the bath water, so to speak.

                  Having said that, there is at least a link to the “old Faith” where these Orders make available the Mass and various devotions. I’m not advocating getting T shirts printed which read “Keep Calm & Ban Non-SSPX Traditional Orders!” Not for a second. I think you know my position by now, so I won’t repeat it.

              • Editor,

                “…confusion of Modernism will continue to be a major influence even in those otherwise traditional parishes. Silence connotes consent,……their priests cannot preach the key distinction between true and false obedience in the context of the current crisis in the Church without incurring the wrath of the local bishop. That means their faithful remain in their ignorance”. I agree.

                Christina,

                I don’t doubt for minute that the Traditional Orders are doing good and that they are as Editor says, a step in the right direction, I don’t believe their silence is an act of prudence. They have bought the right to remain Traditional at a steep price. To decide that it is better for the faithful to have “some crumbs of Faith and Morals” rather than nothing, is not for any human to decide. Who decides which crumbs the faithful are to be fed? Those crumbs that won’t offend the bishop?

                I am grateful that Traditional Orders restore some of the traditions and devotions lost after Vatican II (as do some individual priests i know, who are allowed to bring in some devotions/traditions at the discretion of the parish priest), but wonderful as these may be, the problem of ignorance remains, the faithful are certainly exposed to traditions but aren’t properly taught. How can we expect them to pass on what they don’t know?

    • Steve,

      I’ve scrolled up a few posts but can’t see to which comment you are referring. Would you quote whatever it is you mean – if it’s something in the Dici report which I vaguely recall referred to a homosexual partnership being blessed by a priest, then you’d have to Google it for more information, although I can’t see what difference it makes. Two me or two women = scandal, which pair were “blessed”!

  19. Confirmation that Cardinal Burke has been demoted – you may wish to sign the petition: click here for more.

    Note the above link was sent to me by David Skinner, an Anglican friend. See thread here to comment on his forthcoming legal action against a “gay” lecturer.

  20. Yes, only one bishop was martyred for the Faith in England and one lawyer i.e. St. Thomas More, however, the Faith may have survived but how many souls were lost along the way, I wonder? And, Christ suffered and died for each and every one of them.

  21. Christina

    Thank you for all your posts. I understand what you are saying about the dilemma of “pragmatism” facing good priests, and you make your point very well, as usual. The term I’ve used before is that these priests are “on the reservation”, and no doubt, as indicated by the examples you have given, the message has been conveyed that in the event of anyone deciding to step off the reservation, “there will be no survivors”, laity included.

    I think Editor has, in reply, already expressed my thoughts much better than I could, so I will just add the following thoughts to the general discussion, which I don’t expect to cause any disagreement.

    There is no doubt whatsoever that amongst priests who offer the true Mass, there is a very wide spectrum of knowledge, and opinions and attitudes towards the Conciliar crisis and errors, and also towards the SSPX. I believe there are priests of goodwill whose views are gradually, by the grace of God, developing (to use, in the right sense, a word beloved of the bad guys!) in the right direction. Others, who arguably know more, could justifiably be said to be part of the problem. Whatever, there is no exit foreseeable from the unspeakable crisis of these times without a realisation amongst Bishops, priests and laity that the Faith, and not just the Mass, is the issue. Archbishop Lefebvre made this point very clearly, particularly in the aftermath of the 1988 consecrations when speaking about the Ecclesia Dei orders.

    It’s also, a reasonable point to make that priests offering the true Mass are very vulnerable, for obvious reasons, whenever the Society are not within reach of the laity. Some of those who hurl the “schism” calumny at the Society would be do well to develop and exhibit a better appreciation of that fact.

    The crisis of the Church at present is a crisis of Bishops. Where the local ordinary has a fraction of the qualities of Saint Charles Borromeo, or indeed the qualities which were little more than the expected norm up to 1962, the supernatural fruits become obvious. The ICKSP and the Catholics of the Wirral to whom they minister are a great deal more fortunate than some of their priests and flocks elsewhere. I know, from a one hundred per cent reliable witness that the Institute are treated with barely concealed contempt and obstruction by the so-called “conservative” Bishop of a large European diocese.

