Translate

Saturday, July 16, 2022

FATHER Z POURING FUEL UPON THE SMOLDERING FIRE OF SCHISM IN A SMALL BRANCH OF THE CHURCH


 Commenting on unfortunate developments in the Church where there is suppression of the 1962 Roman Missal, Father Z throws water on the sober suggestion (and critique of those suppressing the 1962 Roman Missal) that the modern Roman Missal be celebrated in a traditional way. 

This is what Father Z writes:

Ironically, even at Jesuit-run Amerika there are thoughts about how “excessive restrictions on the Latin Mass could push away some ordinary Catholics”. That’s an article title!  The well-intentioned author gets pretty much mired in the externals of the two Rites, Vetus and Novus, and thinks that just by dressing the Novus Ordo in traditional trappings, that ought to be enough, the answer to everything.  What he doesn’t understand is that the differences are far deeper.   But this isn’t the time or place for that.

I agree that when it came to the reform of the 1962 Roman Missal, the baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater. All that was needed would have been a modest reform. The 1965 Roman Missal would have been good enough (although the lectionary was not expanded in that edition). But that’s water under the bridge and the more radical traditionalists don’t like the 1965 Missal.

But the suppression of the 1962 Roman Missal, while wrong headed by this pope, is what it is. And to defy this pope will have pre-Vatican II authoritarian repercussions. 

Father Z is simply wrong on the pastoral level. We can’t push people to the SSPX, although many will migrate to them. In my mind, that’s better than becoming Eastern Orthodox or Protestant or Nones. 

But if we can make the Modern Missal feel and look traditional, what in the Name of God and all that is Holy is wrong with that given the unfortunate reality of what is happening?

And if traditionalists stay within the context of a dysfunctional leadership as it concerns the pastoral needs of traditionalists, perhaps a more moderate and compassionate and sympathetic pope, although progressive, will be truly liberal as Pope Emeritus Benedict is, and allow a pastoral compromise once again by reinstating Summorum Pontificum. What Pope Francis has shown is that one pope can undo what another pope or even an Ecumenical Council has taught. 

If you have your leg amputated, you will gladly accept a prosthetic even though it is no where as good as the leg removed. No one is going to wait for scientists to find a way for you to grow a new leg that is just as good as the one that was removed in the accident you experienced. 

And we are at a crossroads. Do we want traditionalists to become schismatic? Do traditionalists want to become schismatic and form yet another denomination and call it the true Church like the original Protestants did?

52 comments:

rcg said...

Fr McDonald, to continue your metaphor, the leg was amputated through malpractice. And while my leg is gone, other people are still born with legs and need to be saved from bad doctors. This is a terrible development. I try to be open minded about this but am being radicalized by passive-aggressive accompanyment.

Catholic Mission said...

There is another alternative. It is interpreting Vatican Council II with the Rationa Premise instead of the common False Premise. The result is that the Council no more contradicts Feeneyite EENS. It is as if Vatican Council II did not happen.
It means the whole Church, Novus Ordo and Latin, can go back to Tradition at every liturgy because the Council no more contradicts Tradition.
So the Novus Ordo Mass at Savannah or Chicago would have the traditional ecclesiology of the 16th century. There would be no other choice. Since Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally.
There can be only one ethical interpretation of the Council. Cardinal B.Cupich can no more interpret the Council with the False Premise. If he persists he should be asked to resign. It is dishonest to use the False Premise to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.
So the only rational, ethical, non heretical and non schismatic option left for the Catholic Church, is Vatican Council II ( Rational). This means the interpretation of Traditionis Custode changes. Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise is only in harmony with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the pre-1962 Missal. Or if you say that the New Missal could be accepted then it would have to have the exclusivist ecclesiology of 1580 not contradicted by Vatican Council II ( Rational).
Lionel Andrades

Sursumcorda said...