    By coincidence, today we have the latest news of Father Michael Rodriguez, familiar to bloggers here. It exemplifies exactly what is under discussion.

    http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/father-michael-rodriguez-put-on-sabbatical/

    I know it’s easy for ordinary laymen to talk, but when all is said and done, I think that faithful priests with a trust in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, faced with the decision between compromise and persecution for proclaiming the full glorious Catholic Faith, know that the path of heroism, “stepping off the reservation”, is the true path. There is no shortage of fine examples from the last five decades.Archbishop Lefebvre was offered “peace” and “regularisation” in 1976 for one novus ordo Mass. Where would the Church be now if he had accepted?

    Also, I would strongly recommend the following article as an excellent setting forth of the questions facing true and loyal priests.

    http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/priests-we-are-looking-doctrine-4042

    I have copied the following words from Father Sbicego’s two letters to the diocesan administrator, when he decided to join the Society in 2010.

    “Besides being a conscientious decision, my choice of the Society of St. Pius X is based on a search for Truth, which is Our Lord, and on profound doctrinal convictions which challenged [interrogato] and sometimes disturbed me for years, to the point of calling into question the ministry that I had received. In the Society I found the deep meaning of the Catholic Priesthood, so much so that I could venture to say, ‘To many it will seem that I am leaving the diocese; in reality, as a Catholic, I am coming back home.’”

    “…I think that it is high time for the Church to have the courage of the Truth, to declare it again today, because Doctrine is not her property but is rather a precious Deposit which Christ has given her: the Unicity [Uniqueness] of Salvation by Our Lord; the sense of a life directed toward the Four Last Things; the sense of Christ’s Sacrifice, from which each soul can receive saving Grace; the sense of a serious commitment, made up of self-denial and charity, which the Lord will reward at the opportune time; the sense of the True, Real Presence of Christ in the Sacred Host; the sense of Hope for all who have been crucified throughout history because Christ was the first of them and continues to be daily on the altar; the sense of a Church still capable of teaching youngsters to kneel down to recite the Holy Rosary; the sense of a Word in the service of the Holy Sacrifice; a Word illuminated by constant Tradition rather than delivered up to extemporaneous, ephemeral interpretations, to the suggestive “magisterium” of the unlikely exegete of the day, as opposed to the Magisterium of the Church.”

    • Leo,

      “I think Editor has, in reply, already expressed my thoughts much better than I could…”

      I thought: “I’m glad somebody has recognised my genius at last” 😉

      Then I read the rest of your post. What’s with the sarcasm then? 😀

      • Editor.

        It takes a lot of time to be a genius. You have to sit around so much, doing nothing, really doing nothing. Gertrude Stein.

        Nah. You’re not one of those. (Pay-scale??)

        • Christina,

          Pay-scale? Bang in the middle now… I think!

          Still, your quote about what makes a genius has redoubled my determination to become one. That’s definitely within my grasp!

    • Thank you Leo for your kind words and the links you have given above.

      I have thought carefully about all the points that bloggers have made here, and, as I always have done, I respect all the SSPX priests for the conscientious decisions that they have made, which have here been described as heroic. I also respect those who have responded to the call to join one of the many traditional orders, as long as they’re not bi-ritual and would not obey an order from anyone to celebrate the NO. I think that they too exhibit heroism – as you have said they are in some places regarded with contempt, which cannot make for an easy life. I am convinced that they are, where successful, able to do great good in preserving the fullness of Catholic parish life for the future. It seems that there is a good amount of agreement about this. What seem more problematic are those cases of SP priests among the diocesan clergy who provide the true Mass on a regular basis. Although there are wide differences between them as regards the holding and teaching of the fullness of the faith, I still believe that those who do so hold and teach are also heroic to remain with their flocks, always in the face of hostility and criticism from fellow priests and in constant danger of being removed to some backwater by the bishop. I have respect for those among them who have made a conscientious decision, arising from true pastoral concern, to remain with and care for their flocks in these dreadful times..