Frankly Father, you are the schismatic. You hold to a different faith, not Catholicism. You want to straddle the fence and that’s not the Catholic faith.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Sursum, please tell me how a Catholic who disavows the pope and an ecumenical council is not in schism. Or more plainly put, where in Catholic teaching do you find the definition of schism in the Catholic Church? I don’t want your gnostic opinion, but rather the teaching of the Church. You can quote me the definition of schism from the Baltimore Catechism as it is correct.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I will help you out:

Schism

Is defined as, "The refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope or to hold communion with members of the Church subject to him. It differs from apostasy and heresy, but often leads to them. Anyone guilty of an external act of schism is ipso facto excommunicated." (Definition from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951)

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

RCG, good point, but what if there is only one pope, I mean doctor, you will have to wait for another pope, I mean, doctor, to replace him otherwise you have no pope, I mean, doctor. And there are strict laws, both divine and human, governing who the pope is, I mean, the doctor is.

TJM said...

Rome is acting uncharitably and maliciously. Like I said, many good bishops have ignored this evil and corrupt exercise of raw power. Please do not try and defend the indefensible. The OF, though valid, has been an utter and complete flop. You are better than this

rcg said...

Why, the , not suppress certain prayers? If VO is inadequate in some unstated way, then why not suppress prayers in favor of whatever goal they seek? Should we leave the So. And Holy Spirit out so we don’t offend Protestant sensibilities?

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Hyperbolic accusations such as "Frankly Father, you are the schismatic. You hold to a different faith, not Catholicism" from the traddie crowd against those, notably people like Fr. ALLAN McDonald who are as orthodox as they come, who do not share their views is one of the reasons that the Holy Father has taken the action he has.

I wonder if those who hold such views - "You're schismatic if you don't share my opinions" - are not sliding into a kind of neo-gnosticism, similar to and sharing traits with those who hold to the notion that a "personal encounter" with Jesus is the complete basis for their Christianity. THEY have the truth, not the Church. THEY, not those who disagree with them, are the TRUE believers. THEY, and only those who join them, are the future of the Church.



Reading these kinds of comments here and on the FaceBook page of the Diocese of Savannah

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

In an act of pure evil, Cupich is shutting down the Institute of Christ the King in Chicago who have spent millions revitalizing the Church. It is an oasis of goodness in a dangerous, mostly Black neighborhood. Yet St. Sabina’s remains opens. I am coming to the conclusion there is no place in the Catholic Church for good, faithful Catholics. The Pope and his minions are fostering schism, not traditional Catholics. Basta!

mark said...

Speaking generally:

"Traditional" Catholics do not want any part of the supposed..."Bugnini/Protestant/Masonic designed-with-the-assistance-of-six-Protestants" Novus Ordo Mass.

Said folks are determined to destroy the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul XVI. They insist that the TLM must replace the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul XVI.

Said folks despise the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI...the Mass that is beloved throughout the West by millions upon millions of holy Catholics...the Mass that is alive and has thrived throughout Asia...the Mass that, in holy fashion, has boomed for years throughout Africa.

We are dealing with folks who are so extreme that they despise Popes Venerable Pius XII's, as well as Saint Pius X's, liturgical reforms.

Many trads/radtrads rejected, and helped to destroy, Popes Saint John Paul II, as well as Benedict XVI's, liturgical peace plans.

Speaking humanly, is a pipe dream to expect said folks to accept the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI — the Mass that trads/radtrads have viewed as an "imposter" (Peter Kwasniewski's term) Mass that must be driven from Holy Mother Church.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

The Novus Ordo has been an utter flop: valid but ineffective and no amount of verbal nonsense you spout will change the minds of the sentient

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

FrMJK, exactly. This is Southern Baptist theology, self interpretation of the Scripture but with the added Tradition thrown in. And yes, neo gnostic. Many literalist Protestants say to accept Jesus first, outside of the institutional context and then go find a Church that agrees with you!

Andrew Sprankle said...

Fr. McDonald,

I have lots of respect for you. It was partly because of you and Fr. Dawid that I came into the church. But I think you are wrong when you suggest the solution is in dressing up the novus. Even the Pope himself has said that the vetus and novus are two different rites. How can you say they are the same mass? One may have been inspired by the other, but it is synthetic and hobbled together by a committee possibly lead by a free mason. The other organically developed and most importantly, is a our patrimony! Our rite and our right!
Even attending one of the most reverent novus masses in the world at St Joe’s with you is not the same. Your novus masses were and still are I’m sure extremely proper to the scared reality occurring. BUT, it is not the same rite as the usus antiquitor
I don’t know if you watch the second video of Mass of the Ages, but the point that shows how the mass was “revised” was infuriating to watch. I felt as if a thief broke into my home.
Again also it’s not just the mass it’s getting my children baptized in the old rite with 3 exorcisms. It’s getting my holy cards and statues blessed the right way in Latin and not some feel good sentimental statement from the BOB. It’s getting traditionally confirmed, married, and laid to rest in the most profound appropriate and respectful way that gives as much glory to God as possible. It is what was passed on to us by the saints. And that, is not the same thing as what was wrought after Vatican 2.
God Bless.

rcg said...

SursumC, your comment is unnecessarily hurtful. I consider myself fairly Traditional but live in the same world as Frs M and K and confess to the validity of both forms. The Pope is my Pope and The One and Only. At these times I recall John Nolan’s story of his uncle, IIRC, who told a bishop that “your lordship is a dumbass,” or something to that effect and of my father’s advice the night before I enlisted, “The Captain is a son of a bitch. But he is YOUR son of a bitch”.

I will not set an example for the enemies of the Church.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Comments such as "One may have been inspired by the other, but it is synthetic and hobbled together by a committee possibly lead by a free mason" and, from a well-known blogger, "This [Chicgao and the Institute of Christ the King] is very bad for everyone, as it is another move to slam shut the gates of grace..." are further examples of the kind of off the wall traditionalism that is part of the reason for Pope Francis' actions.

If it's not the Masons it's the Illuminati, or the Jews, or communists ("It is no secret, and a well-known and documented fact, that the agents of Communism began entering the Catholic seminaries as far back as the late 30s for the purpose of destroying the Church from within.") or the Rosicrucians, or the Trilateral Commission, or the Alumbrados or..... ad infinitum.

As for the hyperbolic "slamming shut of the gates of grace," I would suggest that the author of that line revisit his seminary course on Grace. Here again we see the
neo-gnostic tendency being expressed: "THIS mass offers grace, THAT one doesn't" or "The sacraments celebrated THIS way are means of grace, while celebrations THAT way don't."



TJM said...

Fr K,

Maybe you like losing souls for Christ but I don’t. The OF has been wildly ineffective and in any other industry it would be retired by now. But “liberals” cannot admit they were wrong so instead of competing they want to eliminate their competition

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Andrew, you make very valid points and I understand and appreciate all of them. That Pope Benedict free us all to celebrate the Sacraments in the older form and experience the way most Catholics my age and older were brought up, we are not always in control of things as we like and what the Lord gives, He takes away. That may seem callous, but Divine Providence works Himself out now and in eternity.

If what you wish the Church to restore, and I pray another pope will, we have to make do with what is allowed and given to us. And thus I recommend “reenchanting” the Modern Mass and its sacraments.

I despise that all of us are up against the capriciousness and idiosyncrasies of the current pontiff and his 1970’s mentality. But that’s the way it is. It is what it is and it is apart of Divine Providence too.

I think this suppression with be short lived.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Father McD:

A few points:

- I think you are unfair to suggest that Father Z is pushing anyone toward schism. He is reporting the cruel and destructive actions of others, and if he is highlighting the damage they will certainly do, that is not pushing people toward schism.

- The substantive point is, in any case, distressingly manifest: the war being made on those who love the Missal of 1962 and the celebration of sacraments and blessings associated with it will certainly do great damage. As Father Z points out, even America Magazine is starting to get it. Our grim-faced "All is well!" friends at PrayTell will, sooner or later, figure it out. Faithful Catholics are being punished for no fault of their own; and some number of them will gravitate wherever they can find the Missal of '62, and very likely, that will be SSPX. The result will be far greater antagonism and bitterness.

- Fr Z's "deeper" point is that the Missal of 1970 represents a more fundamental step down from the merits of the Mass circa 1962 (with, of course, vastly deep roots in the history of the Faith). That is not to deny the validity of the new Mass. As Fr Z will say, to his mind, the old Mass is steak; the new Mass is babyfood. Both are food, both will nourish you; but don't pretend the differences are minimal. That is his argument, and there is nothing schismatic in presenting it. Without getting into it too deeply, I'll just say I think he's on to something.

- There seems to be a mindset -- and the comments of the Holy Father and his messengers on this particular point reinforce it -- that the Missal of 1970 is the one and only way that the Vatican II council's intentions about liturgy could be expressed; and this matter is settled for all time, so everyone should just shut up.

- Now, having said that out loud, it is manifestly ridiculous, and the folks I say hold to this view will deny it. OK then: in that case, the whole argument being made right now collapses: namely, that if you don't embrace the 1970 Missal as-is, you are anti-Vatican II.

- The more obvious reality is that those telling us to shut up, do so because they have no other arguments. It's just, we're right, you're hateful, shut up.

- By the way: I have no objection to celebrating the current Missal in as traditional a fashion as we can; it is what I attempt to do. Doing so does salve a lot of wounds and enable the beauty of the Mass shine through. But I'm going to lay down a marker right here: those who agree with consigning the Missal of 1962 to history, who want vigorous enforcement of Traditiones Custodes, will not agree to your approach. They will -- indeed, many already have -- move on to denouncing anything that savors of tradition, yet are not in any way in conflict with the current Missal or Vatican II, but rather, are expressly encouraged or allowed:
- Use of Latin
- Ad orientem
- Traditional vestments (e.g., "grandmother's lace")

More could be cited, but take note: all these are already under attack as somehow anti-Vatican II.

So, Father McD, I have no issue with your way forward, but before long, we may be told: "that way is SHUT."

Fr Martin Fox said...

Oh, and reading the comments at the America article cited is illuminating. Overwhelmingly the responses are that the irenic solution you, and the America author, propose -- to celebrate the current Missal in a traditional way -- is horrible, terrible, inexplicable, and certainly an offense to Vatican II.

It really is so striking to see some say, in effect, I cannot comprehend whatsoever the point of view of those people. It reminds me of a priest of an older generation reacting to the newer priests who were more traditional. He said, I don't understand them, and I don't care to. Yes, he really said that.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

We are in precarious times and we can only pray that this nightmare return to the 1960/70’s mentality will soon die and sanity return to the Church which Pope Benedict heroically attempted but unfortunately not in a definitive, dogmatic way.

ByzRus said...

I tend to avoid Fr. Z's blog anymore. I'm not sure that ministry hasn't lost it's way becoming a haven for the fringe element.

I love tradition but do not think the dynamic it has unleashed is worth the division. Once our union falls apart, it is likely gone forever.

I embrace Fr. AJM's approach to tradition, it gives us the best of both worlds.

I welcome Fr. MJK's counsel, it is level-headed and will keep us from becoming like those who have given PF all the evidence he feels he needs to clamp down on the traditionalists.

BTW, I attended a NO mass last Sunday with my mother in Hazleton, PA, the 6 high were lit, flowers were in abundance (I'm guessing there was a wedding), we sang a version of the Our Father I had never heard before that flowed into "for the kingdom" and I thought it was lovely. That Diocese discourages communion in the hand due to COVID, and just to be cooperative, I complied and ensured no particles were left behind in the receiving hand. The sign of peace was left to the people's judgement and most waved at each other which I thought was reasonable and just fine. It was a very nice experience and was reasonably traditional. I could attend there happily every week as it's my cathedral-like ancestral church with my Byzantine ancestral church being on the other side of the city. Options fortunately abound!

Mallen said...

Fr. McDonald, I wish more pastors shared your suggestions for celebrating the NO Mass with sensibilities of the 1962 Missal, but unfortunately I think Fr. Fox at 4:15 is correct. I also read the comments at the article in America magazine and they were very disheartening.
I'll share an incident that occurred just a few weeks ago in my parish. We had a visiting young priest in town who celebrated our 10am Mass since the pastor had a conflict. Before it started the priest asked the assisting deacon for permission to face ad orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and it was given. It was all, of course, was very reverent with no weirdness on the part of the priest. He would turn and face the congregation at the specified times. I heard no negative comments afterward, however the following week at a small parish gathering the subject came up with the deacon present. The sarcasm and vitriol expressed by the deacon and the small group of influential parishioners (all over 65) was heartbreaking. He even said that when he told the pastor about it (the ad orientem posture) the pastor indicated that he wished he had known before he gave the young priest his check. Had he known he would have withheld it. So sad.....
Father, your comment at 4:43 does give me hope.

Mallen

Jerome Merwick said...

This has been brewing for a long, long time.

The deeper problem we are dealing with is the false Church by the alleged supporters of the Second Vatican Council, who have tried to sever our past from what they deem to be a "New Church". And it IS a flop. It has been a massive failure and it has cost millions of souls their faith.

There is a smaller, but correct faction, who understands that either the Council was flawed and needs repair or it has been completely manipulated, misquoted, misinterpreted and misused to impose the false Church upon the Catholic world.

Pope Francis and those who buy and sell the lie are in for the short game. They really believe victory is theirs. They're too blind to see that they have lost already.

Those who have obeyed the Church, even in the Church's season of massive clerical disobedience, see a longer goal, but one that ultimately will be attained by the grace of God. St. Pius X (a pope whose shoes none of our modern popes would be fit to shine) saw it coming. He put the fire out for a while, but it came back and rages in the infantile, illogical, nonsensical, failed program of the modernists, and we know now who their leader is. He will pass away. Their lies will pass away. The silliness will pass away. The Novus Ordo Establishment has an unsustainable program that has already proven its impotence on a worldwide basis.

They want this war? Good. BRING IT.

TJM said...

ByzRus.

I would say the fringe element is not found at Father Z's but in Rome, a desperate, mean-spirited group of old lefties who actually rule in a most autocratic manner in direct defiance of Vatican II. Bishops are now branch managers who must carry out the boss's orders. Collegiality? Don't make me laugh. There is an excellent article over at The New Liturgical Movement that makes a cogent argument that it is Pope Francis and his ilk who are rejecting Vatican II, not traditionally minded folks.

Father Fox,

You are always a voice of reason. Your comments are always welcome. I did read the comments to the article at America and the vitriol and ignorance from the so-called "liberals" was astounding. They fit right in with the lefties in Rome.

I see in my own family and group of friends (a very large group) the demographic sinkhole of which Father Z speaks. Although not hostile to the Church, most no longer bother with the Catholic Church. They have voted with their feet and taken their money with them. In the next ten years I expect more parishes to close and I can foresee the consolidation of Dioceses. The money will not be there to sustain a large, clerical bureacracy unless the folks who subscribe to the National Catholic Reporter decide to pony up big time.

The current papacy is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Under Pope Benedict the Church was recovering. Under Pope Francis it is hemorraghing. That is the "Francis Effect."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Despite whatever authoritarian injustice going on toward an individual or collective group, think St. Joan of Arc, no one, even the most ardent EF Catholic should show contempt verging on schism for the papacy and the Magisterium.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

Yet it is Pope Francis who is creating the problem, "Pope Merciful." He is a tyrant. I think Father Z says it best:

"This is very bad for everyone, as it is another move to slam shut the gates of grace, to make the Church smaller, stingier, narrower. If a place is doing well, then – by gum – crush it.

It seems that they would rather have smoking, salt-sown craters rather than vibrant churches where Tradition is maintained. I am reminded of the fateful words of Tacitus about the Romans in Germany: “Where they make a desert, they call it peace.”

FYI, no one under the age of 65 gives a damn about Vatican II. Pope Francis and his ilk make it an idol and are reshaping what the Council said in a highly disengenous way. Basta!

TJM said...

Mallen,

Your pastor and deacon are not fit to tie the young priest's shoes. I would find another parish if that is an option and take my money with me. And tell them why.

Thomas Garrett said...

"Do we want traditionalists to become schismatic? Do traditionalists want to become schismatic and form yet another denomination and call it the true Church like the original Protestants did?"

Wrong question Father. You've limited the possible answers because you are thinking within a closed box and refuse to recognize and admit the obvious: The leadership of the Church is schismatic, NOT the traditionalists.

At least two voting cardinals from the last conclave admitted the existence of the Sankt Gallen mafia and its canon-violating campaign for a new candidate.
And WE are schismatic?

At least ONE of those cardinals was a major enabler of homosexualizing the clergy in his country and lied to everyone about it.
And WE are schismatic?

Since the pope very likely WAS elected in violation of canon law, his papacy is questionable, his elevations and canonizations are suspect and he continues to get away with it.
And WE are schismatic?

This pope caved in to a cardinal by permitting, yea, ENCOURAGING divorced Catholics to receive sacrilegious Communion and wrote an encyclical in support.
And WE are schismatic?

This pope never misses an opportunity to insult traditionalists, then pastes on that public smile.
And WE are schismatic?

This pope has all but SPAT upon Quo Primum.
And WE are schismatic?

This pope allowed a disgraced cardinal to negotiate a deal, selling out faithful Catholics in China to their persecutors and recognizing an illegitimate Communist-puppet "church" as legitimate.
And WE are schismatic?

A prominent German cardinal has publicly admitted to "blessing" a homosexual "marriage" with no sign or regret or repentance and the pope has done NOTHING, implicitly suggesting his approval.
And WE are schismatic?

One of our nation's most prominent "Catholic" politicians was sanctioned by her bishop to stop receiving Holy Communion ANYWHERE, because her public support of abortion is objectively mortally sinful and scandalizes faithful Catholics who actually obey their Church. And, UNDERCUTTING CANON LAW, this pope pulls the rug out from under this archbishop and allows her to receive Holy Communion in the Vatican--in effect punishing the faithful and rewarding the wicked.
And WE are schismatic?

Father, these examples are just the tip of the iceberg and we all know it. Stop kidding yourself and stop gaslighting us with your hyperbole about "schism". The real Church, as predicted by the likes of Bishop Sheen and Malachi Martin, is about to be forced underground while the illegitimate APE OF THE CHURCH flexes its authority to abuse the faithful and empty the visible Church of her holy, sacramental character. I urge you to be VERY careful about throwing around the "S"-word. We are at the beginning of the Church's passion and it's going to bury the faithful. If you want to deny it, fine. But we're not as blind as Bergoglio and his renegade curia think.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Unabashed Gnosticism Thomas! Shame! Read what the Church constitutes as Schism and also know you ain’t the pope! You have no authority to proclaim the nonsense you proclaim unless you are like the first Protestant relying only on what YOU believe! You are no better or worse than Martin Luther, John Calvin and Henry VIII! You are not a traditional Catholic, but confused coloring book one.

Thomas Garrett said...

Au contraire, Father.

Was it not our Pope Emeritus who, in keeping with tradition, wrote with great clarity, "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful"?

Is it not our current pontiff, who violated both the spirit and the letter of those words?

What have I listed that is NOT a matter of record? WHAT? Oh certainly, my opinions at the bottom might be considered suspect by some, but there is a great deal of, shall we say, VIOLATION in our current Church that goes unanswered and those who perform it are unaccountable--for now.

I have no desire to separate from my Church. I obey week after week, attending insipid liturgies and swallowing the fluff as I hunger for meat while our "shepherds" shut down what we love with devotion. I live with it. I take it. I suffer it. That doesn't mean I have to like it. When we see the faith being violated, even we stupid, unwashed laity have the right and the responsibility to speak up about it, while we still obey the zeitgeist that satisfies our leaders and starves the faithful. I recognize the authority of my Church, including the abuses of that authority. If the Church had properly exercised its authority, people like our bishop and his priests would not need to fear the real threats that wish to consume us, like the heinous baby-haters who are vandalizing our churches for their "right" to infanticide and the excessive faggotry that has nearly destroyed the priesthood.

If you want to side with Pelosi, close your eyes to Sankt Gallen, pretend Bugnini didn't violate Vatican II, be my guest. We're not blind. If name-calling with terms like "schismatic" makes you feel better, then enjoy it. I'm not the threat to the Church. The threat is from within and it is from the top. I'm not leaving.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

Why not refute Thomas Garrett’s points? Maybe a teaching moment? This papacy is a disaster and you know it. Maybe Canon Law needs to be revised to allow a Church body to depose a Pope like this who clearly is not acting in the best interests of the Church. I actually remember when Father Z defended PF before he started going off the rails. Do you think the Cardinals who issued the dubia were unhinged malcontents?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

T& TJM, only one pope at a time and that is Francis, not Benedict or either of you or me. Again, dancing with Protestantism, where every lay person is a priest, prophet and pope and there is no hierarchy to submit. Sounds like you guys like Protestantism! Within that context, why not gorm your own true Church and use the pre 1955 liturgical books?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Form

Thomas Garrett said...

I guess the new definition of a schismatic is someone who doesn't shut up and ignore papal abuses. A gnostic is now someone who puts up with modernism and liturgical stupidity week after miserable week and is still polite to the priests even when he sees them enabling liturgical abuses and dumbing down the Mass.

If that's the case, then I please guilty as charged.

Thomas Garrett said...

"Why not form your own true Church and use the pre 1955 liturgical books?

Congratulations Father. You just co-opted the defense of bad parenting.

When I was about 19, I confronted my mother about something TERRIBLE that she did to me when I was about 9. Instead of confronting the issue, she replied, "It's a shame you had such terrible parents. It's too bad you didn't have other parents."

You just said essentially the same thing to me. Nice dismissal. Shameful dodge.

So I'll repeat to you what I said to my mother:

"I didn't WANT other parents. I wanted you and Dad as my parents. I just wanted you to do the right thing."\

The Church has been infiltrated and the very people who subverted, perverted and infiltrated are now telling the faithful that they are wrong and we need to obey disobedience.

Well I don't want another Church. I want the Church founded by Jesus Christ to wake up and start doing the right thing.

Thomas Garrett said...

And it will take a bigger man than Jorge Bergoglio, who may or may not actually be the pope, to make me leave my Church.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

TG, what is the traditional, orthodox and official teaching of Holy Mother Church as she defines schism? It is out in the open for you to find and not resort to making up your own definition.

Thomas Garrett said...

Making up my own definition? I was just explaining YOURS!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I don’t have my definition of schism. It’s Holy Mother Church’s definition.!look it up,

Thomas Garrett said...

St. Robert Bellarmine wrote,

"As it is lawful to resist a pope if he attacks the body, so it is lawful to resist him if he attacks the soul or afflicts the state, and much more if he seeks to destroy the Church. It is permitted, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands and by preventing the execution of his will. But it is not lawful to judge him, or to punish him, or to depose him, which alone is the business of a superior."

No doubt you accuse me of "judging" the pope, but I am simply continuing to use the rational mind God gave me. Only God can judge the pope. But under this kind of papacy, the only good Catholics are fat and stupid, exercising blind obedience.

If that's the case, call me a bad Catholic.

Thomas Garrett said...

Catholic Enclyclopedia:

"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."

I haven't gone anywhere. I've just used the horse-sense God gave me to recognize the rupture in our Church that was started by others. By some very HIGH RANKING others. I know, I know. Just shut up, look the other way and take it. Thanks a lot for the "shepherding."

Thomas Garrett said...

Hey Father, I don't like where this is going. I like you. I think you're a good priest. Maybe Pope Francis is a nice guy. I apologize publicly for getting salty. I just wanted to make the point that just because we observe that some very wrong things are happening in the Church, that doesn't make us "schismatics". I wish you wouldn't use that word so easily. That's all.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

...I'm gonna need more popcorn...

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

So you would have tolerated a Borgia Pope? The Pope is in schism with the Church. You are defending the indefensible. Deal with the fact that there are cardinals and bishops who are ignoring this left-wing loon. If I were Satan, I would pick Francis to do my dirty work. The Pope is not an absolute monarch. But this one is acting like one.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Powerless then and now.

Thomas Garrett said...

In all sincerity, can someone answer this question?

We KNOW for FACT that Bugnini was the author and architect of the New Mass. Fr. Louis Bouyer, a Consilium member and personal friend of Paul VI, has testified that Bugnini was caught lying to the pope. Several have testified that irrefutable evidence was presented to Pope Paul that Bugnini was a Freemason. This was in 1972, The New Mass had only been going for less than two years at that point. WHY, WHY, WHY didn't the pope pull the plug and start over at that point? The New Mass had been created by priests with little or no pastoral experience and Protestant ministers. The leader of the mess was a disgraced archbishop caught lying and caught in membership in an insidious anti-Catholic secret society. That is a serious problem, that, at very least, calls into question the quality and possibly validity of the "reformed" Mass. When there is a problem that grave, popes FIX IT. Pope Paul, God bless him, LET IT CONTINUE. He did NOTHING to stop this disastrous epoch that continues to this day and causes nothing but division and pain in the Church. I am not judging the pope. I just want to know, WHY didn't Pope Paul do something? If he was too sick, why didn't he delegate someone to do something? The "broken engine" has been running in its damaged state since 1970? WHO WILL EVER STEP IN AND FIX THIS GRAVE PROBLEM?

TJM said...

Fr K,

You need a spiritual renewal so you can stop voting for the “Party of Death.”

Donny Phister said...

Fr. Kavanaugh's point is tiresome and is the same argument the Church has been having since this mess began. Inflammatory language and borderline schismatic talk is a problem - no question. But what about the talk we hear from the liberal crowd about women priests, homosexuals, abortion, the place of the Church in the world? I hear far more schismatic and heretical discussion from the liberal side of the house yet it is never addressed as firmly - if it is addressed at all. It has never has been fair and exposes an agenda. This one sided demand for obedience is what fuels much of the consternation and puts the leadership in its legitimation crisis when it comes to this issue.

Jerome Merwick said...

I know I've probably beaten this idea to death, but it is stunning to me to see the parallels between the state of the Church and the American political mess we are living in. In this case, the parallel goes like this: Whenever a conservative or even moderately conservative candidate wins an election, whenever a traditionally morally virtuous position is affirmed by the courts or whenever someone is acquitted for legitimately defending themselves, they lockstep cry of the media, instructing the left with its contrived talking points is "White Supremacy". The left has nothing left to defend their reprehensible pseudo-morality, so they are playing the "white supremacy" card to the point that it has no meaning any more, and only feeds the rabid hatred of white people so prevalent in poor black communities (thanks to Lyndon Johnson).

And so it is with the Church. The Authority structure protects the faithful, until it steps out from under the authority of God and Tradition. The pseudo-intellectual theologians and their new patroness, Greta Thurnberg have traded in our legacy for a false gospel that embraces homosexuality, environmentalism and the false ordination of the laity. If you dare to object, you are "schismatic".

World: "You're all white supremacists unless you think and vote the way we tell you"

Church: "You're all schismatics unless you embrace Francischurch"

Get used to it. It's only going to get worse.

Jerome Merwick said...

Donny, the whole accusation of trads having "only themselves to blame" for this overreaching pope's wretched prohibitions is a false narrative/smokescreen. Francis would impose his iron curtain of intolerance even if no trad had ever snickered at the Glory and Praise "hymnal".

This pope was elected with an agenda and part of that agenda was getting rid of the troublesome trads. Make no mistake, the geriatric liberals are seething that young people don't care about their revolution. They can't stand it that the only sector of the Church that grows are traditionalists. They can't believe that we actually look at their empty theology and laugh at its sheer ridiculousness.

Francis was put here to end that. We have to be more open-minded and that means our minds must ONLY be open to what the left in the Church imposes. Now shut up and be a good Catholic and stop thinking so much.

V for Vendee said...

I’m moving to Florida next week and will begin attended Mass at the SSPX chapel in Sanford and hour away from where I will live. Everything happening now in the church has been foretold by Our Lady going back 400 years and just recently in a private revelation said that Peter wasn’t Peter. So enough of all this schismatic talk when we all know that Satan is doing well in the Vatican.

Pray the Rosary, Fast, and do penance and get to the SSPX. I feel sorry for those in The Savannah Diocese now left with no choices in the near future. I pray that the SSPX come to this area and work for the Salvation of Souls, which is no longer the Mission of the Vatican II abomination.

Deo Gratias