  22. God Bless Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke. It is becoming increasingly challenging, for those who desire to follow the doctrine of the Catholic Church, to witness the bizarre changes that Francis is trying to introduce in the Mystical Body.
    I recently liked the statement of Cardinal Robert Sarah when clarifying what the real meaning of Christian charity consists of, posing a kind (but firm) correction to Francis’ doctrinally incorrect version.

    • The Wild Voice,

      Well said. You won’t find any of the Catholic Truth bloggers disagreeing with anything you say.

      I apologise for my absence, folks, but I have a number of things with which I have to deal before I can re-establish my career as a (fantastic) professional blogger 😀 Won’t bore you with the details but be assured that I am keeping an eye on you all, as and when, and will be back in harness asap.

  23. Athanasius

    Your very eloquent description of the conciliar nuclear devastation brings to mind one particular “information gathering” exercise conducted by Rome, namely the remarkably perceptive and prescient letter of 20 December 1966 from Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office. Forty eight years later, as the dwindling number of faithful Catholics wander around, confused and disorientated, in the modernist desert, that letter remains just as powerful. Maybe someday, through the intercession of Our Mother in Heaven, it will be acted on. Here are a few lines:

    “The seat of the evil lies chiefly in a literature which sows confusion in the mind by descriptions which are ambiguous and equivocal, but under the cloak of which one discovers a new religion.”

    “… I venture to say that the present evil appears to be much more serious than the denial or calling in question of some truth of our faith. In these times it shows itself in an extreme confusion of ideas, in the breaking up of the Church’s institutions, religious foundations, seminaries, Catholic schools – in short, of what has been the permanent support of the Church. It is nothing less than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors which have been undermining the Church in recent centuries, especially since the Liberalism of the last century which has striven at all costs to reconcile the Church with the ideas that led to the French Revolution.”

    “Now this preparation” (by the preliminary commissions) “was odiously rejected in order to make way for the gravest tragedy the Church has ever suffered. We have lived to see the marriage of the Catholic Church with Liberal ideas. It would be to deny the evidence, to be wilfully blind, not to state courageously that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the Popes named above” (Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII), “ legitimately to believe that their doctrines were approved and sanctioned.”

    “…we can and we must unfortunately state that:
    In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.”

    “Doubts on the necessity of the Catholic Church as the only true religion, the sole source of salvation, emanating from the declarations on ecumenism and religious liberty, are destroying the authority of the Church’s Magisterium. In fact, Rome is longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.”

    “Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged, in an inconceivable manner, the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.”

    “The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church.”

    Here’s a link to the entire letter:

    http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/arch_lefebvre_response_card_ottaviani_post_council.htm

    Does anyone here think that after five decades of unprecedented apostasy, similar words would presently meet with a more attentive response? That’s the, humanly speaking, almost overwhelming crisis the Church faces.

    Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis.

  24. Spot on, Leo, spot on! Thank you so much for all your amazing posts. You, Athanasius a a few other bloggers have really removed the scales from my Novus Ordo eyes. May God bless you all.

  25. Helen

    Thank you very much indeed for your kind words.

    Speaking for myself, all I’m doing is passing on the work of others. The scales aren’t long fallen from my own eyes, but once one or two get detached, the gravity of Catholic truth and reason take over. Athanasius’ article explains exactly why.

    Athanasius mentioned the late Bishop Salvador Lazo somewhere recently. His Lordship spent two years studying the material offered to him by some laymen faithful to Tradition before, with great humility, admitting that he was misguided in following the path of novus ordoism. What a great example.

    Finally, Helen, I have to say that my sense of direction was a bit awry least evening. I drove onto the wrong motorway when posting the above 1966 letter of Archbishop Lefebvre. It should of course have gone onto the thread which is discussing Athanasius’ article in the Angelus. I better head for the next exit and rectify matters. People here are too polite to shout “thicko”!

    • Thank you for re-posting your excellent comment, Leo.

      I’d ask bloggers to respond to Leo on the “Perspective… Vatican II…” thread to avoid duplication and future researchers perhaps missing out on key points.

      Please and thank you!

%d bloggers like this: